Integrating stakeholder roles in food production, marketing, and safety systems: An evolving multi-jurisdictional approach

Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 29-108

  Bryan Endres, A ^a   Johnson, Nicholas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ANNUAL VARIATION; FOOD MARKET; FOOD PRODUCTION; FOOD SAFETY; FOOD SUPPLY; MARKETING; STAKEHOLDER; SUBSIDY SYSTEM; VOLUNTARY APPROACH;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 80051517351     PISSN: 10490280     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (362)

1. See U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE, TREND CONTINUES TOWARD FEWER AND LARGER FARMS (Jan. 10, 1968), available at http://usda.mannlib. cornell.edu/usda/nass/NumbFarmLa//1960s/1968/NumbFarmLa-01-10-1968.pdf (discussing decrease in number of farms from 1959 through 1968);
2. CAROLINE S. GLEATON & CARL G. ANDERSON, FACTS ABOUT TEXAS AND U. S. AGRICULTURE, 86-90 (May 10, 2010), available at http://agecoext.tamu.edu/ fileadminfaser-upload/Documents/Resources/Publications/Facts/2010/AgFacts.pdf (discussing decrease in number of farms from 1964 through 2009).
3. One example is in the dairy industry, where the number of dairy farms has decreased by thirty-eight percent between 2000 and 2009, while milk production has increased thirteen percent over the same time frame. See U. S. Dep't of Agric, Milk Cows: Number of Operations by Year, US, NAT'L AGRIC STATISTICS SERV., http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts-and-Maps/Milk-Production-and-Milk-Cows/ cowoper. asp (last visited Apr. 21, 2011);
4. U. S. Dep't of Agric, Milk: Production by Year, U. S., NAT'L AGRIC. STATISTICS SERV., http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts-and-Maps/Milk-Production-and- Milk-Cows/milkprod.asp (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
5. Grant Wood's American Gothic epitomizes the rural work ethic of Midwestern farmers. See The Art Institute of Chicago, About This Artwork, ARTIC. EDU, http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/6565 (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
6. U. S. sales of organic products have increased from $1 billion in 1990 to $24.8 billion in 2009. Organic Trade Ass'n, Industry Statistics and Projected Growth, OTA. COM, http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
7. The Food Marketing Institute, the trade group for the grocery wholesale and retail industry, reported total supermarket sales in 2009 of $556, 973 billion. FMI, Supermarket Facts, FMI. ORG, http://fmi.org/facts-figs/? fuseaction=superfact (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
8. Agric. Marketing Serv., USDA Announces that National Farmers Market Directory Totals 6, 132 Farmers Markets, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (Aug. 4, 2010), http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.printData.do?template=printPage&navID= &page=printPage&dDodd=STELPRDC5085966&dlD=136193&wf= false&docTitle=USDA+Announces +that+National+Farmers+Market+Directory+Totals+6%2C132++Farmers+Markets (noting a sixteen percent growth in farmers markets from 2009 to 2010);
9. U. S. Dep't of Agric, Number of Operating Farmers Markets, USDA. GOV, http://www.usda.gov/img/content/Numbers-of-Farmers-Markets-1994-2010.jpg (last visited Apr. 21, 2011) (indicating an increase from 2863 markets in 2000 to 6132 in 2010).
10. The Food Marketing Institute reported more than 35, 000 supermarkets with annual sales above $2 million. Food Mktg. Inst., Supermarket Facts, FMI. ORG (2009), http://fmi.org/facts-figs/?fuseaction=superfact.
11. Letter to The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U. S. Dep't of Agric, from Senators John McCain, Saxby Chambliss, and Pat Roberts (April 27, 2010), available at http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/KnowYourFarmers.pdf.
12. See Caroline Tauxe, Family Cohesion vs. Capitalist Hegemony: Cultural Accommodation on the North Dakota Farm, 17 DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 291, 291 (1992) (discussing role of large agribusiness on changing social fabric).
13. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigations of a Multistate Outbreak of Human Salmonella I 4, [5], 12:i:-Infections Linked to Alfalfa Sprouts, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Dec. 28, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/i4512i-/122810/.
14. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation Update: Multistate Outbreak of Human Salmonella Enteritidis Infections Associated with Shell Eggs, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Dec. 2, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/enteritidis/#investigation;
15. see Food & Drug Admin., Frequently Asked Questions and Answers: FDA's Investigations into the Salmonella Enteritidis Outbreak Involving the Recall of Shell Eggs, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Aug. 27, 2010), http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/WhatsNewinFood/ucm223 723.htm.
16. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation Update: Multistate Outbreak of Human Salmonella Montevideo Infections, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (May 4, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/montevideo/.
17. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Mulitstate Outbreak of E. coli OI57. H7 Infections Linked to Eating Raw Refrigerated, Prepackaged Cookie Dough, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Jun. 30, 2009), http://www.cdc.gov/ ecoli/2009/0630.html.
18. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation of an Outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul Infections Linked to Raw Alfalfa Sprouts, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (May 8, 2009), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/saintpaul/ alfalfa/.
19. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation Update: Outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium Infections, 2008-2009, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Apr. 29, 2009), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/typhimurium/update. htrnl (may have caused nine deaths).
20. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation of Outbreak of Infections Caused by Salmonella Saintpaul, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Aug. 28, 2008), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/saintpaul/jalapeno/.
21. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Investigation of Outbreak of Human Infections Caused by SALMONELLA 4, [5], 12:i:-, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Oct. 29, 2007), http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/4512eyeminus.html.
22. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Salmonellosis-Outbreak Investigation, February 2007, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Mar. 7, 2007), http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salmonellosis-2007/ 030707-outbreak-notice.htm.
23. Recall Release, U. S. Dep't of Agric, Food Safety & Inspection Serv., Updated: New Jersey Firm Expands Recall of Ground Beef Products Due to Possible E. Coli 0157:H7 Contamination, FSIS-RC-040-2007 (Oct. 6, 2007), available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Recall-040-2007-Exp-Update.pdf;
24. Associated Press, Topps Meat to Close Down After Meat Recall, MSNBC. COM (Oct. 5, 2007), http://www.msnbc.msn. com/id/21149977/ns/business-us-business.
25. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Multistate Outbreak of E. coli 0157 Infections, November-December 2006, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Dec. 14, 2006), http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/december/121406.hrrn..
26. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Update on Multi-state Outbreak of E. coli 0157. H7 Infections From Fresh Spinach, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Oct. 6, 2006), http://www.cdc.gov/foodborne/ecolispinach/ 100606.htm.
27. Press Release, U. S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA Issues Nationwide Health Alert on Dole Pre-Packaged Salads (Oct. 2, 2005), available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2005/ucml08495.htm.
28. Press Release, U. S. Food & Drug Admin., Paramount Farms Expands Recall of Raw Almonds (May 22, 2004), available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2004/ucm111607.htm.
29. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, FDA Investigates Certain ROMA Tomatoes as Source of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Mid-Atlantic States, DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (July 23, 2004), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2004/ucm108332.htm.
30. CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, VOL. 52, NO. 47, HEPATITIS A OUTBREAK ASSOCIATED WITH GREEN ONIONS AT A RESTAURANT-MONACA, PENNSYLVANIA, 2003, MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 1155-57 (Nov. 28, 2003), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5247a5.htm.
31. See Elizabeth Becker, 19 Million Pounds of Meat Recalled After 19 Fall Ill, N. Y. TIMES, July 20, 2002, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec= health&res=9B01E2D91F39F933A15754C0A9649C8B63&pagewanted=1.
32. Marian Burros, Eating Well; Listeria Thrives in Political Hotbed, N. Y TIMES, Oct. 30, 2002, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec= health&res=9A02E3DF 123FF933A05753C1A9649C8B63.
