Courier New;Cambria Math;  I'm pleased to be able to speak with you this morning about understanding on farm food safety, what you need to know to support growers.  I'm Dr. Erin Silva.  I'm an assistant professor in the UW-Madison Department of Plant Pathology, and I'm also a State Extension Specialist in organic agriculture.  And under my programming, I also deal with on-farm food safety, working with vegetables farmers across the state to ensure that the produce that's coming through our local food systems is safe for consumers across Wisconsin and beyond.   So, why should farmers be interested in food safety? There's many reasons why farmers do need to start thinking about this topic.  First and foremost, the health and safety of customers.  No farmer wants to make anybody sick.  Everyone wants their food to contribute to a healthy population, that that food is contributing to a safe and healthy food system, and we want to ensure that from farm to fork that food is not going to contribute to illness.  There's also the issue of farm liability. 

 If a farm is deemed to be responsible for making people ill, that could be an issue with respect to that farm being involved in lawsuits.  It could really hurt the viability of those farms.  So farm liability is an important reason as well to be concerned about food safety.  Market competitiveness.  Increasingly, buyers across the state and across the nation are requiring that farms have documented food safety plans to be eligible to sell into those markets, and this can include anything from a farmer's market to a produce auction to grocery stores, such as Roundy's or Sentry.  And if farms are wanting to sell their produce to those specific buyers, they do need to be very diligent and very deliberate about establishing food safety plans and addressing food safety on their farms.  Public perception of local food and their specific market sectors, be it farmer's markets or institutional buying,  the public is increasingly aware, as we hear on the news about different outbreaks of illness that can be traced back to produce, that farms can be a source of contamination.  And as we hear about increasing interest in local food systems, if there did become an issue where an illness was traced back to a farmer's market or to a community supported agriculture farm, that could impact public perception of that entire market.  So farmers do need to be aware of these practices so that we do maintain strong markets across the various market channels in the state.  And, finally, product quality and shelf life. 

 Even beyond the aspects that cause human illness, practices with respect to food production, harvest, post-harvest handling, that contribute to a safe food supply also tend to contribute to a quality food supply.  Those same issues with microorganisms and minimizing microorganisms in produce, good cooling regimes, good post-harvest handling, not only does that tend to minimize the loads of human pathogenic organisms on the produce, they also tend to minimize cases of pathogenic organisms that also cause decay or quality concerns.  So in that respect as well, it also behooves farmers to address issues with practices that lead to good food safety practices because it enhances the quality and the shelf life of their product.   And there certainly are cases of produce causing illness across the nation, and this isn't confined to a particular type of farming, a particular size of farm, and these illnesses and these avenues can happen in a variety of ways.  We do know through best estimates that there are over nine million foodborne illnesses that occur each year.  And this cannot only be caused by produce but also with dairy and meat and other types of food beyond vegetables and fruits.  Of those nine million cases, we do estimate that produce accounts for about 46% of the illnesses, 38% of hospitalizations, many of these coming from leafy greens or what we call vine-stalk vegetables.  And these include tomatoes, is a good example of a vine-stalk vegetables, as well as cantaloupe and the classes of melons.  And 23% of the deaths that occur due to foodborne illnesses can be traced back to produce.  And there are some examples that are quite well known that it became quite well publicized in the media. 

 Some examples of these, the 2011 cantaloupe outbreak, which caused 147 illnesses and resulted in 33 deaths.  The 2006 spinach outbreak, which was quite well publicized and documented.   This was one of the instances that caused some really wide scale changes in the way that we deal with food safety, produce food safety, across the country.  And this resulted in 276 illnesses and three deaths.  A 2003 green onion outbreak, 555 illnesses and three deaths.  And more recently, a 2014 cucumber outbreak with 275 illnesses and one death.  So there definitely are documented circumstances where produce food safety has had an impact in terms of public health and safety.   So one question I often get is, why is food safety more of an issue now? We have been eating vegetables, fruits, produce over hundreds of years, why does it seem like this has become an increased issue of concern over the last decade or so? And there's several reasons that this is the case.  One is the fact that we have more individuals with immunodeficiency.  As we've had changes in medical treatments. 

