Thank the Lord for GPS

It sure helped me today as I negotiated the rollings hills of Adams County, Pennsylvania. Talking to John Rice of Rice Fruit Co. this afternoon, he said times are good for apple marketers. First of all, the California freeze had an immediate effect on demand, as buyers looked to drop in a bargain apple deal in place of orange promotions. A second positive is that the mix of varieties in the apple industry today is much more suited to consumer demand than a decade ago. Thus inventories move out to better demand at better prices than 10 year ago. Lastly, the use of SmartFresh has improved apple condition and quality to the consumers.

Rice said there is an internal conversation in the North America apple industry about the possibility of genetically modified apples being marketed in the next several years. At the center of this is a Canadian biotechnology company called Okanagan Biotechnology Inc. Check out their Web site here. Their Web site says:

The company's first commercial product, unique non-browning apple varieties, is ideally suited to the fresh-cut produce market. OBI has developed a technique to inhibit the Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) gene in apple to halt this browning oxidation reaction. Consistent with our precision breeding approach, we are using the silencing of an existing apple gene to develop new apple varieties that do not go brown when sliced, bruised, scuffed or bitten into.



The trait could be huge for the industry, and silencing a gene does not seem objectionable. It's not like breeders are using a catfish gene, is it? The soul-searching part of this discussion is this: Does the apple industry want to be the test case for biotechnology? Would it matter if the majority of growers don't want GM apples? I have to be believe biotechnology in fresh produce will be accepted by consumers within a few years, but I can understand the reluctance for the apple industry to be on the "bleeding edge" of GM fruit.

A consumer's farm bill

Taking a break today in a Greencastle, Pa. library, and I saw this on the Web.

"What a consumer-friendly farm bill would look like"

That's what is being addressed in this column by Neal Peirce of the Houston Chronicle. And that surprisingly cogent perspective of farm politics is, of course, positive for fruit and vegetable growers.
He writes.

What if we could write a farm bill? What would it feature?
First, it's fair to suggest, we'd want to foster a reliable, steady supply of wholesome foods reaching our communities.
And we know what's most nutritious: fresh vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, fish and whole grains. All contribute to trimmer bodies, healthy hearts, less disease. Sweets, processed foods, red meats and dairy products are OK, but only if consumed sparingly.
But what crops has Uncle Sam been supporting for the last decades? Corn, for one. It's the source of the high fructose syrup that food manufacturers substitute for regular sugar in the cascading quantity of processed, baked and frozen foods that now account for over 40 percent of grocery sales, compared to a sparse 9 percent for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Also heavily government-supported have been soybeans, a chief source of vegetable oil altered in a process called partial hydrogenation that creates fatty acids, the unhealthiest type of fat.



Peirce goes where few industry lobbyists dare to tread when he takes on the program crops. Produce advocates argue for their fair share, but Peirce takes it a step further when he says America would benefit more if program crops got less. Perhaps it has more resonance coming from him anyway.

Monday ice

Sure enough, the first snowfall of the season preceded me here in DC. Looks like the road will be passable, though. Scanning the headlines this morning, this story reports on a USDA study that says Americans underestimate what we eat by 50%. The fact is, our daily intake is 148 calories per day more than it was in 1980, resulting in a weight gain of 15 pounds per year.

Portion distortion is one of the culprits. Cokes are 20 ounces instead of 8 ounces, and whoppers pack a big wallop than yesterday's cheeseburger. The solution is portion control and exercise.

When we sit down to a meal, half of our plate should contain fruits and vegetables. One-fourth should have whole grains, and protein should take up the remaining one-fourth.

This half a plate message is powerful because it's a visual concept that consumers can get their arms around - so to speak. I'll be curious if the "half a plate" message will be a part of Fruits and Veggies: More Matters campaign.

I came across a blog this morning from a writer with the The Atlantic Monthly that describes the appeal of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The narrative rings true with conversations I have had with New York apple growers and industry leaders.


When upstate apple growers complained that China and Canada were flooding the market with imported apples, Clinton attacked foreign apples, pushing for mandatory “country of origin” stickers that would identify apples grown in New York. When bad weather damaged the crop, Clinton sent former Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman a rotten Hudson Valley apple and a plea for federal disaster funds. Nothing is too small or obscure to arouse her passionate interest.


For the press, Clinton is not too accessible, and less so the trade press, as you can imagine. A couple of requests I have made to her office relating to a New York agricultural promotion have gone unheeded.

Her guarded ways may cost her popular appeal, but don't count her out - and don't be surprised by the support she garners from New York growers.


In Kansas, Sen. Sam Brownback announced his candidacy in Topeka over the weekend and my college-aged son was in attendance. Brownback has appeal to the social conservatives but he will need an upset showing in Iowa to make any noise.