33. Paola Farer, Colorado Plant Linked to E. coli Outbreak Story, MARLER CLARK (Aug. 25, 2000), http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli-outbreaks/news/colorado- plant-linked-to-ecoli-outbreak-story.
34. Elaine Scallan et al., Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States-Unspecified Agents, 17 EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 16, 16 (2011).
35. Paul S. Mead, et al., Food-related Illness and Death in the United States, 5 EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 605, 607 (1999), but the authors of the 2010 report noted that different data and methodologies used in the 2010 report prevent any comparison with the 1999 report.
36. Scallan et. al., Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States-Major Pathogens, 17 EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 7, 7 (2011).
37. For an insightful discussion of why the food industry has not embraced certain food safety practices despite the possibility of tort liability, see generally Neal D. Fortin, The Hang-Up with HACCP: The Resistance to Translating Science into Food Safety Law, 58 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 565 (discussing the difficulty of tracing back responsibility for foodbome illness and the reluctance of the food industry to embrace the HACCP food safety procedures that would reduce foodborne illness).
38. See also Jean C. Buzby & Paul D. Frenzen, Food Safety and Product Liability, 24 FOOD POL'Y 637 (1999) (discussing weaknesses in product's liability system for foodborne illness).
39. 320 U. S. 277, 280 (1943). Until the mid-nineteenth centuiy, most food regulation occurred at the local level, reflecting the scope of commerce at the time. As commerce expanded into regional and national food networks, states exercised jurisdiction over food regulation, with most states having some form of food regulation in place by 1900.
40. Paul Hyman, U. S. Food and Drug Law and FDA-A Historical Background, in A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO FOOD AND DRUG LAW AND REGULATION 15 (2d ed. 2002). After the introduction of more than 100 food and drug bills in Congress between 1880 and 1906, Congress finally passed the 1906 Food and Drug Act and the 1906 Meat Inspection Act.
41. 346 U. S. 15, 51-52 (1953).
42. See, e.g., William L. Andreen, Water Quality Today-Has the Clean Water Act Been a Success?, 55 ALA. L. REV. 537, 542 (2004) (discussing the remarkable success of the EPA and Clean Water Act in controlling point sources of pollution and slowing the loss of wetlands).
43. Daniel Cohen, The History, Politics & Perils of the Current Food Safety Controversy: CAFF Guide to Proposed Food Safety Regulations, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS, Jan. 2008, at 21, available at http://www.caff.org/CAFF. Policy. Guide.1.pdf.
44. U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD & DRUG ADMIN, GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY: GUIDE TO MINIMIZE MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY HAZARDS OF LEAFY GREENS; DRAFT GUIDANCE (July 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/Guidance ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/ ucm1742 00.htm.
45. See H. R. 2751, 111th Cong. §§ 103, 105 (2011) (Specifically, Section 418 requires implementation of hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls (i.e., HACCP or Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point methodology) in all food processing facilities and Section 419 requires the FDA, in cooperation with USDA and other agencies, to issue production and harvesting standards for fruits and vegetables). "HACCP is a management system in which food safety is addressed through the analysis and control of biological, chemical, and physical hazards from raw material production, procurement and handling, to manufacturing, distribution and consumption of the finished product."
46. Food & Drug Admin., Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., http://www.fda.gov/Food/ FoodSafety/HazardAnalysisCriticalControl PointsHACCP/default.htm (last updated July 20, 2009).
47. See Food & Drug Admin. Salmonella Enteritidis Outbreak in Shell Eggs, U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Nov. 30, 2010), http://www.fda.gov/ food/newsevents/whatsnewinfood/ucm222684.htm.
48. U. S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GAO/RCED-99-184, FOOD SAFETY: U. S. LACKS A CONSISTENT FARM-TO-TABLE APPROACH TO EGG SAFETY 2 (July 1, 1999) [hereinafter GAO EGG SAFETY], available at http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/162324.pdf.
49. See also Lyndsey Layton, Unsafe Eggs Linked to U. S. Failure to Act, WASH. POST, Dec. 11, 2010, at A1, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121007485.html (noting that "Balkanization was a key factor in the government's failure to regulate eggs over the past two decades").
50. See Peter Barton Hurt & Richard A. Merrill, Food and Drug Law: Cases and Materials, 1-22 (2d ed. 1991);
51. Richard A. Merrill & Jeffrey K. Francer, Organizing Federal Food Safety Regulation, 31 SETON HALL L. REV. 61 (2000);
52. Peter Barton Hurt, Food Law & Policy: An Essay, 1 J. FOOD L. & POL'Y 1 (2005);
53. Peter Barton Hurt, Symposium on the History of Fifty Years of Food Regulation Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: A Historical Introduction, 45 FOOD DRUG COSM. L. J. 17 (1990);
54. Peter Barton Hutt & Peter Barton Hurt II, A History of Government Regulation of Adulteration and Misbranding of Food, 39 FOOD DRUG COSM. L. J. 2 (1984);
55. Jesse D. Lyon, Coordinated Food Systems and Accountability Mechanisms for Food Safety: A Law and Economics Approach, 53 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 729 (1998).
56. See generally Emily J. Shaffer, Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House? Who Makes the Rules in American Nutrition Policy, 57 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 371 (2002) (discussing the government's failed attempts to balance support for food production with nutrition goals).
57. See H. Comm. Agric, Committee History, HOUSE. GOV http://agriculture. house.gov./singlepages.aspx?NewsID=25&LSBID=23 (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
58. See S. Comm. Agric., Nutrition & Forestry, Committee History, SENATE. GOV, http://agriculture.senate.gov/site/cmtehistory.html (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
59. See H. Comm. Agric, supra note 44.
60. See S. Comm. Agric, Nutrition & Forestry, supra note 45.
61. Department of Agriculture Organic Act, ch. 72, 12 Stat. 387 (1862)
62. (current version at 7 U. S. C. § 2201 (2010)).
63. First Morrill Act, ch. 130, 12 Stat 503 (1862)
64. (current version at 7 U. S. C. §§ 301-308 (2010)).
65. HATCH Act, ch. 314, 24 Stat. 440 (1887)
66. (current version at 7 U. S. C. § 361a-361i (2010)).
67. Although often attributed to USDA Secretary Earl Butz in the 1970s, the policy of "get big or get out" originated in the Eisenhower administration and USDA Secretary Ezra Taft Benson. See Pete Daniel, Not Predestination: The Rural South and Twentieth-Century Transformation, in THE AMERICAN SOUTH IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, 91, 97 (Craig S. Pascoe et al. eds., 2005).
68. Secretary Butz added further encouragement for the consolidation and industrialization of agricultural production with his slogan of "adapt or die." See Jim Chen, Get Green or Get Out: Decoupling Environmental from Economic Objectives in Agricultural Regulation, 48 OKLA. L. REV. 333, 335 (1995).
69. James M. Jeffords, Soil Conservation Policy for the Future, 37 J. OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 10 (1982). As discussed below, many of the private industry safety standards for leafy greens require "sterile" fields, including the elimination of all vegetation.
70. See TIMOTHY EGAN, THE WORST HARD TIME 267 (2006) (discussing the mistaken production policies of the USDA in bringing about the Dust Bowl);
71. citing REP. OF GREAT PLAINS DROUGHT AREA COMM. (Aug. 27, 1936), available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm.
72. See Reorganization Plan No. IV of 1940, 54 Stat. 1237, § 12 (1940);
73. see also Richard A. Merrill & Jeffrey K. Francer, Organizing Federal Food Safety Regulation, 31 SETON HALL L. REV. 61, 84 n. 131 (2000) (describing the rationale for President Roosevelt's transfer of FDA from USDA).
