Massachusetts Working Group on Farming and …...Massachusetts Working Group on Farming and Public Health Final Report 26 February 2017 I. Background In the 2015 Massachusetts Local
Post on 18-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 1
MassachusettsWorkingGrouponFarmingandPublicHealthFinalReport
26February2017
I. Background Inthe2015MassachusettsLocalFoodActionPlan,thesignatoriescalledforaprofessionally-facilitatedworkinggrouptoincluderepresentativesfromthefieldsofpublichealthandfoodsystems,aswellasregulatoryagencies,todevelopaproposaltoimproveregulatoryoversightofthelocalfoodsystemwithrespecttopublichealth.
TheFoodPlan,initsrecommendationFarmingAction2.3.7,calledforthisworkinggrouptoaddress:
• Actionstoachieveconsistent,science-basedStateandlocalregulationsthataredevelopedbypractitionersandpublichealthprofessionalsregardinganimalslaughter,on-farmprocessing,productaggregation,farmersmarkets,andanyotherrelevantissuesthatmaybeidentified.
• Requirementsfortraininglocalregulatorsinfoodsystempracticesandcurrentscience,andaplanfordevelopingresourcesfordoingso.
• Requirementsfortraininglocalregulatorstoenforceregulationsconsistentlyand,whereverpossible,toofferresourcestoremedyconcernsbeforetakingpunitiveaction.
• Arequirementforpublicreviewofnewregulationsthatistimelyandtransparent,involvesaffectedstakeholdersearlyon,andincludesatleastonepublichearing.
• Asystemofchecksandbalancesonlocalregulationsandactions,includingappealprocesses.
• ConsiderationofotherrelatedissuedasraisedinthisPlan.
ThePlancalledfortheworkinggrouptopresentitsproposaltotheMassachusettsFoodPolicyCouncil,appropriateagencieswithintheStateadministration,andthelegislaturewithinninemonthsofthefirstworkinggroupmeeting.TheproposalneededtonotewhetherornotStatelegislativeorregulatorychangesarenecessarytoimplementtherecommendationsandincludeadraftbudgetforimplementation.II. Process Toachievethisobjective,theMassachusettsFoodSystemCollaborativeretainedPatrickFieldoftheConsensusBuildingInstituteinthespringof2016.Duringthesummerof2016,PatrickFieldandWintonPitcoff,MassachusettsFoodSystemsCollaborativedirector,interviewedfifteen(15)stakeholdersknowledgeableandconcernedabouttheseissues.Someinterviewswereinpersonandsomewereoverthephoneandwerecompletedindividuallyorinsmallgroups.Mr.Pitcoffgatheredadditionalexamplesofchallengesfromlocalpressclipping,
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 2
farmers,andlocalfoodadvocates.CBIthenpreparedawrittenassessmentreport.Thisassessmentidentifiedtheneedforasmall,balancedworkinggroupofkeyorganizationstoseekagreementonrecommendations.TheCollaborativeconvenedtheWorkingGroup,whichwascomprisedofmembersfromtheagricultureandpublichealthcommunities,primarily,thoughnotsolely,fromstatewideadvocacyandtradeassociations.TheWorkingGroup’smembership,workplan,andgroundrulesarelistedinAppendixA.TheWorkingGroupmetthreetimesbetweenOctoberandDecemberof2016.TheWorkingGroupalsosponsoredafocusgroupofpublichealthagents,farmers,andissue-relatednon-governmentalgroupsonDecember9,2016.ThesummaryofthisfocusgroupisincludedasAppendixB.CBI’sLarrySusskindFellow,ElizabethCooper,alsoresearchedhowthreeotherstatessoughttoaddresssimilarissues.TheresultsofthisresearcharesummarizedinAppendixC.Lastly,thegroupdevelopedconsensusrecommendationsattheconclusionoftheirmeetings,workingtofinalizedetailsandsubmiteditsviaemailinJanuaryandFebruaryof2017.Theremainderofthisreport,asummaryoftheseefforts,isorganizedinthefollowingsections:
• InitialfindingsfromtheStakeholderAssessmentincludinga)issuesnamed(potentialscope);b)viewsoftheproblem(s);c)potentialcommonobjectives;andd)possibleideasandsolutions;
• RecommendationsoftheWorkingGroup;• ImplementationoftheRecommendations:Milestones,Actors,andEstimatedCosts;
and,• Appendices
III. InitialFindingsfromtheSummer2016StakeholderAssessment
InitialIssuesNamed
Intheassessment,intervieweesnamedanumberofissuesthatmightbeaddressedbytheWorkingGroupinitsscope.Theseissuesandideasarenotedbelowandwerenotintendedtobefullycomprehensiveoftherangeofviewsontheseissues.Rather,theywereintendedtocapturetheviewsandopinionsofthoseinterviewedintheinitialassessment,withoutattributionbynameororganization,andtohelpthefacilitatorandWorkingGroupbegintheirworkequippedwithasenseofthescopeoftheissues,concerns,andpossibleideasoroptionstoexplore.Theseissuestheintervieweesmentionedarelistedinorderofhowfrequentlytheyarosebelow.
• Farmersmarketsandpublichealthregulationaroundthegeneralapplicationofthefoodcode,samples,preparedfoods,seafood,andrelatedmatters
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 3
o Rawversusprocessed:1)verysimpleprocessing,suchaswashing,cansometimesbeconsidered“processed;”2)oncemushroomsaredried,theyareconsideredprocessed
o Co-minglingproducefromdifferentsourceso Interpretationoffoodcodes(i.e.cutatleaforstem)o Freshsamplesofrawfood(slicesofcucumber)o Fermentedoracidifiedproducts
• Farmstandsandpublichealthregulation• Thekeepingofanimals,includingbees• Schoolgardens• Communitykitchensandlimitedprocessing• Slaughteringandanimalprocessing
ItshouldbenotedthattheMassachusettsFoodPlanidentifiedthefollowingasgeneralscopeofissuestobeconsidered:animalslaughter,on-farmprocessing,productaggregation,farmersmarkets,andotherrelevantissuesthatmaybeidentifiedlateron.
ViewsofTheProblem(s)fromtheAssessmentInterviewees
Theintervieweesnamedanumberofissues,withsomeframingtheprobleminonewayandothersemphasizingdifferentpointsofreference.Listedinnoparticularorder,twoormoreintervieweesmadethefollowingpoints.Thesesummariesofviewsandissuesareintendedtoaccuratelyreflecttheintervieweescomments,butinnowayareintendedtoexpressexactfacts,aparticularviewpoint,position,ordesiredoutcomebythefacilitator.
• Inadequateresources.Thisproblemcanbeframedasaresourceissue.Manysmallpublichealthdepartmentsorofficials(sometownsdon’tevenhavestaff,letalonedepartments)donothavethetime,money,orexpertisetodischargemostefficientlyandeffectivelyalloftheirduties.Theycannotbeexpertsineverything:farmersmarketsandlocalagricultureareasmallsubsetofwater,septic,restaurants,andotherareasanofficialmusttendto.Farmersfaceasimilarchallenge–theyareoftenone-personorveryleanlystaffedoperationsanddon’tnecessarilyhavethetime,money,orexpertisetolearntheintricaciesoffoodsafety.
• Insufficienteducation.Thisproblemcanbeframedasaneducationproblem.Farmerswanttogettomarketasefficientlyaspossible.Theydonotnecessarilyhaveabackgroundinfoodorconsumersafety,sotheymayseeregulationsasanimpedimenttogettingtomarket.However,goodfoodregulationsreasonablyenforcedprotecteveryone,businessesandconsumersalike.Forpublichealthboardsand/oragents,thechallengeisthattherearetoomanyareas,rangingfromnoisetofoodtowaterquality,toprotectpublichealth.Localhealthpersonnel,oftenunderfundedandunderstaffed,donotalwayshavetheabilitytogetuptospeedonbestpracticesandapproachesineacharea.Manylocalofficialsandfarmersbotharenotrequiredtobecredentialedortrained,andtheymaynothavethetimeorresourcestodoso.Educationmighthelpalleviatemanyconflictsandissuesthatarise.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 4
• Limitedcommunication.Thisproblemcanbeframedasacommunicationproblem.Ifallsidestaketimetolearn,understand,andcommunicatewell,withoutreactingandcounter-reacting,manyproblemscouldbesolved.Moreeffectivecommunicationatalllevelsfromlocalpublichealthofficialtofarmer,fromDPHofficialsoverseeingwholesalefacilitiestolocalhealthagentsandtoDPHandAgriculturalcommissionerswouldbehelpful.
