New COOL poll

After getting absolutely no traction asking you about eating habits, I come with a straightforward poll question. Can the industry get it done..can industry lobbyists convince lawmakers to replace mandatory COOL regulations with a voluntary plan?

Can the industry pull it off this year or next year, before the mandatory law becomes effective late in 2008? Come on people, this poll is entirely user friendly. Let's see what you think.

Budget rules for farm bill

The Congressional Budget Office has published a 193-page volume called "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017.

In that massive document is this paragraph:

CCC outlays to agricultural producers came to $18 billion in 2006, after varying between $9 billion and $31 billion in the preceding six years. CBO estimates that those outlays will fall to $10 billion in 2007 and will range between $8 billion and $10 billion over the next decade. The reduction in 2007 primarily reflects lower income-support payments to farmers because of historically high crop prices, which are attributable in part to the strong market demand for ethanol. Following directions established by the Deficit Control Act, CBO’s baseline assumes that most major farm programs, which are scheduled to expire in 2007, will continue over the
2008–2017 period.

TK; High commodity prices are taking budget dollars away from the farm bill, and likely hurting chances for robust funding of specialty crop priorities. While farm state members of Congress are fighting for more money to be reserved for the farm bill, the next couple of weeks look large in the budget process, notes Demian Moore, spokesman for the Taxpayers for Common Sense Action. That watchdog group is urging members of Congress to oppose any effort to increase spending above the CBO baseline for commodity subsidy (Title I) programs in the 2007 farm bill.

From their letter:
By establishing a low baseline in the Budget Resolution for the Commodity Credit Corporation, which oversees federal farm subsidy programs, you can take and important first step towards meaningful reform of the current wasteful federal farm support program.

TK: The specialty crop industry wants reform, all right, but a budget resolution that would take tens of billions away from farm bill funding over the next ten years is not necessarily what they had in mind.

Soda soldier

Call her a soda soldier, a Pepsi patriot, or stoked for Coke; Susan Neely President and CEO American Beverage Association, gets paid the big bucks to defend the beverage industry. She was earning her money on March 6, when she gave testimony to the Senate Agriculture Committee on Child Nutrition and the School Setting.
Here is an excerpt:

In May of 2006 the American Beverage Association, Cadbury Schweppes, The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo teamed up with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (a joint initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association) to develop new School Beverage Guidelines that limit calories and increase nutritious beverages in schools.

Later....


We hope the Committee appreciates the extraordinary steps our companies are taking with these guidelines. Our companies are removing full-calorie soft drinks from elementary, middle and high schools throughout America – an unprecedented move by a member of the broader food and beverage industry. They’re also reducing the portion sizes of many beverages and capping the calories of products offered in schools. This does not come without real cost and risk to the industry.

....

When asked to choose between the School Beverage Guidelines and a policy that provided bottled water, 100 percent juice, and low fat milk for K-12, parents supported our guidelines by a margin of 56% to 42%. And when asked if they preferred our guidelines or a complete vending ban in schools, they chose the guidelines by a margin of 82% to 14%.


Not all think the School Beverage Guidelines are the cat's meow. Here is some of what Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, said later in the day.

The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act would require the USDA to update nutritional standards for foods sold outside of school lunch meals. This aim is to create a better set of defaults and hence make progress in improving children’s diets and preventing childhood obesity.

It is common to hear dramatic claims from industry that schools will suffer dearly from nutrition changes, that poorer public schools will be especially hard hit, that freedom is usurped by mandates, and that the food companies just want to offer children choices. These industry positions defend the status quo and defend the very conditions that have created a public health disaster for our children. An example is how the beverage industry, represented by the American Beverage Association (formerly the National Soft Drink Association), has addressed the issue of soft drinks in schools.

Abundant science definitively affirms that soft drinks contribute to poor diet and risk for key diseases such as diabetes and obesity. There is serious reason to question whether industry’s calls for and attempts at self-regulation have any substance. Parallels in other arenas such as tobacco reveal industry actions that benefit industry and help sell more products, not less.


TK: The beverage industry is on the defensive in Congress, and that's saying something for an industry with sales of $100 billion a year. Unlike fresh produce, soft drink makers aren't asking for strong federal oversight, however.

Another success story

One of the speaker's at the March 6 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on Child Nutrition and the School Setting was Teresa Nece, director of Food and Nutrition at the Des Moines Public Schools. She had quite a lot to say about the fruit and vegetable program, and all of it was good.
Some excerpts from her testimony, which can be accessed here:

Our students have definitely enjoyed the experience of not only eating familiar items such as carrots, apples, and oranges, but also trying new fresh fruits and vegetables. Even some of our teachers have experienced tasting fruits and vegetables for the first time. Some of the new favorites are fresh pears, fresh berries, jicama, fresh pineapple and the large variety of apples now available.

One of our first learning experiences in a middle school was offering fresh Bartlett pears as a choice in the classrooms. We discovered that these 6th, 7th and 8th grade students thought fresh pears were white, soft, and sliced. Many of the students had never seen or tasted a whole fresh pear. Classroom teachers discovered that they had many teachable moments with the fresh fruits and vegetables; they embraced the program and encouraged their students to try the new foods each day. What more could we ask of our teachers.

The students even tell their younger brothers and sisters about the fruits and vegetables they will get to eat when they go to Harding Middle School next year. The parents have told us that their students look forward to the fresh fruits and vegetables at school and ask for fresh fruits and vegetables at home. We have had parents tell us about shopping at the grocery store and children requesting that the parent buy for the family the same type of fruit that they had at school that week.

