Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Can farming save Detroit? - Fortune

Can farming save Detroit? - Fortune


DETROIT (Fortune) -- John Hantz is a wealthy money manager who lives in an older enclave of Detroit where all the houses are grand and not all of them are falling apart. Once a star stockbroker at American Express, he left 13 years ago to found his own firm. Today Hantz Financial Services has 20 offices in Michigan, Ohio, and Georgia, more than 500 employees, and $1.3 billion in assets under management.

Twice divorced, Hantz, 48, lives alone in clubby, paneled splendor, surrounded by early-American landscapes on the walls, an autograph collection that veers from Detroit icons such as Ty Cobb and Henry Ford to Baron von Richthofen and Mussolini, and a set of Ayn Rand first editions.


With a net worth of more than $100 million, he's one of the richest men left in Detroit -- one of the very few in his demographic who stayed put when others were fleeing to Grosse Pointe and Bloomfield Hills. Not long ago, while commuting, he stumbled on a big idea that might help save his dying city.

Every weekday Hantz pulls his Volvo SUV out of the gated driveway of his compound and drives half an hour to his office in Southfield, a northern suburb on the far side of Eight Mile Road. His route takes him through a desolate, postindustrial cityscape -- the kind of scene that is shockingly common in Detroit.

Along the way he passes vacant buildings, abandoned homes, and a whole lot of empty land. In some stretches he sees more pheasants than people. "Every year I tell myself it's going to get better," says Hantz, bright-eyed, with smooth cheeks and a little boy's carefully combed haircut, "and every year it doesn't."

Then one day about a year and a half ago, Hantz had a revelation. "We need scarcity," he thought to himself as he drove past block after unoccupied block. "We can't create opportunities, but we can create scarcity." And that, he says one afternoon in his living room between puffs on an expensive cigar, "is how I got onto this idea of the farm."

Yes, a farm. A large-scale, for-profit agricultural enterprise, wholly contained within the city limits of Detroit. Hantz thinks farming could do his city a lot of good: restore big chunks of tax-delinquent, resource-draining urban blight to pastoral productivity; provide decent jobs with benefits; supply local markets and restaurants with fresh produce; attract tourists from all over the world; and -- most important of all -- stimulate development around the edges as the local land market tilts from stultifying abundance to something more like scarcity and investors move in. Hantz is willing to commit $30 million to the project. He'll start with a pilot program this spring involving up to 50 acres on Detroit's east side. "Out of the gates," he says, "it'll be the largest urban farm in the world."

This is possibly not as crazy as it sounds. Granted, the notion of devoting valuable city land to agriculture would be unfathomable in New York, London, or Tokyo. But Detroit is a special case. The city that was once the fourth largest in the country and served as a symbol of America's industrial might has lately assumed a new role: North American poster child for the global phenomenon of shrinking postindustrial cities.

Nearly 2 million people used to live in Detroit. Fewer than 900,000 remain. Even if, unlikely as it seems, the auto industry were to rebound dramatically and the U.S. economy were to come roaring back tomorrow, no one -- not even the proudest civic boosters -- imagines that the worst is over. "Detroit will probably be a city of 700,000 people when it's all said and done," says Doug Rothwell, CEO of Business Leaders for Michigan. "The big challenge is, What do you do with a population of 700,000 in a geography that can accommodate three times that much?"

Whatever the answer is, whenever it comes, it won't be predicated on a return to past glory. "We have to be realistic," says George Jackson, CEO of the Detroit Economic Growth Corp. (DEGC). "This is not about trying to re-create something. We're not a world-class city."

If not world class, then what? A regional financial center? That's already Chicago, and to a lesser extent Minneapolis. A biotech hub? Boston and San Diego are way out in front. Some think Detroit has a future in TV and movies, but Hollywood is skeptical. ("Best incentives in the country," one producer says. "Worst crew.") How about high tech and green manufacturing? Possibly, given the engineering and manufacturing talent that remains.

But still there's the problem of what to do with the city's enormous amount of abandoned land, conservatively estimated at 40 square miles in a sprawling metropolis whose 139-square-mile footprint is easily bigger than San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan combined. If you let it revert to nature, you abandon all hope of productive use. If you turn it over to parks and recreation, you add costs to an overburdened city government that can't afford to teach its children, police its streets, or maintain the infrastructure it already has.

Faced with those facts, a growing number of policymakers and urban planners have begun to endorse farming as a solution. Former HUD secretary Henry Cisneros, now chairman of CityView, a private equity firm that invests in urban development, is familiar with Detroit's land problem. He says he's in favor of "other uses that engage human beings in their maintenance, such as urban agriculture." After studying the city's options at the request of civic leaders, the American Institute of Architects came to this conclusion in a recent report: "Detroit is particularly well suited to become a pioneer in urban agriculture at a commercial scale."

In that sense, Detroit might actually be ahead of the curve. When Alex Krieger, chairman of the department of urban planning and design at Harvard, imagines what the settled world might look like half a century from now, he sees "a checkerboard pattern" with "more densely urbanized areas, and areas preserved for various purposes such as farming.

The notion of a walled city, a contained city -- that's an 18th-century idea." And where will the new ideas for the 21st century emerge? From older, decaying cities, Krieger believes, such as New Orleans, St. Louis, Cleveland, Newark, and especially Detroit -- cities that have become, at least in part, "kind of empty containers."

This is a lot to hang on Hantz. Most of what he knows about agriculture he's picked up over the past 18 months from the experts he's consulting at Michigan State and the Kellogg Foundation. Then there's the fact that many of his fellow citizens are openly rooting against him. Since word leaked of his scheme last spring, he has been criticized by community activists, who call the plan a land grab. Opponents have also raised questions about the run-ins he's had with regulators at Hantz Financial.

But Detroit is nothing if not desperate for new ideas, and Hantz has had no trouble getting his heard. "It all sounds very exciting," says the DEGC's Jackson, whose agency is working on assembling a package of incentives for Hantz, including free city land. "We hope it works."

Detroit's civic history is notable for repeated failed attempts to revitalize its core. Over the past three decades leaders have embraced a series of downtown redevelopment plans that promised to save the city.

The massive Renaissance Center office and retail complex, built in the 1970s, mostly served to suck tenants out of other downtown buildings. (Today 48 of those buildings stand empty.) Three new casinos (one already bankrupt) and two new sports arenas (one for the NFL's dreadful Lions, the other for MLB's Tigers) have restored, on some nights, a little spark to downtown Detroit but have inspired little in the way of peripheral development. Downtown is still eerily underpopulated, the tax base is still crumbling, and people are still leaving. The jobless rate in the city is 27%.

Nothing yet tried in Detroit even begins to address the fundamental issue of emptiness -- empty factories, empty office buildings, empty houses, and above all, empty lots. Rampant arson, culminating in the annual frenzy of Devil's Night, is partly to blame. But there has also been a lot of officially sanctioned demolition in Detroit. As white residents fled to the suburbs over the decades, houses in the decaying neighborhoods they left behind were often bulldozed.

Abandonment is an infrastructure problem, when you consider the cost of maintaining far-flung roads and sewer systems; it's a city services problem, when you think about the inefficiencies of collecting trash and fighting crime in sparsely populated neighborhoods; and it's a real estate problem. Houses in Detroit are selling for an average of $15,000.

That sounds like a buying opportunity, and in fact Detroit looks pretty good right now to a young artist or entrepreneur who can't afford anyplace else -- but not yet to an investor. The smart money sees no point in buying as long as fresh inventory keeps flooding the market. "In the target sites we have," says Hantz, "we [reevaluate] every two weeks."

As Hantz began thinking about ways to absorb some of that inventory, what he imagined, he says, was a glacier: one broad, continuous swath of farmland, growing acre by acre, year by year, until it had overrun enough territory to raise the scarcity alarm and impel other investors to act. Rick Foster, an executive at the Kellogg Foundation whom Hantz sought out for advice, nudged him gently in a different direction.

"I think you should make pods," Foster said, meaning not one farm but many. Hantz was taken right away with the concept of creating several pods -- or lakes, as he came to think of them -- each as large as 300 acres, and each surrounded by its own valuable frontage. "What if we had seven lakes in the city?" he wondered. "Would people develop around those lakes?"

To increase the odds that they will, Hantz plans on making his farms both visually stunning and technologically cutting edge. Where there are row crops, Hantz says, they'll be neatly organized, planted in "dead-straight lines -- they may even be in a design." But the plan isn't to make Detroit look like Iowa. "Don't think a farm with tractors," says Hantz. "That's old."

In fact, Hantz's operation will bear little resemblance to a traditional farm. Mike Score, who recently left Michigan State's agricultural extension program to join Hantz Farms as president, has written a business plan that calls for the deployment of the latest in farm technology, from compost-heated greenhouses to hydroponic (water only, no soil) and aeroponic (air only) growing systems designed to maximize productivity in cramped settings.

He's really excited about apples. Hantz Farms will use a trellised system that's compact, highly efficient, and tourist-friendly. It won't be like apple picking in Massachusetts, and that's the point. Score wants visitors to Hantz Farms to see that agriculture is not just something that takes place in the countryside. They will be able to "walk down the row pushing a baby stroller," he promises.

Crop selection will depend on the soil conditions of the plots that Hantz acquires. Experts insist that most of the land is not irretrievably toxic. The majority of the lots now vacant in Detroit were residential, not industrial; the biggest problem is how compacted the soil is. For the most part the farms will focus on high-margin edibles: peaches, berries, plums, nectarines, and exotic greens. Score says that the first crops are likely to be lettuce and heirloom tomatoes.

Hantz says he's willing to put up the entire $30 million investment himself -- all cash, no debt -- and immediately begin hiring locally for full-time positions. But he wants two things first from Jackson at the DEGC: free tax-delinquent land, which he'll combine with his own purchases, he says (he's aiming for an average cost of $3,000 per acre, in line with rural farmland in southern Michigan), and a zoning adjustment that would create a new, lower tax rate for agriculture. There's no deal yet, but neither request strikes Jackson as unattainable. "If we have reasonable due diligence," he says, "I think we'll give it a shot."

Detroit mayor Dave Bing is watching closely. The Pistons Hall of Fame guard turned entrepreneur has had what his spokesman describes as "productive discussions" with Hantz. In a statement to Fortune, Bing says he's "encouraged by the proposals to bring commercial farming back to Detroit. As we look to diversify our economy, commercial farming has some real potential for job growth and rebuilding our tax base."

Hantz, for his part, says he's got three or four locations all picked out ("one of them will pop") and is confident he'll have seeds in the ground "in some sort of demonstration capacity" this spring. "Some things you've got to see in order to believe," he says, waving his cigar. "This is a thing you've got to believe in order to see."

Many have a hard time making that leap. When news of Hantz's ambitious plan broke in the Detroit papers last spring, few people even knew who he was. A little digging turned up a less-than-spotless record at Hantz Financial Services. The firm has paid fines totaling more than $1 million in the past five years, including $675,000 in 2005, without admitting or denying guilt, "for fraud and misrepresentations relating to undisclosed revenue-sharing arrangements, as well as other violations," according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (Hantz responds, "If we find something that isn't in compliance, we take immediate steps to correct the problem.")

Hantz Farms' first hire, VP Matt Allen, did have an established reputation in Detroit, but it wasn't a good one. Two years ago, while he was press secretary for former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Allen pleaded guilty to domestic violence and obstructing police after his wife called 911. He was sentenced to a year's probation. Hantz says he has known Allen for many years and values his deep knowledge of the city. "He has earned a second chance, and I'm willing to give it to him," he says.