• Structuralbarriers.Theproblemcanbeframedasstructuralandorganizational.Someintervieweesstatedthatthefundamentalchallengegoesbeyondlocalagricultureandfoodsafety.TheCommonwealthhassome351citiesandtownsenactingandenforcingtheirown,localpublichealthregulations.Giventhewidescopeofpublichealthofficials’duties,thelimitedtrainingandexpertiseinmanyjurisdictions,andtheimportanceofprotectingpublichealthandsafety,thereisinconsistency,inefficiency,andsometimesconfusioninsuchadisaggregatedsystem(incontrast,inmanystatespublichealthiseitheramajorcityorcountyfunction,notalocaltownfunction).Whateveronemaythinkofthisstructure,afarmerandpublichealthofficialdialoguecannoteasilytacklethisstructuralreality.
• Extensiveauthority.Theproblemcanbeframedasanauthorityquestionwithregardtothebroadandextensivepowersoflocalpublichealthofficials.Localpublichealthofficials,toprotectpublichealth,canissuehealthorderstoaddresspublichealththreats,evenwithoutclearlocalboardofhealthregulationsorstatestatutesorregulations,andtheremaybelittlerecourseormeanstonegotiateamutuallyacceptableapproach.Eventhestate’sDPHcandolittletoensuregreaterconsistencyorreasonability.Whilethisauthorityiswellensconcedinlaw,hasalonghistory,andprovidesavarietyofbenefits,italsocreatesasetofissuesaroundfairness,voice,consistency,andreasonability.
• Wronglyappliedorinconsistentregulations.Somemightframetheproblemasanapplicationissue.SomeintervieweesstatedthatmanytheStatecodesrelativetofood,whichlocalpublichealtharechargedwithenforcing,arereallymeantforavarietyofretailoutletsthatarenottypicalfarmersmarketsorstandssellingprimarilyrawfood.Thus,manyregulationsthataremorepertinenttorestaurantsareappliedtothefarmercontext.Othersnotedthatthestateisstillusingthe1999FoodCode,despitethefactthecodewasupdatedin2003.ItisourunderstandingthattheDPHisintheprocessofconsideringwhethertoupdatetheMassachusettsFoodCodetothe2003version.Othersnotethattheregulations,theoreticallyguidedbythestate,areinterpretedinconsistentlyacrosslocaljurisdictions,includingoneswhereafarmermaybeoperatingatfarmersmarketsindifferentmunicipalitiesandfindingaconfusingarrayofdifferentrulesandtheirenforcement.Oneintervieweenotedthatpermitfeesforone-timeeventsaresometimesappliedtofarmersmarkets,causingexcessivefeesforaregular,weekly,seasonalactivity.Othersnotedthatthechallengeisaboutreasonableorgoodversus“best”practices.Somecitiesandtownshavepassedlocalregulationsthatrequire“best”practiceswithoutrealizingthattheymayplaceanundueburdenonsmall
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 5
producers.Theremaybeconfusionbetween“publichealthnuisances”andgenerallyacceptableagriculturepractices.
• LimitedAdministrativeProcesses.Tiedtobothauthorityandstructuralbarriers,theproblemcanbeframedasoneoflimitedadministrativeprocess.Thecurrentprocessforcreatingpublichealthregulationsdoesnotnecessarilyrequireanopenpublichearingpriortoenactingnewregulations,theprocessfordisputeresolutionislimited,andsomemunicipalitiesoperateonopinionasmuchasonaclearandconsistentsetofprocedures,policies,orrules.
• RiskPerception.Partofthechallengemightbeexplainedbydifferingviewsofrisk.Whileweallmightdebatethe“real”natureoftherisks,fundamentallylocalpublichealthandfarmershavedifferentperceptionsofriskbasedontheirrolesandinterests.Publichealthagentsassumesomethingisriskyunlessprovenotherwise.Afterall,iftheyarewrong,theyareblamed.Thefarmerassumessomethingissafeuntilprovenrisky.
CommonObjectivesIdentifiedintheAssessment
Intervieweesnamedanumberofpossibleobjectivesforanyactionthatmighthavebroadsupport.Thecommonobjectivessuggestedwere:
• Protectpublichealth• Enhancelocalagriculturalbusinessdevelopment• Increaseconsistencyacrossjurisdictions• Providefortransparencyandinput• Increaseefficienciesoflocalgovernment• Providemeaningfulaccesstoexpertiseandlearning
Somealsonotedthatsomeactionsmightbeeasytoimplementandimplementableintheshort-termwhileothersmighttakethreetofiveyearstoimplement.
PossibleSolutionsIdentifiedintheAssessment
Theintervieweesnamedanumberofpossiblesolutionsoroptionstoexplore.Again,thisreportisintendedtosummarizetherangeofideasexpressed,butnotadvocateoranalyzesuchsolutionsatthistime.ThatactivitywillbetheroleoftheWorkingGroup.
• Education.Manystatedthatimprovedeffortsforeducationwouldbeusefulforfarmers,farmermarketmanagers,andpublichealthofficials.Thiseducationcouldincludefactsheetsandbrochures,short-courses(anhourortwo),orlongerprograms,eitheronlineorinperson.Forlongerprograms,anintervieweenotedsignificantdollarsandresourceshavetobeprovidedtobothdevelopandensuretheuseofahighlyeffectivecourse.However,allnotedthattherearelimitstoeducationasasole“fix”forchallenges.Educationcannotberequiredoffarmersorpublichealthofficials.BU
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 6
alreadyoffersahostofcoursesonnumeroustopicsthatareoftennotutilizedbyunderstaffedandoverworkedpublichealthofficials.
• Certification.Somenotedthatcertificationprogramscouldcertainlyhelpaddresssomeissues.Farmersmarketmanagersmightbecertifiedtohelptheirvendorsunderstandtherules,tobebetterequippedtoworkwithlocalpublichealthrulesandofficials,andtoraiseissuestohigherlevelswhentheyreoccurregularly.Publichealthofficialstoocouldbecertifiedinfoodsafetyrelatedtolocalagriculture.Butagain,thelimitstoeducationapplyasmuchormoretocertification.
• StatewideGuidance.Manyintervieweesstatedthatclearer,widelysharedstatewideguidanceforbothfarmersandpublichealthofficialswouldbeuseful.Thismighttaketheformofmodelregulationsandcodes,guidanceforspecificpractices,orothertools.Itshouldbenotedthatsomeofthisworkhasbeendone,butitsimpactisunknown.CommunityInvolvedinSustainingAgriculture(CISA)hasdevelopedaguideforfarmersmarkets,DPHhasissuedfarmersmarketguidelines,thereisachapteronfarmersmarketsintheDPHHealthCommunityDesigntoolkit,andtheMassachusettsFarmBureaucreatedmodelboardofhealthregulationsforthekeepingoflivestock.ThefarmbureauisworkingincollaborationwiththeMassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards(MAHB)toincorporatesomeadditionalsectionsintothemodel.TheWorkingGroupmightconsiderhowtodevelopguidanceinacredibleandlegitimatewaythatisviewedfavorablybydiversepartiesaswellashowtodistribute,disseminate,andincreaseadoptionofsuchguidance.
• StatewideTechnicalSupport.Anumberofintervieweesbelievethatsomekindofstatewide,state-fundedpositionwouldbeveryuseful.Whetherthispersonisa“circuitrider,”“ombudsperson,”oranothertitle,theindividualcouldbeasourceofconsistentandprofessionaladviceforhealthofficialsandfarmersalike,offertrainingandconsultationonkeyissues,touringthestate,identifyingcommonproblems,andhelpingsolvevariousproblems.Allstatedthatthispositionwouldhavetobestate-funded,perhapsjointlyappointedorhiredfromtheDepartmentofHealthandDepartmentofAgriculturalResources.
• StatewideRegulatoryReviewandUpdating.ManyintervieweesstatedthattheCommonwealthshouldupdateitsregulationstoallowforthemostrecentfoodcode,andperhaps,todevelopregulationsmorespecifictofarmersmarketsandlocalagriculture.