 We've had advances with respect to medicine.  We do have also more individuals that are immunodeficient.  And this could be due to a variety of reasons.  And as we go through this list, I'm sure that each of you can think of circumstances within your own families, your own circles, where there are people that fall into these categories.  This can be due to genetics and inherited genetic defects.  These can be acquired due to infections, such as HIV, and also certain cancers can cause immunodeficiency.  Chronic diseases such as end stage renal disease or dialysis, diabetes, or cirrhosis.  Certain medications, like steroids or chemotherapy or radiation, immunosuppressant post-transplant medications, and also physical states such as pregnancy can cause immunodeficiency.  So, many individuals in our population fall into these various categories, and they're more susceptible to the pathogenic organisms that can be found on produce that can cause foodborne illness.  Our food system could be part of this as well. 

 Versus a century ago, we do have a more dispersed food system where produce on larger farms can reach a wider range of individuals.  So if one farm has a food safety outbreak, it can hit a lot more individuals than when we had smaller farms with more of a more local distribution system.  Natural immunity, there is some thought that when more people were working out on farms that were exposed to livestock manure, that were exposed to the microorganisms that tended to be in the irrigation water or the soil, that natural immunities were more prevalent.  And now that we have more population that is separated from our agriculture systems, there could be an issue with less natural immunity in the population.  And then, finally, again there is some thought that the pathogenicity of these microorganisms themselves are increasing.  So we do have microorganisms that are more virulent and are more apt to cause foodborne illness.  These charts I hope you can see.  It's just some examples of, again, why growers should be concerned about food safety on their farms, looking at, again, what classes of both produce and other types of food are causing foodborne illness.  Here we see out of all the types of food that are common within the diet that leafy vegetables are indeed the most responsible for causing the number of illnesses that we do see across the country.  This is some data from 2013, so not very long ago, and we do see here that leafy vegetables as well as a vine-stalk vegetables are a significant factor with respect to foodborne illness. 

  Here is the number of hospitalizations.  So just kind of reiterating some of the information that I presented just a few slides ago.  Dairy is the top here, but also in terms of, again hospitalizations, leafy vegetables and vine-stalk vegetables are also players with respect to food safety and hospitalizations caused by foodborne illness.  And then, finally, deaths.  Poultry and dairy are higher, but vine-stalk vegetables and leafy vegetables certainly are a risk as well.  So, again, when we're talking to growers and communicating why they should be concerned about this, certainly we do see issues where produce can be responsible for making people sick, and unfortunately also causing deaths as well.   As I mentioned, buyers are increasingly concerned about food safety and that the farmers that they're purchasing produce from are following good food safety practices on their farm.  Many buyers are currently requiring that either farms have documented on-farm food safety plans and that they're implementing those food safety plans or that the farms have been third party audited for various food safety plans.  And this is something when I talk to county agents across the state and talk to various growers, there's a lot of confusion with respect to what is a food safety plan and what are buyers actually asking for.  And part of this confusion is due to the fact that there's a lot of variation with respect to what buyers are asking for. 

  The food safety plan is one of the simplest forms of documentation that good food safety practices are being implemented on a farm.  And this is more simply a written document that tells what practices are being implemented on that farm that ensure that that food is safe, and we're minimizing any potential microbial loads.  On the web, there are many different templates and formats that farmers can use as a basis to develop these food safety plans, and I'll go into in some of the later slides what exactly constitutes that food safety plan.  This is something you choose to do.  It's not a certification.  It's not an audit plan.  You may have to present this to your buyer, but no one's going to come onto your farm and inspect the farm and go through those records.  This is something that may be more specifically between you and your buyer, but it does show that you've had, as a farmer, intentionality and some  focus and forethought with respect to risk on your farm and what you're going to do to mitigate that risk.  A third party audit, this is what we hear when we hear about GAP certifications and GAP audits.  This is a third party audit. 

 So this is where someone is coming onto your farm other than your buyer, and they're reviewing your food safety plan as a third party and then approving that the practices that you do have on your farm, those procedures, are indeed in line with the standards with respect to that audit plan.  Examples of these are GAP, Primus, NSF, as well as other programs.  So, again, this leads to some confusion because there's a lot of different options out there.  There's not just one option.  So what one farm's doing might be different than another farm.  Most farms only get this third party audit when it's absolutely required by a buyer because there is a cost associated with this audit.  So there is a fee that the auditors charge to come on and provide this certification.   Some buyers also have in-house food safety standards.  So a buyer may require a specific template, may require specific practices.  Again, this leads to some confusion we see because there are just a variety of requirements that may be asked from a farmer. 

