120 projects in 42 states plus the district of columbia and pr and allow gsa to construct new-line and ports of entry and eight federal buildings and implement high-performance buildings and a gsa buildings at least 20 are already under construction the rest will begin soon. . .

acronym calgama. it stands for california leafy greens marketing handling agreement. and we're also going to be talking about the proposed

nationalization of that agreement. the hearing will focus on bagged or value added leafy greens ready to eat. consumers are quite familiar with those products. and look at the role of private industry and government in regulating these products. and the economic, environmental and food safety impacts of that regulation. now, without objection, the chair and the ranking minority member will have five minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening statements that -- of other members, not to exceed three minutes by any member who seeks recognition. without objection, members and witnesses have five legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record. and without objection, the chairman and ranking member will each have ten minutes for questions in the first round, after which we'll proceed under the five-minute rule.

pre-cut, packaged, leafy greens marked as ready-to-eat have become increasingly popular. capturing 70% of the leafy greens market. americans appreciate the convenience of this partially processed product, and are eating more fresh produce as a result. that's a good and important development and will likely help to improve the health of americans. yet, as the popularity of bagged lettuce and spinach has increased, so have rare but serious food-borne illnesses associated with it. outbreaks of e. coli 157 and other pathogens have occurred in relation to pre-cut, packaged, leafy greens, at least once a year, practically every year since 2003.

regulation to prevent these outbreaks rests in the hands of the industry. the california leafy greens handler marketing agreement, calgoodma, was implemented to stave off regulatory action by the state of california. it ensured a specified set of good agricultural practices designed primarily by the food and drug administration, to improve the safety of leafy greens. in spite of its name, calgama is having an impact on farmers, in all parts of the nation, due to the requirements of compliance with calgama imposed by national processing and retailing outlets which buy and market their produce. the usda is currently proposing the creation of a national marketing agreement along the lines of calgama.

there's much good in the calgama initiative. it embodies the safeguarding of the american food supply. handlers responsible for growers' compliance with food safety metrics pay for auditors trained by the usda and hired by the calgama board to carry out inspections adopted voluntarily by signatory farmers. calgama, however, has some blind spots as well. it condones a processing activity favored by the ready-to-eat processing industry known as coring. coring lettuce in the field. and only suggests minimal guidelines for sanitary treatment of harvest equipment used for coring. in spite of recent scientific

research identifying the potential for transferring pathogens deep into the cored lettuce. where the subsequent washing process would be unable to reach. calgama is silent on the use of certain packaging of ready-to-eat produce known as modified atmosphere packaging, the bags of ready-to-eat greens. calgama does not require an enforce at standard of cold chain of distribution. it does not impose tough requirements on packagers and distributors relating to the best consumed by date that's stamped on the ready-to-eat packaging. people have seen those. so they don't have any tough requirements on those packagers and distributors. to put that stamp on there. now, scientists tell us that if

bagged produce labeled as ready-to-eat is not constantly refrigerated through the distribution chain, it quickly becomes a perfect habitat for bacterial growth. harmful bacteria, such as e. coli 157 multiply unseen and undetectible to the eye of the consumer. legions of pathogens can thereby invade the up suspecting consumers' intestinal tract, overwhelming his or her immune system, causing severe and painful complications, and in some cases death. everyone who has experienced severe food poisoning knows what's at stake. while it's largely silent on key questions applying to upstream

processing and distribution of ready-to-eat produce, calgama has a lot to say about the practices in stewardship. small and organic farmers in particular expressed concern about the costs and the scientific justification for some of calgama's requirements. some of calgama's metrics seem to be in direct conflict with environmental protection and widely accepted agricultural practices. in some cases, streams have been contaminated, wild life refuge destroyed, biodiversity threatened, by farmers' efforts to remain in compliance with calgama. today we hope to address why calgama's regulatory framework has focused solely on farming practices to the exclusion of the rest of the supply chain. it seems the farmers have taken the brunt of the burden of minimizing contamination, when

it may make more scientific sense to focus attention on the processing, packaging, and distribution of ready-to-eat produce. consumers have a right to expect that the food they eat is safe. it's in the public health interest that americans consume greater amounts of raw vegetables. but whether or not nationalizing calgama as the usda has proposed is the best way to achieve those goals, is a question of this hearing. i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today on this important issue. and at this time, i recognize the honorable congressman jordan, ranking member of the committee from the state of ohio. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank you for holding this hearing to examine the agreements. most importantly, we need to have a food supply that is safe.

americans should be able to field confident that the produce they buy at the grocery store or served them at restaurants will not make them sex. the agreement such as calgama may ensure safer produce. additional guidelines and regulations may be overly burdensome to some farmers, especially small and family-owned and run farms. i look forward to listening to the witnesses about their experience with the marketing agreements. the usda and fda also play a role in the marketing. i'm interested to hear how these roles may change it if a leafy greens marketing agreement is made national. i hope our witnesses can discuss the implications of hr-2749, food safety enhancement act of 20009, which is to be voted on yesterday, and may in fact be voted on later today. i look forward to hearing how your thoughts on that legislation as well. and also look forward to examining the pros and cons of making national the calgama

agreement, and thank our witnesses for taking the time to testify here in front of the committee today. >> i thank the gentleman. does the gentle lady from the state of california have an opening statement? >> i do, mr. chairman. i want to thank you so much for holding today's hearing to examine the leafy greens market, the role of private industry and government in regulating these products, and the economic, environmental and food safety impact of the california leafy greens market agreement. the hearing is happening at a very opportune time. and since 2003, pre-cut bagged lettuce has developed into the second fastest growth industry in the united states grocery sales. i'm from california. we believe in salads. and so making it critically important that adequate precautions are taken, and

analysis conducted to endure that this increasingly popular food is not just nutritious, but safe. and we've taken steps, mr. chairman, in the state of california to regulate the sale of not only the leafy greens package, but those in the bins as well. 98.5% of the e. coli outbreaks reported in leafy greens have been associated with bagged and pre-cut greens. now, the infamous 2006 spinach outbreak resulted in over 200 hospitalizations, nearly $400 million in lost product, and three deaths confirmed by the fda. in response to this, and other similar instances, industry leaders developed the california leafy greens marketing agreement to allow growers to join a voluntary regulatory framework

which now encompasses 99% of california's leafy green business and is being considered for official and nationalization. i chaired those committee meetings, mr. chairman, when i was chairperson of health and human services. the calgma, calma, includes a food safety inspection program conducted by the usda and the enforcement of metrics, regulations developed by scientists, governmental officials, growers, processors, and businesses to reduce microcontamination of leafy greens in the field to the supply chains. while i'm pleased that the farming industry has taken the initiative to create this comprehensive framework for food safety, i believe it's important