• StructuralReform.Someintervieweessuggestthatstructuralreformsshouldbeexplored.Thesereformsmightincludecreatingstatewiderulesthatrequirelocalboardsofhealthtotreatfarmersmarketsdifferentlythanotherkindsoffoodestablishments;createastatewidedisputeresolutionprocesspriortocourtwheresomestate-wideadministrativebodycanhearappealsaboutcontestedlocalpublichealthregulations;and/orshiftingmoreauthoritytolocalagriculturalcommissionsratherthanboardsofhealth.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 7
• IncentivestoEncourageRegionalization.Whiletransformingtheunderlyingstructureofthepublichealthsystemwouldbelikelyverydifficult,someintervieweesstatedthatitwouldbeusefultotalkaboutwaysthestatecanencouragemoreregionalizationofpublichealthagentsoractivities,especiallyinsmallerormoreunder-resourcedpartsofthestate.Regionalizationinatleastafewpartsofthestatehasbroughtmoreexpertiseandconsistencyacrosslocaljurisdictions.
• RegionalCollaboratives.Inafewcases,forexample,aroundWorcester,BoardsofHealthandotherstakeholderssuchaschambersofcommerce,foodprocessingexperts,andothersinvestedinadvancinglocalfoods,haveformedworkinggroupstoaddresschallengesandfindwaysforwardthatmeetallplayers’interests.
• ImprovedAdministrativeProcesses.Atleastsomeintervieweesbelievethatlocalboardsofhealthneedtohavemorerequirementsregardingpublicconsultationondraftregulations.Ideasincludeconsultationwithlocalagriculturalcommissions,iftheyexist,requirementsforapublichearingandcommentperiod,andperhapsalayerofadministrativeversusjudicialreviewoflocalpublichealthdecisions.Donotethatconsultationrequirementwithagriculturalcommissionsjustpassedthelegislaturelateinthis2016session.However,thewaythelawiswritten,ithasnoactualeffectonboardofhealthregulations.
IV. RecommendationsoftheWorkingGroup
TheWorkingGroupdevelopedthefollowingrecommendations.Unlessotherwisenoted(for#5and#6)recommendationshavetheunanimoussupportoftheWorkingGroupparticipants.OneparticipantdidnotsupportRecommendations#5and#6.RECOMMENDATION#1:Throughnewlegislation,alignproceduresforadoptinglocalhealthregulationsrelatedtofarmingwithproceduralrequirementsrequiredofothermunicipalentitiesandsimilartoTitleVproceduresalreadyinplace.InordertoensureafullpublicvettingofproposedBoardsofHealthregulationsrelatedtofarming,aswellasprovidetheopportunityforaffectedstakeholderstoprovideknowledge,expertise,andconcernsoverregulationdevelopment,MassachusettsBoardsofHealthshouldberequiredtoabidebythefollowingadministrativeprocedureswhencreating,amending,orterminatingregulations.ThiswillrequirelegislationinordertoenacttheseproceduresacrosstheCommonwealth.NothinginthisrecommendationisintendedtoreducetheauthorityofBoardsofHealth.NothinginthisrecommendationwouldpreventaBoardofHealthfromactingunderitsemergencypowerstoprotectthepublicfromanimminentrisk.Rather,theseproceduresarerecommendedtoensurethepassageofreasonableregulations.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 8
Required• DefinitionofagricultureandagriculturalactivitiesforthesepurposeswouldbeM.G.L.c.
128.s.1Aandc.111,s.155,andfarmersmarketsasdefinedintheMassachusettsStateSanitaryCode.
• Theregulation,shall,ascurrentlyrequired,be“reasonable.”• TheBoardofHealthproposedregulationitselfshallbepubliclypostedatTownHalland
otherpostinglocationscommonlyusedbythemunicipality48hoursbeforethemeetingtakesplace,inaccordancewiththeOpenMeetingLaw.
• Acopyofanyproposedlocalboardofhealthregulationpertinenttofarming,on-farmsales,on-farmprocessing,farmstands,orsaleoffarmproductsatfarmersmarketsshallbeprovidedtoanyexistingAgriculturalCommissionwithinthemunicipality.
• TheBoardofHealthshallprovidetheAgricultureCommissionandthepublicatleastthirty(30)daystoreviewandcommentonthelocalregulationbeforevotingtoadopt,amend,orrejecttheproposedregulation.
• Duringthereviewperiod,theAgriculturalCommissionmayholdapublicmeetingorhearingontheregulation,considerpublicinput,andprovidewrittencommentstotheboardofhealth.TheAgriculturalCommissioncommentsareadvisory.
• Uponavoteofamajorityofmembers,theAgriculturalCommissionmaywaivetheAgriculturalCommissionreviewperiod.
• TheBoardofHealthmustvotepubliclyonthefinalproposedregulation,asrequiredbylaw.
• Oncepassed,theregulationmustbeadvertised(e.g.inlocalnewspaperorlocalwebsite),filedwithDEP,andacopysenttothemunicipalAgriculturalCommission.
• IftheBoardofHealthdeterminestheregulationsarenecessarytoaddressanemergencysituation,theregulationsshallgointoeffectimmediately.
o Afterenactmentofaregulationduetoanemergencysituation,theBoardofHealthshallprovidefora30day,post-enactmentreviewperiodwheretheAgriculturalCommissionorthepubliccanprovidewrittencomment.
BestPracticesinadditiontoRequiredProcedures(notrequirednorpartofthelegislation,butencouragedbyassociationsasbestpractices)BoardsofHealthshould,adopttheadditionalbestpractices:
• Initiatediscussionearlywithfarmingintereststoidentifyconcerns,issues,andpossiblesolutionspriortoissuingdraftrules.
• Conveneastakeholderengagementprocess(forinstance,aworkinggrouprepresentingaffectedstakeholders),foranyproposedapproachwithsignificantimpacttothefarmingcommunity,wheneverpossible.
• Obtainwritingassistancebyconsultingtowncounsel,theDepartmentofAgriculturalResources,orotherstoensurecarefullanguageforclarity.
• Takewrittencommentsontheproposedregulationandprovideresponsestocommentsinapublicforum.
