I do not agree with this info but i decided to post it anyways


Hello all,

As many of you are aware, the USDA turned down the request by the California Almond Board to delay implementation of new regulations that will require all "raw" almonds to be "pasteurized" (treated a toxic fumigant or steam heating)…. if this regulation is allowed to go into effect there will be no such thing as truly raw almonds grown and marketed in this country … and possibly no longer domestic organic almonds. And one of the most egregious aspects of this new rule is that even after pasteurizing almonds with a gas considered as a possible carcinogen, or steam heating, the almonds will still be labeled as …. raw!

The Almond Board had asked for the delay because adequate production capacity was not in place to meet the September 1 deadline – an argument rejected by the USDA in their rush forward with this rule. We still question whether there is sufficient capacity to treat almonds with steam heat, rather than the only other approved alternative; the toxic fumigant propylene oxide.

We are in the midst of an aggressive campaign to pressure the USDA Secretary to suspend this rule’s implementation until the public has had a chance to have a say. If you have not already done so, we encourage you to visit the Cornucopia website (http://www.cornucopia.org/) and click on the "Authentic Almond Project" navigation button for full campaign information including a comprehensive fact sheet on the issue. Please forward a link to your staff, customers or members.

Our next step is to get public interest groups and industry professionals (growers, handlers, processors who use almonds in their products and retailers) to sign–on to the letter below.

Please click back to us with your authorization, by 5 p.m. Monday, to add your name/organization as a signatory to this important communication to the USDA Secretary. Our goal is to release this letter to the USDA next Tuesday, August 28, so we need your authorization before this to add your name to the list of signatories to the letter. This letter will not be going out under Cornucopia letterhead. It is intended to reflect the broad diversity of stakeholders engaged in and concerned with this issue. Signatories will be listed alphabetically. And if you are a farmer, please indicate so with your message authorizing us to sign you on and if you're farmer please indicate so with your message authorizing us to sign you on.

Not only is this campaign important to those who depend on raw almonds as an important and nutritious component to their diet, and those whose livelihoods depend in part by meeting these consumers expectations, this could very well be a watershed event.

We need to draw the line in the sand right here and right now. If the almond industry is successful in implementing this new "pasteurization" requirement we could very well be starting the proverbial trip down a very slippery slope — what will be the next fresh and nutritious food that will require some kind of pasteurization or even irradiation to be considered safe?

Sincerely yours,

Will Fantle
Research Director
The Cornucopia Institute



@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


August 28, 2007


Secretary Mike JohannsUnited States Department of Agriculture1400 Independence Ave SWWhitten Building Suite 200AWashington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Johanns –

As stakeholders in the domestic almond industry, we are concerned and alarmed by the potential ramifications of the USDA’s pasteurization mandate for all domestically grown raw almonds sold in the United States. We would like to take this opportunity to share our concerns with you regarding this important new regulation.

These are matters we would have preferred to raise with you and the USDA during the comment period earlier this year when the draft rule was published for review. Unfortunately, the majority of the undersigned were unaware of the proposed regulations. Almost none of us were the generous recipients of a private mailing to handlers and processors from the Almond Board of California alerting us to the draft regulation and inviting our comments. Perhaps this accounted for the incredibly anemic 18 public comments that were submitted on the draft regulation. Nonetheless, our concerns are legitimate, and we believe they should be addressed by the USDA.

One thing we can all agree on is that California almonds are the industry’s gold standard; they are clearly the superior-quality product available in the marketplace. What is at stake, however, is the future structure and shape of domestic almond production and the continued consumption and use of California almonds in this country.

As you certainly understand, the almond is not an inherently risky food. Salmonella contamination, from fecal material, occurs when it is introduced during the handling and processing of almonds. We believe it makes sense to minimize those practices that contribute to contamination risks.

However, the preferred plan of mandatory pasteurization selected by USDA is being rushed forward and has yet to be carefully vetted by all industry stakeholders. In particular, the following aspects still need to be publicly addressed:

American almond farmers are being placed at a distinct economic disadvantage. The fact that imported raw almonds sold in the U.S. do not require pasteurization harms domestic producers and is already shifting some domestic markets to foreign sources as retailers and manufacturers of products formerly containing California almonds make the switch. These savvy marketers understand that their consumers want truly raw almonds. The foreign raw almond treatment loophole is totally illogical and at odds with the rule’s rationalization of public safety and may very well not stand a court test.

This rule will impose financial burdens on small-scale and organic farmers. The costs of the chemicals and heat treatments, in addition to the costs of extra transportation and reporting, will be disproportionably taxing on smaller producers and handlers. This is unfair since none of the reported Salmonella cases in 2001 or 2004 were traced to small-scale or organic farms. We know that the Almond Board of California performed a cursory economic analysis of the treatment impacts. The lot size for treatment, used in the macro analysis, does not take into account the realities of organic and small-scale production.

§ The least expensive option approved for "pasteurization" is treatment with propylene oxide. This substance is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Propylene oxide treatment of foods is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and many other countries. We assume you know this, as almonds exported from this country will not require pasteurization. The need to segregate exported almonds will add a significant economic burden for many producers/handlers.

§ Neither the USDA nor the Almond Board of California has released the scientific research publicly justifying the selection of propylene oxide treatment. We need the opportunity to review why it makes sense for U.S. customers to eat almonds gassed with a substance that most of the world questions the safety of. Only the Almond Board of California and its constituents have researched the pasteurization of almonds, reporting that there is no significant reduction in their quality or nutrition. Serious questions remain unanswered.

