Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released its 2011 Pesticide Data Program report, highlighting “[…] U.S. food does not pose a safety concern based upon pesticide residues.” In a statement to members, PMA President Bryan Silbermann noted that “this report reaffirms what we’ve known all along – produce remains the safe choice for consumers. Both the data and the comments from the agencies involved demonstrate that making ‘half your plate’ fruits and vegetables promotes strong, healthy families.”

Also, as it did last year, USDA issued a “What Consumers Should Know” backgrounder to help the public understand the context of the report.

In addition to the USDA consumer backgrounder, the fruit and vegetable industry can use various science-based tools developed by the Alliance for Food and Farming to rebut misleading pesticide residue statements about our industry’s wholesome products.

For example, a 2011 report from the Alliance found that application of older, broad-based pesticides in California has declined 66 percent over the past 12 years. A separate review (conducted by a panel of five scientists in toxicology, risk assessment, and nutrition) of the science behind so-called “dirty” produce lists concluded there is no scientific evidence that the amount of pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables present any health risks.

The Alliance website also has videos of farmers talking about pest and disease control methods on both conventional and organic produce farms. In these interviews, farmers explain how pesticide use has changed over the past several years and describe the strict government regulations that must be followed whenever pesticides are applied on conventional or organic acreage.

PMA is a long-time supporter of the Alliance and its work. For more details, visit the Safe Fruits and Veggies website. Tell us what you think about this effort in the Increasing Consumption Community on PMA Xchange.

Last week the Center for Produce Safety at the University of California, Davis, announced its 2013 request for food safety research proposals. The center and its public and industry research partners are making $3 million available to fund general and commodity-specific research aimed at addressing the fresh produce industry’s food safety research needs.

The 2013 RFP seeks to fund both general produce food safety questions and commodity-specific questions. Core (produce-general) research priorities endeavor to better understand risk potential and to develop more effective food safety management tools in the following areas:

• Compost, soil amendment fertilizer use, and cultivation practices
• Buffer zones from domestic animals to fruit and vegetable production
• Co-management of food safety and the environment
• Agricultural water
• Climate, environment, and production practices
• Harvest and cooling practices
• Pathogen transfer from water during postharvest handling and processing
• Pathogen survival in the postharvest distribution chain

In a press statement, our Chief Science and Technology Officer Dr. Bob Whitaker (also chair of the CPS Technical Committee) noted the request for proposals “builds upon the portfolio of research projects already funded by CPS as we seek to extend our understanding of food safety across the produce industry. I’m particularly encouraged by the diverse collection of partners that have chosen to participate in this year’s request and look forward to working with them as we review proposals for funding.”

To view the full RFP, visit the CPS website. Proposals are due March 28, 2013 and should be submitted through the CPS Grant System.

The CPS has provided industry with a number of food safety education resources, including Webinars on washwater and the annual research symposia that have been held each June. You can learn more via the CPS tag.

The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance (MCFA, PMA is a member) urged the U.S. Trade Representative to advance greater regulatory compatibility between the U.S. and the European Union (EU) on agricultural chemical registrations, especially establishing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for agricultural chemicals.

“Even slight variations for the same agricultural chemical as may be imposed by either (entity) can preclude or disrupt trade by leading to unnecessary product rejections at point of entry or, after entry, to consumer product recalls,” wrote MCFA chairman Chris Schlect of the Northwest Horticultural Council. “This might easily be accomplished by the regulatory agencies of both political entities establishing reasonable and clear tolerance levels for agricultural chemicals when they might be inadvertently present on a food or used purposely in compliance with the producing nation’s regulatory framework.”

Citing the importance of “minor” crops to U.S. agriculture, which are often exported to the EU, the letter noted that MRL variations “are mere symptoms of the sharp differences that have developed over the years between our country and the EU in terms of their respective systems for regulating pesticides. This highly variable regulatory environment urgently requires comprehensive reform aimed at facilitating commercial trade, while keeping in place high standards of consumer health safety. These two important policy goals—commercial trade and consumer safety― are not mutually exclusive.”

