Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Monday, June 21, 2010

Subway restaurant food fells nearly 100 in U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2127189320100621

Subway restaurant food fells nearly 100 in U.S.

Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:33pm EDT

LOS ANGELES, June 21 (Reuters) - The Illinois Department of Health is investigating a salmonella outbreak that has resulted in almost 100 confirmed cases of illness in people who ate at Subway sandwich restaurants in the state.

Investigators confirmed 97 cases of Salmonella Hvittingfoss infection from 28 Illinois counties as of Monday, spokeswoman Kelly Jakubek told Reuters.

The uncommon strain of Salmonella, which sent 26 people to hospitals, but caused no deaths, has been linked to 47 Subway restaurants in central Illinois, she said.

The attacks of Salmonella poisoning took place between May 11 and June 5, Jakubek said.

The source of infection has not yet been identified and Subway, one of the largest U.S. restaurant chains, voluntarily withdrew some items including onions, green peppers, tomatoes and lettuce from its restaurants in early June as a precaution.

Subway did not return calls for comment.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million people in the United States get sick every year from foodborne illnesses and 5,000 people die from them.

Poultry, leafy green vegetables and nuts and fruits were the chief vehicles of foodborne illness in 2006 U.S. officials said. [ID:nN11507751]

Privately held Subway is owned by Doctor's Associates Inc and has more than 28,500 locations in 86 countries. (Reporting by Lisa Baertlein, editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Seize healthy habits

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=200493


U.S. Sen. Grassley: Seize healthy habits

6/21/2010

Seize Healthy Habits by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

The fact that summer’s here isn’t a license to forget about good nutrition and good choices for kids and families. It’s why many parents will remind their kids that reading books and riding bikes around the neighborhood are better choices than eating potato chips and turning into a couch potato while school’s out.

At the same time, federal lawmakers need to wrap up important policy decisions that will impact the wellbeing of the nation’s school children when they return to school this fall.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I helped advance “The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010” this spring. The bipartisan bill reauthorizes federal youth nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program.

The economic downturn has put increased pressure on neighborhood food pantries and federal nutrition programs to help those in need. Our legislation bumps up federal spending by $4.5 billion spread over the next decade to help thwart the pangs of hunger in America. That comes to a nearly ten-fold increase reflecting the considerable need that exists to channel more resources to those who still go to bed on an empty stomach.

Federal policymakers also must address the other end of the nutrition spectrum. It’s no secret the United States is battling an obesity epidemic, including an alarming rise among children and teenagers. America’s growing waistline poses significant health risks to individuals and a costly burden to the nation’s public health systems as research tells us obesity leads to chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

The Senate’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 does not increase the deficit, and it includes measures designed to give parents, schools and communities additional tools to promote healthy habits that will lead younger generations to enjoy longer, high-quality, productive lives. The legislation would increase the number of children eligible for free or reduced cost meals, encourage schools to adopt better nutritional standards as outlined by the USDA and automatically enroll foster children for free school meals.

The current federal school nutrition law expires on September 30. I’m pushing the Senate leadership to get this bill passed before we start the next school year. The federal government obviously shouldn’t dictate what every child in America eats for lunch. But taxpayers have a vested interested to know Uncle Sam expects quality, wholesome, nutritious foods to be served by taxpayer-subsidized food programs.

Whether it is spring, summer, fall or winter, parents obviously never stop worrying about the wellbeing of their children. The earlier we all start teaching healthy eating habits, the better.

UK Prepares deep cuts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575320364276864120.html?mod=fox_australian

UK Prepares deep cuts

LONDON—The U.K.'s new coalition government will deliver Britain's most important and painful budget in decades on Tuesday, with a spending plan that is likely to define the fortunes of both the government and the country for years to come.

Faced with one of the highest budget deficits in the world in terms of percentage of gross domestic product, Treasury chief George Osborne has warned of steep spending cuts and tax increases that economists say could ultimately be the equivalent of as much as 8% of GDP over the next five years, the sharpest pace of fiscal belt-tightening in the U.K.'s postwar history.

The government's program of dramatic cuts will put the U.K. on a different track from the one suggested by President Barack Obama, who has called for large economies to tread carefully and not risk the fragile global recovery.

