U.S. fresh vegetables share of supply exported

Selected per capita utilization

Import share of consumption - vegetables and melons

ERS Vegetable Yearbook spreadsheets

For Fresh Talk readers to peruse...

U.S. Vegetable per capita use of commercial vegetables

U.S. Vegetable and Melon Shipments

U.S. Vegetable and Melon Imports

Import share of U.S. vegetable market

Fresh vegetable per capita

U.S. Vegetable exports share of production

Mexico's irrational fears, Aussie politicians and NZ GMO's

Here are some recent USDA FAS attache reports:

Mexico weekly highlights: The panic expressed by some agricultural workers’ associations regarding NAFTA’s full implementation in 2008 is more of a “psychological” issue than an actual threat, according to Blanca Villarello, General Coordinator of Trade and Export Promotion within the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture (SAGARPA). “With the exception of corn, beans, milk and sugar, all of the other products have been liberalized and we’re doing fine. I wouldn’t see it with fear: there’s so much interdependence between our countries that there’s no incentive to try to damage the relationship”, Villarello stated. She added that agricultural exports from Mexico to the United States increased 18% last year and the exports have diversified. “We used to export five different products, but now we send a large variety of products including vanilla, peppers and even grasshoppers,” stated Villarello. Her statements generated a series of negative reactions from agricultural workers association leaders, blaming her for being imprudent and irresponsible.

TK I thought California avocado growers were worried, but there is no lack of anxiety in Mexico.

Japan market highlights: * Aeon Co., Ltd., is contracting with farmers to produce for its private brand fruits and vegetables and to acquire Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices (EUREPGAP) certification. Since food safety is highly important nowadays, they are paying particular attention to the use of agricultural chemicals. So far two contract farmers have acquired the certificate, and Aeon will support other contract farmers’ efforts to acquire certification. (b. 5/30)

TK: Interesting concept: contract with farmers to produce private brand fruits and vegetables, with an emphasis on food safety. Could be a selling point to the consumer, I would say.

* The convenience store sector is very competitive so stores are looking for new ways to cultivate customers. Seven Eleven-Japan Co., Ltd. has started selling its products on the internet, and selling non-convenience type items over the counter (CDs/DVDs). Lawson Inc. and FamilyMart Co., Ltd. are now selling vegetables and magazines that competitor stores don’t carry.

TK: Vegetables in a convenience store? I'm trying to think if I have ever seen any vegetable in a U.S. convenience store, and my mind is drawing blank.

* South American “power fruits” are rapidly becoming popular in Japan. New fruits with names like “kamukamu” and “asai “are presently in Japan, and “molla” and “guanabanana” are beginning to make an appearance. Most of these have not been seen much less eaten in Japan. These are new to the eye and reportedly full of nutrition so they are a big hit and are expected to have continued rising sales. (g. 5/24)

TK: What is this kamukamu you speak of? Seriously, we can't be outdone by the Japanese when it comes to exotic fruits and vegetables. World Variety and Freida's should get right on this.

* Marshmallows, the soft, flexible sweet treat that is gentle to the tongue, are becoming popular. Hotels have begun selling these in gift packages, and specialty stores have begun putting them on the shelves. Various colors and shapes are being developed and it is being marketed as. “guimauve” or marshmallow in French. Many pastel colors are being used, as well as fruit-like sweet-sour tastes aimed at capturing the female market (b. 5/16)

TK: Marketers sold us bottled water, didn't they? Flavored, pastel colored marshmallows could be the next big thing....

* The “Food for Specific Health Uses” market reportedly reached 700 billion yen in 2006. Therefore the food industry is paying considerable attention to functional foods. These types of foods are geared toward older people. More so than ever, great attention is being focused on health by “active seniors”. (f. 5/24)

TK: Kind of rolls off the tongue.. Food for Specific Health Uses" market. As a nation, Japan is aging even faster than we are, but the trend of "functional foods" is likely to get plenty big in the U.S. as well.

Australia Senate finishes inquiry to NZ apple decision The Federal Government's Senate Regional & Rural Affairs Committee has now completed an inquiry into the decision made by Biosecurity Australia to allow apple imports from New Zealand. The Committee has stated that it remained to be convinced that the risk of establishment of the disease after the importation of contaminated fruit was low to very low. A full copy of the Senate Committee Report is available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/apples_nz/report/report.pdf.

TK: The Australian Senate believes Biosecurity Australia has acted rashly in approving NZ apple imports. Tell that to New Zealand apple exporters who have waited decades for access...

