Allens Ordered to Pay in D&E Case

Posted August 1, 2014

Allens Inc. has been ordered to pay $2 million under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), according to The Packer article available here. A recent blog post on the Allens case is available on the blog here.

D&E Farms Inc. is one of 52 PACA creditors seeking payment from the canned food company. Allens declared bankruptcy in October 2013. Allens Inc. filed objections to 50 of the PACA claims totaling $18.3 million in January.

Gregory Brown, an attorney for D&E, estimated the final amount of $2.25 million that Allens Inc. will be ordered to pay, which will include attorney fees.

“I think it’s important to note that the court rejected the debtors’ argument that ancillary expenses described in a pre-transaction agreement for the sale of produce are not covered by PACA,” said Brown.

Brown speculated that more than half of the $18.3 million will have to be paid by Allens based on Judge Brown’s order.

“Approximately $11 million of the total PACA claims were objected to by debtors based on this discredited legal argument,” Brown said. “We expect that all the decisions on the relevant claims will be decided the same way.”

For more information on the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Nine PACA Violators Restricted by USDA

Posted June 24, 2014

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) restricted nine produce businesses for failure to pay reparation awards under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), according to an article on The Packer by Daniel Vanderhorst available here. A recent blog post on PACA is available here.

A list of the offenders was provided by The Packer.

The following parties are currently restricted from operating in the produce industry:

• Marco Produce Inc., Miami, for failure to pay a $69,292 award in favor of a Georgia seller. As of the issuance date of the reparation order, Marco Carmenatis was listed as the officer, director and major stockholder of the business.

• Deleon Produce Sales Inc., Fort Myers, Fla., for failure to pay a $17,136 award in favor of a Florida seller. Mary Deleon and Arnold Deleon were listed as the officers, directors and/or major stockholders of the business.

• H&H Wholesale Produce Inc., Orlando, Fla., for failure to pay a $57,397 award in favor of a Florida seller. Hassan Hamdan was listed as the officer, director and major stockholder of the business.

• Robert Marinaro, doing business as Sunny Fresh Citrus, Vero Beach, Fla., for failure to pay a $29,404 award in favor of a Florida seller. Robert Marinaro was listed as the sole proprietor of the business.

• Boardman Vegetable Co., Youngstown, Ohio, for failure to pay a $10,005 award in favor of an Idaho seller. John Campolito was listed as the officer, director and major stockholder of the business.

• Pioneer Produce LLC, Stillwater, Okla., for failure to pay a $13,544 award in favor of an Oklahoma seller. Larry Stafford Jr. and Larry Stafford Sr. were listed as members of the business.

• Cross Country International LLC, McAllen, Texas, for failure to pay a $7,279 award in favor of a California seller. Jaime De La Paz and Gustavo Felix Ramirez were listed as members of the business.

• Pina Rica USA LLC, McAllen, Texas, for failure to pay a $43,956 award in favor of a Georgia seller. Fernando Arellano Nunez and Karina Bautista Cadena were listed as members of the business.

• Pal-Do World Inc., Lakewood, Wash., for failure to pay a $28,957 award in favor of a California seller. Young Park and Byung Park were listed as the officers, directors and/or major stockholders of the business. 

For more information on PACA please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

USDA Filed Action Against Allens Inc.

Posted June 12, 2014

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed an administrative action under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) against Allens Inc., according to an article on The Packer by Daniel Vanderhorst available here.

In February, the bankrupt company had 52 produce suppliers claiming more than $19 million under PACA, but Allens filed an objection to the claims due to suppliers’ failure to follow proper procedures.

The action alleges that Allens failed to pay 40 produce sellers $9,759,843 for 2,312 lots of produce from October 2013 to January 2014.

Allens Inc. will have the opportunity to request a hearing, but if USDA finds them guilty, the company would be barred from the produce industry for two years. Also, its principals could not be employed or affiliated with any PACA licensee for one year, and then only with the posting of a USDA-approved surety bond.