The government knows that its credibility in financial markets and its triple-A credit rating are at stake at a time when countries across Europe are under severe scrutiny. Such tough fiscal medicine will set it up for a clash with unions and state workers, in a country where almost half the jobs depend directly or indirectly on the government.

"This budget's significance is immense, you have to maintain your triple-A rating," said Stuart Thomson, a government-debt investor at Ignis Asset Management. But, he said, "George Osborne George Osbornefaces a danger, caught between not cutting enough for the markets and cutting too much for the long-term health of the economy."

The government has already said it will take measures such as levying some kind of tax on banks, changing the structure of taxes on the airline industry to raise more revenue, and increasing the capital-gains tax to nearer the 50% highest income-tax level. Economists also expect it to raise the value added tax to 20% from 17.5% and expect news of aggressive cuts on the country's welfare and state pensions bill.

As it raises taxes elsewhere, the government also will exempt around 880,000 of the lowest-paid U.K. residents from having to pay income taxes while increasing the number of people—by some 650,000—for whom employers don't have to pay payroll taxes, according to a person familiar with the matter.
[ukbudget]

That reflects pressure on the government to not be seen as too hard on the poorest. It is also a nod to the coalition agreement Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Party accepted with the more left-leaning manifesto of its governing partner, the Liberal Democrats.

The government will pledge not to make further cuts to government capital spending, such as infrastructure projects, this person said, amid concern from businesses that this could undermine the productive capacity of the economy.

Governments around the world are faced with the same dilemma. As some announce aggressive cuts, others are pressured into following suit by the markets. But such measures add to governments withdrawing demand from the global economy.

On Friday, Mr. Obama wrote to the Group of 20 leading nations with a clear warning against cutting deficits too quickly. He suggested that G-20 countries are ready to respond with pro-growth measures if the global economy starts to slide again.

Some countries have already complained, for example, that the German government's fiscal squeeze will hurt Europe's ability to bounce back. Germany has said it will shave €80 billion ($99 billion) off its deficit between 2011 and 2014, or around 3.3% of GDP, with cuts of around €10 billion in 2011.

Among large economies, the U.K.'s cuts are expected to be among the biggest. Its structural deficit—the gap in the government's finances that won't be erased by an uptick in growth—is estimated at almost 9%, compared with 5% in the European Union, 7% in Japan and 7% in the U.S. But few other big economies are faced with ratings agencies making market-moving calls for greater details of cuts. At the other end of the scale, embattled Greece has been forced to promise cuts to its deficit by 11% of GDP by 2013, and the U.K.'s growth and lending predictions are considerably rosier than Greece's.

In cutting so deeply, some economists and the Labour opposition worry that the U.K. may hurt its economic comeback.

Ross Walker, an economist at Royal Bank of Scotland, expects as a result of the cuts that the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth forecasts will be as much as 0.25 percentage point lower a year and the jobless rate will be lifted by 0.25 percentage point annually for 2010 through 2012. For many, that is a price worth paying. In addition to the market demands for more fiscal responsibility, the U.K.'s annual debt-interest bill jumped by 45% to £4.34 billion ($6.43 billion) in May 2010, and the government expects it to hit £70 billion by 2015—more than the combined education, transport and climate-change budgets, and almost twice the annual revenue from taxes on company profits.
—Laurence Norman in London and Marcus Walker in Berlin contributed to this article.— Write to Alistair MacDonald at alistair.macdonald@wsj.com

Wal-Mart discusses wages as it pushes Chicago expansion

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/feed/ct-biz-0622-walmart-20100621,0,3966595.story

Wal-Mart discusses wages as it pushes Chicago expansion




Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Monday pledged to pay a starting wage of at least $8.75 an hour if the city allows it to build dozens of new stores in Chicago, but influential unions called the amount disappointing.

The giant retailer's offer — 50 cents above minimum wage but 50 cents below what unions sought as a compromise — comes ahead of a key vote Thursday on a South Side store that would be the second Wal-Mart allowed within city limits.

Hank Mullany, a local vice president for Wal-Mart, said the company hopes to build stores ranging in size from 25,000 square feet to 140,000 square feet. The smaller ones, which would focus mainly on grocery and pharmacy sales, would be built in "food deserts," where traditional grocers have abandoned down-and-out neighborhoods.