NZ approves GM trials In May 2007, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approved an application by the New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research to field test genetically modified (GM) Brassicas in New Zealand. Approvals were granted for four trials of GM vegetable and forage Brassicas – broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and forage kale. The Brassicas are to be modified for resistance to caterpillar pests, with the genes derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringensis. The trials will be undertaken on a 0.4 hectare plot in the Lincoln area (Canterbury region of New Zealand’s South Island) over a 10 year period. For more information see the ERMA press release: http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/archives/media-releases/2007/mr-20070528.html. The approval is significant, as there have only been two approvals for field trials since New Zealand’s Royal Commission into GM (established by the New Zealand government to advise on how New Zealand should approach GM) in 2001. ERMA is expecting another two or three applications in the next 12 months.

TK: Wow. A 0.4 hectare plot for GM broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and kale. Hey, it's a start.

New Zealand GMO Annual Report GM plants and animals are not commercially grown in New Zealand. However, a number of contained research trials involving genetically modified organisms are occurring and food products with GM content are legally offered for sale and consumption. To date, no application has been made for Government approval for a commercial release of a GM crop or the sale of fresh/whole GM foods. This appears unlikely to change during the next couple of years, as the first applicant will face a time and cost intensive regulatory process and will come under intensive public scrutiny and pressure from a number of different groups. It is thought that applications after the first successful one will be much easier as issues related to GM in general will have been dealt with.

TK: With GM modified fresh produce, it doesn't ever seem to pay to be first to the market. But without a first, there will never be a second.

ERS Vegetable Yearbook

A link to the USDA Economic Research Service's Vegetable and Melon Outlook annual report is found here and here. While Mexico remains the dominant international supplier of fresh vegetables to the U.S. market, Canada's share of U.S. vegetable imports has grown from 9% to 19% in the last decade.

From the report, coordinated by Gary Lucier:

• Aggregate U.S. output of vegetables, melons, potatoes, and pulse crops rose less than 1 percent in 2006 to 130 billion pounds—largely unchanged from a decade earlier. Reduced production of lettuce, carrot, onion, and pulse crops (dry beans, dry peas, lentils) nearly offset stronger potato, sweet potato, and processing tomato crops.
• Harvested area increased 1 percent to 7.22 million acres due largely to a 15-percent surge in acreage devoted to dry edible peas. Potato and melon area also increased, outweighing declines in fresh and processing vegetable area.
• According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, producer prices for vegetables averaged above a year earlier across most major product categories in 2006. Fresh-market vegetables (up 5 percent), canned vegetables (up 2 percent), frozen vegetables (up 2 percent), dehydrated vegetables (up 11 percent), fresh russet potatoes (up 32 percent) were higher, while prices for melons (down 5 percent) and pulse crops (down 20 percent) were lower.
• In 2006, retail prices for fresh and processed fruits and vegetables averaged 5 percent above the previous year, with the greatest increases in prices occurring during the winter (up 7 percent) and summer (up 5 percent) quarters. Retail prices for fresh vegetables were responsible for much of the increase, led by potatoes (up 10 percent) and tomatoes (up 8 percent). Changes in consumer prices for processed vegetables were more subdued in 2006, with canned vegetables averaging 3 percent more than the previous year and frozen
vegetable prices up just 1 percent.
• Imports of all vegetables, melons, pulse crops, and seed rose 10 percent to $7.4 billion, led by increases for fresh vegetables, melons, and dehydrated vegetables. Mexico remained the top foreign source with 44 percent of import value, followed by Canada (24 percent), China (5 percent), and Peru (4 percent). Imports accounted for 16 percent of all vegetable, melon, and pulse crop disappearance in 2006, up from 10 percent a decade earlier.
• Exports of all vegetables, melons, pulse crops, and seed rose 9 percent to $4.4 billion, led by increases for dry beans, potatoes, and fresh vegetables. Canada remained the top foreign market with 46 percent of export value, followed by Mexico (13 percent), Japan (12 percent), and Taiwan (2 percent). About 9 percent of total U.S. vegetable and melon supplies were exported in 2006—little changed from a decade earlier.
• In 2006, per capita disappearance of all vegetable, melon, and pulse crops fell 3 percent to 428 pounds (farm-weight basis). Potatoes remained the most popular vegetable crop in the United States (29 percent of total use), followed by tomatoes (20 percent), all lettuce (7 percent), sweet corn (6 percent), and onions (5 percent).

