stringerbeans

Dispatches on international food regulation and contemporary issues in food studies

[stringerbeans]

Child Labour

Child labour perpetuates a cycle of poverty by keeping children out of school and hampering health and personal development. The FAO report on child labour (2010) stated that 168 million children worldwide are child labourers. 59% work in agriculture, which is among the three most dangerous sectors to work in at any age. The report stated that gender roles distinguish the type of work performed by girls and boys, and that gender differences in child labour increase with age. Policies towards eliminating child labour thus require a gender-sensitive approach. Furthermore, ensuring that schooling is compulsory and affordable, and that schools offer meal programmes would also help eliminate child labour.

The inclusion of core labour standards in the World Trade Organization (WTO) enabled developed countries to take action against imports from countries with poor labour standards (Sharma, 2009). However, this measure exacerbates the poverty and economic underdevelopment that is at the root of child labour. Sharma (2009) argued that the most efficient approach to eliminate child labour would be to increase integration into the world trading system. When parents have enough income, they are encouraged to keep their children in school, as evidenced in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when higher incomes resulted in a reduction in child labour in European countries.

In the US, labour laws allow 16 and 17-year-olds to work under hazardous conditions in agriculture; in all other occupations the minimum age for hazardous work is 18. Children can work on any farm at age 12 and at any age on a small farm, despite research showing that agriculture is the most dangerous work open to children in the United States. According to the Human Rights Watch report (2012), this risk falls disproportionately on poor Hispanic children, who are the great majority of child farmworkers. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has called on the US to amend the law and fulfill its treaty obligations.

References 

Human Rights Watch (2012). US: Labor Department Abandons Child Farmworkers. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/27/us-labor-department-abandons-child-farmworkers

FAO (2010). Breaking the Rural Poverty Cycle: Getting Girls and Boys Out of Work and Into School. Gender and Rural Employment Policy Brief, (7).

Sharma, K. (2009). Labor standards and WTO rules: Survey of the Issues with Reference to Child Labor in South Asia. Journal of Economic Issues, (43)1, 29-41. 

[stringerbeans]

Women and agriculture in developing countries

It is estimated that rural women produce half of the world’s food (Bunch & Mehra, 2008). Traditionally, women are understood to be subsistence food providers who ensure their family’s food security and nutrition, however they also play an important role in growing agricultural businesses. Women are often disadvantaged when it comes to accessing land, resources and technology (Bunch & Mehra, 2008). There is a need for women to be recognised as vital actors in the agricultural economy. Their role should be bolstered by the international development community. Improved access to resources, technologies, markets and land rights will increase women’s agricultural productivity, and these investments in women in agriculture will in turn reduce hunger and increase economic growth.

Currently, though women make up a majority of the agricultural workforce, particularly in low-income countries, gender issues are explicitly incorporated into less than 10 percent of the official development assistance towards agriculture (Ashby et. al., 2008). Neglecting gender issues and failing to cultivate women as productive economic agents has resulted in high opportunity costs, and furthermore, it actively hurts women by adding to their labour requirements. Ashby et. al (2008) recommend that women’s preferences in seed varieties, their requirements for labour-saving technology and literacy- and income levels all need to be considered when disseminating extension services and development assistance. There is also a requirement for policies that ensure women retain control over income-generating assets, especially as there is a tendency for men to assume control over these assets once they become profitable. Ashby et. al (2008) observe that gender responsive actions have indeed been seen to pay off.

References

Ashby, J., Hartl, M. Lambrou, Y., Larson, G., Lubbock, A., Pehu, E., & Ragasa, C. (2008). Investing in Women as Drivers of Agricultural Growth. The World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/gender/pub/sourcebook/flyer.pdf.

Bunch, S. & Mehra, R. (2008). Women Help Solve Hunger: Why is the World Still Waiting? International Centre for Research on Women. Retrieved from http://www.icrw.org/sites/default/files/publications/Women-Help-Solve-Hunger.pdf.