to scrutinize its effectiveness and its impact on the environment. some have argued that the rules placed on farmers by calgam conflict with the movement towards organic and biological diverse farming methods and could be actually harming the environment. furthermore, it may prove to be a counter intuitive to create such regulations before, that is, there is conclusive scientific knowledge about how e. coli makes its way into the leafy greens supply. so i would like to thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to make this presentation. i'm sorry i cannot stay. they just called an emergency meeting of the progressive caucus to discuss the health care reform bill. and it's at 2:30. i just wanted you to know that. but i have staff here, and i

will be hearing from them as to the witnesses and their testimony. so thank you so much. i yield back. >> i thank you the gentle lady. i'm sure she'll convey my sentiments in that meeting of the progressive caucus. you can let them know that i'm giving a responsibility of chairing this hearing. thank you for your opening statement. if there's no additional opening statements, the subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses before us today of the i want to start by introducing our first panel. mr. michael r. taylor is the senior adviser to the food and drug at the food and drug administration. mr. taylor, welcome. mr. taylor previously served as deputy commissioner for policy  and is a member of the national academy of sciences committee on environmental decision-making under an uncertainty. he's held numerous positions in the field of food safety and research, among them administrator of the food safety and inspection services at the u.s. department of agriculture, vice president for public policy

at mon sant oh corporation. he was also a practicing attorney in the field at the law firm of king and spalding. ms. rain pegg is the administrator of the agriculture marketing services, ams. the marketing and regulatory arm

all witnesses before they testify. so i would ask that you rise and please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. i ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of their testimony. and to keep this summary under five minutes in duration. i want you to know that your entire statement and anything else you want to append to it will be included in the hearing record. mr. taylor, you will be our first witness, and you may proceed. five minutes. >> okay. thank you, chairman kucinich.

and mr. jordan. i am michael taylor, senior adviser to the commissioner at the food and drug administration, which as you know is part of the department of health and human services. i am pleased to be with you today to discuss issues related to the safety of fresh produce. as you know, fda is the federal agency that is responsible for regulating most of the food supply except for meat, poultry and processed egg products which are overseen by our partners at the u.s. department of agriculture. fda is committed to ensuring that the u.s. food supply continues to be among the safest in the world. president obama has made a personal commitment to improving food safety. on july 7th, this year, the multiagency food safety working group that the president established issued its key findings on how to upgrade the food safety system for the 21st century. they recommend a new public health focus approach to food safety based on three core principles. prioritizing prevention, strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and recovery. fda has been an integral park of

the working group's continuing efforts to establish these principles. fresh produce, the topic of today's hearing, presents special safety challenges, as the chairman outlined. a number of illnesses associated with fresh produce is a continuing concern for fda. the increased consumption of produce in its presh or raw form including ready-to-eat bagged products reflects growing consumer interest in healthy eating, which you indicated, which is, of course, a desirable trend from a public health standpoint. but these new consumption patterns and products challenge our food safety efforts. fresh produce has the potential to be a source of food-borne illness because if it consumed raw without generally interventions that would eliminate any pathogens that may be present. because most produce is grown in an outdoor environment, it is susceptible from contamination from both oh jens present in the soil, manure used as fertilizer, animals in or near fields and packing areas, and water used

for washing or cooling. produce also may be vulnerable to contamination due to inadequate worker health and hygiene protections, environmental questionses, production safeguards or inadequate sanitation and facilities. fresh produce is produced on tens of thousands of farms and contamination is any one step in the growing, packing and processing chain can be amplified throughout the subsequent steps. we also know that the possibility of harmful contamination can be minimized by understanding these potential entry points for pathogens, and by implementing preventive measures wherever possible throughout the system. thus, in keeping with the obama administration's prevention oriented food safety strategy, fda intends to improve safety of fresh produce by establishing enforceable standards for the implementation of preventive controls throughout the chain of production, processing and distribution. these regulations will capitalize on what we in the produce industry have learned over the past decade since we published our good agricultural

practices guidances in 1998 and they will tap the best science and develop appropriate criteria or metrics for ensuring the effectiveness of controls, in particular production and processing settings. in the short term, fda will issue commodity specific guidances for industry on the measures they can implement now to prevent or minimize hazards of fresh produce. the fda will soon publish guidances for the safety of leafy greens, melons and tomatoes. the guidance is described preventive controls the industry can implement to reduce the contamination in the growing, harvesting, transporting and distribution of these commodities. it is not enough, of course, to issue regulations and guidances. we must ensure the preventive measures they call for are widely and effectively implemented. fda will work with the state and federal partners to the enforcement program aimed at

ensuring high rates of compliance with the produce safety regulations. fda recognizes the importance of leveraging of expertise and resources of other state and federal and local agencies to make sure the industry understands the new requirements and help them achieve greater compliance. one way we could leverage resources is to work with the agricultural marketing service as they consider and implement marketing agreements and orders by incorporating fda standards and marketing agreements and conducting audits for compliance to such agreements, and contributes to the goals we all share, which is widespread compliance with modern preventive control measures. we believe ams by incorporating fda's marketing agreements and standards can help ensure high rates of compliance with fda's standards. in addition to highlighting measures of the executive branch to enhance food safety, the white house food safety working group also noted the need for congress to modernize the food safety statutes. legislative authorities for fda

would enhance the science based controls, to establish and enforce performance standards to measure the implementation of proper food safety procedures, access to basic food safety records, and new inspection mandate and other tools to foster compliance and other productions. the hr-2747 being considered by the house today addresses these needs, and the obama administration strongly supports its passage. thank you again for the chance to be here, mr. chairman. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. taylor. miss pegg, you may proceed. >> hello, mr. chairman, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. i appreciate the opportunity to share with you a brief overview of our activities regarding marketing orders and agreements for fruits and vegetables. as mr. taylor stated, fda is the federal agency responsible for food safety of fruits and vegetables. at usda the food safety and inspection service holds similar

responsibility for meat, poultry and egg products. the mission of ams is to facilitate the marketing of agricultural products, ams is not a food safety agency. we are an agency with a long history of working with producers and processors on marketing programs that involve inspections of product quality and verification production processes. under the agricultural marketing agreement act of 1937, marketing orders and agreements assist farmers and handlers by allowing them to collectively work to solve marketing problems. these programs are industry initiated and subject to public review. there's a seven-step process in initiating a marketing agreement. the industry petitions usda, which recently occurred on the national leafy green marketing agreement. usda holds public meetings which we'll be having on the national leafy greens marketing agreement in september and october. we review all comments in either

terminate the proceedings or publish proposed rules. in the past we have terminated proceedings. of a potential marketing agreement or order. usda publishes a final agreement and appoints a committee. the committee develops best practices. those best practices are sent out -- are published for public comment and then usda publishes a final metrics or best practices. marketing agreements only apply to handlers who voluntarily sign an agreement. fees are collected from handlers to cover local costs of administering these programs. the act provides authority to regulate the quality of commodities through federal agreements. usda considers the harmful pathogens of toxins to be a characteristic of higher quality products. federal marketing orders and agreements include minimum quality grade requirements, which can identify with the presence of mold, insect infestation, foreign material or other contaminants.

