Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

FTC Report on Internet of Things Urges Companies to Adopt Best Practices to Address Consumer Privacy and Security Risks


Report Recognizes Rapid Growth of Connected Devices Offers Societal Benefits, But Also Risks That Could Undermine Consumer Confidence
In a detailed report on the Internet of Things, released today, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission recommend a series of concrete steps that businesses can take to enhance and protect consumers’ privacy and security, as Americans start to reap the benefits from a growing world of Internet-connected devices.
The Internet of Things is already impacting the daily lives of millions of Americans through the adoption of health and fitness monitors, home security devices, connected cars and household appliances, among other applications. Such devices offer the potential for improved health-monitoring, safer highways, and more efficient home energy use, among other potential benefits. However, the FTC report also notes that connected devices raise numerous privacy and security concerns that could undermine consumer confidence.
“The only way for the Internet of Things to reach its full potential for innovation is with the trust of American consumers,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “We believe that by adopting the best practices we’ve laid out, businesses will be better able to provide consumers the protections they want and allow the benefits of the Internet of Things to be fully realized.”
The Internet of Things universe is expanding quickly, and there are now over 25 billion connected devices in use worldwide, with that number set to rise significantly as consumer goods companies, auto manufacturers, healthcare providers, and other businesses continue to invest in connected devices, according to data cited in the report.
The report is partly based on input from leading technologists and academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates and others who participated in the FTC’s Internet of Things workshop held in Washington D.C. on Nov. 19, 2013, as well as those who submitted public comments to the Commission. Staff defined the Internet of Things as devices or sensors – other than computers, smartphones, or tablets – that connect, store or transmit information with or between each other via the Internet.  The scope of the report is limited to IoT devices that are sold to or used by consumers.
Security was one of the main topics addressed at the workshop and in the comments, particularly due to the highly networked nature of the devices. The report includes the following recommendations for companies developing Internet of Things devices:
build security into devices at the outset, rather than as an afterthought in the design process;
train employees about the importance of security, and ensure that security is managed at an appropriate level in the organization;
ensure that when outside service providers are hired, that those providers are capable of maintaining reasonable security, and provide reasonable oversight of the providers;
when a security risk is identified, consider a “defense-in-depth” strategy whereby multiple layers of security may be used to defend against a particular risk;
consider measures to keep unauthorized users from accessing a consumer’s device, data, or personal information stored on the network;
monitor connected devices throughout their expected life cycle, and where feasible, provide security patches to cover known risks.
Commission staff also recommend that companies consider data minimization – that is, limiting the collection of consumer data, and retaining that information only for a set period of time, and not indefinitely. The report notes that data minimization addresses two key privacy risks: first, the risk that a company with a large store of consumer data will become a more enticing target for data thieves or hackers, and second, that consumer data will be used in ways contrary to consumers’ expectations.
The report takes a flexible approach to data minimization.  Under the recommendations, companies can choose to collect no data, data limited to the categories required to provide the service offered by the device, less sensitive data; or choose to de-identify the data collected.
FTC staff also recommends that companies notify consumers and give them choices about how their information will be used, particularly when the data collection is beyond consumers’ reasonable expectations. It acknowledges that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to how that notice must be given to consumers, particularly since some Internet of Things devices may have no consumer interface. FTC staff identifies several innovative ways that companies could provide notice and choice to consumers.
Regarding legislation, staff concurs with many stakeholders that any Internet of Things-specific legislation would be premature at this point in time given the rapidly evolving nature of the technology. The report, however, reiterates the Commission’s repeated call for strong data security and breach notification legislation.  Staff also reiterates the Commission’s call from its 2012 Privacy Report for broad-based privacy legislation that is both flexible and technology-neutral, though Commissioner Ohlhausen did not concur in this portion of the report.
The FTC has a range of tools currently available to protect American consumers’ privacy related to the Internet of Things, including enforcement actions under laws such as the FTC Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act; developing consumer education and business guidance; participation in multi-stakeholder efforts; and advocacy to other agencies at the federal, state and local level.
In addition to the report, the FTC also released a new publication for businesses containing advice about how to build security into products connected to the Internet of Things. “Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things” encourages companies to implement a risk-based approach and take advantage of best practices developed by security experts, such as using strong encryption and proper authentication.
The Commission vote to issue the staff report was 4-1, with Commissioner Wright voting no. Commissioner Ohlhausen issued a concurring statement, and Commissioner Wright issued a dissenting statement.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Marketer Who Promoted a Green Coffee Bean Weight-Loss Supplement Agrees to Settle FTC Charges


