Potato Market Look In

From Oct.5 USDA National Fruit and Vegetable Retail Report
Potatoes, russet 5 lb bag
Stores with ads (1,855)
Weighted average price ($2.09)

Northeast U.S.
Potatoes, russet Price range (1.48 - 2.99) 5 lb bag
Stores on ad (687)
Weighted average ($2.12)

Discussion draft worth talking about

Here is a draft of Sen. Harkin's nutrition title for the farm bill, and here are pages that discussion the fruit and vegetable snack program.

Harkin has changed the fruit and vegetable program to skew toward lower income schools, or schools were 50% or more of the kids receive free or reduced price meals. The criteria for funds encourages collaboration with the industry and evidence of health among the student body, as well. Funded at $225 million annually, the Harkin draft would put fruits and vegetables in thousands of schools and make a significant impact.

As the edges of the farm bill get tugged on in the coming weeks, it will be important for the industry to make its voice heard on issues like the snack program to preserve the meaningful funding levels that Harkin as proposed.

If anyone needed proof

The ConAgra pot pie episode may stir the pot - pardon the pun - for action on food safety legislation. Some believe that a recall should have been issued, rather than a health alert. From Rep. DeLauro comes this broadside against ConAgra:

From DeLauro:


ConAgra to Consumers: How good is your Health Insurance?

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) issued the following statement regarding ConAgra’s decision not to recall pot pies that have been linked to at least 152 cases of Salmonella in 31 states.
“If anyone needed proof that the current food safety system and this Administration are beholden to corporate interests, the recent ConAgra pot pie situation offers a perfect example.
“ConAgra is refusing to recall their products that could be tainted with Salmonella despite direct requests from health officials in Minnesota and Oregon. This is after ConAgra blamed consumers for the Salmonella outbreak that has sickened at least 152 people in 31 states. Also, ConAgra’s decision to reject the pleas to recall the potentially contaminated products was affirmed by USDA.
“This incredibly outrageous and frightening scenario is the result of a food safety system that relies on voluntary recalls, which inherently protects corporate interests at the expense of consumers and public health. We desperately need to reform our food safety regulatory structure that includes mandatory recall authority to ensure that illnesses are minimized and consumers are protected.”

A closer look from the FDA

What does this mean for the industry? It sounds like the FDA, with the assent of the industry, is taking a much closer look at leafy greens farms in California. I have calls into the FDA and United on this.

From the FDA on Oct. 4:


Leafy Greens Safety Initiative - 2nd year

In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched the 2004 FDA Produce Safety Action Plan, which is intended to minimize the incidence of foodborne illness associated with consumption of fresh produce. In 2006, FDA, in collaboration with the State of California's Departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture, began a multi-year Initiative as part of a risk-based strategy intended to reduce public health risks by heightening the focus on preventive food safety efforts (e.g., in advance of an outbreak) on specific products, practices, agents, and growing areas of greatest concern. The first year of the Initiative focused on lettuce (Lettuce Safety Initiative) as a response to recurring outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 associated with fresh and fresh-cut lettuce.
FDA and the California Department of Public Health are continuing these efforts in 2007 with a focus on a broader range of leafy greens, including spinach, building upon lessons learned in the first year, subsequent outbreak investigations, and our 2007 Tomato Safety Initiative which is underway in Virginia and Florida.
Beginning in October 2007, FDA investigators, in coordination with their respective state counterparts, and with the cooperation of the industry, will visit farms in California to assess the prevalence of factors in and near the field environment which may contribute to potential contamination of leafy greens with E. coli O157:H7 and the extent to which Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and other preventive controls are being implemented. To further focus this risk-based approach, collaborators have been reviewing data to identify areas where co-existing environmental risk factors are present. Data analyses and GIS mapping will be followed by preliminary assessments to confirm the data analyses and to finalize site selection for the field assessment.

Other components of the initiative include:
Continuing outreach with the industry at all points in the supply chain,
Communicating early and often in the event of an outbreak or recall, and
Continuing to build and strengthen collaborative relationships with federal, state and local public health officials in disease prevention, detection, and outbreak response.

By identifying practices and conditions that can lead to product contamination, FDA and our safety partners can improve guidance and policies intended to minimize chances of future disease outbreaks, as well as ascertain future produce-safety research, education and outreach needs. The high degree of collaboration and cooperation in both the Leafy Greens and Tomato Safety Initiatives will play a significant role in allowing these initiatives to achieve their goals. The findings of the 2007 Leafy Greens Safety Initiative will be shared publicly upon completion of the effort, to allow state officials and members of the industry to maximize their food safety efforts.