[stringerbeans]

Regulation, Ethics and Values

Bernauer (2003) states that the current global biotech landscape is characterized by polarization, led by the EU in one camp and the US in the other. This difference in regulation has affected the number of field trials in each region and the number of GE foods available in each market. In the EU, GE foods are subject to mandatory labeling; in the US, labeling is voluntary. This polarization has delayed the widespread commercialization of new genetically modified food crops. 

Agri-biotech policies are decided based on the outcome of competing interest groups politics, namely environmental and consumer NGOs, and producer groups. Bernauer (2003) attributes the success of GE foods in the US to a more favourable consumer perception, and greater public trust in regulatory agencies, as compared to Europe. The producer coalition is more cohesive and well-organized than it is in Europe.

Argentina, as the second most significant cultivator of GM crops in the world (Newell, 2009), has embraced GE technology on grounds of its export potential. The biotech sector has made an immense material contribution to the Argentine economy. Despite Monsanto’s organic altercation with the government over IPR rights, the state is intertwined with the private firms whose interests it is supposed to regulate. This institutional access allows them to assert their political objectives. The agri-biotech sector also influences mass media to obscure dissenting voices.

Scott (1998) states that the high-modernist agricultural system in which GE crops are founded has created a loss of biodiversity. The input-intensive, capital intensive production and profit model has led to crop epidemics and cross-resistance. Scott (1998) stated that commercial agriculture does not account for long-term environmental costs. It has been diminishing the autonomy of the farmer and driven out forms of local knowledge, which becomes more important when goals such as sustainability, conservation and food security are considered.

  References

Bernauer, T (2003). Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton University Press Chapters 3 and 4, pp. 44-101.   

Newell, P. (2009). Technology, Food, Power: Governing GMOs in Argentina. In Clapp, J. & Fuchs, D. (Eds) Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (253-283). Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Scott, J. C (1998). Taming Nature: An Agriculture of Legibility and Simplicity. In Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (262-306).  

[stringerbeans]

A sustainable global food system

Currently, 800 million people around the world are food insecure; the problem, however is largely one of access to food, not shortage (Pinstrup-Anderson, 2002; p. 2). 14.3% of US households, or 49.1 million people in the US were food-insecure in 2013. Rates of food security were higher in households with children, single-parent households, Black and Hispanic households and low-income households (USDA website).

To move towards a sustainable global food system, Pinstrup-Anderson (2002) emphasized the need to restore degraded soils, restrict widespread deforestation for agriculture, protect over-exploited fisheries, use water resources more efficiently, reduce pesticide use and invest in agricultural research (p. 4-9). A sustainable system would be a combination of agroecological methods and technology, and would value the wellbeing of low-income farmers (Pinstrup-Anderson, 2002; p. 19). There needs to be greater accountability and fairer policies by the European Union and the United States, whose agricultural subsidies and trade barriers have adversely affected the rural poor (Pinstrup-Anderson, 2002; p. 17).

Gonzalez (2012), like Pinstrup-Anderson, also emphasizes that poverty rather than food scarcity is the cause of malnutrition. He stated that food security challenges should be addressed by increasing the income of small farmers and promoting sustainable agriculture (p. 4). However, the current legal framework perpetuates food insecurity and unsustainable cultivation practices. The Agreement on Agriculture or the AoA has only served to intensify rural poverty and environmental damage, and it has institutionalized inequities between wealthy and poor countries (Gonzalez, 2012; p. 11). To create a regime premised on food sovereignty and not trade, agriculture should be removed from the purview of the World Trade Organization (Gonzalez, 2012; p. 15).

Researchers at the University of Minnesota devised a 5-step plan to double food production by 2050 in an environmentally sustainable way: improving crop yields, consuming less meat (thus devoting more agricultural land to feeding humans, not animals), reducing food waste, curbing the expansion of agricultural land and the destruction of tropical forests, and using fertilizer more efficiently (Fischetti, 2011).

References

Gonzalez, C.G. (2012). The Global Food System, Environmental Protection, and Human Rights. Natural Resources & Environment 26 (3), 1-15.