the california prunes have a fumigation requirement relative to live infestations since 1961. since 1977, california raisins have required the absence of dirt, insects and mold, and beginning in 2005, pistachio handlers were required to test all nuts destined for human consumption, for toxins that would lower the quality in market value of pistachios. on june 8th, ams received an industry proposal for a national marketing agreement for lettuce, spinach and other leafy greens. the purpose of the proposed agreement is to enhance the quality and increase the marketability of fresh leafy green vegetable products. through the application of good agricultural and handling practices. requirements implemented under the proposed program would be science based, conform to fda guidance and be subject to usda oversight. the program would only be binding on signatory handlers.

the program would require signatories to verify any product handled comes from producers or handlers using verified good agricultural and handling practices. the program would authorize unannounced audits and apply to imports, and food safety risks concerned by usda inspection would be required to fda. we are aware that there are concerns from various groups on the proposed marketing agreement. we welcome comments from those parties and other interested parties. and we'll carefully consider them. to conclude, mr. chairman, i would like to reiterate that the federal food safety policies for fruits and vegetables fall under the jurisdiction of fda. however, ams has marketing orders and agreements. the process for potentially establishing a marketing order or agreement is an open and transparent process. and considers all the points. i'm happy to respond to any questions.

>> i thank the gentle lady. we will now proceed with ten minutes of questions, beginning with myself, and then i'll turn it over to mr. jordan. i'd like to start with mr. taylor. mr. taylor, ready-to-eat is a marketing slogan assuring that the salad in a package is safe for consumption without requiring further washing or cutting by the consumers. the calgama is a voluntarily industry sponsor means of ensuring quality and safety of processed leafy greens, including those to be marketed as ready-to-eat. it was developed to preempt legislative regulatory action from the state of california assembly. has calgama made pre-cut salads safer than they were before? and if yes, what's the basis for that opinion? >> mr. chairman, the practices,

producer practices embodied in that agreement, it's implemented to make a contribution to making the food safer. i think we all understand that the safety of the product ultimately depends on what happens not only at that point, on the production end, but through processing and the way the product is handled throughout. >> when you say contribution, what do you mean? >> well -- >> what is the science behind that? >> the safety of these products is preventing contamination. >> pull that mike a little closer, would you, please. >> sorry. >> thanks. >> the safety of these products really depends fundamentally on contamination in the first place, of raw, fresh product. we don't have processing steps that decisively kill pathogens. so prevention throughout the system is the key to safety. the point is the on-farm practices, and in the agreement, make a contribution -- >> but isn't it true that since calgama went into effect, there's still been food-borne illnesses linked to the bagged produce?

you remember some of them? the romaine, 2007, outbreak, do you remember that? >> i was not in the government then. but i was aware -- >> the iceberg lettuce outbreak also in that area? isn't it true nearly every case since 1999 outbreaks of food-borne pathogens that were traced to leafy greens involved pre-cut, packaged leafy greens, not whole leafy greens? mr. taylor? >> improving the safety of these products is a work in progress. >> wait a minute, you didn't answer any question. one of the things in being in front of this committee, it's a lot easier if you answer the question. you didn't answer the question. please answer the question. >> if the question is whether the marketing agreement has solved the problem of fresh produce safety, the answer is no, of course, it hasn't. >> i asked you a question, though, i'm going to repeat it just to make sure that you heard it. i asked you that, isn't it true that in nearly every case since

1999 outbreaks of food-borne pathogens that involved leafy greens were pre-packaged leafy greens? while comparatively less burdensome is for the processer

who turn them into marketing the for the public. when i look at your testimony you're still pretty heavy on the farmer's side. for instance, when they prohibit farmers from planting been 40 feet of a ledge row on a questionable basis that wildlife poses significant risk of contamination, calgma allows the processing activity of according lettuce in the field, within activity the fda acknowledges has potential for contamination with minimal guidance or washing and stores of the knives used to core lettuce. is their position of detailed requirements on farmers but only suggested guidelines on handlers and distributors justified by the science on how to make precut salads safer? >> the science says we need enforceable preventive measures throughout the system from farms through distribution. that's why the food and drug administration is going through the regulations that will do that. >> the science sayses that with you but what about the requirements on farmers as opposed to guidance on handlers

and distributeors. you're saying there's a gap? >> absolutely, there's a lot of work to be done. >> in fact, doesn't the fda 2008 guidance for industry to minimize microbiofood safety hazards for fresh cut foods and vegetables incorporate specific standard force processing and packaging and transportation of leafy greens that they do not? isn't that true? >> yes. >> we're making progress. >> okay. i'll tell you how many times farmer, especially small farmers told me the usda represents everybody but the farmers. let's hope the new administration succeeds in changing that impression. in the next panel we'll hear from a farmer who has a lot of criticisms of calgma and we'll hear from a survivor of e-coli poe s poisoning related to precut lettuce she ate in 2008.

as you know, usda is actively promoting the nationalization of calgma. what is the usdas position on the double standard that it prescribes specific, if not always scientifically supportable requirements on farmers while it condones questionable processing protocols that benefit the processing companies like according lettuce in the field? >> we do not have a position on the current national leafy greens market progress poles. that's before the public. it's at the very beginning of the process. the hearings will begin in september. >> what do you think? >> what do i think? >> what do you think? >> what do you think? >> i think at the end of the day the program needs to work for small producers and it needs to work for different cultural practices regional differences. i think at the end of the day that's the only way you'll have the best national program. >> at the end of the day do you think the processing companies ought to have protocols that are protective of the consumers?

>> processors, yes, should. everyone has to play a part in food safety. >> including the processers. not just the farmers. >> yeah, of course. >> if they become nationalized, there will likely be increased costs for growers. farmers as they take mitigation measures to be in compliance with the requirements. these costs will be both financial as well as environmental such as costs of turning areas of land that might have been previously wild and empty lots, and the associated land erosion, runoffs, stream contamination that follows. with this in mind, do you believe that the usda should consider environmental impacts when promoting marketing agreements regulating food production? >> yes. we must consider environmental impacts. we must make sure that it's in compliance with state and federal laws. i think that the other point that you bring up is, right now what farmers are facing and i just got an e-mail last night from a farmer i know in california, they are facing

buyers are requiringgood agricultural practices. you're seeing this being demanded of farmers. >> let's talk about a specific issue that would matter to the processors as opposed to the farmers. isn't it true that the best consumed by expiration date that's stamped is now 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves the processing plant, while only seven years ago the best consumed by date for fresh-cut produce was more like five to ten days? >> i actually have no knowledge of the best consumed date. i think that may be an fda issue. >> okay. let's go to mr. taylor then. s she deferred to you. >> we're partners. >> i see that partnership.

