FDA Suspends Inspections In Foreign Countries Due To Coronavirus

View fullsize

Chris Koger

March 11, 2020

The Food and Drug Administration has halted most inspections of food facilities outside of the U.S. through April, as travel restrictions increase in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The FDA announced the decision on March 10 with a statement from Commissioner Stephan Hahn. Customs and Border Protection officers will continue to examine produce arriving at U.S. points of entry, but food safety inspections at foreign facilities are postponed until April, according to the FDA.“

Mission-critical” inspections will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The decision also affects on-site inspections at foreign drug and medical device manufacturers.

The FDA is employing interim measures, including Denial of imports;

Examination and sampling of products at ports of entry;

Reviewing a company’s compliance history;

Using information-sharing agreements with foreign governments; and

Requesting records “in advance of or in lieu of” on-site inspection.“

The FDA will continue working with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to target products intended for importation into the U.S. that violate applicable legal requirements for FDA-regulated products, which may come from a variety of sources, such as first-time importers unfamiliar with regulatory requirements or repeat offenders trying to skirt the law,” Hahn wrote in the statement.

The FDA uses the Predictive Risk-based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting (PREDICT) system for risk-based import screening to focus on high-risk imports. The agency also checks for “port shopping” or cargo diversions, according to Hahn.

The FDA continues to monitor the outbreak’s effect on operations.“

As this remains a dynamic situation, we will continue to assess and calibrate our approach as needed to help advance federal response efforts in the fight against this outbreak,” according to Hahn’s statement.

Related stories:

Coronavirus gives ‘body blow’ to exporters, worries consumers

United Fresh discusses coronavirus, product trends at FPFC event

EPC cancels volunteer night over coronavirus concerns

The Food As Medicine Movement

View fullsize

BY AMBER GRAY | OCTOBER 18, 2019

You know the saying, if only there were a magic pill for (fill in the blank). It could be weight loss, a cure to the common cold, lowering your risk of heart disease, the possibilities are endless. While there may not be a magic pill, a new movement is on the rise: Food as Medicine. As Hippocrates put it, “Let food be thy medicine and let medicine be thy food.”

The basic idea behind Food as Medicine is that what we eat has an effect on our overall health. Research shows that our dietary habits can influence our risk for disease. Certain foods may trigger chronic health conditions, while other foods can help lower risks.

According to a study by AI tech firm, Spoon Guru, 40 percent of Americans are worried that an unhealthy diet will lead to them developing a serious illness. Less than 30 percent believe grocery retailers are doing enough to help promote healthy eating. Better labeling on shelves and packaging, promotion, sampling events and recipes in-store, and healthier snacks at checkout can all help to improve the visibility of healthier options.

Dietary changes alone are not a cure-all for all chronic conditions, but eating a diet full of whole foods, especially fruits and vegetables, has a positive impact on our overall health. As the fresh produce industry, this is a movement we should all be on board for. How can your brand embrace the Food as Medicine movement?

Highlight Your Products Unique Health Benefits
We all know fruits and vegetables are good for us, but how, specifically, are they beneficial? It’s one thing to list all the vitamins and key nutrients in your product, but consumers need more information than that. Most consumers know vitamin C helps boost our immune system, but beyond that most probably can’t tell you how all those nutrients really benefit them — that’s where you step in.

Tomato and watermelon brands should talk up lycopene and how this antioxidant protects against cell damage. Magnesium-rich foods like spinach and almonds should talk about its importance in bone and heart health, among other things.

Does your product or commodity help fight inflammation, reduce the risk of heart disease or help control insulin levels for diabetics? Make sure to communicate that to consumers in a way they can understand.

Partner with Credible Influencers
In today’s world of Instagram influencers and fad diets, it can be hard to know where to turn to for reliable and trustworthy information. There is a lot of misinformation circulating on the internet. We see this even in our own industry with things like the Dirty Dozen list or conversations around GMOs, pesticides, and packaging.

Partnering with a credible source, like registered dietitians, doctors or reputable organizations, to serve as a spokesperson for your brand or commodity is a great place to start. Always double-check that certifications and credentials are up-to-date and maintained.

This spokesperson can provide content, like recipes or blog posts, for your website, speak on your behalf to consumers on social media and in videos, or offer facts for packaging and signage.

Food Rx
At Produce for Kids, we announced our new Food Rx series centered around the Food as Medicine movement. Partnering with Jessica DeLuise, a physician assistant, and culinary medicine specialist, we’re focusing on the important role food plays in overall health, plus sharing kid-friendly recipes and highlighting how those items can contribute to overall health.

Recently, Jessica has tackled topics like probiotic-rich foods, how to avoid added sugars and use fresh fruit as your sweetener, and how nutrients in onion may help fight cancer.

As more consumers are looking to fight inflammation, control diabetes or decrease their risk of heart disease with what they put on their plate, the produce industry is poised to lead the Food as Medicine charge.

(Amber Gray is the marketing manager for Produce for Kids)

Our Food Is Killing Too Many of Us

Improving American Nutrition Would

Make The Biggest Impact On Our Health Care

View fullsize

By Dariush Mozaffarian and Dan Glickman

Mr. Mozaffarian is dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Mr. Glickman was the secretary of agriculture from 1995 to 2001.

August 26, 2019

The Democratic debate on health care has to date centered around who should be covered and who should pay the bill. That debate, which has been going on for decades, has no clear answers and cannot be easily resolved because of two fundamental realities: Health care is expensive, and Americans are sick.

Americans benefit from highly trained personnel, remarkable facilities and access to the newest drugs and technologies. Unless we eliminate some of these benefits, our health care will remain costly. We can trim around the edges — for example, with changes in drug pricing, lower administrative costs, reductions in payments to hospitals and providers, and fewer defensive and unnecessary procedures. These actions may slow the rise in health care spending, but costs will keep rising as the population ages and technology advances.

And Americans are sick — much sicker than many realize. More than 100 million adults — almost half the entire adult population — have pre-diabetes or diabetes. Cardiovascular disease afflicts about 122 million people and causes roughly 840,000 deaths each year, or about 2,300 deaths each day. Three in four adults are overweight or obese. More Americans are sick, in other words, than are healthy.

Instead of debating who should pay for all this, no one is asking the far more simple and imperative question: What is making us so sick, and how can we reverse this so we need less health care? The answer is staring us in the face, on average three times a day: our food.

Poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, causing more than half a million deaths per year. Just 10 dietary factors are estimated to cause nearly 1,000 deaths every day from heart disease, stroke and diabetes alone. These conditions are dizzyingly expensive. Cardiovascular disease costs $351 billion annually in health care spending and lost productivity, while diabetes costs $327 billion annually. The total economic cost of obesity is estimated at $1.72 trillion per year, or 9.3 percent of gross domestic product.

These human and economic costs are leading drivers of ever-rising health care spending, strangled government budgets, diminished competitiveness of American business and reduced military readiness.

Fortunately, advances in nutrition science and policy now provide a road map for addressing this national nutrition crisis. The “Food Is Medicine” solutions are win-win, promoting better well-being, lower health care costs, greater sustainability, reduced disparities among population groups, improved economic competitiveness and greater national security.

Some simple, measurable improvements can be made in several health and related areas. For example, Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers and hospitals should include nutrition in any electronic health record; update medical training, licensing and continuing education guidelines to put an emphasis on nutrition; offer patient prescription programs for healthy produce; and, for the sickest patients, cover home-delivered, medically tailored meals. Just the last action, for example, can save a net $9,000 in health care costs per patient per year.

View fullsize

Taxes on sugary beverages and junk food would help lower health care costs. Credit: Jenny Kane/Associated Press

Taxes on sugary beverages and junk food can be paired with subsidies on protective foods like fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, plant oils, whole grains, yogurt and fish. Emphasizing protective foods represents an important positive message for the public and food industry that celebrates and rewards good nutrition. Levels of harmful additives like sodium, added sugar and trans fat can be lowered through voluntary industry targets or regulatory safety standards.

Nutrition standards in schools, which have improved the quality of school meals by 41 percent, should be strengthened; the national Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program should be extended beyond elementary schools to middle and high schools; and school garden programs should be expanded. And the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which supports grocery purchases for nearly one in eight Americans, should be leveraged to help improve diet quality and health.

The private sector can also play a key role. Changes in shareholder criteria (e.g., B-Corps, in which a corporation can balance profit versus purpose with high social and environmental standards) and new investor coalitions should financially reward companies for tackling obesity, diabetes and other diet-related illness. Public-private partnerships should emphasize research and development on best agricultural and food-processing practices. All work sites should demand healthy food when negotiating with cafeteria vendors and include incentives for healthy eating in their wellness benefits.

Coordinated federal leadership and funding for research is also essential. This could include, for example, a new National Institute of Nutrition at the National Institutes of Health. Without such an effort, it could take many decades to understand and utilize exciting new areas, including related to food processing, the gut microbiome, allergies and autoimmune disorders, cancer, brain health, treatment of battlefield injuries and effects of nonnutritive sweeteners and personalized nutrition.

Government plays a crucial role. The significant impacts of the food system on well-being, health care spending, the economy and the environment — together with mounting public and industry awareness of these issues — have created an opportunity for government leaders to champion real solutions.

Yet with rare exceptions, the current presidential candidates are not being asked about these critical national issues. Every candidate should have a food platform, and every debate should explore these positions. A new emphasis on the problems and promise of nutrition to improve health and lower health care costs is long overdue for the presidential primary debates and should be prominent in the 2020 general election and the next administration.

Lead Image: Cheeseburgers at a White House picnic in 2018. Credit Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Building a Circular Economy in Charlotte

May 22, 2019

View fullsize

By Amy Aussieker

As the circular economy grows in Charlotte, our dependence on foreign imports would decrease and one area to benefit is local food production. 

From growing locally both traditionally and through aquaponics/hydroponics to the reuse of organic waste – this opportunity has the possibility of transforming the food culture in Charlotte to a more sustainable, healthy, and accessible system. 

Read Article

Carrefour Aims To Have 95% French Fruit And Veg In Its Stores By 2020

On February 28, Carrefour CEO Alexandre Bompard made a strong commitment to his customers: "To increase by 10% the volume of fruit and vegetables produced in France on its shelves, so that by 2020, 95% of the products sold will be of French origin".

In April, 65 % of the fruits and vegetables on the shelf at Carrefour were of French origin. However, in July, when the seasonal products arrive, 80 % of them will be stamped made in France.

The brand is focused on two areas:

To offer more and more seasonal products: this means more turnips, pumpkins and sunchoke in winter, and more tomatoes in summer. However, we would have to offer less and less certain products, or even remove them from the shelves if they come from too far away. This decision is risky for consumers: it is therefore essential for Carrefour to educate them. It will be necessary to explain again the natural cycle of fruits or vegetables. In addition, this strategy of buying more products made in France has a cost, estimated at 50 million euros per year.

Encourage the re-establishment of certain cultures, which had disappeared in France. "As soon as a product can be made in France, we manage to have it on the shelf, even if we can offer other origins in parallel," Carrefour explains. The distributor is also pushing the spotlight on organic productions made in France. "We are currently supporting 230 farmers, particularly during the entire conversion phase, during which their incomes are declining.

View fullsize

Source : leparisien.fr

Publication date: 5/13/2019 

Seeds&Chips Launches Goals on Tour: FAO: 821 Million People Worldwide Suffer From Chronic Malnutrition, 672 Million From Obesity

Marco Gualtieri, Seeds&Chips: "Reaching the SDGs is the greatest business opportunity that has ever occurred for humanity"

View fullsize

Milan, 10 May 2019 - On the fourth day of Seeds&Chips, the most important international event dedicated to innovation in the food chain, Goals on Tour was launched as a global campaign to raise public awareness and support for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (SDGs).

Seeds&Chips 2019 houses 16 containers (the 17th represented by the unity of intent of the community gathered and represented here), which each symbolize an SDG. From here, they will embark on a sustainable journey around the world. The colorful containers, with the symbols of the Goals and full of graphic and interactive content will make stops in the main capitals of the world, functioning as a traveling exhibition that showcases artistic installations and displays of public and private sector initiatives that aim to realize the SDGs. The exhibition content has been provided by the partners of this project and by Elisabetta Lattanzio Illy, journalist and photographer with over twenty-five years of experience in the defense of equality and dignity for all.

The Summit was in fact the first part of this world tour, which immediately saw the participation of large global players like FAO, IFAD, WFP, UNIDO, UNECE, INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER, the Republic of San Marino, Deloitte Foundation, Oceana, Robert Kennedy Human Rights, Fondazione Politecnico. It is destined to grow bigger, combining international bodies, institutions and the private sector.

