Going old school with fruits and vegetables

Is the American public getting priced out of fruits and vegetables, while snacks are comparatively cheap? Thanks to fellow blogger Dan Owens for passing on this link to a new ERS report on price trends of fruits and vegetables. The ERS report seems to offer a decidedly mixed verdict.

Food attributes change over time, making price comparisons at different times difficult to interpret. Thus, to definitively answer whether changing relative prices of healthy and unhealthy foods are responsible for Americans’ current weight problems is an impossible task. For commonly consumed fresh fruits and vegetables for which quality has remained fairly constant, analysis of price trends reveals price declines similar to those of dessert and snack foods. A healthy diet might include only a subset of fresh fruits and vegetables. A healthy diet could conceivably be composed of fresh fruits and vegetables that are not partially or fully prepared. Such a diet might include fruits and vegetables that have been on the market for many years, without changes in seasonal availability. In effect, a healthy diet might be exactly what was available to consumers years ago, without changes in quality. Thus, the price trend evidence suggests that the price of a healthy diet has not changed relative to an unhealthy one, although a healthy diet might not include every fresh fruit or vegetable currently available. Fresh fruits and vegetables that have undergone substantial quality change account for a growing share of produce sold by retailers. That limits our results, but also points to the widespread benefits of quality change. Product innovations have widespread benefits if the new products remain on the market. Most product innovations fail the test of the market and disappear quietly. Bagged, washed, and cut broccoli florets have met the test of the market: many consumers are willing to pay for the services embodied in these products and do so routinely. Also, December strawberries have survived the test of the market: many consumers are willing to pay the market price for strawberries in December even though the price must cover the cost of a more complex supply chain in December than in May. Innovative fresh fruit and vegetable products may improve Americans’ health if those products increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Bagged and washed vegetables might be more expensive than traditional products, and December strawberries might be more expensive than May strawberries. As long as consumers purchase innovative products, they must be getting more benefit from their expenditures than they did in the past—that is the only rational explanation for consumers’ voluntarily altering their grocery purchases. Products that reduce time devoted to kitchen labor pay for themselves, for some consumers. Many consumers value additional fresh fruit and vegetable choices in winter months. Offering consumers ever-larger benefits above what they are willing to pay should induce them to add to the quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables in their diets. Despite rising inflationadjusted prices for broccoli and strawberries, in recent years Americans have been consuming more of both (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2007). Of course, some households may be unwilling to pay for additional convenience or for products to be available year round. Lower income households might select foods primarily on the basis of price. If so, the benefits to these households of quality change are less certain. We might expect lower income households to concentrate their purchases on more traditional produce, and therefore not realize any benefits from quality change. However, even if value-added produce, measured in pounds, is generally more expensive to buy than traditional produce, value-added produce may still be less expensive to eat on a per-serving basis. In the case of broccoli, some consumers may treat stems as a waste product. Florets may be cheaper to consume on a per serving basis if the consumer discards the stem (Reed, Frazao, and Istokowitz, 2004). Future research and debate over the costliness of healthy foods needs to focus on whether low-income households share in the benefits provided by foods that are more convenient and more readily available. These foods can appear more expensive, but may not be so.

Spinach safety and the FDA

Robert Guenther of United Fresh Produce Association told me today that it appears that food safety legislation may be taken up by Congress in an aggressive way in the next few weeks. Part of the momentum could be tied to the House report about FDA and spinach safety, which can be found here. I covered this story for The Packer today, and in general the industry reaction is that times have changed quite a bit since the 2001-07 period examined by the report. Shortcomings of the FDA are nothing new, but new criticisms drill into the industry as well. Here is reaction from Rep. Rosa DeLauro about the House report:

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) issued the following statement on the report “FDA and Fresh Spinach” issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. DeLauro and Congressman Henry Waxman had requested the report following the 2006 E. coli outbreak tied to fresh spinach.