• Givegreaternoticeofpublichearing,wherepracticable.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 9
RECOMMENDATION#2:PartnerswilldevelopModelRegulations,Variances,andGuidanceforvariousfarmingactivitiesanddisseminatethemwidelyacrosstheCommonwealth.Modelregulationsareessentialtoguidetownsandcitiesinconsideringandenactingregulationsthatareclear,legal,withintheauthorityofBoards,andconsistentwithbestavailablescienceandacceptedagriculturalpractices.Tothisend,TheMassachusettsDepartmentofPublicHealth,theMassachusettsFarmBureau,MassachusettsFarmersMarkets,theMassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards,theMassachusettsPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMassachusettsHealthOfficersAssociationwilldevelopmodelregulationsfor:1)keepingofanimals;and,2)farmersmarketsincludingstorage,demonstrations,foodservice,andotherissues.ThemodelregulationsshouldprovideclarityontherolesandauthorityoflocalBoardsofHealthinthesemattersfortheunderstandingofallparties,andconformwithapplicablestateandfederalregulations.Inaddition,thegroupshoulddevelopmodelpermitvariancesforspecificandreoccurringissuesthatariseonfarms,atfarmstands,andatfarmersmarkets.Creatorsofthemodelscanuseexistingstatezoninglawlanguagetoclarifycommercialfarmingfrom“backyard”activities(M.G.L.c.128,s.1Aandc.40A,s.3).TheDepartmentofAgriculturalResourcesandtheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionshouldalsoexploreguidanceforlocalregulationsregardingon-farmcomposting.TheMassachusettsDepartmentofPublicHealth,theDepartmentofAgriculturalResources,theDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,andtheMassachusettsFoodSystemsCollaborativewillworkwiththeaboveorganizationstodisseminatetheguidanceormodelregulations.Possibilitiesfordistributionmightincludelinkingtoinformationonwebsites,webinars,mailings,existingtrainingprograms,andconferencesandevents,atthediscretionofthestateagency.Theorganizationsthatdevelopedthemodelregulationsshouldreviewthematleasteveryotheryeartosuggestimprovementsorchangesgivenexperienceandlearning.RECOMMENDATION#3:TheGuidebookforMassachusettsBoardsofHealthwillbeupdatedtoincludeaspecificandseparatechapteronagriculture.WiththefinancialandstaffassistanceoftheDepartmentofPublicHealth,theMassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards(MAHB)publishes,revisesfromtimetotime,andmakesavailable,theGuidebookforMassachusettsBoardsofHealth.MAHB,withtheassistanceofMADPH,theMAFarmBureauandtheMAAssociationofFarmersMarkets,willdevelopanewchapteronagriculturefortheGuidebook.TheagriculturechaptershouldprovideclarityontherolesandauthorityoflocalBoardsofHealthinthesemattersfortheunderstandingofallparties,includingtheroleofacceptedagriculturalpracticesandallowedexemptionsfromvariousstatestatutes.RECOMMENDATION#4:Partnerswillcreate,maintain,andhelpmunicipalitiesandfarmersutilizea“resourcepool”ofexpertiseinfarming,farmersmarkets,andfoodsafetytoinformallyassistallpartiesinaddressingissues,proposedregulations,andimplementationofvariousregulationsandprograms.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 10
InadditiontogarneringmoretechnicalassistancefromtheCommonwealth,asnotedbelow,thePartnersrecommendthattheyjointlyestablisharesourcepoolofexpertisetoassistmunicipalities,farmersmarkets,vendors,andfarmers,intheseissues.TheMassachusettsFarmBureau,MassachusettsFarmers’Markets,theMassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards,MassachusettsHealthOfficersAssociation,andtheMassachusettsPublicHealthAssociationwillworkjointlytoidentify,recruit,andprovideaccesstothisexpertiseonvariousissues.ThePartnerswillcreatetherosterandmaintainitontheirrespectivewebsites,updatingthelistperiodically.EachofthePartnerswillassistpartieswithinformationortechnicalassistanceneedstogettotherightpersonorpersonstoassist.Thetechnicalresourcepoolshouldincludethoseindividualswhocanprovideclarityonacceptedagriculturalpracticesandallowedexemptionsfromvariousstatestatutes.RECOMMENDATION#5:TheCommonwealthshouldfund“circuitrider”positionstoassistmunicipalitiesinaddressingfarmandpublichealthissues.Duetothenumberofpublichealthboardsacrossthestate,manywithlimitedtonostaff,funds,training,orexpertise,theCommonwealthshouldappropriateadditionalfundingthroughthebudgetaryprocesstostateagenciestocreatepositionstoprovidetechnicalassistancetotownsandcitiesregardingpublichealthandfarmingissues.Subjecttoappropriation,andasarecommendationalreadyadoptedbytheMAFoodPolicyCouncilsuggests,thiscircuitridercouldprovidetechnicaladvice,delivertrainings,helprevieworprovideadviceonregulations,engagewithfarmers,farminginterests,andfarmersmarketsabouttheimportanceandpracticesofpublichealthandfoodsafety,andgenerallyserveasaconduitofcommunication,learning,andbestpractice.ThispositionwouldNOThaveanyenforcementrole,butbeadvisoryandinthespiritoftechnicalassistanceandsupport.ThispositionwouldideallybeajointpositionbetweentheDepartmentofAgriculturalResourcesandtheDepartmentofPublicHealth,butinanycase,shouldperiodicallyreporttotheappropriatedecision-makerandprovideupdatestobothCommissioners.AnotherpossibilityisthatthepositioncouldbehousedatUMassExtension.Thestaffpersonhiredshouldunderstandandbetrainedinpublichealth,acceptedagriculturalpractices,localfood,farmersmarketsandrelatedtopics.(Note:OneWorkingGroupmemberdidnotsupportthisrecommendation)
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 11
RECOMMENDATION#6:Partnerswillexploreathird-partycertificationprogramforfarmersmarketvendors.Permittingoffarmersmarketvendorsacrosscommunitiesvarieswidely.Forthosevendorsoperatinginmultiplemarketsthisleadstotherequirementthattheyapplyforlocalpermitsineachcommunitytheyoperate,thereforesubmittingduplicateapplicationpackages,orvariedpackagesaspartoftheprocess,andareoftensubjecttovaryinganddiverserequirements.Forpublichealthboardsordepartments,permittingcanbetimeconsumingandexpensiveintermsofstafftimeandattention.Therefore,athird-partycertificationprogramcouldbeestablishedtopre-certifyfarmersmarketvendors.Thisthird-partycertificationwouldallowaparticipatinghealthdepartmenttoknowthatalloftherequiredprerequisiteshavebeenreviewedsothatitdoesnotneedtoduplicatethatwork.Itwouldallowthevendorstheopportunitytoobtainlocalhealthpermitsinanexpeditedmanner,payinganappropriatefeeineachmunicipality,butwithoutduplicate,triplicate,orgreaterpaperworkandhassle.Inordertoconsiderestablishingthiscertificationprogram,thePartnerswillexplorethedetailsofthethird-partycertificationprogramandconsidersecuringseedfundstoinitiatetheprogram.Ultimately,theeffortwouldbefundedthroughcertificationfeespaidtothethird-partybyvendors.Thepartnersalsoencouragetownstoexplorereciprocitywithothertownstominimizeworkinpermittingforbothtownsandvendors.ConsiderationshouldbegiventowhethertheCommonwealthQualityProgramcanservethispurpose.FundingmayalsobeavailabletocommunitiesthroughtheCommunityCompactprogram.(Note:OneWorkingGroupmemberdidnotsupportthisrecommendation)RECOMMENDATION#7:DPH,DEPandDARshouldprovide,withassistancefromthePartners,quality,affordable,available,andwidelyutilizedtraininginfoodsafety,farmingpractices,composting,anddirectsalesforBoardsofHealth,publichealthagents,farmers,farmersmarketmanagers,vendors,andothers.Trainingforallkeystakeholdersintheseissuesisanothernecessary,butnotsufficientinandofitself,waytoimprovethepracticeofpublichealthandvariousagriculturalpractices.Currently,thereareanumberoftrainingopportunitiesofferedthroughcollegesanduniversities,annualconferences,on-linetrainingsitessuchasthePublicHealthInstituteadministeredbyBostonUniversity,andothermeans.However,thedispersednatureofMassachusettspublichealthresourcesandoversight,thelimitsoftimeasmuchasmoneyforsmalllocalhealthboards,andotherfactors,restrainthedepthandbreadthofeducationactuallyundertaken.Therefore,first,thenon-agencypartners(theassociations)willconductanassessmentoftrainingneeds,limitations,andopportunitiesforpublichealthboardmembers,agents,officers,farmers,andothers.Thisassessmentwillexplorewhatbarrierscurrentlyexisttobetterutilizationoftrainingsrelatedtoagriculture,whatincentivesmightincreaseparticipation,whattimesofdayanddurationmaketrainingmoreaccessible,andwhatformsoftraining(online,in-person,atboardmeetings,etc.)wouldbemoreeffective.Uponcompletionoftheassessment,
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 12
thepartnerswillworkwiththestateagencies(DPHandDAR)tomakechangestoexistingtrainingeffortsoraddnewmodulesorprogramstothoseefforts.RECOMMENDATION#8:Partnersshouldengageannuallytomonitorimplementationandaddressnewissuesastheyarise.ThePartnerstothisprocessshouldmeetatleastannuallytoreviewimplementationoftheserecommendations,monitorimpactandsuccess,andaddressnewissuesastheyarise.TheMassachusettsFoodSystemCollaborativeshouldserveastheconvenerandorganizeroftheseannualmeetings.V. ImplementationoftheRecommendations:Milestones,Actors,andEstimatedCosts TheWorkingGroup,alongwithitsrecommendations,developedthefollowingdraftimplementationplanforconsiderationasrequiredundertheFoodPlan’sobjectivesfortheeffort.Italicsindicatetheleadorganizationforthatrecommendation.REC#
WHAT WHO(leadsinitalics) EST.COST
BYWHEN
0 Coordinate,communicate,andsupportpartnersintheseefforts
MassachusettsFoodSystemsCollaborative
In-Kind On-Going
1 FilelegislationpertainingtoadministrativeproceduresandBOHs&AgCommissions
MAAssociationofHealthBoards,MAFarmBureau
In-Kind January2017
2 Draft,refine,anddisseminatemodelregulationsandordinances
MAFarmBureau,MAFarmers’Markets,theMAAssociationofHealthBoards,theMAPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMAHealthOfficersAssociation
In-Kind June2018
3 DraftchapteronagriculturefortheBOHGuidebook
MAAssociationofHealthBoardswithassistancefromMAFarmBureau,MAFarmers’Markets,andMADepartmentofPublicHealth
$25K January2018
4 Createaresourcepoolaccessibleviavariousassociationwebsites
MAFarmBureau,MAFarmers’Markets,theMAAssociationofHealthBoards,theMAPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMAHealthOfficersAssociation
In-Kind July2017&on-going
5 Worktoensureabudgetline MAFarmBureau,MA $125K March2017
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 13
isinthe2017-18MAbudgetforafundedcircuitriderposition
Farmers’Markets,theMAAssociationofHealthBoards,theMAPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMAHealthOfficersAssociation
andon-going
6 Explorethird-partycertificationforfarmersmarketvendors
MAAssociationofPublicHealthOfficers,MAFarmersMarketAssociation
TBD Explore&decideiftoproceedbyJuly2017
7 Conductaneducationassessment
MAFarmBureau,MAFarmers’Markets,theMAAssociationofHealthBoards,theMAPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMAHealthOfficersAssociation
In-Kind;foreach
newtrainingmodule:
$30K
December2017
8 Annualmeetingsforthepartnerstogaugeprogress
MAFoodSystemsCollaboration,MAFarmBureau,MAFarmers’Markets,theMAAssociationofHealthBoards,theMAPublicHealthAssociation,andtheMAHealthOfficersAssociation
In-Kind December2017
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 14
AppendixAWorkingGroup’sMembership,WorkPlan,andGroundRules
Objective(aslaidoutintheMAFoodPlan):Createaprofessionally-facilitatedworkinggroupthatincludesrepresentativesfromthefieldsofpublichealthandfoodsystems,aswellasregulatoryagencies,todevelopaproposaltoimproveregulatoryoversightofthelocalfoodsystemwithrespecttopublichealth.Thisproposalshouldaddress:
• Actionstoachieveconsistent,science-basedStateandlocalregulationsthataredevelopedbypractitionersandpublichealthprofessionalsconcerninganimalslaughter,on-farmprocessing,productaggregation,farmersmarkets,andotherrelevantissuesthatmaybeidentified.