Ald. Anthony Beale, whose 9th Ward would get a new Wal-Mart as part of the major Pullman Park development, announced the wage concession after Wal-Mart met with city unions Monday.
Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>

"There is nothing 'big' about $8.75 an hour," said Jorge Ramirez, secretary-treasurer of the Chicago Federation of Labor, after Beale promised that he would make a "big" announcement about Wal-Mart. "They knew it was something that wasn't acceptable to us."

Ald. Daniel Solis, the City Council Zoning Committee chairman, said aldermen are evenly divided ahead of Thursday's meeting.

Wal-Mart expansion has stalled for years in Chicago amid the dispute over wages between the retailer and unions. The renewed push puts aldermen in a tough position. While a major expansion would bring construction and retail jobs during a down economy, unions could try to defeat aldermen in February's city elections. Unions took down several pro-Wal-Mart aldermen in 2007.

Mayor Richard Daley has said it's the right time to allow Wal-Mart to expand beyond its sole city location in the Austin neighborhood on the far West Side.

In recent months, Wal-Mart has pushed a public relations campaign, taking out advertisements boasting of how well it treats its employees — even as the world's largest retailer has proved to be a national lightning rod for criticism in that area.

hdardick@tribune.com

Fw: Lincoln, Chambliss Call on President Obama to Address Russia TradeBarriers with President Medvedev

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


From: "Rowe, Courtney (Agriculture)" <Courtney_Rowe@agriculture.senate.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:23:07 -0500
Subject: Lincoln, Chambliss Call on President Obama to Address Russia Trade Barriers with President Medvedev

 

cid:image001.jpg@01CAFDB3.78F361F0

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 21, 2010

Contact: Courtney Rowe, Lincoln, (202) 224-2035

Erin Hamm, Chambliss, (202) 224-4728

 

Lincoln, Chambliss Call on President Obama to Address Russia Trade Barriers with President Medvedev

 

Restrictions could negatively impact nearly 500,000 U.S. jobs

 

Washington – U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, (D-Ark.), Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss, (R-Ga.), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and 22 other Senators today sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to address Russian trade barriers on U.S. poultry imports during his upcoming meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Senators emphasized that internationally recognized science methodology has proven U.S. poultry to be safe and that current restrictions are unwarranted.  

 

"Our poultry producers are required by USDA to meet very stringent food safety standards, which help them produce a safe and high-quality product. The Russians have failed to supply a reasonable, scientific explanation for restricting their market to U.S. poultry and we believe that their citing of safety concerns as reason for their trade barriers is baseless. The current economic climate has left many producers struggling and a continued absence from the Russian market, which is worth $800 million annually to American producers, would only increase the economic uncertainty our poultry farmers already face. President Obama's meeting with President Medvedev offers a crucial opportunity to address this issue with the seriousness it deserves," the Senators said.

 

Over the last three years, U.S. poultry exports to Russia averaged more than $800 million in value, making Russia the single largest U.S. export market.  The poultry industry represents over 500,000 jobs in the United States.

 

Full text of the letter is below.

 

 

June 21, 2010

 

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

Washington, DC  20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

Next week, you are scheduled to meet with Russian President Medvedev for talks on improved collaboration between our two nations, in advance of the G-8 summit in Canada.  While in some areas the level of cooperation between our two countries has improved, irritants remain in that relationship that require attention at the highest level.  For the past five months, the Russian Federation has blocked poultry imports from the United States over the use of chlorine rinses in the production process.  We believe the stalemate in the negotiations requires the attention of the leaders of both countries.  We urge you to include this issue on the agenda of your meeting with President Medvedev to ensure that importation rules are based on science and consistent with international standards.

 

Over the last three years, U.S. poultry exports to Russia averaged more than $800 million in value, making Russia our single largest export market.  The poultry industry in this country represents over 500,000 jobs in the United States and has a significant impact on countless other communities across the country. 

 

Since 1990, Russia has imported U.S. poultry that was processed using chlorinated water to reduce pathogens and enhance food safety.  Throughout this period, Russian authorities did not express any concern.  Therefore, the current ban seems arbitrary and capricious.  Science has shown the use of chlorine solutions to be a safe and cost effective way to maintain food safety during poultry processing.  Additionally, we understand Russia is still buying poultry from other suppliers, such as Brazil, where some facilities use the same process as U.S. facilities, without guarantees that they are not using chlorine solutions. This disparity appears to be contrary to the Russian government's assertions that its actions are being taken out of concern for the safety of its population. 