Some of Hantz's biggest skeptics, ironically, are the same people who've been working to transform Detroit into a laboratory for urban farming for years, albeit on a much smaller scale. The nonprofit Detroit Agriculture Network counts nearly 900 urban gardens within the city limits. That's a twofold increase in two years, and it places Detroit at the forefront of a vibrant national movement to grow more food locally and lessen the nation's dependence on Big Ag.

None of those gardens is very big (average size: 0.25 acre), and they don't generate a lot of cash (most don't even try), but otherwise they're great: as antidotes to urban blight; sources of healthy, affordable food in a city that, incredibly, has no chain supermarkets; providers of meaningful, if generally unpaid, work to the chronically unemployed; and beacons around which disintegrating communities can begin to regather themselves.

That actually sounds a lot like what Hantz envisions his farms to be in the for-profit arena. But he doesn't have many fans among the community gardeners, who feel that Hantz is using his money and connections to capitalize on their pioneering work. "I'm concerned about the corporate takeover of the urban agriculture movement in Detroit," says Malik Yakini, a charter school principal and founder of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, which operates D-Town Farm on Detroit's west side. "At this point the key players with him seem to be all white men in a city that's at least 82% black."

Hantz, meanwhile, has no patience for what he calls "fear-based" criticism. He has a hard time concealing his contempt for the nonprofit sector generally. ("Someone must pay taxes," he sniffs.) He also flatly rejects the idea that he's orchestrating some kind of underhanded land grab. In fact, Hantz says that he welcomes others who might want to start their own farms in the city. "Viability and sustainability to me are all that matters," he says.

And yet Hantz is fully aware of the potentially historic scope of what he is proposing. After all, he's talking about accumulating hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of acres inside a major American city. And it's clear that he views Hantz Farms as his legacy. Already he's told his 21-year-old daughter, Lauren, his only heir, that if she wants to own the land one day, she has to promise him she'll never sell it. "This is like buying a penthouse in New York in 1940," Hantz says. "No one should be able to afford to do this ever again."

That might seem like an overly optimistic view of Detroit's future. But allow Hantz to dream a little. Twenty years from now, when people come to the city and have a drink at the bar at the top of the Renaissance Center, what will they see? Maybe that's not the right vantage point. Maybe they'll actually be on the farm, picking apples, looking up at the RenCen. "That's the beauty of being down and out," says Hantz. "You can actually open your mind to ideas that you would never otherwise embrace." At this point, Detroit doesn't have much left to lose. To top of page

May the new year bring a steady diet of common sense

May the new year bring a steady diet of common sense

This is the time of year when we reflect on the past year and we plan to make improvements in our lives, usually in the form of resolutions, for the new year.

During the past decade, many scientific studies suggested and even concluded that eating well is directly connected to living well. I think most of us know this, but there are so many temptations that it bears reminders. So, I’m reminding you (and myself) that we need to make good choices when we eat. And, while I am convinced that there is always room for an occasional indulgence in an otherwise healthful diet, you need to start with a good diet.

This means eating seven to nine fruits and vegetables every day, swapping out simple carbohydrates such as white rice, white bread, sodas and sugary cereals, and replacing them with complex carbohydrates from whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, quinoa and wheat berries.

Drinking eight glasses of water a day is also important to stay nicely hydrated, and to allow toxins to be removed from your body through your kidneys. Also, for good heart health, it’s important to reduce our intake of highly saturated animal fats like butter, cream and cheeses, and to replace some of those fats with more heart-healthy ones such as those from extra-virgin olive oil, nuts and nut oils, avocado oil, canola and sunflower oils and low-fat dairy products. Add good sources of protein from beans and grains, and you will have a very good diet.

If we mainly eat this sort of diet, we’ll have room for the occasional creamy cheese that we all love, the piece of yummy cake and the delicious gravy on top of those hard-to-resist, rich mashed potatoes, without standing in the way of better health. Also, eating a good diet helps to maintain a proper weight. Add 30 minutes a day of exercise, an average of eight hours a night of sleep, and we can keep our immune systems strong, or at least stronger than if we just ate junk everyday and hung out on the sofa.

Fruits and vegetables are very low in calories, so it’s better not to cover their fresh flavor with loads of high-calorie toppings. The calories really do add up fast. Check out a book of calories and you’ll be shocked. Fruits and vegetables and whole grains are rich in fiber and this makes us feel full, something that helps us to eat less. When was the last time you pigged out on brown rice with tamari-roasted carrots, onions and broccoli? Now, try this experiment with say, doughnuts. Actually, please don’t, but I think you know what I mean. I wish you a healthy and happy new year, filled with many blessings.

Here, is my recipe for Breakfast Quinoa with Dried Blueberries and Bananas. Quinoa is a whole grain, with 44 percent of your daily fiber needs in one serving, is rich in minerals, and it has the highest amino acid content of any grain, so it’s a good source for protein. It originated in the Andes and is one of the oldest grains known. It has a nutty flavor and it cooks in less than 15 minutes, so it’s possible to make this hot cereal even on a workday. You can buy organic quinoa in the rice and pasta section in most supermarkets. Before using, always rinse your quinoa thoroughly, in a fine mesh strainer to remove the slightly bitter flavor.

BREAKFAST QUINOA WITH DRIED BLUEBERRIES AND BANANAS

- 3 cups low-fat organic milk or organic soymilk

- 2 tablespoons pure maple syrup or brown sugar or pomegranate molasses

- ¼ cup dried blueberries

- 1 cup organic quinoa

- 2 large bananas

Combine the milk, maple syrup and dried blueberries in a heavy 2-quart pot and bring to a simmer over medium heat. Meanwhile, measure the quinoa into a fine mesh strainer and rinse thoroughly under cold running water. Drain. When the milk mixture reaches a simmer, add the quinoa and stir well to combine.

Reduce the heat to low, cover and simmer for 12 minutes, stirring occasionally, until the quinoa is tender but still a bit “al dente” firm in the middle. Cover and let sit for 2 minutes, then ladle into 4 bowls and top with slices of banana. Makes 4 servings.

Frank and Claire Criscuolo, owners of Claire’s and Basta restaurants, produce this column for the New Haven Register. Contact them at ClaireCris@aol.com. She is the author of “Claire’s Corner Copia Cookbook” and “Claire’s Italian Feast.”

The War on Vegetables

The War on Vegetables
Ingredients
By Leah Koenig
Published December 30, 2009, issue of January 08, 2010.

Last November, I koshered my kitchen for the first time. I did so with the full understanding that my decision came with certain compromises, like giving up my favorite cheeses and my delicious but uncertified collection of vinegars. While a bit heartbreaking, these were sacrifices I was willing to make as I welcomed in my new lifestyle. If only I had known that I might have to give up salad, too.

Leafy salad greens, along with berries, asparagus and a variety of other produce, have come under serious scrutiny in the kosher world over the past decade. There’s nothing treyf about these particular fruits and vegetables, except that they have a tendency to attract insects, which are halachically forbidden. Once they are removed from a spinach leaf or the inside of a raspberry, the produce is theoretically fit to eat. But kosher agencies like the Orthodox Union and KOF-K argue that certain bugs (for example, aphids, thrips and mites) are too small to spot easily, but large and common enough to be compromising.

As a result, the kosher industry and a growing number of consumers have started to eye their refrigerator crispers with suspicion. Meanwhile, new products have emerged, like vegetable soaps, and light boxes that make insects easier to see. While most Jews probably still have never heard of light boxes, for some they’ve become a way of life. All catering companies certified by Star-K, for example, are required to use them, and two years ago, the company started selling them directly to consumers for home inspection.

But why the heightened interest in insects now? One answer, according to the Orthodox Union’s Web site, is Rachel Carson, the scientist whose 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” led to a national ban of DDT and other pesticides. As Menachem Genack, CEO/rabbinic administrator of the O.U., has stated, “Since the days of Rachel Carson, the federal government has quite correctly limited the use of insecticides on food… therefore, knowing how to check for these insects has become increasingly important.” In other words, when it comes to kashrut’s bug restriction, organic produce is actually deemed more “dangerous” than its conventional counterparts. This explanation seems historically anemic, however, since the kosher laws long predate the use of pesticides, and produce has been organic-by-default for most of human history.

The actual reason for the insect fixation has little to do with a 20th-century biologist and everything to do with bagged lettuce. Pre-washed salad greens were a late but powerful arrival to the American love affair with industrial convenience foods. As they, along with shredded coleslaw, baby carrots and similar products, have grown in popularity, they unwittingly opened the door to kosher certification.

“Value-added [meaning “processed”] products made all the difference,” Rabbi Tzvi Rosen, who edits Star-K’s journal, Kashrus Kurrents, told me. “The Halacha was always clear about bugs, but now the awareness about it has been heightened.” Kosher consumers know to look for hechshers, kosher endorsements, on packaged foods, but until recently, that category didn’t include fresh produce. Now that the line is blurred, the broccoli sitting quietly on the edge of our plates has become the center of attention.

While not necessarily the stuff of daily headlines, the increasing preoccupation with bug infestation has the potential to change the kosher diet dramatically, and not for the better. Every major certification agency has guidelines on its Web site (or, in the case of the O.U., for sale on a 90-minute DVD) about proper inspection. The Chicago Rabbinical Council takes things a step further by banning the use of fresh Brussels sprouts and other produce that, because of their tightly packed leaves or small crevices, are deemed too difficult to inspect adequately. Similarly, the Kashruth Council of Canada prohibits catering services from using fresh broccoli, artichoke leaves, frisee, mixed greens, oyster mushrooms, curly spinach, watercress, dill, curly parsley, blackberries and raspberries.

Perhaps only a handful of people mourn the loss of Brussels sprouts. But many believe that there is something larger at stake here. As these industrial standards begin to trickle into people’s homes, they encourage stilted norms, including the incorrect notion that certain “seed bearing plants,” which God gave to humans to eat in Genesis, might not be fit for consumption, after all. Some argue that eventually, whole categories of fruits and vegetables could be considered untrustworthy — a stance that could, ironically, further deter kosher keepers from seeking out the healthy, organic, unadulterated foods so highly recommended by nutritionists and food experts. (Not incidentally, bagged lettuces and baby carrots both have been linked to food-borne pathogens, like salmonella and E. coli contamination — both unfortunate side-effects of industrial food production.) On the fleyshik side of things, hormone-free and free-range meat is becoming increasingly possible to find under kosher auspices. But the vegetable part of the meal seems headed in the opposite direction.

Perhaps more important, kosher agencies overstep their bounds by beginning to hechsher fresh produce. From the industry’s perspective, any expansion of business is understandably a good thing. But these agencies were developed to take the guesswork out of kosher consumption, not to discourage the use of inherently kosher fruits and vegetables, or to profit by creating a new need for inspection DVDs, light boxes and the like. The lesson to be learned here is to not give up common sense. The halachic prohibition against insects is not the issue; kosher caterers and consumers alike should certainly check for, and remove, bugs. But when this honest concern turns grocery shopping and dinner preparation into battle scenes, we can only lose.

Leah Koenig writes a monthly column on food and culinary trends. She can be contacted at ingredients@forward.com

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Canada Dairy Price Freeze Announced for 2010- USDA FAS

Canada Dairy Price Freeze Announced for 2010- USDA FAS

Earlier this month the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) announced that support prices for skim milk powder and butter will remain constant at C$6.1783 per kilogram and C$7.1024 per kilogram, respectively. Support prices are the prices at which the CDC buys and sells butter and skim milk powder to balance seasonal supply and demand changes on the domestic market. Support prices are also used as references by provincial boards to price milk sold to processors who manufacture dairy products such as butter, skim milk powder, cheese, yogurt and ice cream. The CDC argued that despite the economic downturn, the demand for dairy products remained stable during the 2008-2009 dairy year. As reported in previous TWICA’s, the high price of dairy products in Canada has become onerous for consumers and intermediate producers and has hurt Canadian dairy producers’ ability to compete globally. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) appeared before the commission arguing for a reduction in the price of industrial milk, noting that dairy prices need to be rolled back by 16.5% to bring them in line with the consumer price index. CRFA further contends that even though dairy production costs have declined by nearly 2% this year, the price of industrial milk has skyrocketed by 60%. In Canada, the restaurant industry is a major dairy customer, buying nearly C$2.5 billion in dairy products annually.