74. Pure Food & Drug Act, Pub. L. No. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768 (June 30, 1906) (repealed 1938).
75. See Michelle Meadows, A Century of Ensuring Safe Foods and Cosmetics, FDA CONSUMER MAG., Jan.-Feb. 2006, http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA AVhatWeDo/History/ FOrgsHistory/CFSAN/ucm083863.htm.
76. Pub. L. No. 59-382, 34 Stat. 674 (June 30, 1906)
77. (current version at 21 U. S. C. § 601).
78. 52 Stat. 1040 (June 23, 1938)
79. (codified at 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq.).
80. 71 Stat. 441 (1957)
81. (codified at 21 U. S. C. § 451 et seq.).
82. 84 Stat. 1620 (1970)
83. (codified at 21 U. S. C. § 1031 et seq.).
84. U. S. GOV'T. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GAO/T-RCED-99-256, U. S. NEEDS A SINGLE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER A UNIFIED, RISK-BASED INSPECTION SYSTEM 6 (Aug. 4, 1999) (statement of Lawrence J. Dyckman), available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/ 1999/rc99256t.pdf.
85. U. S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 40, at 4.
86. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also administers a program to control Salmonella Enteritidis in breeding flocks that supply hens to laying flocks. See USDA, National Animal Health Surveillance System, National Poultry Improvement Plan-Salmonella Enteritidis, NSU. APHIS. USDA. GOV, http://nsu.aphis.usda.gov/inventory/activity.faces?INVENTORY-NUMBER= 30 (last visited Apr. 24, 2011) (describing the agency's Salmonella enteritidis surveillance program).
87. On July 9, 2009 the FDA issued a final rule, with a compliance date of July 9, 2010, requiring "shell egg producers to implement measures to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from contaminating eggs on the farm and from further growth during storage and transportation. " Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation, 74 Fed. Reg. 33, 030, (July 9, 2009)
88. (codified at 21 C. F. R. pt. 118) [hereinafter FDA SE Final Rule].
89. The legal authority for this program rests in both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U. S. C. §§ 342 (a) (4), 371 (a) (2010)
90. and the Public Health Service Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 243, 264, 271 (2010).
91. For further analysis of the FDA program, see A. Bryan Endres & Michaela N. Tarr, United States Food Law Update: Initial Food Safety Restructuring Efforts, Poultry Production Contract Reforms and Genetically Engineered Rice Litigation, 6 J. FOOD L. & POL'Y 103, 119-123 (2010).
92. See 21 U. S. C. § 1034 (e) (3) (2010).
93. U. S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 40, at 33.
94. An egg product is "any dried, frozen, or liquid eggs, with or without added ingredients, excepting products which contain eggs only in a relatively small proportion or historically have not been, in the judgment of the Secretary, considered by consumers as products of the egg food industry." 21 U. S. C. § 1033 (f).
95. U. S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 40, at 33.
96. See Consumer and Marketing Service, Egg Products Inspection Act, Cooperative Agreement with Food and Drug Administration for Administration and Enforcement, 37 Fed. Reg. 2686-04 (Feb. 4, 1972);
97. Regulatory Activities Concerning Residues of Drugs, Pesticides, and Environmental Contaminants in Foods, 50 Fed. Reg. 2, 304-01 (Jan. 16, 1985);
98. Refrigeration and Labeling Requirements for Shell Eggs, 57 Fed. Reg. 48, 569, 48, 572 (Oct. 27, 1992) (codified at 7 C. F. R. pt. 56, 59) (discussing memorandum of understanding executed between FDA and AMS on May 19, 1992;
99. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug Administration and the Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Dep't of Agric, 61 Fed. Reg. 55, 646 (Oct. 28, 1996).
100. Agric. Mktg. Serv., AMS Mission, Vision and Values, AMS. USDA. GOV, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template= TemplateN&navID=AMS MissionStatement&rightNavl= AMSMissionStatement&topNav=AboutAMS&leftNav=&page= AboutAMSMissionStatement&resultType=&acct=AMSPW (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
101. Ready to Eat or Not? Examining the Impact of Leafy Green Marketing Agreements: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Domestic Policy of the H. Comm. of Oversight and Gov't Reform, 111th Cong. 2 (July 2009) (statement of Rayne Pegg, Administrator, Agric. Marketing Serv., USDA) [hereinafter Pegg Testimony], available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Hearings/pdfs/ 20090729Pegg.pdf.
102. Peter Barton Hutt, Philosophy of Regulation Under the Federal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct, 50 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 101, 104 (1995).
103. See, e.g., Bryan Walsh, The Food Safety Bill Finally Passes, But It's Just the First Step, TIME, Dec. 22, 2010, http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/22/ the-food-safety-bill-finally-passes-but-its-just-the-first-step/print/.
104. See also U. S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY Office, GAO-08-1047, FOOD SAFETY: IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN FDA OVERSIGHT OF FRESH PRODUCE 18-21 (Sept. 2008) [hereinafter GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT], available at http://www.gao.gov/new. items/d081047.pdf.
105. FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885 (2011).
106. The FDA, however, does have limited jurisdiction over live animals intended for food. See United States v. Tuente Livestock, 888 F. Supp. 1416, 1424 (S. D. Ohio 1995)
107. ("Accordingly, the Court concludes that, in light of the structure of the FDCA and the legislative history of the Act, it is permissible for the FDA to interpret the term 'food', as used in 21 U. S. C. § 331 (a), to include live animals raised for food and intended to be offered for slaughter.").
108. See, e.g., Single Food Safety Agency Act of 2010, H. R. 6552, 111th Cong. (2010) (calling for creation of a single agency to coordinate food safety in the United States);
109. U. S. GOV'T. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 63 at 9 ("Creating a single agency to administer food safety activities that are uniform and risk-based is the most effective way for the federal government to resolve long-standing problems");
110. see U. S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, GAO-04-588T, FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEM: FUNDAMENTAL RESTRUCTURING IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS FRAGMENTATION AND OVERLAP (Mar. 30, 2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04588t. pdf;
111. Michael R. Taylor, Lead or React? A Game Plan for Modernizing the Food Safety System in the United States, 59 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 399, 401-02 (2004) ("[T]he current organizational fragmentation of the system... divides food safety leadership and defeats accountability for the system's successes and failures.");
112. Richard A. Merrill & Jeffrey K. Francer, Organizing Federal Food Safety Regulation, 31 SETON HALL L. REV. 61, 115-136 (2000) (arguing for consolidation of food safety responsibilities);
113. Sandra B. Eskin, Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket: Egg Safety and the Case for a Single Food-Safety Agency, 59 FOOD & DRUG L. J. 441 (2004).
114. 21 U. S. C. § 402 (a) (3) (2010).
115. See United States v. 298 Cases, 88 F. Supp. 450, 451 (D. Or. 1949) (finding some of the asparagus at issue tough and woody, but not unfit for consumption).
116. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, act 1, sc. 5 ("My salad days, when I was green in judgment: cold in blood...").
117. See GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 1 ("According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average American annually consumed 13 pounds more fresh fruit and 50 pounds more fresh vegetables from 2003 through 2005 than from 1983 through 1985, an increase of about 14 percent and 41 percent, respectively.").
118. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 1.
119. "Leafy greens" can encompass a wide variety of produce, though leafy-greens mixes typically include lettuce (79% of market production value), cabbage (15%), and spinach (7%). Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 1 (Sept. 22, 2009) (testimony of Diane Wetherington, Executive Vice President, Intertox), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName= STELPRDC5079701 [hereinafter Wetherington Testimony].
