Savia Grapes

I wasn't able to attend the May 13-14 events in Wilmington and Philadelphia championing the trial shipmemnts of Savia grapes from Chile.



Here is a description of what the photos show (I found the videos on Youtube). From Alejandro Fernandez Fuenzalida.


Please find attached some pictures from our launch today at Holt Terminal, NJ. ( 12, 24 and 48 hrs at Room Temperature), and also one portraying Gastón García (Biochemist, Founder and Director of Rethink who invented and developed Saviagrapes) along with Manuel José with Decofrut..

All of these Thompson Seedless were harvested last March 27th in San Felipe, 5th Region, under normal harvesting, cooling, transit conditions, the only difference among them is the Saviagrapes device which keeps the grape fresher for longer periods.

I am also attaching some printed material, for your reference.


Best Regards,

Alejandro Fernandez Fuenzalida
Marketing Manager of SaviaGrapes

In praise of eating at home

Take that, restaurant chains. The Food Marketing Institutes's recent report about consumer behavior came with the assertion in the second paragraph that 71% consumers are eating out less because of economic concerns. Not just that, but children who eat meals at home with family are less prone for substance abuse!
The survey would have been couched a little differently had it been released by the NRA, but surely both supermarkets and restaurants are feeling the impacts of tighter consumer budgets.
Also note in the summary the huge rebound in the confidence of consumers in the safety of the food they buy in both supermarkets and at restaurants. Although confidence is up, consumer beliefs about safe good are "fragile," the FMI states. Also note some interesting data about the appeal of nutrition issues in shopping, which relates nicely to our Fresh Talk poll this week.

While FMI said that sustainability programs are an emerging issue, only about 20% of consumers surveyed deem the issue "very important" when selecting a primary store.

Higher fuel and food costs and other economic pressures are having a pervasive impact on how consumers shop, cook and dine, according to the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2008 report released here (May 5)

Economic concerns are compelling Americans to cook at home more and eat less often at restaurants (71 percent). In fact, families eat their main meal at restaurants only 1.2 times per week, down from 1.3 in 2007 and 1.5 in 2006.

Consumers are buying fewer luxury foods (67 percent) and more store-brand items (60 percent) and eating more leftovers (58 percent). The high cost of fuel is contributing to the decline in the number of shopping trips — below two per week for the second straight year at 1.9.

When deciding where to shop, 37 percent of consumers cite “low prices” as the overriding factor — up from 31 percent in 2007 and well ahead of the second most often cited factor (convenient location at 13 percent).

“Food retailers can turn these economic challenges into benefits for consumers and the industry,” said FMI President and CEO Tim Hammonds. “As people eat out less often, we can help revive the great American home family meal tradition. This presents retailers an opportunity to win back a share of the meal-time market long owned by restaurants, and it provides American families important health, economic and social benefits.”

Consumers equate eating at home with eating healthier. As many as 91 percent say they eat healthier when dining at home, according to the report. This number includes 39 percent who believe home-cooked food is “much healthier” (click here to view release with charts). Families also save money since a restaurant meal costs more than twice as much per person, a median of $12 compared with $5.

Meals at home have a social benefit for children and the family. Research shows that children who dine regularly with their families at home are healthier, superior academic performers and less prone to substance abuse.

Many of these benefits are evident in the words that consumers use to describe a home-cooked meal. Click here to view the graphic known as a “tag cloud.”

Confidence in Food Safety Returns to 81 Percent, But Fragile

The report also found that consumers’ confidence in the safety of food bought at supermarkets rebounded to 81 percent, from the 18-year low of 66 percent last year (click here to view release with chart). Their confidence is fragile, however: only 11 percent are “completely confident,” down from 15 percent in 2007, and 70 percent are “somewhat confident.” Consumer confidence in the safety of restaurant food increased to 65 percent, from 43 percent in 2007.

“Retailers are taking extensive measures to help safeguard the food supply from the source to the consumer’s kitchen,” said Hammonds. They are ensuring that suppliers worldwide observe the most rigorous safety standards through independent audits and certification, such as FMI’s Safe Quality Food (SQF) Program.

Numerous companies send managers and employees to FMI’s SuperSafeMark^® program to learn the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. The industry and government are expanding programs to educate consumers how to keep food safe. These include the award-winning Fight BAC!^® initiative and Be Food Safe, which was launched in 2007.

