DataBar explained

As we wait for more hard news on the Produce Traceability Initiative, here is a news release from the Produce Marketing Association about the "DataBar." Come now, it's not that complex...From PMA:


Newark, Del. – The Produce Electronic Identification Board (PEIB) has seen the future of produce product identification coding, and it is the DataBar.

PEIB, the PMA board responsible for creating produce price look-up (PLU) codes and standardized Universal Product Code (UPC) numbers – i.e., those beginning with 033383 – began shifting its focus away from commodity marking for product identification at point of sale (POS). With the emergence of GS1’s new barcode called DataBar, the buying and selling community now has a viable information technology option that will provide a broad range of operational efficiencies as well as enable key information to travel along with produce items.

“With the use of the DataBar, produce companies can now begin enjoying benefits that packaged goods companies have enjoyed for decades,” said PEIB Chairman Mike Agostini, merchandise manager for Wal-Mart. “The DataBar provides product movement data and shrink information for each grower/shipper, while also providing scanning efficiencies and resolving pricing errors caused by price differences between organic and conventional products.”

The DataBar carries the 14-digit Global Trade Item Number (GTIN). Analogous to the ubiquitous UPC, the GTIN identifies the grower/shipper as well as the physical item carrying the mark. This allows the retailer’s POS system to gather product information by grower/shipper, a boon to category management efforts. And because the DataBar is a much smaller barcode than the UPC, it fits on most of today’s produce PLU stickers. Recognizing the transition that will be needed to move from a four- or five-digit PLU number to a 14-digit GTIN, the sticker that will now be affixed to loose produce can bear both the DataBar barcode and the PLU number as a back-up. Having the human-readable PLU number on the sticker will allow a transitional period for retailers who may not be ready to begin scanning the DataBar immediately, as cashiers will still be able to see the PLU number on the sticker. Other information traditionally shown on the PLU sticker, such as country of origin labeling or company logos, can also be included on DataBar stickers.

Most POS scanners manufactured after 2002 already have the ability to read the DataBar with a flip of a switch, reports Produce Marketing Association Vice President, Industry Technology and Standards Gary Fleming. To be able to read the codes, retailers will need to modify their item information databases to include the 14-digit GTIN, if they do not already do so. In addition, growers/shippers will need to provide their GTIN numbers to their buyers in advance, so that retailers can add them to their POS databases before product is scanned at POS, says Fleming.

The PEIB recommends that growers/shippers assign GTINs at the same level of granularity that exists for PLU numbers – that is, by commodity, by variety and by size group. This will now mean that retailers will have to store a unique 14-digit GTIN for each supplier from whom they buy each commodity. Most likely, the retailers will link the PLU number to each of the supplier’s GTINs that supply the commodity, says Fleming.

“The benefits of having product movement data by grower/shipper will be advantageous for both the buying and selling community,” said Tim Gagnon, PEIB vice chairman and director for C.H. Robinson Company Worldwide. “Growers and shippers will now be able to measure the success of their products at POS versus their competitors, and thus target marketing and demographic campaigns. Buyers will now be able to move away from commodity-based category management and toward unique product category management akin to packaged goods.”

Fleming noted the movement toward the DataBar is beginning to gain momentum, with rollouts from Wal-Mart and Loblaws leading the way with over a dozen fresh produce suppliers, and other rollouts just around the corner. The vendor community has already anticipated the transition to the DataBar, including scanner manufacturers, software vendors, labeling vendors and scale manufacturers. The DataBar is also getting traction in the other fresh food sectors, as the technology recommended by seven different fresh food associations referenced in the document entitled “Industry Roadmap: The Fresh Food Supply Chain of the Future.” In addition, the coupon industry is also beginning to transition to the DataBar, with its increased capability to hold more data.

While the transition from PLU codes to DataBar is ongoing, the PEIB is encouraging retailers to accept product stickered with both the DataBar and PLU codes, even though they might not yet be scanning DataBars at point of sale.

