French agriculture addressing climate change - USDA FAS

French Agriculture Addressing Climate Change

Report Highlights: Agriculture being a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption in France, many research institutes have conducted programs to assess the impact of climate change on French agriculture and identify how agriculture can adapt to climate change. Climate change was identified as the major factor explaining the stagnation in wheat yields observed over the past decade in France. By contrast, corn yields have continued to increase gradually, and the same trend is expected in the next 30 years, actually benefitting from climate change. On cattle farms, reducing indirect energy consumption (consisting of fertilizer use and animal feed purchase) and increasingly producing and consuming renewable energies (biogas to produce heat and electricity, photovoltaic electricity and biomass to produce heat) are recommended.

Impact of Climate Change on Crop Production: Winners and Losers In France, agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption, and the French government has taken a number of policy initiatives to increase energy independence on the farm and develop bioenergy production (see GAIN report FR9022 [1] ). Also, many research programs have been conducted to assess the impact of climate change on French agriculture and identify how agriculture can adapt to climate change. INRA/CIRAD observed that in the French Mediterranean area, temperatures have increased faster than than normal since 1980, accelerating the development of plants, and causing species to mature earlier before. An expansion of the area covered by the Mediterranean climate in France was observed. The average water shortage has increased in summer and fall. According to ADEME, agriculture and forestry production will need to adapt to the reduction in water availability, increase in pest damage, modification in vegetative periods, and slow down in yield increase. o Wheat Arvalis and INRA have studied the stagnation of average wheat yields since 1980. They concluded that climate change, with drought and higher temperatures, is the major factor explaining this stagnation, particularly since 1995, more than genetic improvement, fertilizer use, crop protection, or crop rotation. The French Animal Breeding Institute has recommended that wheat should be planted earlier, and earlier wheat varieties should be grown to avoid scalding, high temperatures, and strong water deficit. Arvalis noted that with warmer conditions and an earlier end to winter, farmers could begin planting earlier in the season. Arvalis recommended that research on wheat varieties target shorter maturity than they do currently, so that grain test weight would not decline.


Author’s perspective: As the largest producer of wheat in Europe and a major exporter of wheat on world markets, France is concerned by the stagnation of yields, and many agricultural specialists are currently analyzing the phenomenon. Given the recent statements made by U.S. wheat producers in favor of adopting biotech wheat, French farmers are expected to closely monitor trends in U.S. wheat yields in the next few years. o Corn Arvalis and INRA observed that, unlike wheat yields, average corn yields continued to increase in the past 20 years in France. This included higher yields in Northern France, where higher temperatures were more favorable to corn development, and a declining trend in Southern France, were drought affected corn yield potential. In fact, corn cultivation of earlier varieties in areas of water deficit benefitted from higher temperatures and limited drying costs. The area of corn infestation by pests has significantly expanded (including corn borers, sesamias, and wireworms), however. Based on modeling and simulation, Arvalis and INRA concluded that perspectives for average corn yields are favorable in the medium term until 2050, due to production cycles adapting to climate change, and harvested corn having lower moisture content than the current average, therefore reducing drying costs. Until 2050, corn yields are expected to increase, benefitting from higher carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. However, perspectives are negative in the longer-term (2070-2100), as summer droughts are expected to be more severe and temperatures significantly higher. Corn plantings would need to take place earlier than current practices. Corn varieties planted would need to be more resistant to drought and higher temperatures. Increased needs for irrigation are expected to require more water storage in winter. For planting seeds, Arvalis and INRA recommended that research on corn seeds focus increased tolerance to high temperatures and drought, but also to low temperatures expected in the early stages of the developing cycle (as corn is anticipated to have to be planted as early as February), and to higher rates of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given the past and current expansion of pest infestation areas, Arvalis underlined crop protection was a key element to manage in the future. Author’s perspective: Although adaptation of crop protection to climate change was not surveyed in the research programs presented in these conferences, reinforcing crop protection against pest damages damages is obviously a key line of research for seed companies. French researchers have already observed a higher number of generations of the corn borer within one year, and an expansion of the infestation area on sesamia (another corn pest) in some areas. In this regards, it is important to note that the biotech corn event currently banned in France (MON810) protects corn against these two insects. The impossibility for French corn growers to plant this corn reduces the number of tools they can use to protect their crops.  Dairy and Livestock Production Adapting to Climate Change According to the French Animal Breeding Institute, GHG emissions by cattle production mainly include methane emission through enteric fermentation during cattle digestion (49 percent), followed by nitrous oxide emission through fertilization and animal waste (37 percent), and carbon dioxide emission due to input purchases and fuel and electricity use (14 percent). Overall, energy consumption by cattle farms totals 15 percent of GHG emissions, of which 5 percent direct energy consumption and 10 percent indirect energy consumption through input use. o Reducing Energy Consumption The French Animal Breeding Institute studied the energy consumption of livestock and dairy farms, and concluded that indirect energy consumption (including fertilizer use and animal feed purchase) is where there is highest potential reduction, by contrast with direct energy consumption (including electricity and oil-derived products consumption). To reduce indirect energy use, the research institute recommended mainly to reduce the use of imported animal feed and favored the use of locally-produced feed. It also recommended reducing the use of chemical fertilizers and using more organic fertilizers (legume cultivation, inter-crop cultivation, use of animal waste). o Producing and Consuming Renewable Energies Biogas The French Animal Breeding Institute considers on-farm methanization can reduce methane emissions by 60 percent compared to traditional waste storage on cattle farms, and the biogas produced could replace fossil energies. A co-generation process produces 35 percent electricity (sold to the electricity company and injected on the public electrical network) and 50 percent heat (hot water, hot air, or fuel gas to be used on the farm). The research institute believes on-farm methanization not only meets environmental objectives (GHG emission reduction, production of renewable energies), but also meets social and regional objectives (diversifying sources of farmers income, improving animal waste management by farmers, modernizing public perception of farmers as suppliers of “green energy”). However, biogas production represents high maintenance and high capital investment. This may require several farmers to join their efforts in starting such production. Photovoltaic Electricity Photovoltaic electricity production requires heavy investments like biogas production, but low maintenance. There are numerous French farmers currently investing in photovoltaic electricity production, despite the high investment in equipment needed to start such business. This results from the subsidized prices at which the electricity produced is purchased by the national electricity company “Electricite de France” (EDF) when injected in the public electricity network. Support prices are expected to be reduced to zero by 2020. ADEME and the French Animal Breeding Institute consider that, with solar panels placed on the roof of farm buildings, the orientation of the buildings relative to sunlight, wind and land slope need to correspond to optimal electricity production and is adequate with animal breeding.

Biomass to Produce Heat Straw and wood are the main sources of biomass available on farms. ADEME and the Animal Breeding Institute believe biomass-based energy is viable provided local biomass is used to produce heat to local customers. Like biogas production, biomass-based energy production represents an opportunity to add value to products usually wasted with no use, but is a new sector that needs to be built. Author’s perspective: While French renewable energy production has almost exclusively consisted of biofuel production (mainly biodiesel made from rapeseed and bioethnaol made from wheat and sugarbeet), the initiatives presented above tend to diversify France’s bioenergy production. While crop producers had almost the monopoly on these technologies, livestock producers are now increasingly involved. This illustrates the fact that the whole French agriculture is now involved in fighting climate change.  R&D - Innovation CLIMATOR (2007-2010), funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR), and conducted by research institutes, universities, and Meteo France aims to supply methods, tools and references on the impact of climate change on various agricultural ecosystems located in the various climates of France. The ADAGE project, funded by ANR, coordinated by INRA, and including 150 French scientific experts, industry and public authorities, aims to identify the needs for R&D and develop an ambitious national research strategy.

Healthy school snack program at Beverly J. Martin hurting for funds

Healthy school snack program at Beverly J. Martin hurting for funds

ITHACA -- A child nutrition program at Beverly J. Martin Elementary School may end before the school year is out if additional funding cannot be found.

he Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program needs $43,000 to continue until the end of the school year, said Amie Hamlin, executive director of the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food. Current funds will run out Jan. 4.

The program provides students with four free servings of fruits and vegetables as a snack each day. The food is all raw, mostly locally-grown and organic, and eaten without dips or dressings.

Hamlin and program director Lara Kaltman are trying to get a referendum to support the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Snack Program on the ballot in May along with votes on the school budget and board member elections. But a referendum to support the program may be more difficult than they thought.

"Including the program under the general fund budget is not a good idea, which is why we want to propose a separate referendum," Kaltman said. "However, we're hearing this might not be possible. Without this support, there is no way to continue this program on an ongoing basis, nor expand to other schools."

Hamlin said that because the grants that were flowing to the program last school year have slowed this year, the program's financial situation has deteriorated.

"I would say that certainly the foundations that give out money are under more pressure than ever before," she said. A poor economy has resulted in more applications for the same amount of grants. "That means we have the same number of dollars to split up among many others."

The New York Coalition for Healthy School Food is dedicated to education about nutrition in school food and to bringing healthier food into school cafeterias. In September, the coalition was recognized for its efforts with an award and grant from The Moms of the Revolution contest, sponsored by Revolution Foods and KIWI Magazine.

Though much of the work of preparing the snacks is done by volunteers, the program's main expense is a full-time program manager, Hamlin said.

The coalition has raised nearly $100,000 to fund the program since its beginnings in the spring of 2008.

"The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program created a school wide culture of wellness," said BJM Principal Denise Gomber. "There are no longer situations of have and have not related to affordability and access because this program has completely eliminated that inequity in our school."




I commend you for a great program which encourages lifelong healthy eating! However, I cannot afford to give all organic produce and fruit to my family, although I would like to, since it is priced at a premium. Perhaps that is where the cuts will need to be.



