Paying more for safety?

Luis of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group posted this link to a story about consumer attitudes towards paying more for safe products. Headlined simply "Americans don't want to pay more for safe products,"the story states:

However, Linda Shea of the research and consulting firm Opinion Research Corp, which helps major U.S. companies manage their brands and reputations, said consumers will balk at paying for safety checks they assumed were already being done.


TK: Do this viewpoint, here broadly directed at manufactured goods, also apply to produce? Will consumers pay more for food safety? Some consumers will definitely pay more for organic produce, so communicating the goodness or earth friendliness of produce is probably more significant and valuable than communicating the white lab coat "safety" of fresh produce. Don't tell consumers that spinach has no pathogens, tell them that it will be good for the environment.

Spinach fallout: More headlines

Here are some headlines gleaned from the Web and K-State Food Safety Network on the follow up coverage to the recent voluntary recall of spinach.

Florez off base on inspections From The Salinas Californian:
There's little doubt the salmonella contamination of fresh, bagged spinach discovered this past Friday by King City-based grower-shipper Metz Fresh will amount to another setback for the embattled salad industry of the Salinas Valley, thanks to a limelight-loving legislator who wants to make a state, if not federal, case out of it.
That doesn't mean it's a reasonable setback.

The Salinas Californian and the Vegetable Industrial Complex California Progress report slams The Californian for its editorial.

Recall renews debate on safety of leafy greens The Sacramento Bee reports:
Five months after the produce industry rolled out new guidelines in an effort to bring safer spinach and lettuce to America's tables, another spinach recall is shining a spotlight on what that approach can -- and can't -- ensure.
The Salinas Valley company that yanked back 68,000 pounds of spinach this week, fearing salmonella contamination, says it found the problem by going far beyond the updated safety guidelines.
From that, people can reach almost any conclusion that suits their politics: We need tougher laws. Or market forces will keep our produce safe. Or the new guidelines are helping. Or they aren't.

Later...

One of the biggest questions is why Metz Fresh didn't hang onto its spinach until the test results were in.
Such a test-and-hold approach is "the smartest move," said Horsfall of the leafy greens group.
Said attorney Marler: "Testing without holding tells you whether a product is contaminated or not, but if it is, it's already out your door and you have a problem. I don't think it's wise to test it and ship it."
Larsen said Metz Fresh began shipping because the quick tests it uses for salmonella often produce false positives, and the more precise confirmation tests can take three to 12 days.
Yet Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union, said a company pushing hard can do that second round of confirmation testing in 24 to 48 hours.
At the same time, Marler and others praised Metz Fresh for testing at all. While it's not a solution to all problems, and tainted products can still slip through, testing helps the industry identify weak points and improve safety, Marler said.


TK: If we are saying test and hold is the right approach, are we saying that we are willing to regulate that every single marketer of fresh spinach in the U.S. have a test and hold policy? Who will pay for such an approach? Take arguments to their eventual conclusion, don't just engage in 20/20 hindsight that levels unsparing criticism at Metz Fresh for an approach that is actually above and beyond the leafy greens marketing agreement.

Discussion board roundup Sept. 3

I'm off to Thailand in about 8 hours, via Minneapolis and Tokyo. Here are some hot topics on the Fresh Produce Industry Group Discussion Group.

Growers cash in on almost-organic crops Luis posts this story about the marketing of transitional organic crops:
A major fruit company has decided to convert 100 percent of its stone fruit trees to organic farming practices, part of the ongoing push to meet consumers' insatiable demand for healthier food.
But Stemilt Growers Inc., a bit player in the stone fruit industry but one of the nation's leading apple suppliers, isn't waiting two years to capitalize on the switch. The company has created a new label -- Artisan Naturals -- to sell its naturally-farmed fruit, an effort to get a higher price for the fruit even if it can't yet come with an "organic" sticker.







True from field to fork Kaktus writes and asks for input on whether there are any existing protocols for this appraoch:
I am working on an audit protocol (internal and third party) that will encompass true from field to fork - GAP, GMP, HACCP, Social Accountability and real time trace back from individual fruit to farm- field-harvest crew.

Union's aim: block trucks from Mexico Luis posts tihis coverage of The Arizona Republic:
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has sued to block Mexican trucks from operating freely throughout the United States, something the Bush administration may allow as soon as Saturday.
In federal court in San Francisco, the Teamsters said an emergency injunction is needed. They said government lawyers reported that the Transportation Department will issue the first of 100 permits to Mexican trucking firms Saturday.

At the end of the work week, what do you like to do to destress from the world of produce? I started this thread about what people do outside the world of produce, and have gotten a few interesting replies. Gist: We love our jobs, even when we're away from them.