The SDGs were launched in 2015 by the United Nations and were included in the 2030 Agenda. They aim to resolve economic and social development problems in the world such as poverty, hunger, health, education, climate change, gender equality, water, sustainable energy, urbanization, environment and social equality.

Marco Gualtieri, President and founder of Seeds&Chips, commented: "Reaching the SDGs represents the greatest business opportunity that has ever occurred for humanity. We have the honor of launching the Goals on Tour initiative because we must begin to create awareness, make systems and unite the intentions around the SDGs."

In the launch session of Goals on Tour, the major international humanitarian organizations came together at Seeds&Chips to share their initiatives and commitments in achieving the objectives.

According to FAO, 821 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, which has steadily increased since 2014, while 672 million people suffering from obesity. In the world 1/3 of available food is wasted:#zerohunger is the campaign that FAO has presented on stage and is committed to supporting in the coming years. It has the same intent as the WORLD FOOD PROGRAM, the United Nations agency that assists over 100 million people.

IFAD (International Fund for Agriculture Development) is working toward increasing the sustainability of agriculture, while INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER is at the forefront in achieving gender equality from within and improving the sustainability of exporting goods around the world. UNIDO is committed to sustainably increasing the industrial activities of member countries while aiming to reduce emissions and their impact on climate change.UNECE is active in promoting approaches for greater economic integration and cooperation and  sustainable development and prosperity for all.

The Republic of San Marino was the first State to join Goals on Tour, choosing to be part of the global network, "because environmental sustainability must be pursued concretely, the environment is not infinite,” declared Marco Podeschi the Secretary of State for Education and Culture of the Republic of San Marino.

For more information: https://www.seedsandchips.com/

***

Seeds&Chips - The Global Food Innovation Summit, founded by entrepreneur Marco Gualtieri, is the world’s flagship food innovation event. An exceptional platform to promote technologically advanced solutions and talents from all over the world. An exhibition area and conference schedule to present, tell and discuss the themes, models and innovations that are changing the way food is produced, transformed, distributed, consumed and talked about. In 2017, Seeds&Chips’ keynote speaker President Barack Obama participated as a speaker The event hosted over 300 speakers from all over the world; over 240 exhibitors and 15800 visitors. It also garnered 131 million social impressions in 4 days. The 2018 edition saw more than 300 international speakers, among them former US Secretary of State John Kerry, President of IFAD Gilbert Houngbo and Starbucks’ former CEO and Chairman Howard Schultz. The 5th edition of Seeds&Chips – The Global Food Innovation Summit took place at Fiera Milano Rho, from May 6 to 9, 2019. 

Here's Why Ultra-Processed Foods Are So Bad For Your Health

These packaged foods can increase overall risk of death.

By Nicole Wetsman February 15, 2019

Ultra-processed foods have higher amounts of ingredients that are known to be bad for your health.

Increasing the amount of ultra-processed foods that you eat also shortens your life, according to a new study. The research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, tracked nearly 45,000 French men and women over eight years. It found that for every 10 percent increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods the participates ate, risk of death went up 1 percent.

Ultra-processed foods fall at the far end of the NOVA food classification system, which breaks what you eat down into four categories: unprocessed foods (edible parts of plants and animals); processed ingredients (like oils, flour, or sugar); processed foods (which involve cooking unprocessed foods with processed ingredients to make breads or canned vegetables); and ultra-processed foods (which don’t have any intact, unprocessed parts).

These ultra-processed foods are mostly made from substances derived from other foods, preservatives, and additives—designed to create convenient and long-lasting products. Both processed and ultra-processed foods can add excess sugars, oils, and fats to a diet, notes Claire Berryman, an assistant professor in the department of nutrition, food, and exercise sciences at Florida State University. Ultra-processed foods, though, take the amount to the next level—and also contain additives and other highly manufactured ingredients.

The JAMA Internal Medicine can’t say that these foods caused an earlier death, just that they’re associated with an early death. It’s not possible, therefore, to say what exactly in these foods contributes to the problems. However, the high amounts of bad-for-you ingredients are likely to play a role, Berryman says. “Anytime you’re getting an excess of sugar, fat, or salt, there can be problems.” Here’s what’s hiding in the packaging:

Lots of sugar

Ultra-processed foods have, on average, eight times more added sugars than processed foods. So, as people eat more ultra-processed foods, naturally their added sugar intake goes up along with it—which can have negative effects on health. Reports by the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association, and other groups show that eating more added sugars increases the risk for diabetes, hypertension, cancer, and stroke. Consuming added sugar also increases the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

Lots of salt

These foods also have higher amounts of sodium—in the JAMA internal medicine study, people who ate more processed foods also consumed more sodium. “We know that when you over consume salt you can contribute to increases in blood pressure [and] hypertension,” Berryman says. In addition, high salt intake is associated with a higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

Fats and saturated fats

The more ultra-processed foods someone eats, the more likely they are to eat a diet that’s higher in saturated fats. “They’re often added to foods for flavor,” says Cristina Swartz, a clinical oncology dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital. “Saturated fat is well-known risk factor for increasing LDL cholesterol, which can put you at risk for cardiovascular disease. It’s something that should be limited.”

Crowding out nutrients

Eating a diet high in ultra-processed foods is also associated with eating a diet lower in fiber, which decreases risk of death. The new study found that for every 10 percent increase in the amount of ultra-processed food someone ate, the amount of fiber they consumed dropped off significantly. “Excessive intake of these foods can displace the intake of nutrients like vitamins, minerals, and fiber from whole foods,” Swartz says.

Additives and preservatives

Trans fats, which used to be common in ultra-processed foods, were banned by the Food and Drug Administration because of their clear link to high cholesterol and heart disease. But trans fats are just one of the additives manufacturers add to foods. Some research has raised questions about the health effects of others, like high fructose corn syrup, says Berryman, but there isn’t conclusive evidence available to say for sure what they are.

“Sometimes these additives are derived from natural products, but we don’t know the chemical and physical affects the food has on our bodies,” she says. “There’s lots of research in our future, and some of additives might have a similar fate to trans fats.”

However, just because ultra-processed foods can increase overall risk of death doesn’t mean eating them is going to immediately kill someone—it’s still fine to have some ice cream. Living a healthy life means making sure most of your diet comes from minimally processed foods, Berryman says, but eating something high in sugar isn’t going to send you straight to the grave. “Everything in moderation,” Berryman says. “You don’t want to deprive yourself.”

Photo by: Deposit Photos

5 Lawsuits That Could Change The Food Industry

Lillianna Byington@lil_byington

Dec. 11, 2018

From unwanted ingredients and debatable labels to the spreading of salmonella and E. coli, food companies have been in the crosshairs of litigation this year with cases that can both change recipes and the way manufacturers do business.

Lawyers told Food Dive they have kept busy with issues ranging from food that caused outbreaks to lawsuits challenging label claims, nonfunctional slack fill and contamination with glyphosate. When it comes to lawsuits associated with foodborne illnesses, attorney Bill Marler — a leader in that space — can attest to the recent increase. 

"It's been a bad year for food safety and it's more than anecdotal," Marler told Food Dive. "I've had to hire three more lawyers and two more paralegals in the last six months. It's always a bad sign if Bill Marler is hiring more lawyers. That tells you that in the food system, there's something wrong."

But it hasn't just been foodborne illness lawsuits that have had an impact on the industry. There have also been many labeling lawsuits, challenging product claims including "natural," "healthy" and "nothing artificial."

Kevin Laukaitis, an attorney at Kohn, Swift and Graf who focuses on class action consumer litigation involving defective products, told Food Dive the healthy product trend has led to an increase in mislabeling cases. More companies have been advertising better-for-you claims to attract consumers, and that will likely lead to more lawsuits challenging the validity of those labels, he said.

This year alone, there have been many lawsuits filed and numerous resolved that could factor into future cases and help answer some of the big questions looming over the industry. What makes a valid label claim? Who is responsible for foodborne illness? How much empty space can be used in packaging? Here are five cases moving the industry toward answers.

1.) Is LaCroix "natural"?

Credit: Flickr user Tony Webster

What happened: LaCroix came under fire this year in a lawsuit that claimed it mislabels its water as "natural," though the actual ingredients are non-natural and synthetic compounds — not what its cult fan base wants to hear. The legal complaint, filed Oct. 1, says the product contains items including ethyl butanoate, limonene, linalool and linalool propionate. Linalool is used in cockroach insecticide. 

The class-action suit was filed in Cook County, Illinois against National Beverage Corp., the parent company of LaCroix. National Beverage Corp. denies the claims, saying all essences in LaCroix sparkling waters are 100% natural. But this case has already brought the company into a negative light for consumers. The case is ongoing and hasn't reached trial yet, but LaCroix plans to fight, writing on Twitter days later, "please stand with us as we defend our beloved LaCroix."

What it means: LaCroix has advertised its product as a "natural" alternative to soda, but it may be up to a jury to decide whether the compounds found in the sparkling drink indeed come from natural substances, as well as what should be considered "natural." The National Beverage Corporation has said that the ingredients in LaCroix are "derived from the natural essence oils from the named fruit used in each of the flavors" and certified to be "100% natural." The decision could mean that the company may need to change its labeling.

"It is a huge trend now in business where consumers are interested in natural products, and they want to have healthy products, and they might pay a little more for a product that is natural over a product that is not," Laukaitis said. "But when they come to find out that the product ... has synthetic ingredients or is just like all the other products out there, then that is going to anger the consumer and they are going to feel cheated."

Why it matters: There have been reportedly about 300 lawsuits over the use of the word "natural" on food products in the last three years, according to an analysis cited by CBS News. These types of claims about synthetic ingredients are becoming more common. Natural label claims are such a big issue since there's no industry standard for what the word means.  

"The 'natural' cases are going to be a continued trend because that is the new wave of marketing," Laukaitis said.

But any precedent this case sets could be overruled if the Food and Drug Administration comes out with a regulated definition. In 2015, the FDA opened public comments on the definition of "natural," and Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has said the agency will come out with one soon. 

2.) Impact of JBS' massive meat recall

Credit: Jon Sullivan

What happened: In October, JBS Tolleson, Inc. in Arizona recalled about 7 million pounds of raw beef products because of potential salmonella contamination. Then the company expanded the recall this month to more than 12 million pounds of raw beef. The first lawsuit was filed in Arizona Superior Court on Oct. 5 against JBS Tolleson on behalf of Dana Raab, who contracted a salmonella infection after eating ground beef from the company, experiencing severe dehydration, diarrhea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The case was dismissed last week without prejudice, meaning it could be tried again at a later date or that the case could have been settled out of court. Marler's firm, which was one of the firms handling that case, released a statement last week that they would evaluate any cases related to the recall — which means there could be more filed in the near future.  

What it means: When a massive outbreak like this occurs, manufacturers not only have to deal with the immediate clean up and recall of the products but also are open to further scrutiny when lawsuits are filed months later. The company's reputation will likely take a hit again because consumers are reminded of the incident — and the brand may also have to pay the affected consumers. A case like this also means similar manufacturers will closely watch how it unfolds, taking note of what happened and learning from it.

Why it matters: A recall on this scale can bring many lawsuits, especially since the recall was expanded to 12 million pounds. Marler said it's likely similar cases will be filed since many people could have consumed the product.

These cases could also impact what processors do to ensure food safety because the bad publicity and cost of a recall and lawsuit could force change. Contamination in meat seems to be occurring more this year than it has in the past, Marler said. 

"I'm worried that because there have been so few outbreaks and recalls linked to hamburger in the last decade, you wonder if perhaps companies were getting a little complacent and not paying attention as they should have," Marler said.

3.) Fewer slack-fill cases

Credit: Windell Oskay

What happened: A man in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit claiming that Hershey intentionally sold semi-full packages of candy like Whoppers and Reese's Pieces that contained too much nonfunctional slack fill. The consumer claimed that Hershey was "misleading, deceptive and unlawful." The lawsuit accused Hershey of only filling a $1-sized box of Whoppers about 59% full. His $5 million class action lawsuit moved forward in May 2017. But on Feb. 16, the case was thrown out. The final ruling said the "unjust enrichment claims" were dismissed and could not be brought up in another court. 

What it means: The U.S. district judge on this case ruled that the plaintiff wasn't harmed by partially full packages because he kept buying them. In fact, he purchased more than 600 packages of Hershey candy in a decade. Future rulings could follow this precedent — if consumers are able to see the package and continue to buy it regardless of how full it is, then the consumer can't claim harm. 