i'll find out how good a partner you are. with can you answer the question. >> those best consumed by date are not a requirement. they address product quality. >> they are company measures. isn't it true that the "best consume date" the stamped right now it's about 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves the processing plant, right? is that right or not. >> i don't have those facts at my disposal but i don't have any reason -- >> you're the guy. you got to have them. >> 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves the processing plant. but a few years ago, mr. jordan, the "best consumed by" date for fresh produce was more like five to ten days. now, you know, and i would ask you, mr. taylor, to take note of that. because wouldn't it show you that you're making a -- you're closing a window here a little bit on issues of safety?

you're opening up the possibilities of contamination? especially if these bagged leafy greens become hot houses of contamination if there's not consistent refrigeration? >> this is where in preventative control, science-based preventative controls are all about understanding issues just like that. s what the likelihood of growth? what are the conditions that would reduce growth and what's an acceptable holding period for products? so in doing the preventive control regulations that's the kind of issue we need to address. >> one final question. then we'll go over to my colleague, mr. jordan. calgma is silent on the selection of "best consumed by" dates. it doesn't require processors to reverse the trend of longer and longer best consumed by dates. isn't that right? >> i really don't know. and i don't know what the --

>> the correct answer in this case was, "yes." >> we'll go to mr. jordan. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me thank the witnesses for being here. let me pick up where the chairman was. mr. taylor, you said you didn't know the 15 to 17 days and then, what afew years ago was five to ten days. is that that you personally don't know or is that something that the usda does not track and does not have any knowledge of? sniem with the food and drug administration and definitely -- >> fda, excuse me. >> i don't personally know. i'm confident that our experts, technical experts would have that information and we can certainly share what knowledge we have with you for sure. >> but is it -- well, i guess -- ms. peg, would you say that the chairman's statement was accurate? that's, in fact, been what's happened over the last several years? that date went from five to ten to 15 to 17? >> you know, i remember a lot of discussion about this in 2006

when the outbreak occurred. but i don't know what the guidance is or where the trends have gone. so i don't have any information on that right now. >> okay. let me ask you. we're going to have votes near a few minutes and one of the bills we're voting on is mr. dingle's legislation. it looks like that. give me your thoughts on that piece of legislation. i know many in the agricultural community are concerned about that. and i think in your introduction, at least to the chairman, have a background with california farm bureau. so let's start with you. your thoughts on that bill that looks like it will be on the floor here in just a few minutes. >> well, the bill clearly we support. we do support bill and we look for looking at what the working group produces and looking at other, as they review current statutes and regulatory authorities and seeing how wing into the 21st century.

i think many of these measures. >> let me ask you specifically about some of the concerns we've heard from folks in agriculture. >> i got a long e-mail last night about that. >> and in particular, your former employer, the farm bureau. do you think they are way off base? or do you think, again, recognizing where you worked before, do you think they have some valid concerns? >> you know, i think that we have to -- i think in working with fda and usda, we have a good partnership where we can educate one another about what happens in the field and they can assist us in giving us guidance on food safety practices. so i think it's a good partnership. that's why i personally am not -- do not necessarily share the concerns of my former employers. >> mr. taylor, would you like to comment on that bill? >> i think the core strength of this bill is that it would have congressman date the shift to a

prevention strategy and empowder fda so at the time and enforce standards for preventative controls that will make food safer throughout the system. for produce, it would, of course, direct the fda to issue regulations to establish enforceable preventive controls and importantly, direct fda to take into account the diversity of the grower community. to take into account environmental impacts. these are all factors that have to be considered in order to get it right in terms of having an abundant safe supply of fresh produce which is an important goal that we all share. with respect to the concerns of the agriculture community, we looked at the bill really hard. i think the bill evolved a lot. it very much focuses the fda's authorities with respect to on-farm activity to those areas like fresh produce where there is going to be a science-based, risk-based justification for establishing standards. so i think it's a fairly focused bill. >> let me ask you this. the family out there who, this time of year, sets up the sweet

corn stand, makes, you know, a few extra dollars for their family. tell me the impact of legislation on the floor today. what we're talking about here in this hearing. tell me how they might be impacted? >> well, in the developing the regulations like this for an industry that has that degree of diversity -- >> and in my background we dealt with this in the statehouse. it was an uproar when there were changes in the state of ohio on how we were going to address the truck farms or what testify official title they are given in the code. and we heard from mom and pop produce businesses all over the state. so help me out here. >> our activities like that are, i mean, very hard to envision how a federal regulation could establish a meaningful preventative control regime for an operation like that. so seriously, we would look at the appropriate exceptions. how do you put the boundaries around the requirements so we achieve food safety objective

but do it in a feasible, realistic way. we plan to do that. >> miss peg? >> well, i think he does bring up a lot that you have to take into consideration what happens on a different scales. and i think we'll be working a lot with fda on the implementation of it and providing our experience and our guidance there in that area. so -- >> absolutely. mr. chairman, i have no further questions. thank you. >> we'll go to a second round of questions. and this should be a little bit shorter. we'll go to the next panel. mr. taylor? to stretch out that best consumed by date, on ready-to-eat produce, it's a

benefit for the processor. it obviously facilitates long-distance transportation, you know, instead of five to ten days, 15 to 17 days. best used by. but isn't a shorter best consumed by period in the interest of protecting the public's health? mr. taylor? >> well, again, the question is what do the holding conditions for that product? what's the nature of the product? you've got to have a scientific answer to that question and there's no question if you have pathogen growth potential and you're not having cold chair sort of safe handling practices the longer you hold the product the greater risk. so i think we need a science-based answer to what's right there. >> let's look at a science-based case. in the case of the 2006 e-coli

157 outbreak that affected at least 204 people, has the fda correlated the location and dat@ namely, the location and date of

consumption of the tainted products, date of illness and the original date of process? can you do that? >> we will provide you the information we have and we'll -- >> if you could do that we'd really appreciate that. as a matter of fact, while we're at it can be do that for all produce-related outbreaks since 1999? you know which ones they are. create a spreadsheet. it shouldn't take too long to do since you already have the information. put it in a usable form for this committee so that we can -- kit help us in our deliberations about this issue of the transportation time and the best used by date, which so many consumers use as guidelines as to whether or not to consume something. for the one final question for each of the witnesses.

mr. taylor, again, given calgamas purpose to protect public health by reducing microbiocontamination of leafy greens, quote, from field to fork, distribution supply chain, end quote, wouldn't it be more consistent with the purpose of calgma to include science-based restrictions on the packaging distribution and marketing practices of ready daush to-eat produce rather than the current near silence of lack of specific requirements on those issues? >> mr. chairman i can't speak to the scope of the permissible scope of marketing agreements with the usda but the answer to whether we need standards at each of those stages along the way that are enforceable and set by the food and drug administration, the answer is, clearly, yes. >> science-based? >> yes, sir. >> just to differentiate, too. california marketing agreement is based on the california marketing act.