§ Organic growers and handlers that we have collaborated with indicate that there is a shortage of facilities able to provide the high-temperature or steam treatment of raw almonds. Since the propylene oxide process is not allowed under the National Organic Program Standards, this presents a difficult situation for California’s organic almond producers. This issue must be resolved before mandated pasteurization begins. Unless you intervene, domestically produced organic almonds may become unavailable after September 1. In addition, no research has been released for public review that assesses potential nutritional and compositional changes that occur in the steam-treated nuts. The public needs to see this research and have the opportunity to review and comment on it prior to this rule going into effect.

§ It is misleading and deceptive to label pasteurized almonds as “raw.” Many consumers wish to purchase truly raw, unprocessed almonds, for health, religious, or other personal reasons. In fact for some consumers with serious health issues, raw almonds may comprise as much as 30% of their dietary intake following their personal processing of the nut into various food forms. One reasonable alternative to the new rule would be to provide an unpasteurized almond option with a label clearly identifying the almond as unpasteurized. Another option would allow exemptions for organic and small-scale growers—there is some evidence that almonds grown in these environments might be inherently less risky in terms of contamination.

If there is an ongoing issue with Salmonella contamination, we need to see the scientific research that identifies it as a systemic problem, and not one that is associated solely with the largest almond farming operations or poor handling practices at the hulling and shelling level. We also want a full review of other treatment alternatives that might be less objectionable to consumers.

The above-noted comments capture many, but not all, of the issues we are concerned with regarding the mandated pasteurization plan.

We are requesting that you take action in the best interests of all almond stakeholders. Therefore, we ask that you suspend the implementation of this new regulation for a minimum of 180 days prior to the September 1 implementation date and then initiate a full review of the almond pasteurization rule with the widely disseminated notice of the opportunity for public input.

Respectfully yours,

(growers, industry participants, retailers and public interest groups are listed in alphabetical order)





Mark A. Kastel
The Cornucopia Institute
kastel@cornucopia.org
608-625-2042 Voice
866-861-2214 Fax



P.O. Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827
http://www.cornucopia.org/

August 25, 2007
Cashew market was quiet this week but undertone continued to be firm. Price levels were W240 around 2.65, W320 around 2.25, W450 around 2.15 FOB but not much business being done. Although buyers are picking up some quantities at current levels, they are not willing to pay few cents more that large processors are asking
It seems that buyers have covered most of what they need for next 2-3 months shipments and would like to see how things develop in Sep/Oct before buying additional (which they probably will have to do in next few weeks in order to be able to take positions for 2008 deliveries).
Similarly, processors have adequate sales to be shipped in next few months and do not seem to be in hurry to make additional sales (even though current prices are quite attractive compared to levels of last 18-24 months)
Feeling is that market will stabilise around current levels but if demand is strong & kernel prices continue to move up in Sep/Oct, it will impact RCN pricing in Indonesia & East Africa and establish a higher trading range for 2008
Would appreciate your comments on market situation, views on prospects for coming weeks & months and any other news or info
Also, please advise buying interest & we will do our best to put something together

Regards,
Pankaj N. Sampat
Mumbai India

Firm expands pecan operations to San Simon
TUCSON (AP) — A farming company that already has more than 100,000 pecan trees south of Tucson is now planting in eastern Cochise County, near the New Mexico state line.
Farmer’s Investment Co. is planting its next generation of trees on more than 2,700 acres it recently bought near the tiny community of Sam Simon, said Nan Stockholm Walden, the company’s vice president and general counsel.
The company, which owns The Green Valley Pecan Co., has already planted some 26,000 pecan trees on about 500 acres and will continue planting over the next five years, Walden said.
Dale Leiendecker, Cochise County assessor, said the land was purchased over the past two years in 31 parcels for just over $6.3 million. The company partly used proceeds from land it sold near Maricopa that was being closed in by development.
Walden said the new trees, which now resemble 2- to 3-foot sticks, painted white to protect against the elements, will take seven years to begin producing any significant amount of pecans. The company will truck the pecans to its plant in Sahuarita south of Tucson.
The company has operated farming or ranching operations in several areas of the state and also owns a warehouse in Las Cruces, N.M., and about 1,000 acres near Albany, Ga.
The acquisition of the land near San Simon is part of the company’s strategy to process more of its own nuts and less from other sources, Walden said. “The more we can grow on our own land, and process, the more competitive we are.”
About 60 percent of the pecans processed at the company’s plant in Sahuarita are grown on company land, and the rest come primarily from New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.
The Sahuarita plant processes about 8 million pounds of pecans a year and employs 240 workers.
The company farms more than 100,000 pecan trees on 6,000 acres along the Santa Cruz River in Sahuarita and Green Valley. The trees were planted mainly during the 1960s, but the company was established in 1948 by Keith Walden and is now operated by his son, Richard, who is married to Nan.
“We are agriculturalists,” she said, “and the third generation of our family and our workers are involved now in our operations.”

Cashews Maket Update
August 18, 2007
FOB India prices this week :

W240 US$ 2.70

W320 US$ 2.20 – 2.25

W450 US$ 2.10 – 2.12

SW320 US$ 2.05 – 2.10

SW360 US$ 1.95 – 2.00

SSW US$ 1.90 – 1.95

FS US$ 1.75 – 1.80

FB US$ 1.70

LWP US$ 1.65 (LP 1.45 )

SS/SB US$ 1.55

SP US$ 1.30 – 1.35





Market moved up a few cents this week. Business was done for W240 around 2.70, W320 around 2.20-2.25, W450 around 2.10 with large packers able to sell few cents higher. Fair amount of business has been done in last few weeks from India & Vietnam at all levels



Very little RCN is available in West Africa now but there will continue to be re-sale activity in coming weeks. Next month, India & Vietnam will start looking at Indonesia & East Africa and Brazil will start buying their crop.



