Canada f/v nation or fast food nation?

For as long as I can remember, Canada's per capita consumption of fruits and vegetable has been unquestionably ensconced in a tier above the U.S. In 2003, The Packer published an article by Jim Offner that put it simply, "Canadians eat more produce than Americans." Jim's lede:

Telling a Canadian to eat his or her fruits and vegetables is like telling a dog to beg at the dinner table.
It's an easy job.
By some counts, Canadians consume 500 pounds of fruits and vegetables per capita each year.


TK: Actually Jim's article quoted some sources that said the statistics of the U.S. and Canada aren't created in the same way. But the well-established notion then and now is that Canadians eat more fruits and vegetables than the U.S.

This study from 2005, "A Bilateral Comparison of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: United States and Canada"(Timothy J. Richards and Paul M. Patterson), features a closer look at the phenomenon. An excerpt:

Of particular concern is the stark difference in consumption between the United States and its
largest, and most culturally similar neighbor-Canada. Whereas average consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in the United States is approximately 3.6 servings per capita per day, Canadians consume an average of six to seven servings per day (Burfield, 2003).' If accepted, it is curious this difference persists in spite of the fact that Canada's climate does not allow for widespread production of produce year-round, as in the United States, with the notable exception of greenhouse tomatoes.

Later in the study....

Based on the official government data for each country, Canadians consumed 414 pounds of fruits and vegetables per capita on average over the sample period, while Americans consumed only 274 pounds (Statistics Canada, 2001; USDA, 2000a). However, this comparison is misleading due to the differences in how the data are recorded.

TK: The authors still find that Canada consumes more fruits and vegetables, however, using a comparison of retail sales in like stores. From the conclusion:

This research seeks to explain the source of the observed difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between the United States and Canada. Despite their demographic and socioeconomic similarity, Canadians consume far more servings of fruits and vegetables each day compared to their U.S. counterparts-an observation that, although challenged by some, is confirmed using retail-level scanner data on produce sales in each country. Because prices tend to be higher in Canada, and incomes lower, we hypothesize that this difference in consumption levels is due in part to the superior quality of imported Canadian produce. Canadian produce is generally believed to be of higher quality because consumers in import regions tend to substitute toward higher quality products, once transportation charges and other shipping costs, which are invariant to quality, are applied-as predicted by the Alchian-Allen effect. Econometric tests of the Alchian-Allen effect, however, have been rare due to the fact that measures of quality are not generally available.

TK: Now comes this story from Megan Fitzpatrick and CanWest News Service titled "Canada turning into fast food nation." From the story:


Canadians are opting for fast food instead of fruits and vegetables and generally don't have a balanced diet, according to a new study. Statistics Canada released the Canadian Community Health Survey: Nutrition on Thursday, the first national survey of dietary habits since the early 1970s and the largest survey ever conducted of what Canadians are eating.
Not only are Canadians skipping out on fruits and vegetables, they aren't consuming enough milk products, and many are getting more than the recommended share of their calories from fat, the study found.In 2004, 35,000 people were asked what they had eaten in the previous 24 hours, when they ate and where the food was prepared.

Overall, one-quarter of Canadians reported they had eaten something from a fast-food outlet in the last 24 hours. Among teenagers 14 to 18, the proportion was one-third. Men ages 19 to 30 were the most likely to get food on the go; 39 per cent of them had done so on the day they were interviewed.

TK: Tim Horton, you are to blame for this!

To be fair, those who frequented a fast-food outlet could have ordered a cup of coffee or even a salad, but the survey found 40 per cent opted for a pizza, sandwich, hamburger or hot dog and a quarter of the respondents had a regular, not diet, soft drink to wash it down.

Those numbers support the indication that Canadians seem to be ignoring the advice of the Canada Food Guide, which separates food into four groups (fruits and vegetables, milk products, meat and alternatives and grain products) and has an added "other foods" category that covers fats, oils, sugar, snack foods, beverages and condiments.

The Food Guide recommends that "other foods" be consumed in moderation, but the survey found that after grain products, "other foods" ranks second as the top energy provider, supplying 22 per cent of daily calories for both children and adults.

Canadians are supposed to have a minimum of five daily servings of fruits and vegetables according to the Guide but about half of adults are falling short of meeting that target. Only 20 per cent are eating four to five servings and seven out of 10 children aged 4 to 8 are not meeting the five-serving standard.

TK: One story can't erase years of hearing that Canada's f/v consumption far outpaces the U.S., but it certainly appears Canada is falling back from where they have been.

Have your people call my people

Talking to Dave Gombas of United earlier in the week, he indicated there has not yet been a meeting between suppliers/association leaders with members of the Food Safety Leadership Council. The purpose of the clutch, of course is to talk about the merits of the council's on-farm food safety standards. Gombas was hopeful for a meeting before the end of the month. There appears to be, in my view, a little trepidation from all parties over what to expect from the process. Is this a technical discussion only or will it delve into marketing issues? In any case, there should be no reason that the council and suppliers should not agree to meet at least one time. If nothing comes of it except the perfunctory "agree to disagree" spin, it would be better than if the meeting never happened.

How big should the steering committee of the Produce Traceability Initiative be? The question appears to be open for at least now, as some favor adding a few more members to fill out the supply chain, while others would prefer a committee size that is more manageable.

I'm afraid they may have already breached the ideal committee size. From the Web site Solutions that endure.