120. The term could also include also include radicchio, cress, arugula, chard, cilantro, endive, escarole, kale, and potentially even certain herbs and spices. U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, DRAFT NATIONAL AGREEMENT REGULATING LEAFY GREEN VEGETABLES: DEFINITIONS at § 970.13 (2009)
121. [hereinafter DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS], available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5077208 (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
122. This wide variance in product has led at least one small grower of leafy greens to frame the category mainly as a marketing ploy: "Leafy greens' are not a crop, not a species, not even a group of species in one genera. They are a marketing category defined only by the imagination of processors who include various products in processed salad bags or mixes...." Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric., 1244 (Sept. 24, 2009) (testimony of David Runsten, Director of Policy Programs, Community Alliance with Family Farmers), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5080508.
123. Wetherington Testimony, supra note 88, at 3.
124. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 4 (Sept. 22, 2009) (testimony of James Strachan, Grower's Express), available at http://www.ams.usda.gOv/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079702 [hereinafter Strachan Testimony].
125. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS, supra note 88, at § 970.10.
126. Strachan Testimony, supra note 91, at 5.
127. Wetherington Testimony, supra note 88, at 8.
128. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 1 (Sept. 23, 2009), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079851 (testimony of Mechel Paggi, Director, Center for Agricultural Business).
129. Strachan Testimony, supra note 91, at 4.
130. Wetherington Testimony, supra note 88, at 8. "[H]andling and processing are... spread out across the country so that leafy greens may be produced in one state, processed in another state, and then shipped for consumption to many states."
131. Strachan Testimony, supra note 91, at 5.
132. See, e.g., Leafy Green Vegetables Handled in the United States; Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 1 (Sept. 22, 2009) (testimony of Dale Coke), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079734 (describing Coke Farm as a handler that represents, sells, and ships "approximately 50 different kinds of fruits and vegetables for about 15 organic growers in California's central coast region").
133. See, e.g., Leafy Green Vegetables Handled in the United States; Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 1 (Sept. 24, 2009) (testimony of Josh Hinerfeld, CEO, Organically Grown Company), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079858 (describing Organically Grown Company as a handler that "[sources] produce from over 300 suppliers that range in size from a few acres to operators that operate in multiple states").
134. For example, Ready Pac has partnered with two non-retail handlers-OBIM of Fort Worth, Texas, and Missa Bay of Swedesboro, New Jersey-who supply leafy greens that are sold under the Ready Pac brand. Ready Pac, Company Profile, READYPAC. COM, http://www.readypac.com/about/ (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
135. The rise of formal contracting for the sale of leafy greens has had an effect on the market price for them: "Because so much of the industry does business by contract, spot markets have minimal affect on pricing with shipping point prices now serving as the pricing floor." Strachan Testimony, supra note 91, at 5.
136. Unpublished FDA data show that between 1996 and 2006, there were at least 96 bacterial outbreaks associated with the consumption of fresh produce, resulting in 14 deaths and another 10, 253 illnesses. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 10.
137. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 1.
138. Press Release, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Multistate Outbreak of E. coli O157 Infections, November-December 2006 (Dec. 14, 2006), available at http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00256.
139. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 1.
140. Karina Rusk, Tanimura and Antle Lettuce Recall Expanded, ABC7 NEWS (July 23, 2009), http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=6930422.
141. The point is worth emphasizing, since many media reports have incorrectly implied that fresh vegetables are the "source" of foodborne illness outbreaks. NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COALITION, FOOD SAFETY ON THE FARM: POLICY BRIEF AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 (2009) [hereinafter NSAC REPORT], available at http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/NSAC-Food- Safety-Policy-Brief-October-2009.pdf.
142. See U. S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY: GUIDE TO MINIMIZE MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY HAZARDS OF FRESH-CUT FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 2 (2008)
143. [hereinafter FDA FRESH-CUT PRODUCE GUIDE], available at http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ guidancedocuments/produceandplanproducts/ucm064458.htm ("The major source of microbial contamination of fresh produce is indirect or direct contact with animal or human feces.").
144. NSAC REPORT, supra note 113, at 4 ("Beef cattle finished on grain in crowded feedlots have been shown to shed much larger numbers of pathogenic strains of E. coli than grass-fed cattle on well-managed pasture... These virulent... microbes can and do find their way into produce fields through manure, dust, runoff, or contaminated waterways that carry pathogens into irrigation and wash water.").
145. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 1.
146. Ready to Eat or Not? Examining the Impact of Leafy Green Marketing Agreements: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Domestic Policy of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 111th Cong. 3 (2009) (statement of Carolyn Smith DeWaal, Director of Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest) [hereinafter DeWaal Testimony], available at http://oversight.house. gov/images/stories/Hearings/pdfs/20090729DeWaal.pdf.
147. DeWaal Testimony, supra note 118, at 3.
148. FDA FRESH CUT PRODUCE GUIDE, supra note 115, at 1.
149. see also FDA testimony, Ready to Eat or Not? Examining the Impact of Leafy Green Marketing Agreements: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Domestic Policy of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 111th Cong. 6 (testimony of Michael R. Taylor, Senior Advisor to the Commissioner, FDA) [hereinafter Taylor Testimony], available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Hearings/ pdfs/20090729Taylor.pdf ("Storage temperature and length of storage time of ready-to-eat leafy greens are of critical importance for the control of bacterial pathogens and ultimately the safety of these products.").
150. Leafy Greens, Eggs, and Tuna Top List of Riskiest FDA-Regulated Food, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, (Oct. 9, 2009), http://www.cspinet. org/new/200910061.html.
151. ELISE GOLAN ET AL., U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, ECON. RESEARCH SERV., FOOD SAFETY INNOVATION IN THE UNITED STATES: EVIDENCE FROM THE MEAT INDUSTRY 6 (2004), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/PubUcations/aer831/aer831c.pdf.
152. See Denis W. Stearns, On (Cr) edibility: Why Food in the United States May Never Be Safe, 21 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 245, 248-49 (2010) (describing food safety as a "credence attribute" that cannot be measured or evaluated by consumers).
153. For example, in a study conducted by the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (CLGMA), participants were told that certain produce buyers (such as grocery stores) sourced their leafy greens only from CLGMA signatories that passed mandatory government audits; eighty-eight percent said that this increased their confidence in the product. NATIONAL LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED MARKETING AGREEMENT FOR LEAFY GREEN VEGETABLES § 5 (2009), available at http://www.nlgma.org/documents/ 9pointsofJustification.pdf.
154. Daniel I. Padberg & Charles Hall, The Economic Rationale for Marketing Orders. 5 SAN JOAQUIN AGRIC. L. REV. 73, 82-83 (1995).
155. See, e.g., Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 2 (Oct. 24, 2009) (testimony of Laura Giudici Milk), available at http://www.ams.usda. gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079852 (noting that the handler Metz Fresh "contract[s] with a co-packer to process, package and vacuum-cool and/or freeze our fresh and frozen leafy green crops").
156. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 2.
157. See FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510, 111th Cong. § 105 (2010).
158. H. R. 2751 § 105, 111th Cong. (2011).
159. GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 11.
160. elanor starmer & marie kulick, food & water watch, inst. for agric. & trade policy, bridging the gaps: strategies to improve produce safety, Preserve Farm diversity, and Strengthen Local Food Systems 1 (2009),
161. The GAO notes that the FDA has only two full-time staff members who devote their time exclusively to the issue of fresh produce safety, GAO FRESH PRODUCE REPORT, supra note 77, at 17, and that overall food safety staffing levels declined seventeen percent between 2003 and 2007.
162. Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products, 60 Fed. Reg. 65, 095 (Dec. 18, 1995)
163. (codified at 21 C. F. R. pts. 123 and 1240).
164. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HAACP); Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Juice, 66 Fed. Reg. 6137 (Jan. 19, 2001)
165. (codified at 21 C. F. R.pt. 120).
166. See Lyndsey Layton, Food Safety Overhaul Faces Obstacles, WASH. POST, Dec. 24, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/ AR201012240 2748.html (noting that the recently passed Food Safety Modernization Act "will take years to implement and could be undercut by Republicans who don't want to fund an expansion of the Food and Drug Administration").
167. U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY: GUIDE TO MINIMIZE MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY HAZARDS FOR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (1998) [hereinafter GAP GUIDE], available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/UCM 169112.pdf.
168. While the voluntary GAPs remain the FDA's primary means of regulating fresh produce safety, it has undertaken a few additional initiatives that specifically address the safety of leafy greens. In 2004, the agency launched its Produce Safety Action Plan, which consisted mainly of a set of general goals and objectives aimed at reducing the incidence of foodborne illness in produce. U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FDA, PRODUCE SAFETY FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMPTION: 2004 ACTION PLAN TO MINIMIZE FOODBORNE ILLNESS ASSOCIATED WITH FRESH PRODUCE CONSUMPTION, (Oct. 2004), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/ FDAProduceSafetyActivities/ProduceSafetyActionPlan/ucm12948 7.htm.
169. As part of this action plan, the FDA launched a multiyear "Lettuce Safety Initiative" in 2006 that targeted the state of California as a "geographic region historically associated with outbreaks." U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., FDA, LETTUCE SAFETY INITIATIVE (May 20, 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Prcduct- SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/FDAProduceSafetyActivities/ucm115906. htm.
170. The FDA subsequently expanded this Lettuce Safety Initiative in 2007 by renaming it the "Leafy Greens Safety Initiative" and broadening the scope of the program to include additional greens such as spinach. U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, FDA, LEAFY GREENS SAFETY INITIATIVE-2ND YEAR (May 20, 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product- SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/FDAProduce SafetyActivities/ ucm115898.htm.
171. Findings from this multiyear leafy greens safety initiative will be published and implemented in forthcoming GAPs guidance as appropriate. U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, FDA, GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY: GUIDE TO MINIMIZE MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY HAZARDS OF LEAFY GREENS; DRAFT GUIDANCE (July 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ ProduceandPlanProducts/ucm174200.htm. Of course, none of these efforts amount to a comprehensive regulatory scheme for decreasing the risk of microbial contamination in leafy greens.
172. GAP GUIDE, supra note 152, at 3.
173. Agric. Mktg. Serv., Grading, Certification, and Verification, Fresh Produce Audit Verification Program, USDA, http://www.ams.usda.gOv/AMSv1.0/ams. fetchTemplate Data.do?template=TemplateN&page=GAPGHPAuditVerificationProgram (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
174. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric. (last modified Jan. 11, 2011) (testimony of Anthony Souza at 4) (hereinafter Souza Testimony), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5080328.
175. Companies that participate in the Fresh Produce Audit Verification Program are listed by state and commodity on AMS's website. If a participating company or farm flunks an audit, "the company's information will be removed from the website until a follow-up audit is conducted by AMS verifying that effective corrective actions have been taken. " Souza Testimony, supra note 158, at 4.
176. Q & A Session for NLGMA Proponent Group Presentation, National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement Proponent Group 2 (Aug. 19, 2009), available at http://www.nlgma.org/documents/090819QA.pdf.
177. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Leafy Greens; Draft Guidance, U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV., (July 2009), http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/ucm174200.htm.
178. Proponent Group's Brief in Support of a Federal Marketing Agreement for Leafy Green Vegetables at 10, Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, No. AO-FV-09-0138, available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile? dDocName=STELPRDC 5082273 [hereinafter NLGMA Proponent Group's Brief].
179. See, e.g., Marian Burros, E. Coli Fears Inspire a Call for Oversight, N. Y. TIMES, Dec. 9, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/nyregion/09produce. html (describing the leafy greens industry's "newfound enthusiasm for regulation").
180. Ready to Eat or Not? Examining the Impact of Leafy Green Marketing Agreements: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Domestic Policy of the H. Comm. of Oversight and Government Reform, 111th Cong. 1 (statement of E. Scott Horsfall, CEO Cal. Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement), available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Hearings/pdfs/20090729Horsfall.pdf.
181. Shermain Hardesty & Yoko Kusunose, UC Small Farm Program Research Brief, Growers' Compliance Costs for the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement and Other Food Safety Programs at 4 (2009), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079865.
182. California Marketing Act of 1937, 21 Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 58601-58624.
183. In alphabetical order: arugula, baby leaf lettuce, butter lettuce, cabbage (green, red, and savoy), chard, endive, escarole, green leaf lettuce, iceberg lettuce, kale, red leaf lettuce, romaine lettuce, spinach, and spring mix. About Us, CALIFORNIA LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, http://www. caleafygreens.ca.gov/about-us (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
184. About Us, CALIFORNIA LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, http://www.caleafygreens.ca.gov/about-us (last visited Apr. 21, 2011). Notably, some of the largest handlers of leafy greens-in particular, the ones who have established their own fresh-cut brands-signed on to the LGMA but still imposed standards that went beyond those mandated by the handler agreement.
185. ARIZONA LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, http://www.azlgma.gov/.
186. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, Oct. 9, 2009 [hereinafter Giclas Testimony], (testimony of Hank Giclas at 1), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5080125.
187. In alphabetical order, the Proponent Group comprises Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Leafy Green Products Shipper Marketing Agreement, California Farm Bureau, California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, Leafy Greens Council, Produce Marketing Association, Texas Vegetable Association, United Fresh Produce Association, and Western Growers. NLGMA Proponent Group's Brief, supra note 170, at 1.
188. See H. R. REP. NO. 6, at 489 (1933) ("The bill seeks to establish and maintain such a balance between production and consumption of agricultural commodities and such conditions in the marketing of agricultural commodities as will give to such commodities sold by farmers their pre-war purchasing power.").
189. S. REP. NO. 16, at 414 (1933).
190. Agricultural Emergency Act to Increase Farm Purchasing Power: Hearings on H. R. 3835 Before the S. Comm. on Agric. and Forestry, 73rd Cong. 128 (statement of Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture).
191. H. R. REP. NO. 6, at 491 (1933).
192. 297 U. S. 1 (1936).
193. See H. R. REP. NO. 468, at 30 (1937);
194. S. REP. NO. 565 at 6 (1937).
195. H. R. REP. NO. 468, at 30.
196. See also S. REP. NO. 565 at 6 ("The immediate reenactment of the marketing agreement and order provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act would remove the technical basis upon which [court decisions questioning the provisions' constitutionality] rest and enable producers to receives the benefits of such programs without the necessity of waiting until these cases have finally been acted upon by the Supreme Court.").
197. H. REP. NO. 468, at 31.
198. H. R. 5722, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. (1937)
199. (codified at 7 U. S. C. § 602 (1) and (2)) ("It is hereby declared that the disruption of the orderly exchange of commodities in interstate commerce impairs the purchasing power of farmers and destroys the value of agricultural assets which support the national credit structure and that these conditions affect transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, and burden and obstruct the normal channels of interstate commerce.").
200. See Daniel Bensing, The Promulgation and Implementation of Federal Marketing Orders Regulating Fruit and Vegetable Crops Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 5 SAN JOAQUIN AGRIC. L. REV. 3, 6 (1995)
201. (citing 7 U. S. C. § 608c (6)).
202. Zuber v. Allen, 396 U. S. 168, 173 (1969).
203. Zuber, 396 U. S. at 174.
204. See also, Bailey Farm Dairy Co. v. Anderson, 157 F.2d 87, 90 (8th Cir. 1946) (noting that the purpose of the marketing order is to benefit the commodity producer).
