No Match Tweak

From the office of the Department of Homeland Security:

DHS Issues Supplemental Proposed Rule With Employer Guidance Regarding No-Match Letters

Release Date: March 21, 2008

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Here is a link to the 44 page pdf

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released today a Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking for the No-Match Rule previously issued on August 15, 2007. This rulemaking addresses three issues cited in a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enjoining the August 2007 No-Match Rule. This Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking provides a more detailed analysis of how DHS developed the No-Match policy and will help responsible employers ensure that they are not employing unauthorized workers.

"We are serious about immigration enforcement. The No-Match Rule is an important tool for cracking down on illegal hiring practices while providing honest employers with the guidance they need," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "This supplement specifically addresses the three grounds on which the district court based its injunction. We have also filed an appeal and are pursuing these two paths simultaneously to get a resolution as quickly as possible."

The rule does not create new legal obligations for businesses. It simply outlines clear steps an employer may take in response to receiving a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that an employee’s name does not match the social security number on file. If the business follows the guidance in the No-Match Rule, comprising various actions to rectify the no-match within 90 days of receiving the letter, they will have a safe harbor from the no-match letter being used against them in an enforcement action.

The original No-Match Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published on June 14, 2006, and the comment period was open for 60 days. The department then incorporated the comments and issued a final rule on August 15, 2007. DHS is requesting public comment on the Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking for 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

TK: Here is coverage from The Washington Post, here from The Earth Times and what follows is reaction from United in a member alert from earlier today:

Tomorrow, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will publish in the Federal Register a Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking for the No-Match Rule. The initial No-Match rule, which created new legal obligations for businesses to verify employees are authorized for domestic work, was published and scheduled to take effect on September 14, 2007. However, the implementation of the rule was delayed due to litigation led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Roofing Contractors Association, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and United Fresh. Last October, these groups successfully challenged some of the procedural aspects of how the rule was issued.

In a press statement, DHS notes that "the rule does not create new legal obligations for businesses. It simply outlines clear steps an employer may take in response to receiving a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that an employee's name does not match the social security number on file. If the business follows the guidance in the No-Match Rule, comprising various actions to rectify the no-match within 90 days of receiving the letter, they will have a safe harbor from the no-match letter being used against them in an enforcement action". However, preliminary analysis of the revised rule so far confirms that the Department made very few changes to the substance of the initial rule. Instead, the revised rule is merely an attempt to supplement the rulemaking and address the procedural deficiencies noted by the court.

As a result of the lawsuit last fall, the Administration halted the implementation of the rule and delayed issuing no-match letters to employers. However, with the release of the revised rule and in the absence of new claims being pursued, it is expected that the Administration will give the “green light” to SSA to begin issuing no-match letters, along with a letter from the DHS instructing employers of appropriate actions to take.

United Fresh will continue to track the administration's actions and analyze the impact they can have on produce businesses. For additional information regarding the SSA and DHS's policy regarding no-match letters, visit the SSA website. In addition, you can visit the United Fresh No-Match Immigration Resource Center for additional information about this important issue and a copy of the new proposed rule.

Taking a step forward

From the U.S. CBP, on making better connections with China:


Cooperation between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the General Administration of China Customs to enhance global supply chain security took a step forward last week with the start of a pilot validation program in China. The pilot involved three Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism importer partners whose supply chains predominately originate in China.

The U.S. companies were invited to participate in the pilot based upon several factors including volume, product type and location of their supply chains in China. They voluntarily agreed to participate in the pilot with the concurrence of both administrations.

China Customs headed the validation initiative using the C-TPAT minimum security criteria as a guide and with CBP supply chain specialists providing technical assistance.

The companies had been receiving minimum program benefits due to C-TPAT’s previous inability to validate the security procedures they have in place. Now C-TPAT will use the information gathered to decide whether they can receive a higher level of benefits.

Both agencies will jointly evaluate the pilot and determine next steps.

“It took several months of intense discussions to get to this point and we look forward to continuing this effort as we explore future cooperation,” said C-TPAT Director Bradd Skinner. “It is a win-win for all. CBP and China Customs have the knowledge that all parties involved have good security practices in place and the companies can benefit by receiving fewer exams.”

C-TPAT is an important layer in CBP’s cargo enforcement strategy. Through this initiative, CBP is asking businesses to ensure the integrity of their security practices and communicate and verify the security guidelines of their business partners within the supply chain.