Seven is the Ideal

Seven is the ideal number of members for a group to problem solve, find creative solutions, build a strategic plan or grapple with complex challenges. If groups are formed for other purposes such as building consensus, representing diverse communities or governing, these concepts may not apply.

Too Large

As a group gets too large in the 9-12 region group dynamics deteriorate. Meetings get longer and each person has less time to contribute. This leads to many potential pitfalls; boring meetings, members not paying full attention, noisy meetings and ultimately lack of attendance. In large groups many participants will feel not enough “attention” is given to their opinions and input. Aggressive personalities will feel the need to assert themselves to get their share of limited time. Passive personalities will hold back and not contribute equally as the meeting becomes time constrained. Dissatisfaction of members with the group dynamics, output or effectiveness will lead to a downward spiral of diminished group performance.

Balance

The closer the group size is to seven the easier it will be to achieve the balance needed to create a highly effective group. Creative synergy is the goal. This happens when group members throw their ideas on the table and others are stimulated and react to that idea, spawning another idea or view. The goal is to create a positive feedback loop of contribution of each member so that the individual members feel energized about their contribution. When this cycle occurs each individual contribution is a building block to a bigger and better final product built by the entire group.

Another objective of the balanced group is making fewer mistakes. This happens because the diversity of opinion allows more facets of a problem and proposed solution to be seen and vetted. There is a high value in diversity of life experiences. Just when the group feels they have solved the problem or found the ideal solution, one lone member will catch the flaw that others missed in their excitement.

Characteristics of a Team

A balanced group size has all members actively participating and sharing their questions, observations and ideas. An effective group evolves when members see themselves as a team, and value the output of the group and identify with the group with pride.

One Reason it Matters

Problems are created when people insist on designing and empowering very large groups to solve problems. The confusion comes from the focus on having all interest groups or stakeholders represented which is a laudable goal. After a very large council, commission or committee is formed it becomes evident the “work” cannot get done efficiently. At that point a methodology has to be constructed to work around the dysfunctionality of the 25 member group.

TK: At least we can hope for 7-member subcommittees after the Jan. 9 meeting in Atlanta.

Manager's amendment - Extended cut

John Keeling of the National Potato Council passed on the summary compiled by United of the manager's amendment in the farm bill. I posted to a Google docs file here. Here are a few of the produce-related amendments:

On clementines....

SEC. 3205. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEMENTINES. Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the matter preceding the first proviso in the first sentence by inserting ``clementines,'' after ``nectarines,''.

Here is another on user fees......

SEC. 110__. EXEMPTION FROM AQI USER FEES. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the owner or operator of any commercial truck described in subsection (b) shall be exempt from the payment of any agricultural quarantine and inspection user fee. (b) Commercial Trucks.--A commercial truck referred to in subsection (a) is a commercial truck that-- (1) originates in the State of Alaska and reenters the customs territory of the United States directly from Canada; or
(2) originates in the customs territory of the United States (other than the State of Alaska) and transits through the customs territory of Canada directly before entering the State of Alaska. (c) Sealed Cargo Areas.--A cargo area of any commercial truck carrying an agricultural product shall remain sealed during transit through Canada.

On a Buy America provision....

SEC. 4904. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following: (1) Federal law requires that commodities and products purchased with Federal funds be, to the extent practicable, of domestic origin. (2) Federal Buy American statutory requirements seek to ensure that purchases made with Federal funds benefit domestic producers. (3) The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) requires the use of domestic food products for all meals served under the program, including foods products for all meals served under the program, including foods products purchased with local funds.
(b) Buy American Statutory Requirements.--The Department of Agriculture should undertake training, guidance, and enforcement of the various current Buy American statutory requirements and regulations, including those of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Department of Defense fresh fruit and vegetable distribution program.

On organic research....
SEC. 7__X. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING ORGANIC RESEARCH. It is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the Secretary should recognize that sales of certified organic products have been expanding by 17 to 20 percent per year for more than a decade, but research and outreach activities relating specifically to certified organic production growth and processing of agricultural products (as defined in section 2103 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502)) has not kept pace with this expansion; (2) research conducted specifically on organic methods and production systems benefits organic and conventional producers and contributes to the strategic goals of the Department of Agriculture, resulting in benefits for trade, human health, the environment, and overall agricultural productivity; (3) in order to meet the needs of the growing organic sector, the Secretary should use a portion of the total annual funds of the Agricultural Research Service for research specific to organic food and agricultural systems that is at least commensurate with the market share of the organic sector of the domestic food retail market; and (4) the increase in funding described in paragraph (3) should include funding for efforts-- (A) to establish long-term core capacities for organic research; (B) to assist organic farmers and farmers intending to transition to organic production systems; and
(C) to disseminate research results through the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center of the National Agriculture Library.

Why not?

I see that the nays are now winning (9 to 7) the Fresh Talk poll on the desirability of a national promotion order, with mandatory assessments, for fresh produce. I spelled out some of the reasons why I thought the concept was solid in an earlier post. A national promotion order would provide forceful and flexible consumer messaging, give more effective media outreach tools, bolster the fresh produce industry with greater clout at the USDA, satisfy the need for a fresh first focus in generic promotions and boost trade promotion dollars considerably.

I would like to hear the top reasons why people don't think it is a good idea. Just tack your thoughts, anonymous or not, on to this post.