Fresh-market Vegetables
• Production of 24 major fresh-market vegetables and melons (excluding potatoes, mushrooms, and pulse crops) declined 1 percent to 46.7 billion pounds in 2006. Much of the loss in output was due to a smaller head lettuce crop (down 7 million hundredweight (cwt)), caused by weather-reduced yields in California and smaller planted area in response to lackluster 2005 prices. Production was also trimmed for a dozen other crops including tomatoes, spinach, onions,
celery, asparagus, and artichokes. Increased output was seen in crops such as bell peppers, squash, leaf lettuce, and watermelon.
• Fresh-market production was down 2 percent in California, which accounts for 48 percent of annual fresh-market vegetable and melon output. Driven largely by lettuce and melon production, Arizona is the second-largest source of fresh market vegetables and melons, with 9 percent of output. Florida, the third largest- producing State, with 8 percent of annual output, saw 2006 output drop 8 percent as hurricane damage once again limited crop output.
• The farm value of production for the 24 top fresh vegetable and melon crops rose 3 percent to $10.2 billion in 2006 as higher prices more than made up for lower production. More than half of all 2006 fresh-market vegetable and melon crops generated increased gross farm revenue, while the others had declining receipts. The top crop in terms of production value was fresh tomatoes at $1.6 billion (about the same as a year earlier), followed by head lettuce at $977 million (down 4 percent), dry bulb onions at a record-high $962 million (up 13 percent), sweet corn at $619 million (up 4 percent), and broccoli at $617 million (up 9 percent).
• The farm value share of the retail cost of fresh vegetables increased 4 percent in 2006 to an estimated 18.9 percent. The farm value share increased for fresh potatoes, lettuce, and broccoli but declined for tomatoes. Despite recent weakness relative to the retail value, the shipping-point price of iceberg lettuce has averaged about 24 percent of the retail price this decade—slightly less than the 1990s but up slightly from the 1980s.
• Imports of fresh vegetables (excluding potatoes and melons) increased 11 percent to $3.8 billion in 2006. Mexico accounted for 67 percent of import value, down from 73 percent a decade earlier. With strong U.S. demand for high-value greenhouse vegetables (largely tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers), Canada continues to garner a larger share of the U.S. fresh-vegetable import market and now accounts for 19 percent of this market, compared with 9 percent a decade earlier. Peru (4 percent) and China (2 percent) have also increased their share of the U.S. fresh-vegetable import market over the past decade.
• The value of fresh vegetable exports (excluding potatoes and melons) increased 8 percent to $1.6 billion in 2006. Export concentration has increased over the past decade, with Canada now accounting for 78 percent of U.S. fresh-vegetable export value—up from 69 percent a decade earlier. Japan accounted for 6 percent of the value of U.S. fresh vegetable exports in 2006, down from 14 percent 10 years earlier as nearby suppliers, such as China, ship more to Japan.
• On a per person basis, domestic disappearance for consumption of fresh-market vegetables (excluding melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes, pulses, and mushrooms) fell 1 percent to almost 146 pounds in 2006. Fresh use increased 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.

Plums and pluots - California movement

Almond fumigation objection (again)

In my earlier post about a raving raw almond fan, I noted that some consumers don't like the plan to "pasteurize" all California almonds. The story continues and here is the latest from the anti-fumigation crowd:
From a press release:



Small-scale farmers, retailers, and consumers are renewing their call to reassess a USDA plan to "pasteurize" all California almonds with a toxic fumigant or high-temperature sterilization process. All domestic almonds must have the treatments by early next year. The scheme was quietly developed by USDA in response to outbreaks of Salmonella in 2001 and 2004 traced to raw almonds. "The almond 'pasteurization' plan presents many harmful impacts forconsumers and the agricultural community," said Will Fantle, research director for The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group. "The logic behind both the necessity and safety of the treatments processes has not been adequately analyzed-as well as the costs for small-scale growers and the loss of consumer choices." Last Wednesday, the California Almond Board suddenly requested a delay in the treatment mandate until March, 2008 -- it had been set for September1. "We support this delay," said Fantle, "but a delay, due to the industry being unprepared, isn't enough. The USDA must also re-open the rule for public review and comment so that those who have been shut out of the decision-making process can have input into any almond treatment plan." Almonds are not inherently risky foods. Salmonella contamination occurs when livestock manure or other fecal matter is inadvertently transferred to food through contaminated water, soil, transportation and handling equipment or from poor employee hygiene and sanitation practices. "All fresh foods carry some chance of risk," notes Bruce Lampinen, ascientist at UC-Davis, who studies almonds, "but there is no more risk now than there was thirty years ago." Many say the rule will competitively injure smaller sustainable and organic growers. "This will put American farmers at a distinct disadvantage in the U.S. and abroad," says organic almond farmer Mark McAfee. Jason Mahon owns Premier Organics, a company making raw almond butter in Oakland, CA. Mahon is looking to foreign suppliers and believes the rule is a "fear-based decision of the Almond Board trying to protect itself frombad press and lawsuits." The USDA's preferred fumigant, propylene oxide, is recognized as a possible carcinogen. It's banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico. Allowing treated almonds to still be labeled "raw" is deceptive,contends Cornucopia. "This rule denies consumers the right to control their food choices by making informed decisions," Fantle added. For more details, go to http://www.cornucopia.org/.