Thanks to the Ithaca Journal for a great article. I need to clarify that the program manager's salary is NOT the main expense of the program. Her salary is just over one-third of the budget. The largest single expense expense of the program is fruits and vegetables. Our budgets are scrutinized by all of the foundations that have funded the program.
~ Amie Hamlin, Executive Director

China asparagus: USDA FAS

China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing Asparagus Annual 2009

Highlights: Marketing year (MY) 2010 fresh asparagus production is forecast at 200,000 metric tons (MT), a 20 percent drop from last year on significant acreage decline. Farmers are expected to shift production to other crops because of continued low prices. However, MY 2010


Executive Summary: Marking year (MY) 2010 fresh asparagus production is forecast at 200,000 metric tons (MT), a 20 percent drop from last year based on significant acreage decline. Farmers are expected to shift production to other crops on expectations of continued low prices. MY 2008 and MY 2009 production estimates were also reduced because of weaker export demand (due to the effects of the global economic recession), which caused planted acreage to drop more dramatically than what was earlier projected. However, MY 2010 canned/jarred and frozen asparagus exports are projected to rise to 84,000 MT and 33,000 MT due to strong demand from Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Domestic consumption is believed to be relatively stable, and has been revised in the PSD table (for the last 3 years). canned/jarred and frozen asparagus exports are projected to rise to 84,000 MT and 33,000 MT due to strong demand from Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

Production: For MY 2010, China’s fresh asparagus production is forecast at 200,000 metric tons (MT), a 20 percent drop from last year based on significant acreage decline. Domestic processing plants purchase the majority of China’s fresh asparagus crop for export; however, in the last few years, processor purchases of fresh domestic asparagus have decreased. In MY 2009, more than 50 percent of canned/jarred asparagus processors and 60 percent of frozen asparagus processors suspended production, which caused farm gate prices to drop to extremely low levels (the lowest in 10 years) and significantly cut farm profit margins. Because of extremely low prices, for MY 2010 farmers are expected to shift acreage to other crops in lieu of asparagus, such as corn. MY 2008 and MY 2009 production estimates were also reduced on weaker export demand (due to the effects of the global economic recession), which caused planted acreage to drop more dramatically than what was earlier projected. Seed quality continues to be a major constraint for China’s asparagus production. F1 seeds generate higher yields and a better quality product, but are significantly more expensive than their F2 counterpart, which produces a lower yield and is prone to disease. F1 seeds cost about USD $510 per lb (RMB $8,000 per kg), while F2 seeds are USD $26 per lb (RMB $400 per kg). Industry sources indicate that F2 seeds are planted on 70 to 80 percent of China’s total asparagus acreage. Such a high percentage is not just because of its lower price, but also due to swindling. Middle men have been known to sell F2 seeds that are labeled as the F1 variety. As a result, because it is difficult to visually differentiate between the seeds, a farmer does not know if he purchased the higher quality seed until harvest, or 2 to 3 years after planting. Such misrepresentation can be very expensive (and financially ruin some farmers) since green and white asparagus production requires a certain amount of seeds to be used per hectare. For example, one hectare of green asparagus requires 1,050 to 1,200 grams; while one hectare of white asparagus requires only 750 to 900 grams. The harvest season for fresh asparagus is from April to August, but off-season greenhouse production allows asparagus to be available year round. Shanxi, Shandong, Hebei, Henan, and Fujian provinces are the largest asparagus producers, accounting for 80 percent of total production. Because of lower returns in the last few years, some farmers have used fewer inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. This asparagus has been marketed as “organic,” although it should not necessarily be labeled as such since true organic products utilize only natural inputs. Consumption: Many Chinese generally do not purchase asparagus as it is not a traditional food . However, because many Chinese consumers are health-conscious, the vegetable has a lot of marketing potential. Unfortunately, there is a general lack of knowledge about its health benefits. Asparagus is rich in amino acids, protein, and vitamins that are believed to help prevent cancer, heart disease, and hypertension.

Subsidize Salads, Not Snacks - NYT

Subsidize Salads, Not Snacks - NYT
Tom Laskawy

Tom Laskawy blogs on food policy for Grist.org and Beyond Green.

Anti-poverty programs in this country currently operate from the premise that poor people cannot be trusted with cash benefits, and as a result such programs come with strict eligibility and performance requirements. Food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) have been politically sustainable precisely because they are not cash transfers, and thus can’t be “misspent” by the “idle,” “improvident” or “uneducated” poor people to whom they are given.

Why, then, the furor over reform proposals that would allow the food stamp program to favor — even subsidize — the purchase of healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables over snacks and soda?

Could this controversy result from a belief on the part of pundits and policy makers that being poor in America means acquiescing quietly to a substandard diet? Healthy foods, in this line of reasoning, are a luxury that should be reserved for those who can afford them. As unjust as this sounds when presented so baldly, it is exactly this belief that underlies attempts to deny government the right to make good nutrition a cornerstone of the food stamp program.

We know that demand among low-income people for fresh, healthy food is high. New York City recently reported that food stamp use at its farmers’ markets doubled in the past year. The city’s subsidized vegetable cart program for underserved neighborhoods has also been a great success. And market research has for years shown no connection between buying organic and income level.

Food stamp benefits should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods — meats, grains, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables. Such a common-sense position should be entirely uncontroversial. Shame on us that it is not.

Demand for local produce grows - even in winter : KC Star

Demand for local produce is growing — even in winter - KC Star

By SUZANNE KING
Special to The Star
Local farmers sell their items at the weekly Friday evening farmers market at the Bad Seed Market in the Crossroads District.
JILL TOYOSHIBA

Local farmers sell their items at the weekly Friday evening farmers market at the Bad Seed Market in the Crossroads District. On Monday, Deb Crum tried a bite of lettuce growing in her and husband Jim Crum’s high-tunnel greenhouse west of Bonner Springs. With them was their grandson, 15-month-old William Crum.

The scene looked more like a summer morning than a darkening autumn evening. As the sun went down the Friday before Thanksgiving, customers were crowding into downtown’s Bad Seed Market to peruse bunches of fresh greens, piles of recently dug potatoes and heaps of ruby-red beets. All were grown in and around Kansas City.Demand for locally produced food is strong in Kansas City, even as winter nears.That’s why Brooke Salvaggio, who, with her husband, Daniel Heryer, owns the Bad Seed at 1909 McGee St., said she had to turn farmers away from selling at the store’s annual Thanksgiving Market. There wasn’t enough room for all who were interested in selling this late in the season.If only there were always such an overabundance of farmers on Kansas City’s local food scene.Despite appearances at many markets and restaurants, farms in and around Kansas City just aren’t keeping up with the growing demand, many observers say. “There’s kind of a feeling that we don’t have near enough farmers and we ought to have a lot more farms,” said Ted Carey, an extension specialist with Kansas State University.

That feeling has fueled a concerted effort to help farmers increase production and usher newcomers into the farming trade.Area farmers are signing up for business classes to help them operate more efficiently, finding more outlets to market their produce and doing all they can to extend the growing season so they can sell earlier in the spring and later in the fall.

“I think for a lot of small-scale growers — particularly organic or sustainable farmers — this is a passion. … It’s not something they approach as strictly a moneymaking endeavor,” said local farmer Laura Christensen. “If those small farms are going to be successful in an economic way — in addition to an environmental and social way — they need to learn the business skills.”


More at the link

USDA amending regs for Organic national list

View Rule

Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML
USDA/AMS RIN: 0581-AC77 Publication ID: Fall 2009
Title: National Organic Program, Sunset (2011) (Crops and Processing) (TM-07-14)
Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending regulations pertaining to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. As required by the National Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, the allowed use of the 12 synthetic and non-synthetic substances in organic production and handling will expire on September 12, 2011. The AMS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to make the public aware of this requirement. AMS believes that public comment is essential in the review process to determine whether these substances should continue to be allowed or prohibited in the production and handling of organic agricultural products.
Agency: Department of Agriculture(USDA) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 7 USC 6501
Legal Deadline: None
Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 03/14/2008 73 FR 13795
ANPRM Comment Period End 05/13/2008
NPRM 10/00/2010
Final Action 08/00/2011
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Data Printed in the FR: Yes
Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Rm. 2510-South, 1400 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20250
Phone:202 720-3252
Fax:202 205-7808
Email: richard.mathews@usda.gov

Food Stamps: The economics of eating well - NYT debate forum

Just some excerpts here.. go to the link for the full debate....

Food stamps:the economics of eating well - NYT


A recent article in The Times by Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff detailed the effects of the soaring dependence on government food stamps in the United States. The social stigma of using them has faded, the Times writers found, yet judgments are still made.

If people buy fresh vegetables or other relatively expensive though nutritious foods, they are considered to be living high on the hog at the taxpayers’ expense. But if they buy cheap foods like hot dogs they are criticized for poor health habits.

Despite these common complaints, does the system work? Are the current rules fair in regulating what people can buy and not buy? Or should the requirements be changed? Should un-nutritious products like soda be banned? Is there a better way to distribute free food and promote nutrition in this country?

* Tom Laskawy, food policy blogger
* Caryn Sweeney, “A Mile in Another’s Shoes” blog
* Adam Drewnowski , obesity researcher, University of Washington
* Julie Guthman, University of California, Santa Cruz
* Marion Nestle, author of “Food Politics”
* Christopher Greenslate, author of “On a Dollar a Day”

Subsidize Salads, Not Snacks
Tom Laskawy

Tom Laskawy blogs on food policy for Grist.org and Beyond Green.