Canada family farm in decline - USDA FAS

From the USDA FAS - This Week in Canadian Agriculture

In Canada the traditional family farm is in decline. According to Statistics Canada, from 1996 to 2006, the number of farms in Canada dropped by more than 47,000 to 229,000, but the amount of land in active agriculture increased by more than 500,000 hectares. This seems to indicate that more of the food production in Canada is conducted by large corporations. This growth of corporate farm ownership coincides with a steep rise in Canada's farm exports. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, food exports jumped 23.6% from 2007 to 2008 to C$38.9 billion. Over the same period, the dollar value of food imports to Canada climbed 16% to C$27.7 billion. Roughly half of all agricultural commodities produced in Canada are exported. With this change in the agricultural environment some Canadians are calling for a stronger national food policy to ensure the sustainability of the Canadian family farm and secure Canada’s local food source. Additionally, in recent years the local food movement has gained momentum.

China to aid Cuba with 1.1 million dollar irrigation project

China to aid Cuba with 1.1 million dollar irrigation project

(AFP) – 8 hours ago

HAVANA — China will aid Cuba with a 1.1 million dollar irrigation project in the communist-run island's Guantanamo province, the Prensa Latina agency reported Monday.

China is one of Cuba's main political allies and its second business partner after Venezuela.

The latest project, including funding from a donation promised by China in 2007, aims to help restore drainage and irrigation systems in the east of the island to improve productivity, the Cuban agency said.

The project, to be overseen by Chinese company Liaoning Zhongyi International Economic and Technical Cooperation, includes the supply of trucks, tractors, trailers and other equipment, the report said.

Trade between Cuba and China represents more than 2.6 billion dollars per year, and China is a key source of credit for the impoverished island.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Time for a Climate Change Plan B The U.S. president is in deep denial. - WSJ

Time for a Climate Change Plan B The U.S. president is in deep denial. - WSJ


By NIGEL LAWSON

The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward.

Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done.

Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.

Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions.

The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century.

The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future.

Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death.

The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy.

Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today.

Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).

All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions.

The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem.

Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk.



Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming.

But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.

The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.

And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.

This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.

Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.

Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).

More People Allergic To Fruits, Vegetables - WBZ

More People Allergic To Fruits, Vegetables - WBZ

BOSTON (WBZ) ―

Eat your fruits and vegetables.

That's the message we hear over and over again if we want to stay healthy.

But now some adults are finding they have allergic reactions to produce they have eaten safely all their lives.

All it took was a common plum to send Salmaan Bokhari to the emergency room.

"When you can't breathe, it's like the most horrible feeling the world," he said.

Salmaan had never had an allergic reaction to plums as a child.

Dr. Mary Kay Tobin, an allergy specialist, is seeing more of these cases.

"There's something different in the environment that has caused these changes in the plants, in the fruits and vegetables," she said.

One theory is plants are changing as they cope with climate change and new pesticides.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology believes that some patterns may be emerging.

For example:

* Some people who are allergic to ragweed are developing sensitivities to melons and bananas
* Those allergic to grass could exhibit an allergy to tomatoes and oranges
* Some people allergic to birch pollen could have reactions to potatoes, carrots, celery, and apples.


Dr. Tobin says up to half of the people who suffer from a pollen allergy could, at some point, develop some type of allergy to a fruit or vegetable.

She says, "They're stunned because this really just didn't occur to them."

The symptoms for this type of allergy can be an itchy or burning sensation around the lips, mouth, or throat.

Some reactions, like Salmaan's, can be fast and severe.

You shouldn't hesitate to get medical attention if you think you could be having this type of allergic reaction.

Some of Dr. Tobin's patients reported fewer problems if they bought organic produce, or cooked their vegetables before eating them.

Fruits (and veggies) of your labor: Eat right, stay on track and you can reach goals

Fruits (and veggies) of your labor: Eat right, stay on track and you can reach goals


EL PASO -- Promises to eat more sensibly and lose weight will be uttered over and over again through the next week as people begin focusing on their New Year's resolutions.

Often, the promises to live more-healthful lifestyles sputter and fade after only a few weeks or even a few days.

But there are simple strategies to keep on track with the commitment and to make permanent life changes.

"For those people who are contemplating a change at New Year's, their next step isn't doing it. Their next step is preparing to do it, and that's an important step," said Michael Kelly, senior program officer in charge of research, planning and evaluation at the Paso del Norte Health Foundation.

"You don't move from 'I'm doing a New Year's resolution' to 'I'm now exercising or eating better,' " he said. "The trick is to ask 'How do I best prepare so when I take action, my action is successful and it sticks?' "

The first step, he said, is to announce your intentions to family members and friends. This should be done in a frame of the behavior you want to change, not in the frame of an intended outcome, such as losing weight, he said.

"It creates a commitment on your part," Kelly said. "When I tell you I'm going to do something and I don't do it, I feel a little embarrassed, but it also allows for support to happen."

He said it's also a good idea to make sure optimism is balanced with realism.



"Make the small changes over time," he said. "In January, you may change the
Advertisement
way you eat at night. In February, you may start changing your lunch."

The next step is to set a date for the change to begin, and that may not necessarily be Jan. 1. Kelly said it's often helpful to make this date one that has another important meaning for you, such as a child's birthday or an important anniversary.

Next, a person should begin preparing to change the behavior by modifying his or her environment.

"Make a change on your shopping list. Don't buy the cookies because if they're not in your house, you're not going to eat them," Kelly said. "The cookies aren't there, but the grapes are."

He said another way to modify the environment is to start a list of things to do, rather than things that are now prohibited, such as "I am going to start buying more fruits and vegetables."

Finally, he said, it's important to create a plan to maintain the new behavior, such as celebrating certain milestones in the process.

"But don't reward good eating with bad eating," he said.

Other tips to limit the amount of food being consumed include eating at scheduled meal times, cooking at home and using smaller plates, Kelly said.

Monitoring the kinds of food being eaten is extremely important, said Gayla Weaver, an extension home economist with the New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service, Doña Ana County Office.

She said people should follow the food pyramid recommendations, placing particular emphasis on eating lots of colorful fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats, and plenty of fat-free or low-fat dairy products. People should also take care to eat a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, salt and added sugars, she said.

"I think it's just being creative," she said. "If you have on hand, particularly for snacks, fresh vegetables or fruits, I think we'll eat them."

Weaver said it's also important to eat a healthful breakfast when possible, such as whole-grain cereal, yogurt with granola or oatmeal. Even a bit of last night's dinner isn't a bad idea because it will help keep a person from overeating later in the day.

"Even a piece of pizza is better than no breakfast," she said.

Restaurants can create an unexpected hazard to dietary changes, she said, and she recommends opting for the grilled or baked items, for more-healthful side items, and to have items such as salad dressing and cheese on the side.

Kelly said it's important to remember that people inevitably suffer setback when trying to make life changes such as these.

"Realizing we all fail and backslide is important," he said. "You're going to backslide, probably. Just set a new date and get back on the path as soon as you can."

People need to have patience when embarking on such a change, he said, because the results won't happen overnight.

"A cookie on the weekend or a drink sometimes that has a lot of calories in it is not what put the 25 pounds on you," Kelly said. "It's what you did every day this year that built up over time.

"When you make a slight change and you make the slight change every day, such as eating on a smaller plate or moving from ice cream to grapes every night, it will make a difference."

Erica Molina Johnson may be reached at emolina@elpasotimes.com; 546-6132.



Tips for eating healthfully in 2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the following tips for people who want to eat more healthfully.
# Eat more whole grains by substituting a product made from whole grains for a refined product, such as brown rice instead of white rice or wheat bread instead of white bread.
# Mix whole grains into dishes, such as adding barley to vegetable soup or stews.
# Use rolled oats or crushed, unsweetened whole-grain cereal when breading baked chicken or other proteins.
# When snacking, choose a whole-grain cereal, a whole-grain snack chip or popcorn with little salt and butter.
# Buy fresh, colorful vegetables when they're in season and stock up on frozen vegetables for easy preparation at home.
# Consider buying convenient vegetables, such as pre-washed bags of salad greens and packages of baby carrots or celery sticks.
# When buying canned vegetables, choose those labeled as having "no salt added."
# Keep a bowl of fruit in a very visible place, such as on your table, counter or inside the refrigerator.
# Buy fresh fruits when they're in season and stock up on dried, frozen and canned fruits.
# Consider buying pre-cut packages of fruit for healthful snacking.
# When buying canned fruits, choose those canned in 100 percent fruit juice or water.
# Eat fruit throughout the day, such as on top of your cereal, with your lunch and dinner, in salad and with meat dishes.
# Keep a package of dried fruit easily accessible, such as in your desk or bag.
# Consider drinking fat-free or low-fat milk with meals.
# Switch to fat-free milk or low-fat milk if you usually drink whole milk; use it in your cereals as well.
# Order coffee drinks with fat-free milk.
# Have a snack of fat-free or low-fat yogurt.
# Use yogurt to make dips for fruits or vegetables, or to make fruit-yogurt smoothies.
# Choose the leanest cuts when eating beef, including round steaks and roasts, top loin, top sirloin, chuck shoulder and arm roasts.
# The leanest pork cuts include the pork loin, tenderloin, centerloin and ham.
# When eating ground beef, choose the leanest available variety -- at least 90 percent lean.
# When eating poultry, boneless and skinless chicken breasts and turkey cutlets are the leanest cuts.
# Remove skin from chicken before cooking.
# When choosing luncheon meats, choose lean turkey, roast beef or ham instead of meats with more fat, such as regular bologna or salami.
# Trim all visible fat before cooking meats and poultry.
# When cooking meat, poultry or fish, choose to broil, grill, roast, poach or boil instead of frying. Drain away any fat that appears when cooking.
# Avoid or limit breading meat, poultry or fish.
# Avoid sauces and gravies with lots of fat.
Source:"www.mypyramid.gov

Call to extend pupil weight scheme - UKPA

Call to extend pupil weight scheme - UKPA


Children should be measured throughout their school life to combat obesity, a campaigner has said.

Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said the majority of excess weight was put on in children's final three years at primary school.

He said the National Child Measurement Programme should be extended to include younger children, including those at pre-school age.

The recent Health Survey for England (HSE) showed primary school leavers had put on 20% more weight in a generation since 1990.

"The Government was advised as long ago as 2004 to implement this but refused to do it," said Mr Fry. "We have to know when the early signs of unhealthy weight set in so that prevention measures can be put in place before weight becomes a problem."

Experts predicted children would consume 6,000 calories over Christmas Day.

Figures released earlier this month showed almost one in four boys and more than one in five girls were overweight or obese at the start of their school life.

A further 35% of boys and 31% of girls in their final year of primary school - aged 10 and 11 - also have weight problems, the Government survey showed. It showed the figures had changed little in recent years - suggesting measures to tackle child obesity had failed.

Around 90% of all eligible children were weighed and measured in the 2008-09 school year as part of the nationwide programme. This equates to more than a million children in reception year - aged four and five - and Year 6 - aged 10 and 11.