Shoppers Trust Safety of Food in Supermarkets

These efforts may be making a difference based on the trust that consumers have in the safety of different types of food in supermarkets. For example, 93 percent agree with the statement, “I trust the fresh produce my grocery store sells is safe.” Nearly as many agree with the same statement about canned and boxed foods (92 percent) and meat, poultry and fish (90 percent). As with the confidence numbers, high numbers of consumers agreed with these statements “somewhat” rather than “strongly.”

They expressed less trust in the government: 79 percent agree with the statement, “I trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that the food I purchase is safe,” and 76 percent hold this view about the FDA. Only one-third “strongly agree” with these statements regarding the two federal agencies.

When food recalls are announced most consumers turn to nongovernmental sources for information, led by television (81 percent), and then the Internet and newspapers or magazines (39 percent), radio (31 percent), friends or family members (22 percent) and government websites (17 percent).

How Nutrition Concerns Affect Shopping

Nutrition is very much on the minds of shoppers with 41 percent “very concerned” about the nutritional content of the foods they eat, and 47 percent “somewhat concerned.” At the same time, many continue to fall short in acting on these anxieties: 62 percent of consumers believe their diets could be healthier, including 12 percent who rate the room for improvement “a lot.”

The shoppers most likely to say their diet needs significant improvement include:

§ Baby Boomers (68 percent), especially men (75 percent).

§ Shoppers earning $75,000-$100,000 (70 percent).

§ Consumers aged 25-39 (69 percent).

§ Parents with older children (69 percent).

When evaluating whether a food is nutritious, shoppers focus most on the fat content listed on the Nutrition Facts label, with more than half checking saturated fat, trans fat and total fat. More than four in 10 check the calorie count, look for whole grains and focus on the salt, sugar and cholesterol levels.

Most shoppers (82 percent) hold themselves responsible for ensuring that the food they eat is nutritious. Accordingly, those who choose to diet most often follow their own plan (49 percent). Weight Watchers is the most popular formal plan, used by 22 percent of consumers on a diet (click here to view release with chart).

Supermarkets are responding to consumer health needs with products and services. For example, 82 percent of stores now feature natural or organic foods, up from 80 percent last year and 72 percent in 2006. In fact, nearly 60 percent of food retailers feature store-brand organic foods, according to FMI’s The Food Retailing Industry Speaks 2008 report, offering customers lower-cost alternatives.

Health clinics are now featured in 9 percent of stores, and 5 percent have a dietitian on hand to provide consumers nutritional guidance.

Many Consumers Don’t Know What or Where to Eat Two Hours Before Dinnertime

Consumers remain challenged planning meals, especially dinner. In fact, 28 percent of consumers do not know what they will eat two hours before dinnertime on weekdays; the number jumps to 35 percent on weekends. On weekdays, those most likely to lack plans are members of Generation Y (46 percent), single men (43 percent) and single mothers (38 percent).

Two hours before dinnertime, many have not even decided whether to eat at home or a restaurant. On weekdays, the plan-less are led by Generation Y (27 percent), single mothers (21 percent) and single men (19 percent).

These consumers create a large market for fast-food, takeout and delivered meals. Supermarkets are responding with meal solutions and quick-stop areas for dinner, often featuring their own checkout stands. The number featuring quick-stop areas increased from 36.8 percent in 2007 to 50.6 percent in 2008, according to The Food Retailing Industry Speaks 2008 report.

Emerging Issues: Sustainability, Reusable Shopping Bags and Cloning

Consumers are beginning to look for retailers who have a recycling and sustainability program: 20 percent deemed this “very important” when selecting a primary store, and 41 percent “somewhat important.” More than half of supermarkets (51 percent) sell reusable shopping bags, and nearly as many consumers (44 percent) use these bags at least once a month.

More than half of shoppers at least some of the time:

§ Use high-efficiency, energy-saving light bulbs (70 percent).

§ Recycle cans (70 percent).

§ Buy locally grown products (68 percent).

§ Recycle plastic (62 percent).

§ Recycle paper (62 percent).

§ Use environmentally friendly cleaning products (53 percent).

Consumers remain uneasy about eating products derived from cloned animals. As many as 77 percent are not comfortable, including 44 percent who are “not at all comfortable” — up significantly from 61 percent and 31 percent, respectively, in 2007.

More than eight in 10 consumers (81 percent) believe cloned foods should be labeled as such. In fact, nearly six in 10 (58 percent) hold this view “strongly.”