“The needs of the marketplace are changing, including the need for more information and the ability to track product to a specific grower,” said PMA’s Fleming. “The DataBar allows for exactly this, while minimizing the impact a new technology can have on members of a supply chain. Chances are, you have probably already seen the DataBar on some apples, bananas, avocados, peppers, tomatoes and other commodities. If you haven’t, don’t be surprised because you soon will.”

Questions regarding the DataBar can be directed to any member of the PEIB, or to PMA’s Gary Fleming (gfleming@pma.com) or Director of Voluntary Leadership and Industry Standards Alicia Calhoun (acalhoun@pma.com).

We are all in this together

No great sentiment among our readers that the produce industry will do better or worse than other industries if the U.S. enters a recession. The results of the lightly considered Fresh Talk poll:

How will the produce industry fare if the U.S. slides into a recession?



Better than most sectors of the economy 4 (40%)

About the same as most sectors of the economy 3 (30%)

Worse than most sectors of the economy 3 (30%)


TK: Check out this coverage from Bloomberg about recession risks. From the story:


"Economic activity appears to have decelerated broadly," Bernanke said Wednesday to a congressional Joint Economic Committee hearing, downgrading the assessment of Fed officials when they met on Sept. 16. "Stabilization of our financial system is an essential precondition for economic recovery."
Bernanke's remarks may stoke investors' expectations for the Fed to lower interest rates by year-end to alleviate the impact of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Fed chief reiterated his call for Congress to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan for a $700 billion rescue fund to remove devalued assets from the banking system.
Recent financial stress "will make lenders still more cautious about extending credit to households and businesses," Bernanke said. "The downside risks to growth thus remain a significant concern."

Truck Rate Report - Sept. 23

From the USDA's Truck Rate Report of Sept. 23:

A shortage of trucks was reported for the following commodities and regions: onions from Idaho and Malheur County, Oregon. A slight shortage of trucks was reported for the following commodities and regions: potatoes from San Luis Valley Colorado. A surplus of trucks was reported for the following commodities and regions: lettuce, mixed vegetables, strawberries and raspberries from Salinas-Watsonville, apple pears, grapes, nectarines, melons, peaches, peppers, plums and apples from San Joaquin Valley California, citrus, avocados, mangoes and mixed vegetables from Mexico Crossings Through Texas and watermelons from Texas. LAST REPORT was issued for potatoes from Big Lake and Central Minnesota and corn from Hudson Valley New York.FIRST REPORT was issued for onions from Idaho and Malheur County, Oregon and potatoes from San Luis Valley Colorado. All other districts reported an adequate supply of trucks.

Chinese apples - how soon?

This blog post from 2007 referenced an article concerning worries about Chinese apples coming to the U.S. The issue may be cropping up again, as U.S.-Chinese trade talks in Southern California referenced barriers to Chinese "fruit exports" to the U.S.

Visiting with Nancy Foster of US Apple this morning, she pointed out that China's apple growers deal with more than 50 plant pests and diseases that U.S. growers don't currently have. All of those pests require assessment and a mitigation plan before Chinese apples should be considered for U.S. access. Foster said there should be no political shortcuts to the scientific process; currently, she said China has much work to do in its pest risk assessment document.

Check out this ERS report from 2006 for the big picture view of China's dominant role in world apple production.

For more background, Here is a statement from 2005 by Foster before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Note that Foster refers to the fear of growers that apples will be a mere bargaining chip to exchange for market access for other items.