For more information on PACA please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

USDA Fines Six PACA Violators

Posted February 18, 2014

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has imposed sanctions against six produce businesses for failing to pay reparation awards issued under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), according to an article by The Packer available here.

The following businesses are currently restricted from operating in the produce industry:  Produce Fresh, Inc. of San Antonio; Trans Mid East Shipping & Trading Agency Inc. of Farmingdale, NY; Tony Sylvester, doing business as Sylvester Produce, of Sylvania, Ohio; Hall Bros. Produce LLC of Plant City, Fla.; IBC Produce Inc, Los Angeles; and Sunset Fresh Produce Co. Inc. of Los Angeles.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t, was enacted in 1930 to regulate the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The primary purposes of the PACA are to prevent unfair and fraudulent conduct in the marketing and selling of perishable agricultural commodities and to facilitate the orderly flow of these commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The PACA is administrated and regulated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

For more information on PACA please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Allens Disputes $18 Million in PACA Claims

Posted February 3, 2014

While various produce suppliers claim Allens Inc. owes them over $19 million under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), Allens is disputing $18.3 million of that amount and arguing that the suppliers did not follow proper procedures, according to an article by The Packer available here.

Allens Inc., a canned food company based in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, filed for bankruptcy in October with total debts between $100 million and $500 million and between 1,000 and 5,000 creditors.

Fifty-two creditors have filed PACA claims and Allens object to all but two of those claims.  A hearing is set for Feb. 11 on those objections.

Jason Klinowski, attorney for Allens, argues that the companies failed to preserve their protection under PACA by: setting payment terms beyond the 30-day maximum set by PACA; charging interest in excess of the legal limit; charging for goods that don’t qualify for PACA protection; and failing to deduct ancillary expenses such as transportation and fuel costs from PACA claims.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t, was enacted in 1930 to regulate the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The primary purposes of the PACA are to prevent unfair and fraudulent conduct in the marketing and selling of perishable agricultural commodities and to facilitate the orderly flow of these commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The PACA is administrated and regulated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

The PACA trust provisions give sellers of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables priority status as a creditor if their buyers become insolvent or file for bankruptcy protection.  Sellers must, however, preserve their trust rights by following certain criteria under the PACA. 

For more information on the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

USDA Files PACA Action against Big Bear Storage and Packing

Posted January 22, 2014

USDA has filed an administrative action under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) against a Florida company, Big Bear Storage and Packing Inc.  The USDA press release is available here.  The Packer also reported on the story here.

Big Bear, allegedly “failed to make payment to 31 produce sellers in the amount of $1,244,369 from December 2011 through June 2013.” 

If the USDA finds “that the company committed repeated and flagrant violations,” Big Bear would be “barred from the produce industry for two years.”  Additionally, its “principals could not be employed by or affiliated with any PACA licensee for one year and then only with the posting of a USDA-approved surety bond.”

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t, was enacted in 1930 to regulate the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The primary purposes of the PACA are to prevent unfair and fraudulent conduct in the marketing and selling of perishable agricultural commodities and to facilitate the orderly flow of these commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  The PACA is administrated and regulated by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

For more information on the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Upcoming: 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Law Association

The 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Law Association will be held October 18-20, 2012 at the downtown Sheraton Hotel 2012 in Nashville, Tennessee. If you are interested in networking with attorneys and other professionals who work in agriculture and food throughout the U.S. and the world, AALA is the organization for you.

As described on the AALA website:

"The American Agricultural Law Association (AALA) is the only national professional organization focusing on the legal needs of the agricultural community. Crossing traditional barriers, it offers an independent forum for investigation of innovative and workable solutions to complex agricultural law problems. This role has taken on greater importance in the midst of the current international and environmental issues, reshaping agriculture and the impending technological advances which promise equally dramatic changes."

Becoming a member of AALA is very easy, and new members are welcomed and greatly appreciated. For information about joining AALA, visit the AALA site here. If you have any questions about AALA, joining, and/or membership benefits, please contact AALA Executive Director Robert Achenbach at RobertA@aglaw-assn.org. Also, you can contact AALA Membership Committee Chair Harrison Pittman at hmpittm@uark.edu. 