Methodology

Data for U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2008 were collected through surveys conducted by Harris Poll Online among a nationally representative sample of 2,020 U.S. shoppers. Respondents must have met the following requirements to participate in the survey: a minimum of 15 years of age, primary or equally shared responsibility for food shopping, and they must have shopped for groceries in the past two weeks.

This report was made possible by the generous support of PepsiCo. To purchase a copy ($95 for FMI Retailer/Wholesaler Members, $175 for FMI Associate Members and $250 for nonmembers), contact the FMI Store at 202-220-0723 or www.fmi.org/

Immigration legislation: A lift from the war supplemental?

A member communication from the United Fresh Produce Association reports on the ongoing effort by Sen. Dianne Feinstein to work AgJobs into legislation this year: From United:

Senate to Take on Emergency Agriculture Immigration Legislation

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Iraq War Supplemental bill which included an amendment sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that would provide a temporary agriculture labor relief for American agriculture. The amendment which is titled the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act (EARA) is designed to address the perennial shortage of agriculture workers and does not provide a path to citizenship or a green card. It would grant temporary, limited immigration status for experienced farm workers who would be required to continue to work in American agriculture for the next five years.

We expect this amendment to come up on the Senate floor this week, prior to the Memorial Day district work period and we encourage you to contact their Senators to urge them to vote to include the Emergency Agriculture UIRelief Act in the final Iraq War Supplemental spending bill. The produce industry has been working for years to get comprehensive reform of our nation's immigration policies, but that has not happened. As we continue to strive for comprehensive immigration reform and work out acceptable long-term reforms, we must also look for a short term solution to help our industry stay in business.

In the last year alone 13,280 farms in the United States have shut down

U.S. agriculture is becoming increasingly crippled by worker shortages - with some $8 billion in crop losses already sustained and more ahead. This amendment is a clean, simple, temporary measure to solve an emergency in agriculture.

Contact Your Senators Today
Encouraging your lawmakers in Washington to support this legislation shows your commitment to the growth and success of our industry across the nation. Please visit our website to take action on this issue,

To strengthen the produce voice, encourage your colleagues and family to also take action.

All about carbon

While the topic is mystifying to me, carbon sequestration's role in agriculture is becoming more prominent as a public policy issue. From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry today announced a hearing of the Subcommittee on Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry and Credit. The hearing, “Creating Jobs with Climate Solutions: How agriculture and forestry can help lower costs in a low-carbon economy,” will be held Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm EDT in Room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Subcommittee Chairwoman Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) will chair the hearing.

Witnesses will include:

Dick Wittman, Member of the Steering Committee on the Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group and Past President of the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association

Laurie Wayburn, President and Co-founder, Pacific Forest Trust

Dr. Ruben Lubowski, Economist and the Forest Carbon Economics Fellow, Environmental Defense

Steve Corneli, Vice President Market and Climate Policy, NRG Energy, Inc.

Derik Broekhoff, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute

Managers' statement: on improving the movement of specialty crops

More important than ever, the cost effective movement of specialty crops is addressed in the farm bill conference report. No mandatory funds, however:

(22) Grant program to improve the movement of specialty crops
The House bill: (1) authorizes the Secretary to make grants to State and local governments, grower cooperatives, and producer and shipper organizations to improve the cost-effective movement of specialty crops, (2) provides that the grant recipient must match the amount of funds received under this program, and (3) authorizes appropriations for necessary sums to carry out the section. (Section 10401) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except Senate language amends title II of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-465; 118 Stat. 3884), and clarifies that non-profit trucking associations and their research entities are eligible to receive grants. (Section 1842)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to allow national, state, or regional organizations of producers, shippers or carriers to be eligible for grants under the program. (Section 10403)

Managers' statement: the organic provisions

From the farm bill conference managers' statement, important wins for the organic industry. However, the farm bill conference doesn't give the organic industry all the mandatory funding it wanted:

The National organic certification cost-share program
The House bill amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to provide $22,000,000 for the national organic certification cost-share program, to be available until expended. It provides that the federal share may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of certification, and the maximum amount a producer may receive is raised from $500 to $750. (Section 10301)
The Senate amendment amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) to reauthorize the National Organic Certification Cost-Share program, which provides funds for the Secretary to assist producers and handlers of agricultural products in obtaining certification under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Payments to producers or handlers are limited to $750, and the federal share of the certification cost will be no more than 75 percent of the total certification cost incurred. The Senate provision adds language to require the Secretary to submit to Congress, reports that describes the expenditures for each state under the program during the previous fiscal year. It also provides $22,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1823)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to delete the federal share requirements as well as the federal and state recordkeeping requirements, and to require the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees a report containing certain program information. (Section 10301)
The Managers encourage the Secretary to keep accurate and current records of requests by and disbursements to States under the program, and require accurate and consistent recordkeeping from each State and entity that receives program payments. The Managers also recognize the importance of distributing cost-share funds to the States in a timely manner, and request that the Secretary distribute such funds at the soonest date practicable following the deadline for submission of funding requests under the program. The Managers are aware that there have been discussions between the Department of Agriculture and the States regarding administrative fees for the program and encourage the Department to review administrative fees to ensure optimal performance in serving the needs of organic producers and handlers.


