Downer Dow

The U.S. stock market took a major hit today, a historic freefall that was the worst since 2002. Here is a report from Bloomberg that explains how the plunge was preceded by a 9% drop in China's stock market. The Dow lost as much as much as 546 points, or 4.3%, during the day.
Taking a peak at a portfolio of produce stocks, I didn't see any gainers except a modest showing higher by Fresh Del Monte, which released its fourth quarter and complete 2006 results.

Dairy's WIC hit

For fresh produce marketers, the USDA's proposed rule that would add fruit and vegetable vouchers to WIC food packages is a slam-bam winner, both to the industry and to WIC participants. But there are other voices. Here is a letter posted to the USDA's Web site about the proposed rule from the Council of Northeast Farmer Cooperatives, a group of dairy outfits:
From the letter:

Reduction in dairy products in the WIC program If the rules as proposed are implemented fluid milk sales to the program would fall by 23%. For cheese it is estimated that the decline in sales would be 35% or 40 million pounds. The total value of the loss in sales of dairy products would be about $400 million or 29% of current WIC annual expenditures on dairy products. These reductions in the use of dairy products will clearly affect both the short and long term nutritional benefits of WIC in negative way.


TK: This excerpt really doesn't address WIC participants being negatively affected. It's all about dairy farmers' incomes. And the fact Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns well known upbringing on a dairy farm in Iowa can't make this decision easy for him. Still, I think Johanns is committed to acting in accordance with federal dietary guidelines and adding fruit and vegetable vouchers. Perhaps the easiest play of this issue would be to delay it until the next Administration; we can only hope Johanns was serious when he said he wanted his people to get this rule processed by September.


One thing about the dairy folks, though, is they are committed to promotion. Here is an Adage story how dairy assessments are funding a branded "emoticon" to teens.

LA Times: veggie free speech threatened

That's the gist of an editorial from the LA Times today. The editorial states that legislation introduced by a Thousands Oaks Republican state lawmaker Audra Strickland - which would allow growers to sue anyone who disparages their product - is an infringement of civil rights.
From the editorial:

Food libel laws started springing up after CBS' "60 Minutes" aired an episode in 1989 about the chemical Alar, thought to be a carcinogen, being sprayed on apple trees. Now 13 states have such laws, which got their first court test in 1996, when Texas cattle ranchers used the state's agricultural libel law to sue talk-show host Oprah Winfrey because she aired an episode critical of practices thought to increase the risk of mad cow disease. They lost the case. That didn't discourage Strickland, who introduced her bill after the state's growers were hit hard by an E. coli outbreak last fall traced to California bagged spinach. One of the purposes of the 1st Amendment is to encourage debate, and food libel laws would have a chilling effect on this speech. Though plaintiffs under Strickland's bill would have to prove that defendants knew their statements to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, the threat of a lawsuit alone is enough to discourage many people from speaking out.

There's a better way to protect farmers from rumors. After losing the Winfrey case, Texas ranchers set up a hotline for people to call if they heard anyone in the media trashing red meat. The offending radio or TV host is then hit with a flood of materials about the health benefits of T-bones. That kind of aggressive PR may not always be pleasant. But it's preferable to laws against criticizing your spinach.


TK: From a distant reading, I think the proposed law does go too far. I think most people are predisposed to believe the best about vegetables; there are no vegetable hate groups, are there? I think the aggressive and positive PR, as the editorial suggests, is more effective than the threat of a lawsuit.

FDA rapped for declining inspections

The FDA's declining inspections were highlighted in a widely circulated AP story this morning, posted here at the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
The lead paragraph:

The federal agency that's been front and center in warning the public about tainted spinach and contaminated peanut butter is conducting just half the food safety inspections it did three years ago.

.....

Between 2003 and 2006, FDA food safety inspections dropped 47 percent, according to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press.
The analysis also shows that there are 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices who concentrate on food issues and that safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75 percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year, according to the agency's own statistics.


TK: This may not make it any easier to convince consumers that strong federal oversight of produce safety is a step forward.