Anti-poverty programs in this country currently operate from the premise that poor people cannot be trusted with cash benefits, and as a result such programs come with strict eligibility and performance requirements. Food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) have been politically sustainable precisely because they are not cash transfers, and thus can’t be “misspent” by the “idle,” “improvident” or “uneducated” poor people to whom they are given.

Food stamp benefits should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods — meats, grains, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables.

Why, then, the furor over reform proposals that would allow the food stamp program to favor — even subsidize — the purchase of healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables over snacks and soda?

Could this controversy result from a belief on the part of pundits and policy makers that being poor in America means acquiescing quietly to a substandard diet? Healthy foods, in this line of reasoning, are a luxury that should be reserved for those who can afford them. As unjust as this sounds when presented so baldly, it is exactly this belief that underlies attempts to deny government the right to make good nutrition a cornerstone of the food stamp program.

Read more…

We know that demand among low-income people for fresh, healthy food is high. New York City recently reported that food stamp use at its farmers’ markets doubled in the past year. The city’s subsidized vegetable cart program for underserved neighborhoods has also been a great success. And market research has for years shown no connection between buying organic and income level.

Food stamp benefits should be reserved for whole, nutritious foods — meats, grains, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables. Such a common-sense position should be entirely uncontroversial. Shame on us that it is not.



Good Nutrition, on a Budget - Caryn Sweeney

Caryn Sweeney, a writer for an international nonprofit agency, has been writing “A Mile in Another’s Shoes,” about her experience of living on a food-stamp budget.

Before the age of fast food, poor families cooked from scratch after long hours in the fields and factories.

During my month-long challenge of living on a food-stamp budget, I chose to get the most nutrition for my dollar rather than the most food volume. Given my health problems, I could not base my menu on grains. I set out getting as much produce and protein as I could afford.

I researched in-season produce and found farmers’ markets offering deals to those receiving assistance. I adjusted those prices in my budget as if I had actually qualified. I managed an average of just over six servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Read more…

I checked the sale fliers, and made a spreadsheet of recipes to determine what to buy. I favored eggs, whole chickens and beef with bones for protein. From the leftovers I made stock to use in stir fries, soups, and rice to make them tastier and more filling.

I made multiple stops in a single grocery shopping trip for different sales. I had marathon vegetable chopping sessions on weekends, packing away sliced peppers, diced onions, blanched beans and more for use during the work week.

It’s hard work being poor, and many families on assistance are already working hard for long hours at low-paying jobs. I think a good addition to the food stamp program would be materials with time-saving tips, recipes for alternative appliances like electric skillets and toaster ovens for those who don’t have full kitchens, and ideas on how to maximize nutritious ingredients. Poor families for generations cooked from scratch after long hours in the fields, factories or mills because they had no 7-Eleven or McDonald’s on hand.

Today, too many poor Americans are both malnourished and overweight, at risk for diabetes and heart disease, because empty calories come so cheaply.


Obesity and the Underclass - Adam Drewnowski

Adam Drewnowski is director of the University of Washington Center for Obesity Research.

The issue of the affordability of healthy diets will only become more pressing as more people slide into poverty.

Larger portions of broccoli are not going to help the poor.

I agree that we tend to censure food choice behaviors of low-income groups, no matter what they do. It’s as though being poor were equivalent to a moral failure, and uplifting homemade lentil soup were the only cure. The new WIC package in Washington State is full of contradictions — no white potatoes, no yogurt, no canned soups or vegetable juices — but plenty of fresh kale. We do not want those low-income mothers to have too much fun at the taxpayers’ expense.

Of course, distributing more fruits and vegetables probably is not the answer either. The problem is that the fiscal policies of the last two decades have created a permanent underclass that has become obese and diabetic. The only way out of this is to promote jobs, education and yes, health reform. Larger portions of broccoli are not going to do it on their own.
Poor People Get the Dregs
Julie Guthman

Julie Guthman is an associate professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and has written extensively on the American food system.

Recently I spotted a hand-written sign at the checkout counter of my local Whole Foods supermarket. The sign requested that customers bring in cans of conventional food, for which they would receive the equivalent in 365, the market’s private label. The donated cans would be taken to the county food bank.

Increased use of food stamps must be seen as a good thing in a worsening economy. The system works.

That sign captured perfectly the limits of food charity as a way to address the problem of food insecurity in America: poor people get the dregs.

Much of the enormous network of food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens that collect and distribute donated food to those in need relies on the damaged goods of low-cost retailers and the surplus of the government’s commodity support programs. Processed cheese made from milk byproducts is not the sort of fare you’d find at Whole Foods, much less the farmers’ market.

Read more…

Food banks around the country are depleted right now, as one might expect during a recession. The biggest problem with food charity is that when people need it most, these programs are least able to deliver.

Scholars of hunger have long championed entitlement programs, such as the food stamp program, as the most efficient, dignifying and effective way to provide reasonably nutritious food to people with insufficient income to buy it. Unlike food charity, the food stamp program is countercyclical – it picks up when times are tough. The increased use of food stamps must therefore be seen as a good thing despite that it reflects a worsening economy.

Those who complain about the use of food stamps to purchase cheap, junkie food ought to set their sights elsewhere. They should consider the myriad policies that allow products laden with high fructose corn syrup, transfats, growth hormones and synthetic processing aids to be sold as food. In my view, the unemployed and poor shouldn’t pay the moral price for our collective failure to curb the excesses of the food industry.


The Job Loss Factor - Marion Nestle

Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, is the author of “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.” Her comments are excerpted from her blog.

The Food Stamp program, now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is one of several food assistance programs run by the U.S.D.A. SNAP is an entitlement program, meaning that anyone who meets income eligibility requirements can get benefits. Even so, only two-thirds of people eligible for the program apply for and get the benefits. Recipients get a credit card to use at grocery stores. The cards were worth an average of $101 per month in 2008 for individuals, and $227 for households.

SNAP participants can use the money to buy foods, seeds and food plants. They cannot use the cards for alcohol, tobacco, pet food, supplements, paper goods, or hot prepared foods.

So what’s going on? Nearly 15 percent of American households, up a couple of percentage points this year, are considered “food insecure,” meaning that they cannot count on a reliable, legally obtained source of food from one day to the next. Surprise! The uptick in SNAP participation exactly parallels the uptick in jobs lost.

Read more…

What do you have to do to qualify for food stamps? For a family of four, your household must make less than $2,389 per month gross, or $1,838 net and meet certain other requirements. An individual can’t make more than about $1,000 a month. These days, 36 million Americans make less than that or otherwise qualify for food assistance, and their numbers are rising rapidly.

This doesn’t look like an improving economy to me. Or am I missing something?


Benefits Are Meager and Underused - Christopher Greenslate

Christopher Greenslate is co-author of “On a Dollar a Day: One Couple’s Unlikely Adventures in Eating in America,” to be published by Hyperion in February 2010.

Despite the roar from the well-fed about what people in poverty should do to be self-reliant, federal nutrition programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps) are doing what they can to make sure people who need help are able to get it, at least at the federal level. However, in the debate over food stamp allocation, common misperceptions travel faster than truth.

People on food stamps know what is healthy, and what isn’t.

To understand the problem on a more personal level, my partner and I lived it: for a month. We ate according to the average SNAP allotment, and contributed the suggested amount of personal income as well. We even followed the USDA’s “Thrifty Food Plan” and bought only food listed on its menu plan; we ran out of food before the end of the month.

What we learned about food stamps was at odds with everything we had heard. For instance, while many people think that the poor are duping the system, the actual rate of fraud is only 2 to 4 percent. The government has mostly settled the controversy over what types of foods people should buy, and these issues only serve as distractions. The real challenges facing SNAP are mostly at the state and local level.
Where we live in San Diego, only 29 percent of those who are eligible for benefits are receiving them, the worst rate for an urban area in the country. The application process is complex, intrusive and humiliating. The average applicant has to make five trips to a center, have every adult in the home fingerprinted, and is subject to home searches by the district attorney’s office.

The irony is that these costs put a drain on the economic boost that food stamp funds give to the economy. Every dollar of food stamps spent generates $1.84 in economic activity, which means that since our county is not getting benefits to those who need them, we’ve lost over $250 million this year. For California, that’s a $3-million loss in potential tax revenue.

People on food stamps know what is healthy and what isn’t. But this doesn’t help them unless local governments are doing everything they can to ensure that those who are eligible are getting access to the benefits they so desperately need.

The Organic Center - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years"

The Organic Center - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years"

Genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and cotton now account for the majority of acres planted to these three crops. A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

South Africa Fresh Deciduous Annual 2009 - USDA FAS

South Africa Fresh Deciduous Annual 2009 - USDA FAS

South Africa’s total deciduous production is forecast at 1,551,900 MT for marketing year 2009/10. For marketing year 2008/09, South Africa’s total deciduous fruit production is estimated at
1,424,818 MT. This represents a 4.3 percent increase compared to 2008 total production of 1,365,135 MT. The average prices for 2009 on fresh produce markets show that the prices of apples have slightly declined from R4,257 per ton to R4,197 per ton. Prices for pears and grapes have both increased; pears have increased from R3, 727 per ton to R3,988 per ton in 2009 while the price of grapes increased from R5,719 per ton in 2008 to R6,713 per ton in 2009.

It is estimated that there are about 2,254 producers of fruit for fresh consumption in South Africa, comprising of 1,174 producers for stone fruit, 954 producers for dry and table grapes and 700 producers for pome fruit. South Africa producers grow fruit both for processing (canning/ drying) and for fresh consumption. South African producers produce organic grapes for the U.S. market but the volumes for these grapes are always very small because of the production costs and distance to the market. Production of these grapes isn't more difficult in South Africa compared to other countries, but added difficulties arise from the lengthy transport time to the market. For instance, conventional grape packers can use sulpher pads and other permitted pre-harvest chemicals for preservation, but this isn't allowed for organic grapes. Generally, the production costs of organic grapes are about 30 percent more than the conventional equivalent.

