EDITORIAL: Stop whining, JEA, and get compliant

Earlier this year, United States President Barack Obama signed the Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA), designed to provide American consumers with a guarantee that the food they buy in stores and groceries, whether imported or grown locally, is safe.

This is a direct response to past episodes of food-borne illnesses traced to agricultural products, for example, E. coli in US spinach, salmonella in cantaloupes exported from Honduras, peppers from Mexico, and US peanut butter, as well as contamination of eggs and butter.

It is estimated that 48 million illnesses and 3,000 deaths in the US annually are linked to food-borne pathogens. We do not have similar local statistics, but we must acknowledge that the food-distribution network is global. It is, therefore, critical that potentially unsafe food is prevented from entering our markets.

By insisting on new food-safety standards, the US government is doing for its consumers what every other government ought to be doing to protect its own population against threats or adverse health consequences.

Oversight of food safety in America is shared by the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The act gives the FDA expanded authority over most of the country's food supply by assigning it mandatory recall powers and expanded access to records. The amendment requires producers to demonstrate to the FDA that they are in compliance with all state and local food-safety laws, and that they have identified potential hazards and are implementing controls of those hazards.

concerns

One of the main reasons for opposing the act in the US is that implementation of the system will cost taxpayers a tidy sum. Also, farming interests doubt whether the FDA has the resources to adequately inspect 150,000 domestic and 240,000 foreign food facilities in 200 countries to ensure they meet the new standards.

But even with the annoyance over expected expense and the burden of compliance, the US farmers have begun arranging seminars to educate their members and affiliate producers about the new requirements. In the end, they know that the ability to track and trace produce from seed to harvest, although seemingly onerous, will be advantageous, especially if there is a recall of the product.

We can understand the concerns of the Jamaica Exporters' Association, as articulated by its vice-president, Dr Andre Gordon, especially as it concerns small farmers whose record keeping may not be up to par. But that's such a predictable reaction. It would have made for a refreshing change if Dr Gordon were to lay out the difficulties, then suggest how the country could pull its resources together to respond to these new challenges.

We cannot support the whining and hand-wringing so typical of our productive sector. Instead, we would urge the Government and its agencies, such as the Rural Agricultural Development Authority, to find ways and means of getting farmers compliant.

The FDA is said to be well on its way to implementing regulations under the FSMA, and Jamaica will not be exempt. So if Jamaica does not want to be shut out of the US market, growers, processors and retailers must all come together and develop safety standards.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.