In today’s Federal Register, the FDA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to request data and information on the food transportation industry and its practices, as well as data and information on the contamination of transported foods and any associated outbreaks. FDA is doing this as it begins the implementation process of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005, which requires the agency to issue regulations setting forth sanitary transportation practices to be followed by shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receivers, and others engaged in food transport. A few of the questions posed by FDA in the ANPR are:

• What are the amounts and percentages of foods that are transported completely enclosed by packaging, not completely enclosed by packaging (e.g., grain, some fresh produce items), or in bulk tanks (e.g., juices, oils)?
• What proportion of vehicles is exclusively dedicated to transporting foods? What proportion of vehicles transport both food and non-food products?
• What industry standards exist for the cleaning of food transportation vehicles?
• How is the adequacy of cleaning vehicles (including bulk vehicles and non-bulk vehicles) assessed?
• What procedures and practices are in place to prevent contamination of foods not completely enclosed by packaging during transport?
• How are the physical integrity and physical security of a food transport vehicle ensured during its run?
• What procedures and practices are in place to ensure temperature control for time/temperature control for safety foods?
• What types of food products are typically transported simultaneously?

Comments are due to FDA by August 28. We mentioned here on Field to Fork a couple of days ago that USDA just recently released a comprehensive report on the four primary modes of agricultural transportation (trucking, railroads, barges, and ocean vessels). As FDA begins collecting data for implementation for the SFTA, that new study will be a valuable asset to the agency.

A couple of weeks ago, we mentioned here on Field to Fork that FDA was considering the issues related to nutritional labeling placement on food packages, possibly moving the location from a back-of-the-package strategy to a voluntary front-of-package labeling strategy. In today’s Federal Register, FDA established a docket to seek comments and information from industry and the public about front-of-package nutrition labeling and on shelf tags in retail stores as the agency deliberates how to enhance the usefulness to consumers of point-of-purchase nutrition information. FDA is accepting comments until July 28; the issues it seeks to learn more about are:

• the extent to which consumers notice, use and understand nutrition symbols on front-of-pack labeling of food packages or on shelf tags in retail stores;
• research that assesses and compares the effectiveness of particular approaches to front-of-pack labeling;
• graphic design, marketing and advertising data and information that can help develop better point-of-purchase nutrition information; and
• how point-of-purchase information may affect decisions by food manufacturers to reformulate products.

As the parent of a seven-month old, I almost always flip over any package I pick off my grocery store’s shelves and look at the nutrition facts before it goes into the cart, and if I don’t my wife usually does. Moving nutrition labeling to the front may make it easier for shoppers to identify more healthful choices. Produce goes into our cart or basket all the time but, relative to labeling, most fruits and vegetables are part of a voluntary nutrition labeling system, and would not be affected by the FDA proposal.

Many produce marketers already voluntarily label their products, and our industry has a great story to tell - especially with all the recent attention given childhood obesity and nutrition. There’ll likely be guidelines from FDA on a voluntary front-of-package labeling program at some point. We’ll definitely keep an eye on this issue and provide comments to FDA.

Yesterday the USDA released to Congress a comprehensive report on agricultural transportation in the United States. Mandated by the 2008 farm bill, Study of Rural Transportation Issues covers the four major modes of transportation commonly used by agriculture in the United States and examines some of the major issues facing agricultural transportation including: the effect of deregulation on the rail industry, a growing gap for funding the inland waterways and highway systems, availability of containers and ocean vessel capacity, and the infrastructure that may be needed to support a projected increase in biofuel transportation.

Instead of looking at each mode of transportation separately, the report calls for federal agencies to adopt a systems approach to U.S. transportation needs. For example, in its analysis of each mode of transportation, the study states that “the service advantages of truck transportation are not as relevant with bulk commodities, however, as they are in the movement of fruits, vegetables, and other commodities that need specialized services, such as refrigeration or timely delivery.” It also states that more than 80 percent of cities and communities are served exclusively by trucks.

At first glance, this new USDA report should be very beneficial to U.S. policymakers as they develop legislative proposals that will address our nation’s transportation needs (e.g. the highway reauthorization bill). And given the Administration’s emphasis on eliminating food deserts within seven years, transportation will likely play a key role there as well.