RCN prices in Sep/Oct and Brazil kernel offers will have great impact on kernel prices for FH 2008 shipments. Nothing new is expected on supply side – so, the feeling is that in coming weeks, price movement will also depend on demand pull & roasters / traders strategies for FH 2008 purchases.



If shipments in third quarter are good, inventory drawdown will be reduced and upward pressure on prices for nearby shipments will ease.. otherwise spot & prompt demand will keep market firm



At current levels there seems to be reasonable buying interest. It is to be seen whether buyers are willing to pay higher prices or wait for selling interest to emerge to cover their forward requirements – a difficult call to make at any time but more so now, when prices have moved up significantly in a short period after having traded in a narrow range for a long time

Regards,
Pankaj N. Sampat
Mumbai India

Pecans, pecans everywhere
Overabundance of nutty crops may mean trouble later
By Judith K. McGinnis/Times Record NewsAugust 13, 2007
Burdened with bounty, the pecan trees of North Texas are looking more and more like weeping willows.
After years of drought conditions, this summer's regular rains have brought out a bumper crop of pecans on both home landscape trees and in commercial orchards. The abundance, however, is weighing down limbs, sometimes dangerously, and may compromise the overall quality of the fall harvest.
"It's a limb-breaker crop," said Tim Montz, a commercial grower who tends more than 200 acres of pecans in the Charlie-Thornberry area. "We usually make about 2,000 pounds (of pecans) an acre but this year it could make 5,000 pounds an acre."
While at first glance that might sound like a good thing, Montz said there's a price to be paid when trees overproduce. Over-crowded nut clusters grow smaller, lower quality pecans and drain the tree of vitality it will need for the following year's crop.
"We work for consistent production. If the trees make too many pecans this year, they won't bear as many next year," said Montz. "That's no good for us."
This is why for the past two weeks Montz has brought tree shaking equipment, typically used only during fall harvest, into the orchards to shake some of the excess pecans off now while they are in what growers call the "water stage."
Those who tend the trees around their homes in anticipation of a freezer full of high quality pecans each year can improve their crop in somewhat the same way. Threshing branches gently with a long pole, the technique some use to get the last autumn pecans down, can thin the overage.
If branches are hanging low enough to brush against roofs, block access to driveways or sweep across lawns, a pruning pole can be employed to break off large, heavy clusters.
Just be ready to take cover when the leathery, lime green shucks begin to fall.
Whenever possible, wait to prune limbs and branches until pecan trees are dormant in the winter and early spring.

• It’s an ‘on’ year for most of the crop
• ‘We’re bursting at the limbs’ Central Valley pistachio growers expect a record-breaking crop this season.
Pistachio trees produce larger crops in alternating years, and orchards in most growing regions are in the "on" year of the cycle.
Preseason weather has also encouraged pistachio production and quality.
“We’re bursting at the limbs,” says Craig Colson, Kern County pistachio farm advisor. “I think this is going to be a real good year for pistachios. I’m pretty impressed with what I’m seeing out there.”
Observers say harvest may start a few days early, with an average start date of September 1st.
California orchards produce 95 percent of the pistachios grown in the U.S.
Mr. Colson says researchers are working on early varieties of the popular nut in an effort to extend the season.

Almond Market Report

Dear Friends:

Yesterday the Almond Board released its final position report for the 2006 crop year showing 82 mil in July shipments—a new record. The industry shipped 1.066 billion for the year ending July 31—also a new record, passing the 2003 crop by 42 million. The final crop was 1.117 billion lbs with 1.083 marketable. That means we shipped the entire 2006 crop. In the coming year, we have a crop estimate of 1.330 billion—finally enough to allow market expansion. The big question is how much can it expand at current prices. The last time we had a crop near enough to cover the market without significant price increases was 2002 crop. In that year we shipped 20% more than the prior crop record and ended up with only 160 mil carry out. If we expand the market 5% per year from then to the 2007 crop, we would ship 1.250 billion lbs—17% increase over the 2006 crop. Here is a possible inventory model:
Carry in Aug 1, 2007 130 million lbs
2007 crop 1.330 bil x 97% 1,290
Supply 1,420
Shipments at 15% increase 1,220
Carry out July 31, 2008 200

This would be the largest carry out since the 1994 crop (25%+ carryout of ‘94 crop) but would represent only 15% of the 2007 crop. We have been carrying out about 10% of the crop, which you all know is not enough for a smooth transition. If shipments increase only 10% for the 2007 crop, we will have a carry out of 250 million lbs, nearly 20% of the crop. We have seen unexpected increases in shipments in the past and need to expect a big increase this season because of the available crop. Price fluctuations will probably be smaller this year because of the extra inventory available. Since 1994, inventories have been restrictive and not allowed full potential of market expansion.

