Amazon Fresh and other thoughts

Cal over at our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group started an interesting thread about Amazon Fresh. He cites a number of Web links describing the fledgling service and its business potential. Check it out and chime in if you think Amazon can succeed where WebVan failed.

Other threads at the discussion group:

Where to go when a child refuses to eat Luis posts a NYT piece about how doctors handle that rare child who absolutely refuses to eat. Luis add some thoughts about the battle of wills between parents and children over food. (How often are vegetables involved, I wonder).

Critical use exemption for methyl bromide for 2008 Luis post FR rule about process for another year of critical use exemptions for methyl bromide use.

Agents raid pork plant Big Apple posts story of immigration raid in Nebraska

Wherever possible

TK: It's a nice public relations move, but I have trouble putting much stock in the announcement by Fairmont Hotels & Resorts that would revamp all of its menus by the fall to incorporate locally grown, sustainable or organic ingredients "wherever possible."
Give me numbers, give me a percentage, give me anything that is measurable and I would tend to pay more attention to this move. From The Nation's Restaurant News:

"Our guests are very savvy, experienced diners, and they also are becoming more conscious of how their consumer choices affect the planet," Serge Simard, vice president of food and beverage for the chain, said in a statement. "Our new approach will make it easy for our guests to make individual, sustainable food choices as part of a global effort."
Fairmont indicated that it would complement the menu overhaul with the adoption of programs like inviting guests to visit the farms where their hotel's food was grown, or accompanying chefs on shopping trips to local green markets.

More fruits and vegetables equated with loss of planting prohibition

The farm policy discussion is heating up again. More headlines are rolling in about the f/v component of the farm bill. The piece by Brasher suggests the Senate remove the planting restriction on program crop acres, a notion that is admantly opposed by produce lobbyists.

Brasher: Farm bill prescription calls for more fruits, vegetables From The Des Moines Register:
Your doctor may already be telling you to eat more fruits and vegetables. Now, the President's Cancer Panel is weighing in, recommending that the farm bill be used to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The panel, whose three members include one of the nation's best- known cancer survivors, Lance Armstrong, should meet farmers like Gary Boysen of Harlan, Ia.Boysen is growing 65 acres of sweet corn, peppers, tomatoes, cantaloupes and other produce this year, and he says the market is growing. The produce is sold at area supermarkets, Wal-Marts in nearby Atlantic and in Council Bluffs, and to wholesalers as far away as Wichita, Kan.He'd like to increase his acreage in the future, but there is one major impediment: federal farm policy.Farmers who grow federally subsidized crops such as field corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton can't convert land to fruit or vegetable production, even for only one year, unless they permanently give up their right to collect federal payments on that acreage.

From United, news about WPPC roundtable of journalists:

United Fresh is excited to offer conference attendees a new general session this year as part of their WPPC 2007 experience. At the WPPC General Session on Thursday morning, attendees will hear from Dan Morgan, reporter from the Washington Post, Catharine Richert, reporter from Congressional Quarterly, and Jerry Hagstrom, reporter from the National Journal. "We are excited to offer our conference attendees a unique opportunity to interact with individuals who actually write about the important issues confronting our nation's lawmakers," said Robert Guenther, senior vice president of public policy for United Fresh.

Nuke 'em

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute writes here that testing won't save produce from E. coli. What will? Irradiation, for one thing. Avery stirs the pot again, well-timed for my poll question about irradiation labeling this week. How about this quote: "We want our food to be politically correct even more than we want it to be safe."
Dennis, it is you, not Al Gore, who bring us the inconvenient truth.