PACA Licensing Fees to Increase

USDA announced that the annual license fee for the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) will increase from $550 to $995, according to The Packer.

This is the first annual license fee increase since 1995.  The final rule, published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2010, will also remove exemptions from branch locations and "eliminates the multi-year license renewal option for commission brokers and dealers."  For the full text of the final rule, click here.

According to the news release from the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) the maximum fee for a PACA licensee will increase from $4,000 to $8,000.  USDA "expects this final rule will raise revenue to cover expenditures for the PACA program for another five years.  The new PACA licensing fee is effective Oct. 1, 2010."

"In general, any business that buys or sells more than 2,000 pounds of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables in any given day is required to be licensed under the PACA.  Wholesalers, processors, truckers, grocery wholesalers and food service firms fit into this category.  Retailers are subject to a PACA license once the invoice costs of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetable purchases exceed $230,000 in a calendar year."

For more information on PACA, click here to visit the National Agricultural Law Center's Reading Room on the subject.

To read The Packer story, click here.
To read the AMS News Release, click here.

Posted: 08/26/2010

USDA Reopens Comment Period for Proposed PACA Rule

USDA will reopen the comment period for a proposed rule addressing trust protection and post-default payment agreements under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), according to The Packer.

The new comment period began on Aug. 23, 2010 and will end on Sept. 22, 2010.  The original 60-day comment period ended on August 9, according to an AMS news release.

The Agricultural Marketing Service "issued the proposal in response to concerns raised by the produce industry. PACA imposes a statutory trust on certain assets of persons or entities subject to the act that have not paid for perishable agricultural commodities.  Trust-eligible produce transactions must meet certain criteria under PACA."

The regulations are clear that the maximum allowable payment term is 30 days for pre-transaction agreements, but are silent on payment terms for post-default agreements.  

The proposed rule provides that if there is a default in payment, the seller, supplier, or agent could enter into a "written scheduled payment agreement of the past due amount while maintaining its trust eligibility."  For more information on the proposed rule, click here to read a past US Ag&Food Law and Policy blog post on the subject.  

For the full-text of the proposed rule, click here.

To read The Packer story, click here.

To read the AMS news release, click here.

Posted: 08/25/2010

United Fresh Will Host PACA Trust Seminar on Aug. 18

Tomorrow, August 18, 2010, the United Fresh Produce Association will host a web seminar on proposed changes to trust provisions contained in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), according to The Packer.

There is no cost for the seminar and it will take place from 2-3 p.m. eastern time.

To access the seminar, click here.  Then call (866) 779-0773 and request meeting #3033409.  To read The Packer story, click here.

The proposed rule involves trust protection and post-default payment under PACA and was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2010.  A USDA news release explains that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issued the proposal "in response to concerns raised by the produce industry.  PACA imposes a statutory trust on certain assets of persons or entities subject to the act that have not paid for perishable agricultural commodities."  Transactions which are trust-eligible "must meet certain criteria under PACA."  

The regulations "clearly define the maximum allowable payment terms of 30 days for pre-transaction agreements," however, payment terms in post-default agreements are not mentioned.  The proposed rule seeks to provide guidance on how to preserve trust rights in situations of post-default agreements.  

More specifically, if there is a default in payment, the revision would allow "a seller, supplier, or agent who has met the eligibility requirements to enter into a written scheduled payment agreement for payment of the past due amount while maintaining its trust eligibility."  The length of the agreement could not extend past 180 days from the default date "while still maintaining eligibility" for trust protection.  The propose rule also addresses situations of bankruptcy and civil trust actions.

To read the USDA news release, click here.

For the text of the proposed rule published in the Federal Register, click here.

Posted: 08/17/2010

AMS Offers New PACA Information

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) now offers new tools on the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) that "are designed to make things easier for produce growers, buyers, and sellers" as reported in The Packer.

