Unfortunately (but as expected), the Senate passed its food safety bill 73-25. A year ago July the House passed its version of the bill, which differs from the Senate’s. Though this might look like a loss, it is a win for courage. A bedrock principle for PMA on food safety reform is that it be based on risk and science. The bill that passed had components that were not based on risk and science. We were fairly certain the Senate would pass it, and many organizations we work with supported passage. But we couldn’t turn our backs on that core principle.

There are many components of this bill that we supported, such as requirements about written food safety plans, FDA recall authority, coverage of U.S. and non-U.S. products, and more. Should this bill become law by passing the House of Representatives, we will see a significant step forward in food safety rules from FDA.

What happens next? We will continue to support smart food safety reform based on risk and science as the bill is considered – whether it’s through a conference committee or House consideration of the Senate’s bill. As we continue our work in Washington, we’ll keep you informed and reach out your help.

Throughout the years of consideration of food safety reform, your government relations and food safety teams have worked tirelessly to advocate for the best food safety legislation and regulation for the produce industry. We will continue to work on your behalf, promoting smarter governance and addressing industry needs with legislators and regulators to help your bottom line.

Also, thanks to those of you who wrote your Senators yesterday. We had great success with member advocacy outreach. One hundred fifty-seven individuals (members, PMA staff, and others) sent more than 300 e-mail messages to the Senate. Several even called their Senators, and quite a few forwarded the alert to a friend for action. We are extremely pleased with this response from our members.

On Thursday, December 16, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service will present a free interactive webinar on the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program at 2:00 pm Eastern Time. You might recall that a couple months ago, USDA announced the award of block grants to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. The 54 grants totaled approximately $55 million, and will fund 827 projects, a 10 percent increase over last year.

The Webinar will help interested parties learn more about the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and how they can apply through their local State departments of agriculture for grant funds. Participants will also be able to ask questions of the project manager for the block grant program.

Keep in mind that the block grant program is a component of the specialty crop section of the 2008 farm bill. With a new farm bill on the horizon, it’s important that our industry continue take advantage of this program to further enhance its competitiveness. PMA is actively engaged in the next farm bill development via the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.

For more details or to register for this Webinar, visit the USDA website.

According to FMI’s 2010 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends report, environmental and sustainability efforts have not been greatly impacted by the recessionary pressures and the number of shoppers participating in various green practices is growing. For example:

• Reusable shopping bags are gaining popularity as 80 percent of shoppers say they have noticed that their primary store offers them. Half of all shoppers say they try to bring their own bags when grocery shopping, which is up from 40 percent last year. (One of my local stores offers customers a rebate if you bring your own plastic bags to pack your groceries.)
• More than half (53 percent) of shoppers say their store offers locally-grown or produced products such as fresh meat or produce, or processed local favorites such as salsas, marinades and jams. Their reasons for purchasing local products: freshness (77 percent), wanting to support the local economy (73 percent) and they like knowing the source of the product (46 percent).

It’s interesting that among the reasons why consumers buy local, FMI’s results are similar to ours – with freshness being the number one reason. However, consumers told us that after freshness, the reason they buy local produce is because it “tastes better” (65 percent) and they have “more confidence in food safety” (59 percent). Support for the local farmer/economy ranked lower in our report.

To get your free copy of PMA’s new 2010 study Identifying Consumer Trends in the Produce Category, log in to the PMA website. Note: You must be a PMA member in order to access this report.

Also, if you’ll be attending FMI’s sustainability summit next week in Arlington, Virginia, you can learn more about industry (and PMA’s) sustainability efforts when PMA Vice President of Government Relations & Public Affairs Kathy Means moderates a session focused on the development and upcoming implementation of the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops.

I’ve written before about a workshop I attended that examined transparency in nontariff trade measures (NTMs). The group (U.S. and global government reps, academia, and industry) recognized that not all NTMs are a problem and that transparency needs go beyond the rules to implementation. Though we didn’t solve the world’s trade woes, we did talk about some possible solutions:

• Enforce existing World Trade Organization rules for its participants/members. Many of these rules would improve transparency (published rules, notice of changes, adequate comment times).
• Be sure regulations appear in one of the WTO official languages.
• Improve in-country communications among ministries/agencies that have input into the country’s trade rules.
• Use economic impact analyses to inform decisions.
• Expand global notifications to include non-regulatory actions that affect trade (e.g. voluntary guidance, non-regulatory processes).
• Get additional countries into the WTO so that more are covered by WTO rules.

As our integrated marketplace grows in size and complexity, these issues will continue to grow. We’ll continue to provide information like this – let us know what you’re interested in.