Used Appearances on Dr. Oz, Other Shows to Launch Ad Campaign
Lindsey Duncan and the companies he controlled have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they deceptively touted the supposed weight-loss benefits of green coffee bean extract through a campaign that included appearances on The Dr. Oz Show, The View, and other television programs.
Under the FTC settlement, the defendants are barred from making deceptive claims about the health benefits or efficacy of any dietary supplement or drug product, and will pay $9 million for consumer redress.
“Lindsey Duncan and his companies made millions by falsely claiming that green coffee bean supplements cause significant and rapid weight loss,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This case shows that the Federal Trade Commission will continue to fight deceptive marketers’ attempts to prey on consumers trying to improve their health.”
The FTC charged that Duncan and his companies, Pure Health LLC and Genesis Today, Inc., deceptively claimed that the supplement could cause consumers to lose 17 poundsand 16 percent of their body fat in just 12 weeks without diet or exercise, and that the claim was backed up by a clinical study. In September 2014, the FTC settled charges against the company that sponsored the severely flawed study that Duncan discussed on Dr. Oz.
According to the FTC’s complaint, shortly after Duncan agreed to appear on Dr. Oz but before the show aired, he began selling the extract and tailored a marketing campaign around his appearance on the show to capitalize on the “Oz effect” – a phenomenon in which discussion of a product on the program causes an increase in consumer demand.
For example, while discussing green coffee bean extract during the taping of Dr. Oz, Duncan urged viewers to search for the product online using phrases his companies would use in search advertising to drive consumers to their websites selling the extract. He reached out to retailers, describing his upcoming appearance on The Dr. Oz Show and saying he planned to discuss the clinical trials that purportedly proved the supplement’s effectiveness. He and his companies also began an intensive effort to make the extract available in Walmart stores and on Amazon.com when the program aired.
The defendants continued to use Duncan’s Dr. Oz appearance in their marketing campaign after the show aired, the complaint states, posting links to the episode on websites and using retail point-of-sale displays showing messages such as “New Health Discovery!  As Seen on TV, ‘The Dieter’s Secret Weapon.’” After appearing on Dr. Oz, Duncan and his companies sold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of the extract, according to the FTC.
The FTC also alleged that Duncan and several of the companies’ paid spokespeople portrayed themselves on television shows as independent sources of information about green coffee bean extract and other natural remedies, while failing to disclose their financial ties to the companies.
The proposed stipulated court order requires the defendants to substantiate any future weight-loss claims with at least two well-controlled human clinical tests. Any claims the defendants make about the health benefits and efficacy of any dietary supplement or drug cannot be misleading and must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Further, the order prohibits false claims that the benefits of any such product are scientifically proven.
The order also bars the defendants from misrepresenting the status of any endorser, and requires them to disclose all material connections between them and anyone who endorses their products. Finally, it imposes a $9 million redress judgment, with an initial payment of $5 million due within two weeks of when the court enters the order.
Information for Consumers
Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for weight-loss products. For more information, see the FTC’s guidance for consumers of products and services advertised for Weight Loss & Fitness.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The vote authorizing the filing of the proposed stipulated court order was 3-2, with Commissioners Ohlhausen and Wright voting no. The majority, Chairwoman Ramirez, Commissioner Brill, and Commissioner McSweeny, issued a separate statement. Commissioners Ohlhausen and Wright also issued a separate statement. The complaint and order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 26, 2015.
The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, which provides coordination and leadership at the federal level regarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices. This case advances the National Prevention Strategy’s goal of increasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage of life.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

FMI Disagrees with President’s New Tax Plan


JANUARY 22, 2015, ARLINGTON, VA– President Obama’s “State of the Union” address to the nation included a series of new tax proposals, including a plan to radically revise the current capital gains system.  The Food Marketing Institute released the following statement from Andrew Harig, Director of Government Relations, in response to the President’s speech:
“President Obama’s plan to eliminate the “stepped-up” basis for calculating capital gains on bequests and other gifts will make it significantly more difficult for family-owned supermarkets to stay ‘family-owned’. This proposal will not only increase the complexity of the already Byzantine tax code, it also injects more expense and uncertainty into the arduous process of estate and succession planning – a serious concern for business people who want to pass along their companies to the next generation of leaders. And to add insult to injury, the President included a significant tax increase in his plan.
The use of the stepped-up basis is not a loophole and death should not be a “realization event”. Business owners already face a confiscatory estate tax of 40 percent. The elimination of the stepped-up basis has the potential to add yet another “death tax” on top of that. The President may have been targeting millionaires with this proposal, but he is squarely hitting middle class food wholesalers and retailers who play an important role in their communities as leaders and job creators.
FMI will continue to work with its coalition partners at the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition to encourage Congress to abolish the estate tax.”