The new tools offered on the AMS website are "Sample PACA Reparation Cases by Subject Matter" and "PACA Commodities List."  These tools should provide helpful information on how PACA cases have been previously settled and which types of products are covered by PACA.

The PACA, 7 U.S.C. § 499a-499t, was enacted to regulate the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce.  PACA exists to protect businesses dealing in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables from unfair and fraudulent trade practices and to promote the orderly flow of these commodities in commerce.

To read The Packer story, click here.
For access to the new tools and other PACA information provided by AMS, click here.
For the Sample PACA Reparation Cases, click here.
For the PACA Commodities List, click here.

For more information on the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, click here to visit the National Agricultural Law Center's PACA Reading Room.

Posted: 07/12/2010

Florida extends its agricultural state of emergency

Following a week of freezing temperatures that threatened Florida’s fruit and vegetable crops, the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, lifted the height, length, weight, and width restrictions on commercial trucks carrying crops. Now the state of emergency that lifted these restrictions has been extended for a third week, reports Karen Voyles for the Gainesville Sun online.

While the total cost to agriculture is not yet known, preliminary estimates from the Florida Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson and his staff “place the losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Officials said some of the damage from the cold may not be immediately apparent, for example fungal or bacterial problems, or conditions like root rot.”

The hope is that with the restrictions lifted producers can get their crops where they need to go and minimize any financial losses or destroyed crops.

Voyles quotes Bronson as stating in a news release, ‘"Growers are taking advantage of the improved weather to salvage as many fruit and vegetable crops as possible to mitigate the damage and their losses . . . The ability to get the products where they need to go is critical to reducing the losses and ensuring these commodities get to the public."’

To read the Voyles article in the Gainesville Sun, click here.

Posted: 01/20/10

EU to help Dairy Farmers

Dairy farmers and farms in America aren’t the only ones struggling from low prices and an excess of products in light of the current demand. The British Broadcasting Co. (BBC) is reporting that European Union (EU) dairy farmers are set to receive roughly €280 million in aid, according to EU farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.

Dairy farmers in Europe have been quite vocal in expressing their frustrations with the current situation. They have protested meetings of the European Commission, they’ve dumped milk in the streets, they’ve prevented deliveries, and they have flooded farm land with milk as well. The problem is much like the problem in the United States, the price milk is currently drawing on the open market is not keeping up with the price of production.

The BBC reports that “EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she was forced to ‘empty her pockets’ to meet the demands of 21 of 27 member states seeking an emergency fund for dairy farmers.” The aid will come from the 2010 budget.

The action of the EU was not enough to keep farmers from holding a protest in Luxembourg at the site where the EU farm ministers were holding their meeting. A lot of the farmers’ frustration also comes from EU plans to increase production quotas as that will further flood the market with milk. “The EU plans to phase out milk quotas by 2015 and to limit market intervention that supports prices with a view to scrapping it in the long term.”

The dairy discontent continues, but perhaps this latest action will help the European dairy farmers continue their operations.

To read the BBC article click here.

Posted; 10/19/09

Northeast Dairy Farmers Bring Class-Action Lawsuit

Dave Gram is reporting for the Associated Press out of Montpelier, Vermont that a “group of dairy farmers is suing four milk marketing firms, saying they’ve engaged in monopolizing the market into which farmers have had to sell milk, fixed prices and created an economic crisis in the Northeast dairy industry.”

The class-action suit names the Dairy Farmers of America (based out of Kansas City) and Dean Foods Co. (out of Dallas) as the defendants. Additionally, the Dairy Marketing Services and HP Hood were names as defendants. A spokeswoman for Hood called the allegations in the suit ‘“without basis.”’

“The suit alleges DFA and Dean have seized effective control of the region's dairy industry and are forcing farmers to join DFA or its marketing affiliate Dairy Marketing Services to survive.” The firm representing the farmers, Cohen Milstein, expects many more farmers will join the class-action suit. Since the suit is a class-action, thousands of dairy farmers ‘“similarly situated”’ to the two farm families who brought the suit could collect if the jury reaches a verdict in their favor.

