Parents say retailers aren't doing enough to help them find healthy foods. I suggest parents should start looking in the produce department; it's not that tough to find something healthy... From a news release about a new study from Information Resources Inc.
IRI information gathered from multiple sources, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows that 21 percent of U.S. children aged 6 to 17 are currently identified as overweight. By 2020, that number is projected to jump to nearly one-third of all U.S. kids. In the report, IRI highlights the following three factors as the root of childhood obesity: -- Less activity -- Only one-third of U.S. high school students currently meet recommended levels; participation in school physical education programs dropped 14 percentage points between 1991 and 2003. -- Mass marketing of food-related messaging -- The average 8-12 year-old sees 7,600 TV ads per year promoting various food items, such as candy, snacks, and fast food. Only one in 50 is deemed to be for healthy products. -- More entertainment -- Currently, 61 percent of kids ages 9-15 play video games on a daily basis; children ages 8-18 spend an average of 44.5 hours in front of a computer, TV or gaming screen -- more than any other single waking activity. IRI findings show that parents are increasingly looking to outside influences, such as schools, government agencies, and, particularly, grocery retailers, to support them in making healthier meal choices for their children. According to the study, 75 percent of parents confirm that they are making a conscious effort to purchase healthy foods, yet just 35 percent believe that retailers are doing a good job of helping them find healthy selections for their families. For retailers, this gap offers an open opportunity to meet the challenge of better in-store communication and a more informative health-focused shopping experience for parents, translating into a sizeable revenue growth potential for responsive retailers. The report urges retailers to commit to a strong family wellness program as part of their overall customer service and store communications plan. Tapping into the emerging market of health-focused parents, IRI recommends the following action steps by retailers to meet this new shopper-focused demand:
1. Implement new "better-for-you" standards across product categories to clearly segment better-for-you products from mainstream products 2. Collaborate with manufacturers to optimize availability of healthy assortments 3. Develop in-store shopper education and navigation initiatives
According to IRI's Seitzinger, a focused effort on the part of CPG retailers and manufacturers will benefit kids, parents and retailers alike.
Driving into the city early this morning on my way to the Chicago market, I was sipping my steaming Seattle's Best blend & watching the sky color change from indigo to azure to pink to light blue against the silhouette of the skyscrapers. I was, for a fleeting moment, at peace with my environment.
Then I turned on the 'Squawk Box' audio from CNBC on my XM satellite radio. The moderators were absolutely frothing at the latest save-the-day, finger-in-the-dike rescue from the Fed, to temporarily regulate short-selling on financial stocks, citing those nasty people as the cause for the meltdown in share prices. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who has been holding all the bad paper (mortgages) that, initially, made those shares spike in the first place, when their bottom lines were falsely propped up. Then was then and now is now. And when this regulation is lifted October 2--good night, nurse.
As has become evident to regular readers here, I'm not a fan of regulatory governing in a free-market system. It's especially scary in the produce arena. For those who remember, Richard Nixon, in the face of recession, enacted a wage & price freeze in June 1973, which for 90 days took supply and demand out of the equation for everything from camshafts to artichokes. It removed the 'smarts' out of doing business & consequently almost put my dad out on the street. The few times he's discussed it with me, he speaks in tones that he uses when talking about his days in World War II. That's why I hope that the coming regulation in food safety never trickles down to regulation of the actual buy/sell trading of fruits & vegetables, because when a buyer loses faith in daily pricing of a commodity, we're history.
For these 'naked short-sellers', if they are the cause of the battering of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, not to mention the late but great Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (a debatable point), then change the ridiculous law that allows these actions to take place so it never takes place again, don't temporarily stop the action itself! Because...it's only going to build up. And watch out if'n it blows. The result might make the opening of the Ark of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones movie look tame by comparison.
From www.regulations.gov, the comment on COOL by the Produce Marketing Association:
September 17, 2008
To: U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.regulations.gov
Subject: Docket No. AMS–LS–07–0081
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts
The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) is pleased to submit these comments to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding its request for comments on mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL).
PMA is the largest global not-for-profit trade association representing companies that market fresh fruits and vegetables. We represent 3,000 companies from grower-shippers and supermarket retailers, to hotel and restaurant chains and overseas importers. Within the United States, PMA members handle more than 90 percent of fresh produce sold to consumers. PMA and our members are committed to improving food safety practices for produce, domestic and imported, to further enhance the safety of our food supply.
We have been actively engaged in COOL for many years, and we appreciate the efforts of the Agricultural Marketing Service on this important program designed to convey information to consumers about the origin of fresh produce and other items. In most cases, the agency has aligned the consumer’s need for information with the practical realities of industry operations. An example of this is the agency allowing the name of the country/state/region with or without the phrase “product of” (§65.400). Another example is the agency’s ruling in §65.300 and §65.400 that a single commodity from multiple countries of origin that is commingled can be labeled by listing each of the countries involved. We particularly applaud the agency’s decision to allow state and regional designations for perishable agricultural commodities as compliance with the Interim Final Rule (§64.400).
We offer the following suggestions as ways to enhance and clarify the specifics in the Interim Final Rule. In one case, we suggest a change to language in the Interim Final Rule.
Definition of processed product: We recommend that any fresh-cut produce item, even those not combined with another substantive food item or other covered commodity be included in the definition of “processed product” (§65.220). By taking a raw agricultural commodity, washing it, then cutting it, a company does change the product from a raw agricultural commodity to a ready-to-eat food item – similar to cooking changing a raw meat product to a ready-to-eat food.