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in FTC Case against Dish Network, Finding the Company Liable for Tens of Millions of Telemarketing Violations



The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois has found Dish Network liable for tens of millions of calls that violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), including Do Not Call, entity-specific, and abandoned-call violations. The opinion, which was issued on December 12, 2014, represents a partial summary judgment win in the case the Department of Justice filed on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission against Dish in March 2009.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Dish initiated, or caused a telemarketer to initiate, outbound telephone calls to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, in violation of the TSR. Dish markets its programming directly, through telemarketing vendors it contracts with to engage in telemarketing, and through authorized dealers or retailers.

In the current ruling, the court found Dish liable for 4,094,099 calls it or its vendors made to numbers on the Registry and for 2,730,842 calls its retailers made to numbers on the Registry. The court found that the government met its burden to hold Dish liable for the retailers’ calls since: 1) Dish retained the retailers, 2) Dish authorized the retailers to market Dish products and services, and 3) the retailers violated the TSR by initiating Dish telemarketing calls to numbers on the Registry.

The complaint also alleges that Dish initiated, or caused other telemarketers to initiate, an outbound call to a person who had previously said that they do not wish to receive such a call, in violation of the “entity-specific” provision of the TSR. On this count, the court ruled that Dish is liable for 1,043,595 calls to consumers whose telephone numbers were on Dish’s internal do-not-call list or were marked “DNC” by Dish’s telemarketing vendor. The court left the issue of whether Dish is liable for any entity-specific violations relating to its retailers to be determined at trial.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Dish abandoned or caused telemarketers to abandon outbound telephone calls, in violation of the “abandoned-call” provision of TSR. On this count the court ruled that Dish is liable for 49,738,073 abandoned calls that Dish and three of its retailers made. The court found that Dish is liable for both its own calls, and for causing these retailers’ abandoned calls.

Finally, the court issued several findings in favor of the four state co-plaintiffs in the case against Dish. For example, the court found that the company made outbound telephone calls to residents of the states whose numbers were on the DNC Registry.

The Department of Justice filed the complaint at the FTC’s request in March 2009. DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, is jointly litigating the case with four state co-plaintiffs -- California, Illinois, Ohio, and North Carolina. The states allege that Dish violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state law by calling numbers on the Do Not Call Registry and by making telemarketing robocalls to consumers.

Several issues in the case remain and will be resolved at trial, which the court has scheduled to begin in July 2015. (Docket No. 3:12-cv-03221-RM-BGC; the staff contact is Russell S. Deitch, 202-326-2585 or Gary Ivens 202-326-2330)

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Large EU project to head up global fight against infectious diseases

Author, speaker and radio host Michael Olson will broadcast the 1,000th edition of his nationally-syndicated Food Chain Radio show, Saturday, January 31.  The millennial edition will feature the economic viability of metropolitan (urban) agriculture.

Every Saturday from 9am to 10am Pacific, the Food Chain, awarded Ag / News Show-of-the-Year by the California Legislature, brings the issues of food and agriculture to the table for one hour of What’s-Eating-What radio with topical questions, expert guests and call-ins from listeners around the country.

Food Chain broadcasts originate in the studios of AM 1080 KSCO Santa Cruz, with occasional remote broadcasts from locations around the U.S. and throughout world, including Cyprus, Egypt, England, Peru and Scotland.

Listeners may also tune in to the live stream – and over 500 editions of archived shows – via the Food Chain page at www.metrofarm.com.

Michael Olson, an English / Chinese Literature graduate from UC Santa Cruz, received much of his training in broadcast journalism while a story producer for NBC Magazine with David Brinkley.  For the 1000th edition of the Food Chain, Olson will switch roles and become the show’s guest to defend the assertion made by his PMA Book-of-the-Year award winning MetroFarm:  One can earn a substantial living – up to eight times the average yearly income – by farming a small parcel of land in or near the city.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Taylor Swift Urged to “Shake Off" Aspartame



CSPI Urges Singer to Drop Diet Coke Endorsement Considering Cancer Concerns Around Aspartame


WASHINGTON--The Center for Science in the Public Interest is asking Grammy-award-winning singer Taylor Swift to drop her endorsement of Diet Coke, which contains aspartame, the artificial sweetener that has caused cancer in animals.  In an open letter to Swift, the food safety watchdog group told the singer that endorsing Diet Coke is better than endorsing full-calorie Coke, which promotes diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, but that diet sodas sweetened with aspartame pose their own risks.  

