Mexico direct?

Will the pilot program that will soon allow 100 approved Mexican trucking companies to ship beyond the 25 mile border zone result in direct shipments of Mexican produce to U.S. retailers?

From Nogales International:

In about two months, as many as 100 approved Mexican trucking companies will be able to deliver goods beyond the 25-mile border zone for the first time since 1982.At least that's the plan described by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters during her Friday visit at the Nogales Mariposa Port of Entry.The yearlong pilot program might seem controversial on many counts, including national security, and its affect on U.S. workers and roadway safety, but Peters said its ultimate goal is an increased efficiency that is expected to be cost effective for both U.S. and Mexican consumers.
With U.S.-Mexican trade rising last year to $332 billion, and Mexico exporting $198 billion in goods to the United States, with more than 80 percent shipped by truck, the time for this move seemed right, said officials."Every day thousands of Mexican trucks must drive across our border, through cities like Nogales, and then come to a stop at an imaginary line," Peters said. "There, these trucks must sit idle until a U.S. truck arrives and the cargo is switched from one to the other.Transferring products from one truck to another costs consumers $400 million a year, the U.S. Department of Transportation says, so this program's aim is to cut those costs.

How will this impact Nogales? In a 2004 story for The Packer, I wrote:

Only big buyers in Southwest U.S. cities are likely to request direct shipments, and only the largest and most sophisticated west Mexico shippers moving high volume commodities will be capable of providing direct service, observers said.
The lack of backhaul cargo for Mexican trucks could be a liability in direct shipments to many cities, distributors said.
"If you look at the issue of direct buying from the farmers, it could be feasible for a few really large shippers and big chains to do it," said Allison Moore, director of communications for the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.

TK: Those 2004 predictions about direct shipments may underestimate the eventual reality, but Nogales figures to remain the focal point for west Mexico produce for the foreseeable future.

The importance of Remus

Why is the Uncle Remus Saucy Fried Chicken Restaurant important? It's inside a Chicago Wal-Mart, of course, and it is a sign the retail giant is trying to be a good neighbor and sensitive to local needs. This AP story from STLtoday describes Wal-Mart's urban outreach, characterized by this Chicago store that opened last September. The success of local businesses around the urban Wal-Mart will be closely watched to see if this initiative is a "publicity stunt" or an anchor for redevelopment.

The New York Times takes a run at Whole Foods today in this feature, asking "Is Whole Foods Straying from its roots?" Some jilted organic consumers say the chain is not doing enough for the local growers. Whole Foods move toward the middle is not a problem until their stockholders tell them otherwise.

Here, Target misses the mark, but it's good news. The company beat fourth quarter estimates. It brings to mind what one former Target executive told me about the company. "Ready Fire Aim!", he said, is one of their tenets of business. Now I'm not sure what that means - perhaps they are more nimble and quicker to respond than Wal-Mart - but the concept of shooting first and asking questions later appears to work for them.

Hearing about horticulture

The House Agriculture subcommittee for Horticulture and Organic Agriculture met this morning. USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner testified for the Administration about the White House farm bill proposal.

Organics seemed to be a hot topic, with one question whether imported organic produce is subject to the same rigor as U.S. grown produce. Another question was about the sustainability of funding for bio-fuel research on cellulosic ethanol.

As an aside, I was talking with Bill Washburn recently and he said an exciting project on producing hydrogen from produce waste is on the verge of wider commercial exploitation. Back to the subcommittee:

Subcommittee chairman Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., asked Conner about the Administration's position on flex acres. Of course, the White House wants to delete the f&v planting prohibition on farm program acres because of Brazil's challenge to the U.S. cotton program.

"We feel it is extremely important to address this concern raised by the WTO," Conner replied to Cardoza. "We want and we must have direct payments continued to be classified as green box; it's paramount we address the WTO concerns." Cardoza promised further inquiry into the issue.

Cardoza also asked about the EQUIP conversation program and asked how it could be made more accessible to growers. In closing, Cardoza said he was committed to produce a responsible, equitable and innovative farm bill for horticultural producers.

TK: I don't see much give in the Administration's position on the flex acres provision. It will be an important strategic decision to expend a lot of political capital trying to fight it, or simply try to leverage its elimination with greater funding for f&v priorities. I'll be heading to Washington D.C. later today to attend the Ag Outlook meeting, so we'll see if that topic comes up again when Western Growers' Tom Nassif speaks to the conference.

FDA cutting labs

Despite yesterday's news that the number of FDA food safety inspections dropped by 46% between 2003 and 2006, the news today is that the FDA is proceeding with plans to close more than half of its labs. According to a story reported by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the FDA will act before Congress can stop them.
From their story:

According to briefings of agency staff, FDA’s current network of 13 laboratories will be reduced to six as a result of closing facilities in Denver, Detroit, Philadelphia, Kansas City, San Francisco, Winchester (Massachusetts) and San Juan (Puerto Rico).
"FDA has yet to explain why slashing its network of laboratories will make it more capable of protecting the American people,” stated of PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that a previous review by the Government Accountability Office failed to confirm any fiscal savings from a similar laboratory consolidation plan a decade ago. “FDA claims it wants to move into the 21st century but seems determined to leave its own employees behind.”