We applaud the agency’s decision to exclude items in which two or more covered commodities are combined. We ask the agency to offer more clarity about combinations of covered commodities in the definition of processed product. When speaking about generic categories of products (lettuce, melons, etc.), different varieties within those generic categories are distinctly different. We appreciate the dilemma in determining differences. This is a rule designed to convey information to consumers, and consumers clearly perceive these differences. Because consumers go to the store to buy specific varieties within generic categories (they seek a honeydew melon or romaine lettuce or a Gala apple), we know that the consumer appreciates and values these differences. A consumer is clearly aware that frisee is not the same as Iceberg lettuce, that butter lettuce is different from red leaf lettuce, that a honeydew melon is not the same as a cantaloupe, even that a Granny Smith apple is different from a Red Delicious apple. We recommend that the agency designate that items with distinct varietal names within a generic category of products be deemed different products and excluded when two or more are combined.
Abbreviations: We appreciate the agency’s recognition of the need to abbreviate the names of some countries (§65.400) using abbreviations from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. We would ask that the language in section (e) be reworded to remove the first sentence (“In general, abbreviations are not
acceptable.”). The available space on a product labels (e.g. price look-up [PLU] sticker) or a bill of lading is scarce. It is important for industry to be able to convey origin information on both of those vehicles for several reasons. Information on the product itself (through a PLU sticker, rubber band, twist tie, tag, etc.) is particularly important because it informs the consumer at point of purchase and moves with the product to the home. When industry can include the information on a bill of lading, it allows companies to use existing records as the statute requires. However, the agency should remove the requirement that a key to abbreviations be included with documents (each time or even once) as the industry is well aware of the abbreviations used and their meanings.
Industry needs more guidance on what abbreviations will be acceptable. We recommend that the agency specify approved abbreviations. A standard ISO list exists and would be consistent with other uses from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as the agency mentioned in its Interim Final Rule. (To find them from the CBP site, type in country abbreviations in the Search box, then select Export Reference Tables from the results list. On the next page, select “Schedule C: Country and Territory Designations by Code (Census Bureau).” This link will take you to an exit page that refers you to http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/c/country.txt. The country abbreviations listed here are the two-character ISO codes.) Having standard abbreviations for use in commerce will make labeling more efficient and cost-effective.
Define “majority”: The agency understands that when fresh produce is stickered with origin information, every product may not bear a sticker for a variety of reasons (e.g. stickering efficacy is not 100%). The agency has said that a majority of the product should have stickers. We ask that the agency define “majority” as it applies to bulk display stickering for perishable agricultural commodities as 50% plus one so that the industry has a specific understanding for compliance.
Retailer recordkeeping: The agency has offered simple, effective rules for recordkeeping by retailers. We seek greater clarity on this issue. In §65.500(c)(1), we suggest that the agency put the last sentence of the paragraph first (“For pre-labeled products, the label itself is sufficient evidence on which the retailer may rely to establish the product’s origin.”). We also ask the agency to state specifically that retailers need not maintain any new or additional records documenting origin for those products that are pre-labeled on the product itself or on the box/container (when the box/container is visible to consumers, such as when it is used as part ofa retail display). Then follow with the first sentence in that section amended to read:
Records and other documentary evidence relied upon at the point of sale to establish a covered commodity’s country(ies) of origin must be provided to any duly authorized representative of USDA in accordance with § 65.500(a)(2), and records for product that is not pre-labeled be maintained for a period of 1 year from the date the origin declaration is made at retail.
Effective dates: USDA states that the requirements of this rule do not apply to covered commodities produced or packaged before September 30, 2008. Many in the industry procure packaging materials for a year’s worth (or more) of production. Given the short amount of time between the release of the Interim Final Rule and the effective date, we ask that companies subject to the rule be given a year from the effective date to use up existing packaging inventories, provided those packaging inventories were acquired prior to the effective date of the rule.
Kathy Means
Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs
Does the USDA have the legal authority to regulate food safety within the scope of marketing orders? Some almond growers are challenging the USDA's opinion that the agency does. Go here for the complete legal brief of the Cornucopia Institute's lawsuit against the USDA. From the summary of action:
Plaintiffs, growers, grower-handlers, and handlers of almonds in the State ofCalifornia challenge the Final Rule of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) that unlawfully establishes outgoing quality control requirements on almonds grown in California. 72 Fed. Reg. 15021 (March 30, 2007), codified at 7 C.F.R. § 981.442(b) (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule restricts the available markets for Plaintiff almond growers’ almond crop, depriving them of revenue for their almonds in whole or in part. For the Plaintiff handlers, the Final Rule has resulted in the foreclosure of long-established markets for their almonds and in the most severe cases will result in the financial ruin of these growers’ operations. Similarly, the Final Rule has operated to reduce the amount that handlers of almonds can garner from the ultimate sale of their product and has eliminated established markets for untreated almonds. The marketing of almonds is governed by a marketing order issued under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (“AMAA”). 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. Ultimate authority over the almond marketing order is vested in the Secretary of USDA. The AMAA provides the Secretary of USDA with limited authority to establish marketing orders for agricultural crops, including almonds. The AMAA, unlike many administrative statutes, does not grant general authority but instead carefully sets forth the terms that may be included in marketing orders. In the case of almonds, the permissible provisions are set forth at 7 U.S.C. § 608c(6) and (7).Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the outgoing quality regulations adopted by the Final Rule: (1) exceed the authority granted by 7 C.F.R. § 981.42, upon which USDA has premised the Final Rule and thus constitutes an ultra vires act; (2) if within the authority of the Secretary, creates a substantive rule adopted without the use of a formal rulemaking process and grower referendum, as required by the AMAA; and (3) exceeds the limited authority granted to the Secretary under the AMAA to regulate the outgoing quality of covered commodities and thus constitutes an ultra vires act. Plaintiffs further seek a declaration that the Secretary’s actions are unlawful and should be set aside by the Court pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706, on the grounds that the Final Rule is arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with law.