Carbon Footprint The effects of the climate changes are predicted to have a deep impact on the fresh fruit export industry since the industry is a contributor towards greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming and climate change. The fruit industry is taking steps to conform to consumers’ requests by complying with carbon footprint audits and is also involved in the project of carbon calculator.

Fruit industry electronic data flow Traditionally, shipping and inspection data was manually recorded and channeled from pack house and exporters to the Perishable Product Export Control Board (PPECB). This method was tedious, time consuming, and took at least 14 days for the information to be available. This impacted on turn-around time for marketing decisions. Since 2007, the South African fruit industry embarked on an initiative to implement an electronic data flow system. The initiative is aimed at making information available to producers and exporters within a week after shipment.

Marketing The South African deciduous fruit industry is highly developed and geared for the export of a large percentage of its production. Apples rank first, followed by table grapes, pears, peaches, plums, and apricots in the South African fresh fruit exports. The current world recession had a significant effect on types of packaging used in packaging the deciduous fruit. In the past the UK market demanded grapes packed in 9kg cartons and served as a more favorable destination for South African exporters. However, higher demand and prices in the Northern European open market forced exporters to focus on 4.5 kg packaging for these markets. The exporters of grapes to the UK and Europe reported an increased demand as average households are opting for healthier and affordable diet.

Green here to stay?: Green Revolution study by Grail Research

From the PR newswire, "Green Revolution" study by Grail Research


Study Provides Unique Insights to Help Companies Improve Their Communication Strategy and Effectively Influence the Shopping Behavior of Green Consumers

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Sept. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Grail Research, a global strategic research and decision support firm, today announced the availability of its study of "green" sentiment, titled "The Green Revolution." The report -- based on a nationwide survey of U.S. consumers -- provides new insights into consumer preferences, behaviors and attitudes toward green products.

"To effectively capitalize on the large and growing market for green products, businesses need to know what's driving consumer purchasing behavior. Our research was designed to help organizations understand how consumers define green, how committed they are to being green and what drives their decisions to purchase green products in specific categories," said Grail Research Client Service Officer Silvia Springolo. "Empowered with that knowledge, organizations can tailor their green communications, branding and marketing strategies to most effectively influence consumer shopping behavior and drive revenues."

The study, which is available on the Grail Research Web site, www.grailresearch.com, was commissioned to address several fundamental questions that the firm believed remained unanswered about the green revolution:

1. What does green mean to consumers? Does it relate to packaging, energy consumption, organic ingredients, all of these or something else entirely?
2. How committed are consumers to sustainable products, especially in tough economic times?
3. How do die-hard green consumers differ from their "light green" counterparts in attitude, behavior and demographics?
4. How effective have leading green companies been at establishing their green market positioning with consumers?

Key findings from Grail Research's "The Green Revolution" report include:

Green is here to stay:

* 84% of consumers currently purchase at least some green products.
* Only 1% of consumers who purchased green products have abandoned the category.
* A high percentage of green consumers expect to convert to green products in new categories, including cleaning products (93%), paper products (90%), fruits and vegetables (89%), electronics/small appliances (88%), durables (81%), packaged food (79%), health and beauty (74%) and apparel (59%).
* Price is the main reason non-green consumers have not purchased green products (69%).

Green consumers are more diverse than many companies believe:

* Green has some penetration in all demographic segments; however, the majority of green consumers are married women with no children under 18 in the home (57%).
* The 8% of consumers that purchase the majority of their products green (i.e. "dark green" consumers) are more likely to be older, more educated and more affluent.
* Dark green consumers have a better understanding of what green means, and their decision to buy green is driven more by environmental and health concerns.
* Dark green consumers are also much more likely than light green consumers to go directly to the green products section of a store.

Purchase drivers aren't just about the product being green:

* Consumers expect green products to be on par or superior to their non-green counterparts with regard to safety (72%), healthiness (70%), quality (66%) and price (65%).
* Each product category has a unique set of green features that is most important for driving purchases. Recyclable product packaging is the only green feature that is considered important for multiple product categories.

Companies' green initiatives are important to consumers, but in many cases they have not been effectively communicated

* 93% of consumers feel that a company's "greenness" is at least somewhat important to their purchase decision.
* However, on average 85% of consumers are unaware or cannot recall the green initiatives of companies like Hewlett-Packard, Estee Lauder and Intel, which are recognized by industry groups as leaders in the green revolution.
* Consumers rely on product labels (63%) and word of mouth (45%) as their primary sources of information about green companies and their products. Advertising (38%) and company Web sites (18%) are not as important to consumers.

The recession has impacted green but not trumped it:

* Almost two-thirds of consumers have changed their green purchase behavior in response to the recession.
* Most of these consumers have switched to less expensive green products (41%) or simply reduced the overall amount of green products that they use/consume (19%).
* However, 16% of consumers have actually increased their use of green products.

For additional information or to access the full report, please visit the Grail Research Web site at: www.grailresearch.com/green_revolution.

UK Supermarket Chain Profiles 2009 - USDA FAS

UK Supermarket Chain Profiles

Tesco is the number one supermarket in the UK and number three globally with stores in other European countries such as: the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Poland, and the Republic of Ireland. Tesco also trades in Turkey, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, China, and Thailand. In 2007, Tesco opened stores in the United States under the name Fresh & Easy. Tesco has been a market leader in the UK grocery sector for the last 25 years. It introduced the first loyalty card in the UK, which has become a highly efficient and targeted marketing system and now has over 14 million active members. Tesco was also the first UK supermarket to develop an on-line shopping service and is at present the most successful. Tesco?s progress in the UK in the last five years has been noteworthy. Tesco group sales were £59.4 billion ($95.1 billion) in 2008 which was an 11.1% increase on the previous year. They employ 287,000 people in the UK.

Asda/Wal-Mart Asda Stores Ltd.
Asda House,
Southbank Great Wilson Street Leeds,
West Yorkshire LS11 5AD
Tel: +44 113 243 5435
Website: www.asda.co.uk

Asda is the UK‟s number two supermarket chain with 17.2 percent market share. Wal-Mart bought Asda in July 1999. However, Asda has retained a very British feel in-store and a distinct identity separate from its parent company. Asda‟s strap-line is „Every day low price‟. This motto, together with Wal-Mart‟s global buying power, has contributed to the success of the UK business. Asda is driven by store expansion, non-food growth and price competitiveness. Asda has focused on large stores. However, suitable space for larger stores is hard to find in the UK and this is hampering its expansion possibilities. Unlike Tesco & Sainsbury‟s, Asda does not have a convenience store format. Instead it focuses on stand-alone, non-food formats. George Clothing stores and Asda Living Homestores were launched in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Asda currently owns 343 stores, predominately based in the North and South-East of England. The majority of Asda stores are in town centers or in suburban areas. Food is displayed in separate areas from clothing and non-food ranges. Asda employ 160,000 staff in the UK. Asda generally has three store formats. Smaller stores (up to 22,000 sq ft) are found in small town and suburban areas. This format has proven successful in recent years bringing Asda to locations that were once inaccessible to them. Superstores (up to 60,000 sq ft) is the typical Asda format, representing ninety percent of its UK stores. These offer a wide range of food and non-food products. Supercentres are over 100,000 sq ft in size. At present, there are 24 stores in the UK and they bring together the best of Wal-Mart and full food ranges. Around half of the space is dedicated to non-food. Asda is pitched at the lower-end of the mass market. It competes largely on price. Asda and Tesco are continually head-to-head in a price war, both hoping to be crowned the lowest-priced supermarket. They generally price match very effectively. A typical Asda supermarket carries about 30,000 product lines, 60 percent of which are food and beverage items. As well as branded products, Asda has a strong in-store label portfolio, with sub-brands such as: Smartprice (price led products); Asda (everyday food and non-food items); Good For You (fat, salt, sugar and calorie controlled products); and Extra Special (premium food).

Unlike Tesco and Sainsbury‟s, Asda does not have a loyalty card system. This may affect its ability to market to customers in the future. However, it reportedly prefers to invest the money that would be required to set up the scheme into driving prices down for customers. Despite slower growth in the last year, Asda is a strong business and a powerful player in the food and beverage market.


Sainsbury’s
Sainsbury Plc. 33
Holborn London, EC1N 2HT
Tel: +44 207 695 6000
Consumer website: www.sainsburys.co.uk
Corporate website: www.j-sainsbury.co.uk

Until the mid 1990‟s, Sainsbury‟s was the number one supermarket chain in the UK, but it has gradually lost ground to its main competitors - Tesco and Asda/Wal-Mart. Sainsbury‟s is currently number 3 with 15.7 percent market share. In 2007, Sainsbury‟s identified five main areas for growth. These were: “great food at great prices”, increasing number of complimentary food ranges, reaching more customers through additional channels, eg. home delivery, growing supermarket space and active property management. These initiatives have helped Sainsbury‟s keep its number three position. In 2009, Sainsbury‟s had 792 stores including 502 supermarkets and 290 convenience stores. Sainsbury‟s has annual sales of £20,383 million ($32,613 million) and an operating profit of £616 million ($986 million). Sainsbury‟s has two types of stores: traditional supermarkets and convenience stores. Sainsbury‟s 290 convenience stores are on average 4,000 sq ft in size. They have limited product ranges focusing on convenience products such as sandwiches and ready meals. The stores aim for high sales turnover of a limited range of products. As well as branded products, Sainsbury‟s has private label ranges: Taste the difference (premium foods); Blue Parrot Café (children‟s healthy food); Be Good to Yourself (low fat foods); Organics (organic lines) and Basics (price led food). Sainsbury‟s has tended to focus on food and beverages with a smaller store footprint than Tesco and Asda.