Pinstrup-Anderson, P. (2002). Towards a Sustainable Global Food System: What Will it Take? Keynote address at John Pesek Colloquium in Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/articles/2002/pinstrup02_01.pdf

Fischetti, M. (2011, October 12).  How to Double Global Food Production by 2050 and Reduce Environmental Damage. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=foley-global-food-production-reduce-environmental-damage-maps.     

USDA; Economic Research Service. Food Security in the United States, Key Statistics and Graphs. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#.UhO_o9JJOAg.

[stringerbeans]

The GI regime – country cases

Jena and Grote (2010) point out that it’s not just the European Union that’s pushing for more GI protection, many developing countries are as well (p. 217). GI’s trade advantages are pro-poor, unlike patents and trademarks (p. 222). The evidence on the socio-economic impact of GIs on developing countries is still scarce, but looking at two examples from India, Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice, it was surmised that the actual livelihood impact hinges on whether benefits actually reach the producers (Jen & Grote, 2010; p. 233). In developing countries, the costs incurred to maintain a GI are significant, so producers are dependent on a sizeable international market to ensure a price premium (Jen & Grote, 2010; p. 229).

Marden (1999) looks at the conflict caused by bio-prospectors freely appropriating the local knowledge and resources of developing countries to create patented products (p. 279). She studies the example of US company W.R. Grace & Co obtaining a patent on an extract of the neem tree in 1992 (Marden, 1999; p. 284). Neem is a culturally significant Indian resource, and the country filed a petition against the patent (Marden, 1999; p. 284). Critics hold that traditional knowledge is not adequately protected by existing intellectual property regimes (Marden, 1999; p. 288). Benefits go to multinational companies and no royalties flow back to the countries providing the resources. Marden (1999) also states that this is a debate over whether genetic resources should be commodified at all or should remain in the realm of the commons (p. 294).

Giovannucci, Barham and Pirog (2010) suggest that Intellectual Property protection can also protect a conceptualization of the local. Although modern trade has untethered food from place, there has emerged a counter movement in favour of local food, driven by consumers, chefs and some food businesses (Giovannucci et. al, 2010; p. 7-9). The authors state that there are many ways that the credibility of local food is assured in the US – treaties such as COOL (Country of Origin Labeling), marketing campaigns of different states, and also, less formal mechanisms such as Farmers Markets and CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture programs). However, for products sold through more mainstream and distant channels, a more formal IP regime will be necessary (Giovannucci et. al, 2010; p. 18). 

References

Giovannuci, D., Barham, E. & Pirog, R. (2010). Defining and Marketing ‘Local’ Foods: Geographical Indications for US Products. Journal of World Intellectual Property 13 (2).

Jena, P.R., & Grote, U. (2010). Changing Institutions to Protect Regional Heritage: A Case for Geographical Indications in the Indian Agrifood Sector. Development Policy Review, 28 (2).

Marden, E. (1999). The Neem Tree Patent: International Conflict over the Commodification of Life. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 22 (2). 

[stringerbeans]

The Geographical Indication Regime

Raustiala and Munzer (2007) take a critical stance against Geographical Indications (GIs) and state that they have favoured the global North more than they do the developing world, and that European states use them to shield their agricultural producers from New World competition (p. 346).

In Raustiala and Munzer’s view (2007), none of the underpinning arguments for GIs as they exist today are fully persuasive and none can justify the absolute protection standard that TRIPs currently imposes upon wines and spirits. The absolute standard (which prevents any labeling of the same product outside of a particular geographical region with words such as “kind” “type or “style”) increases customer confusion and search costs. They argue that the absolute standard should be revoked (p. 365).

Bacardi Corporation’s use of Havana Club for rum not produced in Cuba was in violation of TRIPs but not US law (Farley, 2000; p. 5). This is just one instance of conflict between US law and international treaties concerning GIs. In Farley’s view (2000), these conflicts arise because European countries look at trademarks primarily to product industry, whereas in parts the New World, such as the US, the focus is first on protecting the consumer against deception (p. 2).

