Feds: No criminal charges

The Associated Press reports here that no criminal charges will be filed related to last year's nationwide E. coli outbreak, according to the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco.

From the story published in The Salinas Californian:

Following the outbreak, which led to the deaths of three people and sickened about 200 others, FBI agents raided two produce processing plants and several farms for evidence of environmental and food-safety violations. The investigation did not find that growers or processors had deliberately skirted the law or were negligent in preventing tainted foods from entering the marketplace, said U.S. Attorney Scott Schools.
Authorities had searched plants in October run by Growers Express LLC in Salinas and Natural Selection Foods LLC in San Juan Bautista, as well as farms in Santa Clara, Monterey and San Benito counties.FBI and FDA agents spent 11 hours searching both companies' facilities, sifting through records for evidence of a paper trail indicating spinach handlers skirted proper food-handling procedures.Federal officials warned consumers not to eat bagged or bunched spinach for two weeks last September after dozens of people in 26 states fell ill after eating leafy greens packaged by Natural Selection Foods and sold under 34 brand names.

TK: This is certainly good news, though it doesn't mean all clouds are gone and only blue skies remain. Seattle lawyer Bill Marler writes in his blog here that the law firm has "we have resolved the claims of 29 individuals and families who became ill or died as a result of eating contaminated spinach." Marler doesn't say how many are pending.

Popular support

This opinion piece from The Baltimore Sun loudly trumpets the cause of fruits and vegetables. The author of this piece is Scott Kahan, a physician and postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins University. His e-mail is scott.kahan@iebn.org. He merits an email from all in the fresh produce industry that share his passion.
Normally I would excerpt a column, but this is strong from top to bottom.
Kahan writes:

A long-running contradiction in U.S. farm policy is fattening the waistlines of Americans and the profits of agribusiness at the same time. For the 30 years that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been issuing dietary guidelines, there has been a stark inconsistency between the federal government's advice and its food funding.
True, the USDA has been doing more, over time, to promote health through dietary guidelines, food pyramids and other nutrition programs. And yet more than $20 billion yearly -- more than one-fifth its budget -- is sunk into a farm bill that supports many of the foods its recommendations warn against. At the same time, the department virtually ignores incentives to produce, promote and consume some of the healthiest foods: fruits and vegetables.
This contradiction may play a role in today's obesity epidemic and is in part driven by a counterintuitive farm policy, highlighted by the farm bill, which is up for renewal this year in Congress. This legislation began during the Depression to protect farmers against environmental disasters and plummeting crop prices but has evolved into a massive program of handouts, largely benefiting agribusinesses. Worse, it promotes vast overproduction of crops that are the building blocks of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor, processed junk foods. It has become a "food bill."
For a half-century, the farm bill served farmers and the public well by regulating supply and stabilizing food prices. In 1973, it was overhauled to significantly increase crop production.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the U.S. food supply has since ballooned by 500 calories per person per day, and per capita food consumption has increased by more than 200 calories per day -- the equivalent of more than 20 pounds of fat per year.
This mammoth oversupply would be less egregious if it were spread equally among the food groups. Instead, most funding supports just a few crops, and those lay the foundation of the standard American diet: high in sugars and empty-calorie, refined grains; high in fats; low in whole grains and fiber; and low in fruits and vegetables.
Take corn, the most highly subsidized crop, which received $9.4 billion in 2005 -- nearly as much as all other crops combined. Corn production has more than doubled since the 1970s, and all this artificially cheapened corn is unloaded on the public, largely in the form of tasty but empty-calorie junk foods. Refined corn is the chief source of carbohydrates and calories in most processed foods, particularly snack foods. High-fructose corn syrup is the most widely used caloric sweetener in the United States. And corn meal is widely used as cheap animal feed to fatten factory-raised livestock.
Another example is soybeans, the fourth-most-subsidized crop. Although soy protein is a healthful meat substitute, soybeans are more commonly used in junk foods. Soybean oil accounts for 75 percent of the fat in processed foods and is commonly hydrogenated to create trans fats, which improve shelf life but are known to cause cardiovascular disease.



