That's enough back patting for one day

I've got to call my esteemed colleague Jim Prevor on this most recent prose regarding the establishment of the Center for Produce Safety.
From the PP

A thousand generations hence, when the spinach crisis of 2006 is not even a memory, one institution is likely to stand, in silent tribute to those who died and as a living memorial to the spirit of the men and women who lived in our age, who worked in our industry and who rose to the occasion by, in a moment of uncertainty and despair, refusing to give in and refusing to accept that there was no solution.

The establishment of such an institution is of no small import. For it represents a life view that we as an industry, that humans as species, are not condemned to merely endure the trials of life but that by harnessing the human intellect with disciplined work we can, in fact, prevail against the obstacles before us.


TK: Jim's produce IQ is in the Pundit category and he is regularly insightful about many topics, but it is too early to anoint this effort with the lavish praise we would reserve for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers or the timeless utility of the Constitution. This effort is what we should expect from an industry responding to serious foodborne illness outbreaks and with its livelihood on the line. I commend the men, women and organizations that made it happen. I am sure they aren't looking for this type of embarrassing, gratuitous praise as they seek to rebuild the confidence of U.S. leafy greens consumers.

Three strikes

Three is a mystical number when it comes to baseball, the Trinity, celebrity deaths, and now the leafy greens marketing agreement. Here, the Santa Cruz Sentinel talks about the three strikes policy the board is moving to put in place:

The three-strikes policy is the backbone to the 150-page agreement, intended to safeguard against another E. coli outbreak like the one that killed three people late last summer and sickened more than 200 others across the country.
So far, hundreds of handlers, growers and shippers, an estimated 99 percent of the industry, have signed on to the agreement, and ultimately they will be awarded a "seal of approval" if they follow its chief guidelines.
John Dyer, chief counsel for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the regulatory agency overseeing the agreement, said three violations by a grower, shipper or handler will result in the loss of the seal of approval for one year.
Some of the safety precautions include testing the water supply monthly for E. coli bacteria, proving there is an adequate trace-back system for the produce — and doing their best to keep animals off farmland.


TK: There is no lack of agenda items for this leafy greens board, just at a time when many members would probably like to just run their business. Hats off to all who have been diligent to design a program that carries consequences for those who don't comply.

10% of a crop for S.C. peaches

It is not taking long to see that the Southeast peach crop is in trouble this year:
Here is a email that just arrived:



Joint Statement by Hugh Weathers, Larry Yonce

COLUMBIA, SC – April 11, 2007 – Larry Yonce, President of the SC Peach Council, and Hugh Weathers, Commissioner of Agriculture, issued a joint statement today after a meeting with South Carolina Peach Council members and others in the peach industry following the devastating blow from freezing and below freezing temperatures on Easter weekend. From initial reports, South Carolina peach growers say that they would be fortunate to have 10% of a crop.

Commissioner Weathers said, “The peach is one of South Carolina’s signature summertime fruits, and this one-year weather phenomenon has been a devastating blow to the industry for this year. But South Carolina growers are resilient. With the support of state and federal agencies and public and private partners, growers and their families will survive this devastating blow.”

The peach industry is valued at more than $40 million a year with a $100 million a year economic impact. Larry Yonce said, “This is a stressful time for family farms across the state. As much as we are concerned about the peach industry, we understand that this disaster extends to farmers and their communities throughout the state. We need extraordinary support during these extraordinary times.”

USDA Farm Service Agency and Clemson Extension Service are continuing to develop more detailed damage assessment reports, not only for peaches but for all crops affected in the state.

For more information, call Julie Huffman, SC Peach Council, 803-528-6009 or visit www.scpeach.com.

Another lurker post

From the comments/tips box comes this from Lurker: He/she makes a good point about "our collective behavior".....



Tom, In regards to the obesity posts, one comment is that to make matters worse, diabetes is also closely associated with the obesity epidemic. According to a report released today, 3 out of 5 people with type 2 diabetes suffer from at least one related complication like: kidney problems, eye disease, foot problems, stroke, vascular problems etc. In other words, existing nutrition and physical activity habits are snowballing into a wide spectrum disease pattern. So while we value individual responsibility our collective behavior is seriously getting in the way of safety and happiness. http://www.stateofdiabetes.com/index.html
Lurker

DC update

Robert Guenther of United tells me this morning that the USDA's announcement of block grant fund availability is the second installment that accounts for funding during fiscal year 2007. This blast of funding for specialty crop block grants brings the total for the fiscal to about $14 million.

The EAT Healthy America Act, introduced earlier in the House, allocates about $500 million per year for specialty crop block grants. Guenther said United is pursuing a dual track to find money for block grants - through the appropriations process and also through attempts to construct permanent funding through the farm bill.