Morrison’s
Morrison‟s Supermarkets
Hilmore House, Thornton Road
Bradford, West Yorkshire BD8 9AX
Tel: +44 1274 494 166
Website: www.morrisons.co.uk

Morrison‟s is the 4th largest UK supermarket with 403 stores. Every week, 9 million customers shop in the stores. Morrison‟s employs 124,000 staff. With stores located throughout the UK, a typical Morrison‟s store is aimed at the mid-lower end consumer and stocks about 24,000 product lines. The company‟s strategy focuses on offering unbeatable customer service and a pleasant shopping environment; however, it competes primarily on price, special offers and multi-save promotions. Morrison‟s trys to stock local fresh products where possible. Approximately 55 percent of sales come from private label ranges. Morrison‟s private label portfolio consists of: Morrison‟s (quality and value); The Best (premium foods); Eat Smart (healthy foods); and Betterbuy (price led products). Morrison‟s stands out from other grocery stores due to its “Market Street” feature. This is where a collection of fresh food counter stalls are designed to look like a market including butchers, bakers, fishmongers, delicatessens and salads. The majority of products sold in the Market Street are private label. Morrison‟s has small non-food sections within its stores focusing on music and video, health and beauty products.


Waitrose
Waitrose
Doncastle Road
Bracknell Berkshire,
Tel: +44 1344 424 680
Website: www.waitrose.co.uk

Waitrose is the supermarket business of the John Lewis Partnership, a leading department store chain. It offers a broad range of products and high quality ingredients to an upper-middle class customer base. Waitrose stores are located in areas where consumers with a higher-than-average disposable income live. Waitrose stores are usually medium-sized compared to their UK supermarket rivals. However, Waitrose has introduced a larger store format called Waitrose Food & Home, e.g. their 5000m² store in Canary Wharf, London, and a new up-market food hall in the John Lewis department store in the well known shopping area of Oxford Street, London. Waitrose, like the major supermarket chains, has an internet shopping service. However, it has chosen to use a key associate company, Ocado, rather than perform their own deliveries.

Waitrose has 185 stores that are predominately based in the south of the UK. In November 2008, Waitrose opened its first store outside of the UK. It now has two stores in Dubai. Since Waitrose customers are less price-sensitive, it may present opportunities for American products that are of superior quality but not always the lowest priced.

Marks and Spencer
Marks & Spencer
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
London, W2 1NW
Tel: +44 20 7935 4422
Website: www.marksandspencer.com

Marks and Spencer is one of the UK‟s leading consumer retailers with over 21 million people visiting its stores each week. Marks and Spencer has over 600 stores located throughout the UK, ranging from large out-of-town stores of over 100,000 sq ft to Simply Food Stores of around 700 sq ft. The largest store in the UK is located on London‟s Oxford Street in the center of London and has trading space of over 170,000 sq ft, featuring both food and clothing ranges. As well as the UK, Marks and Spencer also has 285 stores in 40 countries. Marks and Spencer has premium quality food departments that are aimed at middle–upper class customers who are less price-conscious. They also attract customers shopping for special occasions such as dinner parties, birthdays, office celebrations, and holidays. Marks and Spencer is also a lunchtime destination for office workers picking up sandwiches and other snack items. In order to make the most of this market, Marks and Spencer has opened 205 stand alone Simply Food Stores that are convenience format stores of around 700sq ft in size. They are based in town centers, train stations and motorway service stations. Marks and Spencer pioneered the concept of chilled ready prepared food and has led the way in its development. Their food technical specifications are strict, particularly with regard to the traceability of ingredients. Apart from a few exceptions, Marks and Spencer sell products under only its own label.

Whole Foods Market

Whole Foods Market
63-97 Kensington High Street
London W8 5JE
Tel: +44 20 7368 6100
Website: www.wholefoodsmarket.com/uk/index.html

Whole Foods Market opened its flagship store on London‟s High Street Kensington in June 2007. The 80,000 square foot store is not only the largest food retail space in central London, but is also the first Whole Foods Market in Europe and marks a major step in expanding the company‟s brand beyond North America. It also owns four Fresh & Wild stores, which were acquired in 2004 and are based in central London. Fresh & Wild was a natural fit with the Whole Foods Market ethos and today they continue to showcase organic, natural, wholesome, and ethically-sourced products. Fresh & Wild‟s marketing platform is to stock food without artificial colorings, hydrogenated fat, flavorings, sweeteners or preservatives. In its first couple of years of trading in London, Whole Foods reported significant losses. This is likely due to a number of factors including the location and size of the store, the slowdown in organic food sales, the highly publicized rise in food prices and the trend of shoppers moving towards discount food shopping.

Aldi
Aldi Stores Ltd
Holly Lane Atherstone
Warwickshire, CV9 2SQ
Tel: +44 1827 711800
Website: www.aldi.co.uk

Aldi is a German owned company who opened its first UK store in 1990. Aldi, along with Lidl are the biggest “discounter” supermarket chains in the UK. Aldi currently has 328 stores in the UK and three percent market share. Thanks to the UK credit crunch, Aldi has seen sales increase by 40 percent in the last 18 months and are 25 percent up year-on-year. A few years ago, discounter stores were seen as stores for working class families on low incomes. However, the high quality of the products, low prices and numerous awards received by the discounters have seen all this change. Now, half of the customers through the door are those from upper and middle class families. People who in the past would have shopped at Sainsbury‟s or Waitrose. With a 45-percent pre-tax increase in profit in the past year, it is well known that the discounters are doing well. It is definitely a case of right retailer, right place at the right time. With consumer spending likely to fall even further in the next year, both Aldi and Lidl should expect continued increases in market share. This is just the boost that the discounters needed to increase customer acceptance. Tesco has certainly felt pressure from these stores and has developed their own “discounter” range. Aldi opens an average of one new store each week in the UK. The majority of Aldi‟s products are private label. As well as its everyday range, it has an up-market range called Specially Selected. The average size of Aldi stores is 1,000 sq meters. Due to limited stock, consumers buy staple food and drink items from the Discounter, and “top off” with specialty purchases from other retailers.

Lidl
Lidl UK
GmbH 19 Worple Road
Wimbledon SW19 4JS
Tel:+44 870 444 1234
Website: www.lidl.co.uk

Lidl, like Aldi, is German owned. It opened its first UK store in 1994. Lidl operates 430 stores throughout the UK and currently has a 2.4-percent market share. Unlike Aldi, Lidl has introduced well known brands into its stores as well as private label. Since 2005, both Lidl and Aldi have been going “up market” making their stores more attractive to meet the expectations of Middle Britain. The big difference between the discounters and the big four retailers is the number of lines they stock. A mainstream supermarket chain can stock 32,000 product lines compared to 1,600 in Lidl and 900 lines in Aldi. Instead of having 20 different lines of mustard, they stock one exceptionally good value product that they sell in high volume. Post Contact and Further Information If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, require a listing of UK importers, or need any other assistance exporting to the United Kingdom, please contact the USDA office in London. United States Department of Agriculture Embassy of the United States of America 24 Grosvenor Square London, W1A 1AE Tel: +44 20 7894 0040 Fax: +44 20 7894 0031 E-Mail: aglondon@fas.usda.gov Website: www.fas.usda.gov or www.usembassy.org.uk/fas/index.html


Further information on the UK retail grocery sector is available from the British Retail Consortium and the Institute of Grocery Distribution.

Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD)
21 Dartmouth Street Grange Lane
Letchmore Heath London, SW1H 9BP
Watford, Hertfordshire WD2 8DQ
Tel: +44 20 7854 8900
Tel: +44 1923 857141 Website: www.brc.org.uk Website: www.igd.com

EU 27 Apples and Grapes - USDA FAS

EU 27 Apples and Grapes - USDA FAS

EU-27 commercial apple production for MY 2009/10 is estimated down 2 percent and non-commercial production down 20 percent compared to MY 2008/09. However, large stocks of apples and concentrated apple juice (CAJ) have put strong downward pressure on producer prices both for processing apples and table apples.

As a result of the ample domestic supply, EU-27 imports are forecast to decline by four percent. EU-27 apple exports are expected to decline by nine percent, largely because of projected lower Polish exports to Russia. These cannot easily be compensated by higher exports from other MS, as some MS are facing phytosanitary certification issues when exporting to Russia. Commercial pear harvest is estimated 12 percent higher than in the previous MY. As a result pear imports are expected to decline in MY 2009/10. Pear exports may recover almost to the level of MY 2007/08, provided that there are no additional problems with phytosanitary certification for export to Russia. MY 2009/10 CAJ production (occurring from September through November) is forecast to substantially decline as a result of high stocks and low prices, this leaves room for higher CAJ imports in the latter half of the MY. EU-27 table grape production for MY 2009/10 is estimated 2 percent below MY2008/09 because of lower production in Italy.

