Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Agricultural Prices - Headed higher

Agricultural prices keep heading higher. From the USDA today:


The July All Farm Products Index is 161 percent of its 1990-92 base, up 1.9 percent from the June index and 16 percent above the July 2007 index.

ALL CROPS: The July index is 186, up 1.6 percent from June and 32 percent above July 2007. Index increases for potatoes & dry beans, oil-bearing crops, and feed grains & hay more than offset the index decreases for food grains and commercial vegetables

Fruits & Nuts: The July index, at 151, is unchanged from June but 3.4 percent higher than a year ago. Price increases for apples, strawberries, and pears offset price decreases for grapes, oranges, lemons, and peaches.

Commercial Vegetables: The July index, at 148, is down 3.9 percent from last month but 17 percent above July 2007. Price declines for tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, and cauliflower more than offset price increases during July for sweet corn, snap beans, and asparagus.

Potatoes & Dry Beans: The July index, at 197, is up 7.1 percent from last month and 35 percent above July 2007. The all potato price, at $11.42 per cwt, is up 64 cents from June and up $2.94 from last July. The all dry beanprice, at $38.20 per cwt, is up $5.20 from the previous month and $9.70 above July 2007.

Labels: , ,

E-Verify renewed by the House for five years

Big Apple noted this in the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group today in this post. The news, pure and simple , is that E-Verify has been renewed as a voluntary program by the House for five years. The Senate still has to act or the program will expire in November. I would venture to say that few agricultural employers would complain if the program goes away, but it appears that will not be the case. From this press account from Government Executive:

House lawmakers have reached an agreement on legislation that would renew a program that allows employers to verify the legal status of their workers, breaking a stalemate between two committees over concerns about funding for the Social Security Administration.

The bill emerged from behind-the-scenes negotiations among lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

The two sides had been at odds over writing language that would both reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and preserve Social Security's ability to meet its core mission of providing services to seniors and the disabled.

The bill would reauthorize for five years the E-Verify program, which is an online tool that employers can use to confirm a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases.

Labels: , , , ,

Immigration - reverse flow

You may have seen the headlines about the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, called Homeward bound: recent immigration enforcement and the decline in the illegal alien population
Here are some highlights from the report;

Among the findings:

  • Our best estimate is that the illegal immigrant population has declined by 11 percent through May 2008 after hitting a peak in August 2007.
  • The implied decline in the illegal population is 1.3 million since last summer, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million today.
  • The estimated decline of the illegal population is at least seven times larger than the number of illegal aliens removed by the government in the last 10 months, so most of the decline is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country on their own.
  • One indication that stepped-up enforcement is responsible for the decline is that only the illegal immigrant population seems to be affected; the legal immigrant population continues to grow.
  • Another indication enforcement is causing the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate.
  • The importance of enforcement is also suggested by the fact that the current decline is already significantly larger than the decline during the last recession, and officially the country has not yet entered a recession.
  • While the decline began before unemployment rose, the evidence indicates that unemployment has increased among illegal immigrants, so the economic slow-down is likely to be at least partly responsible for the decline in the number of illegal immigrants.
  • There is good evidence that the illegal population grew last summer while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population began to fall almost immediately.
  • If the decline were sustained, it would reduce the illegal population by one-half in the next five years.


Here is the rest of the story, from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform:


“IMMIGRATION ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT” – A DISASTER IN SOLUTION’S CLOTHING


Today, the immigration-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies will unveil a report that contends that the strategy of “attrition through enforcement” is working. The group suggests that 1.3 million unauthorized immigrants have self-deported, and argues that tougher enforcement is working. The claim itself is dubious; more importantly, our nation’s leaders mustn’t lose sight of the true impact of an enforcement-only strategy: if it succeeds, America will lose much of her ability to feed her people.

Are unauthorized immigrants leaving the country? Undoubtedly, the slowing economy
is causing shifts in employment patterns. However, such shifts don’t necessarily mean “self-deportation”. Indeed, many agricultural employers across the country report that some experienced workers who left agriculture over the last several years to work inconstruction or other sectors have returned as those sectors (e.g., homebuilding) have shed jobs. Yet, this temporary shift does not solve the growing agricultural labor crisis.