Meanwhile, Guenther said the Senate version of the Eat Healthy America Act is now expected to be introduced next week. The additional time will spent in part securing co-sponsors, he said.

The course of the immigration issue may be shaped during the last two weeks of May. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has said he will reserve that time period for the Senate to consider comprehensive legislation.

Guenther said if comprehensive legislation doesn't move, it will change the dynamics of the process and likely result in a push to consider AgJobs separately.

Specialty crop block grants

The Federal Register issued a notice today of funds availability Inviting Applications for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP).

From the notice:

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announces the availability of approximately $6,895,000 in block grant funds to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. State departments of agriculture interested in obtaining grant program funds are invited to submit applications to USDA. State departments of agriculture, meaning agencies, commissions, or departments of a State government responsible for agriculture within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are eligible to apply. State departments of agriculture are encouraged to involve industry groups, academia, and community-based organizations in the development of applications and the administration of projects.DATES: Applications must be postmarked not later than April 11, 2008.

Examples of enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crops include, but are not limited to: Research, promotion, marketing, nutrition, trade enhancement, food safety, food security, plant health programs, education, ``buy local'' programs, increased consumption, increased innovation, improved efficiency and reduced costs of distribution systems, environmental concerns and conservation, product development, and developing cooperatives.

TK: It would be great to see $200 million a year for specialty crop block grants but $6.8 million is a start. California is allocated $652,000 of the total, followed by Florida with $253,000, Washington with $182,000 and Texas with $156,000.

Off the charts

Don't pass the Golden Corral without thinking of this story. The Rand Corp. has found that the percentage of Americans who are at least 100 pounds overweight has grown 50% in just the past five years.

Before I get into this topic.. Have you checked out the Google News Reel right here on Fresh Talk? It is so much better than getting 30 Google news alerts every day. If you haven't tried it you need to...

Back to the study....
From the April 9 Rand news release:

The proportion of Americans who are severely obese — about 100 pounds or more overweight — increased by 50 percent from 2000 to 2005, twice as fast as the growth seen in moderate obesity, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
“The proportion of people at the high end of the weight scale continues to increase at a brisk rate despite increased public attention on the risks of obesity and the increased use of drastic weight loss strategies such as bariatric surgery,” said Roland Sturm, author of the report and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

TK: It used to be that surgery was a radical option, seldom discussed and never advertised. Now bariatric surgery is widely advertised, though its use and success has seemingly not dented the numbers of the severely obese.

The prevalence of severe obesity continues to surge despite a rapid increase in the use of bariatric procedures, which are surgeries that limit the amount of food patients can eat. The number of bariatric surgeries increased from an estimated 13,000 in 1998 to more than 100,000 in 2003. Experts estimate that as many as 200,000 of the procedures were performed in 2006.

To be classified as severely obese, a person must have a body mass index (a ratio of weight to height) of 40 or higher — roughly 100 pounds or more overweight for an average adult man. The typical severely obese man weighs 300 pounds at a height of 5 feet 10 inches tall, while the typical severely obese woman weighs 250 pounds at a height of 5 feet 4 inches.
People with a BMI of 25 to 29 are considered overweight, while a BMI of 30 or more classifies a person as being obese. For a 5-foot-10 inch male, a BMI of 30 translates into being 35 pounds overweight.

Sturm found that from 2000 to 2005, the proportion of Americans with a BMI of 30 or more increased by 24 percent, the proportion of people with a BMI of 40 or more increased by 50 percent and the proportion of Americans with a BMI of 50 or more increased by 75 percent. The heaviest groups have been increasing at the fastest rates for the past 20 years.

Among middle-aged adults, people with a BMI over 40 are expected to have health costs that are double those experienced by normal weight peers, while moderate obesity (a BMI of 30-35) is associated with only a 25 percent increase.
Sturm said the latest findings challenge a common belief held by physicians that people who are obese are a fixed proportion of the population and are not affected by changes in eating and physical activity patterns in the general population.

The study suggests that clinically severe obesity, instead of being a rare pathological condition among genetically vulnerable individuals, is an integral part of the population's weight distribution. As the whole population becomes heavier, the extreme category — the severely obese — increases the fastest.

TK: As the country becomes more obese, the most obese will increase the fastest. That is not a comforting thought as you take the middle seat on the next cross country flight.

The body mass index allows researchers to define obesity and severe obesity over a population of people with varied heights and weights. The index is defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. The standard cut-off point for obesity is a body mass index of 30 or more, corresponding to a person 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighing 174 pounds, or 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighing 209 pounds or more.
The RAND study is based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The BRFSS, the world's largest annual telephone survey, tracks health risks in the United States. Height and weight is based on self-reporting. More than 1.5 million respondents were included in the analysis.

TK: Quoted in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Strum said this:

"In our daily lives, we have to make thousands of decisions every day, most of them unconsciously," he said. "If someone puts food in front of you, you're probably going to eat it. Trying to override those automatic decisions is extremely difficult. It can wear you down."