Calboli (2006) also considers the extension of the absolute standard of protection, which is favoured by the EU and generally opposed by the US, Canada and Australia. In contrast to Raustiala and Munzer, she deems it desirable for the international community, and sees it as an opportunity for New World countries (p. 202). When alternative names to define existing products do exist, the standards could foster agricultural interest in all TRIPs members, as evidenced by the boom in the Australian wine industry when they had to rely on their own regional names rather than European ones (Calboli, 2006; p. 201).

Broude (2005), meanwhile, questions the premise that GI protection preserves tradition and cultural diversity at all. Using several examples, he argues that GIs cannot actually prevent market-induced changes on traditional consumption preferences or production methods (p. 35). Although Geographical Indications do not have the same “blatantly market-restrictive” effects of tariffs or subsidies, they are nonetheless instruments of trade policy and protectionism founded upon a cultural argument (Broude, 2005; p. 15). He argues that the effects of cultural policies should be monitored and verified, rather than being assumed (Broude, 2005; p. 42).

References

Broude, T. (2005). Taking ‘Trade and Culture’ Seriously: Geographical Indications and Cultural Protection in WTO Law. BEPress Legal Series 649.

Calboli, I. (2006). Expanding the Protection of Geographical Indications of Origin under TRIPs: “Old” Debate or “New” Opportunity? Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 10 (2), 182-203.

Farley, C.H. (2000). Conflicts between U.S. Law and International Treaties Concerning Geographical Indications. Whittier Law Review 73.

Raustiala, K. & Munzer, S. (2007). The Global Struggle over Geographic Indications. The European Journal of International Law 18 (2), 337-365. 

[stringerbeans]

Protecting the local - the advantages and the downside

Geographical Indications can be categorized as PDO, or Protected Designation of Origin, when the product is deemed not reproducible in another terroir, and its qualities are exclusively due to its particular environment. They can also be categorized as PGI, or Protected Geographical Indication, when a specific quality is deemed attributable to its origin (Berard & Marchenay, 2006; p. 110).

Berard and Marchenay (2006) stated that Geographical Indications can contribute to maintaining biodiversity and also play a role in sustainable development, as it is not just the biological characteristics of the product that are protected, but also the cultural practices involved in the making of it. They noted that the standards imposed by globalization can be constraining and by adhering to these restrictions, traditional forms of knowledge can be endangered and lost (Berard & Marchenay, 2006; p. 115).

However, designating products by their place of origin can lead to an unfair trading advantage for local producers (Berard & Marchenay, 2006; p. 110).

Pratt (2007) goes further into the limitations of such designations. He stated that alternative food movements in industrialized societies, which tend to privilege the local, are often tethered to a romantic discourse of authentic and traditional (p. 285). Products are valued because of their connection to the pre-industrialized past, however, he argued that alternative food movements are creations of the mass market, and emerged in parallel to industrialization. Celebrations of territorio or terroir, through, for instance, Geographical Indications and the Slow Food Movement, have arguably resulted in the commodification of cultural practices and products (Pratt, 2007; p. 291). Pratt holds that assigning characteristics such as authentic, local and high quality to these products has led to higher profits. Furthermore, labels do not always reveal very much about the producers or the production processes. For instance, Californian organic agriculture relies heavily on intensive farming methods and migrant wage labor, and the produce is transported to in supermarkets around the country. In this sense, it is not altogether different from the mainstream agro-industrial food system it sets itself apart from (Pratt, 2007; p. 287).

References

Berard, L. & Marchenay, P. (2006). Local Products and Geographical Indications: Taking Account of Local Knowledge and Biodiversity. International Social Science 187, 109-116.

Pratt, J. (2007). Food Values: The Local and the Authentic. Critique of Anthropology 27 (3). Retrieved fromhttp://coa.sagepub.com/content/27/3/285

[stringerbeans]

The World Trade Organization and trade disputes

The World Trade Organization was established on January 1, 1995 as a multilateral forum to govern world trade and settle trade disputes peacefully (Sek, 1995). It seeks to establish a “nondiscriminatory trading system with the goal of raising the economic well-being of all countries” (Sek, 1995; p. 4), and like its predecessor General Agreements on Tariff and Trade (GATT), it aims to reduce barriers to trade (Sek, 1995; p. 5).