In 2006 and 2007, many producers reported developing labor shortages. In the more
serious cases, catastrophic losses resulted – at least one quarter of the pear crop in northern California was lost in 2006; in 2007 one million pounds of asparagus in one western Michigan county went to rot and a North Carolina pickle processor that had to import cucumbers from India when a local supplier scaled back over fears of too few harvest workers.


In 2008, mounting evidence shows that more farmers are making
management decisions to plant less, switch to mechanized and subsidized row crops rather than high value fruits and vegetables, and even move production outside the U.S.

As CIS attempts to paint a picture that self-deportation is happening, and offers a solution to fixing America’s broken immigration system, the truly important question is this: if enforcement could actually succeed at purging the American workforce of unauthorized immigrants, what would be the result? In agriculture, the answer is clear. Much of our food production could not be sustained.


The fresh fruit, vegetable, and dairy sectors would be hit the hardest. A majority of the farmworkers planting, harvesting, and tending fruits, vegetables, dairy cows, and other livestock in the U.S. are unauthorized.


In Texas, a recent survey conducted by Texas A&M University reported that 77 percent of grower respondents had taken steps to actively downsize their businesses.

More than one quarter of these American farmers had moved some of
their production out of the U.S.

One major melon and onion grower in Pecos County,
producing for 20 years on 2200 acres with a $2 million payroll and an additional $2.6 million in economic activity generated in the community, called it quits this year, because of labor.

The largest tomato grower in the northeastern U.S. announced
before the planting season started that he could no longer risk producing tomatoes in Pennsylvania due to the lack of legally authorized harvest labor.

A more recent survey of a select group of vegetable producers in California reveals that 80,000 acres of high-value vegetable production have been relocated to Mexico.

The facts are stark. “Attrition through enforcement” means attrition of the American economy. It means job attrition. It means attrition of our nation’s ability to produce our own wholesome and abundant food. It means relying on the world to feed us. “Attrition through enforcement” is no solution. It is a hungry wolf in sheep’s clothing. True solutions are within reach, if Congress musters the courage and the wisdom to act. For agriculture, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Emergency Agriculture Relief Act would provide temporary stability until Congress is able to revisit the issue of full and wise reform of our broken immigration system.


More news coverage:

Report about dwindling information sparks debate

Labels: , , , , , ,

Where we are headed

There is a lot of back and forth in today's hearing about traceability, best practices, preventive controls, who's in charge, mandatory recall authority, a little bit about compensation.

Bottom line: the industry leaders on the first panel testifying today (including Stenzel and Beckman) are generally ready to back more stringent traceability standards than the 2002 Bioterrorism Act on a risk-based commodity specific standard. For example, tomatoes will be a prime candidate for a more stringent national regulation.

What is less clear is if the FDA will get industry backing for the authority to impose preventive controls at the farm level and through the supply chain. Perhaps again, this will be negotiated on a commodity specific basis.

The FDA will have mandatory recall authority in any coming food safety legislation. However, one committee member worried that if the FDA calls a mandatory recall that is later found to be based on erroneous information, the government would be on the hook for compensation to growers. He's got a point; if a unsubstantiated FDA advisory prompts call for compensation, how much more would a mandatory recall that turned out to be bogus?

Meanwhile, this story from The New York Times Amid Salmonella Case, Food Industry Seems Set to Back Greater Regulation speaks to the fact that industry may be prepared to bend to more regulation. From the story:

Food industry leaders set to appear Thursday before a House committee say they will testify about what they view as mistakes in the federal response to the continuing salmonella outbreak as well as fundamental failures in the nation’s food safety system.

At the same time, however, several food safety experts say, industry leaders are also questioning whether the weak produce-tracking rules that many of them once championed are more a curse than a blessing. As they tally the financial losses from the largest food-borne outbreak of illness in the last decade, produce businesses now show signs of embracing broader regulations for traceability.