TK: The Almond Board has no choice but to go forward at this point. Reaction from the raw almond fan base was probably considered when the decision was made. However, the Almond Board is in a no win situation. The media will never say: "Nobody is getting sick from eating almonds." They will point out the conflict and passion in this consumer outcry.

Tesco promises doubted

Tesco's PR department, usually accustomed to glowing coverage, received a shot across the bow recently. A California study was critical of Tesco's follow-through on its pledge to locate stores in "food deserts." Here is one piece called Tesco Expansion takes flak. Another, from the Timesonline: Tesco's Fresh & Easy stores hit image problem before opening:

Despite Tesco’s high-profile pledges to move into “food deserts” from which other grocery retailers have moved, researchers in the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI) in Los Angeles’ Occidental College, revealed that fewer than ten of the 98 stores already signed by Tesco in the US are in high-poverty areas.
The report also criticises Tesco for refusing to hold discussions with local unions, only offering store workers part-time positions and shying away from the kind of local sourcing initiatives that it operates in parts of the UK, and points out the criticism that Tesco has faced over conditions of workers in its supply chain from charitable groups such as War on Want and ActionAid.

Later....

The report comes as Tesco steps up its public relations machine before opening its first American store in November. The retailer plans to open hundreds of small grocery stores in Southern California and the Southwest of America over the next few years.
Tesco has carefully fostered its green credentials in America, topping its Disneyland-sized distribution centre with solar panels and using a polar bear as a corporate symbol or mascot to remind people of its concern about global warming.
Ms Shaffer said that Tesco clearly had huge ambitions in America and had told researchers it wanted neigbourhood stores every one or two miles. The report claims that Tesco has ambitions to surpass Wal-Mart to become the biggest grocery store in America and that in future it is likely to open hypermarkets and other formats as it has done elsewhere.
“Tesco is going to make a big impact on the industry and and we hope that if they take a positive route it will push others in that direction,” Ms Shaffer said.

Food miles logic

Here is a link to a New York Times opinion piece.
Here are some pull quotes from the piece:

Food That Travels Well
By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS

THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it — has entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe, are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and flying food from distant parts of the globe.
On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem. In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems, is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.
But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling evidence suggests that there is more — or less — to food miles than meets the eye.
These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent environmental research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that localism “is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than during transport.” The British government’s 2006 Food Industry Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs “across the life cycle of the produce,” not just in transportation.
“Eat local” advocates — a passionate cohort of which I am one — are bound to interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn’t. Not only do life cycle analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local philosophy.
Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food production — food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond what the season has to offer.
Given these problems, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop obsessing over food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn’t we create development incentives for regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production and distribution, with the hubs in a food system’s naturally fertile hot spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?
As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts. We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of awareness.

TK: McWilliams offers an enlightened opinion piece that embraces local without making moral judgements on far-flung produce. On a related note, see this link about Kenya's perspective on food miles. However, don't think all the foodies will like what he is saying. Doug Powell of K-State's Food Safety Network says in this post on BarfBlog (RSS link listed on the right):

Trying to include considerations of microbial food safety -- the things that make people barf -- when encountering the dogma of fervent foodies is an occupational hazard. Over the years I've been slandered, threatened with lawsuits and harm to my person. Taking on the natural-organic-local cabal -- including the Food Network which didn't like our analysis of food safety errors on cooking shows -- can be challenging.
So James E. McWilliams should be prepared for lively correspondence. McWilliams, the author of “A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America” and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer, writes in a N.Y. Times op-ed this morning that reducing food miles — how far food has traveled before you buy it — is not necessarily better for the environment.
"There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel consumption."
"As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must … be prepared to accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts. We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of awareness."
Brilliant. But once again, the notion of microbiological safety is absent from the discussion. How about sourcing food from the place that can yield the fewest number of sick people?

Grower prices down, retail prices up over a year ago

California fruit growers have come under pressure this year. Anecdotal reports suggest that more than a few growers are pulling out poor performing orchards after this year. Here is a link to the recent USDA ERS fruit outlook report that talks about grower prices in June.
An excerpt:

Lower prices received by U.S. growers for fresh-market grapes, peaches, and grapefruit in June drove the grower price index for fruit and nuts that month below a year ago for the first time in 2007 (fig. 1). At 155 (1990-92=100), the June index was 11 percent lower than the June 2006 index and the only time that the June index had fallen below the previous year since 2002. The June index also fell 2 percentage points from the May index due to the weakening of prices for fresh-use oranges, peaches, and strawberries (table 1). Supply increases stemming mostly from the expected larger crops of grapes and peaches, particularly in California, and grapefruit in Florida have driven their June prices down significantly from the same time last year, more than offsetting the fairly substantial grower price increases for oranges, lemons, fresh-use apples, pears, and strawberries. Smaller crops of these fruit were mostly behind these price gains, except for apples. Apple production rose slightly in 2006/07 but the lack of market competition this winter due to the freeze in California helped boost domestic demand for apples during those months, resulting in brisk movement of storage apples to markets. End-of-season apple inventories are at below-average levels, resulting in higher prices. The 2006/07 California Valencia orange crop is expected to be 19 percent short of last year’s harvest mostly due to the effects of the January freeze, limiting fresh-market orange supplies for the rest of the season and likely keeping fresh orange prices high this summer. The biggest price decline in June was for grapes. June grower prices for fresh market grapes averaged 42.5 cents per pound, down 65 percent from last year’s June average price. Fresh grape shipments from California’s Coachella Valley were in full swing in June, running 18 percent ahead of the same period last year at the same time that import shipments, mainly from Mexico, were also up significantly, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The shipping season for grapes in the Coachella Valley as well as from Mexico has ended but California’s grape marketing season is still getting underway as production moves up to the major production region in the San Joaquin Valley. The initial production forecast in California for 2007 according to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is 12.4 billion pounds, 7 percent larger than a year ago. The California table grape crop alone is also expected up 7 percent and this larger production is expected to put downward pressure on fresh grape prices through much of the summer. While weather problems have resulted in sharply lower production in many peach growing States, larger supplies in California have influenced the grower price drop for peaches in June from a year ago. Relative to other producing States, California dominates the national market for peaches as well as other stone fruit—plums, nectarines, and apricots. Shipments of these other California stone fruit were also running ahead of a year ago in June, likely increasing market competition among them. California peach supplies are expected to continue to build up into the summer months likely keeping their market prices down.

Consumers Pay More for Fresh Fruit in June
Like most years, the consumer price index (CPI) for fresh fruit in June dropped from the previous month as supplies of domestic summer fruit increased (fig. 2). At 326.3 (1982-84=100), the June CPI fell 3 percentage points from the May CPI but increased 5 percentage points from the June 2006 CPI. Retail prices declined in June from the previous month for Anjou pears, Thompson seedless grapes, and strawberries, offsetting price increases for Navel oranges, grapefruit, lemons, Red Delicious apples, and bananas (table 2). Along with diminishing supplies of 2006/07 U.S. apples in cold storage, Navel orange and lemon harvesting in California was winding down, helping to drive up their prices.

Down on the farm in China

Big Apple posts this story today in the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, detailing life on the farm in China. Suddenly, China's reassurances about its food safety regulatory framework seem less than sufficient after reading this article from the Washington Post Foreign Service. From the story:

The answer to why even the most well-intentioned and smartest policies of China's leaders have been so difficult to implement in a country so vast lies in small farmers like Li. With 200 million farming households and 500,000 food-producing companies, information about new science often doesn't trickle out to remote areas for months or years -- if ever.
The way Li farms is mostly passed down from her parents and grandparents, she says. Her only other source of information is the pesticide salesmen. In the eight years she has been here, they are the only ones who have come to teach her anything new.
So whenever insects descend on the melon fields and cornfields, Li stirs up some pesticide cocktails and sprays. The label says to use it every 15 days. But if the pests are especially resilient, she doesn't hesitate to reapply it in a week. Doing otherwise would endanger the roughly $1,300 that she is struggling to earn this year. Li, 32, said she doesn't understand much about the chemicals except that "they are very strong. They kill everything."

TK: Of course, one postage stamp farm does not translate to every export oriented commercial fruit and vegetable firm. But the multitude of small farmers relying on "pesticide cocktails" is no great endorsement of regulatory oversight in China.