USDA reports decline in per capita veg disappearance

We are supposed to be eating more vegetables, not less. But the USDA reports that per capita disappearance of vegetables declined 3% last year.

Here is a link to the pdf file Vegetables and Melon Outlook.
From the report:


2006, per capita disappearance (also known as net domestic use, a proxy for consumption) of all vegetables, melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes, pulse crops, and mushrooms fell 3 percent to 428 pounds. Most of this reduction was due to lower head lettuce and processed tomato disappearance. In 2007, increased supplies of tomatoes and potatoes are expected to be the primary forces pushing vegetable use up modestly from year-earlier levels. Fresh vegetables: On a per person basis, domestic disappearance for consumption of fresh-market vegetables (excluding melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes, pulses, and mushrooms) fell 2 percent to 145 pounds. Fresh use rose for crops like asparagus, snap beans, cabbage, cauliflower, bell peppers, garlic, and romaine and leaf lettuce and dropped for head lettuce, spinach, celery, onions, pumpkins, and tomatoes. In 2007, fresh vegetable use is expected to rise slightly from that of a year earlier.

Lurker cites NYT

Our anonymous poster Lurker left this message.

There was a very interesting piece on last Sunday's New York Times titled "You are what grow". Link here. Lurker


This a timely and insightful piece, drawing out observations about the cost of calories, obesity and the unintended consequence of our current farm policy.
This is a telling excerpt:

So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based
on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.


TK: Even this well written piece probably won't stir the passion of readers about the farm bill. Still, the author - like the produce industry - holds out hope that the backroom deals on the farm bill may be at least replaced in part by more equitable and sensible legislation.

Stallman's logic

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, defended that organization's farm bill proposal. While some may call it status quo, that is mistaken, he said.

He said that while other groups have put out farm bill proposals, only Farm Bureau's and the USDA's have sought to do it within the budget guidelines for the 2007 farm bill.

Our proposal offsets a $250 million annual increase in conservation funding for fruit and vegetable producers by capping spending on the Conservation Security Program (CSP) in 2016 and 2017.

The School Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program was authorized to encourage increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables by children. The program offers fresh fruit and vegetables free of charge to children in 400 schools in 14 states. The program was funded at $6 million for the 2002-2003 school year and was extended through the 2003-2004 school year. Farm Bureau supports expansion of the School Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program to 10 schools in every state. This should only cost about $7.5 million annually but will provide significant benefits to fruit and vegetable producers now and in the long term, while promoting healthy eating habits among children.
In recent years, USDA has acquired an average of over $300 million a year in fruit and vegetables for schools. About $50 million is purchased and distributed through the Department of Defense Fresh Program, which supplies fresh fruits and vegetables to schools under contract with USDA. We support the administration’s proposal to provide an additional $50 million a year for the purchase of fruits and vegetables specifically for the school lunch program. Some of this new spending could be through added funds for the Department of Defense Fresh Program.


Here, I asked Stallman about the $250 million in exchange for the planting restriction.

TK: Maybe it is the budget constraints, but Farm Bureau's farm bill proposal doesn't approach a sense of fair play for fruit and vegetable producers. Only $7.5 million a year for the fruit and vegetable snack program - in just 10 schools per state - is unacceptable. The industry has to hope it can do much better than this status quo, commodity program-oriented proposal.

Farm Bureau's nod to specialty crops

The American Farm Bureau Federation has just released their proposal for the 2007 farm bill. The pdf link can be found here in the Fresh Produce Discussion Group. The FB site is linked here.

The highlights from Farm Bureau news release:

Support for maintaining the baseline funding for the commodity title ($7 billion per year) and conservation title ($4.4 billion per year), rather than transferring funding from one title to another. These baselines already include sizable cuts from the 2002 farm bill funding level.

Support for eliminating the fruit and vegetable planting prohibition and for $250 million per year in conservation program funding for specialty crop growers.

Support for a revenue-based counter-cyclical safety net program to protect against both low prices and low yields and provide payments to farmers when they need them most.

Support for a standing catastrophic assistance program that is integrated with a re-rated crop insurance program. Crop insurance coverage would be reduced from the current coverage level because the new standing catastrophic assistance program would cover 50 percent of losses.

Support for retention of non-environmentally sensitive land in the Conservation Reserve Program and allowing the production of energy crops on that land. Those contract holders would be required to produce a cellulosic ethanol feedstock cover crop.

Opposition to any changes in farm bill payment limitations and income means-testing.


TK: This proposal accentuates the status quo. The $250 million for the specialty crop industry, directed through conservation program funding and coming at the expense of the planting provision on program crop acres, is underwhelming -- especially considering produce industry ambitions run much higher and include nutrition program and block grants. While baseline funding for program crops is close to $10 billion a year, specialty crops get $250 million; that's not too equitable.
Developing...

EU push for school fruit and vegetable programs

Above, Lars Hoelgaard, Deputy Director General, Directorate General Agriculture, European Commission, offers support for expansion of school fruit and vegetable programs at a briefing at the European Parliament April 17.