• Requirementsfortraininglocalregulatorsinfoodsystempracticesandcurrentscience,andaplanfordevelopingresourcesfordoingso.
• Requirementsfortraininglocalregulatorstoenforceregulationsconsistentlyand,whereverpossible,toofferresourcestoremedyconcernsbeforetakingpunitiveaction.
• Arequirementforpublicreviewofnewregulationsthatistimelyandtransparent,involvesaffectedstakeholdersearlyon,andincludesatleastonepublichearing.
• Asystemofchecksandbalancesonlocalregulationsandactions,includingappealprocesses.
• ConsiderationofotherrelatedissuedasraisedinthisPlan.
TheworkinggroupshouldpresentitsproposaltotheMassachusettsFoodPolicyCouncil,appropriateagencieswithintheStateadministration,andthelegislaturewithinninemonthsofthefirstworkinggroupmeeting.TheproposalshouldnotewhetherornotStatelegislativeorregulatorychangesareneededtoimplementtheproposal’srecommendations,anditshouldincludeadraftbudgetforimplementation. WorkGroupParticipants:
1. JeffCole,MassachusettsAssociationofFarmer’sMarkets2. BradMitchell,MassachusettsFarmBureauFederation3. AnnKiessling,Farmer4. MaddieRibble,MassachusettsPublicHealthAssociation5. ThomasCarbone,Director,AndoverPublicHealth6. CherylSbarra,MassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards7. SamWong,DirectorofPublicHealth,Hudson8. JanaFerguson,MassachusettsDepartmentofPublicHealth9. JohnLebeaux,Commissioner,MassachusettsDepartmentofAgriculturalResources
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 15
ProjectSteeringCommittee1. JeffCole,MassachusettsAssociationofFarmer’sMarkets2. CherylSbarra,MassachusettsAssociationofHealthBoards3. PatrickField,ConsensusBuildingInstitute4. WintonPitcoff,MAFoodSystemCollaborative
Logistics
• Meetinglocation:eitherMarlborough(FarmBureau)orWorcester• Meetingduration:2.5to3hoursatmaximum• Meetingtime:tobedeterminedbyparticipants
WorkPlan(exactdatestobedetermined)TIMING WHO TOPICSWeekofAugust15
SteeringCommittee(SC)
• Review&discussdraftworkplan,groundrules,andparticipantsforWorkingGroup
WeekofAugust22
Winton/Pat • InvitationsouttoWGplusseekingdatesformeetings
WeekofAugust29
WorkingGroup • Receivedraftworkplan,groundrules,andlistofotherparticipantsasbackground&providefeedback
WeeksofSept5&Sept12
Winton/Pat • Createabasicrepository/websiteformaterials,includingbackgroundreportsanddocumentsforWorkingGroup
WeekofOctober5
WorkingGroup(WG)Meeting#1
• IntroductionsandPurposeofWorkingGroup-SC• Reviewandapproveworkplanandgroundrules-
WG• Presentfindingsofinterviews-Pat• Affirmtopicalareasforjointdiscussionbasedon
findings-SC• Reviewandagreetocommonprincipals-SC• Discussissues-SC• Planfocusgroups:purpose,questions,roles-SC• Summarizenextsteps/actionitems-Pat
WeeksofOctober24andOctober31
FocusGroups • Focusgroupshealthforfarmersandpublichealthofficialsinvariousvenues
• Winton/PatsummarizefindingsafterwardtosharewithWorkingGroup
EarlyNovember
WorkingGroup(WG)Meeting#2
• Reviewactionitemsfrommtg.#1• Debrieffocusgroups• Furtherrefineoptionsfromfirstmeeting’s
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 16
discussion--SC• Furtherdiscussionofissues-SC• Summarizenextsteps/actionitems-Pat
LaterNovember
WorkingGroup(WG)Meeting#3
• Furtherrefineoptionsfromfirstmeeting’sdiscussion--SC
• Furtherdiscussionofissues-SC• Narrow,refine,anddecidekeyactionstosupport,
promote,andimplement• Summarizenextsteps/actionitems-Pat
EarlyDecember
Pat/Winton • Preparefinalreport
December WorkingGroup • WorkingGroupreceives,commentsonfinalreportBeforeHolidays
WorkingGroup • Incorporatecommentsandresend-Winton/Pat• Holdconferencecallasnecessarytofinalizereport
andaddressanyoutstandingissuesEarlyFebruary
Pat/Winton/SC • Finalizereport
February Winton • DisseminatereportasdirectedbySCtovariousentities,individuals,etc.
RulesoftheRoadfortheWorkingGroupResponsibilities• Attendallworkinggroupmeetings.Thesizeandlimitednumberofmeetingsmakeit
essentialfor100%participation• Comeprepared,havingreadbackgrounddocumentsandinformation• Commentondraftdocumentsinatimelyfashion• Assistwithreachingouttoconstituenciesforfeedbackandparticularlysupportingfallfocus
groups• BereadytocommittohelpingimplementactionsthegroupjointlysupportsToneandMatter• Berespectful,focused,andcollaborativeinthemeetings• Beopentoexploringalltopics,includingonesthatmaybedifficulttochange,whilealso
beingpragmaticaboutwhatcanbeaccomplishedwiththisgroupwithitspurposeasintendedundertheMAFoodPlan
• Exploreideas,options,andengageincreativethinkingaboutpossiblesolutionsandactionsDecisionmaking• SeekconsensusamongtheWorkingGroup,meaningallcanultimatelylivewiththepackage
ofactionsthatthegroupprioritizes
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 17
• Collectiveactiononthisissuedoesnotprecludeindividualorganizationsadvocacyonrelatedissuesonbehalfoftheirmembers.However,ifconsensusisreached,allpartiesagreetosupportthejointrecommendationstotheirmembers,inpublic,andtothemedia.