205. For a more detailed discussion of the AMAA, See 9 NEIL E. HARL, AGRICULTURAL LAW §§ 70.01-07 (1993 & Supp. 1994).
206. U. S. Dep't of Agric, Econ. Research Serv., Farm and Commodity Policy: Glossary, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmPolicy/glossary.htm#m (last updated Sept. 21, 2009);
207. see also 7 U. S. C. § 608c.
208. 7 U. S. C. § 608b (2010).
209. See also STEPHEN A. NEFF & GERALD E. PLATO, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, ECON. RESEARCH SERV., AER-707, FEDERAL MARKETING ORDERS AND FEDERAL RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PROGRAMS: BACKGROUND FOR 1995 FARM LEGISLATION 15 (May 1995), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aer707/aer707a.pdf.
210. See also 9 NEIL E. HARL, AGRICULTURAL LAW §§ 70.01-70.07 (1993 & Supp. 1994) (discussing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and Marketing Orders and Marketing Agreements).
211. See, e.g., Queensboro Farm Prods., Inc. v. Wickard, 137 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1943) (Secretary of Agriculture is given broad discretion in administering AMAA).
212. See also H. R. REP. NO. 73-6, at 490-91 (1933) (noting that the Secretary's powers to enter into agreements under the AMAA are "sufficiently flexible to enable him to adapt... to changes in our economic situation at home and abroad" but that they are "restrained by the requirement that such agreements may be entered into only for the purpose of effectuating the declared policy of gradually establishing and maintaining such balance between production and consumption as will reestablish for agricultural commodities their pre-war purchasing power").
213. See 7 U. S. C. § 602 (1), (4).
214. NLGMA Proponent's Group Brief, supra note 170, at 2.
215. Giclas Testimony, supra note 189, at 1.
216. DRAFT National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, Executive Summary of Key Provisions at 5, http://www.nlgma.org/documents/041009NLGMASummaryDraft.pdf (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
217. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS, supra note 88, at § 970.31.
218. See 7 U. S. C. § 608b ("[T]he Secretary of Agriculture shall have the power... to enter into marketing agreements with processors, producers, associations of producers, and others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or product thereof....") (emphasis added). However, the proposed NLGMA broadly defines "handlers" to include anyone who receives, acquires, ships, distributes, or imports leafy greens.
219. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS, supra note 88, at §§ 970.11 and 970.12.
220. Q&A Session for NLGMA Proponent Group Presentation at the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement Webinar (Aug. 19. 2009) [hereinafter NLGMA Q&A], available at http://www.nlgma.org/documents/090819QA.pdf (emphasis in original).
221. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 11 (Sept. 24, 2009) (testimony of Drew McDonald, Vice President of National Quality Systems, Taylor Farms), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName= STELPRDC5079859.
222. Giclas Testimony, supra note 189, at 2.
223. NATIONAL LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, supra note 133, § 3.
224. (quoting MECHEL PAGGI, AN ASSESSMENT OF FOOD SAFETY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES: FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS PREVENTION AND SECURITY 2 (2008)) (paper presented at the meeting of the North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortia Annual Workshop in Austin, Texas) (internal quotation marks omitted).
225. Christopher Diken, Volvo Invents BLIS: Blind Spot Info System, Actual Happiness Still Not Attainable, AUTOBLOG (Aug. 4, 2004, 9:13 AM), http://www.autoblog.com/2004/08/04/volvo-invents-blis-blind-spot-info-system- actual-happiness/.
226. Brian Gill, What's the Difference Between Pre-Collision and Advanced Pre-Collision? Are They the Same System?, LEXUS DRIVERS, http://drivers.lexus. com/lexusdrivers/magazine/content.do#:/pub-share/magazine/html/Vehicle-Insider/ Ask-Lexus-Collision. html (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
227. NLGMA Q&A, supra note 223 (emphasis added).
228. Brief on Behalf of Chiquita Brands International, Inc., and Its Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Fresh Express Incorporated: Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 5 No. AO-FV-09-0138 (Jan. 27, 2010), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5082265.
229. 7 U. S. C. § 602 (4) (emphasis added).
230. See, e.g., Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliot, Inc., 521 U. S. 457, 461 (1997) (purpose of AMAA is "[to] establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions and fair prices for agricultural commodities");
231. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 199 (1939) (purpose of AMAA is to maintain orderly marketing conditions to insure farmers of purchasing power);
232. Waddington Milk Co. v. Wickard, 140 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1944) ("here was... a regulative measure to improve marketing conditions not for the consumer, but for the producers... it was the impairment of 'the purchasing power of farmers' and the destruction of the value of 'agricultural which support the national credit structure' towards which the legislative attention was directed.").
233. 7 U. S. C. § 608b (a) (emphasis added).
234. 7 U. S. C. § 608c (1).
235. Lamers Dairy, Inc., v. U. S. Dep't of Agric, 379 F.3d 466, 469 (7th Cir. 2004).
236. See also Koretoff v. Vilsack, 601 F. Supp. 2d 238, 240 (D. D. C. 2009)
237. overruled on other grounds, 614 F.3d 532 (D. C. Cir. 2010) ("Marketing orders regulate the activities of processors, associations of producers, and others engaged in the handling of certain agricultural commodities.... They do not regulate farmers in their capacity as producers (or growers).").
238. Compare 7 U. S. C. § 608c (13) (B) ("No order issued under this chapter shall be applicable to any producer in his capacity as a producer.")
239. with 7 U. S. C. § 608c (5) (G) ("No marketing agreement or order applicable to milk and its products... shall prohibit or in any manner limit, in the case of the products of milk, the marketing in that area of any milk or product thereof produced in any production area in the United States." (emphasis added)).
240. See, e.g., Lion Raisins v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Although producers are not directly bound by the statute... all persons seeking to market California raisins out-of-state are deemed handlers and must comply with the Order.");
241. United States v. United Dairy Farms Co-op. Ass'n, 611 F.2d 488, 491 n. 7 (3d Cir. 1979) ("producers who also function as handlers... are subject to regulation under [the milk marketing order].");
242. Ideal Farms, Inc. v. Benson, 288 F.2d 608, 614 (3d Cir. 1961)
243. cert, denied, 372 U. S. 965 (1963) ("Other provisions of this section of the Act explicitly recognize that a person or business entity may be engaged in the milk business in more than one capacity and that a producer is exempt from regulation only in his capacity as a producer.");
244. Freeman v. Vance, 319 F.2d 841, 842 (5th Cir. 1963) (same).
245. "The different portions of a sentence... are to be referred respectively to the other portions or sentences to which we can see they respectively relate, even if strict grammatical construction should demand otherwise." HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, HANDBOOK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS 226 (2nd ed. 1911).
246. 7 U. S. C. § 608b ("[O]nly with respect to such handling as is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or which directly burdens, obstructs, or affects interstate or foreign commerce in such commodity or product thereof.").
247. See 7 U. S. C. § 608c.
248. See 7 C. F. R. § 981.12 (2010) ("Grower is synonymous with producer and means any person engaging, in a proprietary capacity, in the commercial production of almonds.");
249. See also 72 Fed. Reg. 15, 022 (Mar. 30, 2007) ("The rule only affects those who meet the definition of 'handler' in § 981.13 of the order...").
250. 7 C. F. R. § 981. 442 (a).