 And, again, this usually consists of a written or documented food safety plan, which indicates that a farmer's given forethought and assessment with respect to food safety risks and practices on their farms.   So, to add to the confusion, we also have a federal regulation, which will be released with respect to produce food safety within the next couple days.  So this is quite a timely issue.  So as we have a food safety plan that describes and documents a farm's food safety practices, this is considered best practice but does not signify that it's meeting any specific national standard.  We have the GAP standards and the GHP standards, which are similar.  GAP refers to the ag practices in the field and up to harvest, whereas handling refers to the post-harvest practices.  These are more specific standards that are very well written and outlined and requires this third party audit.   And then these are, again, voluntary but can be required by buyers.  And then, as of the next few weeks, we also have a federal standard.  And this is the Food Safety Modernization Act or what we know of as FSMA. 

 And FSMA is a set of federal regulations that will be required starting within the next year.  Some of our small farms across the state selling to local food systems maybe exempt,  but it is going to affect the vast majority of farms across the country that are growing and selling vegetable crops.   There is also a project called GroupGAP.  So if you work with farmers across the state, you also may hear of this GroupGAP program.  This has been a pilot program as of the last couple years but is now going to be considered a standardized program.  GroupGAP is a process in which a group of growers that may belong to a food hub, some other sort of support organization, farmers that are selling as more of a central business, farmers collaborating with each other, they can establish best practices within their group, but they still are audited from a third party but not every farm might be audited.  They're audited as a group.  So it's more of a spot check of different farms within that group.  But this is, again, maybe causing some confusion with the cross the growers in the state because there are certain, so many different plans out there and so many different approaches.  So just getting a little bit back into the federal law of food safety, again the Food Safety Modernization Act, this was signed into law in January of 2001. 

 This impacts produce, dairy, seafood, and fresh eggs, and we will see this final produce rule in the next year now.  Since 2011, when this was signed into law, there's been various iterations of this regulation that have been proposed.  We've gotten feedback from growers, feedback from industry as to the feasibility of these regulations.  FDA, which is the agency that's implementing this rule, took into account that feedback, and now we are going to see that final set of regulations that farms are going to require to adhere to as we move forward into the next several years.  Very small farms will have three years to implement this.  So it will not be something that farmers will have to do immediately, but it is something that farmers are going to have to start thinking about.  The produce rule is going to set new standards for personal qualifications and training.  Farmers are going to have to train their employees on food safety, health, and hygiene, hand washing, toilet facilities, agricultural water, irrigation water, testing that irrigation water to show that that's not a source of potential contamination, biological amendments in manure, domesticated and wild animals, growing, harvesting, and packing of those crops, cleaning equipment tools, and buildings, and also even more rigorous regulation for the production of sprouts.   Will FSMA apply to all farms? There are going to be certain farms that are exempt from the produce rule.  The farms that are exempt are going to be those that are growing produce for their own personal consumption or on-farm food safety. 

 Those that are growing produce that is rarely consumed raw.  So this includes products such as potatoes, turnips, and winter squash.  Produce that is not in its raw or natural state.  So produce that receives extra processing, and that may then fall under another rule which is called the preventative controls rule.  And finally, farms that are producing produce that is less than $25,000 annually over a three-year period.   There's also going to be a number of farms across Wisconsin that fall under the category of what's called the qualified exemption, and these farms are still going to have to adhere to certain aspects of the regulation but not necessarily have to do the same level of documentation that larger farms with a larger distribution network would need to follow.  And this includes farms that have less than $500,000 in annual gross sales.  A complication here is that this also includes farms that also are selling grain or meat or cheese.  So it's not just $500,000 in annual produce sales; it's all sales.  And also farms that sell the majority of their food directly to a qualified end user. 

 That could be a consumer, restaurant, or retail food establishment that is located in the same state, so if they're only selling in Wisconsin, or if they're selling not more than a 275-mile radius from the farm.  So this was an amendment that was supposed to make this less burdensome for our local food system and our local growers.   A list of produce that's not covered, that's considered rarely consumed raw, there is quite a list.  Some of these are quite common here in Wisconsin, like potatoes and sweetcorn.  Others here honestly surprised me.  Kale I eat often raw myself, but apparently these are on a list that was determined that they are rarely consumed raw.   One thing that I want to encourage to make farmers aware that this is an approachable goal for their farm and to just put out there as a statement, many, many, the majority of farms across the state are already incorporating many of these practices on their farm.  We have a very safe food supply in general, and many, because of these practices, are also leading to good quality produce.  These are many practices that are often employed on farms anyway.  But with respect to even enhancing further the food safety of produce on farms, to convey to farmers that this is a marathon, it's not a sprint, and if we look at the regulation or if we look at audit programs, it's not necessarily necessary to make wide scale changes all at once. 

