Marler in the lion's den

Bill Marler's Feb. 28 speech at the National Steinbeck Center must have been fascinating to be at. Here is one take from The Santa Cruz Sentinel about the event. The Packer's John Chadwell also will have coverage of Marler.

Here is grower reaction from The Monterey Herald about the news that authorities have apparently placed the field ID for tainted spinach in San Benito rather than Monterey County.

TK: I really like that the invitation was extended to Marler to speak, and you also have to admire his frank talk. However, I wonder how the lawyers defending spinach suppliers feel when Marler tells growers to be prepared to admit guilt and be ready to "I'm sorry." That might be making Marler's trips to the bank a little too easy.

Being here

A long day wearing a suit and tie at the USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum is winding down. With 2,000 attendees, this conference is more formal than produce shows and crowded like the opening of the PMA show floor. It's like Easter Sunday without the music - and the sermon.
On second thought, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns delivered an uplifting message about soaring farm exports, rising biofuel demand and a more equitable farm bill.
Sessions I attended included a 90 minute plus session on "food icon labeling" - as in the healthy heart check, the U.K.'s stoplight symbol. An FDA official said consumers aren't taking time to read the 30 pieces of info on the food label and want a shortcut. Meanwhile, over 60% of food products have a nutrient claim on the front side of their packaging, even if it is a lame sugary cereal fortified with some random vitamin (my words). So the FDA is thinking about doing something..
One speaker that should be nabbed by the PMA or United is Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing at Cornell University. To get a flavor for where he is coming from, his Web site is http://www.mindlesseating.org/, subtitled "Why we eat more than we think."
He had some good, funny stuff on consumers' attitudes about eating at Subway and McDonald's. "I had a cookie, but it was a Subway cookie." Also, he said marketers of healthy food could actually increase sales by not advertising its health benefit. He also mentioned how he helped the University of Illinois cafeteria increase foods by simply renaming their menu items. Chocolate cake became "Belgium Forest Chocolate Cake" and sales soared. It didn't matter that the Black Forest isn't in Belgium, apparently.

The immigration session was also good, with Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery and Landscape Association carrying the banner for AgJobs. One economist on the panel said tougher U.S. enforcement measures actually contribute to increased immigration from Mexico to the U.S., because the wage gap widens and makes it more attractive. What's more, he said an improving Mexican economy also can encourage immigration, since money is one necessity of making an attempt to cross. So to decrease immigration we need an open border and chaos in Mexico - maybe not, but I'm confused. More tomorrow with the horticultural luncheon and a farm bill forum with Tom Nassif and others.

Easy for you to say

After a press conference by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, I took an opportunity to ask his chief economist Keith Collins a question about the planting restriction on program crop acres in the farm bill. As you know, that issue is real bone of contention, as produce advocates want to keep the long standing provision in the bill and most everybody else wants it gone. Why? In short, because the WTO ruled its presence in farm policy is evidence that subsidies to cotton are market distorting. And market distorting subsidies are being phased back severely, so the USDA has to make its subsidies to farmers non distorting.
I asked Dr. Collins what was the Administration's estimate of the economic impact of lifting the planting restriction.
He acknowledged that USDA economists haven't put a number on it - "such estimates are highly speculative," he said - but generally Collins believes acreage shifts wouldn't be that extensive.
He noted the USDA Economic Research Service did study the issue but assigned no dollar values to the planting restriction. Generally, he said the USDA study shows the effect on fruit and vegetable prices would be “modest,” with dry beans and potatoes likely to experience a bigger effect than other crops.
A recent study commissioned by United Fresh Produce Association and other groups reflects a $4 billion impact, and Collins said he does not think the impact would be that high.

TK: While such estimates are "highly speculative," the USDA should have stepped up with its own dollars and cents assessment of the economic hit that would accompany the loss of the planting restriction.
In other news, Collins projected that growth in demand for fruits and vegetables may slow in 2006-07, as higher prices could reduce consumption. He noted consumer prices for fruits and vegetables have been rising much faster than other foods over the past five years. This year, retail prices for fruits and vegetables are forecast to increase 3% to 4% this year, compared with 2% to 3% for other foods.
Meanwhile, Collins said U.S. imports of horticultural products are forecast at $32 billion in fiscal year 2007, up $3 billion from last year. Fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, wine and beer led the increased imports, Collins said. Total U.S. ag exports will have a record $78 billion performance in 2007, mainly owed to corn and oilseeds.
More coming on immigration this afternoon; Western Growers Tom Nassif tomorrow....

COOL rising

Country of origin labeling is rearing its head again, and here is coverage from Florida that shows advocates haven't lost their zeal. Meanwhile, here is the FMI salvo on COOL issue released March 1. Here is Reuters coverage detailing efforts by COOL backers to get Congress to move up the deadline to this year.
From the Palm Beach Post:

Congress has repeatedly pushed back the implementation deadline for a national law that would require food to carry a label declaring its country of origin.
"It's high time for it to happen," said Emily Eisenberg, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based National Farmers Union. "We think now we have a chance to get this moving."
Only seafood is now required to carry a country-of-origin label.
In late January, legislation to move the deadline to September 2007 from September 2008 was introduced in Congress. The National Farmers Union has organized a coalition of close to 200 organizations that support the legislation and date change.

The FMI issued a news release that took to task the seafood origin law, stating it hasn't increased sales of U.S. seafood and it has cost 10 times more than the USDA estimated.

Meanwhile, the FMI warned of high costs of implementing mandatory COOL. From the FMI news release:

The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) presented comments to USDA this week in response to the agency’s request for cost and benefit information (on seafood labeling).
“The industry’s experience underscores the need to replace the law with a flexible, industry-led program that would be far less costly and provide information that would actually resonate with consumers, such as ‘Wild Alaskan Salmon, ‘Georgia Peaches’ or Vidalia Onions,’” said FMI President and CEO Tim Hammonds.

Hammonds said the retail cost per store to implement COOL for seafood was projected by the USDA at $1,530, but the real cost ranged from $9,000 to $16,000. The cost of implementing COOL for seafood suppliers was projected by the USDA at $1,890, but the FMI said the real cost was $200,000 to $250,000.

The food industry has proposed an effective, flexible labeling model that would communicate the same information in ways consumers would actually find useful without driving costs sky high. “It is time for Congress to correct its mistake and let the industry implement a plan that delivers more without building in the excessive costs that ultimately discourage consumers from buying the seafood we all want to promote. Food retailers are not opposed to providing consumers with country of origin information. We are opposed to doing it with a government program that drives the cost of food unnecessarily high,” Hammonds said.

TK: COOL backers say "it is high time" for mandatory origin labeling and FMI is saying "it is time" for a voluntary solution. They are both right; it is past time to deal with this issue once and for all

Spinach traceback

This AP story reveals more details of the federal state traceback on the fresh spinach that sparked a nationwide E. coli outbreak. But the most important detail is still lacking.
From the story:

Health officials were cited as telling state lawmakers said at a legislative hearing Tuesday that fresh spinach that sparked a nationwide E. coli outbreak last fall was grown on a roughly 50-acre plot in San Benito County, which was in the second year of a three-year transition to organic production. Dr. Kevin Reilly of the California Department of Health Services declined to release further details until they complete a full report on the outbreak, but said the report with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, would be released, "hopefully within the next few weeks."

TK: CDFA officials cited in the story say still don't know how the E. coli got on the spinach. But at least there is a body of knowledge about the area and the farming practices of this specific farm; we will see what kind of illumination the FDA's report brings. Whether water, soil amendments, wild pigs - let's hope the authorities can make the call on how it happened.