Of those, 115,319 in reception year were found to be overweight or obese along with 162,408 in Year 6. In reception year, 14% of boys were overweight and 10% obese, while 13% of girls were overweight and 9% obese.

Seal the health care deal- Honolulu Star Bulletin

Seal the health care deal- Honolulu Star Bulletin



Senate approval on Christmas Eve of health care reform legislation brings Congress a step closer to enactment of universal care, approaching that provided in all other industrial democracies. Both House and Senate bills would mandate employer-based health insurance similar to a successful Hawaii system that was put into place more than 30 years ago and should be left intact.

Bills in both chambers would achieve President Barack Obama's goal of extending coverage to nearly all Americans. The differences between the two bills are controversial but can and should be resolved to make way for universal care that includes more than 30 million presently uninsured people and prevent denial of insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Both bills include provisions that would exempt Hawaii law that assures health care coverage at least as broad as that provided in the federal plan. However, Hawaii's law includes a provision that it would "terminate ... upon the effective date of federal legislation" providing for mandatory prepaid health care for Hawaii residents. That raises questions about whether the state's system will survive, let alone be exempt from some federal requirements.

Provisions of the Senate and House bills differ over coverage of abortions and whether a federally operated plan be included to compete with private insurance companies. Those issues should be resolved in time for enactment by the time of President Obama's state-of-the-union address in late January.

The so-called government option included in the House bill is likely to be set aside. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would accept the Senate bill's creation of two or more insurance plans operated by private companies and overseen by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which handles health insurance for federal employees, including members of Congress.

Time will tell whether the federally overseen plans inject enough competition into the market to reduce the price of insurance premiums. If not, Congress should amend the law to require health insurance to be nonprofit, an approach that has been effective in Germany and other countries in keeping prices down. Republicans have called such a system socialistic, which it is not.

"Premiums are out of hand," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "Chief executive salaries are out of hand. Administrative costs are out of hand. My bottom-line belief is that the health insurance industry should be nonprofit."

That must wait for another day. The priority now is to put into place a federal health care system sought since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.



Senate approval on Christmas Eve of health care reform legislation brings Congress a step closer to enactment of universal care, approaching that provided in all other industrial democracies. Both House and Senate bills would mandate employer-based health insurance similar to a successful Hawaii system that was put into place more than 30 years ago and should be left intact.


Bills in both chambers would achieve President Barack Obama's goal of extending coverage to nearly all Americans. The differences between the two bills are controversial but can and should be resolved to make way for universal care that includes more than 30 million presently uninsured people and prevent denial of insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Both bills include provisions that would exempt Hawaii law that assures health care coverage at least as broad as that provided in the federal plan. However, Hawaii's law includes a provision that it would "terminate ... upon the effective date of federal legislation" providing for mandatory prepaid health care for Hawaii residents. That raises questions about whether the state's system will survive, let alone be exempt from some federal requirements.

Provisions of the Senate and House bills differ over coverage of abortions and whether a federally operated plan be included to compete with private insurance companies. Those issues should be resolved in time for enactment by the time of President Obama's state-of-the-union address in late January.

The so-called government option included in the House bill is likely to be set aside. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would accept the Senate bill's creation of two or more insurance plans operated by private companies and overseen by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which handles health insurance for federal employees, including members of Congress.

Time will tell whether the federally overseen plans inject enough competition into the market to reduce the price of insurance premiums. If not, Congress should amend the law to require health insurance to be nonprofit, an approach that has been effective in Germany and other countries in keeping prices down. Republicans have called such a system socialistic, which it is not.

"Premiums are out of hand," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "Chief executive salaries are out of hand. Administrative costs are out of hand. My bottom-line belief is that the health insurance industry should be nonprofit."

That must wait for another day. The priority now is to put into place a federal health care system sought since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

U.S. Move to Cover Fannie, Freddie Losses Stirs Controversy - WSJ

U.S. Move to Cover Fannie, Freddie Losses Stirs Controversy - WSJ


The Obama administration's decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday.

The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each.

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was "necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market," the Treasury said. Fannie and Freddie purchase or guarantee most U.S. home mortgages and have run up huge losses stemming from the worst wave of defaults since the 1930s.

"The timing of this executive order giving Fannie and Freddie a blank check is no coincidence," said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee. He said the Christmas Eve announcement was designed "to prevent the general public from taking note."

Treasury officials couldn't be reached for comment Friday.

So far, Treasury has provided $60 billion of capital to Fannie and $51 billion to Freddie. Mahesh Swaminathan, a senior mortgage analyst at Credit Suisse in New York, said he didn't believe Fannie and Freddie would need more than $200 billion apiece from the Treasury. But he and other analysts have said the market would find a larger commitment from the Treasury reassuring.

In exchange for the funding, the Treasury has received preferred stock in the companies paying 10% dividends. The Treasury also has warrants to acquire nearly 80% of the common shares in each firm.

The Treasury removed the cap on the size of available bailout funds by amending agreements it reached with the companies in September 2008, when the government seized control of the agencies under a legal process called conservatorship. The agreement allowed the Treasury to make amendments through the end of the year, without the consent of Congress. Changes made after Dec. 31 would likely involve a struggle with lawmakers over the terms.

Some Republicans are angry the administration is expanding the potential size of the bailout without having a plan for eventually ending the federal government's role in the companies.

The Treasury reiterated administration plans for a "preliminary report" on the government's future role in the mortgage market around the time the federal budget proposal is released in February.

The companies on Thursday disclosed new packages that will pay Fannie Chief Executive Officer Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. as much as $6 million a year, including bonuses. The packages were approved by the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which regulates the companies.

The FHFA said compensation for executive officers of the companies in 2009, on average, is down 40% from the pay levels before the conservatorship.

Under the conservatorship, top officers of Fannie and Freddie take their cues from the Treasury and regulators on all major decisions, current and former executives say. The government has made foreclosure-prevention efforts its top priority.

The pay packages for top officers are entirely in cash; company shares have been trading on the New York Stock Exchange at less than $2 apiece, and it isn't clear when the companies will to profitability or whether common shares will have any value in the long term.

For the CEOs, annual compensation consists of a base salary of $900,000, deferred base salary of $3.1 million and incentive pay of as much as $2 million.

When Mr. Haldeman was hired by Freddie in July, the company set his base pay at $900,000 and said his additional "incentive" pay would depend on a decision by the regulator.

At Fannie, Mr. Williams was chief operating officer until he was promoted in April to CEO. As COO, his base salary was $676,000. He also had annual deferred pay of $2.3 million and a long-term incentive award of as much as $1.5 million.

Under the new packages, Fannie will pay as much as about $3.6 million annually to David M. Johnson, chief financial officer; $2.4 million to Kenneth Bacon, who heads a unit that finances apartment buildings; $2.8 million to David Benson, capital markets chief; $2.2 million to David Hisey, deputy chief financial officer; $3 million to Timothy Mayopoulos, general counsel; and $2.8 million to Kenneth Phelan, chief risk officer.

At Freddie, annual compensation will total as much as $4.5 million for Bruce Witherell, chief operating officer; $3.5 million for Ross Kari, chief financial officer; $2.8 million for Robert Bostrom, general counsel; and $2.7 million for Paul George, head of human resources.

The pay deals also drew fire. With unemployment near 10%, "to be handing out $6 million bonuses to essentially federal employees is unconscionable," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who is a frequent critic of Fannie and Freddie.

He also criticized the administration for approving the compensation without settling on a plan to remove taxpayer supports: "To be doing that with no plan in place is just unconscionable."

The FHFA said that Fannie and Freddie "must attract and retain the talent needed" for their vital role in the mortgage market.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Retailers hurt by shrinking lending- Business Week

Retailers hurt by shrinking lending- Business Week

By Lauren Coleman-Lochner

Dec. 23 Bloomberg -- Target Corp. and U.S. retailers may lose almost $9 billion in holiday sales as banks rein in lending to cash-strapped consumers before a new credit-card law takes effect.


Sales in November and December may fall 1.2 percent to $436.7 billion from the same period in 2008, said Britt Beemer, chairman of consumer polling firm Americaâ??s Research Group. If lenders werenâ??t cutting customer spending limits and rejecting more credit-card applicants, sales would gain about 0.8 percent to $445.5 billion, he said in a Dec. 21 interview.


Target Chief Financial Officer Douglas Scovanner says the credit-card legislation is exacerbating a spending slump just as consumers begin to consider more discretionary purchases they would usually buy with credit. Items such as clothing, jewelry and home goods suffered steeper declines during the recession and are among the most profitable sales for retailers.

Feeding our hungry - Miami Herald

Feeding our hungry - Miami Herald


Istrongly believe that America's ingenuity and sense of fairness should be applied to the effort of eliminating childhood hunger in this country. The Department of Agriculture is deeply involved in this effort as we work toward a national approach that promotes economic opportunity.

Last year 17 million households, 14.6 percent of us, had difficulty putting enough food on the table at some point, according to a recent USDA report. This is an 11.1 percent increase from 2007 and the highest level seen since food-security surveys were initiated in 1995.

Equally troubling, one-third of food-insecure households had what is termed low food security -- 5.7 percent of all U.S. households, up from 4.1 percent in 2007. And, while children in U.S. households are usually protected from the worst results of food insecurity, last year 1.3 percent of households with children -- about a half million -- had very low food security, up from 0.8 percent the previous year.

The fundamental cause of food insecurity and hunger in the United States is poverty, defined by a lack of adequate resources to address basic needs such as food, shelter and healthcare.

While USDA's nutrition safety net improves food access to those with critical needs, addressing the root of hunger requires a broad strategy. The Obama administration has taken aggressive action on these fronts through an expansion of critical services for Americans most in need. For one, the historic investments of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increases nutrition-assistance benefits for the 36.5 million people, half of whom are children, who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly the food stamp program, each month.

Getting $80 more

ARRA allocates an additional $20 billion for SNAP, increasing much-needed benefits to recipients and helping states administer the program more efficiently. A four-person household, for example, now receives an average of $80 more for groceries, while states can expand benefits to more jobless adults beyond the usual three-month time limit.

We have another extraordinary opportunity to improve the health and nutrition of our children when Congress debates the Child Nutrition Reauthorization. The National School Lunch Program, for one, serves 31 million children a healthy meal each school day, and in some cases is a needy child's primary meal. Through direct certification, children participating in SNAP are automatically eligible for the school lunch program.

And the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children ensures mothers and their children have access to nutritious options as well. Almost half of all children born in this country participate in this program.

Eliminate gap

Through the reauthorization, Congress can make it easier for families and administrators to bring eligible children into the program and eliminate gap periods when children struggle to find the nutrition assistance they need -- at breakfast, during summer and in after-school settings.

President Obama and I are dedicated to improving access to child-nutrition programs, enhancing the nutritional quality of school meals and reducing the growing epidemic of childhood obesity. The president's budget recognizes the opportunity presented by reauthorization and his priorities underscore his commitment to people who are hungry and nutritionally at risk. Through concerted efforts and partnerships at all levels, we can pass a groundbreaking reauthorization bill to meet these goals and strengthen America's safety net against hunger.

The administration has put in place unprecedented measures and legislation to combat hunger and poverty in America and to assist food-insecure households. But hunger will never be eliminated unless we unite in this fight. The recent USDA report on food security is another wake-up call for all of us.

Greater Chicago Food Depository distributes food donated from supermarkets- Chicago Tribune

Greater Chicago Food Depository distributes food donated from supermarkets- Chicago Tribune
'Food rescue' program helps area pantries fight hunger while reducing food waste


The trove of food on the loading dock of a Countryside Jewel supermarket on a recent Friday morning would make many nutritious meals. Fresh bread and buns. Bags of spinach and carrots. And lots of meat straight from the cooler: loin steaks, ground turkey, chicken wings, sausage.

