California Leafy Green Industry’s Marketing Agreement Will Not Ensure Nation’s Salad Bowl is Safe

First, CDFA has allowed the industry to create its own Best Practices standards behind closed doors without public input and is allowing the oversight Board to be made up almost exclusively of leafy green industry representatives. In communications with a CDFA official, I was told the following: “We will take the advice of the industry on the best practices. The role of the marketing agreement/marketing order/CDFA inspection services division are verification and education, not environmental or health safety regulation (of leafy greens). The best practices guidelines and trace-back systems are being developed by proponents of the marketing agreement and marketing order….This process is not required to follow the administrative procedures act. Nor does it follow the federal equivalent.” This willingness by CDFA to “take the advice of the industry” in developing regulations, and the admission by the CDFA that its role “is not environmental or health safety regulation of leafy greens” suggests a serious abdication of government’s duty to safeguard the food supply and protect the public.

Industry self-regulation seldom protects consumers and often provides industry with cover when contamination occurs. The bottom line is that if the leafy green industry hopes to regain the confidence of consumers, it is going to have to be regulated by an authority other than itself.

Second, the marketing agreement does not cover all leafy green growers and processors. Consumers cannot, therefore, be assured that all leafy greens that reach the marketplace will be as safe as possible. Experts agree that government standards and enforcement of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for farms and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs for processors are essential to maintaining the safety of leafy greens, and thereby consumer confidence. If not all leafy greens in the marketplace are subject to these Best Practices, the door remains open for contaminated produce to reach consumers.

Third and finally, the marketing agreement allows the use of a certification mark to convey to consumers that leafy green products from participating farms and processors are subject to Best Practices. This approach turns safety into value added in the marketplace. The safety of the food we buy is fundamental to consumers, and government must ensure it. It should not be something that consumers must search out and possibly pay extra for. Safety can be used as a marketing tool when selling cars, but not when selling food. All food should be safe.

In conclusion, the CDFA’s leafy green marketing agreement will not provide the extremely high standard of safety that the industry must achieve to keep and expand its market, due to:

• The insular, exclusive way in which these standards were developed;

• The fact that this agreement will not cover all leafy green growers and processors in California; and

• The CDFA’s willingness to allow the proverbial fox to police itself in the henhouse.

We are also deeply concerned that this marketing agreement starts a trend toward using safety as a marketing tool for foods, and we oppose the use of a certification mark that suggests an added level of safety on some leafy green products and not on others.

The needed approach to the problem of contamination in leafy greens is for a California governmental agency that does not have as part of its charge the promotion of the leafy green industry—i.e., the California Department of Health Services—to be given the mandate to require and enforce GAPs on all farms and HACCP programs for all processing facilities through rigorous and regular inspections and enforcement of standards that have been developed through a transparent, inclusive process by people who do not stand to gain by scrimping on safety.

For previous articles in the California Progress Report on this topic including marketing agreements, click here.