FINAL DRAFT FINAL Report 1 Massachusetts Working Group on Farming and Public Health Final Report 26 February 2017 I. Background In the 2015 Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan, the signatories called for a professionally- facilitated working group to include representatives from the fields of public health and food systems, as well as regulatory agencies, to develop a proposal to improve regulatory oversight of the local food system with respect to public health. The Food Plan, in its recommendation Farming Action 2.3.7, called for this working group to address: • Actions to achieve consistent, science-based State and local regulations that are developed by practitioners and public health professionals regarding animal slaughter, on-farm processing, product aggregation, farmers markets, and any other relevant issues that may be identified. • Requirements for training local regulators in food system practices and current science, and a plan for developing resources for doing so. • Requirements for training local regulators to enforce regulations consistently and, wherever possible, to offer resources to remedy concerns before taking punitive action. • A requirement for public review of new regulations that is timely and transparent, involves affected stakeholders early on, and includes at least one public hearing. • A system of checks and balances on local regulations and actions, including appeal processes. • Consideration of other related issued as raised in this Plan. The Plan called for the working group to present its proposal to the Massachusetts Food Policy Council, appropriate agencies within the State administration, and the legislature within nine months of the first working group meeting. The proposal needed to note whether or not State legislative or regulatory changes are necessary to implement the recommendations and include a draft budget for implementation. II. Process To achieve this objective, the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative retained Patrick Field of the Consensus Building Institute in the spring of 2016. During the summer of 2016, Patrick Field and Winton Pitcoff, Massachusetts Food Systems Collaborative director, interviewed fifteen (15) stakeholders knowledgeable and concerned about these issues. Some interviews were in person and some were over the phone and were completed individually or in small groups. Mr. Pitcoff gathered additional examples of challenges from local press clipping,
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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/
Related Documents