All of it would have been landfill-bound if not for the Greater Chicago Food Depository's food rescue program. Instead, by the end of that Friday, those groceries and much more perfectly edible food went to food banks across Chicago.

The rescue program, which counts Jewel as its biggest donor, is a nonprofit/corporate partnership that helps reduce the nation's mountain of food waste while helping to fight hunger. The food program resonates even more now as the numbers of unemployed continue to rise.

"Picking up the excess from supermarkets is important and valuable in that it puts food to use," said Jonathan Bloom, who runs Wasted Food, a Web site chronicling food waste issues.

Still, supermarket food rescue is only "a piece of the puzzle," he said. Food waste abounds from farms, where crops are sometimes plowed under when prices are low, to restaurants that serve gigantic portions to consumers who pitch their leftovers.

Efrain Reyes, a 46-year-old South Sider who works for the Greater Chicago Food Depository, crisscrosses the city in a truck daily, calling on several supermarkets. The holiday season is the busiest time of the year.

On a recent Friday, Reyes, driving a new truck donated by Charter One bank, pulled out of the food depository's Southwest Side headquarters at 7:02 a.m., headed for a Sam's Club in La Grange. He'd stop at seven more supermarkets on this day: one Food 4 Less outlet and six Jewels. Then he'd ferry the goods directly to four church-run food pantries on the South Side.

Reyes' early-morning stops yield a smorgasbord: various beef cuts, whole chickens, surimi (ground fish), shucked cold oysters, chilled pineapple slices, bags of lettuce, pies and other baked goods. "There's a certain date it has to be sold by, but it's still good food," he said.

The food Reyes picks up has reached its "sell by" date. That's a label many food retailers put on their products as a self-imposed quality assurance standard, said Miguel Alba, a spokesman for Jewel, the Chicago area's largest supermarket chain.

Though freshness declines after the sell-by date, many products will continue to remain nutritious and edible for an extended period, Alba said, and freezing items such as meat and baked goods can further extend their life.

Jewel donated 62 percent of the 6.1 million pounds of food distributed through the Chicago food rescue program in its most recent fiscal year. Dominick's, the area's second-largest grocery chain, doesn't participate in the rescue program, but it helps to support the depository through cash donations and food drives at its stores.

The depository operates eight trucks that visit dozens of supermarkets throughout Cook County. A similar, though smaller, food rescue program run by the Northern Illinois Food Bank serves the surrounding counties. Rescue programs thrive in cities across the country, as well on a national level through hunger-relief agency Feeding America.

They have plenty of food to pick up. Food waste per capita in the U.S. has been steadily increasing, according to a study published last month by researchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in Bethesda, Md.

They found that from 1974 to 2000, food waste as a percentage of food supply rose from 30 percent to 40 percent, though it tailed off a bit through 2005, the most recent year covered in the study. That finding encompasses food lost at the production level, through retail channels and from consumer waste.

But U.S. Department of Agriculture data show that the loss at grocery stores alone can be significant. A USDA study released this year showed that in 2006, 8.4 percent of all fresh produce at supermarkets went to waste.

Landfills swell with food waste -- food scraps made up 12.7 percent of the 250 million tons of municipal solid waste generated last year in this country, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

And unlike paper, metal or glass, food is not easily recyclable. Only 2.5 percent of food waste was recycled -- and that includes composting -- while 55.5 percent of paper waste was recovered, according to the EPA.

Food rescue programs are effectively recycling efforts. And companies have economic and social incentives to participate in them, said Bob Dolgan, a food depository spokesman. "They get a tax break, and it's more efficient for them to donate to us and do some good than dispose of (waste food) themselves."

The rescue program provided about one-tenth of the 58 million pounds of food distributed by the Chicago food depository in its most recent fiscal year. The rest came from donations from the federal government, the Chicago International Produce Market (a wholesaler) and packaged-food makers, notably Kraft Foods and Sara Lee, both of which are based in the Chicago area.

As the supply of donations has grown, so has demand.



A USDA report released last month found that 14.6 percent of U.S. households had difficulty at some time during 2008 providing enough food for all their members. That was up from 11.1 percent in 2007 and was the highest level recorded since the USDA began collecting such data in 1995.

Since the USDA's 2008 survey, economic damage has only spread, as the U.S. unemployment rate rose from 6.6 percent in October 2008 to around 10 percent in October 2009. Lost jobs means lost money to buy food.

During the nine months ending in September, visits to food pantries supplied by the Chicago food depository soared 33 percent to 3.6 million. One of those food pantries is run by Cornerstone Church of Chicago on the Southeast Side.

"It's been hitting us really hard," Adraine Lloyd, coordinator of the church's food pantry, said of the recession.

Lloyd said the food rescue program meets a particular need because it includes so many fresh items. "Last week, we got a lot of meat," she said of a recent delivery from the food rescue truck. Sometimes fresh fish even shows up: "It's like, 'Oh my God, we got the fish.' "

Barbara Smith, who runs the food pantry and soup kitchen at Bryn Mawr Community Church on the South Side, said the food rescue truck "is showing up with items that are highly desirable." That includes fresh produce and, of course, meat.

"Meat is a top commodity," said Reyes as he drove from one Jewel store to another. "Everybody wants the meat."

mhughlett@tribune.com

Want to help?
--To learn about volunteering or donating food or money to the Greater Chicago Food Depository, call 773-247-FOOD (3663) or go online at chicagosfoodbank.org.

--Feeding America comprises a nationwide network of food banks, including the Northern Illinois Food Bank. Search for Illinois food banks at feedingamerica.org.

--The Living Room Cafe in Woodlawn and the Inspiration Cafe in Uptown serve restaurant-style meals to the homeless. To learn about volunteering, visit inspirationcorp.org.

--Other local organizations include the Chicago Anti-Hunger Federation,antihunger.org, and the Illinois Hunger Coalition, ilhunger.org.

Copenhagen reveals nations are worlds apart - Patriot News

Copenhagen reveals nations are worlds apart - Patriot News
By Patriot-News Op-Ed
December 24, 2009, 5:30AM

There was something new in the air at the recently concluded Copenhagen climate change negotiations even though they have largely been deemed a failure.
These developments have profound implications for the international community, particularly for developed countries.

I’ve been participating in international climate change negotiating sessions since the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, including seven conferences under the United States Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I also negotiated climate change and other environmental issues for the EPA at the United Nations from 1995 to 1998.

This experience leads me to conclude that there are two big new stories that unfolded in Copenhagen: ethical dilemmas and the practicalities of adaptation.
In the past, worldwide interest on climate change negotiations was focused mainly on national emissions targets.

The first new issue is the frequency and centrality in which arguments were made in Copenhagen that climate change is an ethical issue, and its solutions must be guided by ethical, justice and human rights principles and not national self-interest alone.

The Copenhagen agenda included dozens of meetings expressly devoted to the ethical dimensions of climate change.

Hundreds of delegates from poor nations whose citizens already are suffering from a warming world passionately implored rich nations to take action sufficient to protect the vulnerable.

They described killer droughts and growing deserts in Africa, loss of glacier-fed water supplies for millions in Central Asia and South America, and rising seas that are now threatening the existence of small island states. For many poor countries, climate change is an urgent matter of life and death.

Despite the growing recognition that climate change is an ethical matter, many developed nations continued to negotiate as if national economic interest alone was a sufficient justification for national positions.

In fact, no developed nation put on the table a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that was congruent with what science is now saying is necessary to protect those most vulnerable from dangerous climate change.

President Obama was constrained by domestic politics because he could not commit to emissions reduction levels that had little chance of passing in Congress. Yet many in the rest of the world saw the U.S. position as based upon narrow U.S. economic interest, not duties to poor people.

The United States was willing to commit to a 17 percent reduction below 2005, which equaled a 4 percent reduction below 1990 levels.

Yet recent science has concluded that the world needs to reduce global emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 by 2020 to avoid dangerous climate change. From the standpoint of the most vulnerable poor countries, the U.S. position amounted to a death sentence.

The United States was not alone.

When Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd arrived in Copenhagen, he announced that he was not going to sign any agreement that was not in Australia’s interest.

The second big item that happened in Copenhagen was the huge blossoming of climate change damage issues. All of a sudden, the world has awakened to specific adaptation questions such as who is going to pay for climate change damages? How should these monies be administered? To whom should they go? How to set priorities among adaptation needs? And how much money will be made available for growing adaptation needs?

From the standpoint of the poorest developing countries, adaptation issues have been a high priority for some time, but now they have become critical.
dbrown.jpgDonald Brown

The proposed negotiating text called for developed countries to finance several adaptation needs of poor countries including: (a) vulnerability assessments, (b) national adaptation planning, (c) project adaptation implementation, (d) new international and regional adaptation bodies, and (e) pay for all of this with mandatory, new, and predictable funding. The proposed text also called for funding in the range of $70 to $140 billion per year until 2020 and then updated after that.

Although President Obama managed to get an agreement among a few of the larger polluting countries, this deal does not have the support of most developing countries, nor is it likely to be a blueprint for a future global deal.

Copenhagen did not produce the deal hoped for by many because developed and developing countries are on a different track. The developing countries want justice and the developed countries want to protect their economic interests.

Donald Brown is assistant professor of environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University.

Senate Passes Sweeping Health-Care Bill - WSJ

Senate Passes Sweeping Health-Care Bill

WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved sweeping health-overhaul legislation on Thursday, a landmark moment for White House-led efforts to expand insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

The bill, approved by a 60-39 vote, would deliver on a long-promised Democratic goal of extending coverage to nearly every American, and would represent the biggest expansion of the federal safety net since the 1965 creation of Medicare, the health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

Thursday's vote was a victory for President Barack Obama, who made the issue his top domestic priority despite lingering divisions among Democrats and the fierce opposition of Republicans. And it was a validation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to build consensus on his side of the aisle, rather than reach across party lines, a move that would have forced a lowering of ambitions.


Republicans said the bill would impose massive regulatory and financial burdens on taxpayers and businesses, and would dig the government even deeper in debt. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) told the chamber just before the vote that Democrats should expect an "earful" from angry constituents when they go home

"This fight is long from over," Mr. McConnell said. "My colleagues and I will fight to ensure this bill doesn't become law. That's the clear will of the American people."

Mr. Reid said he also expected to get an earful, but from Americans who will benefit from the expanded health-care coverage and new rules on insurance companies. "Our charge is to move forward," he said, adding that the bill meets a national need that presidents have pushed for since Harry Truman. "Though some may slow the progress, they cannot stop it," he said.

With Christmas looming, Mr. Reid closed a series of last-minute deals to secure the support of balky Democrats and then plunged the Senate into a forced march, beginning with a 1 a.m. vote Monday and culminating with Thursday's roll call at 7 a.m. on passage of the bill.

The 10-year $871 billion measure would expand Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and create new tax subsidies to help lower- and middle-income families comply with a mandate to purchase insurance. That mandate would be enforced by a financial penalty of up to $750 for any individual who fails to get coverage.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over the next decade, through a combination of tax increases on the health-care sector and spending cuts, which largely fall on Medicare payments to health-care providers.

The last time the Senate voted on Christmas Eve was 1895, the issue then being whether to provide federal benefits for U.S. servicemen. In a ceremony with 19th-century echoes, senators rose one by one Thursday from their simple wooden desks to cast their votes. Vice President Joe Biden presided over the chamber.

"Mr. President, this is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye," said 92-year-old Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, referring to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was a champion of universal health care. Sen. Kennedy's widow watched the vote from the gallery.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) called the vote the "most important" in his more than 20 years as a U.S. senator.