“I think that now the industry is realizing based on this outbreak that we need to have the ability to trace back so we can segregate where the problem is and not devastate the entire industry,” said Mike Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.

Produce industry leaders scheduled to appear at the House hearing, before the Energy and Commerce Committee, said they would call for government agencies to divulge details of initial studies that linked the salmonella outbreak to raw tomatoes.

Labels: , , , ,

Fruit and tree nuts outlook - July 30

Find the USDA's Economic Research Service July 30 Fruit and Tree nuts outlook report here. From the report:


For the first time in 2008, the index of prices received by fruit and tree nut growers rose above a year ago in May and remained higher in June. At 152 (1990-92=100), the June index was 1 percentage point higher than the June 2007 index. Boosting the index were record-high June prices for lemons and apples and a price gain for peaches, which when combined more than offset the price declines for fresh-market strawberries and pears.


Later....

U.S. consumers continue to face higher prices for many fresh fruit. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fresh fruit in June, estimated at 346.0 (1982=84=100), was 6 percent above the June 2007 index and the highest for any June index reported since 1989. Boosting the fresh fruit CPI were higher retail prices in June for apples, bananas, Anjou pears, Thompson seedless grapes, strawberries, grapefruit, and lemons. Of the various fruit retail price series for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ bases its fresh fruit CPI calculations, only the prices for Navel oranges and peaches fell below a year ago in June. Prices for lemons, Red Delicious apples,
bananas, Anjou pears, and strawberries were at record-high levels for the month. Apart from high fuel prices that are inflating the overall cost to ship fruit to various markets, low supplies of apples, pears, and lemons at the end of the 2007/08 season, together with strong exports, are bumping up the prices for these fruit at the retail level. Continued low supplies in the next couple of months as marketing for these fruits transition to the 2008/09 season will likely keep prices strong. Banana supplies remain low as imports continue to be down from last year due to weather conditions several months ago that dampened supplies in important production regions. Banana retail prices have been climbing up since January, with the June
average retail price being the highest so far for the year.

Labels: , ,

House Energy and Commerce: Oversight and investigations

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., opened today's hearing with a statement, "We can't afford to do (mandatory) traceability." Other comments by other subcommittee members include observations about the "broken" FDA, which only yesterday was asked to step up oversight of tobacco.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said the salmonella outbreak should be a "wakeup call" to the risks the countries faces from intentional and unintentional contamination. Dingell also said the 2002 Bioterrorism Act has failed in its purpose. "What should have taken hours or days has taken months or more."

"Why can't FDA mandate traceability?"

Labels: , , ,

New FDA consumer warning

Here is the latest from the FDA this morning....


Laboratory testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that both a sample of serrano pepper and a sample of irrigation water collected by agency investigators on a farm in the state of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, contain Salmonella Saintpaul with the same genetic fingerprint as the strain of bacteria that is causing the current outbreak in the United States.

As a result, until further notice, the FDA is advising consumers to avoid raw serrano peppers from Mexico, in addition to raw jalapeño peppers from Mexico, and any foods that contain them.

The test results announced today are part of the FDA’s continuing intensive investigation into the outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul. The investigation has involved tracing back, through complex distribution channels, the origins of products associated with clusters of illness in the United States, as well as inspections and evaluation of farms and facilities in this country and in Mexico, and the collection and testing of environmental and product samples. One of these tracebacks led to a packing facility in Mexico, and to a particular farm, where the agency obtained the samples.

Previously, FDA inspectors collected a positive sample of jalapeño pepper from a produce-distribution center owned by Agricola Zaragosa in McAllen, Texas. The FDA continues to work on pinpointing where and how in the supply chain this first positive jalapeño pepper sample became contaminated. It originated from a different farm in Mexico than the positive samples of serrano pepper and irrigation water


Labels: ,

Breaking news

It was the kind of good timing that defies the odds. David Acheson of the FDA and Lonnie King of the CDC talk about a "smoling gun" in Mexico. Here is the link to the audio file where Acheson states, "Two hours ago.... CNN coverage below:

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

House hearing - The panelists

A long hort subcommittee hearing today chaired by Rep. Cardoza today, one in which the industry made a number of strong points. Still, Acheson may have trumped everything else that was said with news of the farm in Mexico where the salmonella Saintpaul pathogen was found. David Mitchell developing for The Packer....