According to Cohen Milstein attorney Benjamin Brown, the plaintiffs don’t know how many farmers will be affected by the suit, but he did note that Dean and Hood “bottle about 90 percent of the fluid milk sold in the Northeast [.]” Brown also argues that current dairy crisis involving milk-pricing is attributable to actions of the defendants.

Brown states in the AP story that ‘“Monopolization and price-fixing have contributed to the milk-pricing crisis dairy farmers, especially small, family-owned dairies in the Northeast, face today . . . Many dairy farmers have been forced to choose between joining DFA or DMS or going out of business . . . If they join, they have to pay a fee to continue to market to their own customers at prices fixed by DFA, DMS and other cooperatives. Meanwhile major milk processors Dean and HP Hood, which is part-owned by DFA, enjoy the economic benefits.”’

In the summer of Dairy discontent, another story emerges.

To read the AP story click here.

Posted: 10/12/09

Food Security the Topic of Discussion at Upcoming Event

World Food Prize’s Borlaug Dialogue is going to be held in Des Moines, Iowa on the days of October 14-15. The focus of the event will be “Food, Agriculture, and National Security in a Globalized World.” The conference expects attendance from hundreds of policymakers, industry officials, as well as NGOs.

As president of the World Food Price Foundation, Kenneth Quinn is optimistic that ‘“We have seen renewed interest among world leaders in agriculture, food, and rural development as critical factors in maintaining a safe and stable global society. . . With the diverse array of high-level speakers at the conference, the 2009 Borlaug Dialogue will offer one of the first and most comprehensive looks at how agriculture and food are connected to challenges facing world security.”’

Among the feature speakers are Bill Gates, Former president of Mozmbique Joaqim Chissano, Secretary Vilsack, and many other agriculture ministers and representatives from non-profits.

The national security theme of the symposium is meant as a tribute to the late Dr. Norman Borlaug, the father of the green revolution. Topics that will be discussed include: threats to agricultural yields as global population approaches 9 million; ecological impacts resulting from climate change, agriculture development in conflict and crisis areas, and role of gender in food security.

For more information, visit the Feedstuffs website by clicking here:

Posted: 10/07/09

Secretary Vilsack: Dairy must Restructure

Chet Brokaw has an article for the Associated Press online in which US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Vilsack is advocating for a change in the structure of the dairy industry. This comes days after conferees for the conference committee on the agricultural appropriations bill agreed to provide $350 million to the struggling industry.

In good years the industry survives on the high dairy prices and consumer demand—particularly from growing nations. However, with the downturn of the economy came a downturn in dairy demand “and wholesale mild prices began plummeting last fall.” Adding more pain to the situation, both feed prices and fuel prices increased over this same time period. This puts many famers in the painful position where they have milk to sell, but at the current prices selling the milk wouldn’t cover expenses.

This reality prompted Vilsack to make the following statement during a visit to South Dakota, ‘“I think really what will be next in line is a longer term discussion about whether or not we need to make structural changes in the way the dairy industry is currently operated so we no longer have these rather stark contrasts between boom and bust [.]”’

Vilsack still wants to deliver the federal aid promised the farmers. In the conference bill the USDA has $290 million to spend on dairy farmers. However, how that money is spent has turned into a battle between small dairy farms from the east coast and larger operations from the west. The $290 million will be in direct support, the formula to distribute the money is gaining a lot of attention from the industry. Vilsack hopes to get as much money in the hands of farmers as soon as possible.

The secretary also said he expects the Agriculture Department to look at its price support and marketing programs to see if changes can be made to help stabilize prices."We need to figure out what changes, if any, we need to make to our support programs, to our marketing programs, to who's included in those programs, to see if there is any way we can create greater stability," Vilsack said.

Currently, to help combat prices, some cows are being taken out of production. Both the National Milk Producers federation uses member contributions to buy out some herds, as does the Dairy Farmers of America.