Avery writes:

Mr. Will Daniels oversees food safety at Earthbound Farm in Salinas, CA - the company that last year grew and packaged the bagged spinach that killed three people, including a 2-year-old boy, due to contamination with E. coli 0157 bacteria. The spinach also sickened at least 200 other people, many with serious kidney failure.
“We thought we were the best, but clearly that wasn’t enough,” says Daniels.
After the tragedy, Earthbound Farms hired a food safety microbiologist, who immediately told his new bosses that they were kidding themselves if they thought it wouldn’t happen again.
“Another bullet is coming your way,” he warned. “Will the processing eliminate the [bacterial] hazard? The answer for this industry is no. You can reduce; you cannot eliminate.”
Earthbound has nevertheless put in place the most aggressive testing and safety program in the industry. All its greens are now tested for pathogens twice—on arrival from the field and again when the packaged products come off the processing lines. The testing has confirmed the fears: some of the produce is still contaminated.
“We’re not going to rest until we explore every possible safety improvement,” says Daniels.
The problem is that neither farmers nor the federal government are doing all they could to stop the deadly E. coli from poisoning customers. Electronic irradiation could destroy 99.999 percent of the dangerous bacteria, effectively eliminating the E. coli danger. Irradiation simultaneously kills the spoilage bacteria, keeping the produce fresher longer.
Irradiation is now being used widely to protect hamburger from the E. coli dangers, with a major irradiation plant in Sioux City, Iowa. Irradiation is even more important for lettuce and spinach, because we most often eat them raw. But the Food and Drug Administration has been sitting on a petition to permit irradiation of leafy greens for eight years. They’re afraid if they give approval, the food-scare activists will howl with rage. Never mind the kid who died and a hundred people with kidney failure. We want our food to be politically correct even more than we want it safe.
Nor are organic farmers protecting their customers. The Earthbound field on which the contaminated spinach was grown was managed organically, in transition to organic certification, under lease to a company co-owned by Earthbound. Composted manure may have been used to provide the Earthbound crops with nitrogen. Composting can kill bacteria, but its safety can’t be guaranteed.
On the other hand, E. coli bacteria with the same signature were found in a nearby free range cattle herd, and wild pigs were moving through the area. We can’t defend open fields from bacteria that are everywhere—but, with irradiation, we could kill the bacteria that actually get into our food.
The mega-bucks food scare industry, of course, is against irradiation. They demand “more natural” food production and less processing. Crumbling under pressure, the major grocery store Safeway has just announced it will no longer market meat packaged with carbon monoxide gas even though it keeps meat fresher, longer, in the consumer’s refrigerator, thereby providing an extra safety margin. In other words, the food industry is being forced by food-fear rhetoric to abandon technologies that benefit consumers.
How many people will have to die? When will we realize—again—that Mother Nature is a harsh mistress, unleashing deadly viruses and proliferating bacteria along with her sunlight and rain. Survival of the fittest is her motto.
Humans used to consider that our ability to think was part of our survival equipment. Now it seems we rely on dumb luck. Poor little child. Poor grieving parents. Poor FDA?
Dennis Avery
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and the Director for Center for Global Food Issues ( http://www.cgfi.org/ ). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. Readers may write him at Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.

Farm bill roundup 8/27

Take integrated approach to a food-and-farm bill Writing in The Des Moines Register, Neil Hamilton of Drake University suggests the Senate should look to improve the diet of Americans through the farm bill. He suggests that Congress should:

- Expand the fruit and vegetable snack program to cover additional states and schools - so more kids have access to fresh, nutritious food. Better yet, purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables so schools are connected to nearby farms and the program supports local economies.
- Fund the specialty-crop block grants and give states flexibility to support innovative projects. Support ideas such as the "fresh checks" used in several states to provide food-assistance recipients with bonus checks to buy nutritious produce at farmers markets.
- Implement the much-delayed COOL - country of origin labeling - program, and give consumers the information they want and need to make food choices. Making informed choices is a basic tenet of our democracy. Congress should end efforts to keep consumers in the dark on the origins of our food and what is in it
.- Allow the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat, done in ways that do not threaten consumer safety but do create opportunities for rural food businesses. Isn't it ironic that we accept shiploads of food with few inspections from China, a country with at best a rudimentary appreciation for the rule of law, but we bar meat produced here and inspected by state employees from moving across state lines?
- Accelerate the move to organic food by supporting producers as they convert their farms and by funding the research critical to this form of production.
- Amend the popular value-added producer marketing grants to include cooperative efforts to process and market foods in regional food systems like the one Iowa has built over the last 10 years.