Labels: , , , , ,

A Whole Lot Of Words

Let the games begin. May they prove fruitful for all concerned.

You’ve read Tom Karst’s report of Tony DiMare’s opening statement at the House hearings this afternoon. Besides this document, I’ve briefly glanced at the ones by Dr. Acheson of the FDA and Dr. Osterholm of the University of Minnesota. Nothing earth-shattering there---they say what you’d expect them to say---Acheson dancing & ‘CYA’-ing, and Osterholm interestingly scaling somewhat back in his vitriol towards the process. Check ‘em out yourself at Tom’s link provided above.

But…so far, the star of the show for me is Tom Stenzel of the United Fresh Produce Association. He’s comes as close as anyone at pointing the finger at FDA’s methodology, which is at the crux of the matter:


Despite some hurdles which I will address later, FDA in fact was able to trace tomatoes eaten by sick consumers back to the farm. The only problem was those tracebacks kept pointing to different farms. Rather than complaining about the complexity of the tomato industry and so-called false leads sending the search to myriad farms across two countries, the evidence was staring government in the face. There was no common point where all of these tomatoes could have been contaminated, whether at the farm or in repacking at the wholesale level. Traceback worked; it just didn’t confirm the hypothesis that the Centers for Disease Control had advanced, and that we now know was most likely wrong.


And, due no doubt to repeated calls from membership up and down the tomato distribution chain, Stenzel pleads for compensation, sympathetically but shrewdly:


If I may Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a brief comment about compensation. We all know the error in CDC’s initial assessment that fresh tomatoes were the sole cause of this outbreak. While CDC has not yet stepped away from its suspicion that tomatoes might have caused some of the earlier illnesses, this is neither a likely nor plausible position without some real evidence. The fact that consumers didn’t know that they had eaten jalapenos chopped up in salsas, garnishes, or other foods is no reason for CDC to cling to the accuracy of their initial food surveys just out of pride. Even good scientists can make a mistake, and there’s no shame in admitting that consumers apparently were just unaware of this hidden ingredient in their foods.

There can be no doubt that this has been a disaster for the tomato industry, and we support Congressman Mahoney’s HR 6581 as a step toward providing disaster assistance to our agricultural sector just as vital as any hurricane or flood. It’s also a fact that this disaster struck every company in the tomato supply chain whether they had to discard full warehouses of perfectly healthy tomatoes, haul product to the dump, watch fruit rot on the vine, or plow fields under. I know well that this is the Agriculture Committee, but I ask you to think about both the growers we represent, and also our growers’ customers who had already paid for their produce, but were forced to discard millions of dollars of product.



More comments later, but I’ll need a whole pitcher of iced tea to decipher some of this stuff, and the ulterior motives attached.

Later,

Jay

Labels: , ,

Opening statements are up

Here is the link to the opening statements from today's hearing in the House by the subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture on the technological capacity for full traceability in fresh produce.


Here is what Tony DiMare's opening statement says about the outbreak:



Our industry was shaken to the core in June when the CDC announced that tomatoes were a suspected source of the salmonella outbreak, and the FDA issued a broad advisory for all consumers to avoid eating certain types of tomatoes.

Shipment ground to a halt. Tomatoes were left in the fields, in the packinghouses and on trucks that were turned away by our customers. More than a week went by before the FDA cleared 19 Florida counties to ship tomatoes. By then, however, consumers were too confused and were reluctant to resume buying tomatoes. Severe losses were incurred all along the distribution chain. Early on, our sales were down as much as 60 percent, and business has been slow to pick up. Today, our repack operations are still off by about 20 percent.