Apples – Production Apples - Commercial Production The EU-27 is one of the leading producers and consumers of apples in the world. Poland, Italy, France, Germany, and Spain are the top five producing member states (MS) and together account for almost 75 percent of the total EU commercial apple production. Some 25 varieties are produced in the EU commercial apple sector in volumes exceeding 10,000 MT. Among these, Golden Delicious, Gala types, and Jonagold are the dominant varieties. However, production patterns vary from MS to MS. While Golden Delicious is the variety with the largest production in Italy, France, and Spain, Elstar plays this role in Germany and the Netherlands; Idared and Jonathan are the number one varieties in Poland and Hungary, respectively. Commercial apple production in MY 2009/10 is estimated at 10.9 MMT. The decrease of 2 percent compared to the previous MY 2008/09 is largely a result of reductions in Poland (lower acreage) and Spain (problems during pollination). Fruit quality seems to be good for the most part, with the exception of some local damage by hail and scab. Fruit diameter is larger than usual because of earlier pollination and good growing conditions in the last weeks prior to harvest.


Apples – Market Situation Currently (October 2009) the situation on the table apple market looks rather bleak. Apple stocks on June 1, 2009 were 48% higher than in the year before. In addition, high stocks of concentrated apple juice (CAJ) have reduced demand from the processing industry, which normally absorbs lower quality table apples. These two factors have put substantial pressure on producer prices. Industry sources hope that the situation will improve in the second half of the marketing year when lower quality apples have disappeared. Stocks According to WAPA EU stocks of apples amounted to 644,742 MT on June 1, 2009, compared to 436,840 MT at the same time in 2008. Reporting of stocks varies by MS. In some MS the stock number comprised apples stored at producer organizations (POs), in some MS stocks at POs and wholesalers. More important that the actual number is the year-on-year-change of stocks, as end of MY stocks can have a detrimental effect on the prices for the new harvest. Stocks are included in the “fresh domestic consumption” line in the PSD. Apples – Consumption Consumer preferences Apples are the most popular fruit in all MS, followed by bananas and citrus. However, a closer look within the apple segment does show differences in consumer preferences between MS. For information on variety and size preferences by MS please refer to page 9 of E48163. The movement to buy local and seasonal produce has gained a lot of traction in some MS such as the UK. To the British, apples are iconic local produce that conjure up nostalgia for traditional harvest time and days gone by. UK consumers are starting to question why apples and pears are imported during the British season, and the market is also responding to policy drivers on food security, climate change, and health. The demand for organic apples, which is highest in Germany, is expected to suffer in MY 2009/10 from the economic crisis. Consumers who buy organic only occasionally may revert to buying cheaper non-organic apples in order to save money.


Apples – Trade The majority of trade occurs within the EU-27 countries. Over the past five years, on average about 2.2 million MT of apples were traded between EU member states, while roughly 800,000 MT were imported from outside the EU-27. In recent years imports from outside the EU contributed between 6 and 8 percent to the total apple supply on the EU market. EU-27 external trade Imports The decrease of imports in MY 2008/09 compared to MY 2007/08 is largely a result of lower imports of apples for processing. For MY2009/10, imports are forecast to slightly decline further by 4 percent, because of high stocks and abundant domestic supply in the first half of the MY. More than 75 percent of EU-27 apple imports originate from the top five suppliers, all of which are located in the southern hemisphere and export mostly during the European off-season. The main importers of apples are The U.K. and the Netherlands, who together account for more than half of the EU-27 imports. However, much of the volume entering the Netherlands will not be consumed there but eventually be transshipped to other MS. U.S. apple exports to the EU-27 occur year-round, however the majority arrives between November and April. U.S. apples compete with domestically produced apples and with competitively-priced imports from China. For example, the average import price for U.S. apples in MY 2008/09 was 1455 USD per MT, while Chinese apples were imported at 1011 USD per MT (source: GTA). The main importers of U.S. apples are the U.K., Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Sweden.


Exports The increase in total EU-27 apple exports from MY 2007/08 to MY 2008/09 was largely a result of recovering Polish exports to Russia and the Ukraine, which more than compensated for lower exports from other MS such as Germany and the Netherlands. Other MS faced diminishing exports to Russia in MY 2008/09 as a result of newly imposed phytosanitary requirements. According to Dutch and German industry contacts, Russian maximum residue levels (MRLs) are among the strictest and lowest in the world, this pertains especially to the definition of the minimum detection level. If more than five shipments of apples per quarter from a given country are found to exceed these strict MRLs, until further notice every following shipment of this country needs to be accompanied by a “safety certificate” (SC) indicating the residue levels as determined by an authorized laboratory. This requirement is currently in place for apples and pears shipped from the Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, and Italy, as well as apples from Germany and pears from Belgium. It also pertains to re-exports from those countries, for example U.S. apples shipped to Russia via the Netherlands. As a result, U.S. exporter should carefully examine phytosanitary requirements if they ship produce to Russia via the EU. Shipments with SCs are also being tested again upon arrival in Russia. For MY 2009/10 exports are expected to decrease by about 9 percent. This is a result of a lower Polish harvest as well as lower demand from international markets in response to the financial crisis and associated problems of obtaining credit guarantees. The continuing problems of some MS with phytosanitary requirements when exporting to Russia in combination with lower Polish production could bring opportunities for U.S. exporters on the Russian market. The top destinations for EU-27 apples are Russia, Ukraine, and Algeria. The largest EU exporters are Poland (mostly to Russia and Ukraine), France (mainly to Algeria, Russia, U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia), and Italy (to Russia, Norway, and Libya). The largest EU competitors on important markets for U.S. exporters include:


Apples – Withdrawal from Market The reform of the EU common market organization for fruits and vegetables (see policy section) brought about a change in the intervention system (also called “withdrawal from market”). Previously, a producer organization was allowed to dispose up to 8.5 percent of its marketed volume of apples through intervention programs. However, unlike with other commodities, these volumes were not allowed to re-enter the market at a later stage. Instead, they had to be permanently “withdrawn from the market”, for example by donation to charity or be destroyed. As of 2008, “withdrawal from market” is no longer available as a separate measure but will have to be included as an emergency measure in the producer organizations’ operational program (OP). This means, the system moves from being financed entirely by EU funds to a co-financing system where producer organizations have to bear 50 percent of the costs. As a consequence, since MY 2008/09 member states authorities administer “withdrawals from market” programs only indirectly via approval of the OP. Thus numbers about volumes are no longer available. Also, some member states (for example Germany) have opted to do away with intervention for fruits and vegetables altogether.



Table Grapes - Production The European Union is one of the leading producers and at the same time importer of table grapes for fresh usage. Most of its production is concentrated in just three member states: Italy, Spain, and Greece. These three together on average account for 90 percent of the total EU-27 production. After a dramatic drop in the past decade, EU table grape area continues to decline albeit at a slower pace. The persistent market problems, including reduced profitability, increasing production costs, as well as the strong competition from other suppliers on the leading export markets, are the main factors behind this development. Nonetheless, the EU remains a leading producer of table grapes.

Total EU-27 table grape production in MY 2009/10 is estimated slightly lower than in the previous year. Increases in some regions are not high enough to compensate for the decline in production in Italy, where about two thirds of the total production is concentrated. In Italy, adverse weather in spring (excess of rains and relatively low temperatures) in the leading producing areas not only affected yields, but also caused a delay of about three weeks of the actual start of the marketing season. Excessive rains and unusually cold temperatures in mid-October led to quality problems (mould and rotten grapes). Although table grapes in Italy are usually produced using a plastic film cover, in order to control sunlight and temperature, the excess of humidity or cold temperatures made it necessary for the farmers to apply bunch cleaning, in order to remove the affected grapes. The leading table grape variety in Italy continues to be Italia (about two thirds of the total), followed by other seeded varieties (Victoria, Regina, and Red Globe). In contrast, production of seedless grapes continues to be marginal, due to their lower profitability, particularly in terms of yields, although their prices are substantially higher than those of the seeded grapes. Overall Spanish production is estimated some 8-percent larger than in 2008, thanks to generally favorable weather conditions. In Spain, over 50 varieties of grapes are produced and marketed, but the most important are still the popular traditional varieties, including Aledo, Ideal, Muscatel, Domingo and Napoleon. However the share of seedless grapes continues to increase, and has reached about 30 percent of the total. In Murcia, in particular, production of seedless grapes now represents more than half of the total, and the large majority of that is shipped to the UK market. In Greece, table grape production for fresh consumption is estimated to have recovered in MY 2009/10 after the drop in MY 2008/09. This is despite intensive rains in Spring, delaying ripening, and in September, shortening the harvesting period. Quality is reported to be good for the seedless varieties and average for the seeded grapes which represent about two-thirds of total table grape production. Greek grapes (both seedless and seeded) are mainly marketed in Europe during late July through the end of September.

Table Grapes - Consumption Total EU-27 fresh grape consumption has been rather stable in the most recent years at about 2.3/2.4 MMT, although still fluctuating in function of the domestic production trend. Imports from third countries, normally coming in the first half of the calendar year from the southern hemisphere, represent approximately 25 percent of total consumption. Starting in June and throughout the end of the year, EU grape consumption mostly consists of the domestic crops, along with minor quantities coming from Turkey and Morocco. Italy is not only the main table grape producer but also the main consumer in the EU, with almost one-third of the total consumption, still predominantly the traditional seeded varieties. Following behind Italy, the main consumers of table grapes are Germany, the UK, and France. In MY 2008/09, both German and French consumers showed a strong preference for the Italian seeded grapes, although imports of seedless grapes continue to grow. In contrast, in the U.K., consumption is almost exclusively concentrated on seedless grapes, coming from both other EU countries and outside the EU. For MY 2009/10, a decline in consumption is expected as a result of the international economic crisis. The current unfavorable market trend affects the whole horticultural sector, but is particularly difficult for the table grape industry. Unlike apples for instance, table grapes need to be marketed soon after the harvest. Quality concerns, caused by the adverse weather, as pointed out above, are also affecting consumption, further reducing the volume actually eaten by the Europeans.