Why it matters: More courts are shutting down slack-fill cases like this one,according to Laukaitis. Companies have become more transparent about what is in their packages with serving size, product weight, volume or piece count printed on the outside of the product, so the consumer has a better idea of what he is getting. This specific dismissal also shows that there may be a higher burden of proof for the consumer to show he was harmed and/or misled. 

4.) A potential change in glyphosate litigation

Credit: Flikr

What happened: A California jury awarded a former school groundskeeper $289 million in August because glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup weed killer likely caused his cancer. Just a few days later, a Florida woman sued General Mills for failing to reveal the presence of glyphosate in its Cheerios products. After the case was filed, a spokesman for General Mills told Food Navigator that the company's products are safe and meet regulatory safety levels. The suit was filed in the Southern District Court of Florida and most recently, General Mills filed a motion to stay the discovery period Monday in order to hear a resolution of its motion to dismiss. 

What it means: This plaintiff may not have a great shot at success given the way previous glyphosate cases in food have concluded. Companies generally prevail by arguing the amount of glyphosate in their products is extremely small and would have no health impact on consumers. But if this case sees a different outcome, it could reverse the trend. 

Why it matters: Regardless of how the ruling comes down, the negative publicity could have already done damage to the reputation of any products that contain residual glyphosate. If consumers don't trust products with ingredients that may have been exposed to glyphosate, then recipes and formulation might need to change no matter the legal decision. 

"Companies should not wait for a mandate from the federal government to do what's right for their consumers," the Environmental Working Group said in a statement after the Monsanto ruling. "People don’t like to eat pesticides. They don't like to drink pesticides. Despite the benefits they often have, pesticides have no place in people."

This is also not the first time General Mills has faced a lawsuit over glyphosate in its products. In August 2016, consumer groups sued the company for labeling Nature Valley granola bars as "natural" when they contained residues of the chemical. In that case, General Mills settled. A settlement shows the manufacturer is interested in making the case go away, and perhaps other manufacturers will want to go that route. Companies usually don't benefit from a long legal challenge, which can be pricey for them and tends to harm a brand, even if the case ends up being ruled in their favor. 

5. E. coli romaine outbreak litigation

Credit: Megan Poinski

What happened: An E. coli outbreak linked to romaine lettuce from Arizona sickened 149 people in 29 states earlier this year. The litigation phase has just begun for many victims who have filed suit from this outbreak. Marler has formally filed about a dozen lawsuits against various suppliers in the romaine supply chain, restaurants and retailers who sold the green. In total there are at least 31 cases tied to the romaine grown in Arizona, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control said. There are several different state and federal jurisdictions involved in these cases, which means there will likely be different rulings. In defense, some restaurants have revealed their suppliers' names to protect themselves and shift the blame and legal responsibility. 

What it means: These cases could end up costing those in the romaine business a lot of money in damages depending on the rulings in the various cases and how sick the greens made the individuals. 

What could help the plaintiffs even more is that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently warned consumers again to not eat romaine lettuce — the third time in recent years. With repeated outbreaks like this, consumers have claimed in lawsuits before that the product seems to be prone to contamination and nobody is protecting them. The Lange Law Firm already filed an E. coli lawsuit in federal court against a Florida restaurant in the the current outbreak after a patron got sick from eating a salad.

For the court cases, the repeated occurrence of these outbreaks only shows that this is a continuing issue with romaine and could put more fault on suppliers, grocery stores and restaurants for not finding a solution sooner.

Why it matters: The lettuce outbreaks have already sparked changes. Companies and retailers saw the need to implement better processes to limit food safety issues in the supply chain. Walmart asked lettuce suppliers to trace products using blockchain and an environmental assessment was released on how another outbreak like this could be prevented. Most recently, the FDA and the produce industry have introduced a new voluntary labeling plan for romaine lettuce to help clarify whether the product is contaminated. But even with this new plan, these court cases will continue to put a spotlight on the safety of romaine lettuce, and could bring more change, since the outcome could cost growers, shippers, retailers and restaurants big bucks.

Fish Fraud 'Rampant' in New York, AG Report Finds

Dive Brief:

• A recent study released by the New York Attorney General’s office reported high levels of seafood mislabeling and fraud at New York supermarkets. The 42-page report found that more than one in four samples wasn't sold under a federally recognized market name.

• The office spent the last year conducting the nation's first major government investigation to address fraud in the seafood industry. The office bought seafood at 155 locations across 29 supermarket brands, with fish from nine categories including snapper, grouper, cod, wild salmon, halibut, sole, striped bass and white tuna. 

• The office sent the samples for testing to the Ocean Genome Legacy Center, a laboratory at Northeastern University. The DNA testing found widespread mislabeling of certain species, including 27.6% of samples sold as wild salmon, 67% of red snapper and 87.5% of lemon sole. 

​​Dive Insight:

As the market for fish expands, so does the opportunity for fraud. The U.S. imported more seafood last year than any other year — more than 6 billion pounds — which makes up about 90% of the fish Americans eat annually. With that much fish being imported, the seafood industry is one of the most vulnerable to food fraud, according to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations this year. 

On a more local level, this report found that two-thirds of the state's supermarket chains tested had at least one instance of fish mislabeling. There were five chains — Food Bazaar, Foodtown, Stew Leonard’s, Uncle Giuseppe’s and Western Beef — that had more than half of their fish mislabeled. That could mean grocery stores across the U.S. likely face the same issue, and this report could spark more states to conduct their own investigations. 

The substitutes for the labeled fish were typically cheaper and lower quality species, the report found. Suppliers can make more money off of mislabeled fish, but reports like this cause consumers to lose trust in the industry and supermarkets.

"It’s clear that seafood fraud isn't just a fluke — it’s rampant across New York," Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement. "Supermarkets are the last line of defense before a phony fish ends up as family dinner, and they have a duty to do more. Yet our report makes clear that New Yorkers may too often be the victim of mislabeling."

This is far from the first time the fish industry has faced accusations of fraud. In 2013, nonprofit ocean protection group Oceana took samples of fish nationwide and found that 59% of what was labeled tuna sold at restaurants and grocery stores was not. The same group conducted one of the biggest seafood fraud investigations from 2010 to 2012 and found that 33% of the samples analyzed were mislabeled based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Legislation has tried to tackle the problem, but has faced obstacles. The Seafood Traceability Rule — a law that requires seafood importers of species like tuna, grouper and swordfish to track fish species and origin — was challenged in court, but upheld last year. And fisheries are now looking to adopt the first-ever traceability program. If implemented across the industry, that could help the issue. 

But it's not just fish. Food fraud has been estimated to cost the industry $30 to 40 billion per year. From cheese and honey to seafood and spices, experts have said that the issue is widespread, but difficult to solve. 

"Addressing food fraud takes a worldwide coordinated effort between industry, consumer groups and governmental agencies," Peter Bracher, managing director of food safety management for NSF International Asia-Pacific, told Food Dive last year. 

As for fish fraud, this latest report from the New York Attorney General could encourage more retailers, suppliers and restaurants to be proactive in preventing it. The report says that solving the problem requires reform across the industry at different stages of the supply chain. A blockchain certification system recently launched to offer consumers a way to track fish's history, which could be one way to solve the problem. New technology and more methods could be coming soon as supermarkets and suppliers scramble in response to this report. 

Dollar Stores Are Taking Over the Grocery Business, and It’s Bad News for Public Health and Local Economies

BY CLAIRE KELLOWAY

Posted on: December 17, 2018  

Today, there are more dollar stores in the United States than all Walmarts and Starbucks combined. These low-priced “small-box” retailers, like Dollar General, offer little to no fresh food—yet they feed more Americans than either Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods, and are gaining on the country’s largest food retailers.

Detailing the explosion of dollar stores in rural and low-income areas, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) recently released a report that shows how these retailers exacerbate economic and public health disparities. The report makes the case that dollar stores undercut small rural grocers and hurt struggling urban neighborhoods by staving off full-service markets.

ILSR also argues that the proliferation of dollar stores is the latest outgrowth of an increasingly concentrated grocery sector, where the top four chains—Walmart, Kroger, Ahold-Delhaize, and Albertsons—sell 44 percent of all groceries, and Walmart alone commands a quarter of the market. These dominant chain stores have decimated independent retailers and divested from rural and low-income areas, as well as communities of color.

A Dollar General in Morgantown, West Virginia. (Photo credit: Taber Andrew Bain)

“Earlier trends in big box store [growth] are making this opening for dollar stores to enter,” says Marie Donahue, one of the report’s authors. “We’re seeing a widening gap of inequality that’s a result of wealth being extracted from communities and into corporate headquarters… Dollar stores are really concentrating in communities hit hardest by the consequences of economic concentration.”

“Before this report, I had no idea that dollar stores were proliferating in this way,” says Dr. Kristine Madsen, Faculty Director of the Berkeley Food Institute. But, she adds, “it doesn’t surprise me that these incredibly cheap stores may be the only choice for people [who] may be choosing between medicine and rent and food.”

Dollar General did not respond to a request to comment for this article.

Profiting Off Customers in “Food Deserts”

Two companies, Dollar Tree (which acquired Family Dollar in 2015) and Dollar General, have expanded their footprint from just under 20,000 stores in 2010 to nearly 30,000 stores in 2018, with plans to open yet another 20,000 stores in the near future. Dollar General alone opens roughly three stores a day.

Most of these new stores are in urban and rural neighborhoods where residents don’t often have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. In 2015, in fact, Dollar Tree and Dollar General represented two-thirds of all new stores in “food deserts,” defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as low-income areas where a third or more of residents live far from a full-service grocery store. Dollar General predominantly targets rural areas, though it s beginning to compete with Family Dollar, which is ubiquitous in urban food deserts.

Profiting off these left-behind places is baked into dollar stores’ business plan. In 2016, low-income shoppers represented 21 percent of Dollar General’s customers but 43 percent of their sales. Dollar General executives publicly described households making under $35,000 and reliant on government assistance as their “Best Friends Forever.” When discussing growing rural-urban inequality, Dollar General’s CEO said “the economy is continuing to create more of our core customer,” i.e., more struggling rural families.

Undercutting Independent Grocery Stores

Some, including dollar-store executives themselves, argue that a low-cost retailer seeking to go where no one else will benefits underserved communities. But ILSR argues that dollar stores are not a true solution to hunger or food insecurity. Furthermore, the group says, they do nothing to promote food sovereignty, or people’s right to control the production and distribution of their own food.

Inside a Dollar General store in Eldred, Pennsylvania. (Photo credit: Random Retail)

“To the extent that dollar stores are filling, in some ways, a need in communities, I think that is true in the short term,” says Donahue. “But really our research is demonstrating … those foods aren’t as good quality as full-service grocers or independent local stores, which may be able to connect to local farmers and the larger food system.”

Dollar stores sell predominantly shelf-stable and packaged foods. Four-hundred-and-fifty Dollar General locations are experimenting with an expanded refrigerator section to respond to a demand for more fresh fruits and vegetables. But, to date, the fresh and frozen offerings that do exist in these stores consist of processed meats, dairy products, and frozen meals. In other words, customers don’t have the same wide selection as they do in a traditional full-service grocery store.

“Grocery stores have more variety and a higher quantity of healthy foods than do dollar stores,” says Dr. David Procter, director of the Rural Grocery Initiative, a program of Kansas State University’s Center for Engagement and Community Development.

Despite their reputation, dollar stores don’t provide the best deals either. They often sell products in smaller quantities to keep a low price tag and draw in cash-strapped buyers. But when comparing per-ounce prices to a traditional grocery store, dollar store customers tend to pay more. Reporting by The Guardian found that the prorated cost of dollar store milk cartons comes to $8 per gallon, for example.

Dollar store customers do, however, find genuine value in things like greeting cards, pasta, coat hangers, and other everyday home goods. But this very cost-cutting is what makes dollar stores uniquely brutal competitors for smaller independent grocers.

“There’s very little money made on all kinds of segments of the [independent] grocery store, but where [grocers] do make their most money … is in paper goods and dry goods,” explains Procter. “That is really the heart of Dollar General … and it’s cutting into the largest profit area of the grocery store, that’s the real challenge.”

By sucking away this source of revenue, dollar stores tend to drive out the few independent grocers that remain, especially in rural areas. ILSR’s report found that “it’s typical for sales [at local grocery stores] to drop by about 30 percent after a Dollar General opens.”

Additionally, a survey by the Rural Grocery Initiative found that competition from large chain stores is the single largest challenge facing independent rural grocers. In the ’90s, Walmart was their main challenger; now Dollar General is moving in where even Walmart wouldn’t go, pushing out more local businesses.