 That many of the changes that are outlined by the regulation or outlined by the audit programs can be addressed in a systematic way and phased in over the course of months or even over the course of a year or two so that it's approachable for farms and it's something that all farms, no matter what scale or production approaches, can start to implement in a doable and less burdensome fashion.  But how did they get started on these food safety plans? One of the primary things that they should be doing is just really, again, giving some deliberacy to what is their policy on their farms.  They do have a policy and they are committed to it and that policy should be reviewed annually.  Designate someone on the farm that's responsible for that plan, be it the farmer themselves, be it a manager on the farm, be it a head or a trusted employee, but someone needs to be responsible for reviewing that and also making sure that everyone on the farm is aware of those policies.  Employee training is key.  Even temporary employees or volunteers coming on the farm must be made aware of the food safety plan and the practices that are integrated into that plan.  And recall and traceability procedures.  Having a farmer be able to know what field produce was harvested from.  Where that produce was then going to with respect to end users.  Which CSA boxes, which farmer's market. 

 That has to be integrated within the record keeping so that if something was to be deemed of risk, and not even to make someone sick, if then they realize that perhaps that there was a wild animal intrusion or that there was some higher load of microorganisms in the irrigation water, that they can be proactive and recall that produce before a food safety issue was to occur.   And then do a farm risk assessment.  Farmers should be able to walk through their farm and assess any food safety risks in terms of prior land use.  Is there any potential of any sort of chemical contamination on their farm? This tends to be less of a risk, but they should be thinking about that.  They should think about where there could be intrusion from wildlife, domestic animals, and livestock, whether it be on their own farm or from a neighboring farm.  Look at and document what areas may be prone to flooding that could cause contamination from water.  And draw these and document them on farm maps.  A lot of this is really, again, just being very intentional and proactive and assessing risks so that illness does not occur and that you're stopping contamination from happening instead of trying to react once that contamination does occur, which is really the heart of what the Food Safety Modernization Act is trying to accomplish.  It's trying to prevent illnesses from occurring instead of being reactive, which is what we've seen oftentimes on the national seen is that we hear about an instance and then we're trying to figure out where did that produce come in from? What is that source so that we can stop that from further becoming an issue across our population? But here, instead, we're really trying to be proactive, assess risk, and prevent contamination from occurring in the first place.  Visitor logs. 

 A lot of it's record keeping too.  Making sure that everyone that comes onto the farm is aware of the policies and is aware of best practices.   Toilet and hand washing Similar to if you're preparing food in your kitchen, something that I tell my kids on a daily basis, wash your hands.  It's a primary avenue for spread of disease organisms.  So, similar to in your household, also on the farm, training employees and providing those facilities, those sources of potable water, those sources of single use hand towels that will prevent spread of disease from your employee to the produce.   Eating and smoking only in designated areas.  Again, trying to prevent contamination of produce from person to product.  And, finally, water.  Water, irrigation water, can be a primary source of contamination.  With these new federal standards and within the various audit programs as well, when we're looking at assessing risk, we want to make sure that our water supply is safe. 

 And many of the examples that I, or several of the examples that I outlined earlier have been traced back to contaminated water.  So as a farmer is assessing risk, on their farm map show the water sources, whether it be streams, ponds, wells, or captured water, whether it be through permanent fixtures.   Show the flow of the irrigation system, the flow of the packing house water system as well, and then do a water system risk assessment, which considers the testing results of the water, the characteristic of the crop, whether it be a root crop or a leafy green crop, the stage of the crop, and also the method of that irrigation water application.  Drip irrigation, which goes directly to the base of the crop, is considered to be much lower risk than an overhead irrigation system.  So when a farmer is looking at risk, that is one thing they need to consider, how that water is being applied and how that may increase or decrease risk.  So, with that, I just want to reiterate that, really, this is trying to be proactive.  It's these regulations and these audit systems are not looking to fix unsafe farms but instead looking to ensure that as we move forward that our food safety from our farms across Wisconsin remain safe and that we're proactively addressing risk and continuing to ensure that we're supplying safe fresh produce, both to our local food systems and also to our distribution systems beyond.  Thank you.  (applauding)