Since 2003, C-TPAT has performed more than 7,200 total validations. In 2007, C-TPAT visited manufacturing and logistics facilities in 79 countries, validated 3,011 supply chains and certified 2,601 new members.

Where you are - the last 100 Fresh Talk visitors

Thanks for stopping by; see if you recognize your location from the last 100 Fresh Talk visitors today:

Grand Rapids, Michigan
Madison, Wisconsin
Modesto, California
Fort Collins, Colorado
Bentonville, Arkansas
Fresno, California
Middleboro, Massachusetts
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Apache Junction, Arizona
Denver, Colorado
Fresno, California
Elmhurst, New York
Chicago, Illinois
Miami, Florida
Ottawa, Ontario
Wilmington, Delaware
Chicago, Illinois
Brooklyn, New York
Yountville, California
Chicago, Illinois
Kissing, Bayern, Germany
Washington, District of Columbia
Putnam, Connecticut
High Point, North Carolina
Fresno, California
Parsippany, New Jersey
Fresno, California
Santiago, Region Metropolitana
Ommen, Overijssel, Netherlands
Salinas, California
Rock Hill, South Carolina
Hilo, Hawaii
Orillia, Ontario
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Washington, District of Columbia
Santa Rosa, California
Marietta, New York
Brooklyn, New York
Springfield, Virginia
Denver, Colorado
Helena, Montana
Apache Junction, Arizona
Overland Park, Kansas
Santa Maria, California
Trenton, New Jersey
Lake Saint Louis, Missouri
San Diego, California
Denver, Colorado
Davenport, Iowa
Prairieville, Louisiana
Fort Collins, Colorado
Chicago, Illinois
Moorhead, Minnesota
Newark, Delaware
Miami, Florida
Mc Donald, Ohio
Alexandria, Virginia
Miami, Florida
Silver Spring, Maryland
Indianola, Iowa
Seattle, Washington
Overland Park, Kansas
Toledo, Ohio
Burnsville, Minnesota
Chicago, Illinois
Selah, Washington
Fresno, California
Overland Park, Kansas
Washington, District of Columbia
Denver, Colorado
Montgomery, Alabama
Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin
Ashland, Ohio
Hungary, Szeged
Washington, District of Columbia
Warwick, New York
Denver, Colorado
Bowie, Arizona
Maineville, Ohio
Chicago, Illinois
Manhattan, Kansas
Cheyney, Pennsylvania
Chicago, Illinois
Arlington, Virginia
Newark, Delaware
Atlanta, Georgia
Lake View, New York
San Diego, California
Canandaigua, New York
Columbus, Ohio
Gardners, Pennsylvania
Washington, District of Columbia
Overland Park, Kansas
Fresno, California
Santiago, Region Metropolitana
Missouri City, Texas

Food stamps and obesity - what do we know?

Food stamps don't make recipients fat, except perhaps for "non elderly" women. Those are the quick finding of this USDA ERS study on food stamps and obesity. From the report summary:


Results from the reviewed studies indicate that for the majority of program participants— children, nonelderly men, and the elderly—use of food stamp benefits does not increase either Body Mass Index (BMI) or the likelihood of being overweight or obese. For some subgroups, food stamp participation has a negative association with the probability of overweight. Nonelderly adult women, who account for 28 percent of the food stamp caseload, are the only group of food stamp recipients for whom multiple studies show a link between food stamp receipt and elevated BMI and obesity. According to these studies, food stamp participation over a 1- or 2- year period increases the probability of a woman’s becoming obese by 2 to 5 percentage points and may lead to a 0.5-point increase in BMI, or about 3 pounds for a woman 5’4” to 5’6” tall. The length of time one participates in the Food Stamp Program may have an impact on obesity. The reviewed studies found that long-term participation among nonelderly women was linked to a higher probability of obesity by 4.5 to 10 percentage points. One study also found a smaller, but positive relationship between long-term food stamp articipation and obesity for men. These results may suggest that small changes in BMI due to food stamp use accumulate over longer “spells” of participation. But enough is not known about the causal mechanisms of participation and weight gain to conclude that long-term use of food stamp benefits causes weight gain. Long-term food stamp participants are likely to be different from short- and medium-term participants in ways that one cannot observe. It is also unclear why food stamp participation may affect women, but not men or children. Factors that may accountfor this effect include differences in energy requirements, activity levels, or household allocation of resources. Some evidence indicates that food stamp participation, food insecurity, and weight status are related. One study shows that weight change over a 2-year period among women who were persistently food insecure was less than that for women who were persistently food secure. But, food stamp participation roughly offset the smaller weight change for those who were persistently food insecure—a result consistent with the program’s serving as a nutritional buffer during difficult economic times. The reviewed studies were faced with separating and measuring two distinct relationships. On the one hand, food stamp participation may result in obesity. On the other hand, individuals who are heavier may be the very people who are more likely to apply for food stamps, because of larger appetites, for example. Causal attribution is a major challenge for these studies. Methodological and data weaknesses limit the ability of analysts to be certain that increased BMI and obesity risk are due to food stamp participation. Differential effects across sex and age groupings are also unexplained. The Food Stamp Program is a household-level program, and 89 percent of food stamp benefits go to households that
contain a child, elderly adult, or nonelderly disabled adult. Devising program changes that are appropriately targeted to household members who may be at risk of gaining weight, without harming those who are not and who need the nutritional assistance, presents a difficult challenge. Policy changes that help improve overall diets of all household members may be more effective.

Are Younger Cohorts Demanding Less Fresh Vegetables?

Gary Lucier of the USDA ERS passes on this report (posted to discussion group) about fresh vegetable consumption by the younger generation compared to older consumers. This report emphasizes that incorporating fresh vegetables in foodservice outlets will become increasingly important for the simple reason that young consumers are consuming less fresh vegetables at home. If those same consumers don't eat more fresh vegetables at foodservice locations, then fresh vegetable consumption is set up for a long term slide. From the study by Hayden Stewart and Noel Blisard in the Journal of Agricultural Economics, "Implications and Conclusions."

Implications and Conclusions
Health-oriented government agencies, including the USDA and the DHHS, along with social marketers outside of government are working to promote vegetable consumption. Because of the importance of vegetable consumption to 58 Review of Agricultural Economics government health programs, researchers have investigated the determinants of a household’s demand for vegetables and projected how demand may change in the future. However, by looking at a single cross section of households, these studies are unable to identify cohort effects. Such effects can be identified by decomposing demand into age, time, and cohort effects along with traditional price, income, and demographic effects. Although other demographic changes in the population may be increasing the demand for vegetables, as argued by Lin et al., for example, we find that younger cohorts are spending less money on fresh vegetables for at-home consumption than older cohorts do, all else constant. Spending less money on fresh vegetables at the supermarket implies these households are buying a smaller quantity of fresh vegetables, a narrower mix of fresh vegetables that excludes more expensive foods, or both. As noted in the introduction to this article, USDA and DHHS are concerned with promoting the consumption of both a sufficient quantity and varied mix of vegetables. As younger cohorts replace older cohorts, all else equal, we expect Americans to spend less money on fresh vegetables for at-home consumption. The growing popularity of restaurant foods and convenience foods are among the possible explanations for this cohort effect. If younger generations are less apt to cook from scratch, they will need to buy fewer fresh vegetables, as many recipes call for fresh vegetables. By cooking less, members of younger generations may also be exposed to only a narrower variety of fresh vegetables and, perhaps, purchase less of any items for which demand only increases after some exposure. The dietary implications of the cohort effect depend on the extent to which Americans offset any decrease in at-home fresh vegetable consumption with increases in the consumption of vegetables contained in, say, restaurant foods. However, Guthrie et al. note that eating away from home is also associated with consuming less of most types of vegetables other than potatoes, lettuce, and tomatoes. Moreover, fried potatoes alone account for 35% of away-from-home vegetable consumption. By contrast, about 80% of fresh-market spinach is purchased at retail and consumed at home, while 91% of processed spinach is consumed at
home (Lucier, Allshouse, Lin).6 To minimize the impact of the cohort effect on diet quality, social marketers might pay more attention to the away-from-home market. Traditionally, 5 A Day has concentrated its social marketing message on at-home foods and, in particular, the supermarket produce aisle. However, they have recently been working to get more vegetables onto restaurants’ menus and, in 2006, completed a review of obstacles to vegetable consumption at restaurants (Glanz et al.). Current efforts by social marketers and food retailers may also work to reverse the cohort effect identified in this study and increase the at-home demand for fresh vegetables. As noted earlier, Kaufman et al. report that supermarkets are expanding their produce aisles to increase the number of foods available. Additional foods include convenient, ready-to-eat fresh vegetables, such as bagged baby carrots, salads, and broccoli florets, which may better appeal to members of younger generations not accustomed to cooking from scratch than fresh vegetables in their natural form. Social marketing organizations, including the 5 A Day National Partnership, continue to raise the profile of at-home vegetable consumption as well. As noted above, 5 A Day has long concentrated its social marketing message on the supermarket produce aisle. For example, the Partnership’s logo can be found on many fresh vegetables. This message may affect the behavior of younger generations. To date, it is not clear if expanded produce aisles and the efforts of social marketers will undo the cohort effect and thereby sustain the growth of at-home vegetable consumption, all else constant. Existing research shows that growth in at-home vegetable consumption is being supported in part by trends in income and education, but the importance of the cohort effect can only increase with time. Younger cohorts will replace older ones. The current models do not suggest that these younger cohorts will demand fresh vegetables for at-home consumption as much as their older counterparts now do. Social marketers as well as supermarket chains might target these younger cohorts for nutritional education and special advertising.