Here are the factors that will determine the supply and demand interaction to determine the price for the 2007 crop:
How much will shipments increase over the record 2006 crop year, and will handlers be carrying out 15%, 20% or some other portion? I am concerned that space and cash flow limitations will cause many handlers to plan NOT to carry over this amount and they will put pressure on sales to reduce inventory.
Will the crop exceed or fall short of the 1.033 billion estimate. History leads us to expect more. We’ll have a good idea in Dec.
How will the 2008 pollination look in February? Some growers expect the trees to naturally back off after this big crop load. On the other hand, we will have the largest increase in new bearing acres in years—at least 70,000 acres more—more than a 10% increase.

Following are market prices—not much change from a week ago.
2006 crop August shipment 2007 crop Oct & later
Nonpareil Supreme 23/25 AOL $2.55 per lb. FOB California 2.25
Carmel SSR 23/25 AOL 2.20 1.90
Butte SSR 27/30 AOL 2.05 1.80
Cal Std unsized 5% 1.90 1.70
Nonpareil inshell 70% 1.55
Carmel inshell 60% 1.19
Peerless inshell 35% .75
Blanched Sliced 2.60 2.35

September prices are in between and will change each week as harvest gets going.

Harvest has begun. Shellers and processors are running the early receipts of 2007 crop and complaining about small sizes, which is usually a worry at the beginning of most large crops. Later we expect better sizing but for now most handlers are not willing to offer much larger than 25/27 sizes. Buyers will get what they need but may have to be patient for the offers. I expect to have a size distribution soon and will send it on request.

Please send comments and questions.

Best regards, Ned

Ned T. Ryan

PECAN MARKET UPDATE
July 27, 2007

The Texas Pecan Growers meeting was held and the two (2) estimates at that meeting were from Kenneth Pape and Kyle Brookshire. They are as follows:

Click to View

Cashews cause worse allergic response than peanuts

Fri Aug 10, 12:51 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Peanuts may be more notorious, but cashews seem to trigger more severe allergic reactions in children. In a study of 141 children with allergies to cashews or peanuts, British researchers found that cashew reactions were generally more serious.

For the study, led by Dr. Andrew T. Clark of Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, 47 children with cashew allergy were matched up one-to-two with 94 children with peanut allergy. Children with cashew reactions were eight times more likely to suffer wheezing, and nearly 14 times more likely to have potentially severe cardiovascular symptoms, like heartbeat disturbances or a drop in blood pressure.
Overall, 10 of the children with cashew allergies had what the researchers defined as a severe reaction -- extreme difficulty breathing and/or loss of consciousness. That compared with just one child with peanut allergy.
The findings appear in the current issue of the journal Allergy.
It's known that tree nuts, such as cashews and walnuts, can trigger serious allergic reactions. However, this is the first study to show that children's allergies to cashews may be more severe than peanut allergies, according to Clark's team.
What's more, studies suggest that cashew allergies are becoming more common, possibly because consumption is on the rise.
Besides being eaten as whole cashews, the nuts are also found in a range of desserts and candies, in many Asian dishes and in commercially prepared pesto sauces, Clark and his colleagues note.
Other potential sources include cereals, granola bars, dressings and sauces, and even shampoos and lotions.
In general, people with an allergy to any tree nut are advised to avoid all tree nuts and peanuts as a precaution. Some people are prescribed injectable epinephrine that they can administer themselves in an emergency.
The current findings, Clark and his colleagues write, suggest that children with cashew allergies are at particular risk of severe reactions requiring epinephrine. They advise doctors to consider this when deciding whether to prescribe the emergency treatment.
SOURCE: Allergy, August 2007.

Delay in the launch of a mandatory pasteurization program for California almonds
A proposed delay in the launch of a mandatory pasteurization program for California almonds is not sitting well with nut processors gearing up for the expected Sept. 1 start.The Almond Board of California has requested that the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture postpone the start of the program for six months, until March 1, to ensure the industry has met all the pasteurization steps required under the new law.Richard Waycott, president of the Modesto-based Almond Board of California, said the industry wasn't completely ready when it surveyed its members in August."We don't want the public to think we are stalling," Waycott said. "This is just taking us longer than we would like."The industry began the pasteurization effort several years ago after being rocked by two cases of salmonella contamination in the past five years. Both cases of salmonella outbreaks were linked to raw almonds.But some companies that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in pasteurization equipment designed to kill harmful bacteria say the delay is too long. Those companies would pasteurize the almonds as a service for growers."It is going to hurt us,"said George Tavernas of California Nut Co., near Turlock. "We have a big investment in this. We expected to make $300,000 to $400,000, and now we won't have that."Fresno County is one of the state's largest producers of almonds, with 99,300 total acres in 2006 valued at more than $494 million.As an industry, about 70 percent of the crop is exported. The remainder is sold domestically and will be subject to the new pasteurization rule.Source: dailybreeze.com

R.L.”Pete“ Turner July, 20, 2007



CALIFORNIA WALNUT MARKET/CROP REPORT

CROP:

The Walnut Marketing Board announced the June shipments at 20,863 inshell equivalent tons, 3,364 tons less than last year. Inshell shipments were 0.73 million pounds, 1.0 million pounds less than last June. Shelled shipments were 17.6 million pounds, 1.4 million pounds less than last year. Total inshell equivalent year to date shipments are 342,100 tons, 7,982 less than last year. However, the 2005 crop “shell out rate” (the inshell pounds required to produce shelled material) was adjusted down from 43.5% to 40.7%). I expect the 2006 crop “shell out rate” to be adjusted down from 42.9 to 40.5%.
All this means is that the 2006/07 shipments will show higher numbers once the adjustments takes place sometime in September.