251. 7 C. F. R. § 981. 442 (b) ("[H]andlers shall subject their almonds to a treatment process or processes prior to shipment to reduce potential Salmonella bacteria contamination in accordance with the provisions of this section. ");
252. Almonds Grown in California; Outgoing Quality Control Requirements, 72 Fed. Reg. 15, 021, 15, 022 (Mar. 30, 2007).
253. The pistachio marketing order imposes a similar scheme for reducing alfatoxin levels in pistachios. See 7 C. F. R. § 983. 14 (a) - (c) (2010) (defining "handler" as anyone who receives, hulls, dries, or "[fjurther prepar[es]" pistachios for marketing or packaging);
254. DRAFT National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, Executive Summary of Key Provisions at 1, http://www.nlgma.org/documents/041009NLGMASummaryDraft.pdf (last visited Apr. 21, 2011).
255. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS, supra note 88, at § 970.10.
256. Leafy Green Vegetables Handled in the United States, Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970, 74 Fed. Reg. 45, 565, 45, 568 § 970.20 (Sept. 3, 2009) (emphasis added).
257. NLGMA Q&A, supra note 223 (emphasis added).
258. Draft Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, supra note 87, at. § 970.40 ("A majority of the producer members of the Committee shall not otherwise be engaged in the handling of leafy green vegetables or the manufacturing of fresh-cut, packaged leafy green products") (emphasis added).
259. NLGMA Q&A, supra note 223 (emphasis added).
260. NATIONAL LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, supra note 133, § 8 (emphasis added).
261. NLGMA Proponent Group Brief, supra note 170, at 4.
262. See, e.g., Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep 't of Agric, 4 (Oct. 6, 2009) (testimony of Tom Stenzel, President & CEO, United Fresh Produce Ass'n), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName= STELPRDC5080123 ("A NLGMA [is] 100% voluntary-no individual grower or handler has to participate.
263. For example, the proposed Administrative Committee, which is to establish the "terms and conditions" of the NLGMA, consists of 23 seats-13 for handlers, 6 for producers, and 4 for other non-handler members. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, supra note 88, at § 970. 40 (a).
264. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, (Oct. 22, 2009) (testimony of Roland McReynolds), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5080471.
265. See also Jane Palmer, New Food Safety Rules Threaten Small Organic Farms, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, May 23, 2010, http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ ci-15148280?nclick-check=1 (quoting one California-based grower as saying that she follows the CLGMA because "if I don't comply, then I won't have anybody to sell to").
266. In fact, one of the Proponent Group's witnesses admitted at the ALJ hearing that a marketing agreement and order would have the same effect. "[I]f we look at the results from the California Leafy Greens, what is it, 99 percent participation of that order [sic]? What's the difference between 99 percent and having everyone participating between the agreement and the order? So it's a very small difference in the effect." Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, Docket No. AO-FE-09-0138, 315 (Sept. 22, 2009), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5080510.
267. As one small handler recounted in his testimony before the USDA: "As one midsize farmer on the Central Coast of California said to me last Monday, 'what am I going to do? Aside from my home ranch I have 11 other properties that I lease for production. That is a total of 12 separate water sources. How can I afford to test 12 separate water sources with any regularity?'" Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, 3 (Sept. 24, 2009) (testimony of Bu Nygrens, Co-Owner & Purchasing Manager, Veritable Vegetables), http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079869.
268. DRAFT LEAFY GREENS MARKETING AGREEMENT, supra note 88, at § 970.69.
269. See NLGMA Proponent Group Brief, supra note 170, at 15 ("[N]othing in the proposed rule contemplates that the certification mark would appear on consumer packaging.").
270. 7 U. S. C. § 602 (4) (2010).
271. Pegg Testimony, supra note 75, at 2 ("As you know, the Food and Drug Administration is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for food safety of fruits and vegetables.").
272. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep V of Agric, 2 (Sept. 22, 2009) [hereinafter Pezzini Testimony] (testimony of Joe Pezzini, Chief Operating Officer, Ocean Mist Farms), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC 5079700.
273. Pegg Testimony, supra note 75, at 5 (emphasis added).
274. 7 C. F. R. § 51.2 (p) (2010) (emphasis added).
275. WEBSTER'S NEWWORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1181 (3d ed. 1997).
276. Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric, (Sept. 23, 2009) (testimony of Patty Lovera, Assistant Director, Food & Water Watch), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079736.
277. See NLGMA Q&A, supra note 223 (noting that "an industry program is much more flexible, adaptable and can be changed more easily than a government rule").
278. See, e.g., Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Policy: Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, available at http://www.caff.org/policy/leafygreen. shtml (last visited Apr. 24, 2011) (listing several links to position papers opposing the marketing agreement's potential impact on small farms). Examples of the disparate impact in proposed leafy green marketing agreements include testing requirements as these costs would comprise a large percent of the operations total budget, and setback requirements which would be spread over fewer acres of potential production.
279. See Community Alliance with Family Fanners, Comments to Joint Assembly and Senate Committees on Agriculture, Feb. 27, 2007, at 5, available at http://www.caff.org/policy/CAFFCommentsonFoodSafery.pdf. Part of the justification for this opposition is the contention that the potential for more widespread damage from a foodborne illness and thus the necessity for expensive investment in technological solutions arise from production factors inherent only (or with greater frequency) in larger-scale operations. Accordingly, only large operations should bear the burden of mandatory investment in technological solutions.
280. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act incorporates this concept, exempting from some rules small business with limited sales. See H. R. 2751, 111th Cong., § 103 (2011)
281. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 418 (k)).
282. Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, opposes the NLGMA on grounds that it would "allow the leafy green industry to develop its own safety standards virtually all by itself, with only a minor tip of the hat to public input." Leafy Green Vegetables in the United States: Hearing on Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970 Before the U. S. Dep't of Agric.; Sept. 23, 2009 (testimony of Elisa Odabashian at 1), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079744.
283. Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 352 (1984) ("The Act contemplates a cooperative venture among the Secretary, producers, and handlers; consumer participation is not provided for or desired under the complex scheme enacted by Congress. Consumer suits would undermine the congressional preference for administrative remedies and provide a mechanism for disrupting administration of the congressional scheme.").
284. Agric. Mktg. Serv., Marketing Orders and Agreements, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template= TemplateA&nav ID=MarketingOrdere&leftNav=MarketmgOrders&page= MarketingOrders&acct=AMSPW (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
285. NLGMA Q&A supra note 223.
286. See H. R. 2751, 111th Cong. § 104 (2011)
287. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 118).
288. See H. R. 2751 § 102
289. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 117).
290. GAO EGG SAFETY, supra note 40 at 1.
291. See also FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 031.
292. FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 032.
293. Among the programs are the continuous inspection of egg processing facilities and mandatory pasteurization of processed egg products, administered by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), 9 C. F. R. Part 590 (2010);
294. the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) oversight and inspections to prevent cracked, dirty, and otherwise unfit eggs from being sold on the shell egg market, 7 C. F. R. Part 57;
295. the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) voluntary breeding program to reduce the incidence of SE in laying hens, 9 C. F. R. Part 145 and 147;
296. and the FDA's mandatory food safety labeling warning, 21 C. F. R. § 101. 17 (h).
297. FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 032.
298. See U. S. Dep't of Agric, Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv., Egg Production, 1996-2006 (May 2007), http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts-and-Maps/Poultry/eggprd. asp.
299. See Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n, Corn Production Trends, 2009, available at http://www.ncga.com/corn-production-trends (stating that corn production increased from 9, 430, 612 million bushels in 1999 to 13, 130, 632 bushels in 2009).
300. ®, U. S. Soybean Production 1984-2009, 2010, available at http://soystats.com/2010/page- 09.htm (stating that soybean production increased from 2654 million bushels in 1999 to 3361 million bushels in 2009).
301. See Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv., Chickens and Eggs Annual Summary, available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do? documentID=1509.