we're looking at a national program. and i think that through this process as well as the public process we can ensure that a final program does include all those components. >> i want to, before we conclude this, i'd like to go back to mr. taylor. i want to read you a few opinions about the effect of the packaging used to market ready-to-eat produce. it's a quote. because of the higher relative humidity of ready-to-eat packages, the risk of pathogenic growth is higher. each degree of 40 degrees will increase the rate of pathogenic growth. this is from a ph.d. center for food safety, university of georgia. here's another quote. the problem comes when leafy greens come home in ready to eat bags. if they are left anywhere when temperatures are above 50 degrees fahrenheit they with become breeding grounds for bacteria, end quote.

mr. r. atwell, ph.d. werns institute for food safety and security. another quote, it's a perfect environment for all kinds of things to grow, end quote. and from the west coast director of consumer union publisher of "con150u78er reports." mr. taylor, sbt it true thattal confirmed incidents of e-coli outbreaks since 157 outbreaks, since 1999, have been caused by precut packaged green's. >> as far as i know. the only qualification is that i'm under oath and i don't want to misstate. the chair recognizes mr. jordan. >> a quick question on the bill that's going to be on the floor in a few minutes. according to what we looked at

in the bill, this gives the fda a pretty broad authority to regulate how crops are raised. i mean, in effect, bide interested to hear -- and i know we have a farmer on the next panel -- in effect, dictating how farmers produce their crop. is that your understanding of how legislation is going to work? >> there's no sort of broad authority for fda to tell farmer house to grow their crops. there's very specific authority that if we, based on science, can identify a commodity that poses risk that can be addressed through preventive control measures, such as the industry itself, is implemented, then we're empowered in that specific case to establish enforceable standards but it's not a broad preventative control mandate. >> it seems to me and the chairman went to great length to point out and i think, appropriately so. the problem doesn't seem to be with the farmer producing the crop it seems to be elsewhere in the supply chain or in the transportation or what have you, not with the -- that's my

concern. the farmer knows how to produce the crop. let's not overregulate or overburden the guy producing the food. let's not make it difficult for the mom and pop who are setting up the wagon and selling sweet corn to the to the neighborhood. but we just know how government works. i mean, look, we were told last year that we're going to just have one small little bailout. we promise. it will be just one little bailout. and this thing won't grow and, you know, we don't want to get into the private sector and we've seen what happened over the last year just in the financial industry alone let alone the auto industry. so these always start out with great intentions but we no the pattern of government and what typically happens. that's my concern and i think, frankly, to a large degree that's the chairman's concern and certainly, lots of folks in agriculture, their concern. they just know the nature of government. it's tough enough, many times, for folks in agriculture to deal with the state department of agriculture and other regulatory

agencies at the state level, let alone big brother in washington telling them how to run their farm and how to run their business. so that's my big concern and we'll continue to watch this whole process relative to the bill and the issue we're addressing here in the committee. with that i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, we'll go to one more round here before we get to the next panel. miss peg, here's another example of something farmers have a problem with. calgma overs a number of sources of potential pathogens that have to be avoid, birds, pig and other wildlife like cattle. to comply they pay for measures like building of large fences to thwart the wildlife. this was was a likely source of contamination. let me go over that again. the science is hardly conclusive that wildlife was a likely source of contamination in the

2006 spinach contamination. isn't that so? >> well in the 2006, actually in the outbreak, there was, maybe, fda can speak to this but there was concern about wild live in that outbreak that did occur. wild pigs was the wild live in question. >> are you saying that there was concern or is that evidence-based? or is it conjectural? what's the basis of that concern? ha and was it conclusive? conjectural or science-based? what was it? >> maybe you can speak to the investigation, but if you've been to the valley and that region -- >> i've been to salinas valley. >> okay. there's that area, there's known some wildlife activity and now, the california leafy greens marketing agreement does look at other potential risks and they also do rank wildlife as high

risk or low risk. >> i would, in order to facilitate this hearing, i'd like you to supply to this committee the information about the basis of your statement that wildlife was somehow connected with this. i'd like to see some scientific backup of that, okay. >>ly get it. now with, for the 2006? >> right, exactly. >> outbreak. >> a leafy greens, miss beg, a leafy green field's proximity to cattle is a high-risk circumstance for e-coli contamination. does calgma make distinctions between high risk circumstances or low risk circumstances such as the presence of frogs or other wildlife. do they prioritize high-risk circumstances while deprioritizing low-risk circumstances? >> i believe it was. >> and isn't it true that all farms have to eliminate repairing the areas, ledge rows if they are within a specified distance from a crop edge?

>> i'm not positive on the current best practices. >> i want you to look at the slide on the screen. and staff, would you put the slide up? the aerial photo above was taken before calgma. you can plainly see a strip of green between several fields where trees and hedges are and where birds and wildlife can take shelter. now look at the aerial photo taken after. here you can plainly see the strip of trees and hedges has been eliminated and there's no wildlife there. isn't it true that calgma would have required the cutting down of those trees? >> i don't know if i can speak to that. i don't know if they are participants or if they are buyers, which has been -- this is been a huge issue. we have discussed this since 2006. is that how do you deal with -- are there real risks or

not? i was talking to the california fish and game this week about it, it's a big sniesh you're the nation's add kalt for farmers. does it make sense for the usda to advocate for a processer o lor-based framework that requires them to prevent the contamination by wildlife but higher risk in a proximity to cattle and a known risk with the processing of packaging the leafy greens are more significant to the problems that calgma intends to address? >> any program needs to address the risks and look at high-risk versus low risks. i think what we're looking at in terms of any program is looking at all chains in the process. and how to reduce the risks. so who should pay for compliance with calgma? the farmer? the processing industry? should the cost be shared? >> under the marketing agreement they proposed per-carton

assessment that the handler pays to cover the cost of the marketing agreement. >> so who currently pays for the measures adopted to comply with this? >> i think for the california leafy green marketing agreement, that's the per-carton assessment that pays for it. >> farmers? >> well, they are handlers and signatories. so the handlers pay it. >> the farmers. okay. i think we're completed with questioning of the first panel. we'll be in touch with you regarding the follow-up on questions that we've asked and we appreciate your cooperation with the committee and your presence here today. those buzzers that you heard are the reason why i'm going to have to recess this meeting until after votes. how many votes do we have? -- there are three votes. i'd like to take a half-hour break. and then we'll come back for the second panel and we'll take

testimony from those who are here to talk about their experience. i want to thank the representatives of the fda and the usda for being here. i look forward to working with you on these issues so we can help the consumers across america have more confidence in the safety of our leafy green ñ