Most leaders in the industry believe that the 2007 walnut crop will not reach last year’s crop tonnage (344,000 tons). This is based on an early bloom drop and lack of doubles and triples nutlets on Chandlers (45% of crop). In addition, the Visalia growers are reporting that the Serr’s tonnage (10% of crop) will be less than last year. However, there have been reports that the Hartley crop looks good and may come in the same or a little higher than last year.

Some walnut research experts believe the crop has been shorten by the lack of “chilling hours” and the extreme high temperatures last summer. Both may have affected the nut set. They believe the hot summer created excess catkins (male flowers) and when they are excessive, it takes energy away from the female bud (hey, I just report what I read).

In any event, the trees are lacking nut sets in almost all varieties especially Chandlers; however, Howard’s seem to be the only variety that may have a good crop.

In addition, some Lake County (northern) growers have lost their entire crop due to frost. As this is a light growing area; it will not have much effect on the overall crop tonnage.

As I reported earlier, the March 31, 2007 walnut inventories were well below estimates (lowest since 1998). In addition, I believe that the “shellout rate” will be below the 42.9 forecasted, which would put the 2006 crop year’s shipments well ahead of last year’s. I also believe the 2006 crop carry-over will be one of the lowest in recent history. Currently, my guess is 42,000 tons, 24,000 tons below last year’s very low carry-over.

I have adjusted my 2007 crop estimate from 370,000 tons to 350,000 tons, and most likely it will be below this level. It will be interesting to learn what the Packers/Growers forecast as the “subjective” estimate, which will be out last week of July.





MARKET:

The only thing I can report on the Inshell market is there is no market. The inventories have been depleted and with very little trading because of low inventories. The last Jumbo Hartley sales that I am aware of were $1.15.

The Shelled market remains firm and trading activity has also dropped due to availability. However, Light Halves and Pieces have been trading at $3.50 to $3.60 and 85% Light Haves at $3.80. Combination Halves and Pieces recently traded at $3.40. Baker material has been trading at the $2.70 levels. Medium and Small Piece material is $0.05 to $0.20 higher than the larger material (Halves and Pieces). Topping and Smaller material is higher with the final pricing depending on customer grade and requirements.

Because of the current inventory situation and the not so encouraging early reports on the 2007 crop, I believe the industry will face serious challenges meeting future demands. However, I believe we will continue to maintain market discipline regardless of the crop and inventory situation. To help keep our focus, all we have to do is look what has and is happening in the Almond industry.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments……!

Pete

Fancy Food Show observation


Everyone is concerned about product safety and the impact it has had on various industries. At the Fancy Food Show in New York, I came across a new organization that was formed to address this problem. I was impressed to see that someone has taken a proactive stand to address these issues in the cashew industry which are sure to surface probably sooner rather than later. As an active participant in the industry, David Rosenthal understands the challenges we face and is prepared to address them in a proactive manner. He does not come across as someone who is out to expose his industry in order to cause upheaval - rather his agenda is to address the situation before it becomes an issue. This is a refreshing - as opposed to other industries that have initiated change only when forced to as a result of an unfortunate incident that results in a scandal.

Check out www.cashewconcern.com

I am happy to see someone who has the courage to come out and identify problems and offer a solution to make improvements from within, rather than waiting for an incident to take place that could cause the government to come down on us with a heavy hand resulting in a serious impact on the nut industry.

Wisconsin cranberry crop looks good

The cranberry crop looks good in Wisconsin. Tod Planer with the Wisconsin Cranberry Growers Association says the crop actually got a slow start due to the cold weather earlier this year but once it broke dormancy, it caught-up quickly. “We’re just coming out of bloom, the potential looks really good,” says Planer, “I think we’ve got a real good potential for a good crop this year.”Weeds are always a problem for cranberry growers but Planer says a couple of new herbicides have come on the market this year to help out. They did loose another product to help in the fight against insects but, “Our cold weather and our icing our plants tend to reduce insect problems compared to the East and West Coasts.” Cranberry growers have lost a number of pesticides over the past few years as companies did not sell enough of those products to justify the financial investment for recertification. Growers chipped-in to help pay for some of the recertification.The cranberry market has evolved substantially over the past few years. The industry was plagued by oversupply a few years ago but a combination of producer effort and government programs worked that surplus down. In fact, growers are now looking at pushing production a little higher in the next decade. “We may see some increase per acre in yield, we may see some additional acreage going in, probably not the massive push we saw in the ‘80s and ‘90s, but I think it’s an upward trend right now,” says Planer. Part of that production increase will come from newer, higher yielding varieties being put in beds.In fact, Planer is quite optimistic about the future of the Wisconsin cranberry industry. The Badger State is already the nation’s top producer and he sees that position solidifying as high land prices and development push more acres in Massachusetts out of production. Ocean Spray, the major player in the industry, is expanding the former Northland Cranberries juice processing facility in Wisconsin Rapids, Planer says that is a major “Shot-in-the-arm,” for the Wisconsin industry. He also predicts strong growth in the dried cranberry demand.Source: brownfieldnetwork.com