302. Iowa produced 6745 million eggs in 1999 and 14, 475 million in 2009. Statistics compiled from annual statistical summaries, Nat'l Agric. Statistics Serv., Chickens and Eggs Annual Summary (1995-2011), available at http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1509.
303. In 2009, Ohio produced 7392 million eggs, compared to Iowa's production of 14, 475 million. NAT'L AGRIC. STATISTICS SERV. CHICKEN AND EGGS 2009 SUMMARY 3 (Feb. 2010) available at http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/usda/nass/ChickEgg/ 2010s/2010/ChickEgg-02-25-2010.pdf.
304. American Egg Board, Egg Industry Fact Sheet, available at http://www.aeb.org/egg-industry/industry-facts/egg-industry-facts-sheet.
305. See U. S. Dep't of Agric, 2010 Corn for Grain Harvested, NASS. USDA. GOV, available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts-and-Maps/graphics/cornacm.pdf (last visited Apr. 24, 2011) (indicating that Iowa was the largest corn producer in the United States for 2010).
306. California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, CAL. HEALTH & SAF. CODE §§ 25990 et seq. (2008) (commonly referred to as "Proposition 2", prohibiting, starting January 1, 2015, the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs/wings).
307. F. D. A., Frequently Asked Questions and Answers: FDA's Investigations into the Salmonella Enteritidis Outbreak Involving the Recall of Shell Eggs, U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Aug. 27, 2010), http://www.fda.gov/Food/ NewsEvents/WhatsNewinFood/ucm223723.htm.
308. F. D. A., Salmonella Enteritidis Outbreak in Shell Eggs, U. S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. (Nov. 30, 2010), http://www.fda.gov/food/newsevents/ whatsnewinfood/ucm222684.htm.
309. See William Neuman, An Iowa Egg Farmer and a History of Salmonella, N. Y. TIMES, Sept. 21, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/business/22eggs.html.
310. See Pennsylvania Dep't of Agric, Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS-0-2- 24476-10297-0-43/http%3B/l 0.41.0.36/AgWebsite/ProgramDetail.aspx?name= Pennsylvania-Egg-Quality-Assurance-Program-%28PEQAP%29&navid= 12&parentnavid=0&palid=56& (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).
311. The Register's Editorial Cracking Down on Eggs is a Federal Job, DES MOINES REGISTER (Sept. 18, 2010), http://www.truthabouttrade.org/news/latest- news/16666-cracking-down-on-eggs-is-federal-job-.
312. GAO EGG SAFETY, supra note 40, at 15.
313. See FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65. After implementation of the new rule, FDA officials are inspecting the nation's six hundred largest egg production facilities.
314. see also, FDA, FDA Begins Inspections under the Egg Safety Rule (Sept. 28, 2010), http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/ EggSafety/ucm227619.htm (intending to complete inspections within 15 months).
315. Letter from Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Bart Stupak to Austin DeCoster (Sept. 14, 2010) (on file with the author) (requesting additional documents in advance of DeCoster's testimony).
316. See also Alicia Mundy & Bill Tomson, Egg Inspectors Failed to Raise Alarms, WALL ST. J. (Sept. 10, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748703960004575482091768513872.html.
317. FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65
318. (codified at 21 C. F. R. § 118).
319. 21 C. F. R. § 118.4 (2010).
320. USDA's APHIS operates the National Poultry Improvement Plan that certifies poultry breeding stock and hatcheries as free from diseases, including SE. See Helping You, The Poultry Breeder, Prevent Disease, NAT'L POULTRY INVOLVEMENT PLAN (U. S. Dep't of Agric/Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv.), Jan. 2006, available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal- health/content/printable-version/npip-helping-you.pdf.
321. A pullet is a chicken less than twenty weeks old. See FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 030.
322. Producers must test for SE when hens are 40-45 weeks old and 4-6 weeks after molting. 21 C. F. R. § 118.6 (2010).
323. 21 C. F. R. § 118.10.
324. 21 C. F. R. § 118. 6 (2).
325. Warning Letter from John W. Thorsky, District Director, F. D. A. to Mr. Austin J. Decoster, Owner, Quality Egg LLC (Oct. 15, 2010) [hereinafter FDA Warning Letter to Mr. Austin J. Decoster] available at http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm229805.htm.
326. See FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 034.
327. See FDA Warning Letter to Mr. Austin J. Decoster, supra note 347.
328. As a postscript, on November 30, 2010, FDA permitted Wright County Egg to resume sales of shell eggs to consumers from one of its six locations, based on the agency's confirmation that the company had taken the necessary remedial measures to eliminate SE. See News Release, U. S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA Permits Wright County Egg to Begin Shipping Shell Eggs to Consumers (Nov. 30, 2010), available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ ucm235179.htm.
329. See FDA SE Final Rule, supra note 65, at 33, 081 (summarizing costs and benefits of the SE prevention program).
330. Agric. Mktg. Serv., Grading, Certification and Verification, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template= TemplateN&nav ID=GradingCertificationandVerfication&leftNav= GradingCertificationandVerfication &page= PYShellEggGradingandCertificationl&acct=poultrygrd (last modified July 19, 2006).
331. H. R. 2751, 111th Cong. § 105 (2011)
332. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 419).
333. H. R. 2751 § 103
334. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 418).
335. H. R. 2751 § 111
336. (directing development of regulations to implement 21 U. S. C. § 416 (b)).
337. H. R. 2751 § 201
338. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 421).
339. H. R. 2751 § 101
340. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 350 (c) (a) (2)).
341. H. R. 2751 § 204 (f).
342. H. R. 2751 § 204 (d).
343. H. R. 2751 § 402
344. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 1012).
345. See Michael T. Roberts, Mandatory Recall Authority: A Sensible and Minimalist Approach to Improving Food Safety, 59 FOOD & DRUG L. REV. 563, 580-83 (2004) (discussing why the FDA should have mandatory recall authority).
346. H. R. 2751 § 206
347. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 423).
348. See Letter from Donald W. Kraemer, Deputy Director, Office for Food Safety, U. S. Food & Drug Administration, to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (Oct. 16, 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/ NewsEvents/Speeches/ucml87015.htm.
349. See also Michael Taylor, Senior Advisor the Comm'r, Food & Drug Admin., Remarks at the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference Biennial Meeting (Oct. 17, 2009), available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ ucml87012.htm.
350. 21 C. F. R. pts. 123, 1240 (2010).
351. See Letter from Donald W. Kraemer, supra note 363.
352. See Bonnie Azab Powell, Tester Amendment Protecting Local Food Production Now Attached to Food-Safety Fill, GRIST, Nov. 18, 2010, http://www.grist.org/ article/fod-2010-11-18-Tester-amendment-protects-local-food.
353. H. R. 2751, 111th Cong. § 105 (2011)
354. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 419 (f) (Exemption for Direct Farm Marketing)).
355. H. R. 2751 § 103
356. (to be codified at 21 U. S. C. § 418 (1) (Modified Requirements for Qualified Facilities)).
357. But see H. R. 2751 § 403 (1) (noting that the FDMA does not alter the USDA's jurisdiction regarding voluntary inspection of non-amenable species under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).
358. H. R. 2751 § 403 (4) (C).
359. H. R. 2751 § 204.
360. See PHILLIP MATTERA, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRIC, INC.: HOW AGRIBUSINESS HAS HIJACKED REGULATORY POLICY AT THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 4 (July 23, 2004), available at http://www.nffc.net/Issues/Corporate%20Control/USDA%20INC. pdf (noting that President Lincoln first envisioned the USDA as the "People's Agency").
361. See Letter to Honorable Tom Vilsack, supra note 10 and accompanying text;
362. see also U. S. Dep't of Agric, Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food, USDA. GOV, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER (last visited Apr. 24, 2011).