(18) Organic production and market data
The House bill: (1) amends section 7407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to add pricing of organic products as new data to be included in the ongoing collection of data on agriculture production and marketing, (2) provides that the data on organics under this section shall be collected to analyze crop loss risk of organic methods of production, (3) provides $3,000,000 in mandatory funds to be available until expended, and (4) includes a free-standing provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report regarding the progress made in implementing this amendment. (Section 10302)
The Senate amendment amends section 2104 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6503) by granting the Secretary authority to segregate data as it relates to the organic industry by publishing organic production and marketing information and surveys. The language is intended to remedy the lack of price and yield information for organic producers.
Senate expands upon House language by requiring detailed data collection for: organic production and market data initiatives and surveys; expand, collect, and publish organic census data analysis, fund comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically-produced agricultural products; conduct analysis relating to organic production, handling, distribution, retail, and trend studies; study and perform periodic updates on the effects of organic standards on consumer behavior; conduct analysis for organic agriculture using the national crop table. The Senate provision provides $5,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1821)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to clarify the data collection, analysis, and survey development requirements for the Secretary, as well as to further specify the contents of the report that the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. (Section 10302)
The Managers have provided $5,000,000 in mandatory funding in an effort to jump-start organic data collection efforts at the Department of Agriculture, but recognize that remedying the unmet data collection needs of the organic sector will require further investment, and therefore, have provided an additional authorization of appropriations of $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out the program. The Managers intend that $3.5 million of the funding provided for this section be allocated to the Agricultural Market Service to collect and distribute comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically produced agricultural products. The Managers also note the critical importance of collecting data related to crop loss risk, and farm-gate prices, in order to determine appropriate products and premiums for crop insurance policies offered to organic producers. The Managers further intend that $1.5 million of the funding provided for this section be used by the Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service to carry out the specified requirements of the initiative that are appropriate to each agency.


(19) Organic conversion, technical and educational assistance
The House bill authorizes $50,000,000 over five years to provide technical assistance and cost-sharing grants to farmers trying to transition to organic farming. (Section 10303) The Senate amendment contains a comparable provision in the conservation title (EQIP).
The Conference substitute deletes the House provision. Language addressing the goal of providing technical assistance to farmers trying to transition to organic farming appears in section 2501 of the conservation title. (20) Exemption of certified organic products from assessments The Senate amendment amends section 501(e) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401 (e)) to allow farmers who have some or part of their farm certified organic to receive the exemption. Only producers that are USDA organically certified may receive the exemption for that portion of land they produce organically. (Section 1822) The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.

(21) National organic program
The Senate amendment amends section 2123 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6522) to provide increased authorized incremental funding levels for the National Organic Program to ensure proper compliance and oversight of the National Organic Program. It also authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2011; and $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 1824)
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to provide such additional sums as are necessary to carry out the program. (Section 10303) The National Organic Program (NOP) is the first line of defense in assuring consumers that organic products certified under the program consistently meet the program's standards. The Managers are aware of concerns raised by numerous organic agriculture interests concerning the level of resources devoted to the NOP. While the program's funding level has increased over time, the Managers view the current level of funding as inadequate to permit the NOP to roperly address the world-wide scope of accreditation oversight and certifier training. The Managers strongly encourage the Secretary to prepare NOP budget requests at least equal to the appropriations levels authorized in this Act.