May 24, 2007
TO: PTNPA Active and Associate MembersFROM: Russell E. Barker, President & CEOSUBJECT: Watching for Iffy Imports
Skimpy U.S. Inspection Resources Are Raising Concerns
Tainted food imports from China have stirred anxiety among U.S. consumers, but how safe is the food sent here by other countries?
It's a complicated picture, made even more so because the amount of food we get from outside the United States is increasing rapidly. From 2002 to 2006, the value of China's food exports to the United States -- agricultural products plus seafood -- more than doubled, from $2.7 billion to $6.1 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. During that same period, total food imports to this country rose from $42 billion to $65 billion.
In a perfect world, exporting countries would carefully watch for hazards, and the United States would have a good system of safety backups.
As a rule, more-developed countries such as Japan, Canada and the 27 members of the European Union have strict inspection procedures akin to those in the United States, as does Mexico, a North American Free Trade Agreement partner, a USDA spokesman said.
But countries in Asia and Latin America were accused of importing potentially risky farm-raised seafood in a report last month by the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. Titled "Import Alert," the report stated that many fish farms in those regions control fish disease and parasites with antibiotics and chemicals that leave residues and are banned in the United States. The group said the Food and Drug Administration's inspections of imported fish are lax.
No one has a country-by-country scorecard. In interviews, experts suggested that imported-food safety is a crapshoot because no country can examine every batch of every product. What's more, when bacteria contaminate a crop or production lot -- as with California spinach last year -- only part of the output is affected. Then, too, many people can eat bad food and not get sick.
The USDA maintains strict controls over imports of meat, poultry and eggs, requiring that all importing countries have inspection systems equivalent to ours. That equivalency is determined through a lengthy process of reports, overseas inspections and audits, said Karen Stuck, an assistant administrator in the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service's Office of International Affairs.
"Next, the country has to tell us which individual plants are operating at an equivalent level to the U.S.," she said. After those plants are certified, the USDA "will certify each individual shipment as eligible to enter the U.S."
The USDA also has inspectors at ports of entry examining shipments and documents, Stuck said, and agency workers visit foreign countries for annual on-site audits. For fruits and other commodities prone to insect infestation, the USDA requires shippers in all countries or their American importers to obtain permits that force compliance with certain conditions -- for example, the use of methods such as irradiation to eliminate weevils in mangoes grown in India.
Foods other than meat, poultry and eggs fall under the FDA's purview. When one of those items arrives at a U.S. port or border, it must come from a facility registered with the agency. The sender must provide details about the type of product, origin, destination and more. On the basis of that data, the FDA decides whether to allow or refuse the merchandise. Reasons for refusal can include mislabeling, filth, pesticide residues and harmful bacteria. At present, any plant-related food originating in China is being detained until the agency receives test results from an independent laboratory showing that the product meets U.S. standards.
The FDA inspects very few of the shipments subject to its review: fewer than 1 percent in 2006, and that level is shrinking. It was 1.5 percent in 1997 and is predicted to fall to 0.7 percent this year. That's because while import volume is growing, the staff of inspectors is not, a spokesman explained.
The agency rarely visits other countries to inspect plants or products. David Acheson, the FDA's newly appointed assistant commissioner for food protection, said the agency "dispatches teams to foreign countries when there is a problem." To illustrate, he said: "We sent inspectors to China. We had three people there for a couple of weeks. We have had teams in Mexico dealing with cantaloupes and salmonella. We have had teams in Italy because of botulinum toxin in olives."
Acheson said that in his new job, created in response to the recent incidents of contaminated domestic and foreign food, he is developing an "integrated" food safety plan that would consolidate work now scattered among different offices and put strong emphasis on prevention.
The FDA cannot emulate the USDA's equivalency requirements, Acheson said. "It is difficult to demonstrate what is equivalent for all the products FDA regulates. Often in foreign countries, products may be under different agencies, so we have to work with different agencies in any given country."
The FDA's skimpy resources for its food inspection duties have spurred industry and consumer advocates to press Congress to give the agency more money. Given the China situation, "maybe Congress will believe us," said Jenny Scott, a vice president for the Food Products Association trade group.

Commodity Watch Monday, June 25, 2007 -->
Cashews Update

Strong Re worries cashew exportersCommodities BureauKochi, Jun 24 Cashew exporters with huge inventory of raw cashew kernel are worried over the strengthening rupee as export realisation drops. The exporters who imported raw cashew for a higher price are now pinning their hopes on the strong domestic appetite for premium cashew to square off their account books, traders said.
India imports raw cashew kernel from African countries and re-exports it after processing, with the process taking about three months. “The appreciation of the rupee by 10-12% in just about a month has taken its toll on some importers who are now wary of entering into contracts,” said Pratap Nair, an exporter, Vijayalakshmi Cashews.
“Exporters with firm commitment have to ship facing losses,” he added. India’s export earning from cashew slipped by 5.73% in April-May compared with same period a year ago while quantity of exports rose slightly to 28,574 tonne as against 28,543 tonne in same period.
Average export earning slipping to Rs 193 per kg compared with Rs 208.50 in the same period a year ago is a key factor for fall in export value, a trader said. Traders are now hoping that the industry will achieve parity with price of raw cashew kernel falling due to the appreciating rupee and increased supply in the African nations. Import of raw cashew nuts for processing and re-export rose to 124,155 tonne from 120,179 tonne and the average price of raw cashew nut has fallen to Rs 27.19 from Rs 31.42. Demand from the US market is likely to firm up in the coming days, as the buyers are in short position, a trader said. The demand is firm but competition from Vietnam and other tree nuts such as almonds restrain the price, he added. India exported 1,18,540 tonne of cashew valued at Rs 2455.15 crore in FY06-07 while it managed to get Rs 2514.86 crore in 2005-06 for exporting 1,14,143 tonne.


URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=168092

Court sides with Pistachio Commission, reverses injunction
SAN FRANCISCO June 8, 2007 11:01am
• Says Paramount Farms unconvincing in its arguments
• Paramount’s ire centers around commission’s marketing The California Pistachio Commission got a new lease on life Friday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a temporary injunction stopping it from collecting fees from growers.
A group of pistachio growers, led by the largest pistachio company in the nation, Paramount Land Company and its related units, challenged the marketing and promotional activities of the Pistachio Commission. Paramount argued that the annual subsidies mandated by the California Pistachio Act of 1980 constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
“Although Paramount has raised the specter of irreparable injury by bringing a colorable First Amendment claim, its showing with respect to the merits is insufficient to sustain an injunction. We reverse the judgment of the district court and vacate the injunction,” the appeals court says in its ruling.
The Pistachio Commission has been under a lower court preliminary injunction forbidding it from collecting and using the challenged assessments until the litigation is resolved.
Paramount and its various affiliated entities together pay between 25 percent and 30 percent of the Pistachio Commission’s total assessments.
But the farming giant says the commission’s marketing has not specifically benefited its brand of nuts.
“The expressive activity that has attracted Paramount’s ire centers around generic print and public relations advertising campaigns for California pistachios,” the court notes. “Paramount maintains that these campaigns are ‘ineffective in augmenting pistachio sales,’ ‘do not adequately feature the nuts themselves,’ and are ‘antithetical to Paramount’s interests,’ which are to ‘increase sales by differentiating its products from competitor’s products,’” the court says.
Paramount also finds fault with the Pistachio Commission’s government relations activities, which are coordinated by a political consultant who hires lawyers to represent the industry before the International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department, and to lobby government entities on behalf of the pistachio industry. Paramount complains that the commission has “not done enough to protect the domestic pistachio industry from foreign pistachios,” the judges note in their review of the arguments.
In reversing the district court’s action, the appeals court says it applied its long-standing requirements that a preliminary injunction is warranted where plaintiffs demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships strongly favoring the plaintiffs – things Paramount did not do, the court says.
Growers in the Central Valley produce virtually all of the domestically-grown pistachios in the nation.

Dear Friends:

Almond prices have drifted down .30/lb for both 2006 and 2007 crops in the past 2 months, most of it since the subjective crop estimate of 1.31 billion lbs a month ago. Market has been quiet so prices are not well defined even today. 2007 crops came down to about a level of USD 1.70 for Std -- what Calif suppliers have been willing to offer. There were occasional trades lower than that but most suppliers refused to sell below that level and sales mostly came to a stop. Buyers continue to bid and request new crop contracts, but sellers seem to be .05 to .10/lb apart. In the case of 2006 crop, sales continued but at steadily lower levels because of the motivation of sellers to reduce inventories before the lower priced 2007 crop is harvested. In fact, 2006 prices are coming closer to 2007 prices than they were 2 months ago—the differential has gone from .40 to .50 range down to the .25 to .30 range.

May shipments were 77 mil—3 mil off from last year’s record 80 mil. 2006 crop shipments to date are still at a record level and will finish at about 1.05 billion lbs and leave a carry out of about 150 mil—similar to recent years. For next year, however, we expect a 10% increase in shipments, leaving over 250 million carry out for July 31, 2008. I have been saying for years that the industry needs this level to maintain supply continuity to buyers during the crop year transitions, AND to moderate price fluctuations that have hurt suppliers as well as users in the past years. The extra carry over will be a challenge to the 60+ commercial sized processors and their growers to be patient and willing to carry a 12 month inventory.


USA, Canada & Mexico almond buyers need to decide if they want to become a “DV User” and certify that they do their own pasteurizing. It is not worth the trouble unless you pasteurize a large volume by blanching, oil roasting, moist heat treatment or PPO fumigation. You may also need to keep separate inventories of pasteurized and unpasteurized almonds. First step is to identify a “process authority” or microbiologist that can validate your process. He or she can be approved by the Almond Board quickly. Next you will need to appoint a process auditor to check documentation of pasteurization & product flow. Again, this person or organization will need to be approved by the ABC. All starts Sept 1. If you want to keep it simple, buy pasteurized almonds at an extra cost of .05 to .07 negotiated with your supplier. Call me if you have questions about the program and visit http://www.almondboard.com/ . Other advice: If you order LTL quantities, plan on more lead time so your supplier can have pasteurized product available.

California Almond Handlers need to get on the VASP for aflatoxin sampling. Yes, it’s a bit of a mess and we don’t know yet how uniformly the new EU procedures will be applied, but we may as well get it started and figure it out—that’s what we Californians are good at! Be sure to sign up and attend the annual FQS Symposium in Modesto on June 20.