“Your endorsement carries great weight with your millions of young fans,” wrote CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, who praised Swift’s considerable philanthropy, including her support of several prominent cancer-related charities.  “To the extent that your endorsement encourages them to begin drinking Diet Coke, or to drink more, your endorsement is likely increasing your fans’ risk of cancer.  Even if the increase in risk is small, we question whether you would want to lend your name, image, and reputation to any product linked to any increased risk of cancer.”

Aspartame, a synthetic chemical combination of two amino acids and methanol, caused lymphomas, leukemias, kidney tumors, and breast cancer in two studies on rats.  In a mouse study, aspartame caused liver and lung cancer.  Scientists generally accept that if a chemical causes cancer in animals it likely increases the risk of cancer in humans.  CSPI recommends that consumers avoid aspartame and has urged food manufacturers not to use it.

"As the public face of Diet Coke, Taylor Swift is the public face of aspartame," Jacobson said. "She might be doing more to promote aspartame consumption than anyone on Earth."

Taylor Swift began her tenure as a program ambassador for Diet Coke in January 2013, when she announced the partnership in a video message on YouTube.  In the video she asked her fans to “like” Diet Coke’s Facebook page.  In October 2014, Diet Coke released an ad featuring Swift and dozens of kittens including Swift’s cat Olivia Benson.  Swift Tweeted a link to the ad to her Twitter followers, who now number 50 million.  According to social media market research firm Demographics Pro, more than a third of those followers are age 16 or younger.  

Also in October, movie-theater chain Regal Entertainment Group put Taylor Swift’s image on “exclusive Diet Coke concession cups and popcorn bags.”  [Editor’s note to dieters:  A medium popcorn at Regal has 720 calories and as much saturated fat as a stick of butter.]

Cancer, not cats, is the concern posed by the artificial sweetener aspartame, found in Diet Coke and other low- or no-calorie products.


“Celebrities are free to endorse whatever they want, but celebrities at Swift’s level can afford to be choosy and have high standards,” Jacobson said.  “They shouldn’t use their influence, especially their influence over children, to market junk foods.”

CSPI is using the Twitter hashtag #ShakeOffAspartame to publicize its concern over the singer's endorsement. Swift's song "Shake it Off" debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 in September. The video has more than 470 million views on YouTube.

CSPI previously has criticized other artists and athletes who endorse non-diet soda, including Beyoncé, Katy Perry, Macklemore, Shaquille O’Neal, and Michelle Kwan.

While acknowledging that diet soda is less harmful than regular soda, CSPI recommends that consumers drink water, seltzer water, or other safe, non-caloric beverages.

Online Payday Lending Companies to Pay $21 Million to Settle Federal Trade Commission Charges that They Deceived Consumers Nationwide


Lender Will Waive $285 Million in Other Charges
Two payday lending companies have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the law by charging consumers undisclosed and inflated fees. Under the proposed settlement, AMG Services, Inc. and MNE Services, Inc. will pay $21 million – the largest FTC recovery in a payday lending case – and will waive another $285 million in charges that were assessed but not collected.
“The settlement requires these companies to turn over millions of dollars that they took from financially-distressed consumers, and waive hundreds of millions in other charges,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It should be self-evident that payday lenders may not describe their loans as having a certain cost and then turn around and charge consumers substantially more.”
The FTC filed its complaint in federal district court in Nevada against AMG and MNE Services and several other co-defendants, in April 2012, alleging that the defendants violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting to consumers how much loans would cost them. For example, the defendants’ contract stated that a $300 loan would cost $390 to repay, but the defendants then charged consumers $975 to repay the loan.
The FTC also charged the defendants with violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by failing to accurately disclose the annual percentage rate and other loan terms and making preauthorized debits from consumers’ bank accounts a condition of the loans, in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA). MNE Services lent to consumers under the trade names Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, US Fast Cash, Advantage Cash Services, and Star Cash Processing. AMG serviced the loans.
In May 2014, a U.S. district court judge held that the defendants’ loan documents were deceptive and violated TILA, as the FTC had charged in its complaint.
In addition to the $21 million payment and estimated $285 million in waived charges, the settlement also contains broad prohibitions barring the defendants from misrepresenting the terms of any loan product, including the loan’s payment schedule, the total amount the consumer will owe, the interest rate, annual percentage rates or finance charges, and any other material facts. The settlement order prohibits the defendants from violating TILA and EFTA.
The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated final order was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. Court for the District of Nevada on January 15, 2015. The FTC’s action remains in litigation as to defendants SFS, Inc., Red Cedar Services, Inc., AMG Capital Management, LLC, Level 5 Motorsports, LLC, LeadFlash Consulting, LLC, Black Creek Capital Corporation, Broadmoor Capital Partners, LLC, Scott A. Tucker, the estate of Blaine A. Tucker, Don E. Brady, and Robert D. Campbell, and relief defendants Park 269, LLC and Kim C. Tucker.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Wendy’s Removes Soda from Kids’ Meals