Adding to our frustration during the trace-back was the FDA and CDC’s reluctance to turn to industry for help understanding and identifying distribution channels – knowledge they clearly lacked. Tapping into industry expertise early on would have gone a long way in speeding up the trace-back. More cooperation is clearly needed in the future.


Conclusion
Even though the FDA has announced that all tomatoes are safe to eat and has focused its attention on other produce, we urge both the FDA and CDC to completely clear Florida tomatoes as a potential source of the outbreak.

In addition, we are calling on these agencies and others to sit down with industry to determine how the investigation and trace-back process can be improved. Hard questions need to be asked, and lessons must be learned from this outbreak so that a similar situation never happens again.

Looking ahead, we don’t know how long it will take for consumer confidence in fresh tomatoes to rebound. What has transpired over the past two months is sure to affect our business into next season. As an industry, we are strongly committed to taking whatever proactive steps are necessary to ensure Americans know they are consuming the safest, healthiest and most nutritious fresh produce possible.

Labels: , , , ,

Pesticides to blame for 'buzz kill?'

Packer managing editor Fred Wilkinson here with the latest chapter in a disturbing mystery that wallops many fruit growers in the wallet: the increasing disappearance of honeybee colonies in the past few years.

From the Los Angeles Times:

There is increasing reason to believe that Gaucho and other members of a family of highly toxic chemicals -- neonicotinoids -- may be responsible for he deaths of billions of honeybees worldwide. Some scientists believe that these pesticides, which are applied to seeds, travel systemically through the plant and leave residues that contaminate the pollen, resulting in bee death or paralysis. The French refer to the effect as "mad bee disease" and in 1999 were the first to ban the use of these chemicals, which are currently only marketed by Bayer (the aspirin people) under the trade names Gaucho and Poncho. Germany followed suit this year, and its agricultural research institute said it concluded that the poisoning of the bees was because of the rub-off of the pesticide clothianidin (that's Pancho) from corn seeds.

The Op-Ed piece's author -- Al Meyerhoff, is described in the article's tagline as "an environmental attorney in Los Angeles" and "a former director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's public health program." He details what's at stake for growers and lays some blame for bees' woes on the ag industry for its agricultural practices:

Something is killing the bees, though. Some scientists suspect a virus; others mites, even cellphones. (Bees are not known to use phones, though, having their own communications system -- a dance called the "waggle.") Here in the U.S., the bee kill is a big problem. Domesticated bees were brought to the U.S. on the Mayflower. Today, they contribute at least $15 billion to the nation's agricultural economy. For example, California's $2-billion-a-year almond crop is completely dependent on honeybees from about 1.5 million hives for pollination. This year, more than 2.4 million bee colonies -- 36% of the total -- were lost in the U.S., according to the Apiary Inspectors of America. Some colonies collapsed in two days. Part of the problem is how we farm. Rather than rotating crops, farmers grow the same one each year. This "monoculture" creates a breeding ground for pests. Farmers then use chemicals that kill not only the target organism but other life forms as well -- like honeybees.

The USDA weighed in on the topic in May here. Their take? Researchers aren't sure if the problem is related to disease (such as the varroa mite), ag chemicals or or even a mix of those two and possibly other environmental factors.

Labels: , , ,

Drawing distinctions: FAA and FDA

I was reading the Perishable Pundit today and one particular subset of today's report caught my eye. Jim compared the risk of airline accidents and car safety ratings to the incidence of foodborne illness. He made a case that the FDA should revise its policy of issuing food advisories, drawing on the example of the Federal Aviation Administration:

What the FAA does not do is go around issuing recommendations as to whether .018 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures is something an individual should accept or not.

A serious foodborne illness caused by fresh produce is an exceedingly rare event. This means that it is very difficult to increase an individual’s personal safety through a consumption restriction on fresh produce. Look at the numbers for this very large and serious outbreak related to Salmonella Saintpaul.