Of course, the list of agriculture problems the secretary has to deal with is growing quite large, from food safety, to dealing with the decline in pork product consumption in the face of the H1N1 swine flu, not to mention trade barriers the secretary is working to eliminate.

Regardless of those other issues, dairy farmers across the country are waiting to find out how that $290 million in direct spending will be doled out.

To read the Associated Press story click here.

Posted: 10/06/09

Dairy Debate in Congress Not Over Yet

Yes, the East Coast versus West Coast rivalry continues. Though not in any sports, or hip-hop sort of way, but rather, the argument this time is over dairy subsidies and the recent agreement reached on the Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Just when we thought the dairy support issue in the Agriculture Appropriations bill was over due to an agreement that would provide $350 million to dairy farmers, another problem arises. The problem that still remains is how, exactly, to spend that money. When it comes to Congress, fighting over how to spend money could take some time.

As the Associated Press’s Henry C. Jackson writes, Eastern lawmakers want to use the current system, which would tend to reward smaller-producers that populate their region, while Western lawmakers would like a different method employed so that the larger operations in their states could also qualify for some assistance. The current system pays farmers when prices drop, but it caps benefits “after they produce 3 million pounds of milk.” Naturally, Western lawmakers don’t like this method because 3 million pounds of milk, as this blog reported on September 30, 2009, is the equivalent of roughly 200 cows. This would essentially disqualify large operations very quickly.

“Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she was requesting an urgent meeting with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to discuss the matter and promised to object to any vote on a larger agriculture bill before she met with Vilsack.” Basically, the California senator thinks the proposal would discriminate against dairy operations in her state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has not commented on how it will spend the $290 million that does not have guidelines attached by Congress as to how it should be spent. Meanwhile, the other $60 million will be spent to purchase excess dairy commodities to be used in various national food programs.

So, basically, the problem now is over senators wanting to do right by their constituents. The big concern Eastern lawmakers have is that the money may be distributed on a per cow basis. This would obviously be an advantage to Western operations as they tend to be much larger than their Eastern counterparts.

While Senator Boxer’s threat is real and still remains, it appears as though the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill, totaling roughly $23.3 billion, is ready for a vote—minus a few details.

To read the AP article click here.

Posted: 10/02/09

CDC: We Need to Eat More Fruit and Vegetables

We’ve all been told by our elders or doctors that eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is the key to a healthy lifestyle. Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), no state in the union is meeting “national objectives for consumption of fruits and vegetables [.]” This unfortunate news is part of the CDC’s first ever report to include state by state “data about fruit and vegetable consumption and policies . . .”

The “State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009” was released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to the CDC news release, the information in the report indicates the Healthy People 2010 objectives that aim for “at least 75 percent of Americans to eat the recommended two or more daily servings of fruit, and for at least 50 percent of Americans to eat the recommended three or more servings of vegetables daily,” may be tough to meet without some changes in policies. Certainly American produce farmers would like to see the American consumer strive to reach those goals, but if the objective is going to be met, then work needs to be done.

Here is what information the news release contains about the report:

CDC surveys indicate that only 33 percent of adults meet the recommendation for fruit consumption and 27 percent get the recommended servings of vegetables. The statistics are even worse for high school students – 32 percent report eating at least two servings of fruit daily and 13 percent say they eat at least three servings of vegetables each day.

In the news release Dr. William H. Dietz, director of CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity had this to say,

"A diet high in fruits and vegetables is important for optimal child growth, maintaining a healthy weight, and prevention of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers, all of which currently contribute to health care costs in the United States . . . This report will help states determine what is taking place in their communities and schools and come up with ways to encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables."

The report does indicate ways in which the guidelines could be better met, such as easier access for all to retail establishments that offer fresh produce. Only eight states encourage this through policies that aim to improve both retail establishments and where produce is offered so that they are accessible to more citizens. Additionally, the report suggest schools would be a good place to target fruit and vegetable consumption among the nation’s youth.