before we begin, i just want to acknowledge the work of our staff on both sides who have helped with this hearing. we appreciate your work and to make it known that we have one of our staffers charity, whose done a lot of work on the. she couldn't be here today because of a illness. we look forward to her return but she did a lot of great research and i just want to acknowledge that for the record, actually. so thank you and we're going to go to our second panel of witnesses. and i would like to introduce them. we'll start with mrs. kelley cobb. welcome, ms. cobb. kelley cobb is a survivor of e-coli poisoning. and has come here today to share

her story with us. her husband, matt cobb, serves in the united states marines. and their parents of two young children.@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

shipping company, located in san juan batista sta, california, which o represents local organic california growers and selling throughout the u.s. and canada. he's also a partner in jardines, a diversified organic farming operation growing on approximately 500 acres in monte ray and san bo any to. he pioneered spring mix lettuce and was instrumental in developing its market. ms. caroline smith tuwall, welcome. duval. she's, director of food science at the center to have science in the public interest, a leading cobb assumer analyst on reform of law and regulations governing good safety. since 1999 she maintains annually published list of

food-bourn illness outbreaks organized by food source that now contain over 15 years of outbreak reports and has presented at numerous conferences. she's the co-author of the book "is our food safe, a consumer's guide to protecting your health in ten environment" and authored numerous papers on food safety. i want to thank the witnesses for their presence here today. i would ask that you rise, all of you, raise your right hand. you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truthing a windy kntruth ing and nothing but the truth? >> thank you very much. let the record reflect that each of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. as with panel one i ask that

each witness give an oral summary of his or her testimony. i'd like to see you keep that summary maximum of five minutes in duration. any testimony that you want to add beyond that, you're entire statement will be in the record and anything you want to send to the committee within a few days we'll get that in the record as well. your complete written statement will be in the record. miss cobb, welcome. i'd like you to be our first witness. and would you please begin? and, before you starting with just pull the microphone a little bit closer because we want to make sure we hear everything you say. thank you. in may of 2008 i was by at a stay at home moment to my children, liberty and matthew. we were in washington visiting family from california. >> i'm going to interrupt you and ask the staff, to take the responsibility of making sure that the microphone is close

enough so that the witnesses can be heard. and, frankly, i don't want to bring that up in a hearing agai again. >> do you want me to start over? >> please speak -- you have a very soft voice. it's really important that we need to hear what you're saying so begin at the top. >> okay. in may of twiet i was busy as a stay-at-home mom raising my two children, liberty, who was 3 and matthew who was one. we were visiting family in washington. we were there without my husband because he was serving as a marine in iraq for the second time open on may 109 a went with a banquet dinner with my mom and her friends. little did a know by accepting the invitation i would be changing my life forever. i ate a salad that was contaminated with e-coli. my mom, children and her friends that were there with us,

happened to sit at the same table i just happened to pick the seat that woas contaminated. my children was with us. my son was on his lap and luckily he didn't eat greens at the time. on may 10th, i was getting ready for the drive back to california. i went to bed with a stomach ache and woke up on may 16th, with diarrhea and the most painful stomach pains that occurred every ten minutes and until my so stool turned to blood at about 5:00. i then proceeded to go to the e.r. where they just said that i had a bacterial infection. and i went home and was unable to hold down water, the medicine they gave me and i returned to the hospital. two days later, i was told that i had e-coli and that was the cause of the illness that it wasn't the bacterial -- it was bacteria but no what they thought. i was discharged from the hospital only to return a couple days later because i developed a

condition of -- and was told that my kidneys were only functioning at 50%. i was then started on as mr. that perisis where they cycled out my blood and put in the new stuff. over the time that i was in the hospital, i had over 50 blood draws. two ultrasounds, a cat scan, a colons copy. a central line, four units of blood and 80 units of plasma. both my husband and father were in iraq at the time. i had to send a red cross to my husband to let him know what was going on. he was unable to come home. i had the kids -- i was the only caretaker with him being gone so my mom took over that responsibility and set up childcare for them while she was at work. they came to see me at the hospital every day and didn't understand why i wasn't able to

go home with them. why they couldn't stay with me. they were so young that they don't -- they didn't understand what was going on. there were several times that i didn't think i was going to make it because of how sick i was. i remember on one day i think it was the 28th, i had an allergic reaction to some pain medication that i was given and i got intense chest pain and i remember blacking out and not really knowing what was going on and i honestly thought i was going to die right there at the hospital bed. my husband was in iraq. my father was in iraq. the kids were at home and i wouldn't be there with them. and with that, i was able to really focus on what the nurses were telling me. they gave me another medication to help with the reaction. from that incident, from the

e-coli, i no longer eat any produce that i can't see back washed myself. i have gone to restaurants and asked them how they prepare their salads. i cut everything i clean everything from a bag of lettuce to a watermelon. when you cut through it, you hit the fruit. the time i had with my family means so much more to me now because i know that at any time it can be taken away from you. i was -- i'm honestly surprised with how sick i got that i'm here today. if anything, i would want the parties that are at fault in my particular case, to know that you know, they took me away from my kids for two weeks and that's time i'll never get back. my son was 1. he developed every day that i was gone. he came to the hospital saying new words every day. doing new things. and i felt the pain that -- i

can't describe to you the pain that i was in because i don't have a comparison that i can give to you. i would rather, you know i'd rather break bones than go to that, you know. i'd rather have a broken arm than go through the pain i had from e-coli. i don't have a comparison to you on what i felt. you know, it could be their family. it could have just as easily been one of my kids and had it been, it would have been devastating to them what i went through. >> thank you very much for coming here to testify. we're certainly going to be having some questions of you when we go to that phase of this hearing. at this point i'd like to ask mr. horsefall to proceed for five minutes. thank you very much. before you proceed, i want to welcome some of our visitors here from china mccow.

thank you for being here. please, proceed. thank you and good afternoon, chairman and ranking member jordan. i'm happy to be here. i'm always happy to talk about our program. i'll get to my statement. i would express to miss cobb that what she went through does not fall on deaf hear ears in our industry. shortly after i started this job the "usa today" ran a recap, a year after the original outbreak. and they presented the stories of the four or five people who had died because they ate spinach. and, you know, i know because i work with this industry, that they take that to heart. they are trying to do everything they can do so that there aren't more victims so that we can reduce that risk as much as possible. so i used part of my time.

the leafy greens marketing a agreement was established in 2007. it is a mechanism quite simply, for verifying through mandatory government audits that farmers of leafy green's fol follow a rigorous set of food safety standards. we're an instrumentality of the state of california and operate with oversight from the california department of food and agriculture. in the -- although the leafy greens industry had prioritized food safety in the aftermath of that outbreak in 2006, farmers and shippers and processors recognized that more effort was needed to protect public health. the question was how to do it. a lot of different approaches were looked at including regulation at both the state and national level. marketing orders. and marketing agreements. and the decision was ultimately made to go with the tool that was most readily available i which was a marketing agreement. it is a voluntary organization but it does have the force of government behind it.