TK: I suggest you check out Jim's reasoning further if you would like. Here, he speaks to the crux of the matter:

As such, FDA should abandon this policy of making these broad recommendations not to consume. Instead, as with the NHTSA, FDA should publicize what information it has, being careful, of course, to put it in perspective.

There are two separate problems that Congress will be dealing with: The first is how to improve food safety on fresh produce — for that we have recommended a certification program to ensure farms operate to a gold standard. The second is how FDA should conduct itself to enhance public health without bankrupting industries so they can’t afford to invest in food safety.

The answer is for Congress to direct FDA to function in an educational fashion on foodborne illness outbreaks unless there is a particular reason to fear high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage.

This preserves the interests public health authorities have in disseminating important information, it helps avoid panic among consumers by putting information in perspective, and it avoids a disastrous impact on food producers by preserving consumer freedom.

TK: While Jim's argument is well-founded, I think his point is off base here. "The answer for Congress is to direct the FDA to function in an educational fashion on foodborne illness outbreaks unless there is a particular reason to fear high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage."

How can the FDA act in an "educational fashion"? Weaken advisories to "suggestions"? As it is, consumers have the free will to do what they will do, no matter what the government says.

If the FDA has information that might protect the public health, it needs to have the freedom to speak freely. The idea that Congress should "direct the FDA" to protect commerce above consumers would seem to me to have a chilling effect on agency vigilance and would be surely dispiriting to professionals dedicated to the protection of public health.

Yes, the outbreak has weakened the faith of the industry in the FDA. Better performance must be expected in future investigations. But the industry cannot callously accept outbreaks unless they bring "high numbers of fatalities or permanent damage."

At a time like this, we must remember the spinach outbreak and these words that Bryan Silbermann spoke: "Never again. Never, ever again."

By the way, here is a link to an interesting Web page about the origin and history of food regulations and the FDA.

Labels: , ,

First up - House Subcommittee on Horticulture

Here is the only Congressional hearing today. Rep. Rosa DeLauro's oversight hearing on the appropriations subcommittee - previously scheduled for today - has been postponed until after the August work period.


Wednesday, July 30th – 1:00 p.m.1300 Longworth House Office Building
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture — Public Hearing.RE: To review legal and technological capacity for full traceability in fresh produce.
WITNESS LIST
Panel I
The Honorable Diana DeGette, Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Colorado
Honorable Adam Putnam, Member of Congress from the Twelfth Congressional District of Florida
Panel II
Dr. David W.K. Acheson, M.D., Associate Commissioner for Food Protection, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Dr. Lonnie J. King, Director, DVM, National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED), Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
Panel III
Mr. Anthony J. DiMare, Vice President, DiMare Homestead Inc., DiMare Ruskin Inc., and DiMare Johns Island Inc., Ruskin, Florida
Mr. Henry L. Giclas, Vice President, Strategic Planning, Science and Technology, Western Growers Association, Irvine, California
Mr. Brian Silberman, President, Produce Marketing Association, Newark, Delaware
Mr. Thomas E. Stenzel, President and CEO, United Fresh Produce Association, Washington, DC
Panel IV
Dr. James R. Gorny, Ph.D., Executive Director, Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis, California
Ms. Jean Halloran, Director, Food Policy Initiatives, Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York
Dr. Michael Osterholm, Director, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota


TK: Here is the link to the witness list of tomorrow's hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, oversignts and investigations subcommittee.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Impossible criteria?

In the Food Safe message board, I recently posted the column co-written by Tom Stenzel and Bryan Silbermann that was published in The Packer. The column brought this reaction I'm posting here from one message board member. It speaks to an important question; how can FDA and lawmakers regulate according to risk when there is insufficient data to meet that criteria? What is the solution to that?