• Agreementsonprocess(workplan,groundrules,etc.)willbesoughtasneededtomovetheprocessforward.Agreementsonsubstantiveactionsorrecommendationswillbeprovisionalitem-by-itemuntilapackageisfinalizedtowardtheendandputforwardforfinaldeliberationsandagreement
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 18
AppendixBFocusGroupMeetingSummary
December9,20169AMto11AM
BrighamHillCommunityBarn,37WheelerRoad,NorthGrafton,MACBIconvenedafocusgroupofpublichealthagents,farmers,andotherswithaninterestinthisissuetodiscussthetopicoffarmingandpublichealth.Thefollowingsummarizeskeyissuesandsuggestionsbroughtupduringthemeeting.KeyIssues&RecommendationsFeedbackopportunitiesonnewproposedregulationsthataffectfarmingcommunitiesBOHfrequentlygoatregulationwithopeneyesbutnoguidanceandreview,andunlimitedagency.AndtheonlywaytooverturnBOHregulationsistogotocourt(noeasywaytochangethem).ImprovecommunicationandfeedbackbetweenagriculturalcommunityandBOHwhenBOHisdevelopingandimposingnewregulationsonthembymandatingawindowoftimeforAgCommissionsandotherstocomment.Thisissueisespeciallypertinentinlargercommunities(>12,000residents)whereboardstendtohavelessknowledgeofstandardfarmingpractices:“farmability”needstobebetteraccountedfor.EducationofBOHandhealthagents1.Generalbackgroundonbasicfarmingpractice:Federalfoodcodesetupforlargewholesaleoperationsisnotthewaysmallfarmswork.NeededucationalpackettohelppeopleunderstandwhatagricultureisandhowitfunctionsinrelationtopublicBOH.Needpeopletounderstandbasicsanitationset-up.EducatinghealthagentsbyencouragingthemtoattendfreeAgCommissiontrainings.2.Awarenessoftoppercolatingissues:AmonthlynewsletterandcaselistcouldbetoolstokeepBOHuptodatewithcurrentissuesinfoodchain/farming-healthsystem.3.Providingstatelevelguidance:MAFarmBureauandMAHBcameupwithmodelregulationsforguidance,howeverone-sizeregulationsdonotfitall,modelsarefrequentlyblindlyadoptedbylocalBOH;suggestedaddingchapteronfarmingintheDPHHandbook.TheHandbookreferencesalloftheBOH,couldhaveastand-alonechapteronfarmingwithstateandlocalresponsibilities,citations,quickgo-tos,referencepagesandappendixthatiswrittenwithauthorizedpersons–Marcianeedsnamesofpeopleandagencieswhocouldbeinvolvedinwritingthis.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 19
Farmerengagementandempowerment1.Betterengagingfarmersincommunitydialoguestoempowerthem,especiallyintownswithnoexistingAgCommission;suggestionofregionalplanningagencyforsmalltownswithnoAgCommissions.2.TechnicalcircuitriderthatattendsBOHmeetings.LegislationSomestatehealthlawsmaybetoorestrictive,orneedtobeupdatedtorepresentchanginglocalfoodsystems.Specificallymentioned:requiringhearingsbeforeregulationsonfarmersareputintoeffect,mobilepoultryprocessing,updatingdefinitionofandregulationsforbees,piggeriesbeinglistedasautomaticnoisometrade[billhasalreadybeenfiledtore-categorize].NuisancecomplaintsTheuncomfortablerolethatlocalBOHagentsareputinasintermediary/mediatorinconflictsbetweenfarmersandtheirneighbors/surroundingnon-farmingcommunity;disputesfrequentlyarisingfromasoleplaintiff;healthagentshavelimitedoptionstoproviderelieforappeasetheneighborwhenthefarmerisinfullcompliancewithregulations;“smell”complaintsfromfoodwastecompostingarecommonbutitishardtofindobjectivemetricsoraclearprocesstodealwiththem.Clear,citabledefinitionofBOHresponsibilities:Distinguishingbetweenwhencomplaintstriggerinvestigation(follow-up,documentation)versusactionbyhealthagentorboardofselectman,versuswhenindividualcivilactionsaremoreappropriate,istricky.BOHandhealthagentsfrequentlystrandedinthemiddle.LocalprogrammaticimplementationofnewLocalFoodPlanLocalfarmersshouldbeabletoprocesswithoutbeingshuntedintoindustrialcategory.NolocalenthusiasmforparticipatingwithlocalfoodsystemsinBOH–willtheyhavethetimeandinteresttopayattention?LimitedcommitmentfromAgCommissionstotakethesedevelopmentchallengesintotheirpurview;consistencyinsafetyregulationsandpermittingbetweenfarmer’smarkets;restrictivechickenregulationsandhowtozonebackyardfarming.FoodPolicyCouncilrecommendationsParticipatinglocaltownsandcouncilsplantosupportfundingtherecommendationsmadebytheFoodPolicyCouncil-Jefftocirculatethewordingthatwassenttothestate.ActorsnotpresentWantrepresentativefromDPH’sfoodprogramandcommunityprogramtoattendthesemeetings.
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 20
AppendixCSelectStateCaseStudies
ThePolicyProcesstoIncreaseConsistencyinRegulationofFarmers’MarketsinOhio
I. Introduction
Thefollowingbriefprovidesasummaryoftheeffortsofacoalitionoffarmers’marketinconjunctionwithstateandlocalregulatorstoupdateandimprovetheconsistencyoffoodsafetyrulesgoverningfarmers’markets.II. Regulatoryauthority
Twoagenciesholdauthoritytoregulatefarmers’marketsinOhio:theFoodSafetyDivisionoftheOhioDepartmentofAgriculture(ODA)andtheOhioDepartmentofHealth(ODH)throughlocalhealthdepartments.Broadly,ODAregulatesanysaleoffoodsthatdonotrequirepossessionofaretailfoodestablishmentlicense,andlocalhealthdepartmentsregulateanyfoodthatrequiresalicensetosell.However,therehashistoricallybeenlackofclarityoverthejurisdictionofeachoftheseagenciesthathasledtoinconsistentenforcementofrules.InOhio,healthdepartmentlicensestosellfoodareissuedbyavendor’slocalhealthdepartmentandaremeanttobevalidthroughoutthestate.Therefore,vendorsatthesamemarketmaybeheldtodifferentrequirementsiftheirlicensesfromtheirhomehealthdepartmentsdiffer.Additionally,costsforlicensesvary,astheyaredeterminedindependentlybylocalhealthdepartments.III. Substantiveissues,keyplayers,andtherulemakingprocessIn2008,theFarmers’MarketManagementNetwork1formedundertheauspicesoftheOhioStateUniversitySouthCentersOhioCooperativeDevelopmentCenter2.Thisall-volunteer-managedorganizationformedasalegalcooperativetohelpfarmersandfarmers’marketspoolresources,shareexperiencesandbestpracticesrelatingtotheirbusinessesandtoworkonfarmers’behalftoraisevisibilitywithconsumersandliaisewithgovernmentregulators.TheNetworkisgovernedbyaboardcomprisedofthreemarketmanagersandthreefarmers/vendorswhoareallelectedviathestatewidemembershipoftheNetwork.Theboardalsocreatescommitteestoaddressissuesofconcerntoitsmembership.OneofthetaskstheNetworktookonwasworkingwithlocalhealthdepartmentsandtheODAFoodSafetyDivisiontoattempttobringclaritytotheregulationsthatgovernfarmers’markets.Overthecourseofmorethantwoyears,thegroupmetquarterlywiththedeputychiefofFood 1http://ohiofarmersmarkets.org2https://southcenters.osu.edu/cooperatives3http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FoodSafety/docs/hcomm/LetterofOpinion2010-01.pdf
2https://southcenters.osu.edu/cooperatives
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 21
SafetyatODAtoaskforclarificationsandamendmentstofarmers’marketregulationstoaddresssomeoftheobstaclestheyfacedwithinconsistentorunclearrules.ODHalsoparticipatedintheseconversations.TheNetworkworkedwiththeFoodSafetyDivisionwhichinturnbroughtproposalsforwardtothelegislaturetoundergoarulemakingprocess.TheNetworkhighlightedvendors’desireforabroaderlistofcottagefoods—drawingonscience-basedinformation—thatcouldsafelybesoldatmarkets.Throughthelegislature,cottagefoodregulationshavebeenupdatedtwiceandhavebeenexpandedmodestlytoincludeabroadersetofnon-potentiallyhazardousfoods,suchascandiedpopcornandgranola.AnotherissuetheNetworkraisedwasinconsistencyininterpretationsoffoodtemperaturerequirementsamonglocalhealthdepartments.Ofparticularissuewasthefactthatsomelocalagenciesrequiredmechanicalrefrigerationtomaintaintemperatureswhereasotherspermittedvendorstouseicepacksandcoolers.InthiscaseODHandtheODAFoodSafetyDivisionjointlyissuedanopinionletterinwhichtheagenciesstatedabeliefthatmechanicalandnon-mechanicalrefrigeration(i.e.ice)couldbothbeusedincertaincasestotemporarilycoldholditemsatfarmers’markets3.Thisguidancedidnotcallforstatewiderules,butreiteratedthatvendorsmustfollowtherequirementsoftheirlocalhealthdepartments.IV. TrainingandeducationTheFarmers’MarketManagementNetwork,theCooperativeDevelopmentCenter,andOhioStateUniversityExtensionmaintainresourcestotrainfarmers/vendorstocomplywithfoodsafetyregulations.Forexample,theCooperativeDevelopmentCenterreceivedfundingfromtheUSDAFarmers’MarketPromotionProgramandfromtheAppalachianRegionalCommissiontoeducatefarmersandvendorsaboutfoodsafety.WiththisfundingtheCentercreatedawebsiteandnewsletterandperformedface-to-facetrainingforfarmersinmultiplelocationsthroughoutthestate.Italsomaintainsasocialmediapresenceandalistservthroughwhichtoshareinformation.Inadditiontotrainingitsowninspectorswhovisitmarketsthroughoutthestate,ODAprovidestrainingforlocalhealthdepartmentstoimprovetheconsistencyofinformationaboutregulationsthatisusedacrossthestate.