the members when they join, it's mandatory that they follow the rules of the program. the idea was to use this marketing agreement and also, the flexibility to change and amend the program as we get new research and as you talked about, research you talked about and we're keenly interested in research being done so we can make the program better. that flexibility is one of the key benefits of the lgma structure. our program is focused on prevention, preventing the introduction of pathogens in the leafy green fields and farms. we applaud the obama administration and the president's food safety working group for their focus on prevention and approach to improving food safety. on july 7th, in their press conference, we're happy to hear vice president biden and health & human services secretary sebelius talk about prevention as job number one. i was asked to talk about where our metrics came from. at the lgma was being developed there was a pair rel effort to

create a set of food safety practices and standards, sometimes referred to as metrics they were developed by university industry scientists swez other food safety experts, farmers and shippers. those standards were reviewed by fda and the usda and other state and federal health agencies. they cover the major risk areas that have been identified by fda and others. practices include careful attention to site selection for growing fields based on farm history and proximity to animal operations. appropriate standards for irrigation, water and other sources of water prohibition of raw manure and good employee hygiene in fields and harvesting. the -- our members are subject to mandatory audits by the california department of food and agriculture to insure they are in compliance with the program. those auditors are usda trained

and the process we use is a usda certified audit process. our members face penaltys if they are not in compliance up so and including dessert occasion from the program which can lead to serious significant economic repercussions for the company. from july 23rd of 2007, when we first began our auditing we've done over 1,000 government audits of our members. and those continue today, even as we speak. we all know that maintaining food safety vigilance is crucial to the future of the produce industry. and while there is still very much to do and we're not done, i believe that the leafy green's industry is doing more to proside a safe, wholesome delicious product now than they ever have before. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. horsefall. mr. coke, you may proceed for five minutes. thank you.

good afternoon, chairman and ranking member jordan. thank you for inviting me here today. i've been asked to address@@@@@ . and then, also, provide some kind of traceability. traceability is not such an issue for a grower like

ourselves, organic growers that have had to be able to trace products for years. there's also been prints against manure use for organic production. for years -- for years in come post, there's no sewage sludge or other toxic chemicals but organic growers are facing significant issues with the push for the regulators to have -- to ban the wildlife and noncrop vegetation for things like wind breaks and habitat, which are things that are supposed to be encouraged by organic laws that pertain to maintaining your certification. an environmental impacts often vary depending on the inspector and his interpretation of the

metrics. there are certain companies that use their own metrics called supermetrics in the industry wildlife, noncrop vegetation and water bodies are normally viewed as food safety risks. a lot of environmentally positive projects have been abandoned by growers who have been threatened with the loss of the ability to sell their crops. wind breaks, vegetated filter strips, tail water re-use reservoirs and grass roadways, vegetated ditches. they have been removed to comply with the inspectors that come out to check on the crop. many fields have deer and pig fencing and some also have frog and rodent fencing, even though those haven't been found to be a

vehicle to vector for rodenting. they use secondary poisoning of raftering with owls can occur with this. a lot of these practices are more based on the processors having problems pulling them out of the harvested crop because the nature of the harvest of the crop than it is -- than it has to do with being a food safety issue. practically, this has been a big step backwards for environmental protection which was just starting to move forward on faurms. it's a lot more money and time that farmers have to spend to comply with these metrics document this. the majority of the disease-related outbreaks that are associated with leafy green's come from precut processed products. some kind of failure during that process to make it ready to eat or to make it clean enough that

you don't have the pathogens. the processors point to the fields as being the issue. it's very difficult for farmers to grow sterile crop in an opened field. you do have, you know, we have always had employee hygiene. we're concerned about our compost and we don't use manure and we test our water and fertilizer as mr. farm any farm. leafy green farmers are in the unenviable position of having to pay for and comply with a roster of unproven safety metrics in attempting to grow pathogen-free crops and being held potentially liable for it. the leafy green marketing agreement is made steps in the right direction, i think, for

the process product that it should be representing. i don't know that the marketing agreements are an froerpt ray to provide food safety, whether they be state or national. they are in my mind, they are something that's focuses on marketing product ratherth than on actual conditions of growing product. this being said, if this were to be moved to that direction, if the focus on was just on processed food, you would reduce a lot of impact on -- there's lots of farmers that don't grow leafy greens that go into bags. and they would be -- if the focus was just on the processed arena you could exempt them. right now and i was there when they started having the meetings to decide about leafy green's in california. they included specific

vegetables. and i asked, why they were just including a few vegetables. there there was no answer. they didn't differentiate whether it was a whole head or a bunch product. it was just, we'll include these vegetables and the only reason i can come up with is it's something to enhance their competitive edge, because it gives them a marketing advantage if you need to adhere to these metrics and you raise the bar and a lot of farmers might not be able to make is that. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. your entire statement will be included in the record as someone's been so involved in the development of this industry. we appreciate your presence here. the chair recognizes ms. smith duvall for five minutes. after that we'll go to a round of questions of the panel. you may proceed.

>> thank you, chairman and, also, representative jordan. my name is caroline smith-dewaal and i direct the food safety project for center of science in the public interest. cspi has concerns about the increasing use of marketing orders as a vehicle for regulating safety. 15 different agencies administer 30 different laws that regulate food safety in the u.s. today. and marketing orders really represent a further fractioning of this already widely fractured system. food bourn illness outbreaks linked to fresh produce are among the major public health problems when it comes to food safety. and leafy green's and -- leafy greens and salads are among the top food target as long with beef, poultry and seafood that county outbreaks and illnesses.

in addition, the average size of outbreaks linked to produce tends to be larger so they tend to affect more people. the importance of robust and reliable food safety practices on the farm cannot be understated. leafy greens, once contaminated, can support, grow and spread pathogens until they are consumed. chlorination and other controls can help to reduce contamination between different lots of salad, for example. but they don't make contaminated product. a plukt that comes in from the farm contaminated, truly safe to eat. in fact, scientists have shown how bacteria can inhabit the washing systems used for bag lettuce. and transfer bacteria from a contaminated lot, really on to a full day's. while fda has jurisdiction over

on-farm food safety it really has not acted as an effective regulator. and they've been using, for at least the past ten to 15 years, the concept of guidance. unenforceable guidance to the industry instead of regulation. but the absence of enforceable rules leaves a significant hole in the fabric of food safety. allowing an even encouraging the industry wave standards of its own design. the agricultural -- at amf, the food industry can draft their own rules called marketing orders or agreements to best suit their needs. but ams is not equipped to monitor the safety of food. the primary focus of ams is with the promotion of food products. and the mechanisms that it uses