This shot was passed on by Andrew Marshall, government relations assistant with the United Fresh Produce Association, As in the U.S., Lorelei DiSogra of United notes that leaders in Europe are beginning to align agriculture policy with public health goals, and that gives a lift to programs that would distribute free fruits and vegetable in schools. Industry leaders in Europe have asked for 100 million euros to fund an EU program that would provide matching funds for the program to member states.

FDA on defense

The Washington Post has published a story today by Elizabeth Williamson headlined "FDA Was Aware of Dangers To Food", with a tagline "Outbreaks Were Not Preventable, Officials Say."

As she describes the warning signs the FDA had about both the peanut butter salmonella contamination and the E. coli pathogen linked spinach outbreaks, Williamson notes the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing tomorrow. Among those interviewed include Bob Brackett of the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

From the story:

In a letter sent to California growers in late 2005, Brackett wrote, "FDA is aware of 18 outbreaks of foodborne illness since 1995 caused by [E. coli bacteria] for which fresh or fresh-cut lettuce was implicated. . . . In one additional case, fresh-cut spinach was implicated. These 19 outbreaks account for approximately 409 reported cases of illness and two deaths."
"We know that there are still problems out in those fields," Brackett said in an interview last week. "We knew there had been a problem, but we never and probably still could not pinpoint where the problem was. We could have that capability, but not at this point."

TK: The FDA will not have an easy day tomorrow. Below is the witness list:

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled A Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply?

This hearing is part of the Committee's broader investigation into the safety of our nation's food supply and the declining ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct inspections and perform laboratory analysis. The hearing will focus on the recent contamination of pet food, peanut butter and spinach. Witnesses will include victims of food borne illnesses resulting from the outbreaks as well as representatives from the companies responsible for producing the contaminated products.


WITNESS LIST

Panel I
Ms. Elizabeth Armstrong
Accompanied by
Ashley and Isabella Armstrong
Indiana

Mr. Gary Pruden
Accompanied by Sea nPruden
Pennsylvania

Ms. Terri Marshall
Louisiana

Panel II
Dr. Anthony DeCarlo
Red Bank Veterinary Hospital
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Mr. Charles Sweat
President
Natural Selection Foods
1721 San Juan Hwy
San Juan Bautista, CA 95405

Mr. Paul K. Henderson
Chief Executive Officer
Menu Foods Income Fund
8 Falconer Drive
Streetsville, Ontario L5N IB1
Canada

Ms. Lisa Shames
Acting Director
Natural Resources and Environment
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room 2T23A
Washington, DC 20548

Panel III

Mr. David Colo
Senior Vice President - Manufacturing
ConAgra Foods, Inc.
5 ConAgra Drive
Omaha, NE 68102

Mr. Stephen S. Miller
Chief Executive Officer
ChemNutra, Inc.
810 S. Durango Drive, Suite 102
Las Vegas, NY 89145

Ron's explanation

Ron McCormick, vp of produce and floral at Wal-Mart, gave an interview to a Reuters reporter about Wal-Mart's organic produce business. The April 23 story is here

While Wal-Mart said last year that it would double its offerings of organic, the reporter notes that the number of organic produce items in Wal-Mart has been scrutinized, with some surmising that the retailer's organic push has fallen flat. The reporter sets up the story with the line that "many are wondering if Wal-Mart has pulled back" from its commitment to organic.

McCormick doesn't get into specifics, but he did say that "really very few stores" could not sell 20 to 25 organic produce items on a consistent basis. At the same time, McCormick said that the chain has moved away from exclusively organic lines.

From the story:

McCormick said Wal-Mart began testing organic produce at a store near Albuquerque, New Mexico, about three years ago, after noticing that virtually all of its competitors had moved into the category.
"We thought if it was a high population, fast-growing market like this, and there's that many people into it, it takes it beyond the world of a Whole Foods or a specialty store -- there must be something there," he said.
So the company set up a 12-foot section in its produce area, combining natural foods, vegetarian items and organic produce.
"I think we added initially about 45 items, and we were getting it from local sources, so it was easy to do," he said.
Some items sold well, others did not, and McCormick said his team played around with the section for a year before organics garnered company-wide interest, with talk of expanding it across the country.
One way Wal-Mart figured it would tackle the category on such a large scale was to go exclusive -- find certain products that were relatively as easy to grow organically as they were to grow conventionally, and then sell only the organic version.
But by only offering three-packs of organic romaine hearts, the company was unable to take advantage of local supply and times when farmers would offer deals on conventional lettuce.
"We were having to say no because our program was exclusively organic on that item. So it got to be foolish not to take advantage of those opportunities," McCormick said.
Wal-Mart also ran into supply issues.
"The growers were straining to meet our volume, which I think also pushes you into an unenviable position in produce," he said.
"We're now trying to build a network of good suppliers that will be able to grow with us and be consistent. Our ideal supplier is one that has a passion for what they're doing and also has the ability to grow as we grow, so you don't have thousands and thousands of suppliers," he said.