United weighs in

What follows is United's reaction on the preliminary injunction to the no-match rule. I wonder how long it will be before conservative talk radio skewers the judge in this case? Not long, I'd wager:

From United:
United Fresh Applauds Judges Decision to Issue Preliminary Injunction
Yesterday, Northern California’s Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction in the Social Security no-match litigation, thereby blocking implementation of the rule for several months until the Court has had a chance to fully examine it. As a result, the Social Security Administration (SSA) halted its plan to begin sending Social Security no-match letters to approximately 140,000 employers regarding approximately 8.7 million employees.
On September 11, 2007, United Fresh joined six other plaintiffs in filing a Motion to Intervene that challenged the regulation on several grounds, including violations of the Regulatory and Flexibility Act and of the Administrative Procedure Act. Among other claims, the suit cites the severe economic hardship that businesses could endure in order to immediately comply with the regulations. “I do not remember the last time a produce association sued the government to block an action that was unfair to its members,” said Emanuel Lazopolous, Senior Vice President of Del Monte Fresh Produce and United Fresh Chairman of the Board. “This shows how serious United Fresh is when it comes to working on behalf of its members.”
“We applaud the Court’s decision to suspend the implementation of the No-Match rule,” said Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of United Fresh. “Further analysis is needed in order to understand the real burden this will place on businesses, and it is incumbent upon the federal government to assure the program is executed correctly.”
Lawyers working with United Fresh and the other the plaintiffs have pointed out that the Court’s ruling on this issue indicate that the plaintiffs have a high probability of succeeding on one or more of the four legal theories that support the lawsuit.
“For many of our members, the burden of correcting SSA errors is a time consuming process, and, in order to comply, they will have to develop new policies and procedures,” said Autumn Veazey, director of legislative affairs and associate counsel for United Fresh. “Fortunately, this preliminary injunction will provide the much needed time for our company members and allied organizations to understand the implications of the regulation.”

(Don't?) Eat Poop

As one of the country's top communicators on food safety issues, Doug Powell of KSU's Food Safety Network has a simple and memorable message, "Don't Eat Poop." However, one physician in New York has written an opinion piece suggesting humans may need to increase their immunity by ingesting a little more poop after all.

In this Barfblog post, Powell discusses this disturbing article with exactly the opposite message. The headline: "Eat Crap: Why Americans should ingest more excrement. "

The author, New York City physician Kent Sepkowitz, notes the spinach-related E. coli outbreak of last year and writes:

Since then, the United States has seen at least four additional food-borne outbreaks: salmonella in peanut butter and in spinach, botulism in canned chili, and the current Topps Meat Co. recall of 21.7 million pounds (40,000 cows' worth) of E. coli-tainted ground beef. Those with an insatiable interest in E. coli O157:H7 (along with the lawyers who traffic in this corner of the human misery market) can keep up-to-date here.
With every outbreak, the same question sounds: Why can't we keep the food chain clean? The annual numbers aren't small, nor are they decreasing. By one estimate, about one-fourth of Americans get "food poisoning" of some type each year, 300,000 are hospitalized, and a few thousand die. The perps remain the same—E. coli, listeria, salmonella, and all the rest. Why is this public-health problem so difficult to solve? This is America, after all, replete with wondrously harsh chemicals that can kill anything. Why can't we scrub away the bacteria our guts don't get along with?

Maybe we are taking the wrong approach. Rather than trying to make our food and water ever cleaner, we should focus instead on making sure it's dirty enough to assure our good health.

Rather than frantically throwing money at new ways to eradicate the pathogens that reside in shit, we should fund the boring scientists who focus on untangling the intricacies of the gut's immune system. Labs, answer this: How much shit can we safely eat and, as importantly, how much must we eat to remain healthy?

TK: Powell says "Don't Eat Poop" and this guy says, "Eat more poop." I know what I want to do. One of Powell's readers brings up a good point: natural selection may be a reality, but we don't want to practice it on our kids. Here is Powell's take on the piece:

While there is some truth in the doctor's comments, humans just aren't smart enough to figure out who is genetically susceptible to the various nasties out there. Maybe the population's immunity can be increased by exposure to some cryptosporidium or salmonella or whatever, but individuals are gonna die. We're gonna lose a few. And we don't know who those few are.
So while we're figuring that out, we have a responsibility to use the science we know to reduce the number of people who get sick from the food and water they consume. And don't eat poop