The Benefit of—and Fight for—Small, Local Stores

Residents lose more than fresh foods when their local grocery store disappears. They lose jobs, local investment, and a voice in their food choices.

According to federal data, small independent grocers employ nearly twice as many people per store when compared to dollar stores. “When you have a hometown grocer owned by people who are committed to that community, not only are all the decisions made locally, but all of the profits stay in that town,” says Procter. “Some of the money that’s being generated in Dollar General stores is going to their headquarters in Tennessee, and the decisions about whether or not that [store] stays open or what they offer is being made by out-of-state corporate decision makers.”

A Dollar Tree store in Cheshire, Conn. (Photo credit: Mike Mozart)

In addition to undercutting existing stores, the proliferation of dollar stores can shut out new entrants. This is a particular concern in low-income urban areas and communities of color. ILSR’s report features the case of Tulsa, Oklahoma, where there’s a 14-year life expectancy gap between residents in the predominantly Black north Tulsa neighborhood and residents in the predominantly white south Tulsa neighborhood. ILSR found that dollar stores have “concentrated in [Tulsa] census tracts with more African American residents,” and community members are not happy about it.

“I don’t think it’s an accident they proliferate in low socio-economic and African American communities,” Tulsa City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper told ILSR. “That proliferation makes it more difficult for the full-service, healthy stores to set up shop and operate successfully.”

However, Tulsa’s story also provides a glimpse of hope into what some communities can do to halt the invasion of dollar stores. Hall-Harper worked to pass zoning ordinances that would limit dollar store development and encourage full-service grocers to set up shop. She rallied residents to protest the opening of a new Dollar General and join city council meetings to show support for a temporary dollar store moratorium. City council passed the moratorium and the zoning changes seven months later. North Tulsa will soon have a new grocery store, operated by Honor Capital, a veteran-owned company that has a food-access mission. Rural communities in Kansas have similarly organized and leveraged city council to halt a proposed Dollar General.

“It’s great to see a community really fight for this ordinance and show up to public meetings and hearings and challenge those traditional systems that would have just approved development for more dollar stores in the area,” says Donahue.

Top photo: Outside a Dollar General in Fort Hancock, Texas. (Photo credit: Thomas Hawk)

Despite Small Wins, the New Farm Bill is a Failure of Imagination

BY DAN IMHOFF
Posted on: December 13, 2018  

The $867 billion 2018 Farm Bill the House and Senate passed this week is a hot mess. The Washington Post editorial board described it as “a bad outcome—that could have been worse.” And they’re right. Unfortunately, we’re all going to be affected by it.

Congress passes a farm bill around every five years. It’s an encyclopedic set of rules that doles out nearly a trillion dollars every 10 years for farm subsidies and crop insurance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and on-farm conservation programs.

To be fair, the farm bill is a mirror of our political process. As such, it is a lopsided mix of some good policy and a lot of bad. I’ll get into the good (and mixed) news in more detail below, but for now let’s just say that progressives can be happy that programs to combat hunger, expand local and organic food production, train beginning farmers, and protect the land were all successfully championed this time around.

Still, the revised farm bill will ensure that citizens continue to pay for their food at least three times: 1) at the checkout stand; 2) in environmental cleanup and medical costs related to the consequences of industrial agriculture; and 3) as taxpayers who fund subsidies to a small group of commodity farmers deemed too big to fail.

Granted, many of those farmers are caught in a vicious cycle. Most live in areas where the only market and infrastructure support commodity crops, and yet those crops don’t support a resilient farm system. One-half of agricultural counties in the United States were designated as disaster areas from 2012 to 2016. Current subsidies are supposed to provide a safety net to even out the financial ups and downs of crop production and help farmers stay afloat in a competitive global economy.

Instead, over the last half century they’ve created an expensive and polluting engine of overproduction, which drives down prices, saturates markets, and shifts the burden of recouping costs to taxpayers who subsidize farmers’ insurance policies and other relief.

The 2018 Farm Bill will strengthen crop insurance subsidies that guarantee farm income even across swaths of the U.S. where soybean, corn and wheat growers will benefit from more generous terms on government loans. Small dairy farmers, who are regularly swamped by a flood of cheap milk from mega-dairies, will also gain protection.

Perhaps the biggest boon for commodity producers is the opening of eligibility loopholes. By blurring the definitions of what constitutes a “family farm,” the new bill will allow these farms to balloon in size and exponentially dip into the public trough. Current household limits for the two largest subsidy programs are set at $125,000 per year per operator and $250,000 for a married couple. (Household operations with an adjusted gross income under $900,000, and $1,800,000 for couples, are eligible.)

The revised law will now permit children and their spouses to also be seen as “actively engaged” in farming and therefore eligible for subsidies. It doesn’t end there. Nephews, nieces, cousins, and other extended family members can be daisy-chained to receive benefits as long as they can demonstrate participation in farm management even if they don’t set foot on the farm. This was justified in the name of supporting a new generation of family farmers. It seems more designed to help the big operations get bigger.

Swaddling struggling commodity farmers in a lavish safety net might be acceptable if we were also building a nationwide foundation of stewardship and vibrant local food production. But most of the nation’s ever-increasing harvests of corn (farmers grew a near-record 14.6 bushels in 2018) and soybeans (farmers grew a record 4.5 billion bushels in 2018) aren’t even eaten directly by humans. They’re fed to cattle, hogs, and poultry or transformed into processed food ingredients and biofuels.

More than 20 percent of our agricultural output is exported. The real winners are the grain traders, meat packers, ethanol distributors, agrochemical corporations, equipment manufacturers, financiers, and insurers whose lobbyists write the farm bills and who benefit from low commodity prices and capital-intensive farming methods. There is a waste crisis as well: 40 percent of the food produced never reaches an eater’s plate; much of it ends up in landfills.

It is important to note that these increases in farm supports are the product of a compromise reached through negotiation. The bills passed separately by the House and Senate earlier this year were so different that they went into a process known as conferencing, wherein majority and minority leaders in both Agriculture Committees attempt to make a deal.

The House Bill included much-discussed work and job training requirements for some SNAP recipients. In the name of promoting “independence” this would have placed additional hoops in the path of over a million underemployed Americans seeking hunger relief—for questionable budget savings. This issue may not be settled, however. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Sonny Purdue has drafted a rule intended to crack down on recipients who currently have work requirement waivers. The House Bill also included riders that would have exempted pesticides from clean water violations and eased restrictions on logging in federal lands under the guise of reducing fuel loads. Democrats declared victory after these crucial elements were dropped in the conference process.

In the end, one wonders whether these were ever serious expectations or just part of a shrewd Republican strategy. More importantly, why did the Democrats not wait until January to conference the bill when the newly elected House may have offered an opportunity for much needed reforms?

There are a few gains to so-called “small but mighty” programs. Efforts to expand composting operations and reduce food waste in 10 states, along with the establishment of a food loss and waste reduction liaison were funded at $25 million per year through 2023. Industrial hemp will now be recognized by the USDA as a legitimate commodity crop, and may offer an additional cash crop to rotate in with commodity crops. (That may also provide some temporary relief in the form of hemp-derived, non-psychoactive cannabidiol, or CBD, for citizens frustrated by the lack of forward thinking in the bill otherwise.)

Permanent mandatory funding was also granted for local food initiatives, beginner farmer support, and organic research. Given the value that these programs generate and proven track records, however, their funding should have not only been guaranteed but increased ten-fold.

Conservation spending—which goes to help farmers use practices that reduce air and water pollution, improve the soil, and sequester carbon—was renewed at 2018 levels. There will be an increase of 3 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays landowners not to farm on land and to protect on-farm habitat. CRP payments will be reduced to 80 percent of a county’s average rental acreage, however, making it a less attractive option than rolling the dice with crop insurance.

The innovative Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) survived the House bill’s attempt to absorb it into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program but saw its budget nearly cut in half. The CSP, as it is known, rewards farmers for a range of stewardship activities rather than per acre output of corn, soybeans, etc. CSP pays farmers to reduce their use of chemicals, grow cover crops, optimize their use of energy, protect wildlife habitat, and diversify their operations. This is exactly the type of farming we need more than ever, as the climate warms and becomes less predictable and nitrogen levels in our waterways and oceans have reached crisis level.

Federal money spent on conservation programs are arguably the most justifiable investments the government makes in our rural landscapes. In the absence of policies that encourage supply management, crop subsidies and crop insurance payments encourage the overproduction of commodities by taking the risks out of planting. The consequences of low prices and intensive farming practices then become the responsibility of the taxpayers.

When global markets are flooded with cheap commodities, it’s often the small holder farmers in nations without subsidies who are most affected. Conservation programs should be designed to support landowners for efforts the market does not: building resilience with perennial habitats that can harbor fish and wildlife, filtering runoff, limiting storm damage, and removing carbon from the atmosphere by storing it deep within the soil.

Some policymakers have declared the preservation of conservation budgets at the current spending levels as a key victory. But in the larger scheme of things, citizens were still done a great disservice. Conservation programs were slashed by $6 billion during the 2014 Farm Bill and should have been restored to those former spending levels at a minimum.

That funding could be directed to drastically increase our use of cover crops such as rye and legumes, which provide non-chemical nutrients and build organic matter and protect bare soil on farms and rangelands. On-farm energy use could be aggressively reduced. Research into soil building, no-till and organic farming, and rangeland management must be significantly scaled up. Animals could be removed from massive feeding operations and re-integrated in lesser numbers in managed pasture rotations. This effort will require a whole new generation of training and infrastructure, including hundreds of regional processing facilities.

Farmers could massively expand habitat in and around farmlands by taking marginal lands and former field borders and drained wetlands out of production and planting deep rooted perennials to create a bank of underground carbon. There are historical examples of such bold action in response to crisis. In 1935, for example, the government launched the Plains Shelterbelt Project, with the goal of planting a 100-mile wide swath of trees from North Dakota to Texas to provide a line of defense against wind erosion and the Dust Bowl.

The farm bill is our chance to invest in agriculture that is ecologically and economically sustainable. When it comes to food and agriculture policy, we reap what we sow.

Adelaide Puts Food, Not Developments at the Top of the City-Fringe Menu

By national rural and regional correspondent Dominique Schwartz

Updated Sun at 4:37am

PHOTO: Scott Samwell's family farm is one of Australia's biggest brussels sprouts producers. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

Scott Samwell lives on brussels sprouts.

His Adelaide Hills family is one of Australia's biggest growers of the vegetable and the only producer of the kale-brussels sprout hybrid, the kalette.

Restaurant dishes such as twice-cooked brussels sprouts sautéed with bacon and sprinkled with parmesan have made the once-maligned vegetable hugely popular.

But the family is not able to expand its Mt Barker farm to keep up with demand because they would literally run into a brick wall.

"When we first came out to Bald Hills Road we were the only property out here, the only house out here," Scott's uncle Leigh Samwell said.

Thirty years on, "there are houses everywhere".

PHOTO: Housing encroaches on farming property at Mount Barker in South Australia. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

Mount Barker is one of Australia's fastest-growing urban centres.

Just half an hour's drive from Adelaide by freeway, the once rural hamlet is now a satellite town of more than 35,000 people and is projected to grow 60 per cent within the next two decades.

Developers have offered the Samwells eye-watering sums of money for their land, but they have resisted selling.

And even if they wanted to cash in, from April next year they will not be allowed to sell to make way for housing.

South Australia appreciates the value of good food and wine

So much so, its city fringe farm land is being legally protected.

PHOTO: A bird's-eye view of a lettuce crop on the fringes of Adelaide. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

Agriculture is the state's economic driver and a lot of it happens around the fertile fringe of Adelaide.

Two years ago, the then-state Labor government introduced Environment and Food Production Areas (EFPA) to restrict urban sprawl across a massive 8,000 square kilometres of land.

It's illegal to subdivide rural land for residential housing within these protected areas.

The ban takes full effect in April 2019, and has the backing of the current Liberal government.

The Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale already have tough development restrictions in place.

PHOTO: The shaded areas show the Environment and Food Production Areas which restrict the development of new housing.(ABC News )

"It's about protecting some of our best lands for food production," South Australian Primary Industries Minister Tim Whetstone said.

"Horticulture is worth $22.5 billion and growing [and] peri-urban farms are critically important."

What's the main benefit of farming on the fringe?

In a word, water.

In Mount Barker, the Samwells might not be able to expand, but they do have ready access to three key ingredients often not available to farmers further afield.

• Labour

• Markets

• Recycled household waste water

That last one is especially important in Australia's driest state.