Some critics of the WTO hold that regional and bilateral trade agreements are more effective in meeting US trade goals (Sek, 1995; p.10). A primary example of this is the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which, by eliminating tariffs and duties, has contributed greatly to agricultural trade and investment between the three countries (USDA factsheet; 2008)

Nevertheless, the US remains a member of the WTO. One example of a recent trade dispute mediated by the WTO is the European Union’s restrictions on hormone-treated meat. In this long-standing dispute, the EU’s position has been that hormone-treated meat might pose risks to human health, while the US maintains that it is safe (Johnson & Hanrahan, 2010; p. 1). In October 2008, the WTO ruled that the EU could continue to maintain its ban on imports of beef produced with hormones, and that the US could continue to impose its retaliatory higher tariffs on EU imports. Terms of the agreement are to be agreed to over the next few years (Johnson & Hanrahan, 2010; p. 4).

However, there have been trade disputes as long as there has been international trade. In the 1880s, much of Europe banned the import of American pork, led by Germany’s proclamation that pork from the US was liable to be infected with trichinae (Hoy & Nugent, 1989; p. 198). The Americans insisted that their pork was clean, and that the incidence was due to the German cultural practice of not cooking the meat. They suggested that the ban had less to do with sanitation and more to do with the protectionism of domestic livestock producers, and to retaliate, they imposed higher tariffs on German imports. Despite much internal opposition however, the US instated a regulation to microscopically inspect their pork and only then was the ban lifted in 1891 (Hoy & Nugent, 1989; 220). However, the elimination of trichinosis came about not through inspection, but through teaching the German public to cook their meat (Hoy & Nugent, 1989; p. 224) 

References

Hoy, S. & Nugent, W. (1989). Public Health or Protectionism? The German American Pork War 1880-1891. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 63 (2), 198-224.

Johnson, R. & Hanrahan, C.E. (2010). The U.S. – EU Beef Hormone Dispute. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40449.pdf

Sek, L. (2005). The World Trade Organization: Background and Issues. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/57791.pdf

USDA. Foreign Agricultural Service. 2008. “Fact Sheet: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Retrieved from http://www.fas.usda.gov/topics/trade-policy/trade-agreements/nafta

[stringerbeans]

Food Regimes

In 1987, Harriett Friedmann described a food regime as a period of capital accumulation characterized by particular forms of agricultural production and consumption (McMichael, 2009, p.139). In the first food regime, from 1870-1930s, Britain imported tropical foods from non-European colonies and staple grains from its settler-colonies cheaply, which served as an impetus to European industrialization (McMichael, 2009, p.144). In the second food regime, 1950s-’70s, US surplus grains were exported as subsidized food aid to postcolonial development states. This consolidated the US economy, and also led to the Green Revolution, where developing countries aiming to be less dependent on imports began to replicate US-style industrial agriculture (McMichael, 2009, p.143). Friedmann (2000) states that both regimes were ecologically disastrous: native species were displaced to make way for monocultures, and hybrid seeds and chemical fertilisers were employed to increase yield. Industrial food-getting thus “ignored” and destroyed natural ecosystems (p.502).

McMichael (2009) argues that the current global scenario can be classified as a third regime, a “corporate-environment regime” shaped by transnational food companies and the free market (p.147), in which globally sourced food is available year-round (p.150). Corporations are attempting to sustain this through genetically engineered seeds and chemical inputs (Friedmann, 2000, p. 504). Yet, this regime is also characterized by counter-movements such as Slow Food and Food Sovereignty that emphasize the importance of traditional cultivation, biodiversity and “food from somewhere” (McMichael, 2009, p.150). Friedmann (2000) argues that this shift to  “self-renewing food-getting” will entail subordinating industry to agriculture and it can only take place in a “post-territorial world of nested bioregions” (p.508).

References

Friedmann, H. (2000). What on Earth is the Modern World-System? Food-Getting and Territory in the Modern Era and Beyond. Journal of World-System Research VI (2), 480-515.

McMichael, P. (2009). A Food Regime Genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1), 139-169. 

[stringerbeans]

Pet Food Politics: a summary

On March 16, 2007, Menu Foods, a pet food manufacturer from Canada, issued a recall of more than 60 million cans and pouches across 200 brands of pet foods (Nestle, 2008, p.13).

Several rounds of testing revealed that the pet foods, which were supposed to contain wheat gluten (an expensive source of protein) imported from China, in fact contained wheat flour laced with melamine and cyanuric acid. As Nestle (2008) pointed out, feed officials still measure protein content by "the amount of nitrogen present" (p. 71), so melamine, used to make plastic dinnerware, and cyanuric acid, a by-product of this dinnerware-making process – both cheap, non-protein sources of nitrogen – were used to boost the foods’ apparent protein content.

Toxicology studies conducted by UC Davis, as well as earlier studies reported in agricultural journals, showed that melamine in combination with cyanuric acid in any dose (even below the level usually considered safe) forms crystals and disrupts normal kidney function in animals (Nestle, 2008, p.87). The Veterinary Information Network estimated that around 2000-7000 pets across the US died; thousands more fell sick (Nestle, 2008, p.58). Since salvaged pet food is routinely fed to farm animals, melamine also found its way into the human food supply and was detected in hogs, chickens, and farmed fish.

Nestle (2008) argues that "contaminated pet foods were early warnings of the safety hazards of globalisation" (p.2). The pet food recall of 2007 led China to institute new food safety standards. In the US, the recall fueled a backlash against imported foods, increased demand for better labeling, and consequently, stronger support for the locavore movement.

Perhaps most importantly, the incident highlighted that the fragmented food safety system of the US could not adequately protect the country’s food supply, and that the FDA, which at the time of the incident was not empowered to issue a mandatory recall of food products, no longer has the resources or the regulatory might to cope with the current industrialized, centralized food production system (Nestle, 2008, p.143).

Reference

Nestle, M. (2008). Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

[stringerbeans]

The history of food regulation

The practice of food adulteration dates back to ancient times, as noted by Hutt & Hutt II (1984). Concurrently, governmental agencies through history have attempted to prevent adulteration, standardize weights and measures, and ensure correct labeling of food products. Food regulations were codified in Roman civil law and in early English common law. Deceptions that affected the public were considered common law misdemeanors and subject to indictment; those that affected individuals were subject to civil remedies for damages (Hutt & Hutt II, 1984, p. 25). In early colonial America, too, protecting the public from food adulteration was recognized as a governmental function (Hutt & Hutt II, 1984, p.38). By 1906, as urban centers developed, legislation on food adulteration and misbranding began to come under the purview of the United States Congress, rather than state or local laws. 

Today, the two federal agencies that ensure foods are wholesome, safe and handled under sanitary conditions in the US are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responsible for ensuring the safety of all domestic and imported food and feed products, except for most meat and poultry, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), whose Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates most meat and poultry and some egg products. FDA inspection involves review and random sampling, while FSIS personnel are required to inspect all meat and poultry animals at slaughter on a continuous basis. Other agencies that play a role in food safety include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Johnson, 2014, p.7).

The understanding of what constitutes successful regulation has had to change over the years. With advances in food technology, it became difficult to distinguish between unlawful adulteration and the lawful use of functional additives or nutrients, so by the ’60s, federal agencies began to shift from regulations based on food standards to those hinged on food labeling (Hutt & Hutt II, 1984, p.68). And since 1980, economic enforcement has reduced and safety considerations have been prioritized. According to Johnson (2014), though the US food supply is considered "among the safest in the world" (p.1), its fragmented system of food safety regulation has come under criticism from quarters that posit a unified administrative structure would be more effective (Johnson, 2014, p.4).   

References

Hutt, P.B., & Hutt II, P. B. (1984). A History of Government Regulation of Adulteration and Misbranding of Food. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Journal 39, 2-73.

Johnson, R. (2014). The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer. Congressional Research Service Report, RS22600. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22600.pdf