Downstream effect

From the FDA this morning:

Recall -- Firm Press Release

FDA posts press releases and other notices of recalls and market withdrawals from the firms involved as a service to consumers, the media, and other interested parties. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.

Charlie's Produce Spokane Recalls Cut Cantaloupe Products Because of Possible Health Risk

Contact:
Mike Ruff
206-625-1412

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- March 22, 2008 -- Charlie's Produce of Spokane, WA is recalling Charlie's Produce Brand Cut Cantaloupe Products, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The products recalled by Charlie's Produce Spokane include the following fruit items containing cut cantaloupe:

Retail Products:

• Cut Fruit 4 Section – 40oz
• Cut Cantaloupe – 24oz, 16oz, 8oz
• Cut Honeydew/Cantaloupe - 16oz
• Mixed Fruit –24oz, 16oz, 8oz
• Rainbow - 24oz, 16oz, 8oz
• Cut Fruit Tray Deli – 12', 8'
• Cut Fruit Tray - 76oz, 40oz 8'
• Grab & Go Fruit Tray - 16oz

Foodservice Products:

• Cut Cantaloupe – 20lb, 64oz
• Cut Mixed Fruit – 20lb, 64oz

The above products containing cantaloupe were distributed in Eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana to retail stores, delis, and foodservice institutions.

Products are branded with the Charlie's Produce name and logo, in a hard plastic clamshell, with a Use By date of 3 07 through 3 29 stamped on the bottom of the container.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Cantaloupe used in these products may have been supplied from Agropecuaria Montelibano, a Honduran grower and packer, to Charlie's Produce Spokane. This recall was initiated when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an import alert regarding cantaloupe from this grower, because, based on current information, fruit from this company appears to be associated with a Salmonella Litchfield outbreak in the United States and Canada.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for full refund. Customers with questions may contact the company through:
Mike Ruff – Food Safety Director – 206-625-1412 Monday - Friday

"Unjust, Extreme and Imprudent"

Luis of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group provides this link on Honduran reaction to the FDA alert. Again, the question arises, where was the contamination introduced? From the story in the IHT:

The president of Honduras on Sunday dismissed as "unjust" a U.S. alert urging consumers to discard Honduran cantaloupes after a salmonella outbreak sickened 59, saying the U.S. presented no evidence that the bacteria originated in his country.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Saturday warned grocers to remove melons shipped by the Honduran company Agropecuaria Montelibano from their stock and suggested shoppers check with stores to see where recently purchased melons came from. It is also seeking to hold the company's future cantaloupe shipments to the U.S.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya called the move "extreme and imprudent," noting that the melons were contaminated on their peel, not inside, meaning they may have come in contact with salmonella bacteria after they were shipped.

"It's unjust that the (U.S.) has declared a unilateral health alert without any laboratory or clinical tests," he told reporters.

Trade Minister Fredys Cerrato meanwhile called for the FDA to release details of studies it performed on the tainted cantaloupe to prove it was in fact from Honduras — where there has been no corresponding outbreak of salmonella.