The letter suggested harmonizing regulatory policies in the following areas:

• Use of the proportionality concept in setting MRLs
• Defining a reasonable criteria for minor use crops
• Establishing a transparent and quick process to establish import tolerances (MRLs)
• Establishing a reasonable tolerance for the presence of certain postharvest materials, such as morpholine in food grade waxes
• Joining global efforts to promote joint guidelines for residue trials
• Joining global efforts to align data collection processes and procedures for residue trials
• Joining global efforts to address obstacles to joint registration

The letter, in response to a USTR call for comments on EU compatibility, points out the need for regulatory harmonization. Ours is a global marketplace, and almost every nation is below recommended fruit and vegetable consumption. Public safety is essential and it is safety that leads to consumer trust. However, sometimes numbers are the problem, not safety.

As corporate responsibility grows and mainstreams, companies need to adapt. Brendan LeBlanc, executive director, Americas Climate Change and Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young, offered action steps for today as you build sustainability within your organization. Based on a survey done with GreenBiz in 2011 (85% of respondents are from the U.S.), LeBlanc noted the following trends:

1. Sustainability reporting is growing but the tools are still developing. Shareholders/investors want more information about sustainability issues. Some tools exist, but they are rudimentary compared to those used for financial reporting.
2. The CFO’s role in sustainability is on the rise: 65% of CFOs are somewhat or very actively involved in sustainability initiatives, with the top three drivers for this interest being cost reductions, managing risks, and investor relations.
3. Employees emerge as a key stakeholder group for sustainability programs and reporting, second behind customers but ahead of shareholders (NGOs are fifth).
4. Greenhouse gas reporting remains strong and there is growing interest in water. Despite a lack of regulatory requirements to manage, measure, or report emissions, climate change has become a strategic concern. Reporting on water use is on the rise and more companies and shareholders/investors view water issues as a business opportunity (savings by using less) rather than risk, though he asserted it should be framed as a risk. Water costs today are cheap overall, and the opportunity is now for longer-term planning.
5. Awareness is on the rise regarding the scarcity of business resources as 76% anticipate their company’s core business objectives will be affected by natural resource shortages.
6. Rankings and ratings matter to company executives, and equity analysts are now considering a company’s sustainability performance. He said: Even if investors don’t care now, they will. Be prepared. Be a leader.

To that end, LeBlanc offered the following action steps:

1. Actively pursue a sustainability reporting system that employs a similar transparency and rigor as the system used for financial reporting.
2. Engage CFOs in sustainability efforts. Encourage them to embed the sustainability strategy in the core strategy of the business.
3. Recognize that employees are a key stakeholder and vital source of sustainability engagement and ideas.
4. Understand that GHG disclosure has value outside the regulatory arena.
5. Assess the availability and reliability of strategic business materials and resources from a sustainability perspective. Develop a risk management plan addressing contingencies for disruptions.
6. Understand the value of sustainability reporting to rankings and ratings organizations, particularly those of interest to investors.

Though LeBlanc’s trends and advice were offered in the context of publicly traded companies, he said that they apply to privately held companies as well. Does this advice ring true to you? How is sustainability incorporated into your business processes and at what level? Join the Sustainability Community on PMA Xchange and be sure to join us at the sustainability workshop at Fresh Summit in Anaheim next Friday.

What will 2020 look like? A burgeoning population? Advances in technology? Changing consumer expectations and priorities? Dr. Sally Uren, deputy CEO of Forum for the Future, which helps organizations prepare for a sustainable future, in early October addressed the Sustainability Summit, put on by the Trading Partner Alliance (Food Marketing Institute and Grocery Manufacturers of America). She speculated about the future, including hypothetical wars over water, grain crises due to climate change, and a dramatic impact of social media. Future scenarios may or may not come to pass, she said, but some things are clear. Sustainable consumption has mainstreamed, she said, whether or not consumers demand it and regardless of the economy.

She offered five recommendations as companies take steps today to prepare for that future:

1. Take innovative business models to market.
2. Work with your value chain to find new solutions.
3. Strengthen local brands and local production. She said we cannot assume that by 2020 mainstream consumers will love a big global brand. She advised companies to think about local interpretation of their brands that resonates with the consumer and community. Consumers like things from local sources, she said.
4. Build up long-term trust through transparency. If you make a mistake everyone will know in five seconds. Use this speed to build your brand.
5. Use the power of marketing to accelerate sustainability. Get there first and create market demand. Combine attributes such as healthy and sustainable. Link sustainability to saving money.

Where does sustainability rank in your strategic plan? How is it integrated into your business planning? What should you and/or the industry be doing now to prepare for the future? Join the conversation in the Sustainability Community on PMA Xchange.

In early October I spent some time in sustainability meetings, looking at what this key issue means to companies and consumers, including the latest trends. The International Food Information Council offered a collaborative meeting for food groups in advance of the FMI-GMA Sustainability Summit. At the IFIC meeting, we raised more questions than answers, but those questions indicate the expansion and maturing of sustainability conversations in the food industry. For example:

• To what extent should nutrition and food security (having enough food to feed the world’s population) be factors in sustainability? Is that part of the “people” pillar in the traditional “people, planet, profit” sustainability paradigm?
• How does technology fit into the equation? In what ways does it advance sustainability? If it does, how does one answer critics who opine that certain technologies may be the antithesis of sustainability?
• What makes effective communication on sustainability? Who are we trying to reach/influence? How do we do that most effectively? Consumers are not on the same page when it comes to sustainability. Some are early adopters and care deeply, using sustainability information to help them make purchasing decisions, and they may have misperceptions about the issue and industry’s efforts. Others have heard about it, but it’s not having any impact on their daily lives. Who do we address and how? Who is driving this discussion? What is noise and what is influence/impact?

The folks from IFIC offered consumer data on the issue from their recent survey. When asked about factors that affect consumer purchasing decisions, about 35 percent mentioned sustainability, which ranked fifth, behind taste (87 percent), price (73 percent), healthfulness (61 percent), and convenience (53 percent). Two-thirds said they had thought about the sustainability of their foods and beverages. Their definitions of sustainability are inconsistent, and four in 10 know nothing about sustainable food production. Despite all of that, nearly seven in 10 think it’s important that foods are produced in a sustainable way.

Join us in the conversation about sustainability. We’re talking about these issues on PMA Xchange. And we’ll have a workshop on how to reach consumers that care about sustainability at PMA’s Fresh Summit October 26 in Anaheim. So be sure to register for the All Access Pass or Friday Daily Pass to participate there.

On Monday, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced $101 million in grants to support America’s specialty crops producers, who provide the fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutritious foods for millions of healthy American meals each day. Approximately $55 million of the total will be invested in 56 specialty crop block grants to states that fund 748 initiatives across the country to strengthen markets and expand economic opportunities for local and regional producers.

The goal of USDA’s Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is to promote and increase opportunities for specialty crop producers. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands received grants this year, totaling $55 million. The program supports initiatives that:

• Increase nutritional knowledge and specialty crop consumption
• Improve efficiency within the distribution system and reduce costs
• Promote the development of good agricultural, handling and manufacturing practices while encouraging audit fund cost-sharing for small farmers, packers and processors
• Support research through standard and green initiatives
• Enhance food safety
• Develop new/improved seed varieties and specialty crops
• Control pests and diseases
• Create organic and sustainable production practices
• Establish local and regional fresh food systems
• Expand food access in underserved/food desert communities

An additional $46 million will go to support new and continuing research and extension activities to address challenges and opportunities for growers and businesses that rely on a sustainable, profitable specialty crops industry through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI).

To get involved, talk to your state department of agriculture so that your ideas can be turned into grant requests that move our industry forward. For more details, visit the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program website. If you’ve benefited from the block grant program, tell us about it in the Increasing Consumption Community on PMA Xchange.

TV personality Dr. Mehmet Oz is at it again. And we can’t let him get away with it.

Today the Dr. Oz Show aired a segment claiming children’s health issues from pesticide residues on fresh produce. PMA is launching an aggressive response to set the record straight that fresh produce is safe for consumers young, old and in between. Working with allies including the Alliance for Food and Farming, our efforts include a joint letter to Dr. Oz, contacting consumer media and consumer influencers, calling industry to action and placing opinion editorials by reputable third parties.

Now it’s time for you to get involved.