From homes to schools to community centers to corporations, the challenge is to turn the trend line in the opposite direction by conscious thought - the small changes in food offerings and physical environment that, as Sturm said, makes it easier for people to move and eat healthfully and harder for them to be sedentary and overindulge.

TK: It sounds simple: make it easier for people to move and eat healthfully and harder for them to be sedentary and overweight. It may be time to hit us in the pocket book, either with incentives through company insurance plans or junk food taxes. Otherwise the Golden Corral will continue to look like a great bargain.

Getting serious about immigration reform

President Bush was in Yuma recently talking about immigration reform and this column by Al Knight of the Denver Post highlights the barriers that must be overcome on the "amnesty" debate" before comprehensive immigration reform can pass both chambers of Congress.
From the column:

Monday, when President Bush was addressing the issue of immigration in Yuma, Ariz., predictably there was a lot of dancing around the use of the word "amnesty." The president for some time now only uses that word to declare that he is against it.
It would be much more truthful to say that he favors amnesty but prefers to call it other names, like "comprehensive reform."

TK: Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform face their biggest challenge in wordsmithing around "amnesty."

Press accounts of his Arizona visit proclaimed that he has devised a much more conservative approach to the topic. This claim cannot be squared with the fact that one of the people applauding his new approach is Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. That is the same Sen. Kennedy who in 1965 claimed the immigration act of that year wouldn't have any important impact on the number or ethnic mix of immigrants entering e country. That assertion was, even by Kennedy standards, a spectacular whopper.

TK: The past failings of immigration legislation creates the emotional reaction to current attempts at reform.

The best that can be said of the president's latest proposal is that it shows some imagination. He has toughened his stance on border enforcement. He has also dropped the last year's proposal to simply let 12 million or so illegal immigrants line up for a guest-worker program. Instead, the White House is talking about issuing what would be called Z visas to those who are here illegally. These visas are a very thinly disguised mechanism that would impose a modest cost but allow everyone who is here illegally to stay put for three years. At the end of that time, they would have to pay $3,500 to renew the visa and this renewal process could go on forever. Put another way, the cost of illegal admission to the country would work out to about $1,000 per year.
Considering that smugglers charge the new clients many times that amount, the financial burden should be quite bearable. The Z visa is amnesty by another name.
The plan being circulated by the White House contains some seemingly tough language. Any illegal immigrant who wanted to achieve permanent status would have to return to his or her home country, apply through the embassy for re-entry and pay a $10,000 fine. Sounds rough, but is it?
If one can stay in this country and achieve legal status by paying a little more than $1,000 a year, why would anyone want, or more importantly need, permanent status and a green card?

TK: Can someone please explain to the American public that the undocumented immigrants who are here are the ones who harvest their food, replace their roof and work in their factories? There will be pain to our economy and to our nation's spirit if we round them up and send them home.

The president's plan has already been greeted with protests by those who have historically supported open borders. They don't like the idea that anyone who is here illegally should have to pay anybody anything. That view isn't likely to change.
What is not so clear is whether most American citizens, who oppose amnesty, can be fooled by a bill that grants amnesty by another name.

Sad to say, but tough talk about $10,000 fines and Z visas doesn't do a thing to bring agreement on illegal immigration any closer.
The president is still a long way away from the most conservative wing of his party. That wing favors enforcement, the end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, much stiffer employer penalties, and the passage of time before any guest-worker program could be put in place.
People in this camp know that an immigration bill will be worthy of passage only if and when Edward Kennedy roundly condemns it.

TK: Only through the bipartisan work of champions like Sen. Larry Craig and Sen. Kennedy can immigration reform that accounts for the needs of agriculture be passed. The recent energetic response by PMA to this issue is encouraging and can only help accomplish what must be done this year.

Digital picture = thousand words, inspection certificate

As I put together a story this week about the trend of decling number of terminal market inspections, here are a few things I've heard yesterday. These are not verbatim, but rather the gist of the conversations..

When I got into the business, you could get an inspection for $23, now it can be several hundred if you have multiple lots.

More receivers have their own q/c, sometimes former USDA inspectors.

I think digital pictures have changed things a lot. You can even send a video clip without too much trouble. A picture is worth a thousand words and often you don't need to get an inspection after seeing images from a buyer

Fewer offices where USDA inspectors are based makes paying for mileage to get them to a DC more expensive than in the day when everybody was at the terminal market.

While Wal-Mart was given props by one shipper who said they don't hold it against shippers who call for an inspection, there is a feeling that some buyers do hold it against the shipper when they call for an appeal inspection.

Another thought is that appeal inspections very rarely reverse a rejection.

Other thoughts out there on this issue... drop me a comment or leave me an email.