More at the link

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

LA Times - Food banks take the lead in soliciting healthier eats


Food banks take the lead in soliciting healthier eats


Steve Sharp paws through a 4-foot-high pile of corn, sending flies everywhere and exposing the first signs of rot under the late fall sun. He pulls out an ear and shucks it.

"There's nothing wrong with that," he says, standing at a packing shed in Holtville, a tiny town in the agricultural spread of the Imperial Valley. He finds two more ears just as good, the kernels just starting to dry out.

The grower, Rudy Schaffner, once thought of that corn -- perfectly edible ears that are too short or have blank spots on the cob called "skips" -- as food for his cows or as compost. Sharp saw a potential supply line for California's food banks and the hungry people they feed.

Sharp is one of three Farm to Family solicitors, who spend their days trolling the state, talking to growers to find fruits and vegetables for people who rely on food pantries and soup kitchens for sustenance.

The solicitors' work marks both a more aggressive approach to feeding those who need help and an effort to improve nutrition.

Not so long ago, food banks got the salvage from grocery stores -- "scratch and dent" products that couldn't be sold, said Sue Sigler, executive director of the California Assn. of Food Banks. And they got industry donations -- "overwhelmingly canned and packaged" goods -- and government surplus commodities.

But now, supermarkets are much better able to track and predict what will sell, thanks to innovations such as customer club cards. So they have fewer leftovers. At the same time, secondary markets overseas and dollar stores are taking many of the products that might have gone to food banks, Sigler said.

The changes coincide with what Sigler said is "a sea shift in food banking, due to recommendations about proper nutrition, the link between food insecurity and obesity."

"The common wisdom in food banks for many years was that we need to give people adequate calories," she said. "Now we know that we also need to give people healthy food."

All of these forces combined mean that food banks are becoming assertive shoppers. This year, Farm to Family, a program of the California Assn. of Food Banks, will secure 87 million pounds of seasonal produce, some donated but most of it purchased for pennies on the dollar, for 44 food banks all over California, said Ron Clark, the association's food sourcing and logistics manager.

"Ten years ago, food banks were much more passive," said Michael Flood, who runs the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, one of the largest food banks in the country. They took what they could get -- packaged food that might have been supermarket rejects or new products that failed.

Today, 20% of the L.A. bank's food is produce -- by far the largest single category, Flood said.

Farmers have long donated food to their local food banks or have allowed people to glean leftovers from their fields. But in 2005, the California Assn. of Food Banks got involved, hiring one solicitor who procured 10 million pounds of food. In 2008, three solicitors got 64 million pounds of produce. A fourth solicitor begins work in January.

Sharp, whose family has long farmed in the Imperial Valley, is a deal maker in a Dodge pickup and a straw cowboy hat, seeking farmers in the Imperial and Coachella valleys who are willing to harvest or pack crops they can't otherwise sell. They get paid just enough to get the cabbage or garlic or melons into bins.

"Two weeks ago I had a grower call me and say he had a truckload of cantaloupes and one of honeydew. So I have to go look at it and make sure the quality is there," Sharp said. "They were just real small, and nobody wanted it. There was no market for that size of melon."

He hopes to get Schaffner's off-size corn come spring. Schaffner has agreed to work on adapting his conveyor belt system to handle what Sharp needs. They think of it as finding a solution "farmer style."

"The cool thing is, we've got a problem and we're taking care of it directly," Schaffner said one sunny December afternoon in his kitchen, a large poinsettia on the table.

Farmers often have crops that don't meet customers' size or appearance requirements. Or they may have a bumper crop they can't afford to store. A storm in the Northeast can back up produce orders across the country, leaving a farmer with a truckload of unsold food.

"You cut their losses. You are fixing a problem they may have," Sharp said.

Sharp, 53, grew up outside Holtville, and went to a two-room elementary school where, with a parent's permission, students could go barefoot. He lives near his parents and his 95-year-old grandmother, and still farms some with his father. Farmers are his neighbors, folks he saw at his daughters' soccer games or high school fundraisers.


"I know these people," Sharp said, explaining his strategy: "Who's got something we could get?"

He visits people like Schaffner or Jack Vessey, a fourth-generation farmer who grows cabbage and other green vegetables on more than 10,000 acres just north of Mexico.

Vessey, 34, has for years donated food to the food bank in nearby El Centro. But this arrangement is different: Sharp is a customer, albeit one who pays a deeply discounted price.

"It's a win-win situation," Vessey said. "We're happy to help. It's important to give back to the community."

Vessey has contracts for much of his winter cabbage crop, and if a buyer wants 500,000 pounds of cabbage a week, he explained, "You better be sure you have 500,000 pounds from this date to that date. So I plant 10 to 15% more than that."

Sharp works in those margins, and on Dec. 8 bought 38 totes -- cardboard boxes that hold about 1,000 pounds of cabbage. Most of it was trucked a week later to Los Angeles, with the rest divided up among Garden Grove, Oxnard and Santa Barbara, Clark said.

From the truck, 31 of those totes, marked with Vessey's name and the farm's horseshoe logo, were stacked in a huge room at the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, a 96,000-square-foot facility south of downtown that can store about 2.9 million pounds of food.

The next morning, on a Wednesday, 20 welfare-to-work participants spent about four hours in what the food bank calls it's gleaning room sorting out any damaged cabbage and moving the rest from the totes to small yellow plastic crates.

Those crates, along with others holding apples, oranges, butternut squash and yams, eventually would go to some of the 900 sites the food bank serves, said gleaning room supervisor Jose Arechiga.

While the fresh produce is prized, it poses challenges. If a vegetable is unfamiliar, it might go unused. Sharp recalls seeing leeks he had provided to one place going bad -- he learned it was because the clients didn't know what to do with them, so they didn't take them home. Now, food banks sometimes provide recipes.

Vessey's cabbage won't go unclaimed, Arechiga said. Cabbage is popular at the pantries because people from many cultures eat it.

Produce must be handled more carefully than canned beans or cereal boxes. Few of the sites that the L.A. Regional Food Bank serves have room to refrigerate food. So a "just-in-time" approach means the sites get their fruits and vegetables just before they're distributed.

On Thursday morning, the day after the food was sorted, a truck from the Food Bank arrived in the parking lot of the New Life in Christ Church in South Los Angeles, carrying 15,000 pounds of cabbage, yams and apples. The food was unloaded, bagged and stacked on seven folding tables under an awning. A line of 50 people had already formed on the sidewalk -- mothers with strollers, an older man with a bike and rickety eyeglasses, older couples. There's a grocery distribution every week, immediately after the fresh food arrives, generally lasting several hours and getting food to as many as 600 families, pastor Elwood Carlos Carson said.

The need is growing, said food program director Isadore G. Gutierrez Jr. People used to get off the bus stop near the church and walk past the distribution. These days more of them join the line, he said.

Vianna Nunez, who suffers from emphysema, waits with a friend to get fruits and vegetables she said she could otherwise not afford.

"With this recession, I'm not working, and the Lord is providing," she said. "This is mainly where I come to get my vegetables. They come really fresh."

Several people behind her stood 23-year-old Lilian Monroy with her 3-yer-old son, Allen Garcia.

"They give out natural, nutritious stuff, things that are healthy," Monroy said approvingly.

Later that day, some of the cabbage went into a soup for her family's lunch. The rest, she said, might go into a salad.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Chiquita Gets EU Notice Regarding Competition Probe - Flex News

Chiquita Gets EU Notice Regarding Competition Probe

Dec 18 - Fresh fruit distributor Chiquita Brands International Inc said it received a notice from the European Commission regarding an investigation into possible violations of competition law in the banana industry.

Earlier this week, the company received a 'statement of objections' related to a probe into activities alleged to have occurred in southern Europe from July 2004 to January 2006, Chiquita said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

A statement of objections is a document in which the European Commission communicates its preliminary view related to a possible infringement of competition laws.The European Commission questioned the granting of immunity or leniency on issues mentioned in the statement, Chiquita said. However, the company said it continued to believe it should be entitled to immunity.
Chiquita said a separate probe in northern Europe on possible violation of competition law has concluded and its final immunity from fines was confirmed. On Thursday, European Union antitrust regulators accused several unnamed banana importers and marketing companies in southern Europe of operating a cartel following inspections on the companies in November 2007.

Rival Fresh Del Monte told Reuters in an email Thursday it had not been implicated in this case. Dole Food Co Inc said late Wednesday it was not an addressee of the statement of objections.

nationalpotatocouncil

National Potato Council                             2010 National Trade Estimate Report-Tariffs/Quotas

NATIONAL POTATO COUNCIL

2010 NATIONAL TRADE ESTIMATE REPORT

ON FOREIGN TRADE BARRIERS

 

              The National Potato Council (NPC) represents the interests of all commercial potato growers in the United States.  The Council assists its potato growers in addressing market access issues for both fresh and processed potatoes in export markets.  In this endeavor, the Council coordinates trade policy objectives with the America Potato Trade Alliance (APTA), a trade group that represents growers as well as many major U.S. potato processors and retailers.

 

              Frozen fries (HS 2004.10) are the industry's primary export product, although fresh, seed, and dehydrated potatoes are also exported in increasing numbers.  Improved access to international markets for frozen fries is of principal importance.  Additionally, improved market access is also sought for fresh and seed potatoes and other processed potato products. 

 

              Exports of U.S. frozen fries to foreign markets such as Japan, Korea, China, and Mexico have increased in recent years due in part to our industry's promotional efforts in these countries.  Exports account for 15% of total U.S. potato production and 16% of frozen potato sales.  U.S. exports of all potato products were valued at $1.2 billion from July 2008 to June 2009.  Unfortunately, access to foreign markets continues to be restricted by a range of trade barriers, described herein. 

 

              The U.S. domestic potato industry urges increased bilateral and multilateral pressure to achieve liberalization, particularly in the fast-growing markets of Asia and Latin America.  Despite the difficulties encountered in concluding the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round multilateral trade negotiations, the industry supports an aggressive Doha Round agreement that includes strong market access gains for U.S. exports of fresh and processed potatoes through significant tariff reductions in export markets of interest to the industry and substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies benefiting potato sectors in competitive foreign countries.

 

              This report is one of three submitted by the NPC, and deals exclusively with traditional trade barriers faced by U.S. potato exports, focusing especially on tariffs and quotas.  It should be considered in conjunction with the NPC’s submissions for SPS issues and standard-measures trade barriers.

 

              A separate page is provided for each country in which trade barriers exist.

 

                                                                                                  John Keeling

                                                                                                  Executive Vice President/CEO

                                                                                                  National Potato Council

                                                                                                  1300 L Street, NW, Suite 910

Washington, D.C.  20005

Phone:              202-682-9456

                                                                                                  Fax:               202-682-0333

                                                                                                  johnkeeling@nationalpotatocouncil.org
November 18, 2009


ARGENTINA

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              Argentine tariffs on potato products range from 10% to 14%, with a 14% tariff applied to fry imports from outside the Mercosur area.  The 14% tariff is significant.  U.S. potato exporters are at a disadvantage against regional producers, who benefit from preferential tariff access. 

 

              A significant reduction of this tariff should be sought in the WTO Doha Round negotiations.  If the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations resume, immediate duty-free access should be sought for all U.S. potato products.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports (less than $5 million)

 

              In Argentina, major Quick Service Restaurants are making inroads and increasing demand for frozen fries.  Given market access that is equal to the access enjoyed by regional competitors, U.S. frozen fry exports would be expected to increase by several million dollars annually.