are limited in terms of their geographic scope and, often, they are completely voluntary because they are voluntary systems. and farmers have to agree and the handlers have to agree to comply. they are limited to u.s. companies. sometimes they are limited to companies just in the state of california. and this is particularly troubling when you consider that consumers -- 13% of our die set from import prod dues. -- diet is from produce. so huge amounts of produce will never be subject to these marketing orders. ams oversees marketing orders for 22 different commodities including almonds and shell eggs. these programs can really instill a false sense of security. both for the industries involved and for consumers. because they'll really are quality programs. they are not based on safety. but given the absence of rule

making at fda, it's not really surprising that in the aftermath of the 2006 spinach outbreak, the leafy green industry turned to ams to create these stronger rules. i just want to note, these standards really do create uncertainty. and they give rise to the private standards which are actually the complaint of many of the growers today. the growers today are saying that these private -- these standards are too burdensome but let me be clear. these aren't mandatory standards. they are not fda standards. they don't apply to imports. so it's critically important that we actually get a system in place that will protect the public. the food safety enhancement act, which is before the house of representatives, addresses this issue head-on. it requires fda to consider both the food safety and the

environmental impacts when promull ga gal gating recommend for food production. they have to take into account small scale and diversified farming. wildlife habitats, conservation practices. watershed practices and organic production methods. this is all in the legislation before the house. this provides an appropriate focus on public safety. it gives the farmers and the consumers both an opportunity to weigh in these -- on these standards which we don't have today, with the ams standards. and it would protect the sustainable and organic farming communities that we all value. these are the type of standards that consumers cannot live without. thank you. >> thank you, very much. an update. the bill that was voted on did not receive the required 2/3 so

it will go back for work and some of the concerns that were expressed by members that voted against it is that they were concerned about the effect of the bill on small farmers and organic farmers. so i think the center which endorsed the bill, needs to take heed of the concerns that are expressed. i think if we do that, perhaps when the bill comes back out to the floor we can see it pass. thank you. well, that means we'll have five minutes each of us, for questions. hold on a minute.

we need to move this along. i just want to thank miss cobb. how you feeling, by the way? >> i'm fine now. >> how many weeks ago was this? >> it was may of 2008. >> and do you -- have you found any afteraffects other than the fact that you're not keen on eating certain products? >> no. there's no -- i am at a higher risk of cardiovascular disease later in life urinary tract issues. >> we're glad you're here. >> thank you. >> i think people -- there needs to be a public face of somebody who's dealt with this and you dealt with it and it takes a lot of courage to come before a congressional committee to relate your experience. so we appreciate that you're

here. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> the other thing i want to note was when mr. horsefall began his statement, i was@@@@@ must be free of compost operations more than 400 feet of the crop edge.

and domestic animals within 30 feet of the crop edge. what is the justification for allowing doe pmestic animals, t waste products to be closer in a compost operation? >> the program, the metrics are based entirely on risk assessments. and i think that is keeping with fda guidance. >> i know, i'm getting to that, pardon me. the compost operations are considered to be a very high risk sitbation in terms of pathogens. and we have khave significant b zones if you have a large number of animals at risk in a field. you have domestic animals closer. because the risk assessment

tells us that this is a lower risk involved if you've got a couple of animals on a farm. >> let's look at the 2006 incident. isn't it true that the field identified as the source was less than a couple of hundred feet from where doe pmestic anis graved? >> i don't know. >> let's check it out. isn't it true that calman's auditors did not find any problem with spinach in the 2006 incident? >> it would depend on the number of cattle that were there. and i don't have those numbers in front of me. in that particular case, the final report as i recall, you know the feces that was found was over a mile away.

>> can we be tougher on the processers? >> processers are under the jurisdiction of the fda. >> should they be tougher on them? you have heard testimony on them. >> did you say should cattlemen? >> i'm sorry, i'm not used to that. >> who make the bagged lettuce. >> i think the processers need to be regulated as heavily as growers do. and that regulation is fine. >> appreciate that. i want to do one more question here. mr. coke, you are the founder of the spring mix precut packaged leafy greens, significant health

contribution but you are also a critic of the ready-to-eat leafy green industry. is there a way for americans to get the health benefit -- >> point of clarification. i developed the concept and it was never ready to eat. it was a field run product, washed, cooled and dried and packed into three pound boxes. but it wasn't -- i always had serious reservations about how that product was displayed. >> what would be the long-term results in your opinion, mor. cope, if it is nationalized in it's current form. >> i think it would set too many

growers of lettuce, cabbage, those things haven't had outbreaks associate wednesday them. they often have a kill step, people heat them up before they eat them. they boil or steam them. >> i have some follow up questions. we are going to put them in writing and we'll go to mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. how are the little ones doing? are they doing fine? >> oh, yeah. matthew doesn't remember he was too young. liberty still remembers and still talks about getting sick from a salad. she remembers having the transfusion done, but overall, they are doing well. >> we also want to thank your family for their service to our

country. now, what is your home state? >> my home state is washington. >> the program is completely voluntary, is that right? >> 120 people who represent 99% of the volume. i got that off your website. 120 who joined. >> and i want to be clear, our big pro viewducers part of it. ? are the farmers part of the organization or just the folks who take the product and then package it? >> hour member our members are

some are growers as well. >> so they are both? >> absolutely. >> right from the field to the operation it could be around the same time. >> they sell to each other us well. since you've come into existence 2006 or 2007? >> 2007. >> have there been outbreaks of ecoli or any problem? >> there have been outbreaks that have been reported. i don't believe the health authorities finished their investigation yet. but there was a small outbreak in washington state and last year in michigan. >> can you say that we have seen an improvement?

>> the answer is yes, fewer people have gotten sick tied to lettuce and leafy greens than the years before that. but i don't take that as a me metric. if anybody is getting sick we still have to figure out how to make the program better. >> that is where the research comes in. >> are you a farmer and a handler? are you part of this organization? you are part of the operation? >> i'm not. there are two differente entities. the farming company contracts with a handler that is sigtocisy and we grow cilantro dil and parsley for inclusion into

salad. so we do that part. the crop mix, there are only a few things, and i've resisted because i think the principle is wrong of this ingredient. it caused the ability to sell into canada. they won't accept products. we test soil and water. they won't accept products -- i don't know. you know i would prefer not to go there. i was hoping that something would become little more logical so you can focus on the process. >> as a country boy frem westomn ohio, we didn't grow up on a farm, but we live on my wife's family farm. you think about whether your product is grown close to -- we

spread manure on the field. the problem has to be taken out of the field. maybe -- >> i think you are right. and the product has got issued the slide that you showed, you know, it is a great concept to give people something that aready to eat. how do you keep that? if you can't sterlize it, you break the cold chain. you know a customer taking it out to their car and driving home, it is a difficult issue, a product to get to market safely i think. >> thank you all for coming. i'm sorry we didn't get a chance -- >> i want to thank mr. jordan and thank the witnesses for being here. our hearing today has been ready to eat or not. examining the impact of leafy

greens marketing agreements. we had panels and this committee stands adjourned. thank you.