Quoting from Stenzel and Silbermann...
"These measures must be risk-based and commodity-specific to address the greatest areas of risk as identified by government. They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven effective at improving food safety"
while i would certainly appreciate hearing other perspectives, my sense is that at the moment the science is not in place that would make it possible to fulfill these two criteria . . . my sense is that although considerable research is currently in process on risk attribution in foodborne illness (pathogen, vehicle, source), the kinds of definitive results that would meet the silbermann-stenzel criteria are not yet available . . . in part this is because the database for the analysis of these questions is so weak (only a small percentage of foodborne illness outbreaks are ever traced to a vehicle, and outbreaks themselves represent only a small percentage of foodborne illness in the u.s.) . . .
if that description of the current situation is accurate, do the silbermann-stenzel criteria present a reasonable effort to move forward on food safety, or a hurdle that cannot be overcome in the forseeable future . . .
cheers,

craig
craig k harris

department of sociology
michigan agricultural experiment station
national food safety and toxicology center
institute for food and agricultural standards
food safety policy center
michigan state university http://www.msu.edu/~harrisc/

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Washington Apple Commission: Carlson on paid leave

From the offices of the Washington Apple Commission on July 29:

Washington Apple Commission President Placed on Leave
Wenatchee, WA…The current President of the Washington Apple Commission, Dave Carlson, is going on paid administrative leave as of September 1, 2008, by action of the Board of Directors at a board meeting on July 24. Citing the need to go in “a different direction” the board voted in an 8-1 decision to place Carlson, who has been President since the reorganization of the Commission in 2003, on indefinite leave. The Wenatchee, Washington-based Commission focuses on export promotions in over 30 international markets and will receive $4.8 million in federal marketing access promotion funds for the 08-09 season. Also in the meeting the board estimated the upcoming 08-09 crop at 98.3 million bushel boxes and passed a budget based on a 96 million box crop. In addition to federal funds, Cmmission activities are supported by a $.035/bushel box assessment.


TK: The Packer will develop this story further. Find coverage of this from The Wenatchee World here.

Labels: , , ,

Calendar watching

I've noted that some of our readers are taking the measure of the Fresh Talk calendar at the bottom of the page. Likewise, some organizers of industry conferences are letting me know about coming events and informing me when I've overlooked inclusion.. Please don't hesitate to e-mail me at tkarst@thepacker.com and let me know about events you would like to see listed here. Here is a note from Jim Gorny about a coming workshop:

Please find below a press release from the UC Davis Postharvest and Technology Research & Information Center announcing details regarding our upcoming September 16-18, 2008 Fresh-cut Produce Workshop. This workshop will provide participants with valuable take home information that they can use to address key technical issues, challenges and opportunities in their businesses.

If you would please consider letting your readership know about this important educational opportunity.
Also attached is a workshop brochure with more information about the workshop.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

James R. Gorny, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Postharvest Technology Research & Information Center
University of California, Davis
Tel: 530.754.9270
Email: jrgorny@ucdavis.edu


TK: You will find information about that event and many others in the Fresh Talk calendar. Click on each item and you will typically find more details about the events.


Labels: , , ,

Doha we hardly knew ye

Everybody - myself included - likes to dog and nitpick world trade talks until they collapse. Now there is plenty of remorse about lost opportunities. Is it really over? Here is some reaction rolling in

From Sen. Tom Harkin:
"U.S. Trade Representative Schwab made a significant offer to reduce trade distorting agriculture payments and other countries should have been more reasonable."


American Farm Bureau Federation's Bob Stallman

"It is regrettable that India and China were not prepared to negotiate improvements in agricultural trade for themselves and other developing countries."

Labels: , , ,

Food fears frustrate global trade

A disagreement pitting the U.S. against China and India over agricultural subsidies remains unresolved as the so-called Doha Round of World Trade Organization talks, which has been dragging on since 2001, has ended as a dud.


From a BBC report:


The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports. India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event. Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.


An earlier Associated Press article detailed how rising food prices worldwide and concerns about food security, particularly among poor nations, were at issue:


China and India were not alone. Faced with rising food prices, a number of developing nations have sought wide loopholes against opening up their farm markets — either by blocking certain strategic products such as rice or grains or through rules that would allow them to raise tariffs sharply if faced with a sudden flood of imports. Farming in the developing world is "not like manufacturing," said Trade Minister Mari Pangestu of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country. "It's not a machine you can just turn on or off." Rich and poor countries have clashed repeatedly in the round that was once billed as a recipe for lifting millions of people out of poverty. The trade body is hoping for agreement this week on lowering farm subsidies and industrial tariffs, setting the stage for an overall trade accord by the end of the year. Signs of a breakthrough last Friday were followed by more entrenchment over the weekend."