 

The cumulative effect of the actions taken by Russia's government has been to keep U.S. products entirely out of the Russian market.  We believe the United States and Russia should work together to promote trade between our two countries and lower barriers that undermine the bilateral relationship.  Your meeting with the Russian President in advance of the upcoming G-8 summit offers a crucial opportunity to address this issue with the seriousness it deserves.  We urge you to use all means at your disposal to address this situation and we thank you for working with us. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Senator Blanche Lincoln, Chairman

Senator Saxby Chambliss, Ranking Member

Senator Kit Bond

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Richard Burr

Senator Ben Cardin

Senator Tom Carper

Senator Thad Cochran

Senator John Cornyn

Senator Al Franken

Senator Kay Hagan

Senator Orrin Hatch

Senator Johnny Isakson

Senator Mike Johanns

Senator Ted Kaufman

Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senator Mary Landrieu

Senator Richard Lugar

Senator Claire McCaskill

Senator Barbara Mikulski

Senator Mark Pryor

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator John Thune

Senator Mark Warner

Senator Jim Webb

 

 

 

 

cc:        The Honorable Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative

The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture

 

--30--

 

Shrek lures kids to sugary snacks, not carrots

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sc-nw-junk-food-0621-20100621,0,2042852.story


Shrek lures kids to sugary snacks, not carrots


Children can be influenced to eat sugary snacks that carry stickers of cartoon characters such as Shrek, Scooby-Doo or Dora the Explorer, but not healthier foods like carrots with similar stickers, according to a new Yale University study.


Researchers at Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity asked children ages 4 to 6 which snacks they wanted: gummy fruit, graham crackers or carrots labeled with stickers of the cartoon characters, or identical snacks without the stickers. They also asked them which tasted better.


Most of the 40 children wanted the snacks labeled with cartoon stickers. Most also said the gummy fruit and graham crackers with the stickers tasted better, but not the carrots.



Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>



"We now have clear evidence of something many people suspected — that the use of these licensed characters has an impact on children's preferences in food," said Dr. Thomas Robinson, director of the Center for Healthy Weight at Stanford University School of Medicine.


At a time when a third of all children in the U.S. are overweight or obese, the study underscores both the power of advertising to influence young children and the ineffectiveness of using the same techniques to convince them to eat more nutritious foods, the researchers said.


The practice of labeling foods with toys, characters and celebrities aimed at children and teens grew 78 percent from 2006 to 2008, according to the Rudd Center, but only 18 percent of those foods met nutritional standards for children. About two-thirds of the promotions came from manufacturers who had pledged to limit marketing to children under the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative in 2006.


This imbalance can turn grocery shopping into a battle of wills between parents and children, as SpongeBob, Nemo and Shrek wink from packages of sugary, fatty snacks placed low on grocery shelves.


Christina Roberto, a graduate student at Yale University and lead author of the study, said her results make a strong argument for removing licensed cartoon characters from all food packaging.


Robinson agreed. "I see parents who are extremely frustrated that living in this environment makes it very difficult to bring up a healthy child," he said.


Roberto said children might not prefer carrots with characters because they are not accustomed to seeing the stickers on healthy foods. Dora and SpongeBob first appeared on packages of fruits and vegetables in 2005.


Although marketing of unhealthy foods to children has increased, fresh fruit is currently the most popular snack food among children, said Harry Balzer, chief industry analyst at the NPD Group, a marketing research firm.


Vegetables are a tough sell, Balzer said. Vegetables last peaked in popularity as a children's snack in 1984, according to his research.


"You're not going to get a child to eat what they don't want to eat," he said.


British regulators in 2007 banned the use of licensed characters in television ads for unhealthy foods aimed at children. Similar action has not been taken in the U.S., but the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, which is charged with placing limits on marketing to children, plans to issue its final report in July.


Robinson said the federal government has been reluctant to act because food manufacturers have so much influence. But that could change with the recently established Task Force on Childhood Obesity and the Let's Move campaign spearheaded by first lady Michelle Obama.


"People want to blame the parents, but the parents don't have billions of dollars to spend on counteradvertising," he said.


The study is being published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.


xcxdlockwood@tribune.com

Get news, sports, and entertainment alerts on your mobile phone >>

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune