A couple of weeks ago, I shared some findings from a Progressive Grocer report that outlined retail executives’ perspectives on connecting to consumers in new ways (including social media, mobile, etc.).

In that post I mentioned an opportunity for members coming up June 11-12 at our Fresh Connections: San Diego event. One of our speakers, Carisa Miklusak, has been sharing her thoughts on the digitally savvy consumer and the new decision making process through postings on PMA Xchange. Below I’ve pulled out some key points from her blogs; I encourage you to check out her full posts on Xchange.

• One of the major factors at play in this new landscape is social advocacy. This is the power of one consumer to influence another consumer with opinions and comments. Social media has particularly made the prevalence of social advocacy common and readily available to consumers. The trust that exists between consumers is proven to be significantly stronger than the trust that can be created between us as growers or retailers, and the consumer.
• Build your digital strategy by educating yourself off line. I know it sounds odd but often our best learning of what to do in the digital space occurs in our stores and communities. (Or perhaps, Fresh Connections: San Diego?)
• Pick one or two topics that are highly relevant and dig deeper, moving online to Google the topic, or search it on Facebook and Twitter to find out what kind of online conversations are happening. Then think about how you can contribute to the discussion.
• When someone talks about your product, specifically when they are talking to another consumer, highlight the conversation. You can do this by liking the comment, re-tweeting or re-posting the conversation, or simply by thanking both individuals for their feedback. This is a tactic that highlights social advocacy.

Even though we’re a few weeks away from Fresh Connections: San Diego, there is still time to sign up and plan your connections with the influential buyers already registered for this event. Confirmed retailers include Raley’s, Northgate Gonzalez Market, H-E-B, Grocery Outlet, Basha’s Markets, Save Mart Supermarkets, Bristol Farms, Safeway, Costco Wholesale, and Mollie Stone’s Market.

The deadline to register in advance and save is June 6. Get all the details by visiting our website and read more of Carisa’s Xchange posts (part 1 and part 2).

A few weeks ago here at PMA we received an update from U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS) Administrator Mary Bohman describing how funding reductions would affect the services ERS provides our industry for the rest of this year. In that update, she stated “many of these products rely on National Agricultural Statistics Service products that have been suspended because of budget reductions. In addition, reductions in the ERS budget limit our ability to quickly identify whether alternative information sources or approaches can be developed in time to meet the scheduled deadlines.”

For our industry, this means that the quarterly Vegetable and Pulses Outlook and Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook reports have been suspended and the Vegetable and Pulses Data and Fruit and Tree Nuts Data (both July-September) are not scheduled for update at this time. The fresh produce industry isn’t the only sector that will have less data from which to work; dairy, livestock, poultry, meat, aquaculture, and rice are also on the receiving end of research cuts.

I’m sharing this news with you in case you regularly use of one or more of ERS’s outlook reports that provide market analysis and statistics on fresh produce, or if you use ERS research as part of your business operations. ERS reports are one of many information sources I turn to when researching responses to PMA members’ questions and I’m disappointed that these reports won’t be available this year. I am hopeful that the data points provided by these reports can be obtained through other sources.

We’ll keep an eye on this issue and let you know if any new developments, or alternatives, arise.

According to “SnackTrack” by The NPD Group, snack-oriented convenience foods are playing a big part in consumers’ diets: the typical American eats more than 1,000 fresh fruit and sweet and savory snacks throughout the year, with children and teenagers the prevalent consumers of this product assortment. The study found that, on average, women eat 3.1 snack-oriented convenience foods daily. Men eat an average of 2.7 snacks a day.

The top five snack foods are fresh fruit, chocolate, potato chips, cookies and yogurt.

Approximately eight of every 10 in-home snack food eatings are considered to be a snack-oriented convenience food vs. other foods, regardless of time of day. With regard to motivators for selecting a particular snack, “like the taste,” “was hungry,” “had a craving,” “favorite snack,” and “was simple and easy to eat” ranked among the top 10 reasons.

In a press statement, a NPD analyst suggested “connecting your marketing messages to the emotional nature of snacking — think taste, cravings and indulgence — will help drive your product’s selection.”

When it comes to fruit snacking in my house, taste and cravings are definitely the biggest motivators – especially with my three-and-a-half year old daughter. During the course of the last month, we bought some melons from a nearby market. After getting them home and cutting them open for a snack, we realized that the ripeness and taste just wasn’t there. As a result, when we’re in that market, we skip melons for now until the local season gets underway.

What do you think about this study? How can produce marketers utilize the marketing messages (taste, craving, indulgence) suggested by NPD? Share your thoughts in the Increasing Consumption Community on PMA Xchange.

A few weeks ago, I shared that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had published a report titled Analysis of Results for FDA Food Defense Vulnerability Assessments and Identification of Activity Types. This report compiled findings from vulnerability assessments FDA has conducted on more than 50 products or processes, leading to the identification of processing steps of highest concern and to potential mitigation strategies to reduce vulnerabilities.

More recently, FDA released a new tool to help bolster the food industry’s defense measures against an act of intentional food contamination. The Food Defense Plan Builder is a software program designed to help owners and operators of food facilities—ranging from primary production and manufacturing to retail and transportation—develop customized plans to minimize the risk of intentional contamination at their individual food facilities.

The Food Defense Plan Builder guides users through a series of substantive questions about the user’s food facility and the food manufactured, processed, packed or held there to develop a comprehensive food defense plan for the facility, which includes a vulnerability assessment, broad and focused mitigation strategies, and an action plan.

The FDA does not require food facilities to implement food defense plans, but many facilities (including those in the fresh produce industry) have voluntarily put such plans into place as a result of the provisions of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.

Should you wish to consider this new resource into your food defense plan strategy, visit the FDA website.

Following up on yesterday’s post about country of origin labeling, I thought I’d share some new information about another industry labeling topic – albeit more on the supply chain efficiencies side of the industry.

Currently there is a gradual transition underway from generic Universal Product Codes (UPCs) to company-specific UPCs. Currently, UPC numbers begin with a generic, PMA-assigned prefix, followed by an item reference number and check digit to identify packaged produce. It’s expected that retailers will begin to require a more specific UPC where the prefix is assigned by GS1 US, a global standards organization for multiple industries.

The specific UPC will identify the item and the company of origin, enabling retailers to differentiate between different brands of product in the same category. As a result, retailers are able to determine sell-through and shrink data by brand.

To help industry through this transition period, we are developing a UPC migration tool that will be available June 1. In the meantime, we’ve added information on this topic to our website.

We also have several other tools available to industry, including Databar Online. This tool, initially created in 2009, was created to allow distributors to communicate their item numbers to buyers, and allow buyers to download the information into their point-of-sale systems for loose and bulk items. Having recently undergone enhancement, Databar Online now delivers a more user-friendly experience, including a streamlined registration process and the ability to easily update records. Databar Online is currently available to the industry at large—PMA members receive discounted pricing. An instructional eLearning course on Databar Online will be available today, May 15.

Lately here at PMA, I’ve had a number of members contact me with labeling questions, with a particular emphasis on country of origin labeling. As you know, fruits and vegetables are among several commodities for which country of origin labeling declarations must be made at retail.

One of the more frequent questions I receive is about the use of “and” when making country of origin declarations on commingled products. Since this answer can be a bit difficult to find in the U.S. Department Agriculture’s regulatory language in the final country of origin labeling rule, I asked Julie Henderson, USDA’s Country of Origin Labeling Director, for clarification. I’ve worked with Julie and her staff for a number of years now on country of origin issues and here’s what she shared with me:

“When commingling occurs, meaning a single type of covered commodity (e.g., frozen peas, mangos, etc.) that has been prepared from raw material sources having different origins, all of the origins must be listed on the label. The country of origins declared on the package or display may be separated by the word “and”; a comma (,); a hyphen (-); or a slash (/). The word “and”, as well as all of the symbols mentioned, indicate that the contents of the package are commingled from all of the countries listed. It does not mean that the countries listed could be from one or more of the countries listed.

“In other words, the country of origin declaration needs to be accurate and specific to the contents of the package or display. Some companies list all possible countries that could be contained in the package by using checkboxes. Simply, they indicate the appropriate countries by checking the corresponding box(es). This, too, is also acceptable as long as retailers and consumers have a clear understanding of the origin of the product.”

If you have questions about fresh produce labeling, be they country of origin related or otherwise, please contact me at PMA. We have resources, including our Nutrition and Produce Labeling Guide and a country of origin labeling page, for our members.