BRAZIL

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              As part of the Mercosur trade agreement, Brazil imposes a Common External Tariff of 14% on frozen fry imports and 10% on fresh potatoes.  These tariffs increase the price differential between higher cost U.S. frozen fries and low cost product from Argentina, Canada, and the Netherlands.  In fact, the U.S. has completely lost the market to frozen fries from Argentina, which receives preferential tariff access under Mercosur, and to product originating from the European Union (EU).

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($5 to $10 million)

 

              The NPC supports efforts to liberalize trade in Latin America, including through the long-delayed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), as long as it results in immediate duty-free access for U.S. potato products and facilitates the removal of unjustified phytosanitary restrictions. 

 

              The NPC also supports a significant reduction in Brazil’s tariffs on potato products through the WTO Doha negotiations. 

 

              Brazil’s large economy offers significant opportunities for U.S. potato exports.  Tariff access equivalent to that received by Mercosur countries would allow U.S. exports to be competitive with lower-priced imports from Argentina and elsewhere.  U.S frozen fry exports to Brazil would be expected to increase by several million dollars annually.


CHINA

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              Hotel and restaurant management in China report that high Chinese tariffs are the primary constraint to using imported U.S. potato products.  Significantly reduced tariffs for frozen fries (HS 2004.1) are of primary interest, since this is the U.S. potato industry's leading export product.  Dehydrated potato products (HS 1105.2/2005.2) are of next importance, because Chinese trade contacts have expressed interest in these products.  The Council is interested in exporting U.S. fresh potatoes to China for both consumption and further processing, but first the phytosanitary ban must be overcome.

 

              China’s bound tariffs resulting from its WTO accession agreement are shown below.  To have meaningful competitive access, U.S. potato growers and processors are seeking the elimination or significant reduction of these tariffs for potato products in the WTO Doha Round agriculture negotiations through a sectoral agreement.

 

HS#

Description

China's Bound Rate as of 2004

0701.90

Fresh Potatoes

13%

0710.10

Frozen Potatoes

13%

1105.10

Potato Flour and Meal

15%

1105.20

Potato Flakes

15%

2004.10

Frozen Fries

13%

2005.20

Other prepared or preserved potatoes, including chips

15%

1108.13

Potato Starch

15%

 

              The tariff issue has become critically important, especially after China and New Zealand concluded a free trade agreement in 2008 that stipulates that Chinese tariffs on New Zealand potatoes will be eliminated over five years.  As of 2013, New Zealand fries will enter China duty free, while U.S. fries may remain at the 13% most favored nation (MFN) rate. 

 

              There is also a need for China to make its import policies, including the application of a 17% Value-Added-Tax (VAT), more transparent.  In past years, the industry reported that China levied its VAT tax twice, once on the CIF value of the imported product and then again on the combined CIF value of the goods (plus the 17% tax) and the applicable tariff for that classification number.  A reduction in the VAT is needed.

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($15 million)

 

              Although China is the leading producer of potatoes, Chinese production is for local consumption only and is primarily consumed in fresh form.  China is among the fastest growing major market for the U.S. processed potato industry.  U.S. exports of frozen potato products to China have increased significantly in recent years.  U.S. frozen potato exports to China in 2008-09 were valued at $34.9 million. With lower tariffs, it is expected that the market for U.S. frozen potato products could grow to $50 million.  The U.S. Potato Board estimates an immediate increase in sales of dehydrated potatoes of $5 million with lower tariffs.


COLOMBIA

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              U.S. potato growers and processors are interested in achieving liberalized access to Colombia and other markets in Latin and Central America.  Tariffs and competition from regional producers who benefit from preferential access to these markets limit the ability of U.S. growers and processors to achieve any meaningful market presence.  For this reason, industry members support the adoption and implementation of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and appreciate the duty-free access for potatoes obtained in the FTA agreement.

 

              U.S. potato product exports to Colombia face an applied 20% tariff on frozen fries and a 15% tariff on fresh potatoes.  The bound rate is 70% on frozen fries.  U.S. potato exports are disadvantaged further by competition from regional producers who benefit from preferential tariff access to the market under regional trade agreements.

 

              In the U.S. FTA negotiations with Colombia, the National Potato Council was extremely pleased to learn of the immediate duty-free tariff concessions obtained for U.S. potato exports.  The National Potato Council supports the quick implementation of this agreement.   

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($10 million)

 

              In Colombia and other markets in Latin America, major Quick Service Restaurants are making inroads and increasing demand for frozen fries.  Given market access equal to regional competitors, U.S. frozen fry exports could dominate these markets.  While short-term increases are limited by the slow economies in the region, U.S. frozen fry exports would be expected to increase by several million dollars annually if tariffs and other market access barriers were eliminated.


COSTA RICA

 

 

I.              Application of Quotas

 

              With the implementation of the U.S.-Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) in Costa Rica in 2009, tariff reductions for U.S. potatoes are underway.  However, challenges have emerged, in the granting of import licenses associated with potato quotas.  Apparently, Costa Rican authorities have opened the import licenses to the public, which has resulted in many individuals who have no intention of importing U.S. potatoes obtaining a share of the quota.  Instead, their hope is to illegally resell the licenses at a premium to legitimate importers.  In the meantime, actual importers do not obtain sufficient quota to meet their needs.  This system needs to be addressed. 

 

              In October 2009, the U.S. potato industry approached USDA at the U.S. Embassy in San Jose for assistance.  Apparently, a similar situation affecting Canadian product occurred in years past and the situation was rectified after the Canadian government weighed in.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($5 to $10 million)

 

              The U.S. industry exported $592,322 worth of fries to Costa Rica in 2008-09.  Because of the Canada-Costa Rica FTA, significant market share has been lost to Canada, as Canada is benefiting from a preferential TRQ.  Now that DR-CAFTA has been implemented, fry exports should increase to $5 million and could expand further in the future.  Dehydrated exports have been limited to date, but could reach $1 million with the elimination of all dehydrated tariffs.  With full access, fresh potato exports, particularly for processing into chips, could reach over $2 million.

 

              In order for this expansion to occur, Costa Rica’s quota system needs to be improved.


ECUADOR

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              U.S. potato growers and processors are interested in achieving liberalized access to Ecuador and other markets in Latin and Central America.  Tariffs and competition from regional producers who benefit from preferential access to Ecuador’s market limit the ability of U.S. growers and processors to achieve any meaningful market presence. 

 

              For this reason, industry members would support a U.S.-Ecuadorian Free Trade Agreement, provided the agreement grants immediate duty free access for U.S. potato products.

 

              U.S. potato exports to Ecuador face a 30% tariff on frozen fries and a 20% tariff on fresh potatoes.

 

              These tariffs are significant. U.S. potato exporters are disadvantaged further by competition from regional producers who benefit from preferential tariff access to the market under regional trade agreements. 

 

              If the U.S.-Ecuador FTA negotiations resume, the U.S. potato industry urges USTR to seek immediate duty-free access for U.S. potato products.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports (less than $5 million)

 

              In Ecuador and other markets in Latin America, major Quick Service Restaurants are making inroads and increasing demand for frozen fries.  Given market access equal to regional competitors, U.S. frozen fry exports could dominate these markets. 

 

              While short-term increases are limited by the slow economies in some of these countries, U.S. frozen fry exports to Ecuador would be expected to increase by several million dollars annually if tariffs and other market access barriers were eliminated.


              INDIA

 

 

I.              Trade Barrier Description - Excessive Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              U.S. potato growers and processors have identified India as an important growth market for U.S. frozen fry exports based primarily on the expansion of U.S. Quick Service Restaurant chains in the country.  India currently applies a 30% duty on imported potato products.  This applied rate is lower than India’s bound rate, but the reduction has been nullified to some extent by the addition and occasional repeal of a variety of “taxes” in addition to the ad valorem tariff. 

 

India applies a 12.36% service tax.  The current effective duty paid is over 40% on frozen fries, including a 30% tariff, 4% ADC, and two 3% educational taxes.  It is unclear if the other taxes are also applied domestically and therefore WTO compliant.

 

              In recent years, the U.S. potato industry, in coordination with the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, has requested that India significantly lower its 30% duty on frozen potatoes and 30% duty on dehydrated through the annual Indian budget cycles in which tariffs are set. 

 

Likewise, the U.S. potato industry requested that only the tariff (and not the additional taxes) be applied on potato imports.  To date, no progress has been made on any of these requests.  The potato industry is also seeking a significant reduction in India’s tariff in the WTO Doha Round agricultural negotiations.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($25 million)

 

              The U.S. exported $1.8 million worth of fries to India in 2008-09.  Although it is difficult to estimate market potential for U.S. potato products in India since these products have been virtually banned for more than thirty years, the U.S. industry believes that the market presents huge potential for U.S. fries and other potato products. U.S. potato exports to India could be worth $5 million in three years and $20 million in ten years with lower tariffs, based on interest in frozen fry products by U.S. fast food franchises in India.  A lower tariff on dehydrated potatoes could yield $2 million in sales with quick growth to over $5 million, due to the growing snack food industry in India.


INDONESIA

 

 

I.              Excessive Tariff and Tax

 

Frozen Fries:  In March 1998, as part of the Indonesian government's agreement with the International Monetary Fund, the government temporarily reduced its tariff on all agricultural products to 5%.  The Uruguay Round bound rate of 50%, however, remains excessive.

 

              Fresh Potatoes:  In March 2005, in an effort to protect domestic growers, Indonesia increased the applied tariff on fresh table stock potatoes (HS 0701.90) from 5% to 25%.  This move remained WTO compliant because Indonesia’s bound rate is 50%.  However, such an action runs counter to WTO intentions of not increasing tariffs.

 

              Indonesia’s bound rates are excessive.  Although most applied rates are temporarily low, due to the lifting of the IMF restrictions on these tariffs, Indonesia could move to raise them to bound levels, as occurred with fresh potatoes in 2005.  To prevent this possibility, in the context of the WTO Doha negotiations, the industry urges the U.S. government to press Indonesia to bind its tariffs at the low 5% applied rate.

 

              The U.S. potato industry is also aware that Indonesia applies the low 5% tariff to set reference prices for some U.S. horticultural products.  These prices are inevitably higher than the invoice price, thus raising costs to importers, exporters, and consumers. 

 

              Furthermore, it appears that these reference prices can differ depending on the country of origin of the exports.  This practice violates international standards and should be stopped.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($15 million)

 

              Indonesia is a promising market for U.S. potatoes, with frozen potato exports reaching $7.7 million in 2008-09.  Market research indicates that a binding of the duties at 5% would provide security to exporters and importers and increase annual U.S. exports of frozen fries to Indonesia by up to $15 million. 

 

              If the applied tariffs increase, it will mean a significant loss in current export sales.


JAPAN

 

 

I.              Excessive Tariffs

 

              Japan's tariff on frozen fries is 8.5%.  Due to the large volume of frozen fries exported to Japan, this is a significant expense for the U.S. potato industry.  Japan's tariff on dehydrated potato flakes is 20%, which is excessive. 

 

              In the WTO Doha negotiations, the U.S. potato industry urges U.S. negotiators to seek the immediate elimination of Japan's frozen fry and dehydrated potato tariffs.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase In Exports (over $15 million)

 

              Japan is the largest export market for U.S. frozen fries.  In 2008-09, U.S. exports of frozen potatoes to Japan were $261 million and dehydrated potatoes were $22.1 million.  An elimination of the tariffs on frozen fries and dehydrated potatoes would increase exports to Japan by at least $7.5 million a year for each product. 


KOREA

 

 

I.              Restrictive Tariffs and TRQs

 

              Since 1988, when Korea lifted its import ban on frozen fries, U.S. exports of fries and other processed potatoes have entered the market, but at a slower pace than expected.  This is because of Korea's continued policy to discourage imports that compete with domestic production through high tariffs and non-transparent policies. 