The teachers and principals in the schools have stated many times one of the unexpected benefits to the program is the opportunity for students and teachers to talk about something in the classroom other than just the academics.


TK: This is a great endorsement of the program. I think one of the best things about the fruit and vegetable snack program is the sense of wonder about new varieties and tastes, and the fact that it is free to all students in participating schools. That's got to have kids feeling "cared for." The last point Nece made was strong, too. The program can be a point of discussion and education for both students and teachers.

When non-traditional becomes traditional

When will non-traditional retailers overtake traditional supermarkets in food and consumables sales? And by the time they do, will there be any truly "traditional" supermarkets left? Questions like these were asked at an Agricultural Outlook Forum session put on by Jon Hauptman, with Willard Bishop Consulting, Barrington, Ill.
He makes a good point about the changes at the traditional supermarket. How many "traditional supermarkets" now have a totally different feel than they did 20 years ago, whether that means a dedicated natural foods section or one-hour photo desk.

In any event, Hauptman said that non-traditional retailers, including Wal-Mart and Whole Foods, are estimated to catch traditional retailers in market share by about 2011. That year, NTRs (shorthand permitted here) will command 42.1% of sales, compared with 42.7% for TRs. By 2012, NTRs will have 43.8% of food and consumable sales, while TRs will slip to second place, at 41.3%.

In 2005, nontraditional retailers have a 32% share in the Central regions and 41% share in the South. NTR marketshare for food is 24% in the East and 34% in the West.

While Hauptman said traditional retailers will use technology to help them cater to their best customers, I think Wal-Mart will continue to apply price pressure to traditional retailers by reinforcing their supercenter market presence with the more conventional Neighborhood Markets.

It's a long tough battle for traditional retailers, and even more so when experts are already declaring Wal-Mart and other NTRs will be the eventual winners.

Time for a Change?

You need to read Time magazine’s treatment of local and organic produce, which is found in a March 2 piece called “Eating better than organic.” The cover story brings interesting insights into the consumer consciousness of an Eastern elite, full of musings about the dangers of conventional fruit, half convictions and self-important moral choices.
If nothing else, Time’s coverage confirmed to me that the local food trend is already established as the top social responsibility trend of the year.
We have been reading about variations on this theme in the European press, particularly in the U.K. There, chains are talking about the “carbon footprint” of foods, going so far as to label air-freighted foods with an “aeroplane” symbol. Kenya vegetable exporters have objected to the badge of shame, noting that agricultural production practices in Africa account for much less energy use than those in England.
The Time piece is not really a news piece as it is a “point of view” narrative. How is one man struggling with the issue of local versus organic food?
Here is how it started:

Not long ago I had an apple problem. Wavering in the produce section of a Manhattan grocery store, I was unable to decide between an organic apple and a nonorganic apple (which was labeled conventional, since that sounds better than "sprayed with pesticides that might kill you"). It shouldn't have been a tough choice--who wants to eat pesticide residue?--but the organic apples had been grown in California. The conventional ones were from right here in New York State.

The author sets up a choice between the California farmer who “rejected pesticides” to the New York growers who in some romantic sense was “a neighbor.”
I’m not saying that buying local is silly, or that consumers who choose local produce over organic produce grown thousands of miles away are ill-advised.
Far from it. I’m just saying it is above me to wrangle with the question of whether to buy a local apple – defined loosely as grown within the range of a leisurely day trip - or a California organic apple.
As for me, I might look for the conventional 5-pound bag of apples on sale, no matter the origin.
Perhaps if you sit me down and make me watch Al Gore’s film, “An inconvenient truth,” I will be changed. I don’t think so, though. I just can’t see myself internally calculating the “carbon footprint” of Southern Hemisphere fruit and recoiling in disgust.
While this social responsibility trend is beyond me, it does relate back to an issue that I feel strongly about.
I do think consumers should know if produce is grown in the U.S. or not. Just this week I was visiting with a California source who said one grower in the Stockton Delta region is taking out 600 acres of asparagus this year. Competition from Mexico and Peru has taken out a lot of production, and some growers are bitter.
Retailers who ask Stockton Delta producers what can they do for them at Easter might be asked in return: what have retailers done for them before Easter?
Consumers obviously have an interest in where their foods come from, starting with country of origin information and now encompassing the social phenomena of “local” food.
More power to them.

Back to the Time piece.
How did the author, Ben Stechschulte, resolve the dilemma?
He bought both apples.

Mismatch letter

You have hired a worker to harvest your crop. After submitting his Social Security number to the agency, you get a mismatch letter. The number doesn't match with agency records.
You tell the employee about the mismatch and instruct him to contact to the agency to resolve the issue. A period of time goes by - perhaps a whole year. Then you get a second mismatch letter.
As an agricultural employer, what do you do next? Craig Regelbrugge, senior director of government relations for The American Nursery and Landscape Association, said that question is becoming more and more significant.
The legally conservative approach would be to give the worker 60 days to straighten out the problem or face termination. But with the majority of the agricultural workforce comprised of illegal workers - perhaps seven in ten - where will replacement workers be found?
"There is lot of potential exposure, even when you are talking about employers in agriculture who have been meeting the letter of the law." he said.
Stepped up prosecution of employers and managers who knowingly hire illegals- see here a recent WSJ story about the ICE investigation of IFCO - puts agricultural employers in a precarious position.

More than ever, Congress needs to pass immigration reform that accounts for agriculture's need for legal workers and doesn't ask employers to be the enforcers.