In contrast, healthful foods are grossly underfunded. USDA guidelines advise that fruits and vegetables make up at least one-third of daily intake, but just 5 percent of its food funding supports the fruit and vegetable industries. There is virtually no funding for public education and advertising encouraging fruit and vegetable consumption. At its peak, the "Five-a-day" campaign budget was just $3 million annually -- compared with the $11 billion spent yearly in the United States for fast food and junk food advertising. McDonald's spent $500 million just promoting its "We Love To See You Smile" campaign.
This is one reason Americans don't eat fruits and vegetables. Although some surveys suggest we eat about four servings daily, this number is greatly exaggerated because French fries and potato chips are counted the same as spinach, carrots or broccoli. In fact, 25 percent of vegetables consumed in the United States are fried potatoes, making the daily consumption of healthful fruits and vegetables closer to two servings -- and possibly lower in children and inner-city populations.
Farm policy is an ideal avenue to address the obesity epidemic at its roots.
As Congress considers this year's farm bill, it should rework the legislation so it meets the needs of today's food consumers, not agribusiness. The new farm bill should significantly shift funding to improve the availability, affordability and promotion of fruits, vegetables and other healthful foods.
In particular, it should include targeted investments to fruit and vegetable growers to increase the availability of fresh produce, support for the new "Fruits & Veggies -- More Matters" initiative, expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program to all 50 states to promote the eating of fruits and vegetables in schools, creation of incentives for fresh fruit and vegetable purchases in the Food Stamp program, and support for organic farming.
These steps could signal that our government is ready to lead the fight against obesity and diet-related chronic disease by nurturing the health-conscious lifestyle it advocates by its dietary guidelines.

Stenzel talk

Tom Stenzel of United Fresh spoke to The Packer editorial staff today, with some off the record comments but mostly a very insightful on the record conversation. Stenzel, speaking about the food safety question, noted that regaining consumer confidence in spinach safety has arguably been more of a struggle than airlines face in getting passengers on their planes following news of a fatal airplane crash. The analogy isn't perfect, but it illustrates the relationship between federal oversight of produce safety and consumer confidence. A candid Q and A included some talk on farm bill strategy, United board member interaction, United's relationship with PMA and the immigration question.

Sweet

Sweet cherry production is up to record levels. From the USDA report today.


U.S. sweet cherry production is forecast at 317 thousand tons, up 8 percent from 2006 and 27 percent above 2005. If realized, this will be the highest production on record.The Washington crop forecast of 155 thousand tons is unchanged from the June Crop Production report. The forecast is 9 percent below 2006 but 13 percent above the production in 2005. If realized,this will be the second highest sweet cherry production on record. Eastern Washington experienced some damaging frosts in early spring, but growing conditions during June have been good. Fruit size and quality are expected to be very good.Production in California is forecast at 92.0 thousand tons,119 percent higher than 2006 and 75 percent above 2005. The California forecast is carried forward from the June 1 forecast. Favorable spring weather with no extended rain was ideal for pollination. Acreage increases and good-sized fruit have increased California's sweet cherry production potential.Oregon production is forecast at 40.0 thousand tons, unchanged from the June Crop Production report. The forecast is 20 percent below2006 but 40 percent above the production in 2005. Many growers along the Columbia River and in the Willamette Valley experienced a damaging late frost.The Michigan crop is forecast at 26.0 thousand tons, 21 percent above the 2006 production but 4 percent lower than the 2005 crop. Michigan growers reported that sweet cherry crop potential is very good.Idaho is expecting a sweet cherry crop of 2.00 thousand tons, down 47 percent from last year but 18 percent higher than 2005. Idaho sweet cherry growers experienced several freezes during the bloom period, reducing the crop's yield potential.Utah production is expected to total 1.40 thousand tons, down 22 percent from both 2006 and 2005. Cool temperatures were reported during bloom which hampered pollination and decreased production potential.New York production is forecast at 970 tons, 1 percent above the 2006 crop and 21 percent higher than 2005. Some growers in the Lake Ontario region reported spotty frost damage, but overall, growers across New York are optimistic about this year's sweet cherry crop.

WT No

We haven't been hearing much about the WTO of late, and apparently for good reason. Here is the link to a statement by the U.S. expressing disappointment in the latest negotiating efforts. Here is a story from Forbes talking about the failure of the talks in Germany.

Statement from Ambassador Schwab and Secretary Johanns

Postdam, Germany - Statement from USTR Ambassador Susan C. Schwab and USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on Doha Round:
The United States is deeply disappointed with the outcome of this week's negotiations.
For the past six years we have pursued an agreement in the Doha Round that will spur economic growth and development - especially in the world's poorest countries - by creating new trade flows and disciplining subsidies. To meet the Doha Round's promise, developed and advanced developing economies need to open their domestic markets for agricultural goods, industrial products, and services.
We came this week with the commitment to make significant progress towards a successful Round. Unfortunately, this week's negotiations could not generate political consensus to meaningfully open markets to new trade - particularly in manufactured goods.

TK: Brazil and India were critical of U.S. willingness to cut farm subsidies. The impasse appears to indicate these talks are going nowhere. The lack of momentum likely will hurt efforts in Congress to renew trade promotion authority for President Bush.

Going the extra food mile

The carbon footprint and food miles associated with individual products are hot topics for exporters of fresh vegetables from Kenya, and this report reveals some of their worries.
From The Africa Channel

UK retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S) has reassured Kenyan agricultural exporters that it will not cut imports of fresh produce . In an e-mail briefing, the retailer’s chief executive officer, Stuart Rose, said uninterrupted trade with Kenyan horticulture industry is part of its success, and said recent moves to alert customers to the environmental impact of air-freight should not worry the country’s producers.


TK: What strikes me in this conversation is the length and assumed expense to which retailers will go to measure and label something so complex as the carbon footprint. In the story, Tesco said it is committed to develop a more in-depth labelling system to show the total amount of carbon emissions caused by every product. Retailers will do all of this voluntarily, but compelling U.S . retailers to display country of origin labeling is a deal-breaker? I wonder about that.

Thailand tropicals

Here is the summary from the Federal Register rule about Thailand tropical fruit.

We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation into the United States of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand. As a condition of entry, these fruits must be grown in production areas that are registered with and monitored by the national plant protection organization of Thailand, treated with irradiation in Thailand, and subject to inspection. The fruits must also be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the fruit had been treated with irradiation in Thailand. In the case of litchi, the additional declaration must also state that the fruit had been inspected and found to be free of Peronophythora litchii, a fungal pest of litchi. Additionally, under this final rule, litchi and longan imported from Thailand may not be imported into or distributed to the State of Florida, due to the presence of litchi rust mite in Thailand.This action allows the importation of litchi, longan, mango,mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand into the United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the United States.


Later...

According to a press release of the Thai Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives posted on the Web site of the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards in Thailand, that country iscapable of producing approximately 5 million metric tons (MT) of the fruits covered in the final rule. This production may be divided as follows: 80,000 MT of litchi (lychee), 200,000 MT of mangosteen,500,000 MT of rambutan, 500,000 to 700,000 MT of longan, 1.8 million MTof mango, and 2 million MT of pineapple. Given the production data reported by the OAE, these production values seem reasonable. However,only a fraction of this is likely to be exported given historical export data, as well as the fact that the existing irradiation facility will not be able to accommodate these estimated volumes of fruit. Since a new facility will not be constructed until regulations are in place,it is not likely that Thailand will be able to treat and ship volumes of this magnitude in the immediate future.


TK: First India, now Thailand with irradiated fruit. Right now it is hard to figure how much treated fruit from Thailand will actually be marketed here, and exactly when that fruit will arrive.

Florida shut out of citrus states

It is barely past midnight, and the June 21 Federal Register has already crossed the wire. There are two notable rules. One deals with irradiated fruit from Thailand and the other is the closely watched proposed rule on movement of Florida citrus from canker infested regions.

Here is the summary of the canker rule:

We are proposing to amend the citrus canker regulations to modify the conditions under which fruit may be moved interstate from a quarantined area. Under this proposed rule, we would eliminate the requirement that the groves in which the fruit is produced be inspected and found free of citrus canker, and instead require that fruit produced in the quarantined area be treated with a surface disinfectant treatment in a packinghouse operating under a compliance agreement and that each lot of finished fruit be inspected at the packinghouse and found free of visible symptoms of citrus canker. We would, however,retain the current prohibition on the movement of fruit from a quarantined area into commercial citrus-producing States. These proposed changes would relieve some restrictions on the interstate movement of fresh citrus fruit from Florida while maintaining conditions that would help prevent the artificial spread of citrus canker.

TK: This proposed rule apparently keeps the door shut on all Florida citrus movement (from canker infested areas) into California, Arizona and Texas. I think you will see Florida object to these restrictions, and I would think they would argue the pest risk assessment the USDA completed earlier supported the movement of fruit free of visible symptoms of citrus canker to all states, provided safeguards are in place. However, peer review of the PRA and other input put the kibosh on allowing shipments to all states. Comments are accepted throughh July 23. California should be pleased with this proposed rule, and I don't see how this rule can be changed in the short time before the season begins.

Here is the USDA's explanation:

While the conclusions of both our PRA and RMA indicate that fresh citrus fruit is an unlikely pathway for citrus canker infection, we cannot conclusively rule out any type or variety of citrus fruit as a potential source of citrus canker infection at this time. In addition, the probabilistic model presented in our RMA document finds that if such distribution were to take place, fruit with symptoms of citrus canker disease could end up in citrus-producing States.