During a drought, the rain may stop and rivers may dry, but people still wash, clean and flush.

Maybe not as much, but enough to guarantee an abundance of irrigation water for the Samwells, who are tapped into Mt Barker's waste water treatment plant.

"We don't want to have to grow in poor soil away from infrastructure, transport and water because it would increase the cost of what is already an expensive operation," Scott Samwell said.

"So preserving what we have got close to cities and regional areas is important."

Fringe farms serve up 80pc of Melbourne's food

Dr Rachel Carey is a research fellow on sustainable food systems at Melbourne University and says we have "overlooked how important cities are for food production".

She said Melbourne's food bowl served up 80 per cent of the vegetables eaten by the city's nearly 5 million residents.

In South Australia, the market gardens and orchards north of Adelaide alone account for one-fifth of the state's horticulture.

PHOTO: The Adelaide Central Market sells fresh fruit and vegetables from the surrounding region. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

"It's really important that all of Australia's states now introduce much stronger protection for farmland on the city fringe," she said.

Dr Carey said city fringe farms would become increasingly important as food supply was affected by climate change.

"We should see them as an insurance policy if you like, as a buffer against the future pressures and also potential shocks that we are likely to face to our food supply," she said.

"We should be planning for at least 50 years and beyond in terms of saying there are areas that will not be touched for the long term, then the other crucial thing, of course, is to hold the line."

Growers divided on food protection zones

"You can almost split my growers into two," Jordan Brooke-Barnett, head of the SA branch of the grower association AusVeg, said.

Mr Brooke-Barnett said some AusVeg members were opposed to the development restrictions imposed by the EFPA.

"[They would] like the opportunity to subdivide land potentially one day to houses and the economic benefits that could potentially bring," he said.

Others who deal with urban encroachment and "fight for the right to have their business exist" supported stronger protection of city fringe farms, according to Mr Brooke-Barnett.

In Queensland, fourth generation vegetable farmer Ray Taylor did move to a regional area, but he was happy to.

His family started farming just 11 kilometres from Brisbane's CBD in 1914, but every generation was pushed further out as the city expanded.

Now, the Taylor's main operation is near Stanthorpe, 225 km south-west of the capital.

"That enables us as a family to go and find a larger parcel of land in another area, so … obviously we can grow the business," he said.

The Taylors grow 25 million vegetables per year, and while they can benefit from the economies of scale space brings, water security is a "massive issue".

PHOTO: Ray Taylor at his farm near Stanthorpe in Queensland, where he has room to expand operations. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

Without rain, the farm's 27 dams were only 20-60 per cent full and the main creeks had not run for 20 months, Mr Taylor said.

"We're down about 30 per cent on [vegetable] production this year due to water scarceness."

The family is planning to sell its last foothold on Brisbane's urban fringe — a 40-acre waterfront property at Redland Bay.

"It's too small … and you can't expand it," Mr Taylor said.

"We're the last ones left there, so all the services have shut up and moved on and we get a lot of pressure from urban sprawl — spray drift, dust, noise — so it's very difficult to operate in that environment."

It is that situation South Australia is trying to avoid, according to the state's Primary Industries Minister who makes no apologies for restricting urban sprawl.

"The government has to draw a line, [it has to] give a secure future to farmers and food production in South Australia, but also certainty to those developers looking to move into peri-urban areas of Adelaide and South Australia," Mr Whetstone said.

SA plans $1 billion horticultural export hub on city fringe

The state is aiming is to ensure it has enough fresh produce not just to survive, but thrive.

Protecting farm land along the city edge is part of a greater plan to turn the Northern Adelaide Plains into an export hub and a global leader in intensive food production.

Work is underway to more than double the amount of treated waste water being piped to growers from Adelaide's Bolivar waste water plant, and to open up new areas within the protected EFPA for irrigation.

The goal is to treble the value of northern Adelaide's annual horticulture production to $1 billion within two decades and the plan has the backing of industry and all levels of government.

Providing certainty around land and water helped boost business confidence and available capital, Mr Whetstone said.

Meet investor Henry Liu

Henry Liu is one person investing heavily in South Australia's food future.

PHOTO: Hydroponic vegetables growing in state-of-the-art, climate-controlled glasshouses. (ABC News: David Scaisci)

Mr Liu had one of the first greenhouses in Virginia north of Adelaide 18 years ago.

Now he has eight hectares of hydroponic vegetables growing in state-of-the-art, climate-controlled glasshouses.

PHOTO: One of Henry Liu's workers picks hydroponically grown tomatoes in a glasshouse at Virginia in South Australia. (ABC News: David Sciasci)

That number will rise to 12 hectares when his new glasshouse starts production early next year.

"The future is great, very bright," Mr Liu said.

Glasshouse crops use 95 per cent less water than those grown in the field and carbon dioxide can be captured and used to boost plant growth, he said.

"The advantage of glasshouses over field production is that you can control the growing conditions," Mr Liu said.

But they are energy-hungry and solar power is not yet enough to run them.

PHOTO: Henry Liu said when it came to urban farming, the future was "very bright". (ABC News: David Sciasci)

Mr Liu believes hydroponic cropping will increase, but there will always be a place for soil-based growing and that however food is produced, being close to water, markets and labour is reason enough to protect city food bowls.

Dirty Feed, Done Dirt Cheap: Are Consumers Who Shell Out for Organic Meat Eating a Bunch of Bull?

By Brian Barth on August 9, 2018

Illustration by Brian Stauffer

America imports staggering amounts of organic grain from abroad—which allows for sleight of hand during shipping and opens the door to tainted feed. Are consumers who shell out for organic meat eating a bunch of bull?

Many Americans assume that anything labeled “USDA Organic” hails from the USA. And for produce, at least, the assumption typically holds true, with the exception of obvious imports like mangoes or coffee beans or tomatoes in January. But the farther an item is removed from the soil, the greater the possibility it harbors ingredients farmed abroad. One needn’t reach the tail end of the supply chain, where the frozen breakfast burritos dwell, to find foreign inputs. Just consider the steak in your butcher’s case. A cow must jump through multiple hoops before earning USDA certification. While the animal may have grazed on chemical-free Iowa pasture all summer, what did it eat during the off-season and where were the feed’s ingredients grown?

Chances are, not here. Although the United States remains the world’s largest exporter of conventional grain, we now import a hefty chunk of the organic stuff. Roughly 70 percent of our organic soybean supply, and some 40 percent of the organic corn consumed domestically, originates overseas. Between 2013 and 2016 alone, the amount America spent on imported organic soy leapt from $110 million to $250 million, and on imported organic corn from $36 million to $160 million. As a result, the bottom fell out of the U.S. market: Prices for organic soy plummeted from $26 to $18 per bushel, and organic corn from $14 to $7.50 a bushel—less than what it costs most American farmers to produce the crops.

A number of these growers found the sudden spike in imports suspicious. Beyond questions regarding food security and food miles, the glut of foreign grain raised regulatory concerns, especially given the three-year transition period required for organic certification. How could the USDA possibly enforce its strict standards on a rapidly expanding global playing field?

“I knew something was up,” says John Bobbe, executive director of OFARM, a marketing co-op that represents several hundred organic grain growers across 19 states. In May 2016, Bobbe needed to move corn from Illinois farms to an Indiana feed mill, and had a tough time finding anybody to haul the load. Turns out, a much bigger gig was drawing Midwestern truckers: A cargo ship called the Federal Nakagawa had just docked in Burns Harbor, Indiana, with 25 million pounds of feed corn in its hold. “That’s as much as 50 of our farms produce in a year,” explains Bobbe, who doubted the corn was organic when he discovered its country of origin.

Turkey lacks the flat, fertile plains needed to support export-scale corn and soy production. The politically volatile nation also has a history of attempting to export fraudulent organic goods to the European Union, according to a 2016 report from the USDA’s own Foreign Agricultural Service. Yet, that year, we imported $118 million worth of organic corn from Turkey, more than twice the amount the United States purchased from all other countries combined. The amount we spent on organic Turkish soybeans rose 268-fold between 2013 and 2016.

Bobbe soon heard of other ships delivering purportedly organic grain from Turkey to our ports. In September 2016, he turned over the names of the vessels, and one particularly suspicious importer, to the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), which is charged with ensuring the integrity of the organic seal. “The NOP told me it was too late to investigate,” he says. “I think it was more like, ‘We don’t want to bother.’”

Then, in February of last year, Peter Whoriskey, a reporter at The Washington Post, got in touch. Plying industry informants and Freedom of Information Act requests, Whoriskey managed to unearth shipping documents and other paperwork that laid bare a lucrative laundering scheme. His May 2017 article detailed three shipments of conventional grain that magically turned “organic” as they crossed the sea. All three came through Turkey, but at least two originated in other countries. “Lo and behold, the NOP started looking into it,” recalls Bobbe.

So just how, exactly, does the USDA go about certifying crops grown overseas? In the case of some countries (Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Korea, and the 28 European Union nations), the agency basically takes their word for it, via “equivalency arrangements” that acknowledge a foreign government’s organic standards as equivalent to ours. America has also signed “recognition agreements” with Israel, India, and New Zealand, recognizing certifiers accredited by those governments. Everywhere else, a USDA-accredited certifier must perform the inspection.

You might be surprised to learn that, of the 80 third-party, organic-certification agencies accredited by the USDA, 32 are based in foreign countries. Bobbe believes that’s part of the problem. “There is no way the NOP has the manpower to monitor them,” he insists, pointing out that only six or so auditors, none stationed abroad, are tasked with overseeing all the paperwork submitted by organic certifiers worldwide. He also faults the NOP for failing to inspect inbound cargo. U.S. Customs and Border Protection might, but those agents aren’t trained to scrutinize organic-certification documents. “Your chances of getting caught with a shipload of fake organic grain are next to nil,” Bobbe says. And should you get caught, the maximum fine per violation is $11,000—not much of a deterrent when millions can be made off a single shipment of fake organic corn.

Kelly Damewood, director of policy and government affairs at one of the largest certification agencies in this country, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), agrees that the NOP needs more funding, though she warns against overstating the lapses. “In the rare cases of fraud, it can often be traced back to an uncertified handler,” says Damewood. “Technically, if you are not repacking it, processing it, relabeling it, or turning it into anything else—if you are just a pass-through entity—then you are not required to have certification.” Last September, CCOF started requiring the companies it certifies to complete a new form, verifying that every handler is complying with organic standards.

That same month, following a strongly worded directive from the USDA Office of Inspector General, the NOP issued new guidelines for certifiers aimed at closing loopholes along the supply chain. The agency also stopped a freighter named the Diana Bolten as it arrived in Bellingham, Washington, loaded with “organic” corn for the same importer associated with the Federal Nakagawa. Sources with knowledge of the incident told Bobbe that a portion of the shipment was rejected by the USDA as fraudulent. The USDA declined Modern Farmer’s request for comment on the matter.

Another sign of progress: Last September, Representatives John Faso (R-NY) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) introduced the Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act, which would authorize $5 million for the NOP to upgrade its enforcement systems and technologies, and mandate ongoing budget increases at a rate that matches the growth of the organic sector. The bill has garnered broad bipartisan support, with a mix of co-sponsors from both parties, including celebrated food-movement champions like Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME).

“This is the system working more or less as it’s supposed to,” says Mark Lipson, a former organic and sustainable agriculture policy advisor at the USDA. Lipson worries that extrapolating a few specific, if glaring, fraudulent incidents into a systemic indictment of the NOP risks undermining public confidence in the organic label—and would be unjustified. “The Washington Post report demonstrated that the enforcement structure needed to catch up with the growth in the market, but the National Organic Program still works better than a lot of other regulatory divisions,” says Lipson.

Bobbe isn’t so sure. While the amount of certified organic grain flowing in from Turkey has decreased since 2016, to approximately $80 million apiece for soy and corn last year, his network of farmers continues to suffer. One of them, Bob Stuczynski of Amherst, Wisconsin, says, “Organic farmers in America can hardly move their corn unless they want to fire-sale it.” Stuczynski estimates that he’s lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue over the past couple years. And an OFARM analysis found that imported organic grain cost U.S. farmers a total of $300 million to $400 million from 2015 through 2017.

Bobbe recently attended a conference convened by the European Organic Certifiers Council and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements in Odessa, Ukraine, across the Black Sea from Turkey—an apropos location. Some of Bobbe’s E.U. counterparts are convinced the Turkish mafia is barging in conventional corn from Ukraine and other Black Sea countries, then shipping it out as organic to Europe and North America. “It’s an international crime syndicate,” he says.