According to the Organic Trade Association’s 2010 Organic Industry Survey, U.S. sales of organic products continued to grow during 2009 despite the distressed state of the economy. It found that organic product sales in 2009 grew by 5.3 percent overall to reach $26.6 billion. Of that figure, $24.8 billion represented organic food. The remaining $1.8 billion were sales of organic non-foods.

Experiencing the most growth were organic fruits and vegetables, which represented 38 percent of total organic food sales and reached nearly $9.5 billion in sales in 2009. Organic fruits and vegetables now represent 11.4 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales, according to the OTA survey.

In other news related to organic produce purchases and the economy, PMA consumer research from last summer found that 5 percent of survey respondents said they were purchasing less organic produce to lower their costs at the store. Our study also discovered that when it comes to organic produce and local produce, 19 percent of respondents said it was more important to buy organic fruits and vegetables than local; yet 75 percent said it was more important to buy local produce than organic. To learn more about PMA’s Healthy Eating Trends 2009 study, visit the PMA Web site.

While I was in stormy Birmingham, AL, over the weekend for the American Culinary Federation’s Southeast Regional Conference, I spoke with a variety of culinarians, and one conversation in particular stood out. I was talking with a chef about local produce. He called the emphasis on local an elitist move as many areas cannot provide year-round produce, and sometimes it is not the cheapest product. He posited that consumers with lower economic means may be left out, and that everyone should be eating more produce, regardless of where it originates. He spoke of the mom with two jobs who doesn’t have time to hit the farmer’s market or the local butcher. She needs a supermarket for one-stop shopping that will make her life a little bit easier.

Certainly local has a strong place – supporting local economies, seasonal excitement, etc. And it is a trend that has outpaced organics, according to PMA’s consumer research. Yet I think we all know that local is not the only or at times even the preferred sourcing method, depending on your geography. Limiting sourcing to local means most Americans would do without citrus, many would do without apples, and all would do without bananas. That’s not a happy world.

It’s an interesting conversation, especially among chefs, many of whom have been at the forefront of the local movement. Local and non-local. US-grown and imported. Organic or conventional. Wherever it comes from and however it’s grown, we need to provide more access to fresh produce everywhere consumers encounter food – the store, the restaurant, the business meeting break, the sports arena – everywhere.

Often here on Field to Fork we talk about studies that measure childrens’ consumption of fruits and vegetables but sometimes the most telling insights we get are from our own family members. I was back in my childhood home (St. Joseph, Missouri) for my dad’s 80th birthday last weekend. I spent a lot of time on the other end of the age spectrum with my 7-year-old nephew. I asked him what his favorite vegetables were, and he didn’t have many, as you might expect: green beans, peas, carrots (if they’re candied!). He gave a big NO to broccoli, cauliflower, salad of any kind, and more. We had the same conversation about fruits – he’s into melons and pears evidently.

But then later, we had a conversation that every older relative has with the youngsters. I said he was growing up too fast for me, and could I please put a brick on his head so he would stay the same as he is now. He said that was silly and it wouldn’t work. So I asked if I could take away his fruits and vegetables. He looked stunned and appalled. He said: “No Aunt Kathy, I have to have those to grow big and strong. You can’t take away my fruits and vegetables.” (No, he doesn’t have a clue what I do for a living.)

He may not yet have developed a taste for the bounty our industry offers, but he’s into a few, and I suspect his taste will grow as he grows. More importantly, he knows fruits and vegetables are important. Instilling that in all our kids will be important for their future health and the health of our industry.

Recently PMA staffers Nancy Tucker and Richard Owen attended FRESH, a European fresh fruit and vegetable conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, April 13-15, organized by our friends at Freshfel, in cooperation with Eurofruit Magazine. Nancy offers the following information about the produce industry in Russia:

• Russia´s economic recovery is under way, imports are getting cheaper thanks to a stronger ruble, and the government predicts retail sales to grow by 3.3% this year. However, domestic demand has remained “unstable”, unemployment is still a concern, and the country´s economy is not expected to return to pre-crisis levels until 2012.
• With inflation declining, imports are getting cheaper for consumers thanks to the stronger ruble.
  Russian consumers are expected to see health as increasingly important (a benefit for our market), but the issue of minimum pesticide residue levels looms large. The Russian government is increasing its involvement in this area.