The key is whether we approach food and farm policy as an integrated whole or as unrelated blocks. The farm bill can't be food stamps in this jar, farm programs in another and conservation over here. All these issues are parts of a comprehensive policy - one that expands opportunities for farmers and food businesses, that gives consumers access to healthful foods and that addresses the nutrition needs of all citizens - kids, mothers and seniors.Recognizing that all citizens deserve a healthful, nutritious diet - and delivering on that promise - should be the hallmark of a sustainable food.


Draft proposal for commodities from Harkin From Farms.com:
A draft proposal for commodity programs circulated by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, would create a supplemental crop-insurance program in lieu of continued ad-hoc disaster programs. The plan would also shift the counter-cyclical programs to a national per-acre revenue target price. Marketing loan rates would also be adjusted based on average annual prices over the past five years. Harkin has sent copies of his proposed chairman's mark to other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but those documents have not been made public.

More apple charts - US Apple Association

The value of fresh cut apples has accelerated from next to nothing in 2000 to about $12 million last year.

The UK's Wal-Mart

Tesco's is coming to the U.S. with a reputation as a innovative and effective international retailer. As it prepares to launch U.S. Fresh & Easy stores in Western states, it is taking some abuse in the U.K. What did Jesus say.... "A profit is not without honor except in his own country."

From the UK Telegraph:

Manningtree to fight Tesco superstore plan : There have been widespread fears that Tesco's dominance of the market is creating 'ghost towns' because small High Street shops are being forced out of business.
The Competition Commission is looking at the effect of the big retailers on local competition in its latest inquiry which was extended recently after emails were discovered from Asda and Tesco allegedly instructing suppliers to lower their prices.
A survey of 50 senior directors of supermarket suppliers published last week found that three quarters do not believe their firms are protected by Office of Fair Trading rules. More than half said they feared making complaints against supermarkets because they might lose their contracts.

Call for supermarkets watchdog
A watchdog with legal powers to stop the exploitation of farmers and other small suppliers by the UK's biggest supermarkets should be created as soon as possible, a high-profile group of MPs, pressure groups and think tanks said this weekend.
A group of 16 wide-ranging organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the New Economics Foundation, is calling for the creation of an independent ombudsman along the lines of Ofcom, the TV and radio regulator, to keep the power of the UK's Big Four supermarkets - Tesco, Asda, J Sainsbury and Wm Morrison - in check.
Calls for the establishment of a supermarket watchdog, already being dubbed Ofshop by some insiders, come as supermarkets face renewed scrutiny over their treatment of food producers, manufacturers and farmers. Earlier this month the Competition Commission, the government's competition regulator that is 15 months into a massive investigation of the £95bn supermarket sector, ordered Tesco and Asda to hand over millions of emails from earlier this summer after evidence of alleged threatening behaviour came to light.

'Suppliers suffer from supermarket price cuts'
In the Eighties a joke used to do the rounds of food manufacturers: "What is the difference between a member of J Sainsbury's buying team and a terrorist?" Answer: "You can negotiate with a terrorist."
This gallows humour was intended as a lighthearted dig at the power of Sainsbury's, which was then the UK's biggest supermarket group, by its suppliers. But 20 years on, the debate over supermarkets' dominance rages as wildly as ever.
We buy three-quarters of our food from the so-called "Big Four" supermarkets - Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons. As a result of this massive share, the government competition watchdog has embarked on its third major inquiry into the £95 billion sector in seven years. A major issue for the Competition Commission's inquiry, which began in May, is supermarkets' behaviour towards the food producers and farmers from whom they buy their goods.
Last week The Sunday Telegraph reported a dramatic twist in the inquiry. The commission, which is due to publish its initial findings on supermarket power next month, has unearthed a number of emails that it suspects point to threatening behaviour by two of these retailers, Tesco and Asda, towards their suppliers.
t t
TK: I've heard the terrorist joke before in a different context, but it works. Another funny line comes from the last line of the "watchdog" story:" All supermarkets deny that they exploit their suppliers." The better decision would have been to say, "no comment." The relationship between suppliers and retailers is what it is. The supermarket wields the power in almost every instance.