A final piece of the puzzle has even more of a conspiracy-theory ring to it. The nations surrounding the Black Sea, like Kazakhstan and Armenia, generally do not produce corn and soybeans on a significant scale. But there is one giant exception, and its grain exports are booming of late. “Russia!” says Bobbe, his voice dropping to a whisper. “It’s the elephant in the room.”

The Quality Standards for Hydroponic Lettuce

By Tyler Baras

Living Butterhead Lettuce in Retail Clamshell

“Voluntary U.S. grade standards are issued under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, which provides for the development of official U.S. grades to designate different levels of quality. These grade standards are available for use by producers, suppliers, buyers, and consumers. As in the case of other standards for grades of fresh and processed fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops these standards are designed to facilitate orderly marketing by providing a convenient basis for buying and selling, for establishing quality control programs, and for determining loan values.” (From the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Leaf Lettuce)

Voluntary USDA grade standards designate different levels of quality in agricultural products. The USDA has official standards used to grade a lot of different crops including leafy greens like Greenhouse Leaf Lettuce, Field Grown Leaf Lettuce, Kale, Beet Greens, Collard Greens, Dandelion Greens and Mustard Greens. The standards for butterhead lettuce currently fall under the same standards used for Iceberg lettuce. Although the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce do acknowledge the significant differences between the two types of lettuce, they are still grouped under the same standards. And there is no mention of living lettuce in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce, while living lettuce is one of the primary crops grown by hydroponic leafy greens growers. If the hydroponic lettuce industry is to grow beyond the premium product niche and enter the ‘real world’ of lettuce production, it would be helpful if hydroponic growers decided upon grading standards appropriate for hydroponically grown lettuce.

When hydroponic lettuce growers try to compete against field growers they almost never win in the battle for price per pound. Field growers can sell heads of lettuce wholesale under $0.75. Large hydroponic lettuce growers (3+ acres) can get their price per head close to $0.90. Field lettuce is generally packed in a 24 count box that will weigh 50+ pounds. The heads are easily 1 to 2 pounds. Hydroponic lettuce is often packed in a 6 or 12 count box and the heads rarely weigh over 10 ounces (0.625 pounds).

While hydroponic crops have a lot of external benefits like water savings and food safety, those benefits are not shown when a hydroponic butterhead is graded with the U.S. Standards for Grades of Lettuce. To preserve the narrative around hydroponic lettuce, it may be necessary to have USDA grading standards specifically for hydroponic lettuce so the crop does not lose some of its value when it enters the larger lettuce market that puts it ‘head-to-head’ with field grown crops.

USDA grade standards are helpful in international trade. The U.S. has one of the biggest lettuce importers on the northern border… Canada! (See Stats). Currently most hydroponic lettuce growers sell to local markets or if they are one of the larger hydroponic lettuce growers they might sell to a grocery store chain or produce broker that distributes their product in multiple states. I have seen living butterhead lettuce from Canada in the U.S. but I’m not aware of any U.S. hydroponic leafy greens growers shipping internationally. I would think that the increased shelf-life of living lettuce would be an advantage in international trade since lettuce is highly perishable.

The Standards for Butterhead Lettuce Quality

What should a USDA Grade A butterhead lettuce look like? How big should it be?

I’ve seen a wide range of targets from growers across the US and internationally. The majority of US hydroponic butterhead growers target a head that is between 5 oz. and 8 oz. (with roots attached). Many aquaponic and indoor vertical farms sell heads closer to 5 ounces. Many of the larger hydroponic lettuce growers (1+ acre greenhouses) target heads between 6-8 ounces. I’ve seen some greenhouse lettuce growers target 10 ounce heads. In Europe, it is common to see butterhead lettuce over 1 pound. In Japan, it is common to see living lettuce sold at less than 5 ounces. The market standards for hydroponic butterhead lettuce minimum weight vary but generally the bottom line is the head should not bobble around when packaged in a clamshell. Most living lettuce labels do not even state a minimum weight, instead the label might have “1 Count” or “1 Head”. Beyond weight there’s the more qualitative traits like leaf texture, leaf color and head formation. Check out these unofficial visual aids provided by the USDA to help grade romaine and lettuce. What would a visual aid for hydroponic butterhead lettuce look like?

Here are some of my favorite butterhead lettuces I’ve grown over the years, which do you think looks most like a ‘standard’ butterhead?

This article is property of Urban Ag News and was written in cooperation with Tyler Baras.

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree Explains Why Food Is An Important Issue for All Americans

View fullsize

BY  JESS BARRON  AUGUST 10, 2018

View fullsize

LIVESTRONG.COM traveled to Washington, D.C., and met with U.S. Congressional leaders and their teams to find out what consumers and citizens need to know about the safety and health of the American food system and what we can do to get involved.

We interviewed Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a Democrat representing Maine, at the Rayburn House Office Building as part of our Stronger Women interview series.

Pingree is currently the only organic farmer serving in U.S. Congress. She is a leader on food policy, including issues involving local food, food waste and organic agriculture. You can view the legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by Pingree here.

Organic and Local Food Should Not Be Considered a Partisan or Elitist Issue

According to Pingree, agriculture and the food that we put onto our tables should be concerned that bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats.

“People want healthy food, and they want it at all economic levels and certainly at all ages,” she says. “The truth is today that the majority of parents who choose to buy baby food go with organic. And they do so because a parent of any economic level is worried from the start about what they’re going to put in their kid.”

Pingree points out that this is true whether a person is shopping at Whole Foods or at Walmart.

“Walmart is attempting to be the largest retailer of organic foods in the country right now, and they wouldn’t be going after that market if they didn’t think that everyone at every income level wanted to eat more organic food,” she says.

She explains that locally grown produce is important to Americans as well.

“I’m pretty convinced from the people I talk to that wherever you are economically and wherever you are politically that people want to buy more locally grown produce,” Pingree says. “They love the idea that they would know who the farmer was and they could know where it came from.”

Pingree’s efforts have included making it easier to use SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits to purchase local food.

“I have a bill right now to support more organic research because as our interest has gone up in organic food our supply has declined in this country,” she says. “And we’re actually importing a lot more corn and wheat that is organically grown outside our country than we ever have before because we can’t get them here.”

How Being a Farmer Prepared Her for Serving in Congress

Farming takes a lot of work, and Pingree says she didn’t come to her position with any particular ideology, but rather more of a “commonsense idea of how you get things done.”

According to Pingree, as a member of Congress it’s essential to be persistent and to be comfortable dealing with the public.

“I’ve always had a farm stand, and today I own a restaurant and an inn in addition to the farm, so I’m very comfortable dealing with the public or people’s complaints or the issues. You kind of get a thick skin, and you’re not uncomfortable working hard.”

Concerns About the EPA and USDA

Pingree said she has concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and about some of the rulings that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made.

“One of my jobs here in Washington is to be a watchdog, to fight back — whether it’s issues on ruling that they’ve made on chemicals that should have more testing or some of the rules that have come before the USDA where they should be more directive about making sure that a free-range chicken is actually out on the range, pecking in the grass, picking up healthy nutrients in bugs,” explains Pingree.

She serves on two committees — one that has oversight on the EPA and another that oversees the USDA.

“You can follow us at any time. And we are regularly going after them — whether it’s about chemicals like Roundup, which we see too much of today, or some of the rules that govern how we technically administer the organic farming regulations and making sure that they’re strict and that everyone follows the right rules,” she says.

How Can Americans Get Involved Right Now to Improve Our Food Supply?

According to Pingree, consumers and citizens can make a huge difference. One way is voting with our pocketbooks and how we choose to spend our money.

“If you’re buying food from the local farm down the road or you’re joining a CSA, you’re showing that farmer that you care about what they do and sometimes you’re willing to pay a little extra to make sure they can stay in business. And you’re looking them right in the eye and saying: ‘I want you to tell me how this was grown,’” she says.

Pingree points out that contacting your state legislators and members of Congress is incredibly important because they count the emails and phone calls they get on each issue.

“If all we ever hear from is the very well-financed major food lobbyists — and, in fact, there are more lobbyists on the Hill and more money spent on lobbying food, food processing and agriculture than there is in the defense industry, and people don’t often understand that,” she explains. “So we need to hear all your voices on whatever concerns you.”

RELATED: Congresswoman Mia Love Encourages Women to Step Up and Lean In

See more of LIVESTRONG’s Stronger Women interviews.

About the Author

JESS BARRON is Editor-in-Chief and GM for LIVESTRONG.COM, a leading healthy lifestyle website with more than 32 million unique monthly viewers. In addition to LIVESTRONG, her writing has appeared in Entrepreneur, Fortune and MyDomaine. She has been interviewed about her advice for female entrepreneurs by Inc., HuffingtonPost and FabFitFun. Jess has appeared on MSNBC, CNN and ABC News and has been a keynote speaker at Health Further and a panelist at SXSW, Create & Cultivate and Digital Hollywood. Follow Jess on Instagramand Twitter at @jessbeegood!

USDA Invests $21 Million to Encourage Low-Income Families to Buy Healthy Food Options

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture sent this bulletin at 08/02/2018 02:00 PM EDT

Media contact: Kelly Sprute, 202-744-2574

WASHINGTON, D.C.  August 2, 2018 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) today announced 24 grants totaling $21 million to help Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants increase their purchases of fruits and vegetables by providing incentives at the point of purchase. The funding comes from the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) program, authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill.

“We are encouraging low-income families to choose affordable and healthy food options to feed their families. NIFA has on ongoing commitment to improve the diet and health of all Americans,” said Acting NIFA Director Tom Shanower. "At the same time, the program helps growers take advantage of direct marketing and other opportunities to bolster their sales thereby improving their bottom line."

FINI is a joint program between NIFA and USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees SNAP and is responsible for evaluating the impact of the variety of incentive programs that are deployed by FINI grantees. The program brings together stakeholders from different parts of the national food system to improve the nutrition and health status of SNAP households. The FINI program supports a wide range of small pilot projects; multi-year community programs; and multi-year, large-scale initiatives.

Among the grant participants this year, Wholesome Wave Georgia provides fresh local produce to Georgia’s food-insecure families through Georgia Fresh for Less (GF4L) incentive program. GF4L wants to implement an “e-incentive” technology and expand the program into additional sites throughout Georgia.

Another program participant, The Arkansas Coalition for Obesity Prevention will implement a "Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program that provides retailers a dollar-for-dollar market match for fresh fruit and vegetable purchases by eligible SNAP participants. Arkansas Coalition for Obesity Prevention wants to create a statewide unified DUFB program of matching markets in every region of the state.  

Grants being announced, by state, include:

FINI Pilot Projects (up to $100,000, not to exceed 1 year):

• Sustainable Molokai, Hawaii, $99,963
• The Land Connection, Illinois, $21,000
• Pillsbury United Communities, Minnesota, $97,231
• South Dakota State University, South Dakota, $82,223
• West Virginia Food & Farm Coalition, Inc., West Virginia, $100,000

More information about these projects is available on the NIFA website.

Multi-year community-based projects (up to $500,000, not to exceed 4 years):

• Arkansas Coalition for Obesity Prevention, Arkansas, $500,000
• International Rescue Committee, Inc., Arizona, $400,000
• LiveWell Colorado, Colorado, $466,951
• DC Central Kitchen Inc., District of Columbia, $500,000
• Wholesome Wave Georgia, Georgia, $442,134
• Presence Chicago Hospitals Network, Illinois, $394,916
• The Experimental Station 6100 Blackstone, Illinois, $413,534
• Chicago Horticultural Society, Illinois, $492,793
• Iowa Healthiest State Initiative, Iowa, $480,044
• Community Food and Agriculture Coalition Inc., Montana, $267,153
• Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA, North Carolina, $363,880

More information about these projects is available on the NIFA website.

Multi-year large-scale projects ($500,000 or greater, not to exceed 4 years):

• Pinnacle Prevention Corp., Arizona, $974,050
• SPUR-San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Assc., California, $623,430
• Feeding Florida, Inc., Florida, $3,047,755
• Fair Food Network, Michigan, $1,544,196
• Reinvestment Partners, North Carolina, $1,000,544
• Produce Perks Midwest Inc., Ohio, $2,276,890
• Farm Fresh Rhode Island, Rhode Island, $4,628,765
• Local Environmental Agriculture Project, Virginia, $1,797,548

More information about these projects is available on the NIFA website.

Increasing low-income communities’ abilities to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables not only helps to improve the health of families, but also expands economic opportunities for farmers. FINI provides grants on a competitive basis to projects that help low-income consumers participating in SNAP purchase more fresh fruits and vegetables through cash incentives that increase their purchasing power at locations like farmers markets.