3http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FoodSafety/docs/hcomm/LetterofOpinion2010-01.pdf
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 22
ThePolicyProcessoftheIllinoisFarmers’MarketTaskForce
I. IntroductionIn2011,theIllinoisGeneralAssemblypassedPublicAct97-03944,anamendmenttotheFoodHandlingRegulationEnforcementAct,whichcalledfortheformationoftheFarmers’MarketTaskForce.TheTaskForce’schargewastoremedythelackofconsistencyinlegislation,eliminatediscrepanciesbetweencountiesinhowtheyregulatedfarmers’markets,andraiseawarenessbyconsumer,farmers,markets,andhealthauthoritiesregardingtherequirementsandenforcementofregulations.II. Regulatoryauthorityoverfarmers’marketsinIllinois
ComingoutoftheadviceoftheTaskForce,theGeneralAssemblydeclaredinPublicAct99-01915thatnocountyhealthdepartmentswouldimposemorestringentsanitationorotherguidelinesthanthoseadoptedintherulesoftheIllinoisDepartmentofPublicHealth(IDPH).However,countiesmaydifferinwhattheychargeforthesepermitsandvendorsarerequiredtopurchasepermitsinallthecountiesinwhichtheysellgoods.Publichealthdepartmentsregulatefoodvendorsatfarmers’markets,butnotthemarketitself.Consistentwithhistoricalregulations,thedepartmentsalsodonotregulatethesaleoffresh,unprocessedproducebyfarmers.Itregulatesprocessedfoods,animalproducts,cottagefoods,andfoodsclassifiedaspotentiallyhazardous.III. Workinggroupformation,substantiveissues,andprocessInconsistencyintheenforcementofregulationsamongcountieswasafrustratingissueforfarmers.Thisledfarmerstocallthelegislaturetoreformthewayenforcementofrulesonfarmers’marketswasdone.Inresponse,thelegislaturecalledfortheformationofaFarmers’MarketTaskForcetoprovideitadviceaboutregulationsonthefarmers’markets.PublicAct97-0394outlinedveryspecificguidanceonthemembershipandoperationsoftheTaskForce,includingwhichstakeholdergroupsandagenciesshouldberepresentedinwhatnumbers,forhowlongmembersshouldserve,thatthemeetingsshouldbepublicandfollowrequirementsforpublicnotice,thatpublicmeetingminuteswouldbegenerated,andthatIDPHwouldprovidestaffingassistancetotheTaskForce,amongotherrequirements6.TheTaskForcemembershipwascarefullyvettednotjustforrepresentationbutalsoforabilitytoworkcollaboratively.Itincludesrepresentationoffarmers,marketmanagers,theDepartmentsofPublicHealth,Agriculture,CommerceandEconomicOpportunity,andtheLieutenantGovernor’soffice,aswellasfromfarmingadvocacyorganizations.TheIllinoisStewardshipAlliancestronglysupportedtheefforttoconvenetheTaskForce.Therewasno
4http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=097-03945http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=099-01916TherequirementscanbereadinthePublicActformingtheTaskForce:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=097-0394
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 23
significantresistancetotheformationoftheTaskForce,accordingtoonemember,thoughhecitednervousness,especiallyonthepartofregulators,aboutwhattheoutcomesoftheprocesswouldbe.TheTaskForcedevelopedasurveytounderstandthestakeholdergroups’perspectivesonregulatoryrequirementssuchassanitation,foodsafety,andcottagefoods.Surveyedgroupsincludedfoodvendors,farmers’marketorganizers,andregulators.SubgroupsoftheTaskForcetailoredthesurveytoeachofthesegroupsandgotfeedbackfromeachotheronquestionstoask.Thesesurveysweredisseminatedstatewide.TheTaskForceanalyzedtheresultsofthisassessmenttounderstandtheproblemsstakeholdergroupswerefacingandinsomecasestheirproposedsolutions.TheseresultshelpedshapetheTaskForce’sworkplan.Accordingtoonemember,thesurveywasthemostimportantactivitytheTaskForceundertookandcontributedsignificantlytoitsmandateandsupportfromstakeholdergroupsaswellasitsprioritizationofissues.TheTaskForcemembersspentsubstantialtimereviewingtherulemakingprocessandexplainingittothememberswhowerelessfamiliarwiththisaspectofregulation.Onememberobservedthatincreasingallmembers’understandingofrulemakingimprovedthecredibilityoftheprocessandtherelationshipsamongthestakeholderrepresentativeswhoformedthegroup.
IV. RulemakingprocessTheGeneralAssemblystatedinPublicAct99-0191thatexceptunderemergencycircumstances,IDPHwouldnotadoptrulesgoverningFarmers’MarketswithoutfirstconsideringadvicefromtheTaskForce.Concerningfoodsampling,forsimple,low-risksamplingsuchasslicingapplesonsite,theTaskForcerecommendeddiscontinuingtherequirementfor$65temporarypermitsfromcounties.Itrecommendedinsteadarequirementforaone-hourfoodsafetytraininganda$20feeforathree-yearstatewidepermit.IDPHpassedthisrulewithlittlecontroversyincludingaprohibitionagainstlocalhealthdepartmentsrequiringtheirownpermitsforthesameactivities.TheTaskForcehasrecommendedmeasurestomakefoodtemperaturerequirementsconsistentacrossthestate,includingconsistencyregardingwhethermechanicalrefrigerationisrequiredforcertainfoods.Currently,manycountieshaveadoptedcontradictoryrulesaboutfoodtemperaturerequirementsandthereisthepotentialforinconsistentenforcementofthelimitedstatewiderules.TheTaskForcehasrecommendedstatewideconsistencyinrulesbutproposestostillallowcountiestoissueseparatepermitsanddecidethefeestheychargefortheirpermits.ThisproposedrulehasbeenmorecontentiousduetoitsimpactsonlocalhealthdepartmentautonomyandisstillbeingdeliberatedbyIDPH.TheTaskForce’soriginalscopeofworkwasexpandedtoincludemakingrecommendationstoupdatecottagefoodlaw,whichwaspassedin20117.SofartheTaskForcehasmadesome
7http://www.ilstewards.org/policy-work/illinois-cottage-food-law/
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 24
recommendationstoexpandthelisttoincluderelativelylesscontroversialitemssuchasroastednutsandhoneyandiscurrentlydiscussingsomeotherfoodsaboutwhichthereislessagreement,suchasjuices,foragedmushrooms,andfermentedfoods.V. Trainingandeducationaltools
Inadditiontorulemaking,theTaskForcealsomaderecommendationstoimprovepublicinformation.Itsassessmentindicatedthatinsomecaseslocalinspectors’enforcementtreatedprescriptionsforhowvendorscouldachievecompliance(e.g.tousemechanicalrefrigerationratherthanice)asenforceablerequirements.Thisledtoconfusionamongregulatedvendorsandincreasedinconsistencyamongcounties.Indialoguewithstakeholderrepresentatives,theTaskForceseparatedtheregulatoryandeducationaltasksoftheinspectorsandworkedincreasetheirresourcesandcapacitytodoboth.Thiswasparticularlyimportantforsmallerlocalhealthdepartmentsthathadasmallerstaffandfewerresourcestocompleteresearchanddeveloptheseprotocolsthemselves.Aspartofitsactivities,theTaskForceupdatedIDPH’sTechnicalInformationBulletin#308,whichaddressessanitationguidelinesforfarmers’markets.TheTaskForceincludedmoreeducationaboutbestpracticestoachievecomplianceandclarified—bothtovendorsandinspectors—theoptionsthatvendorshadtoachievecompliance.Italsomadethedocumentandotherwrittenmaterialsitdeveloped9moregearedtowardsusersandlighterontechnicalandregulatoryjargon.TheTaskForcealsocreatedliteraturetoexplainthenewstatewidesamplingpermit.IDPHputtheseeducationaldocumentsonitswebsiteandlocalhealthdepartmentsreferencedandlinkedresourcesontheIDPHwebsite,whichincreasedconsistency.Somelargerlocalhealthdepartmentswereabletoimprovevendorcompliancewithrulesbytrainingthefarmers’marketorganizerswhocouldthenworkwiththevendorsattheirmarkets.OneTaskForcememberobservedthatsmallerhealthdepartmentswithfewerstaffmemberswerelesslikelytohavethecapacitytoundertakethiskindoftraining.