Managers' statement: pest and disease program

From the farm bill conference legislation, the managers' statement on the pest and disease program in the horticultural title:


(15) Pest and disease program
The House bill establishes a new program to conduct early pest detection and surveillance activities in coordination with state departments of agriculture, to prioritize and create action plans to address pest and disease threats to specialty crops, and to create an audit-based certification approach to protect against the spread of plant pests. It provides mandatory funding in the amount of:
(1) $10,000,000 in FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 in FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 in FY 2010;
- 244 -
(4) $55,000,000 in FY 2011; and
(5) $70,000,000 in FY 2012. (Section 10201)
The Senate amendment is the same as the House, except for technical differences
and provides mandatory funds in the amounts of:
(1) $10,000,000 for FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 for FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 for FY 2010;
(4) $50,000,000 for FY 2011;
(5) $64,000,000 for FY 2012. (Section 12101(f))
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to: describe the application procedure for the program; prohibit the Department of Agriculture from considering the availability of nonfederal funds in determining whether to enter into a cooperative agreement with a State department of agriculture; direct the
Secretary to consider various risk factors when considering an application for a cooperative agreement; express Congressional disapproval of a cost-sharing rule for animal and health emergency programs and; specify mandatory funding in the amounts of:
(1) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 10201)
The Managers believe that the nursery plant pest risk management systems established under this section will provide the nursery industry with assistance and flexibility in developing programs that meet its needs to determine and manage plant pest and disease risks
The Managers note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken specific steps to promote new methods of inspection and regulation based on new approaches to nursery pest risk management, sometimes referred to as the “systems approach.” These steps include a technical agreement under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 24), and the development of the U.S. Nursery Certification Program, a limited test-pilot program developed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine to promote U.S. nursery shipments to Canada.
The Managers are aware of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to promote the systems approach for the nursery industry. The development of effective systems of pest risk management and the industry adoption of such systems will be hastened and made more effective through an initiative based on collaboration among key agencies, Departmental personnel, industry organizations, and research institutions. To implement the nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section, U.S. Department of Agriculture policies and regulations must have a sound foundation in research and experience through pilot programs of nursery pant pest risk management systems. In addition, there must be collaboration among industry and state and federal regulators to improve programs of inspection, certification and regulation using such systems. The Managers recognize that systems of pest risk management developed by the nursery industry must satisfy prevailing regulatory requirements if they are to be useful and effective. The Managers encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide guidance and technical assistance to the nursery industry, and to promote and coordinate related programs of research in the implementation of nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section.

Managers' statement: fresh produce education initiative

The fresh produce education initiative will have to fight for funding, as no mandatory funds were laid aside for it. From the statement of managers from the farm bill conference report:


(14) Fresh produce education initiative
The House bill authorizes a program to educate persons involved in the fresh produce industry and the public about ways to reduce pathogens in fresh produce and sanitary handling practices. It authorizes necessary sums for each FY 2008 through 2012.
(Section 10110)
The Senate amendment is the same as the House, except authorizes $1,000,000 in discretionary funding to carry out the section. (Section 1813) The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to specify that there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to remain available until expended. (Section 10105)

Managers' statement: the Hass avocado maturity provision

The managers' statement on the Hass avocado provision. The House language was more prescriptive for the USDA (and troubling for exporters in Mexico and Chile), but the farm bill conference adopts the Senate version, which seems little different than current law:

(12) Maturity requirements for Hass avocados
The House bill: (1) amends subtitle A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by adding at the end of the title a new section, (2) requires the Secretary to issue regulations requiring all Hass avocados sold in the U.S. to meet a minimum maturity requirement, (3) allows for exceptions from this requirement for avocadoes intended for charities, relief agencies or processing, (4) uses existing inspectors that already inspect avocadoes under other orders, and allows the Secretary to collect fees to pay for inspection activities, (5) imposes civil penalties between $50 and $5,000 for each violation, (6) allows for the diversion of avocados that don’t meet the maturity requirements, and (7) authorizes appropriations for necessary sums. (Section 10108)
The Senate amendment contains a freestanding provision which authorizes an organization of domestic avocado producers to submit to the Secretary a proposal for a grades and standards marketing order for Hass avocados. Once that proposal is received, the Secretary is required to initiate established procedures under the normal marketing order process for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient industry support for the proposal submitted by the organization. If the Secretary deems it appropriate to establish a marketing order, the language also requires the Secretary to complete that order within 15 months. (Section 1856)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision. (Section 10108)

Managers' statement: the mushroom provision

From the managers' statement on the mushroom provision of the farm bill. Again, the conference report treads lightly on the explicit authorization of "food safety" in USDA promotion orders, but allows the development of Good Agricultural Practices. From the statement:


(13) Mushroom promotion research and consumer information
The House bill: (1) amends the Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act of 1990, (2) reflects the changed geographic distribution of mushroom growers and their productivity by combining the regions that are represented on the Board, and increasing the number of pounds required for representation in the region, and (3) allows the development of good agricultural practices and good handling practices under the mushroom research and promotion order. (Section 10109)
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except also allows the development of food safety programs under the promotion order. (Section 1853)

The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to clarify that the mushroom council may develop and propose to the Secretary programs for good agricultural and good handling practices and related activities for mushrooms. (Section 10104)

Managers' statement: Food safety provisions in federal marketing orders

Here is an interesting wrinkle in the farm bill conference report. Despite an earlier desire by the USDA to get explicit authorizing language, the food safety provision for marketing orders is deemed unnecessary by the farm bill conference: Read on:

(10) Implementation of food safety programs under marketing orders The House bill amends section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act by authorizing the implementation of quality-related food safety programs under specialty crop marketing orders. (Section 10106)
The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the House provision.
The Managers are aware that the Secretary has issued marketing orders which include quality-related provisions intended to enhance the safety of the commodities to which they are applicable. Therefore, the managers recognize that statutory language is unnecessary. It is not the Manager's intention to alter the Secretary's authority to incorporate practices to improve the safety of commodities in marketing orders, but rather, to encourage the development of programs of quality-related good agricultural, manufacturing and handling practices with full industry and public participation and in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration.

Managers' statement: on clementines in the farm bill conference

From the managers' statement of the farm bill conference report, relating to a provision about clementines. This could put a federal marketing order for clementines one step closer to reality, and this provision has the attention of Spanish citrus producers who wonder if it will be designed to limit access to the U.S. market.


(9) Quality requirement for clementines
The House bill amends section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act by adding clementines to the list of commodities. (Section 10105) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill. (Section 3207)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision. (Section 10102)

Managers' statement: evaluation of USDA commodity purchases

From page 244 of the managers' statement of the conference farm bill, the provision for evaluation of USDA commodity purchases:


(8) Independent evaluation of Department of Agriculture commodity purchase process The House bill requires an independent evaluation of the commodity purchasing processes and the importance of increasing purchases of specialty crops. (Section 10104) The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision. The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to require the Secretary to arrange to have performed an independent evaluation of the purchasing processes used by the Department of Agriculture to implement the
requirement that funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 be principally devoted to perishable agricultural commodities. (Section 10101)

Farm bill conference: the asparagus provision

From the managers' statement of the farm bill conference report on the provisions for market loss assistance for producers of fresh and processed asparagus. Sen. Debbie Stabenow helped deliver this provision, despite some pushback. From the managers' statement:


30) Market loss assistance for asparagus producers
The Senate amendment establishes a program to pay those producers currently growing asparagus for revenue losses during the 2004-2007 crop years due to imports. The language provides $15,000,000 in mandatory funding ($7,500,000 for producers of fresh asparagus and $7,500,000 for producers of processed or frozen asparagus). (Section 1852)
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision. (Section 10404)

More farm bill conference report: Managers' statement on export permissions

From the managers statement on making export access a priority. Not quite as vigorous as the House bill, but at least putting in some accountability:

(31) Regulation of exports of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, and
noxious weeds
The House bill amends the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 to require the Secretary to coordinate fruit and vegetable market analyses with the private sector and Foreign Agricultural Service. Further requires the Secretary to list on an Internet website the status of export petitions, an explanation of associated sanitary or phytosanitary issues, and information on the import requirements of foreign countries for fruits and vegetables. (Section 11307)
The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to strike the original language and insert a provision in the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program requiring the Secretary to submit an annual report on sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers. (Section 3203)

USDA seeking comments: Preparing for reauthorization

The Federal Register this morning contained a notice from the USDA seeking comments on the services of the food and nutrition service. From the notice:

SummaryThis notice announces a request for public comments to help senior officials of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prepare for the 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). USDA believes that public input and assessment of the performance of current programs--including WIC, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Special Milk Program--are essential to help the Department plan for reauthorization.

USDA intends to gather input that will help the Department better understand the needs and concerns of program cooperators and participants at the State and local levels, including representatives from State agencies, local program offices, industry, and State and local advocacy groups.
Commenters will be asked to address, but not be limited to, issues related to specific aspects of WIC, the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Special Milk Program. Key among these are: Strengthening program management and improving nutrition services, Ensuring that all eligible persons have access to program benefits, and Advancing technology and innovation. Electronic Access and Filing Addresses USDA invites interested persons to submit written comments electronically or by postal mail. To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.