California opposes Florida rule

Brother against brother? Well, Richard Kinney and Joel Nelsen are on opposite sides of this issue, as are citrus interests in Florida and California. This just slid across the inbox this afternoon:

CALIFORNIA CITRUS INDUSTRY OPPOSES FLORIDA
RULE RELAXATION

In comments filed today, August 7, 2007 the California Citrus industry filed comments opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule that would allow greater flexibility to the Florida industry and therefore ship greater volumes of fresh fruit from diseased areas.

“…it is not possible to design an operationally feasible system that ensures only uninfected fruit moves from quarantined areas. Resource constraints and other practically consideration make it difficult to implement a grove center regulatory systems approach....” (USDA 7 CFR Part 301, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0022, pg 34182; published June 21, 2007, Federal Register/Vol. 72. No. 11999

“In effect what USDA proposes is since Florida can’t do what’s necessary and what historically has been mandated on other commodities within the United States and around the world then we should accept what they can do;” states Joel Nelsen President of California Citrus Mutual, as he cites language from the proposed rule.

“We have to object to this proposal inasmuch the Department has written a rule that gives greater flexibility to 10% of the Florida industry while jeopardizing 100% of the fresh citrus industries in California and Arizona;” continues Mike Wootton, Senior Vice President, Sunkist Growers.

The California citrus industry has united behind a series of comments submitted by California Citrus Mutual, Sunkist Growers, the U.S. Citrus Science Council, The California Citrus Quality Council and Dr. Edmund Crouch, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

The combined comments focus on a series of mathematical flaws in the USDA proposal; the use of ambiguous statements that create uncertainty which ultimately led to a proposal that has been conducted under specific operational constraints without real world replication. “We believe more protective measures must be taken based on the current state of science of citrus canker transmission,” comments Dr. Hugh Ewart, President of the California Citrus Quality Council. He further noted that “increasing risk of canker infestation of California is not acceptable to the California citrus industry.”

“USDA and Florida will argue that there is a greater degree of protection for citrus producing areas inasmuch fresh shipments are prohibited into states such as California and Arizona;” Nelsen acknowledges; “but in the opinion of industry leadership that too is a flawed assumption.” The combined comments argue that there is no determination of risk pressure at Florida packing houses, the on site inspection program which assumes a specific level of interception does not take into consideration the amount of volume being packed or inspected and there is an underlying assumption that only citrus producing states are at risk of infection or introduction.

The industry submits that this proposal will lead to increased pressures from off shore producers who will seek the same relaxed standards thereby adding to admitted uncertainties by the Department. “This was not discussed;” Nelsen noted. The end result will be more risk originating from Florida and from off shore locations. Thus states with clean production areas are at greater risk of being infected thereby jeopardizing their ability to ship fresh fruit. Canker infestation does not necessarily impede processing production.

“We all sympathize with the plight our cousins in Florida are facing;” Richard Pidduck of the U.S. Citrus Science Council adds; “but to that end let’s determine whether this untested effort can work by conducting a pilot program. We don’t believe a program in 48 states that is not monitored and ultimately will be expanded because of other requests is a sound proposal.”

The industry is suggesting that a more solid scientific foundation is necessary for the proposal. It is also questioning why the Department is abandoning the systems approach it implemented over a decade ago. “We believe the proposal is designed to facilitate the movement of fresh fruit from a diseased area rather than protecting existing fresh fruit production areas;” Pidduck concludes.

Mike Wootton agrees; “if the Department fees compelled to allow fresh fruit shipments from Florida under these tenuous circumstances then it should be done as a test program for two years and to a limited geographical of the United States.”

We’re establishing a template for the future;” Nelsen states, “let’s be sure it is an accurate one.”

Fresh and local produce

Here is a quick report of headliner produce ad items this week in suburban Kansas City:

Hen House August 8-14
Sweet to eat peaches: 99 cents/lb Grown in Fresno, Calif. by Wiwona Growers
Meal Deal for 2: Buy two Hillshire Farm Salad Mixes and get these free: Dole Romaine 15 ounce salad, a crusty baguette and an Athena melon
Sweet dark cherries: $3.99 pound (Did you know you can freeze fresh cherries?)
South African clementine tangerines: $6.99/5 pound box
Seedless watermelon: $2.99 each

Hy Vee Weekend Ad: August 10 to Aug. 12
Britts Farm homegrown cantaloupe 2 for $4
Britts Farm cucumbers or peppers: 2 for $1


Price Chopper: Aug. 9-11
Olathe sweet corn 19 cents each

Price Chopper Aug. 8-14
Red seedless grapes: 99 cents/lb
Whole seedless watermelon: $3.99/each
Washington Granny Smith apples: 99 cents/lb
Dole celery: 79 cents/each


Dillons Aug. 8-14
Tomatoes on the vine: 10 lbs for $10
Colorado peaches or Bartlett pears: 2 lbs for $3
Ripe avocados or red bell peppers: 4 for $5
Ripe cantaloupe: 2 for $4
Whole seedless watermelon: $3.99 each
Red or green seedless grapes: $1.79/lb


TK: Local produce, including Colorado sweet corn and peaches, makes a strong push this week. Strawberries have mostly fallen out of promotion and the heavy emphasis on stone fruit seems to be over in food section ads. Interesting to see Hen House meal deal promotion with Hillshire Farms salad.

Marketing to kids

Here is a link that provided in the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group by Big Apple that speaks to the magical power of the Golden Arches. From the "Raising Kids" Web site in the UK:

Such is the power of advertising that children find food wrapped in McDonald's packaging up to six times tastier that the same food in plan packaging. That's the result of a survey carried on in America by Stanford University.
Researchers wrapped identical snacks in plain wrappers and in McDonald's packaging and asked a group of children to rate the food. The 'McDonald's' french fries were considered six times more tasty than the french fries in plain packaging. Similarly carrot sticks and milk in the golden arch wrapping was considered to be superior by the pint-sized tasters.
'These results add evidence to support recommendations to regulate or ban advertising of the marketing of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and beverages, or all marketing that is directed to young children,' said researchers.

Here is more coverage of this issue:
The research abstract states the conclusion:
Branding of foods and beverages influences young children's taste perceptions. The findings are consistent with recommendations to regulate marketing to young children and also suggest that branding may be a useful strategy for improving young children's eating behaviors.

From Live Science

From ABC news Sixty-one percent of the children in the study preferred the taste of carrots and 54 percent preferred the taste of milk if they were reminded by the packaging that it came from McDonald's.
Study author Dr. Thomas Robinson, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Stanford University, said he was somewhat surprised by the findings.
"I expected we would find some effects of branding in this age group, but not this strong, especially for the carrots and milk," he said.


TK: The door is clearly open to cloak fresh produce in the packaging of McDonald's, and for McDonald's to switch out advertising of fries and burgers with more responsible messages promoting fruits and vegetables to small children. It's not that simple, but clearly, both the industry and fast food chains like McDonald's stand to gain if fresh produce is promoted in advertising to children. The whole issue of marketing to kids alludes to the power of kid-friendly brands (Disney, Sesame Street, Nickelodeon, others) in the produce department. The economic value of those produce brands figures to increase with advertising. The quiet presence of an attractive brand in the produce department may only go so far without reinforcement in the media.

States surge ahead with immigration laws

States are taking up the immigration issues in the vacuum left by federal inaction. We've heard that theme before, and yet another iteration is provided in this piece by The New York Times and linked to me by Big Apple of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group.
From the story:

Spurred by rising resentment in the country over illegal immigration and by the collapse of a broad immigration bill in the Senate in June, state legislators nationwide adopted measures to curb employment of unauthorized immigrants and to make it more difficult for them to obtain state identification documents like driver’s licenses.
While the political tide ran generally against illegal immigrants, some states adopted measures to help them by protecting them from exploitation and by extending education and health care to their children. Fifteen states adopted laws intended to punish immigrant smugglers, especially if their victims were foreigners coerced into prostitution or other sexual commerce.
State lawmakers have introduced about two and half times more immigration bills this year than in 2006, and the number that have become law is more than double the 84 bills enacted last year, according to the conference, a nonpartisan organization that includes all the state legislatures.

TK: If anything can spur members of Congress to action, perhaps it is the prideful thought that perhaps the state lawmakers are usurping their authority. The industry won't object to the most unseemly of motives if it can budge the current Congress past the stalemate it is mired in.

On marketing orders and food safety

As I prepare to do more reporting on the issue of food safety and marketing orders, I came across a couple of research papers on the subject you may want to review. Here is the link to one 2005 paper that I posted on the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Board, titled, Economic Consequences of Mandated Grading and Food Safety Assurance: Ex Ante Analysis of the Federal Marketing Order.

The authors of the study included Daniel Sumner and Julian Alston in Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Davis, and members of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. The paper looked at the costs and benefits of pistachio federal marketing order in relation to food safety. From the paper:

Aflatoxin is the main issue behind the marketing order, which states that no handler shall ship for domestic human consumption pistachios that exceed an aflatoxin level of 15 parts per billion (ppb).8 An aflatoxin inspection certificate must cover all domestic pistachio shipments.

This study was favorable to value of the marketing order. But the authors acknowlege this:

In the baseline case, a primary source of benefits from the marketing order is through a reduction in the probability of an aflatoxin event. The probability of an event with and without the marketing order is among the most difficult parameters to estimate given the lack of historical experience or other data.


TK: While there are many unknowns, what is all too real is the cost involved in guarding against a food safety "event." As the authors suggest, what can never be fully known is the probability of an event "with and without" the marketing order. The expense of extra regulation, even if self-imposed, for the purposes of food safety is a tough sell for growers who have never experienced an "event." However, it is no doubt considerably more attractive for growers who have.

Poll closes today

This is the last day of voting on the current Fresh Talk poll. As to the question:
Will the USDA's escalating fees for terminal market inspections reduce use of the service?
The results so far are:
5% No (1)
70% Yes (14)
25% Not sure. (5)

So the wisdom of most poll participants appears to be that USDA should not expect a straight 15% increase in revenue from a 15% increase in their inspection fees. The USDA disagrees : From the Aug. 1 final rule, the USDA said: This rule should increase user fee revenue generated under the destination market program by approximately 15 percent each fiscal year.

AMS officials did not call back when I asked for comment about the fee increase last week, so I can't clarify their reasoning.

I will be linking to this page where we will keep all the results from Fresh Talk polls.

I have a thread over at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group asking for other poll ideas, and feel free to chime in there.

Selected U.S. tomato imports 2001 and 2006

U.S. fresh vegetable imports: selected commodities