• Approximately 15% of the fruit sold in Russia is domestically grown (85% is imported), but only 2-3% of the fruit in supermarkets is domestic, with the rest going to street markets.
• Fresh-cut items are starting to make an appearance in Russian hypermarkets and upper end supermarkets, but cold chain challenges hamper expansion efforts.
• Organic items are just starting to appear at retail. Canned and dried products will be on the shelves initially. The price differential and cold chain challenges hamper fresh organic sales.

Nancy and Richard barely made it out of Russia due to the volcano-induced airline problems. After hours in line and the help of two Russian travelers, Nancy was able to fly to the U.S. on Friday while Richard flew south on Saturday to South Africa on the only international airline that was leaving the airport. A couple of key learnings from this trip are that the Russian market may offer opportunities for produce marketers, and travelling with a carry-on may be your best bet in uncertain geologic times.

As PMA staff visit places of interest, we’ll continue to offer you their insights!

Last week it was announced that the United States and Mexico may moving closer to resolving the issue of cross-border trucking when U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Mexican Transportation Secretary Juan Francisco Molinar reviewed the status of motor carrier issues of mutual importance to both nations. The officials confirmed their intent to resolve these issues as a highest priority and announced they will establish a working group to consider next steps of the cross-border trucking program. While the next meeting between President Obama and President Calderon of Mexico will be in mid May at the White House, it is likely that any progress made on the issue this year will be slow and incremental.

In the meantime, the Alliance to Keep U.S. Jobs (of which PMA is a member) continues to urge the Administration to work with Congress and our trade partners in Mexico to solve this problem, which has resulted in more than 25,000 jobs being threatened or lost as a result of the retaliatory tariffs imposed by Mexico when the cross-border trucking pilot program was terminated by Congress a year ago. The alliance continues to work to resolve this issue.

Recently on the “Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker” audio blog, Bob and Center for Produce Safety Executive Director Bonnie Fernandez-Fenaroli discussed the latest happenings at the CPS. You might recall that in 2007, PMA established the CPS at the University of California at Davis. The center is a public-private partnership that includes industry, government, academia, and consumer groups with the goal to enhance the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables through research, information exchange, and training worldwide.

Bonnie noted that the center has funded 24 research projects over the past 14 months, with a shared investment amounting to more than $3.8 million. “A few of our most notable projects include looking at how pathogens move in field and processing environments, how we can do better co-manage food safety and the environment, and exploring mechanisms for mining some of the private data out there that may allow evaluation of pathogen trends,” she said. The CPS also has research partners outside of the U.S. , with two projects currently underway with the U.S. Israel Bi-national Agriculture Research and Development program commonly referred to as BARD.

They also talked about the June 23 Center for Produce Safety’s first annual Research Symposium on the campus of UC Davis. There, scientists will present the results of new food safety research funded by CPS and its partners. “The symposium will facilitate an open dialogue among attendees regarding the practical implications and applications of the research. And, it will share information about our mission, partnerships, ongoing research, funding, and our commitment to translating research into ready-to-use, actionable information. We’re expecting about 400 attendees from the United States and around the world,” Bonnie added.

To learn more about the CPS and other food safety issues, visit Dr. Whitaker’s blog directly and sign up to get new updates via e-mail.

As you know, from time to time here on Field to Fork we highlight PMA members’ sustainability efforts. Recently I had a chance to talk with Kevin Delaney, director of corporate sustainability and productivity for Procacci Brothers Sales Corp. Sustainability at PBSC is ingrained in how they do business; every month a cross-functional group of employees located throughout the company meets via Web conference to develop internal programs that will promote energy and water conservation and reduce waste. PBSC has become more sustainable through:

• Installing energy-efficient hand dryers throughout facilities in Philadelphia and New Jersey to reduce their paper towel usage. After figuring in watt usage and total number of paper towel cases saved, PBSC sees an annual savings of $67,368.
• Recycling everything from cardboard, plastic, steel, copper, iron, wood pallets, antifreeze, motor oils, and more. They even sent 2,433,180 pounds of food waste to a pig farm.
• Replacing 400-watt bulbs with six 32-watt bulbs in facilities to improve their energy efficiency by over 50 percent.
• Reducing carbon emissions through a partnership with North America Power Partners, LLC. Through this partnership, they are able to efficiently manage energy consumption and move excess capacity into the grid - providing annual returns between $20,000 and $30,000.

Kevin also told me that Procacci Brothers will soon announce major initiative that will further reduce the company’s carbon footprint. Do you have a sustainability story or video you’d like to share with us and other PMA members? If so, please let us know.