NIFA invests in and advances agricultural research, education, and extension and promotes transformative discoveries that solve societal challenges. NIFA's integrated research, education, and extension programs support the best and brightest scientists and extension personnel whose work results in user-inspired, groundbreaking discoveries that combat childhood obesity, improve and sustain rural economic growth, address water availability issues, increase food production, find new sources of energy, mitigate climate variability, and ensure food safety.

To learn more about NIFA’s impact on agricultural science, visit www.nifa.usda.gov/impacts, sign up for email updates or follow us on Twitter @USDA_NIFA, #NIFAimpacts.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity lender, provider, and employer.

NIFA invests in and advances agricultural research, education, and extension, and promotes  transformative discoveries that solve societal challenges

Foreign Beef Can Legally be Labeled “Product of U.S.A.” It’s Killing America’s Grass-Fed Industry.

How rampant mislabeling puts America's grass-based cattle producers out of business.

July 16th, 2018
by Joe Fassler

CULTURE ENVIRONMENT FARM POLICY SYSTEMS

Last month, in a petition formally filed with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), two advocacy groups made a stunning claim: Your American grass-fed beef might actually come from overseas, even if it’s labeled “Product of U.S.A.”

Those two groups—the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which offers the country’s leading “grass-fed” certification, and the Organization for Competitive Markets, a watchdog group that fights corporate consolidation in the food industry—point out that a massive regulatory loophole allows companies to falsely, and yet legally, claim their imported beef comes from our pastures.

The trouble began in 2015, when the Obama administration’s USDA rolled back Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef and pork products, allowing meat to be sold without disclosing its home country on the label. But that decision, which angered many American ranchers, has further muddied the waters in a way no one quite anticipated. Under the current rules, beef and pork products that are shipped to the United States and processed further here, can be labeled “product of U.S.A.,” even if the animal was raised a continent away. That means a steer slaughtered in Uruguay and broken down into steaks at a meatpacking plant in Colorado is technically American meat—even if it isn’t.  

Photograph by simarik (iStock), graphic by NFE

That’s a huge issue for American grass-fed producers, who are now finding themselves undercut by foreign competition. Allen Williams, a 6th-generation rancher and founding partner of Grass Fed Insights, a leading consulting group on grass-fed beef, says U.S. producers owned more than 60 percent of the domestic grass-fed market in 2014. Then came COOL repeal. By 2017, American ranchers’ share had plunged to just 20 to 25 percent, according to an industry analysis by the Stone Barns Center for Agriculture. Today, Williams, who consulted on the Stone Barns report, says American producers claim only about 15 percent of the grass-fed market—and that share is rapidly shrinking.

Ranchers attribute the decline directly to COOL repeal. The fact that foreign companies can pass their imported beef off as American, they say, has made fair competition impossible.

“The very idea of labeling beef in a grocery store ‘product of U.S.A.,’ when the animal never drew a breath of air on this continent, is just horrible,” says Will Harris, owner of White Oak Pastures, which produces its branded line of grass-fed beef in Bluffton, Georgia. (Harris is also on AGA’s board of directors.) “I don’t begrudge importers or producers from other countries selling to knowing consumers that want to buy that imported product. But I’m appalled at what the deception has done to the economies of our membership. It has moved the needle from grass-fed beef producers being profitable, to being a very break-even—or, if you’re not careful, a losing—proposition.” 

But though pastured beef often isn’t as American as it looks, a question remains: How much does it actually matter? I found myself wondering how much we mean to prioritize domestic purchasing when we spend a little more to buy grass-fed, and whether the product’s country of origin makes a meaningful difference. Are grass-fed steaks from Australia all that different from those raised on a ranch outside Austin, Texas? I wanted to know whether we we should stop handwringing about geography—or if misleading labels somehow betray the grass-fed ethos, and amount to a profound abuse of consumer trust.

Grazed and confused

If Williams is right that only 15 percent of the grass-fed beef is raised domestically, you wouldn’t necessarily know it just by strolling through the grocery store. On a recent trip to Trader Joe’s, I inspected a package of “100 percent grass-fed organic ground beef,” looking for clues about its origins. The casual observer could be forgiven for mistaking that product for American meat. The splashy consumer-facing label features a USDA organic seal, a USDA inspection sticker, and, in smaller print, the phrase “processed in USA” alongside Trader Joe’s corporate address in Monrovia, California. Of course, foreign beef can still be certified USDA organic and all imported meat goes through USDA inspection. But this product features not one but four allusions to the U.S. on its label. The average shopper wouldn’t be crazy to assume it’s coming from here.

Flip the package over, though—to the side few people read up close—and the label tells a different story. In small, no-frills font, below the freeze-by date and above the safe handling instructions, are the words “Product of USA, Australia, and Uruguay.” That phrasing would seem to suggest that Trader Joe’s ground beef is a blend of beef from American, Australian, and Uruguayan cows—an arrangement that might surprise some customers, given what the front of the package says. But even thatreasonable assumption may not be accurate. Trader Joe’s may only be buying Australian and Uruguayan meat that’s then ground at a facility in the U.S.—enough to qualify as American in the eyes of regulators. It isn’t really possible to tell.

Joe Fassler

If Trader Joe’s and other grocery brands were really selling meat from cows raised in this country, you’d think they’d make a bigger deal of it.

Trader Joe’s organic grass-fed ribeye steak also prominently features USDA’s organic and inspection seals on the front—as well as the phrase “Product of USA” in small font on the back, by the nutrition facts. But are the company’s grass-fed ribeyes really produced here? Or are they just processed here? It’s impossible to tell from the label alone, and Trader Joe’s had not responded to my requests for clarification by press time.

The Trader Joe’s scenario is a good example of how products can follow the letter of the labeling law and still be misleading. But other brands have done more to take advantage of this legal ambiguity—and some are downright deceptive.

Bubba Burger

Bubba Foods’ marketing would suggest that its beef is born and raised in the U.S. A look at its affidavit to the USDA suggest otherwise

Bubba Foods, a Jacksonville, Florida-based company whose products are sold by major retailers like Walmart, Kroger, and Wegman’s, puts its American-made claims front and center. The label on the company’s grass-fed ground beef displays a prominent “Product of USA” banner, complete with an American flag—and, if that wasn’t enough, the proud phrase “Born & Raised in the USA.” But paperwork filed with USDA, obtained by the American Grassfed Association and shared with me, suggests the product may not be American at all—at least, not in the conventional sense most shoppers would understand.

Any producer who wants to sell a commercial grass-fed beef product has to file an affidavit with USDA’s Food Standards Inspection Service (FSIS), laying out the agricultural practices it will use and submitting an example of their product label. Bubba’s affidavit includes several details that caught my attention, considering the aggressive nationalism of its label. A nutritional analysis describes the product as “import grass-fed” beef. It also includes an import record from Australia, noting that an “Australian National Vendor Declaration” will certify the product’s grass-feeding regime. The final 20 pages of the document lay out the specifics of Australia’s Pasture-Fed Cattle Assurance Standard, a program that isn’t available in other countries.

Bubba Foods initially assured me the company would answer my questions about the discrepancy, but did not provide more information after multiple follow-ups. At this point, the opacity only furthers my suspicion that the company is passing off its Australian grass-fed beef as a “born and raised” U.S. product—with the U.S. government’s blessing. (Bubba’s affidavit also contains a copy of its product label, which regulators presumably viewed in all its chest-thumping patriotism.) No wonder eaters are confused.

By now, it should be obvious that misleading—and, in some cases, overtly deceptive—labels are out there. But we still haven’t established whether any of this is a meaningful deception, materially speaking. Does anyone really care if their grass-fed beef comes from America or Australia—and, if not, should they?

Eating American

In his work as a consultant, Allen Williams and his clients have spent millions of dollars trying to pin down exactly what compels shoppers to buy grass-fed beef. His findings suggest that (relative) locality is a huge selling point: A desire to support America’s rural economies is one major reason people spend more to buy grass-fed. The preference is so clear that Williams believes virtually all of the products with fine-print “Product of USA” claims are really imported. If Trader Joe’s and other grocery brands were really making the effort to buy meat from cows raised in this country, you’d think they’d make a much bigger deal of it.

Charlie Bradbury runs Grass Run Farms, an American-raised, grass-fed beef brand owned by JBS, the world’s largest multinational meatpacker. He tells me that JBS—which has long sold grass-fed products from Australia and elsewhere, and marketed them as such—acquired Grass Run Farms because so many customers asked for specifically domestic grass-fed beef.

“The fact that the cattle are born and processed in the U.S. is an important reason people buy this product,” he says. “These cattle generally do come from smaller, family-farm operations. They [shoppers] believe the animal welfare is improved [in that context] and so, since our job is to sell beef, we’re trying to produce a system that fits in with those concepts.”

Will Harris offers some insight into why demand for American grass-fed is so strong. Over the years, he’s learned that customers buy White Oaks beef for three primary reasons: environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and to support rural economies, in that order. (Health considerations are a factor, too, but not in the top three.)

Each of these main drivers has a strong local emphasis, he tells me. If someone wants to help improve the environment, they’re likely to want to do so in their own backyard first. Those worried about animal welfare are more likely to feel assured by local products, with a farmer they know by name and a ranch they can visit, than by a product from a continent away. Finally, anyone buying grass-fed to support the local farm economy is certainly going to privilege domestic product. In Harris’s view, it couldn’t be any clearer—when buying grass-fed, Americans explicitly prefer that it be American.

But say you’re the kind of ethically minded meat eater who just wants to do what’s best for the planet in general. Does it really matter whether your burger comes from your local farmers’ market versus a ranch in Australia or Uruguay?

That’s harder to say.

Photograph by dustypixel (iStock), graphic by NFE

“If we are comfortable with the assumption that grass-fed beef is indeed more environmentally friendly than CAFO beef—and this depends quite a bit on your method for calculating environmental costs—then the real environmental impacts of grass-fed beef products have much more to do with how they are produced than where they are shipped from,” Caitlin Peterson, a PhD student in ecology at the University of California, Davis, told me by email. That’s because shipping beef across the ocean in a storage container is an incredibly cheap and efficient transportation method that doesn’t require much energy use or generate much pollution, even if it does rack up so-called “food miles.” Agricultural methods, she says, matter far more in general than transportation distances.

The trouble is that it’s very hard to get information about a given grass-fed producer’s practices. No government I could find legally defines a “grass-fed” standard. (The U.S. did, beginning in 2007—but ultimately revoked its standard in 2016, citing USDA’s inability to properly enforce it.) Though a few respected third-party certifications exist—the American Grassfed Association’s “Certified Grassfed” label is considered the gold standard by producers—ranchers can claim their product is grass-fed without independent verification. To use the term on products sold in the U.S., meat companies must only file an affidavit with USDA explaining how their grass-feeding program will operate. They can use an existing certification, or define their own protocols. As a result, practices vary widely, and quality control is difficult.

“Grass-fed is all over the map,” says Rick Machen, a professor and livestock specialist with Texas A&M University. “It could be a 700-pound calf right off the cow up to a 14-year-old cow that’s lived out its productive life. And within those there are all kinds—some are supplemented, some are 100-percent grass-finished. There’s a wide, wide, wide array of pre-harvest production systems, and technically they’re all within the bounds of what can technically qualify as grass-fed.”

Considering that, it’s hard to compare the environmental impact of domestic versus imported grass-fed beef in general. But if sustainability concerns are a wash, the domestic product really does fare better by one all-important metric: economics.

The price of grass

There’s a reason that imported grass-fed beef has come to dominate the American marketplace. It’s not because it’s a better product, necessarily. It’s simply cheaper.

Take Australia, for instance—the country that by far exports the most grass-fed beef to the U.S.—where virtually all beef production is pasture-based. Since cattle can graze year-round on the country’s naturally lush pastures, it makes far less sense to fatten them on grain. That makes the cost of bringing a steer to weight a much cheaper proposition—especially compares to many regions of the U.S., where grassland must be irrigated, or where cattle must be fed dried forage during the winter.

Though severe drought in Australia has complicated this picture in recent years, bringing the price of imported grass-fed beef closer to its domestic competition, the country has built-in advantages that have allowed it to undercut U.S. producers on price.

But Australia has an additional, and perhaps more significant, advantage. Grass finishing has been the standard for so long that it’s big business, and has been for decades. Cargill and JBS, two of the biggest meatpackers in the world, process a combined 49 percent of the country’s grass-fed beef.