TK: It would be helpful to know Wal-Mart's organic sales, but that information won't be forthcoming. Not surprisingly, McCormick clearly signals Wal-Mart is looking to team with the largest organic suppliers and grow business with them.

Marler's testimony

Here is a link to Bill Marler's written testimony that will be submitted to tomorrow's hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He indicated he won't be a panelist that presents to the committee in person, but he is submitting these written remarks, and some of his clients will testify.

In his written remarks, Marler repeats his signature line, asking the committee to put Marler Clark "out of business."

It is time that you help government, help business, help consumers and make me unnecessary. I will do that by presenting best practices and other recommendations that can make that possible. Therefore, I thank this committee for inviting me to help with a dialogue about making the food chain safer for consumers.


Marler then makes the connection between the E. coli cases on produce with the early struggles the meat industry .

What has changed since Upton Sinclair’s “Jungle” are two things. One, the source of disease has shifted from the meat that Sinclair described to produce. As usually happens, it took a crisis for incidences of E. coli in meat to decline. That crisis occurred in the early 1990s. Undercooked hamburgers containing E. coli from Jack in the Box sickened 650 people, four of them children who died. Shortly, I will discuss how that problem was fixed, perhaps not completely, and the important lessons we as a nation should learn from that. Incidentally, that has been one of the major food safety success stories of our time. According to the CDC, E. coli outbreaks linked to tainted meat have declined by 42 percent. The American Meat Institute puts that figure at 80 percent.Currently, the single largest source of food-borne disease is produce such as lettuce, spouts, tomatoes, spinach, green onions and parsley. Here are some figures. In the past 10 years, the Food and Drug Administration – the FDA – reported 21 outbreaks related to fresh leafy products. In 2006, 205 people became sick and five died from eating E. coli contaminated spinach.


Marler has eight recommendations for the committee:


From research and experience, here are eight recommendations.

First of all, there exist two “best practices” in meat that should be extended to produce. Following the Jack in the Box crisis, the head of the U.S.D.A.’s Food and Safety Inspection service took a regulatory and systems approach to food safety. That “hero” was Michael Taylor. Taylor declared that raw ground beef that is contaminated with E. coli would be classified and treated as “adulterated” within the meaning of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Following Taylor’s example, we must serve notice to produce and other food processors that E. coli, salmonella, etc. will be classified and treated as adulterants. In addition, the same kind of comprehensive Risk Management System must be established and implemented. Penalties must be criminal and civil.
Two, we need the same kind of food safety champion that Taylor was. This person would be a highly visible symbol of our commitment. Along these lines, it is useful to consider consolidating responsibility in one federal-level agency. That would be the central point for communication about best practices and the point of contact for state and local regulators and health departments.
Three, the track record of business for issuing warnings and recalls rapidly isn’t good. Peanut butter has been a classic example. The federal and state governments should have authority to do this. That means increased funding, particularly at the state level. Most outbreaks are regional, not national.
Four, produce an E. coli vaccine for cows. I would say that the lion’s share of produce problems result from this contaminant passed on through cow feces.
Five, the nation requires education about the benefits of irradiation of all mass-produced food including produce. Resistance to this practice seems to be rooted in public perception, not science.
Six, attention has to be paid to the vulnerability of our food supply system to acts of terrorism. Denial and lack of common sense seem to dominate thinking at all levels – business and federal and state government.
Seven, why haven’t we applied our economic and political muscle to imposing more stringent regulations on food imports? This is a central trade issue that has been neglected.
And, eight, there’s an urgent need to improve the resources available to foodborne disease victims. At the top of the list are the out-of-pocket medical costs. Those are usually not immediately or even eventually reimbursed by medical insurance if victims have coverage. By time compensation comes from litigation, the person could be heavily in debt.

Let me wrap this up with one thought. Just as the boldness, courage and relentlessness of Michael Taylor made meat safer, these eight recommendations can ensure the integrity of the rest of the food chain. And better care for victims. Let me say again: “I ask this committee to put us at Marler Clark out of business.” Thank you.


TK: I think several of Marler's recommendations will find resonance in the produce community, though he tends to stress regulation over research. His strong words about expanded FDA authority and civil and criminal penalties for processors won't be popular. The most effective witnesses before the committee tomorrow likely will be his clients - or some of those sickened by E. coli tainted spinach or leafy greens.

Senate Ag Committee witness list

The Senate Ag Committee's witness list for its April 24 hearing can be found here.
Here are the fruit and veg related panelists:

Mr. Phil Korson Cherry Marketing Institute

Ms. Maureen Marshall United Fresh Produce Association

Mr. A.G. Kawamura State Director of Agriculture Sacramento, California

Mr. John Rice Former Chairman of the US Apple Association On his own behalf

Mr. Bill Brim Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association