Move Responds to Concern over Diabetes, Obesity, and Other Soda-Related Diseases


WASHINGTON--Wendy’s has agreed to remove sugary soda from its children’s menus.  The move, which is already in effect, was hailed by MomsRising.org, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, all of which have been urging the chain to improve the nutritional quality of its kids’ meals by removing soda from the kids menu.  McDonald’s agreed in 2013 to drop soda from its Happy Meal menus.   McDonald’s policy goes into effect this year, leaving Burger King as the only Big 3 burger chain still with soda in meals specifically intended for children. Subway, Chipotle, Arby’s, and Panera also do not include soda as the default option in their kids’ meals.

The groups say that soda is not an appropriate beverage choice for children, given that sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, tooth decay, and other health problems in children and adults.  Drinking just one additional sugary drink every day increases a child’s odds of becoming obese by 60 percent, according to research published in The Lancet.  
       
“While parents bear most of the responsibility for feeding their children well, restaurant chains also need to do their part,” said CSPI senior nutrition policy counsel Jessica Almy.  “Restaurants should not be setting parents up for a fight by bundling soda with meal options designed for kids.  Wendy’s is taking a responsible step forward that will improve children’s health and make it easier for parents to make healthy choices for their children.  We hope Burger King, Applebee’s, IHOP, and other chains follow suit.”

“Ensuring that our children can make healthy choices is an important part of raising them,” said MomsRising Executive Director and CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. “When restaurants offer up sugary drinks as the default choice, it undermines those efforts. MomsRising and its members are delighted that Wendy’s is now supporting parents in encouraging children to make healthy food choices.”

Last year, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a shareholder coalition that promotes improved corporate practices on social and environmental issues, filed a resolution with the company.  However, ICCR withdrew it when Wendy’s agreed to consider removing sodas from its kids menu and limiting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

“We applaud Wendy’s for prioritizing children’s health and providing more nutritious beverage options,” said ICCR member Fr. Michael Crosby of the Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota Coalition for Responsible Investment. “Beyond the obvious health risks for kids is the reputational risk these unhealthy drinks carry for the company.  As their investors, we are pleased to see them address this important concern.”

Besides removing soda from children’s menus and advertising, Wendy’s could further improve its menus for children and adults by serving whole grain rolls, offering more fruit and vegetable options, reducing sodium across the menu, and dropping Frostys from the children’s menu, the groups say.  The groups also have urged Wendy’s to adopt a comprehensive policy to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to children and join the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, a self-regulatory program administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

European Vegetable Strategies gears up for 2015 conference


How to grow demand of fresh vegetables in Europe is the key theme of European Vegetable Strategies 2015, the fresh vegetable conference for Europe’s vegetable industry professionals which takes place in Brussels on 6/7 May 2015.

Sales of fresh vegetables in Europe have consistently underperformed their real market potential in view of the positive health and other messages that they provoke in consumers. What steps must the fresh vegetable sector in Europe undertake to engineer a new growth in sales? How can fresh vegetables benefit more from the healthy eating trend? Why don’t they take advantage of the snacking and juice market? Where are the new categories that can help grow vegetables sales?

These are just some of the issue that will be discussed in detail at European Vegetable Strategies 2015, which is organised by Europe’s leading fresh produce trade magazines, Eurofruit, Fruchthandel, and the Fresh Produce Journal.

City centre venue
European Vegetable Strategies takes place at Le Plaza in Brussels on 6-7 May 2015. The hotel is conveniently located in the vicinity of the Grand Place and other Brussel's popular tourist attractions. The Rogier metro station and the Brussels North train station are 500 metres away. Brussels Airport is 16 kilometres away.

More information about the conference is available online at www.vegetablecongress.com, including an outline of the conference programme as well as details of the conference location in central Brussels.

Delegate online ticket sales will open soon. For further information see www.vegetablecongress.com.

CONTACT European Vegetable Strategies event team
tel: +44 20 7501 3707 (Eurofruit/FPJ)
tel: +49 211 9910410 (Fruchthandel)
Email info@vegetablecongress.com