River pears

California's Bartlett pear harvest was underway in the River district near Sacramento this week. One shipper who started shipping yesterday said the fruit looks good and clean, with sizes peaking toward 100s. Prices on the size 100 tight fill market were $18-19 per carton, some as high as $20. Prices could decline as volume increases, though some late season imported product is getting out of the way. Volume expectations for the shipper were up 5% to 7% this year, he said.

Peterson's teleconference

House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson briefed reporters today about the run up to full committee markup of the farm bill on July 17. Peterson indicated Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., has been a "bulldog" about finding paid-for funds for the fruit and vegetable snack program and other specialty crop priorities. Peterson has met with House speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to find offsets for items in the En bloc amendment, or those items depending on reserve or contingency funds. Peterson sounded like he was hopeful that specialty crop interests would be on board as the committee dealt with the farm bill next week. Hopeful - but by no means certain. Developing....

Supermarket Guru tackles COOL

Guest blogger Lance Jungmeyer chiming in ...

As the debate on Country of Origin Labeling ensues, the mainstream media is getting in the act.

Here, Phil Lempert, the self-proclaimed Supermarket Guru, is taken on a tour with a USA Today reporter. The article points out that Lempert finds four items with dubious COOL attributes within just the first five feet of stepping into a produce department.

Lempert talks to some consumers who seem fed up with the effort it takes to determine the origin of food, be it processed or fresh.

"If I can afford to, I buy organic. If not, then I try to buy American. It's my second line of defense against questionable agricultural practices," says Grace Clark, a homemaker in San Francisco.

Then, Lempert offers his own view: "We do still have the best food inspections on those foods that are produced here," Lempert says. "Imports have two problems. First is we don't know and can't verify the food safety inspections at foreign facilities, and second is that the inspections here on imported products are very limited."

Now, I've been to many foreign fruit and vegetable packing plants. I can assure you that in most cases there are stricter food safety protocol in place than what I see in the U.S.

There's always the chance that the shipper is putting on a show for me, but I kind of doubt it. They have to be ready for a spot-check at any time. It is becoming more commonplace for buyers to visit unannounced, or with very little notice.

All the same, I have to say that consumers have a right to know the origin of their food.

Food is one of the most sacred aspects of our daily lives. What we eat defines who we are. It defines our waist size. It defines our socio-economic standing. In many cases, it defines our personal politics. Taste is important, but consumers want assurances that their food is grown and processed in accordance with their beliefs.

This is bad news for exporters of Chinese product. More and more food safety scares are turning people away from imported foods and toward local foods. Local produce, however, is a mostly spring and summer phenomenon.

At some point, even the most stringent consumers will have to eat imported food. And they will want to know it's origin.

Fat tax or lean discount

Attacking obesity through a fat tax has actually been attempted in the U.K., and now a study from Oxford University suggest expansion of the surcharge on fatty and sugary foods could save more than 3,200 lives a year.

From the Reuters story:

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.
Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.
The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.
The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.
They used a mathematical formula to estimate the effect of higher prices on the demand for foods such as pastries, cakes, cheese and butter.
Any "fat tax" might be seen as an attack on personal freedom and would weigh more heavily on poorer families, the study warned.
A food tax would raise average weekly household bills by 4.6 percent or 67 pence per person.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected the idea as an example of the "nanny state" that might push people away from healthy food.
The Food and Drink Federation has called the proposed tax patronizing and says it would hit low-income families hardest.
It suggests that people eat a balanced diet.


TK: No surprise that The Food and Drink Federation is against this, but note the British Heart Foundation also does not support this tax. Its stance: "We believe the government should focus on ensuring healthy foods are financially and geographically accessible to everyone." As with the immigration issue, the temptation is to look at enforcement first - in this case penalizing bad food choices. However, the governments of all advanced societies need to first look at promoting healthy food choices at the youngest ages, first by expanding availability of fruits and vegetables in schools and also by restricting access to junk food at schools. A fat tax may do the campaign for healthy eating more harm than good because of the backlash that would result.

Papaya marketing order bye bye

In today's Friday the 13th edition of the Federal Register comes this news about the termination of the marketing order for Hawaiian papayas.

This final rule terminates the Federal marketing order (order) for papayas grown in Hawaii, and the rules and regulations established under the order. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) previously determined the order should be terminated due to the results of a referendum in which growers indicated a lack of support for the continuation of the order. However, USDA postponed the termination until licensing agreements regarding development and use of transgenic papaya varieties could be resolved. Sufficient time has elapsed for the industry to resolve any outstanding licensing issues. Therefore, USDA is proceeding with the termination of the order.

TK: If anyone can lead the industry to acceptance of transgenic produce, it is the papaya shippers in Hawaii. They won't do so with the help of a marketing order, however.