TK: Critics say the closings will slow agency response time by increasing the miles samples have to be transported for testing. FDA needs to make a case for these closings that makes sense, and so far they haven't.

War of Words

There continues to be a battle for the hearts. minds but especially the pocketbooks of consumers in the U.K. over the issue of food miles and "carbon footprint." In this article, Kenyan vegetable exporters accuse some U.K. consumers of backstabbing them over the issue.
From The Nation:

Customers of Tesco and Marks & Spencer who pick up a pack of fresh, green, healthy looking beans (most of which is grown in Kenya) will soon be faced with an aeroplane symbol, telling them that the vegetable has been transported by air to the supermarket.
Ambitious strategies unveiled in January by Tesco, the biggest British retailer, and Marks & Spencer both promise to ramp up locally sourced food and cut down on imports, as one of a packet of measures to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
Neither firm has offered much detail on when or how they will switch from imports to locally produced food. But their goals will support the growing trend for counting "food miles", a somewhat misleading indicator of pollution that could do significant harm to Kenyan horticultural exports.
First coined in the early 1990s, food miles is narrowly defined as the distance travelled by a food product from its source to the consumer's plate. The longer the distance, the more pollution caused by the food while in transit - a combination of the fuel emissions, and packaging and technology required to keep the food fresh.
Professor Gareth Edward Jones from the University of Wales who is leading a government-funded study into the advantages and disadvantages of consuming locally produced vegetables compared with vegetables from overseas, says transport is only a small part of food's total carbon budget. Where and how vegetables are grown also counts.
"Making fertiliser is a hugely intensive process. Africa doesn't use much fertiliser compared to Europe as it typically uses organic sources," he points out.
Some studies suggest that growing vegetables in a greenhouse could be more harmful than the gases emitted by transport to and from Africa. But the real problem area is much closer to home, says Professor Edwards-Jones.
"Food use in the home - how you cook it, and store it (in a fridge or freezer) - is a much more important share of the energy consumed," he says. "But when we tell this to people in Britain they get very upset. And for the media, conveying the message to get a more efficient cooker or fridge is a boring one."
"Buy local", on the other hand, carries much more sway in a country that has seen income and jobs in its agricultural sector in steady decline.
Professor Edwards-Jones is convinced that recent calls for local sourcing and support for local fresh produce is more about backing the nation's farmers than any environmental concerns.
Professor Edwards-Jones puts it differently: "About 10 per cent of consumers are what I call 'food agitators', or those that are consistently concerned about ethics. They will put pressure on retailers to improve their carbon footprint. The retailers follow these agitators, not the 90 per cent who don't care."
"Food miles is such an emotive issue and unfortunately I think food miles will come out on top, even though it is based on misleading information."

TK: I think Professor Jones makes some good points. How consumers use electricity in their home - note Al Gore's $1,200 monthly electric bill - may have a greater "carbon footprint" effect than food miles. And I do see how that food miles can be seen as a non-tariff trade barrier by exporters in Kenya, New Zealand, Chile and everywhere else where exports are important.

Fresh Direct guilt

I was reading a blog today about the "moral misgivings" people in NYC have about using Fresh Direct, a food delivery service in the city. All I can think is that the lives of city dwellers are far, far different than my minivan-owning, grocery-shopping, and (relatively) guiltless suburban life. Here is the link to the blog and here is a selection:

If something is convenient, it seems to nullify all debate. Case in point is the ongoing moral struggle seen in patrons of Fresh Direct. They love getting fancy food and fresh produce delivered to their door, but have serious misgivings about the pollution, congestion and waste produced by the company's trucks and packaging. While I do think FD could probably find better packaging methods, I'm not sure I see a way the company could feasibly maintain their delivery schedules without using those big trucks. It kind of seems like the people who are complaining about them are trying to assuage their own guilt over using the service in the first place.The Brooklyn Record had a recent post which led to a lot of discussion about ways in which food delivery companies could reduce pollution. I commented that it was important to remember what a luxury it is to have such a service, and how it comes with a price. At that point I was told that FD is a 'necessity' for certain people, mainly because there is no decent grocery store in their neighborhood. This got me to thinking, we live in a city with one of the most extensive mass transportation systems in the world which, despite its problems, provides its citizens with flat-fare access to most of the city. Yet despite this we have a whole bunch of people who apparently live so far off the grid that they must compromise their ecological morals and, regretfully, have to have their avocados brought to their door.

TK: I'll have to give considerable thought to how I am compromising my ecological morals. I'm drawing a blank so far.

A poll

As you can see, I've added a poll this week to the blog. The initial question has to do with farm bill priorities. Think of it this way: if there was $1 billion available and it could only go to one priority - the fruit and vegetable snack program, block grants to states or funds for generic promotion - where would you place the funds?

I hope you give the poll a shot. I will leave it up for about a week, give or take. Feel free to submit your idea on this post for the next blog poll.