Farmers and farm-state lawmakers have long advocated for increasing the amount of fresh fruits and veggies that are made available daily to children in school. The report also highlights the effectiveness of having “food system support” so that food makes it from the farm to the consumers. The report also stresses the importance of each role the various stakeholders play in this system.

As Heidi Michels Blanck, Ph.D., CDC epidemiologist states in the release, improving the percentage of Americans who get the recommended daily intake of fruits and vegetables may take the effort of the whole community. ‘“We have seen the tremendous benefit of state and local officials, health professionals, employers, food store owners, farmers, school staff, and community members working together on food and nutrition issues. . . . Their efforts can help to increase the availability of affordable healthier food choices such as fruits and vegetables.”’

To read the report click here.
To read the CDC news release click here.

Posted: 09/30/09

Do We Have a Dairy Deal?

Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press is reporting that a deal has been struck between lawmakers from dairy-producing states that would provide $350 million in aid to struggling dairy farmers.

All it took was two appropriators from the same state to reach the agreement, with a little input from a California Senator Feinstein. Of course, it helps if one appropriator is Dave Obey of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and it helps if the other is Senator Herb Kohl, also from Wisconsin, who is Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. Regardless, a deal has been made and it appears likely that dairy farmers are going to get some relief from the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill.

According to Taylor’s article, roughly $290 million will go towards direct aid for dairy farmers, “under a program to be devised by the Agriculture Department.” The other $60 million will be used to purchase surplus dairy products like cheese and milk for food banks and nutrition programs with the hope that removing these surplus items from the market will increase the price dairy producers get for their products.

A deal had to be reached because, while the $350 was set aside for unknown purposes in the Senate appropriations bill, the House bill had no such measure. So, the conference committee got to work. Taylor writes that dairy subsidies had become a contentious issues in the negotiations between conferees as larger dairy states like California and smaller states like Wisconsin and Vermont have different needs given the size of the operations in their respective states.

“Lawmakers disclosed the agreement before an afternoon negotiation on a $23.3 billion agriculture spending bill for the budget year that starts Thursday.”

Chairman Obey had wanted to implement a program that would be more beneficial in smaller-producer states like Wisconsin because it would pay farmers when prices drop, but caps benefits “after the first 3 million gallons milk produced, equivalent to the annual output of perhaps 200 cows.” Naturally, Senator Feinstein from California and other larger-producer states did not like this plan because they felt it disproportionally benefits smaller-producer states.

After Feinstein raised objections, Taylor reports that Senator Kohl, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, stepped in with the compromise: “$290 million for livestock producers and flexibility for the Agriculture Department in distributing the money. The dollars are expected to be divided between additional purchases of surplus dairy products and direct payments to farmers.”

Regardless of the size of the operation, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont maintains that “[t]he goal is to get the money into the pockets of family-based dairy farmers all over this country who are fighting right now for their survival.”

To read the Taylor article click here.

Posted: 09/30/09

Don’t Miss out on Early Pumpkin Deals

We all know there is a fine line of beginning the holiday season craze too early and too late. Well, this may not be a good year to put off potential pumpkin purchases. According to an Associated Press story in Forbes Online, the wet weather that has hammered the Southeast and Midwest for many weeks may not be ideal pumpkin growing conditions.

According to the AP, Craig Anderson, an extension horticulture specialist for the University of Arkansas Division of Agricultures “says plant disease is rampant as humidity stays high and the ground stays wet.”

Things were not bad for pumpkin growers in the summer as the season was dry. However, when the wet weather came with September created a perfect storm for Halloween disaster. According to Anderson, “the worst thing for pumpkins is the two straight weeks of rain Arkansas has experienced this month.” Given this, it might be prudent for the pumpkin shopper to think about picking up pumpkins that are currently in stores. These likely come from states with dry conditions like Texas and New Mexico.

Arkansas typically raise between 1,000 to 3,000 acres of pumpkin annually.

To read the AP story click here.

Posted: 09/28/09