Cotton, sugar and rice are among commodities China wants to protect with tariffs, no mention of fresh produce.


Finding common ground among nearly 140 WTO member nations is challenging even during times of stability and growth, such as the 1990s, when China's rise as a manufacturing and export power pulled globalization into the mainstream of economic and political debate. (U.S. produce firms in the apple or garlic trade surely remember well in the '90s when Chinese exports pulled down floor prices for their respective products.)


The past decade has seen the rise of resource nationalism, as energy prices have jumped nearly 15-fold since oil bottomed out at $10/barrel in the late '90s. Poorer nations have felt the bite of fuel costs more than developed nations, and no doubt have seen how Russia and Venezuela purged foreign control of their oil resources and boast cash reserves equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars to show for it.

In a time of economic uncertainty worldwide, nations' inclination to circle the wagons to protect domestic markets is understandable.
But the advance of global trade is a marathon, not a sprint. As trade negotiators plan their next move, the smart money will bet on growing reliance among nations for products and services -- including food.

Labels: , , , ,

COOL: Co-mingle among yourselves

Retailers will be allowed to co-mingle produce of various origin in bulk displays, so long as the signage accounts for all possible origins. I'm not sure if consumers will find this approach very appealing, and retailers may take this approach at their own risk, IMHO.

From the interim final rule:


With regard to markings, in addition to the change made by the 2008 Farm Bill with respect to State, region, and locality labels, which is further discussed below, the Agency has made
several changes to provide for increased flexibility in labeling. In general, these changes mirror the changes that were made to the marking provisions contained in the interim final rule for fish and shellfish as a result of comments received on the proposed rule. Many commenters requested the use of check boxes to convey origin information. Other commenters requested that bulk commodities should be allowed to be commingled in bins as long as the signage indicates the countries of origin of the contents of the bin. Numerous other commenters recommended that State and regional designations should be accepted in lieu of country of origin. For a more complete discussion of the relevant comments, readers are invited to review the interim final rule for fish and shellfish. Accordingly, under this interim final rule, the declaration of the country of origin of a product may be in the form of a check box provided it is in conformance with other Federal labeling laws. Also, under this final rule, a bulk container
(e.g., display case, shipper, bin, carton, and barrel), used at the retail level to present product to consumers, may contain a covered commodity from more than one country of origin rovided all possible origins are listed. Under the proposed rule, the use of check boxes was not expressly allowed and covered commodities from more than one origin that were offered for sale in a bulk container were required to be individually labeled. Under the proposed rule, State or regional label designations were not permitted in lieu of country of origin. However, the 2008 Farm Bill, and thus this interim final rule, expressly authorize the use of State, regional, or locality label designations in lieu of country of origin for perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts.

Labels: , ,

COOL FAQ: What is this all about?

From the USDA interim final rule, the first question: What is required of me?


What are the general requirements of Country of Origin Labeling?

The 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills amended the Act to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of beef (including veal), lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities,peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts. The implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish was delayed until September 30, 2008. The law defines the terms “retailer” and“perishable agricultural commodity” as having the meanings given those terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA)(7 U.S.C. 499 et seq.). Under PACA, a retailer is any person engaged in the business of selling any perishable agricultural commodity at retail. Retailers are required to be licensed when the invoice cost of all purchases of perishable agricultural commodities exceeds
$230,000 during a calendar year. The term perishable agricultural commodity means fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. Food service establishments are specifically exempted as are covered commodities that are ingredients in a processed food item. In addition, the law specifically outlines the criteria a covered commodity must meet to bear a “United States country of origin” designation.


Labels: ,