And for our retail members, Julie also shared that country of origin compliance checks are just getting underway for 2013 – so now’s a good time to look at in-store COOL declarations (particularly signage) for accuracy. Here are some tips to help.

Next month, the Center for Produce Safety will hold its 2013 Research Symposium, June 25-26 at the Wegmans Conference Center in Rochester, New York. A few weeks ago, I shared that noted food safety attorney Bill Marler will present the CPS keynote address on June 25 on the evolving legal and financial realities of produce food safety and what it means for the industry. Today I’m taking a detailed look at the following food safety issues that will be discussed:

• A series on Listeria. Topics include a discussion of Listeria and produce (what you need to know and lessons learned to manage risks); Listeria 101; and living the reality of a Listeria contamination event.
• Composts and Ag Practices/Pathogen Survival. Topics include validating Salmonella inactivation during thermal processing of the physically heat-treated chicken litter as a soil amendment and organic fertilizer; validation of testing methods for the detection and quantification of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., fecal coliforms and non-pathogenic E. coli in compost; an investigation of E. coli survival on contaminated crop residue; and glucosinolate-derived compounds as a green manure for controlling E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in soil.
• Water Quality for Irrigation and Postharvest Practices. Topics include an assessment of E. coli as an indicator of microbial quality or irrigation water use for produce; an evaluation of sampling protocol to provide science-based metrics for use in identification of Salmonella in irrigation water testing programs in mixed produce farms in the Suwannee River watershed; enhancing the efficacy of fresh produce washing operations through establishing monitoring methods and water disinfection technologies based on a combination of filtration and UV; and parameter optimization to reduce susceptibility of tomatoes and peppers to post-harvest contamination, pathogen transfer and proliferation of Salmonella.
• Pathogen Transference: Preharvest, Harvest and Packing. Topics include the likelihood of cross‐contamination of head lettuce by E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and norovirus during hand harvest and recommendations for glove sanitizing and use; pathogen transfer risks associated with specific tomato harvest and packing operations; the survival, transfer, and inactivation of Salmonella on plastic materials used in tomato harvest; E- coli O157:H7 in bioaerosols from cattle production areas: evaluation of proximity and airborne transport on leafy green crop contamination.
• Sanitization of soft fruits with ultraviolet (UV-C) light. Topics include the influence of the pre-harvest environment on the physiological state of Salmonella and its impact on increased survival capability; Comparative assessment of field survival of Salmonella enterica and E. coli O157:H7 on cilantro (Coriandrum sativum) in relation to sequential cutting and re-growth; and the role of riparian zones in bacteria dispersal to produce farms.

Finally, though I’ve pointed out this resource before, I’m mentioning it again because it translates produce science and research into layman’s terms. Available on our website, A Practical Guide to the Scientific Research Presented at The Center for Produce Safety’s 2012 Research Symposium includes research from the 18 projects covered during the 2012 symposium presentations, information from the annual or final reports for each project, prior research funded through CPS relevant to these findings, posters on display at the symposium, and panel discussions following session presentations.

To register for the 2013 CPS Research Symposium, visit the CPS website. To discuss this or other industry food safety research needs, join the Food Safety Community on PMA Xchange.

In addition, if you’re planning to join us in Rochester for the CPS event, we invite you to join us the day after for a Fresh Connections event on June 27 - where PMA Chief Science & Technology Officer Dr. Bob Whitaker will explore key findings, highlights and business implications from the 2013 symposium. More details on Fresh Connections: Rochester will be available soon.

Despite uncertainties around rising fuel prices and the overall U.S. economy, retail expectations for sales in 2013 remain optimistic according to Progressive Grocer’s Annual Report of the Grocery Industry. This annual survey of retail executives found that private label, produce, and deli/prepared foods are the top three traffic generators – with the highest expectations being tied to higher produce sales this year.

This optimism was also reflected when respondents ranked the most influential in-store department in terms of driving stores’ overall brand/image:

• Meat/fresh meats: 49.6 percent
• Produce: 28.1 percent
• Deli/prepared foods: 12.6 percent
• Grocery/dry grocery: 10.4 percent
• Bakery: 8.1 percent

One section of the annual report that has grown during the past three years has been the focus on connecting to consumers in new ways (via social media, mobile, etc.). The top five benefits of mobile devices/smartphones listed by respondents were: weekly sale items (68 percent); e-coupons (64 percent); personalized discounts (39 percent); e-recipes (31 percent); and price comparisons (28 percent).