TheProcesstoDevelopRegulationofFarmers’MarketsinOregonI. Overviewofpolicyprocess
TheOregonStateLegislaturedevelopedalaw,knownastheFarmDirect/ValueAddedBill,toaddresswhatagriculturalandvalue-addedproductsfarmersandsmallproducerscouldsellwithoutlicenses(orwithminimallicensing.)ThelegislativecommitteeaddressingtheissueconvenedaWorkingGroupcomprisedofstakeholderrepresentativesthatdevelopedarecommendation.Abillwaspassedintolawin2011andadministrativerulesweredevelopedthefollowingyear.
8http://www.idph.state.il.us/pdf/IDPH_FDD_TIB_30_Farmers_Markets_051613.pdf9http://www.dph.illinois.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Farmers-Market-Food-Safety-Guide.pdf
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 25
II. Structureofhealthregulations
ThereisabifurcatedsystemregulatingfoodsafetyinOregon:• OregonDepartmentofAgriculture(ODA)regulatesfarmers’markets,foodprocessing,
grocerystores,andbroadlythingswithwallsthatarenotrestaurants.o TheFoodSafetyDivisiondirectlysupervisesFarmers’Markets,includingviaa
CottageFoodandOn-farmSpecialiststaffmember.• OregonHealthAuthority(OHA)–PublicHealthregulatesrestaurants,mobilefood
units,etc.III. Whateventscatalyzedthepolicyprocess?TherelationshipbetweenODAandtheregulatedcommunityebbedandflowedovertheyears,butin2009-2010,therelationshipbecameparticularlystrained.Thisledtoconflictsoverinconsistenciesandfarmers’perceptionthatregulationswerebecomingarbitrary.Farmersfeltthatinspectorswerehuntingforproblemstocite.Astatelegislatorhappenedtobeinafarmers’market(notinhisdistrict)andaskedhowthemarketwasgoing.Afarmers’marketorganizerexplainedhergrievances.Thelegislatorinitiatedaprocesstogatherinformationfromfarmersandfarmers’marketorganizersandbroughttheissuetoODA,whichagreedontheneedforgreaterclarityandharmonizationofregulationsacrossthestate.Therewasbipartisansupportfortheformationofaworkinggrouptodiscusstheseissues.Theworkinggroupincludedgroceryindustryrepresentatives,foodprocessingindustryrepresentatives,regulators,afarmers’marketorganizer,OregonFoodBank(whoseparticipationwasrelevantbecauseithadasubstantialfocusontheissueofcommunityfoodsecurity),andFriendsofFamilyFarmers(advocacyorganization).IV. ContentandprocessofWorkingGroupdeliberationsTheprocessstartedaddressingjustcottagefoodrulesbutendedupaddressingfarmdirectagricultureissuesaswell.Thediscussionsaddressedbakedgoods,fermentedfoods(i.e.picklesandotherlacto-fermentedfoods.),preserves,honey,eggs,etc.Onemajorpointthatwasworkedoutintheworkinggroupwastheissuethatafarmers’marketnotbeconsideredtobesellingfooditself(rather,thefarmersthatcomprisedthemarketmembersweresellingthefood),andsothemarketitselfwouldnotberequiredtoundergoanycertification.Thegroupreachedaconsensusafteraboutayearofworkandsubmitteditsworktothelegislativecommitteeinearly2011.V. LegislativeprocessDuringtheyearinwhichtheWorkingGroupdevelopeditsrecommendations,FriendsofFamilyFarmerscreatedacoalitioncalledOregonFarmersGrow.ThiscoalitionbackedthebillthattheWorkingGroupdeveloped.(Thecoalitionwasnotinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthebilltospeakof.)OregonFarmersGrowmobilizedgrassrootseffortsthrough
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 26
“inFARMationandbeer”eventsandotheroutreachtoencourageindividualstocalltheirlegislatorstobackthebill.NSACwasanimportantpartnerintheeffortonanationalleveltoaddressquestionsabouttheFoodSafetyModernizationActasitrelatedtotheprovisionsofthebill.TheoutcomesoftheworkinggroupprocesswerelargelypreservedthroughthecommitteehearingprocessandtheapprovalofthebillthroughtheHouseandSenate.Industryrepresentativesvoicedsomeoppositioninthehearingprocesstosomeprovisionsaroundvalue-addedfoodproduction.ThecommitteepushedbackontheoppositionsinceithadnotbeenaddressedduringtheconsensusprocessoftheWorkingGroup(inwhichthesegroupsparticipated.)TheFarmDirectBill(HB2336)wassignedintolawinJune2011.(informationonthelawhere:https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2011R1/Measures/Overview/HB2336)
VI. ImplementationofrulesamongregulatorsandfarmersRepresentativesoftheregulatedcommunityworkedwithODAregulatorstodeveloptheadministrativerules.Farmers’advocateswereinvolvedtoencouragelegislatorstokeepattentionontheprocessandencouragerigorousimplementationofthelawonthepartofODA.TheFoodSafetyDivisionofODAmaintainsanadvisorygroupwithstakeholdermembersincludingindustryrepresentatives(fromshellfish,grocery,foodprocessorindustries),FriendsofFamilyFarms,OregonFoodBank,afarmers’marketorganizer.ThisgroupislargelyrunbytheFarmBureauandmaintainsanopenrelationshipwiththeFoodSafetyDivisiontoaddressquestionsorissuesastheyarise.ImplementationguidancehasimprovedsincetheCenterforSmallFarmsandCommunityFoodSystemsatOregonStateUniversity(OSU)(whichincludestheOSUExtensionoffice)hasworkedwiththeODASmallFarmsDepartmenttoprovideinformationandtraining.VII. TrainingandeducationaltoolsThefollowingaresomeofthetrainingandeducationaltoolsusedtosupporttheimplementationoftheseregulations:
• AnODAwebpageaddressingfrequentquestions,includingdownloadablefactsheetsonsellingagriculturalproducts,producerprocessedfoods,farmers’marketfoodsafety,etc.:http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/FoodSafety/FSLicensing/Pages/WithoutLicense.aspx
• AdocumentfromODAdetailingstepsforfoodsafetyatfarmers’markets:https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/FoodSafety/FarmersMarketsFoodSafety.pdf
• TheCenterforSmallFarmsandCommunityFoodSystemsatOSUproducesmanyguidancedocumentsandrunsprogramsonfarmdirect,valueadded,andotherproductmarketingtopicsforfarmers:http://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/oregon-small-farms-technical-reports
FINALDRAFT
FINALReport 27
• TheOregonFarmers’MarketAssociationprovidesguidancetoitsmembershipaboutfarmdirectissues,amongothers:http://www.oregonfarmersmarkets.org/market-operations/food-safety/
top related