Teaching a man to fish

TK: Here is a column by Dean Kleckner, a trade analyst with deep ties to American agriculture. Kleckner is featured in the Weekly Trade and Technology newsletter, and his column this week speaks to what he believes is the most beneficial kind of long term assistance Peru could receive - economic opportunity via a free trade deal. It is also worth pointing out that U.S. produce companies that do business with Peru already give the best assistance to Peru by providing a market opportunity for fresh produce like asparagus, citrus and onions from the South American country.

From Dean:

A horrific earthquake in Peru has left more than 500 people dead and thousands homeless. In Pisco, the hardest-hit city, 80 percent of the buildings have collapsed. The place “seems like it was bombed,” said a local official, according to the New York Times.
Americans have responded to this natural disaster with prayers, compassion, and donations. Last Sunday, many churches held special collections for the victims. Organizations such as the Red Cross (800-HELP-NOW), Catholic Relief Services (877-HELP-CRS), and Save the Children (800-728-3843) are pitching in as well. In Washington, the Embassy of Peru has established two bank accounts for accepting financial help (visit the website or call 202-833-9860).
All of these first-response efforts will help in the short term by making sure Peruvians have food, water, and other basic necessities.
The earthquake caused such massive destruction, however, that Peru will be plagued by long-term problems. The best way for the United States to help it address these significant challenges won’t be through foreign aid, but rather through international trade--and specifically through the passage of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, which is currently before Congress.
It all goes back to the famous proverb: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
Right now, it’s appropriate to give suffering Peruvians all the fish they can eat, so that they can begin to climb out of the ruins of an earthquake that measured 8.0 on the Richter scale, plus a series of brutal aftershocks. Once they’re back on their feet and standing on stable ground, everyone’s interest lies in making sure they can stay there and begin the difficult process of reconstruction.
Rather than giving them handouts, we should provide them with economic opportunities.
To a certain extent, we already do: Trade between the United States and Peru is currently worth more than $7 billion annually.
Yet we can do better. Approving the free-trade deal would boost this $7-billion figure. Much of the new economic activity would benefit Peruvians and create jobs for them. It would help them build upon recent success: Their economy is currently growing by nearly 8 percent a year and inflation is less than 2 percent. The Economist says that this is Peru’s “best overall performance since the 1960s.”
More trade also would benefit Americans, who would have better access to the Peruvian marketplace. Two-thirds of all U.S. agricultural products immediately would enter Peru without paying tariffs and all tariffs would vanish over the next 17 years.
This is a win-win, because it would give our farmers a new export market and reduce the cost of food in Peru.
And that’s only one portion of the pact. The agreement also would improve access for manufactured goods, the service sector, and investments. It would strengthen intellectual property rights in Peru, too. In recent months, the deal has been revised to include new labor standards and environmental protections.
The bottom line is that the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement would increase the ability of Americans and Peruvians to exchange goods and services with each other. The only losers would be tariff collectors and economic isolationists, of which the U.S. has plenty.
The trade deal already has the full support of the White House. Its fate in Congress remains unclear, though it appears to have bipartisan support. Earlier this month, before the earthquake struck, congressional Democrats led by House Ways and Means chairman Charlie Rangel met with Peruvian officials in Lima--and Rangel indicated a desire to hold hearings in September.
Those hearings are now more important than ever. They represent the best way for the United States to help Peru recover from its recent tragedy.
Because of the earthquake, the Peruvians have our sympathy. It’s now imperative that we give them more than our condolences--and provide them with the kind of hope that only economic opportunity can deliver.
Dean Kleckner, an Iowa farmer, chairs Truth About Trade & Technology www.truthabouttrade.org

Lime hot

Cal of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group started a thread about the hot lime market, with some people talking about rumors of possible $40 per carton prices at the border. As the above chart shows, the lime market has already had a significant run up in prices this month.

U.S. Per Capita Apple Consumption

Per capita fresh consumption of fresh apples hasn't kept pace with apple juice, but growers are generally pleased with the profitability of the fresh market and expect another good year in 2007-08.