“Given the extent of the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach, which caused three deaths and sickened over 200 people across the country, the findings in this report present a very troubling picture of the FDA’s dismissive approach to ensuring the safety of our food supply. “Many of the problems the report uncovered are unpleasant – inadequate restroom sanitation, liter piles, and workers with uncovered hair and poor hygiene – all preventable and easily resolved. But perhaps more disturbing is that, after witnessing objectionable conditions, the FDA failed to pursue any corrective actions such as seizures or injunctions. Even worse, it was found that FDA overlooked repeated violations by these facilities by merely requesting voluntary compliance instead of pursuing enforcement actions.
“There is no doubt that the FDA needs more resources, but this report demonstrates that there also needs to be an effective management structure in place to pursue enforcement actions when violations are uncovered. Overlooking repeated violations will not help the FDA prevent food-borne illness outbreaks. I look forward to continue working with my colleague, Mr. Waxman to reform the agency.”

Coming back to baseline?

Sen. Tom Harkin keeps talking up the idea that the new farm bill will have $10 billion over baseline but admits funding and jurisdiction issues haven't been cleared up yet. In his teleconference, Harkin said that a baseline bill might have trouble passing because it wouldn't meet the needs of nutrition, conservation, specialty crops, etc. All in all, still a cloudy outlook, and Harkin raised the possibility of a two or three year farm bill if lawmakers must deal with baseline numbers. After that, Harkin said, perhaps the budget scenario would improve with a new President and if the U.S. is out of Iraq.....

"Popeye would approve"

Is the produce industry for or against irradiation for food safety purposes? There is a difference of opinion on that point, but a "taste test" at a Congressional hearing did its part to minimize the the taste difference between irradiated and "conventional" produce. From coverage in the The Des Moines Register, by Phillip Brasher:

Irradiated food was put to the congressional taste test and passed.Two U.S. House members holding a hearing on food safety Wednesday took bites of fresh spinach that had been zapped at the Sadex Corp. irradiation plant in Sioux City."No difference," said Bart Stupak, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight subcommittee."No difference," agreed Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. "I think Popeye would approve."The leaves they munched on were brought to the committee by Iowa State University professor Dennis Olson, who argues that the widespread use of irradiation could make food safer.Consumers will have to take the congressmen's word for it that the spinach was OK to eat. The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve the commercial use of irradiation on fruits, vegetables and many other foods.Irradiating food kills harmful E. coli, salmonella and other harmful bacteria. Sadex uses an electron-beam device to treat food.Proper cooking also can kill the bacteria. However, spinach and other types of produce are commonly eaten raw and have been linked to widespread food-poisoning outbreaks in recent years."When we have widespread use of irradiation of our food supply, it will also be listed as a pillar of public health," said Olson, an expert on irradiation. He compared the technology to pasteurizing milk with heat.Irradiation of ground beef, which has been approved for commercial use for eight years, has not caught on with consumers, however.

TK: Here is a link to all the testimony at the hearing, and the House Web site also offer a video link. Among.those testifying was Dennis Wegman, chief executive officer of Wegman's, who advocated that the FDA should allow produce to be irradiated. Olson of Iowa State brought in irradiated lettuce, tomatoes and asparagus, and their "conventional" counterparts, including lettuce, tomatoes and asparagus, along with conventional versions of the same foods. (Conventional: a word with elastic meaning). Brascher notes that the FDA has been considering to approve the wider use of irradiation since 1999, and FDA officials also testified at the hearing and were grilled about the status of rulemaking.