The EU is the second largest importer of table grapes in the world, after the United States. In addition, the EU is a net importer of table grapes with imports exceeding exports more than four times by volume. The import value has continued to increase in the past years, reaching 1.5 billion dollars in 2008, while the export value has also grown, but remained well below the 300 million dollars. Imports into the EU for MY 2009/10 are likely to be reduced, as a consequence of the economic crisis. The major suppliers into the European market come from the southern hemisphere, where production is counter-seasonal to the EU, with South Africa and Chile in a leading position. Other important suppliers are Turkey and Egypt, which take advantage of their climate and have their crops available earlier than the EU producing countries. Imports from the U.S. have grown, and are mainly directed to the U.K. market. The largest EU importing countries are Germany, the U.K., and the Netherlands, but while the first two countries are also the largest consumers (after Italy) the Netherlands mainly serve as a trans-shipping point. Table grape exports outside the EU grew significantly in MY 2008/09 (+19 percent), but are expected to decrease again in MY 2009/10, due to the reduced demand again caused by the global recession. Major destinations are other European countries outside of the EU.

As can be seen growers’ prices of Italia (the leading table grape variety) during the current marketing year have decreased dramatically, averaging some 21 percent less in October 2009 than in October 2008 and 31 percent lower than two years ago. This is a result of the limited demand from both domestic and export markets. Greece has been experiencing a partially similar situation, with producer prices averaging well below last year’s levels. An additional factor in Greece and for seedless table grapes in Spain is the strong Euro exchange rate, compared to the British pound and other currencies. This has reduced demand for instance from the UK.


Policy Coordinated by Tania DeBelder/USEU Brussels Common Market Organization for Fruits and Vegetables

The EU Common Market Organization for Fruits and Vegetables (CMO) was last reformed in 2007 with Council Regulation 1182/2007. The reform aims to bring the F&V sector in line with other agricultural sectors that have already been reformed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The old-style production-linked payments are to be replaced by decoupled payments. The shift from production support to direct aid to producers is designed to improve the competitiveness, market orientation and sustainability of the sector. The new CMO entered into force January 1, 2008. Commission Regulation 1580/2007 (last amended by Regulation 441/2009) lays down rules for the implementation of the reform. Fruit School Scheme

A key objective of the reform of the Fruit and Vegetable regime was to reverse the declining consumption of fruit and vegetables. The consumption of fruit and vegetables has been falling in the EU, especially among children. The World Health Organization recommends 400g a day of fruit and vegetables, but children's intake is falling below this. The lack of available produce is apparently one of the factors responsible for the low consumption of fruit and vegetables. This, some state, is resulting in increasing weight problems and obesity in the EU especially among young children. The European School Fruit Scheme (SFS) is one measure to combat child obesity. Commission Regulation 288/2009 is laying down the rules for applying Council Regulation 1234/2007 as regards Community aid for supplying fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products to children in educational establishments, in the framework of a School Fruit Scheme. All schemes would consequently include three elements: free distribution of fruit (and/or vegetables) in schools, a series of accompanying measures (for example information campaigns on healthy eating habits), and monitoring and evaluation. The definitive allocation of Community aid per Member State participating in the School Fruit Scheme was established for the period from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010 in the Annex to Commission Decision C(2009) 5514. European funds worth €90 million every year will pay for the purchase and distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables to schools and the system will be reviewed after 3 years. The scheme began at the start of the 2009/2010 school year. Information and documents on the School Fruit Scheme are available on internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/fruitveg/sfs/index_en.htm .

Import Licenses To ensure a timely transmission of statistical data on EU apple imports, particularly for imports originating from the Southern Hemisphere, the EU requires imported apples to have an import license. For details on the system please refer to report E36009, which can be accessed at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200601/146176623.pdf .

Maximum Residue Levels for Fruits Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticide have been harmonized throughout the EU, and new legislation on the approval of pesticides has been approved and will be implemented by the end of 2010. For detailed up-to-date information please visit: http://www.fas.usda.gov/posthome/useu/pesticides.html. As a marketing tool, some retail chains in the EU exceed the EU regulations and require their suppliers to adhere to stricter company policies that limit the maximum residues to 30, 50 or 70 % of the respective EU MRL (or so-called private standards).

Certification of Fruit Shipments Unlike animal products, certification of plants and plant products is not harmonized in the EU. Phytosanitary certificates, issued by an APHIS inspector, are required to accompany U.S. shipments. APHIS issues phytosanitary certificates in accordance with the international regulations set down by the International Plant Protection Convention of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. This standard-setting body coordinates cooperation between nations to control plant and plant product pests and to prevent their spread. An overview of EU mandatory and voluntary certificates can be found at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/posthome/useu/certificates-overview.html.

Council Directive 2000/29/EC contains provisions concerning compulsory plant health checks. The checks consist of documentary, identity and physical plant health checks to verify compliance with EU import requirements. More information can be accessed on DG Health & Consumer Protection's website http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/organisms/imports/inspection_en.htm . Commission Regulation 1756/2004 provides for plant health checks to be carried out at reduced frequency where this can be justified (list of products recommended for plant health checks at reduced levels updated June 26, 2009). Starting September 1, 2005, EU member states are authorized to reduce the frequency of inspections on imports of U.S. apples (see GAIN report E35173).

Tariffs Imports of fresh fruit and vegetables are subject to the Entry Price System (EPS) which has been in place in its current form since the Uruguay Round. It is a complex tariff system that provides a high level of protection to EU producers. In this system fruits and vegetables imported at or above an established entry price are charged an ad valorem duty only. Produce valued below the entry price are charged a tariff equivalent in addition to the ad valorem duty. The tariff equivalent is graduated for products valued between 92 and 100 percent of the entry price. The ad valorem duty and the full tariff equivalent are levied on imports valued at less than 92 percent of the entry price. Financed by the Commission of the European Union and carried out by a consultancy, a study assessing the impact of changing the EPS was conducted in April 2008. The report concluded that the EPS can be considered as a way of signaling market disturbances rather than as a relevant trade restriction. The entire report can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/fruitveg/index_en.htm .

Whether or not the EU will maintain the EPS will be discussed in the context of the Doha Round trade talks. The EPS is not necessarily discriminatory for U.S. exporters. The U.S. tends to sell high quality products, which are usually relatively high priced and do not face any additional duty. Replacing the EPS with fixed tariffs could result in higher ad valorem duties. Tariff levels for 2010 are published in EU Regulation 948/2009. For details please refer to: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:287:SOM:EN:HTML Apples see pages 87 and 688-690 Pears see pages 88 and 690-692 CAJ see pages 156/157 and 873 Grapes see pages 87 and 687 Marketing Coordinated by Sabine Lieberz/FAS Berlin Information on marketing standards and industry certification has not changed from our 2008 report but is repeated below for year convenience.


Marketing standards In order to facilitate fruit and vegetable trade, the EU has marketing standards in place for a variety of products. While specific marketing standards for 26 types of fruits have been repealed effective July 1, 2009, those for apples, pears, and grapes remain in place. The marketing standards also regulate the labeling of produce. The labeling must be at least in the language of the country where the produce will be put on the market. Multi-language labels are permitted. Each package must bear the following particulars in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside: A. Identification - Packer and/or dispatcher: Name and address or officially issued or accepted code mark. However, where a code (symbol) is used, the words "packer and/or dispatcher" (or an equivalent abbreviation) must appear close to this code (symbol). B. Nature of produce - “Apples”/”Pears”/"Table Grapes", if the contents are not visible from the outside; - Name of the variety or, where applicable, varieties. C. Origin of produce - Country (or, where applicable, countries) of origin and, optionally, district where grown, or national, regional or local place name. D. Commercial specifications - Class. E. Official control mark (optional) Consolidated versions of the EU standards can be accessed at: Apples: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004R0085:20080531:EN:PDF Pears: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004R0086:20040520:EN:PDF Table grapes: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1999R2789:20050106:EN:PDF

Industry Certification The number of food scandals that have occurred in Europe in recent years involving various commodities - including fresh produce - has prompted the food industry to come up with various programs to ensure the safety of the traded food. While these programs are voluntary, the majority of retail chains in the UK and Germany require certification of good agricultural practice. For fruits and vegetables the most common program throughout the EU-27 is the GlobalGap certification (formerly EurepGap). In Germany, some retailers prefer the Q+S system. While Q+S is a three-tier system that involves everyone who handles the produce from producers, to wholesalers, and the retail chains, GlobalGap mainly focuses on the producer level and is often supplemented by the IFS (International Food Standard) on the wholesalers level. A major component of both systems is the extensive documentation requirement for all stages of the production process. Both systems/standards are open to international producers provided that they comply with the system and obtain a certification. Also a simultaneous certification for Q+S and GlobalGap is possible at the producer level. For more information please visit: www.globalgap.org http://www.q-s.de/en/

Food Safety Legislation Moves Forward in the Senate

The following are factoids, snippets and summaries of the following hearing:
Date: 10/22/09
Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Title: Keeping America’s Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System
Subject: Discussion of SB510 – Food Safety Modernization Act
View the Hearing: http://help/senate.gov/Hearings/2009_10_22/2009_10_22.html

Partial Highlights of Chairman’s Statements:
The chairman indicated in his opening statement that with more ingredients used, various methods of processing, products traveling thousands of miles and many times from countries with less vigorous standards than ours that is it past time to modernize our laws.
At one point in the hearing, the chairman stated that they intended to move ahead with mark-ups and get the bill to the floor as soon as possible.

