Constructively Commenting on Proposed Water Rule
Patrick Gordon, Produce Safety Technician
With Changes proposed to the current preharvest agricultural water rules, it is important that comments in support or opposition are shared with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This article outlines some best practice suggestions on how to accomplish that. Highlighted below are strategies to make comments most effective.
On December 6, 2021, the FDA announced proposed changes to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) specifically, the preharvest water provision within the Produce Safety Rule (PSR). The changes are meant to address stakeholder concerns (previous comments submitted to FDA) about FSMA water testing requirements. Proposed changes would require comprehensive Agricultural Water Assessments (AWA), which would include surrounding land use, weather events, and topography, to identify any potential contamination risks to the water sources used on farms.
These proposed changes are open to public comment until April 5th, 2022. Stakeholder and growers are strongly urged to comment during this time to make the voices of Michigan’s growers heard, ensuring that the unique challenges of agriculture in our state are taken into consideration.
Effective comments on the change, whether for, or against, should be factual, succinct, clearly demonstrate section being addressed, and clearly supported with examples or evidence. It is also important to offer reasonable and achievable alternatives to what is currently proposed.
Start by leading off with an introduction to demonstrate that you have stakes in the game. This does not need to be more than a job title, farm, or business. This will show that proposed changes will have a direct impact on you.
Second, identify clearly what part of the rule adversely affects you. To make sure the reader knows exactly what provision you are talking about, specifically address them by title or number. Without the use of sections and subsections the message may not come across as strong, or the reader may not understand what subpart is being referenced.
Next, demonstrate why or how the provision adversely affects you. Explain why the proposed rule may be unattainable, may cost you too much time, or may otherwise be bad for your farm.
Effective Comments need to be factual and to the point. Just calling the rule stupid or telling them to throw the whole thing away is not going to go far. Keep emotions and name-calling out of your comments and focus on exactly how your farm will be impacted. Keep comments short and to the point, but support arguments with real examples.
Check out the example comments below and then reach out to your Produce Safety Technician for one-on-one help crafting your comment.
As the Produce Safety Technician of Southwest Michigan, I work with growers to help improve produce safety on farm, especially as it pertains to the FSMA Produce Safety Rule. I am concerned about proposed changes to the preharvest water provisions. Specifically, §112.42(a) (4+5) states that agricultural water assessments including nearby land use need to be conducted, but nearby is not defined. Assessing a neighboring farms impact on a surface water source is relevant and understandably required, but assessing hoe land use a mile or further away impacts the same surface water source cannot be reasonably conducted. It is unreasonable to assume that all farmers have the knowledge, or background to assess how groundwater or surface water may be impacted from farms that are “nearby” but not adjacent. I would suggest limiting the definition of “nearby” to include only the land use directly adjacent to the farm or located on the same water source.
Remember, to make the most out of the comment stay factual, succinct, and specifically call out subsections being referenced. Lead in with background demonstrating that this will affect you, identify subsections being referenced, briefly explain why this provision does or does not work , and finish with how or what may work with you.
Print
Email