The U.S. apple industry is deeply concerned about the potential negative impact of fresh apple imports from China. China has requested access to the U.S. market for Chinese fresh apples. Chinese government officials are now working directly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to secure permission to export Chinese fresh apples to the United States. The U.S. apple industry’s future economic well-being may be challenged by Chinese fresh apple imports. Unlike processed agricultural imports, USDA fresh produce imports must be cleared through a scientific technical process to ensure that imports do not inadvertently introduce an exotic insect or plant disease into U.S. growing regions. Introduction of damaging pests could wreak havoc on the U.S. apple industry, as evidenced by several quarantine pests that have invaded U.S. agriculture from China. For example, USDA has spent millions of dollars in attempts to control and eradicate the emerald ash border and the Asian longhorn beetle. The U.S.–China bilateral trade relationship must conform to the scientific standards and principles set forth in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) in the WTO. The U.S. apple industry believes that this process should not be politicized, nor should negotiators accelerate or exchange market access for certain U.S. goods into China for access to the U.S. market for Chinese apples.
A substantial difference in labor cost between the U.S. and China may well translate into a substantial price difference between U.S. apples and Chinese apples in the U.S. market. Apple production is extremely labor-intensive because thinning, pruning, tree training and harvesting are performed by hand almost year-round. According to a recent study on global apple production competitiveness, China’s labor rate is approximately $472 per acre as compared to $2,052 per acre in the United States. (In China the labor rate is only $0.28/hour, or about $2.00/day.) At a minimum, the U.S. apple industry expects Chinese fresh apple imports to add significant downward pressure on fresh apple prices. Should Chinese producers gain access to the U.S. market, major segments of the apple industry could be forced out of business by low apple prices.

Stop the tape

I earlier promised a more detailed excursion into the Q and A part of the WPPC - FDA session and I hope I get around to it - for your sake! The session represented a rare opportunity for WPPC attendees to ask FDA officials questions, and there were some probing questions and insightful exchanges, if no earthshaking revelations. We can only rue the fact that the biggest FDA critic of all was inexplicably absent and unavailable to deliver Lou Dobbs-esque zingers. Sigh.

In any case, you may have noted (but probably not) that I earlier posted an MP3 audio file of the meeting on the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group. United asked me to take the recording down last Friday, explaining in a later email “we (United) had an agreement with our guest speakers that the meeting would not be recorded for purposes of posting on the Internet and also that we (United) feel that such a posting would be unfair to those who paid to attend the meeting.”

I did take the audio down from the Discussion Group, though I wasn't happy about it. My position was that a panel of FDA officials (and United's David Gombas and Tom Stenzel) speaking in the FDA auditorium in College Park to about 140 trade members and multiple members of the press should have a presumption that the event was for public consumption, whether those words were transcribed from tape or available on the Web in MP3 format. No one at the FDA has responded to give their account or opinion. In any event, I've asked FDA and United to reconsider their policy on Web audio of future joint events that may garner wider industry interest.

I think the "new media" that the Web facilitates does present some challenges to both news organizations and the sources we cover. For example, associations want to maximize the value of each event, and news organizations seek to maximize the timely multimedia coverage offered. It is not an easy equation. But particularly in the case of events involving public officials, openness should be the default position.

Public comment: GAP guidance

Comments aren't due until Dec. 31, but the first opinions are arriving in the federal docket about the notice announcing possible FDA revisions to Good Agricultural Practices. This comment is from an anonymous student.


The FDA has created three guidance documents for the best practices of handling fresh produce, too much latitude has been given in the area of irrigation water testing and safety. In the guidance document, Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, the FDA identifies the sources in which water supplies can be contaminated, but does not require or insist on regular basic testing of fecal coliform, caused by poor sewage or animal contamination which is the most common cause of microbial contamination. Under the Clean Water Act, specific testing for fecal coliform has been mandated to ensure the safety of clean drinking water. However, the same contaminates have been directly linked to microbial foodborne illnesses outbreaks within the Untied States directly tied to contaminated irrigation water supplies. There needs to be a review of the exclusion within 21CFR 110.19 that specifically excludes agricultural handlers to eliminate the storage of fresh produce in unsanitary conditions. Contaminated irrigation water being the unsanitary conditions presented and not regulated. The Clean Water Act is too specific and should not be implemented on agriculture water supplies some of the basic testing of fecal coliform should be addressed and mandated to ensure the safety of fresh produce at its source, the farm or harvesting location.