Full feeds versus partial feeds

I have reset the blog setting from full to partial feed for those who subscribe to the RSS feeds. I don't know if Fresh Talk readers are passionate about the issue one way or another, but I think I will try this approach as I am curious how full feeds impact blog page views compared with partial feeds. Let me know how you come down on this issue.....

PBH recall

Here is a link to the recall of a lunch tote cooler bag offered by the Produce for Better Health Foundation. From the Web site:

Q. How did Produce for Better Health Foundation (PBH) discover that its lunch tote coolers have an elevated level of lead? A. Following a recent recall of similar lunch boxes by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), PBH immediately contacted the manufacturer of its lunch tote coolers, who assured PBH that its lunch tote coolers did not contain elevated levels of lead and provided PBH a written test report purportedly documenting that the PBH lunch tote coolers were compliant with all regulations regarding lead. Despite those assurances, PBH had the lunch tote coolers tested independently, the results of which testing prompted this recall.
Q. How many lunch boxes were distributed? A. Approximately 7,500 red, blue and green lunch tote coolers were distributed to our public health partners throughout the United States. Some of the lunch boxes were not distributed and remain in our warehouse. As soon as we learned about the CDPH recall, we stopped selling the lunch tote coolers pending the results of our independent testing.

Q. How much lead was found in the lunch tote coolers? What is the accepted lead standard allowed for products? A. The vinyl lining of the lunch tote coolers was found to contain 1800-2100 PPM lead, which exceeds the federal lead limit of 600 PPM in painted products used by children. This elevated level was reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on October 30, 2007 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on October 31, 2007. While the exposure to lead from the lunch boxes is unlikely to result in any immediate health effects, lead ingestion should be avoided since elevated blood lead levels from chronic lead exposure can lead to serious, adverse health effects such as behavioral problems, learning disabilities and organ compromise.

Chilean grapes

From The Packer's Andy Nelson, coverage from the Feb. 11 issue on the mix of Chilean grape imports:

With sluggish markets the past few seasons combined with higher production costs and an unfavorable exchange rate, Chilean growers are looking for ways to shake up the grape industry. One way is to make changes to their variety mixes, shippers and importers said.
At both ends of the supply chain -- growers at one end, consumers at the other -- Chilean green grapes continue to fall out of favor and Chilean seedless reds are riding high, said Anthony Stetson, vice president of sales for Pandol Bros. Inc., Delano, Calif.
"Green grapes are just a lot harder to grow and ship successfully, and consumer demand has gone toward reds -- both retail and foodservice," he said. "I don't know of any new green seedless varieties that are in play."
Flames, crimsons and other red seedless varieties continue to ship in larger volumes from Chile, with green seedless varieties on the decline, said Josh Leichter, grape category manager in the Newark, Del., office of Vancouver, British Columbia-based The Oppenheimer Group.
Crimsons, Leichter said, are the real stars.
"When you talk to growers, it seems like crimsons make up maybe 70% of new plantings," he said. "They're hardy, and they have good yields."

Stenzel speech at Outlook Forum

Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Produce Association, presented this speech today at the USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum. Titled "Responding to Market Forces to Build a Sustainable U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry,' Stenzel suggests the government can better help industry respond to market forces.

Some excerpts:

Let me share our thinking today about a new vision in agricultural policy. The fruit and vegetable industry does not want direct support for our growers; we don’t want price protection; I’m not even sure we want a safety net. The ability to fail in our business protects the opportunity of those who are driven to succeed. What we do want is investment that allows us to build a sustainable U.S. fruit and vegetable industry that can be successful in a free market economy, and find value for those who “get it right.”
Incidentally, I don’t know where the final Farm Bill numbers will come out for fruit and vegetable priorities. But I do know that an historic coalition of rural and urban legislators, Republicans and Democrats, supporters of traditional farm programs and those who oppose them, have all come together to support targeted, meaningful investment in the competitiveness of this sector. That alone is a breakthrough, if but a start. Our industry is engaged in agricultural policy today because we’re having to respond to a different set of market forces than we’ve seen before. Many of you know those market forces all too well. Our growers operate in the most highly regulated and costly environment of any of our major competitors. Finding an adequate and legal workforce for this most labor-intensive sector of agriculture has become next to impossible. The fight over land and water use between agriculture and development is growing, and is most severe in our most productive growing areas. And, while we support free and fair trade in fruits and vegetables, it seems that trade agreements have too often been one-sided deals with open access permitted to the U.S. market only to see continuing phytosanitary barriers erected to block our exports. Increasingly, those signals add up to one message to produce growers in the United States – move your production outside of the country, or send your kids to law school.

TK: After talking about the internal industry process of creating policy for the 2007 farm bill - notably specialty crop block grants and the fruit and vegetable program - Stenzel concluded with a plea that the White and House and Congress to respond to the market signals of dietary health and food safety. Stenzel also delivers a well-aimed zinger to Lou Dobbs: From the speech:

Soon, we will move beyond this Farm Bill, and face other challenges in sustaining our fruit and vegetable and specialty crop industry. The market challenges we face won’t go away, and many are likely to become even greater. Worldwide attention on food safety is placing significant demands on growers, and we will rise to that challenge better than anyone. But we do need more government research into ways to minimize the potential of field contamination, reduction in harmful E Coli in the natural environmental, quicker testing methods and traceability systems for recall situations, and more effective kill steps for pathogens in processing. Without a breakthrough on immigration reform, our labor shortage won’t go away either. There’s probably no greater threat to our industry today than the shortage of workers and disregard for the future of specialty crop agriculture in America that is currently being shown by zealots on immigration. That too will be a market force we must respond to, with mechanization where we can, but more and more with offshore production. I just want you to remember that Lou Dobbs is the one exporting agricultural production and jobs that will never come back. And finally, back to nutrition and health. As great as the school snack program is, it is only a start on what we need to do change the way America eats. We can no longer afford an agricultural policy disconnected from public health policy. The fruit and vegetable industry can no longer be a step-child in the farm debate. With specialty crops already representing almost 50% of farm crop value, and fruits and vegetables representing 50% of all foods Americans should consume every day for better health, it is time for parity in the investments we make in agriculture. Every dollar spent to increase the competitiveness of U.S. fruit and vegetable producers serves all Americans who desperately need our products for their health. And, every dollar spent in helping our children choose a healthier diet based on fruits and vegetables will come back to us in lower health care costs. When we talk about responding to market signals, those are the new kinds of market signals that the Congress and Administrations to come will need to think about in the future..

TK: Talking to Stenzel after the speech, he said one of the things that came out in the panel discussion was the importance of energy policy in the context of farm policy. In the same way, Stenzel said he made the case that public health policy should become more integrated with farm policy. If the Administration set dietary goals in the same way it sets targets for ethanol production - with clear intent and purpose to make it happen - perhaps there would be more progress in the battle against obesity and for improved health through a better diet.

Tara

Like John Keeling and Robert Guenther, Tara Smith, lobbyist with the the American Farm Bureau Federation, said today there is no word yet about a possible compromise budget number between Congress and the White House.

"All the ag groups have been told to hold their fire for a while," she told me today.

Smith said she has been hearing the Administration is continuing to hold firm on a budget number of $6 billion over baseline. "That's unacceptable to agriculture; we would have to use the commodity title to fund other priorities and that is unacceptable," she said.

When I suggested whether $9 billion could be the compromise figure between the Senate's offer of $12 billion over baseline and the White House position of $6 billion, Smith said that everything that she has heard indicates the Administration"wants nothing to do" with that number - $9 billion. Given that reality, it may be that Congress and farm lobbyists may eventually have to deal with a veto of the farm bill.

Can a veto be overcome?

"It is not going to be easy to do, but I hope a member of the House with a rural constituency would chose to vote with farmers rather than a lame duck president with a 28 percent approval rating," she said.

Unless the White House bends a little, the scenario Smith paints may well come to pass.

Retail promotions - Food section ads Feb. 21

Food section ads in suburban Kansas City featured strawberries, grapes, navel oranges, avocados and more this week. Here is a quick rundown of produce ads in Olathe, KS, for Feb. 20-26.

Featuring a "tropical days" theme, HyVee promoted:
Del Monte Gold pineapple rings: $2.99 for 10 oz.
Del Monte Gold pineapple chunks: $3.99 for 16 oz.
Del Monte Gold Orchard Select chilled fruit: $2.88/24 oz.
Chile black seedless grapes: $1.99/lb
Mangoes: 99 cents each
Hass avocados: 2 for $3
Strawberry papayas: $2.48 each
Sunkist cara cara oranges: 99 cents/lb
Korean pears: $1.99 each

Price Chopper
Black seedless grapes: $1.18/lb
Washington Red Delicious apples: 99 cents/lb
Chilean peaches, nectarines or plums: $1.99/lb
5 lb bag of Texas red grapefruit or 4 lb bag of Calif. navel oranges 2/$5
Hot house tomatoes: $1.49/lb
Jumbo sweet yellow onions: 69 cents/lb

Hen House
Dole salad blends: 2 for $3
Strawberries: 1 lb package: 2 for $6
Anjou or Bartlett pears: 99 cents/lb
Cara cara oranges: 4 fror $1
Red orange or yellow bell peppers: 5 for $5
Royal Gala apples: $1.49/lb

Policing late payments

A noble and ill-fated attempt is probably what it is. Trying to interject government mandate on buyer-supplier payment terms probably won't be effective, but the UK appears to be giving it a go. "Watchdog set to police late payments" That's how the headline reads from The Financial Director news site. Here is some of the context from the story:

Supermarkets that routinely withhold payment from suppliers could be forced to change their practices in future if the Competition Commission’s recommendation for an ombudsman is adopted.
Suppliers often face cashflow problems as supermarkets frequently pay only part of their invoices on time and dispute other parts, or apply retrospective changes to the agreed terms of supply.
Under provisional decisions handed down by the commission last week, an extended code of practice would be set up, and an ombudsman created to police it.
A commission spokesman said that while there is a system that deals with disputes, it is not being widely utilised and the commission felt an independent arbitrator was necessary. But the proposals to force supermarkets to pay within 30 days were rejected as ‘too interventionist.’
‘However, anything that falls under the supplier supermarket relationship could be dealt with under the overriding fair dealing clause we have included,’ he said.
The provisional decisions also include recommendations that supermarkets cannot make retrospective changes to terms without agreement and financial penalties for non-compliant retailers.
Martin Williams of credit reference agency Graydon was among those who made submissions. He said the ‘pay and deduct’ practice was of particular concern to suppliers.
‘They abuse their power by disputing part of an invoice and leaving the supplier waiting for the rest of their money,’ he said. ‘Time will tell if the proposed ombudsman has any muscle,’ he added.

TK: How will the concerns be raised to the ombudsman? Unless it can be done anonymously, the complaints will make life only tougher for suppliers.