A company like Greeley, Colorado-based JBS, which owns farms, slaughterhouses, and transportation infrastructure on multiple continents, and has accounts with major retailers and foodservice providers, benefits from economies of scale unheard of in U.S. grass-fed beef production. In the U.S., where grass-fed claims just 1.5 percent of the overall market, it’s mostly small producers working with small, independent processors and marketing their products themselves. More than half of America’s grass-fed producers sell twenty or fewer cattle a year, according to the Stone Barns report, and most of them are too small to access the country’s hyperproductive slaughterhouses.

This distinction marks perhaps the fundamental difference between U.S. and imported grass-fed beef. In America, grass-based production is an alternative vision supported by individual innovators and rooted in local economies. In Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, and other countries, it’s an established industry controlled by powerful global players.

“It’s a commodity product,” says Williams, speaking of imported grass-fed beef. “It’s produced off many different ranches, then harvested by the big packers. They’re the same guys that are the big packers over here in the U.S. It’s all aggregated together and shipped over here.”

If Americans are buying grass-fed as a way to support local foodways and bring dollars back to rural communities—and many of them seem to want to—that’s not happening when they’re fooled into buying imported beef.

For  U.S. ranchers, switching to grass-fed can completely transform the economics of production. Williams says that the average American cattle rancher, someone who sells live animals to the big meatpackers churning out commodity beef, makes only about 14 cents of the retail dollar. “That way,” he tells me, “you’re working on razor-thin margins and any little economic hit can take you out of the game.”

Photo by gerenme (iStock), graphic by NFE

.But grass-fed producers selling directly via farmers’ markets can keep up to 85 percent of the retail dollar, according to Williams. And ranchers who run branded programs—paying a smaller, custom packer to process their animals, then selling that signature line of beef with the help of various retail partners—can reach thousands of customers while still keeping 25 to 50 percent of the retail dollar.

There are challenges, of course. Greenmarkets are a low-volume business—it’s hard to reach that many customers, even if the margins are significantly higher. And branded programs are a more expensive way to do business, with added costs related to marketing, distribution, and slaughter. Still, the margins improve enough to double or triple the income earned on every animal—giving ranchers a chance to make up for the increased costs of grass-fed production, mitigate their risk, and earn a sustainable living.

But now that the market’s been flooded with cheap imports, America’s grass-based ranchers aren’t thriving the way they’d hoped to. Though retail sales of grass-fed beef have soared—from $17 million in 2012 to more than 16 times that, $272 million, in 2016—American ranchers aren’t the ones reaping the benefit of all that increased demand. Harris and other ranchers attribute this directly to consumer confusion over labels. If we can’t tell the difference between Australian and American grass-fed beef—if both are labeled “Product of USA”—even a locally minded shopper is more likely to go with the cheaper product. The result, for ranchers who have spent heavily to transition or grow their herds, may be economic devastation.

Let’s go back to the petition that the American Grassfed Association filed with USDA for a moment. The organization believes that, if labeling law can be changed, ensuring that only truly American-raised beef is labeled that way, shoppers will start buying domestic grass-fed again, even if it costs more. If the choice between domestic and imported is made more apparent, grass-fed proponents like Carrie Balkcom and Will Harris think American grass-fed beef will have a fightning chance—that our rural communities will finally see the economic benefits of the standard they helped to build.

The fact that USDA is taking public comments on the issue suggests that the agency may be reconsidering things. And that could be a sign that significant change is on the horizon.

“As a U.S. grass-fed beef producer, I believe it is imperative that honest, transparent labeling is required for grass-fed beef sold in America,” writes Kay Allen, a Texas rancher, one of many producers who has commented publicly on the petition. “Not only does honest labeling protect American beef producers economically, it insures that WE, American citizens, control our own food supply.”

For those who want to see rural economies revitalized, the stakes are high. Labeled grass-fed beef is only about a $1 billion market in the U.S., tiny compared to the nation’s $105-billion conventional beef industry. But Williams points out that if the U.S. producers took back only 50 percent of the market—still down from more than 60 percent market share they enjoyed in 2014—it could send hundreds of millions of dollars into local communities each year. That would be a major departure from the current system, where profits from grain-finished domestic and grass-fed imported cattle flow primarily to large corporations.

“Instead of requiring just a handful of mega-feedlots to finish all this beef, we would need tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of smaller farmers and ranchers,” Williams says. “So instead of having one mega business, one major corporation, we’d be allowing thousands of small businesses, vibrant small businesses, to thrive. It would be a major boon not just to ranchers, but to local processors, and cold storage, and everyone who has a finger in this pie. Why would we not want to do that?”

The USDA is currently asking itself that same question. The agency will take public comments until August 17.

From Farm to Fork: The Regulatory Status of Non-GMO Plant Innovations Under Current EU Law

A new article on the latest plant breeding methods will be published on the next issue of BIO-SCIENCE LAW REVIEW.

The existing EU regulatory framework, when considered holistically, provides efficient guarantees that every stage of the agri-food supply chain, from lab to fork, is subject to constraints and obligations dictated by harmonized legislation, each providing various degrees of scrutiny, risk management and control, sanctions and remedial action.

Comparisons between the existing non-GMO legal framework with the GMO legislation or with any other authorization regime based on a full pre-market risk assessment are, by definition, of little practical relevance, since such regimes aim to address potentially serious risks, which, as the SAM Note clarifies, have not been identified in the case of Non-GMO NBT Products.

In the absence of any such concrete, identifiable risk induced by (the use of NBTs for) Non-GMO NBT Products and in view of their non-distinguishability from CBT products, the protection of human/animal/plant health and the environment should thus be considered to be adequately ensured and Non-GMO NBT Products should not be treated differently from products resulting from CBT.

The opposite conclusion would not only raise serious concerns under the SPS Agreement but would essentially also mean that all non-GMO plant products on the market today must be considered inadequately regulated. Just as Advocate-General Bobek concluded in his Opinion in Case C–528/16,133 with regard to mutagenesis, that ‘one could hardly assume that a reasonable legislator could ever wish to state, en bloc and for the future, that something is safe to such a degree that it does not need regulating at all’, one can neither assume that all NBT-products should en bloc be considered to only yield products suspect of causing unacceptable risks.

Against that backdrop, it is submitted that both the precautionary principle and the specific safeguard clauses in horizontal and sectoral legislation can justify and sufficiently guarantee the adoption of stricter risk management measures if a previously unidentified risk arises.”

• Download the full article

Emirates Flight Catering Seeks To Revolutionize Airplane Food Quality With US$40 Million Vertical Farming Venture

View fullsize

by Mark Lane marklanebusiness@gmail.com

Source: ©The Moodie Davitt Report

1 August 2018

UAE. Emirates Flight Catering (EKFC) and US firm Crop One Holdings have announced a US$40 million joint venture agreement to build the world’s largest vertical farming facility near Al Maktoum International Airport in Dubai.

EKFC said the venture was about securing its own supply chain of high quality and locally-sourced fresh vegetables, as it aims to “deliver a best-in-class product”.

Vertical farming involves growing produce in vertically stacked layers. When complete, the new hi-tech farm will cover 130,000sq ft. but have a production output equivalent to 900 acres of farmland.

View fullsize

Emirates Flight Catering Chief Executive Officer Saeed Mohammed and Crop One Holdings Chief Executive Officer Sonia Lo officially launch the joint venture.

Construction of the facility will begin in November this year and is expected to be completed towards the end of 2019. EKFC said that the first products would be delivered to its customers in December next year.

At full production, the facility will harvest 2,700kg of high-quality, herbicide-free and pesticide-free leafy greens daily, using 99% less water than outdoor fields, the partners said.

EKFC noted that the proximity of the farm to the point of consumption would also substantially reduce carbon emissions associated with transportation. A key advantage in the creation of onboard food is that the fresh products will reach customers within hours of harvest, maintaining high nutritional value.

View fullsize

Crop One says it has been in commercial production longer than any other major vertical farmer in the USA.

Joint venture partner and vertical farm operator Crop One Holdings is the company behind FreshBox Farms. The Massachusetts-based subsidiary has, since 2016, produced nine different leafy green retail products. It serves 38 different supermarkets and home delivery services in the Boston metropolitan area.

Crop One said it produced the highest crop yield per square foot, at 25% of the capital cost, of any vertical farm. This is because of what it describes as its “unique combination of proprietary technology platform and best-in-class plant science”.

Commenting on the joint venture, Emirates Flight Catering Chief Executive Officer Saeed Mohammed said: “As one of the world’s largest airline catering operations, Emirates Flight Catering constantly looks at innovation, and ways to improve our productivity, product and service quality.

“Introducing the latest technology to our operations, we secure our own supply chain of high quality and locally-sourced fresh vegetables, while significantly reducing our environmental footprint.”

View fullsize

EKFC wants to secure its own supply chain of high quality and locally-sourced fresh vegetables.

Crop One Holdings Chief Executive Officer Sonia Lo said: “Our proven business model has demonstrated profitable commercial production longer than any other major vertical farmer. We are farmers using the most sophisticated plant science and proven business efficiencies to provide market-leading consumer products every day.

“Our selection after a 10-month search by EKFC is a validation of our successful business model that uses patented technology and processes to optimize crop yields and facilitate hyper-growth.”

EKFC provides catering for Emirates Airlines and 104 other airlines and 25 airport lounges, including all airlines at Dubai International.

Jury Hits Pork Giant For $50M For Hog Operation's Nuisance

Jury Hits Pork Giant For $50M For Hog Operation's Nuisance

May 1, 2018

View fullsize

By EMERY P. DALESIO, AP Business Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal jury on Thursday awarded more than $50 million in damages to neighbors of an industrial hog operation found responsible for intense smells, noise and other disturbances so bad people couldn't enjoy their rural homes. 

Jurors on Thursday awarded the 10 neighbors of a 15,000-head swine operation a total of $750,000 in compensation, plus $50 million in damages designed to punish the corporation that owns the animals.

Lawyers didn't sue the Bladen County farm's owner, instead targeting Murphy-Brown LLC, the hog-production division of Virginia-based Smithfield Foods. The Chinese-owned company uses strict contracts to dictate how farm operators raise livestock that Smithfield owns.

The decision is the first in dozens of lawsuits filed by more than 500 neighbors complaining about hog operations.

Jurors decided that "the defendant owed them (neighbors) a standard of care in terms of trying to minimize the odors and other undesirable fallout from their processes," said Wake Forest University law professor Sidney Shapiro, who has followed the cases. "Apparently, the jury decided they (Smithfield) knew about and disregarded all this fallout, even though they could do something positive to reduce it."

Rural residents have complained about smells, clouds of flies and excessive spraying for decades. But local and state politicians have either supported or backed down in the face of a politically powerful industry.

North Carolina legislators last year changed state law to make it much more difficult to replicate the string of nuisance lawsuits targeting hog operations like the one decided Thursday.

Rep. Jimmy Dixon, R-Duplin, a recipient of campaign contributions from hog farmers, pushed to make the law retroactive, which would have limited damages in these cases as well. But that part of the proposal was voted down when other lawmakers questioned its constitutionality.

Smithfield Foods said it would appeal the decision.

"The lawsuits are a serious threat to a major industry, to North Carolina's entire economy and to the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of North Carolinians," Senior Vice President Keira Lombardo said in a statement.

Smithfield Foods hasn't changed the locally dominant method of hog waste disposal since intensive hog operations multiplied in North Carolina in the 1980s and 1990s. The practice involves housing thousands of hogs together, flushing their waste into holding pits, allowing bacteria to break down the material, then spraying the effluent onto fields with agricultural spray guns.

Neighbors say the spraying sends the smells and animal waste airborne, allowing it to drift into their homes and sometimes coat outdoor surfaces on their properties.

"We are pleased with the verdict. These cases are about North Carolina family property rights and a clean environment," said Mona Lisa Wallace, a Salisbury attorney whose firm teamed with two Texas-based firms to prepare the series of trials covering similar ground. "We are now preparing for the next, which is scheduled for the end of May."

This case, presenting with the plaintiffs and the specific farm, was chosen by suing attorneys. Although the size of the jury award is large, the result of the next trial could be more telling since the parties were chosen by Smithfield's attorneys, said Drew Kershen, an emeritus law professor at the University of Oklahoma and a past president of the American Agricultural Law Association.

"If you got a second test case, chosen by the defense attorney, which turns out to have damages like this, then you would really have to say, 'My goodness, these are really significant claims against the industry in North Carolina,'" he said.

Follow Emery P. Dalesio on Twitter at http://twitter.com/emerydalesio. His work can be found at https://apnews.com/search/emery%20dalesio