Partial Highlights of Senator Durbin’s Statements:
He indicated his encouragement that many groups and organizations, such as FMI, GMA, NRA and others were supportive of the legislation. He put the numbers we continually hear into another perspective by stating that every 5 minutes 3 people rush to the hospital with foodborne illness and each day 13 people die.
He stated that FDA, in his opinion was working with limited staff and outdated laws.
He also expressed concern for the industry and public when he stated that 6 weeks after the tomato recall was when jalapenos had been discovered as the cause and significant industry losses had occurred.

Partial Highlights of Senator Dodd’s Statements:
This legislation has a sense of urgency.

Partial Highlights of Margaret Hamburg’s Comments (Commissioner of the FDA)
President O’Bama has stated that food safety is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. His Food Safety Working Group point to three areas and the bill addresses many of the concerns.
1. Prioritize Prevention
This bill does move the focus of the system to prevention. It shifts the FDA’s approach from one that reacts to outbreaks to one that seeks to prevent them in the first place.
2. Strengthening Surveillance and Enforcement
It does not supply all of the legal tools needed as it stands. Sections 301 regarding foreign supplier verification and Section 207 regarding detention of food need review. Also the bill does not mandate access to food records during routine inspections.
3. Improving Response and Recovery
Resources need to be addressed. Section 201 mandates inspections based on risk. However, although the intent is embraced, it doesn’t guarantee consistent fund resources.
When asked about the importance of HAACP, she indicated it was extremely beneficial. The legislation allows the FDA to re-focus on prevention and provides a systematic way of working with producers to shore up points of vulnerability and agreed that a risk based approach was the way to go.
She expressed concern that the mandates and responsibilities far outstripped resources and the FDA needed sustained and predictable funding.

NOTE: At various points there were comments regarding small and organic farmers and there was a difference of opinion as to the extent of their needed participation from a legislation standpoint. The bill as it is currently writing only applies to food produced for interstate commerce.
Margaret Hamburg noted that most actions currently are complaint based. This legislation provides for proactive actions such as testing and access to company files in this bill.

Partial Highlights of Caroline Smith DeWaal’s Statements (Director of CSPI):
Reform is long overdue.
Costs of foodborne illnesses range from 40 billion to 100 billion annually.
Need for a tracing system to trace back to source
Growers need to meet more standards
The bill needs minor changes in inspection systems, import provisions and other areas
On the issue of traceability, its critical, and traceability needs to be on food products from the consumer all the way back through the production cycle.
Needed improvements to bill need to include:
1. Frequency of inspections-Need categories of risk and associated frequencies of inspections
2. Testing – Want mandatory testing criteria built in together with reporting of positive test results
3. Imports- Review determination of accreditation body and responsibilities.

Partial Highlights of Tom Stenzel’s Statements (President of United Fresh):
He stated that the industry is well along in a multi-year produce traceability initiative committed to driving a standardized system of case coding for total supply chain traceability.
The FDA must determine appropriate national safety standards with full input from state, industry, academia and the consumer.
There are failures evident in outbreak management. He used spinach as an example stating it was one field, one lot, one day of shipments and the industry has never recovered based on the actions of government. He pointed out that the tomato industry was basically shut down for 6 weeks in pursuit of the wrong product.
He indicated that small farms should comply just as others.
The current system doesn’t use valuable industry expertise.
FDA lacks accountability when in error to the industry
The produce industry is totally committed to total supply chain traceability of our products. “We do have the technology today to supply a total traceability system”.

Partial Highlights of Michael Robertson’s Statements (Representing FMI, Director of Corporate Quality Assurance with Publix Supermarkets
The FDA needs adequate authority
The FMI supports the requirement that every requested facility have a HAACP preventative control plan.
They support the development of standards for product safety as well as inspections based on risk.
FMI supports enhancing traceback requirements, specifically the legislations establishment of pilot projects. Our industry recognizes that current traceability systems are not uniformly meeting the needs of the industry, the consumer and the government. We understand that there will be technical challenges and significant costs associated with the implementation of traceability throughout the supply chain infrastructure, and that is why we see the pilot program approach as being crucial.
FMI supports mandatory recall authority to FDA and supplier 3rd party certification audits.

Fw: NEWS RELEASE: Off Target -- Major Retailer Accused of Organic Fraud

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: "Mark A. Kastel - The Cornucopia Institute" <kastel@cornucopia.org>

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:04:48 -0500

To: Organic Integrity Project<kastel@cornucopia.org>

Subject: NEWS RELEASE: Off Target -- Major Retailer Accused of Organic Fraud

 

 

October 20, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:  Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

 

Off Target - Major Retailer Accused of Organic Improprieties

State and Federal Complaints Allege Mislabeling

 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN:  A public interest group that focuses on food and agriculture, The Cornucopia Institute, announced this week that it had filed formal complaints with the USDA's organic program, and Wisconsin and Minnesota officials, alleging that Target Corporation has misled consumers into thinking some conventional food items it sells are organic.

 

The complaints are the latest salvo into a growing controversy whereas corporate agribusiness and major retailers have been accused of blurring the line between "natural" products and food that has been grown, processed and properly certified organic under tight federal standards.

 

"Major food processors have recognized the meteoric rise of the organic industry, and profit potential, and want to create what is in essence 'organic light,' taking advantage of the market cachet but not being willing to do the heavy lifting required to earn the valuable USDA organic seal," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at Cornucopia.

 

The Wisconsin-based farm policy research group discovered Target nationally advertised Silk soymilk in newspapers with the term "organic" pictured on the carton's label, when in fact the manufacturer, Dean Foods, had quietly shifted their products away from organics.

 

Dean Foods, and its WhiteWave division, received media scrutiny, and industry condemnation, this past spring for not notifying retailers or changing the UPC codes, when they quietly switched to conventional soybeans in their core-products.

 

Dean/WhiteWave also received heat in the organic food and agriculture community when they decided to convert some of their Horizon products, the leading organic label in terms of sales volume, to cheaper "natural" (conventional) ingredients.  "This really hit a nerve because one of these new Horizon products, Little Blends yogurt, is aimed specifically at toddlers, at an early stage of development, where the nutritional superiority of organic food, and its utility in avoiding chemical residues in our food, is so critically important," Kastel added.

 

A front-page story in the Chicago Tribune in July outlined a consumer survey that showed the public was unclear about the difference between natural and organic labels and that some corporations, particularly Dean Foods, were taking advantage of the confusion in the marketplace.

 

The story quoted Suzanne Shelton, president and CEO of the Shelton Group which conducted the survey, as saying, "They [consumers] think 'natural' is regulated by the government but that organic isn't, and of course it's just the opposite."

 

In fact, a strict set of farm and food handling standards have been developed and implemented by the federal government to regulate food that qualifies for the USDA's organic seal.  For the most part, food products containing "natural' ingredients represent little more than soothing marketing puffery aimed at consumers. 

 

This is not the first tangle involving Cornucopia and Target.  The giant Minneapolis-based retailer's own upscale private label food line, Archer Farms, which blurs the line selling both natural and organically labeled food, came under scrutiny when Cornucopia discovered that it's organic milk supplier, Colorado-based Aurora Dairy,  was flagrantly violating federal organic livestock standards and filed a complaint with the USDA.

 

USDA investigators determined that Aurora had willfully violated 14 federal organic regulations.  In what was condemned as a "sweetheart deal" by some in the organic industry, the Bush administration allowed Aurora to stay in business.  Unlike some other retailers, Target stuck with Aurora as their milk supplier for their Archer Farms label.

 

"In an industry where educational achievement and passion are the common denominators in describing its clientele, Target could certainly be viewed as arrogant to think they can take advantage of consumers by ignoring both the spirit and letter of the laws governing organic commerce," Kastel affirmed.

 

SuperTarget stores have gained significant market share around the country and are, according to a recent Nielsen/Shelby report, now the number two grocer in Minnesota's Twin Cities market.

 

"We feel very strongly about taking seriously the use of the regulated term: Organic," said Lindy Bannister, general manager of The Wedge, the nation's largest member-owned cooperative store.  "Although we welcome all the players that bring organic food to people, we must insist that, for the unregulated (the non-certified retailers), they at the very least should proof their ads as they are subject to a federal fine for misusing that regulated term."

 

This is not the first time The Cornucopia Institute has found that specialty retailers, like the nation's approximately 275 co-op grocers, have faced unethical competition from big-box chains.  After the group filed complaints with federal and state regulators against Wal-Mart in 2006, also alleging misrepresention of conventional food as organic with improper signage in their stores, the nation's largest retailer signed consent agreements with the USDA and the state of Wisconsin committing to change their practices.

 

"Wal-Mart did indeed clean up its act, as we expect Target to do, but it should not take the judicious oversight of an industry watchdog to cause these giant corporations to comply with the law, said Will Fantle, research director for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia.  "One of the reasons these companies can undercut other retailers is they do not invest in the kind of management expertise necessary to prevent problems of this nature from occurring."

 

"It's bad enough Target steals real farmers' identities with that fake 'Archer Farms' label," said Barth Anderson, a consumer long involved in the organic movement and chief blogger at Fair Food Fight.  "But blurring the lines between natural and organic is just plain wrong.  Target is trying to profiteer at the expense of consumers like me."

 

Anderson was adamant that, "There's nothing wrong with larger corporations being involved in organics but if they squeeze out ethical companies by cutting corners, or play fast and loose by the rules, everyone loses — real farmers, organic consumers and retailers alike.  Blurring the lines between natural and organic is just plain trying to profiteer at the expense of consumers like me."

 

-30-

 

 

MORE:

 

The complaint filed with the USDA's National Organic Program can be viewed here:

 

http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/TargetComplaint_10-09.pdf

 

Photos of Mr. Kastel and Mr. Fantle, along with a graphic file of the Cornucopia logo, are available upon request.

 

 

 

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community.  Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.  Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.