As for social media, it trailed only associate feedback as an extremely/very effective strategy to tap into consumer insights. When it came to retail attitudes on social media, 57 percent of retail respondents characterized it as “challenging,” while others described it as “insightful” (33 percent) and a “blessing” (27 percent).

And wherever there’s a blessing, there’s typically also a “curse” to go with it (with 10 percent of respondents feeling this way).

If you’re a supplier or retailer with the “curse” mindset concerning social media, you may want to put our Fresh Connections: San Diego on your calendar. From June 11-12, we’ll be looking at how to reach the digitally connected consumer and other key trends. Even though it’s about a month out, a number of influential buyers have already registered for this event.

As you know, one of the many issues I blog about here at PMA is sustainability, ranging from new surveys or reports to member sustainability stories. Recently while getting caught up on a short stack of industry magazines, I read Progressive Grocer’s 2013 Sustainability Handbook and came across some interesting statistics and trends that may be of interest:

• The Food Marketing Institute’s 2012 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends Report found that almost one-third of consumers said products’ environmental sustainability impacts their shopping decisions. More than one-fifth said they consider retailers’ corporate sustainability practices when making purchasing decisions.
• Ninety-two percent of college graduates say they want to eventually work for a sustainable company.
• An Ipsos InnoQuest global survey found consumers are likely to pay more for value-added features that relate to freshness and sustainability in food packaging. Leading these features are “keeps food fresher longer” (55 percent), environmentally friendly packaging (55 percent), reusable packaging (42 percent), and easier-to-use packaging (39 percent).

The handbook also cited a report I mentioned a few months ago: A.T. Kearney’s Buying into the Local Food Movement. This study found consumers embrace local food options because they think doing so helps local economies (66 percent), delivers a broader and better assortment of products (60 percent), and provides healthier alternatives (45 percent). It also recommended that, in order for larger grocers to convince customers to purchase local food, these operators must prove they can offer products of equal or greater quality than standard products, as well as ensure that local products are given adequate shelf space and location.

With regard to the findings from the Ipsos InnoQuest survey, I’m reminded of what we found in our own of consumer packaging preferences toward fresh produce: eco-friendly packaging is important to just fewer than 40 percent of consumers. Our report also recommended that produce companies appeal to the “green” consumer by ensuring that packaging include any relevant information about the packaging or symbols that indicate recyclability (many consumers expressed confusion as to where to locate this information on existing packaging).

To learn more about this resource, visit our packaging study page to view the report and video Podcasts.

What do you think about these trends? Share your thoughts with us in the Sustainability Community on PMA Xchange.

With Mother’s Day in the U.S. coming this Sunday, I recently read about a new study that examines how childhood influences shape food perceptions and purchases into adulthood. Created by Sullivan Higdon & Sink, The Mom Influence takes a closer look at the impact moms have on consumers’ food purchase patterns and cooking habits. Among highlights from this free seven-page white paper are:

• 51 percent of consumers said they learned to cook mostly from their Moms, and all consumers under age 45 are 12 percent more likely to say they learned their cooking skills from Mom.
• 66 percent of consumers said they still cook certain dishes the way their Moms cooked them.
• 50 percent of consumers said they buy certain foods because their Moms bought those foods, and consumers under the age of 45 are 21 percent more likely to pick up their Moms’ purchasing habits.
• 35 percent of consumers said they still call their Moms to ask cooking questions. This percentage almost doubles (67 percent) for consumers under age 45.

In light of these findings, the report also noted some business implications food marketers and retailers might leverage, such as help lines for consumers with cooking questions; careful considerations of consumer emotions when considering changes to food packaging/brand messaging; and making Mom an advocate for their products.

Interestingly, the study authors mentioned that their next white paper while focus on cooking and purchasing decisions from a man’s perspective – hopefully this will be out by next month in time for Father’s Day here in the U.S.

What do you think about the Mom influence? How did your Mom shape your food tastes, purchases, or perceptions? Share your thoughts in the Increasing Consumption Community on PMA Xchange.