Often in the produce industry when the phrase “food security” is mentioned, one might first think of the bioterrorism rules or the intentional contamination of food to cause harm. However, food security is also defined (per USDA) as consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living. In this context, policymakers and consumer advocates often use “food security” when talking about hunger.

Last month, we (or more accurately, the incredibly generous Fresh Summit exhibitors) worked with Feeding America to donate 266,330 pounds of produce to its distribution network. If you visit the Feeding America website, you’ll see some alarming statistics in how pervasive the issue of hunger is in the U.S. I know our industry has a long history of supporting local and nationwide food banks; some of you told us about those efforts when we asked for stories about how you’re increasing produce access in your communities.

On a personal level, here at the office we did a food drive to benefit a local nonprofit. On Saturday, some of us were part of a large team that sorted and packed food baskets for those in need in Delaware. It kind of reminded me of a food bank Fresh Summit with the forklifts buzzing around the warehouse, but with canned goods largely in place of fresh fruits and vegetables – though I learned this morning that PMA members John Vena, Inc. and Ryeco Produce, LLC helped “balance the basket” by donating potatoes, bananas, and apples. Thanks for the generous donation (pictured below)!

Yesterday, I spent part of the day delivering those baskets. At one home, the recipient was speechless because she had no idea the basket (which, in addition to meal ingredients, included a frozen turkey) was coming. She wanted to know who to thank and I honestly couldn’t tell her; all I could say is that someone knew of her circumstances and felt she needed a helping hand.

Between increased access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (42 million Americans received SNAP benefits in August, which is a 17 percent rise from the same time a year ago) and numerous reports of increased visits to food banks by those in need, it’s clear more families and individuals are struggling with food security. I recently read that almost 18 percent of Americans reported in September that they struggled to afford enough food to feed themselves and their families at times over the last 12 months.

If you’d like to get involved (via volunteering or a donation) with Feeding America’s efforts, you can find a local food bank in your area or search the Internet for other anti-hunger organizations in your community. I know the time I spent over the weekend and yesterday has definitely given me something more to be thankful for as we enter the end-of-year holiday season.

According to the Food Marketing Institute’s 2010 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends report, consumers’ confidence in the safety of food bought at supermarkets remains high, with 86 percent saying they are either “somewhat” or “very confident” in the safety of their food. Interestingly, the study found that consumers remain more comfortable with domestically grown food than imported; 91 percent of shoppers are either very or somewhat comfortable with U.S. foods. However, confidence in imported foods did increase from 42 percent last year to 49 percent this year, though the majority (44 percent) is only somewhat comfortable eating products grown or produced outside of the U.S.

These findings run similar to those sentiments uncovered by PMA in our 2009 comprehensive consumer study. Almost three-quarters of U.S. consumers said they are confident that the fruits and vegetables they buy are safe. Our research also found that the two biggest areas of concern about produce safety are possible outbreaks from contamination (47 percent) and routine use of pesticides (26 percent). And more recently, this summer 29 percent of consumers The Hartman Group surveyed for PMA told us that they are avoiding eating fresh produce because of concerns about pesticide residues.

On that last point, remember that our industry now has a website to refer consumers (and consumer media) to when they have questions about pesticide residues: www.safefruitsandveggies.com. It’s one more resource you have available in your toolkit. We invite you to help us get the word out on it.

Again this year, consumers can get holiday food safety information surrounded by recipes, kids’ activities and even a video contest. The Partnership for Food Safety Education again is sponsoring the Holiday Food Safety website, and you can use this for free to show consumers you touch that you care about their safety. In addition to the fun and games for consumers, retailers and educators can find great downloads (flyers, point of sale material, copy for ads, etc.).

Though many of us love to cook and do so often, many consumers face Thanksgiving and other holidays with trepidation as they venture into once-a-year scratch cooking. Not only do they need help with recipes, shopping lists, and other basics, they may not know a lot about safe food handling in the kitchen. Afraid of the turkey? This explains it all. Want to build family memories? Cook with the kids using easy recipes. Baffled by leftovers? Use them in new ways.

This is a free and easy way to show consumers that you’re more than a source for produce and groceries; you’re a partner in their holiday planning and family events. Some of you may have formal outreach to consumers through a consumer affairs director. And all of us touch countless consumers every day – employees, friends and family, religious/civic groups. Link to it on your web site, mention it in your ads or newsletters, or forward this to your friends. Spread the word!