 

              In the context of the Uruguay Round Agreement, Korea offered only limited tariff concessions on potato products and on several products put in place restrictive tariff rate quotas (TRQs).  For fresh potatoes (HS 0701.90), Korea established a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) with a quota volume of only 18,800 MTs in 2007.  The over-quota duty is a prohibitive 304%.   Market access is restricted by both the tariff and quantitative restriction.

 

              Similarly restrictive TRQs were adopted for potato flour, meal, pellets and flakes.  Under Uruguay Round commitments, Korea established a limited TRQ of 60 metric tons for all products classified in the Harmonized System under HS 1105.  The TRQ was reduced to 10 metric tons in 2002 and thereafter.  The in-quota tariff was reduced to a final rate of 5.4% in 2004.  Over-quota product, if entered, is assessed a prohibitive tariff of 304%.  Less than one container a year of these products will fill the Korean quota.

 

              The bound tariff on frozen fries (HS 2004.10) is 18%.  The tariff on other prepared or preserved potatoes (HS 2005.20) is 20%.  These tariffs are particularly restrictive since Korea is a strong market for U.S. exports of processed potato products.

 

              Potato tariffs played an important role in the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement agriculture market access talks.  As a result of the dedicated efforts of USTR and USDA, significant improvements in potato market access were achieved.  For example, Korea agreed to immediately eliminate its 18% tariff on frozen fries.  This elimination will provide U.S. fries an 18% advantage over international competition.  Korea also agreed to phase out tariffs on HS 2005.2 over seven years. 

 

              Importantly, Korea agreed to distinguish between fresh potatoes destined for chipping and table stock potatoes.  For fresh potatoes destined to be processed into potato chips, Korea agreed to eliminate the quota and tariff from December through April.  This seasonal duty-free access will allow significant market access and will free the rest of the quota for table stock potatoes.  The chip stock duty from May-November will also be eliminated in 15 years. 

 

              Korea also agreed to allow a 3,000 metric ton duty-free U.S. table stock quota.  This quota will grow 3% annually and will be in addition to the annual WTO quota. 

 

              The U.S. potato industry thanks USTR and USDA for their efforts in the KORUS talks on behalf of potatoes and supports passage and implementation of the agreement.

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($25 million to $50 million)

 

              Current U.S. shipments of all potato-related products to Korea are valued at $57.4 million.  The majority of these exports are frozen potatoes, valued at $31.8 million in marketing year 2008-09.  Korea is a strong market for U.S. fry exports because of the high concentration of U.S. Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs). 

 

              With meaningful tariff reductions, exports of processed potato products to Korea would increase to $50 million.  The removal of the TRQ on dehydrated potatoes alone would increase trade by about $15 million annually.  Additionally, the removal of the quota on fresh potatoes should easily result in increased sales to over $15 million annually.

 

              Implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement with its associated reductions on potato tariffs will be the quickest way to achieve these results.


MEXICO

 

 

I.              Retaliatory Tariffs: Frozen Fries

 

              On March 16, 2009, Mexico announced that it was imposing a 20% retaliatory tariff on frozen fries in response to the U.S. government eliminating a provisional program that allowed Mexican trucks to operate inside the U.S. border.  Other commodities were also affected.

 

              The increased duty has had a serious affect on U.S. fry exports.  In 2008, Mexico was the second largest export market for U.S. frozen fries with sales of $77.8 million.  Since April 2009, sales of U.S. fries to Mexico have fallen 49% over a similar period in 2008.  

 

              Mexican importers are now sourcing their fries from Canadian plants to avoid the 20% duty.  As a result, U.S. growers are being hurt by the Mexican policy.

 

              The NPC urges the Obama Administration to reinstate the Mexican trucking program so the 20% tariff on U.S. fries can be eliminated and companies will once again source their fries from U.S. facilities.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($78 million)

 

              Mexico was the second largest market for U.S. frozen potatoes, with exports in 2008 valued at $77.8 million.  The U.S. potato industry is in jeopardy of losing this entire market to Canada if the situation is not addressed.   

 


PANAMA

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              U.S. potato exports to Panama face a prohibitive 81% over-quota tariff on fresh potatoes.  The in-quota amount (453 tons) is subject to a 15% tariff.  In 2003, Panama, for political reasons, also increased the tariff on frozen fries from 15% to 20%. 

 

              In the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement, significant potato tariff reductions were achieved.  For frozen fries (HS 2004.1), Panama has agreed to a 3,500 metric ton tariff rate quota that will expand by 4% a year compounded annually.  The quota will last five years.  After that, fries will enter duty-free.  The chart below provides the fry duties for the first five years of the U.S.-Panama FTA, assuming the agreement is implemented in 2010.

 

Frozen Fries (HS 2004.1)

Year

Quota (in MT)

In-Quota Duty

Over-Quota Duty

One (2010)

3,640

0%

16%

Two (2011)

3,786

0%

12%

Three (2012)

3,937

0%

8%

Four (2013)

4,095

0%

4%

Five (2014)

N/A

0%

0%

              For dehydrated flakes, pellets and granules shipped under HS 1105.2 there will be a five-year phase out of the currently applied 15% tariff.   For processed products shipped under Chapter 20 (HS 2005.2) there are two tariff reductions proposed.   For HS 2005.20.10 “papas fritas” (possibly potato chips), there will be an immediate elimination of the 15% duty once the agreement is implemented.     For other potatoes, prepared or preserved (HS 2005.20.20), there will be a five-year phase out of the 15% tariff. 

              Fresh potatoes will have a 750 metric ton duty-free quota with an 81% over-quota tariff.  The tariff quota volume will be expanded 2% a year compounded in perpetuity.

              The U.S. potato industry welcomes this increased market access and seeks passage of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($6 million)

 

              With its close historical and military ties to the U.S., Panama has a large number of U.S. Quick Service Restaurants, increasing the demand for frozen fries.  Given market access equal to regional competitors, U.S. frozen fry exports could dominate the market.  U.S. frozen potato exports to Panama were $2.8 million in 2008-09 and are expected to double in volume in the near term if tariffs were eliminated under a FTA.


PHILIPPINES

 

 

I.              High Tariffs and Tariff Rate Quota

 

              The Philippine tariff applied on frozen fries and other varieties of frozen and processed potatoes is 10%.  The applied duty is significantly below the bound rate of 35%.

 

              The U.S. potato industry is interested in working on market access for U.S. fresh potatoes.  However, if the U.S. is granted access, volume is restricted by a tariff rate quota (TRQ) that is roughly 1,500 metric tons, with an in-quota duty of 40% and an over-quota duty of 50%.

 

This TRQ should be eliminated or substantially expanded and the in-and-out of quota tariffs significantly reduced in the context of the WTO Doha negotiations or in a bilateral agreement.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($33 million)

 

              The Philippines is the United States 8th largest market for frozen fries by value, with exports in 2008-09 at $23.7 million.  Elimination of the Philippines' tariffs would increase demand by approximately $10 million dollars in the short term. 

 

              In addition, the removal of the TRQ on fresh potatoes would create a market for table-stock and chip-stock potatoes valued at $5 million or higher. 


TAIWAN

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              The chart below shows Taiwan's current tariffs on potato products that were applied upon Taiwan’s entry into the WTO.  Although the WTO-negotiated bound tariffs are an improvement on previously-applied tariffs, they are in most cases higher than the 10% bound tariff requested by the U.S. potato industry.  In the WTO Doha Round negotiations, the U.S. potato industry is seeking the immediate elimination of all of Taiwan’s potato tariffs.

 

HS #

Description

Taiwanese Tariff based on WTO Commitments

0701.90

Fresh potatoes (table  stock)

20%

0710.10.00

Frozen potatoes

15%

1105.10.10

Potato flour

10%

1105.10.20

Potato meal

10%

1105.20.00

Potato flakes

10%

2004.10.11 and
2004.10.19

Potato sticks, frozen

(frozen fries) >1.5kg. 

12.5%

2004.10.90

Potato sticks, frozen

(frozen fries)  <1.5kg.

18%

2004.10.90

Other potatoes, prepared or Preserved, frozen

18%

2005.20.10

Potato chips and sticks >1.5kg.

12.5%

2005.20.20

Potato chips and sticks <1.5 kg.

15%

2005.20.90

Other potatoes, preserved

18%

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($25 million)

 

              The elimination of Taiwan's duties would increase U.S. exports by approximately $10 million annually in the short term and up to $25 million in the long term.


THAILAND

 

 

I.              High Tariffs on Frozen Fries and TRQ on Fresh Potatoes

 

U.S. frozen potato exporters are about to lose the entire $6 million Thai market to competitors due to tariff disadvantages.  With the U.S.-Thailand Free Trade Agreement negotiations stalled and significant progress at the WTO Doha Round negotiations slow in coming, importers are sourcing frozen fries from Australia and New Zealand, which have a 19% tariff due to FTAs.  Chinese fries will also achieve duty-free access in the near future.  Meanwhile, U.S. fries must be imported at the 30% MFN rate.  Industry officials believe they have approximately six months before the entire market is lost for U.S. product. 

The National Potato Council, on behalf of the U.S. potato industry urges the U.S. government to seek a unilateral reduction in the Thai fry tariff to the levels offered to Australia and New Zealand in their FTAs with Thailand.  Reducing the tariff will promote economic growth in Thailand, as it lowers costs for restaurants, which can lead to expansion and additional employment and domestic purchases.

Should this action not be achieved in 2010, there will be no shipments of U.S. fries to Thailand.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($20 million)

 

              The U.S. exported $8.8 million worth of frozen potatoes to Thailand in 2008-09.  In 2009-10, unless the tariff issue is addressed, this number will fall significantly, with the entire market lost in the near future.  

 

              If the tariff could be reduced, the U.S. could maintain the market and potentially expand it to $20 million annually.

 


VENEZUELA

I.              Import Permits

 

              Venezuela requires import permits for fresh and seed potatoes.  In the past, U.S. importers were unable to obtain these permits due to a Byzantine system of approvals that has remained in effect because of domestic political pressure.  

 

              Import permits are often not granted, and when they are granted, the volume approved is less than requested.  Decisions on requests for permits take months or are not received at all.  The goal of the Venezuelan import permit policy is to force importers to buy domestic product, which is often inferior to U.S. product. 

 

              The NPC fully supports efforts to challenge Venezuela on its import permit system.  This system must be eliminated, or at least be made transparent, so that it is not used as a non-tariff barrier.

 

 

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($5 million)

 

              Venezuela could be a strong market for U.S. fresh and seed potatoes if the import permits were eliminated or automatically granted.


VIETNAM

 

 

I.              High Tariffs (Import Policies)

 

              In 2006, the U.S. and Vietnam reached an agreement on Vietnam’s accession to the WTO.  In that agreement, Vietnam agreed to reduce its 40% tariff on frozen fries to 13% over six years and its 40% tariff on potato chips to 18% over five years.  The U.S. potato industry welcomed that news and anticipates increased sales as a result.

 

              In the WTO Doha Round negotiations, the U.S. potato industry would like to see these tariffs eliminated.

 

             

II.              Estimated Increase in Exports ($15 million)

 

              In 2008-09, the U.S. currently exported $841,041 worth of fries to Vietnam.  The U.S. potato industry has conducted several trade missions to Vietnam to explore possibilities for additional U.S. potato exports. 

 

Given the rapid expansion of Quick Service Restaurants in Vietnam, the country could develop into an important and growing market worth $15 million or more for U.S. fry exports if tariffs and other import restrictions were lifted.

 

              13