Producers: We invite you to engage with Dr. Oz on his social media channels: Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest; to inform your customers and consumers; and to contact your local reporters.

Sellers: We invite our retail, foodservice and other seller members who sell fresh produce to consumers to learn more about the safety of fresh produce and dangers of unfounded pesticide residue scares, to share this information with your consumer affairs staff, and to communicate transparently with interested consumers.

For helpful links, key messages and tools created specifically to assist you in your response, see our member letters referenced above or contact PMA Public Relations Director Meg Miller.

Regardless of which link of the supply chain you work in — from fruit and vegetable fields and farms, to packing, marketing and sales, wholesale, to retail, foodservice or anywhere in between – you have a powerful story to tell about our industry’s commitment to providing safe and wholesome produce. Make your voice heard!

Earlier this week, the Center for Produce Safety (CPS) at the University of California, Davis, announced ten new grant awards for research directed at answering critical questions in specific areas of food safety practices for fruit, vegetable and tree nut production, harvest and post-harvest handling. The awards announced resulted from the CPS request for proposals issued in February, and we were made possible by funds provided by CPS Partners in Research members and contributors to the CPS Campaign for Research. To date CPS has funded 69 projects valued at $10.6 million.

The CPS Technical Committee (our Dr. Bob Whitaker is chairman of the committee) reviewed 50 proposals, the highest number of proposals received in response to its annual request for proposals since the initial RFP in 2008. It recommended ten proposals for funding. New projects will begin in January 2013 on the following topics:

• Reducing the risk for transfer of zoonotic foodborne pathogens from domestic and wild animals to vegetable crops in the southwest desert;
• Assessment of sanitation techniques for tree fruit storage bins;
• Rapid assessment of oxidative stress induced in microbes to evaluate efficacy of sanitizers in wash water;
• Practical validation of surface pasteurization of netted melons;
• Avirulent Salmonella strains and their use to model behavior of the pathogen in water, composts, in and on vegetables;
• Die-off rates of human pathogens in manure amended soil under natural climatic conditions using novel sentinel chamber system;
• Genomic elucidation of the physiological state of enteric pathogens on pre-harvest lettuce;
• Science-based evaluation of risks associated with wildlife exposure for contamination of irrigation water by Salmonella;
• Evaluation of the level of white-tailed deer fecal colonization by E. coli O157:H7 and the ecological role of dung beetles with the pathogen in produce farms; and
• Novel coating systems with sustained release of food antimicrobials to improve safety of cantaloupe.

I’m curious to learn about the research findings, which will be presented at the 2013 CPS Research Symposium on June 25-26 at the Wegmans Conference Center in Rochester, New York. I’m particularly interested in the wash water research outcomes, especially on the heels of the recent CPS Webinar on wash water for small-scale and direct market farms. If you missed this session, the presentation is now available via the CPS website.

You can also discuss wash water and other food safety issues in the Food Safety Community on PMA Xchange, as well as learn more about wash water during two workshops at Fresh Summit later this month.

A few months ago, I shared with you some findings from the International Food Information Council’s most recent “Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology & Sustainability” survey. In that study, IFIC found that consumer awareness of the concept of sustainable food production remains relatively high, with 56 percent having heard or read something about sustainability in food production. In addition, 69 percent of consumers said it is important that foods they purchase or consume are produced in a sustainable way; however, only 33 percent of consumers said they are willing to pay more for products that fit their concept of sustainability.

During Fresh Summit 2012 in Anaheim next month, PMA will explore consumer interest in sustainability during the “Capitalize on Your Sustainability Efforts: Reach a Consumer Base That Cares and Buys” workshop. In this session, participants will learn how to tap into this consumer base through authentic, powerful messaging (a “sustainability story” that breaks through the barrage of marketing clutter and demands a response) and learn how they can both measure sustainability and improve efficiencies to boost their business’ success.

To learn more about the 2012 Fresh Summit program, visit our website. Also, if you’re planning to attend, the deadline to register in advance is October 12. There are a number of event registration packages available; get complete details on these options.

If you’ve got a sustainability story to share, please let me know. We highlight these items here on the blog, the PMA website, and in the Sustainability Community on PMA Xchange.