PMA members received an email from me earlier today explaining PMA’s opposition to the food safety bill currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate. Last-minute changes to the bill that would have caused food safety decisions to be based on considerations other than risk and science made it impossible for us to support the bill.

We are all for improved food safety systems, including legislation and regulation, provided they are based on sound science and related to risk – addressing the riskiest issues first. The changes in the bill will not advance food safety and they will not enhance public confidence. Beyond that, the changes may cause small growers and processors to lose market share as buyers choose to buy from those operations covered by the new rules.

Any changes in U.S. food safety rules must create a food safety net that applies to all. Pathogens don’t discriminate based on size of operation, distance to market, commodity, or anything else.

PMA is committed to advancing produce safety in a number of areas that I outlined in the memo, including advocacy in Washington, D.C. as well as support for industry food safety efforts, collaboration on industry-wide food safety projects, and PMA food safety programs.

Our members are committed to food safety and have not waited for government mandates to enhance their food safety programs. We support them in these efforts and serve as a vital food safety resource.

As I said in the memo: Public health and consumer confidence hinge on a strong food safety system that includes federal legislation and regulation in addition to industry’s impressive efforts. We’ll continue to advocate for smart governance that provides practical, effective solutions that will help our members succeed in the marketplace and build consumer confidence and demand for our products.

I welcome your thoughts on this critical issue.

In a previous post about global trade, I mentioned that not all nontariff measures (NTMs) are a problem. Some cause little angst in global traders. And, some companies may see a particular NTM as a cost of doing business while others see that same NTM as a barrier to trade.

At a recent workshop on this issue, government and world trade officials, academia, and industry talked about this conundrum – when is an NTM a problem and how can increased transparency help solve it? Certainly every global trader needs to have a clear understanding of the conditions of entry into any particular country.

Not only do traders need to understand the rules themselves, they also need to fully understand how those rules are implemented. Even within a country, one can find the implementation of a particular rule varies from port to port. It may even vary among government officials in the same port in the same country – the luck of the draw when your product hits the border.

Another transparency issue involves in-country communications. In larger, developed countries (like the U.S.), many agencies are involved in import rules (e.g. USDA, FDA, EPA, Customs). This raises the potential for duplication, conflict, and increased bureaucracy. But it also raises the potential for easier access (documents translated into other languages, posted on web sites, clear direction on how to have input, etc.). Smaller or less-developed countries may have fewer agencies, reducing complexity, but may be less sophisticated in communications (websites, availability of information, clarity on input opportunities/methods).

A representative from the International Trade Centre, which works with companies involved in trade with developing countries, indicated that in its early survey work, ag products and perishables are more affected by these issues than other commodities. This intuitively makes sense, and those of you involved in day-to-day trading likely have the scars that prove it.

Others spoke of problems with notifications about changes, ability to have input, the need for regulatory cooperation between trading partners. One speaker mentioned that regulatory harmonization within a region, e.g. North America, can save industry millions of dollars, while even a small difference can cost that much. How important are those small differences? A couple of speakers raised the issue of consumer impact: When a country has significant barriers, its own consumers may suffer from reduced availability or variety of goods and higher prices.

We didn’t solve the problems, as you can see, but dialogue such as this is an important step in better understanding that may lead to improvements.

Last week USDA’s Economic Research Service released a report on labor and the produce industry. The authors, ERS ag economist Linda Calvin and University of California – Davis professor Philip Martin, looked at case studies, mechanization, supply chain efficiency options and more. Recognizing that labor is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, the authors examined issues related to several key produce commodities: Washington fresh-market apples, Florida processing oranges, California fresh-market oranges and strawberries, raisins, fresh-market asparagus, and lettuce. The report also offers statistics on labor, acreage planted, per-capita consumption, imports, and more.

The insights are best when taken in context of the full report – so I encourage you to take a look at it. The authors found three major adjustments to rising labor costs based on their case studies:

• Some crops have adopted mechanized harvesting, and that would increase if wages rise. Though they review some processed crops (raisins, and Florida oranges) they also note the mechanization advances in baby lettuces.
• Growers of unmechanized commodities that face import pressures as well will likely lose more market share as labor costs rise. And those that face stiff competition in export markets also may lose market share.
• For growers of unmechanized crops that do not face import pressures likely will provide workers with labor aids to increase productivity, and they may also pursue mechanization.

The report does discuss the quality issues around mechanical harvesting, cost of labor in the United States compared to other countries, and statistics about undocumented workers.

Labor is a huge input cost for our industry and a direct influencer of product quality. PMA supports the AgJOBS proposal as a way to improve the labor situation in the United States. For more, visit the immigration reform section of the PMA website.