The 97% solution

Convert all the nation's acreage devoted to produce crops and reduce pesticide dietary risk by 97%. Oh yeah, and convert all the imports, too. That's the claim in this press release from the Organic Center, a Boulder non profit dedicated to advancing organics. From the March 11 press release:

The Organic Center today releases an historic report that concludes converting the nation’s eight million acres of produce farms to organic would reduce pesticide dietary risks by about 97 percent.The Organic Center provides the first-ever quantitative estimate of the degree to which pesticide risks from food can be eliminated through adoption of organic farming methods in “Simplifying the Pesticide Risk Equation: The Organic Option,” a new State of Science Review by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the Organic Center’s chief scientist.Less than three percent of the nation’s cropland produces fruits and vegetables. Yet, according to The Organic Center, these crops account for most of the pesticide risks from dietary exposure in domestically produced foods. The 97 percent risk reduction can only be achieved if converting domestic cropland of organic is coupled with consumers choosing only imported produce that is certified organic.The estimates are based on up-to-date pesticide residue data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s current methods for estimating pesticide dietary risks.Founded in 2002, The Organic Center is a non-profit devoted to presenting and providing peer-reviewed scientific evidence on how organic products benefit human health and environmental quality.Other findings and information shared in the report include:
An analysis of the significantly greater pesticide risks linked to consumption of imported conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables, as compared to domestically-grown produce.

Rankings of dietary risk levels in select conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables, arranged to help guide consumers seeking to minimize pesticide risks.

Suggestions on how to meet dietary guidelines for fruit and vegetable intake in the winter, while also reducing pesticide exposures.

An overview of pesticide residues found in milk.

The Organic Center is offering a free download of its report beginning today at www.organic-center.org.

Pesticide Residues are Hard to Avoid

Driving pesticide risks downward is important because, according to pediatrician Alan Greene, M.D., chairman of The Organic Center’s board of directors, “Recent science has established strong links between exposure to pesticides at critical stages of prenatal development and throughout childhood, and heightened risk of pre-term, underweight babies, developmental abnormalities impacting the brain and nervous system, as well as diabetes and cancer.”
“Yes, with surprising frequency, all Americans, including infants and children, are exposed to pesticides via their diet and drinking water,” added Dr. Benbrook.In fact, Dr. Benbrook noted, recent USDA pesticide residue and food consumption surveys show that most people consume three to four residues daily just through fruits and vegetables.

The 97% Solution

The Organic Center bases its 97 percent risk reduction estimate upon a “Dietary Risk Index” (DRI), developed by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). The EPA-OIG used the index in a 2006 appraisal of the impacts of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) on pesticide dietary risks.The Organic Center applied the same DRI to estimate the changes that would occur in risk levels if all produce were grown using organic methods. The Organic Center concluded that a 100 percent reduction in risk is unattainable because of the widespread use of pesticides on conventional farms, and the movement of pesticides in the air and water onto organic farm fields.“While it will take years to convert most American fruit and vegetable farms to organic methods, the process is well underway and accelerating fast, especially in the Western U.S.,” Dr. Benbrook noted. Already, organic produce accounts for nearly ten percent of retail sales of fresh fruits and vegetables. Several major fresh produce grower-shippers have recently announced aggressive timetables to convert all or most of their fruit and vegetable acreage to organic, assuming consumer demand continues to grow.The report points out that a substantial reduction in pesticide exposure will remove, or markedly lesson, an important risk factor for several serious public health problems.

Helping Consumers Minimize Pesticide Exposures

The Organic Center’s report also presents lists of fresh fruits and vegetables that score the highest using the DRI. Two lists cover domestically grown fruits and vegetables, while two others apply to imported produce that typically enters the U.S. market in the wintertime.
The organization hopes consumers will follow these lists in determining which organic fruits and vegetables will most significantly improve their personal pesticide dietary risk equation.
Complete Dietary Risk Index can be found in the full report, downloadable at www.organic-center.org.

TK: It seems as if this report recycles some of the lists of conventional and imported produce with pesticide residues that we have seen in the past, without bothering to mention the minute levels of residues that are detected. Also left unaddressed: what dietary risks, if any, result from the use of "organic" elements used to control pests on fruits and vegetables? More scrutiny of this headline research is due, and I'll be looking for reaction on the Web about this report.