Best regards, Ned

Ned T. Ryan

Current Peanut Situation
How did we get here.......Firstly we have an ethanol erection in the USA which convinced us to plant more SE corn acres on good, irrigated peanut land and we put more peanut land into dryland acres. Then we decreased peanut plantings to plant more corn and cotton and now, we have delayed planting our dryland acres hoping for enough rain to soften soil and allow balance of crop plantings. Here we are at the end of May and farmers must plant NOW in order to qualify for crop insurance....and still no rain. A further worry is that some farmers will plant strictly for insurance only and thus instead of planting 160LBS of seed per acre may plant just 50 or 60 LBS and decrease input costs in order to limit expenses and not throw good money after bad. Obviously this would severely cut dryland acre yields and even if the rains do come later, yields are adversely affected in the SE. Wow, what a mess.Condition of the USA crop is mixed. SW and V-C is OK, but the SE is the real problem. The drought conditions in Georgia are the worst in 50 years. Of 159 counties in the state, last week 74 were rated in extreme drought and 79 in severe drought. Our irrigated crop in the SE is planted and getting at least 13$ per acre costings of water every week and concerns are that irrigation ponds are being drained and we still have all Summer to water. One farmer last week mentioned he had already watered 5 times this year (5 X 13$ per inch of water=65$ per acre extra cost) so far as opposed to none this time last year. Farmers are not interested in contracting 2007 crop with the sheller so the market is at a standstill with no sellers. Lets look at numbers and make a very conservative estimate.....................if we look at dryland acres in Ga(65%), Fla(70%) and Ala(95%) and calculate vrs. planted acres 2007 crop estimate in these states we are at 780,000 planted with 553,000 dry and 227,000 irrigated. Plug in 2006 yield on irrigated acres for these 3 states(2874LBS per acre) and lets just conservatively deduct 25% yields on dryland this year we come up with 922,198,075 tons SE short tons produced. Add balance of States at 2007 projected acres and last year yield comes to 528,816 ST for total USA crop of 1.451 short tons vrs. 1.737 last year( decrease of 16.5% from last years crop which was the smallest since 1930.) Now you see why we have no sellers and I think my numbers could be high. Dont forget with seed needs, the USA needs 1.7 just for domestic usage, so we leave nothing for Europe to buy and possibly open up the USA to imports from other origins.We are in a new era in World supply vrs. demand for peanuts. In 2 years we have gone from surplus to deficit for world needs. Argentina will supply Europe because the USA cannot and China will grow a huge crop, but use most of it internally. I look for firm markets to continue for at least 18 months or more.
Hope this does not confuse you even more.
Stewart Parnell

Ocean Spray May Have More To Lose Than Lawsuit
Jim Prevor's Perishable Pundit, June 8, 2007
The Chicago Tribune picked up on the Pundit’s coverage of the Ocean Spray controversy and mentioned the lawsuit between the Nolans and Ocean Spray in a piece discussing the Robinson-Patman Act, entitled Why it’s all in the packaging.
The question of the efficacy of the Robinson-Patman Act in producing lower prices for consumers is an interesting one, but we suspect this reporter’s claim that the reason warehouse clubs carry larger package sizes is to avoid Robinson-Patman isn’t often true. The nature of the warehouse club business model, where margins are so low, favors selling products in larger volumes and thus generating fewer expenses per unit handled.
The interesting thing about this case, though, is that though nominally a Robinson-Patman case, it really speaks to different issues. The Chicago Tribune article explains:
Chris Phillips, a spokesman for Lakeville-Middleboro, Mass.-based Ocean Spray, said: “This case has nothing to do with our competitive practices which abide with all laws and standards. It is a case of a disappointed former employee whose contract was not renewed,” he said
He was unwilling, however, to discuss the company’s marketing practices outlined in the case
Prevor said he was fascinated by the suit’s depiction of the cutthroat nature of competition and what it means for business ethics.
“You just can’t favor one customer over another when you are selling the same item and maintain any customer loyalty,” he said.
Mr. Phillips is correct that the proximate cause of the lawsuit is a disappointed former employee and a disappointed former contractor to Ocean Spray electing to file the lawsuit. This is both true and obvious. This is also why all business operators who do business in our litigious society know that it is a good idea to do all you can to have employees who leave your organization leave on good terms.
The bigger issue, though, is whether the allegations made by the Nolans are true. If they are true, we can’t imagine one person or organization that Ocean Spray does business with that would care less if the Robinson-Patman Act was violated or not.
Here are the big produce-relevant issues:
Did Ocean Spray provide a better price to Costco than to Sam’s Club or BJs?
Did Ocean Spray provide H.E. Butt better prices than competitive retailers in Texas, such as Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway, etc.
Did Ocean Spray treat its growers unfairly and violate the PACA? For example, how did Ocean Spray decide who got credit for a high priced sale to Sam’s Club and a low priced sale to Costco? Did Ocean Spray urge and allow C&S to claim “bad quality” on fruit Ocean Spray knew was in good condition — and did this impact grower returns? Did Ocean Spray offer deals to Costco and H.E. Butt on fresh product to assist with the marketing of processed product — and did this impact grower returns?
Did Ocean Spray publish official price lists and then not follow them, thus deceiving its best and most loyal customers into believing that everyone was paying the same price?
Did Ocean Spray expect employees to lie or to fail to disclose to customers that competitors were receiving special treatment?
Even if it turned out that the Nolans were dismissed in accordance with the law, it strikes us that the industry would still demand answers to these five questions and Mr. Phillips’ unwillingness to “discuss the company’s marketing practices” will not stand.
There is a quick way that might resolve all this without a trial. When this situation started to heat up, Ocean Spray commissioned a special investigation conducted by a big-time law firm.
If Ocean Spray had retained a management consulting firm to do the investigation, the results of the report would already be public record through the lawsuit. But because Ocean Spray had a law firm write the report, it can claim attorney-client privilege and refuse to reveal the findings.
Yet, clearly, in an issue that has caused such controversy it would behoove Ocean Spray to clear its name by waiving attorney-client privilege and making public the results of the report.
It seems doubtful that growers and retailers alike, all of whom are being denied access to this document, are going to conclude that it exonerates Ocean Spray. That may be unfair but, by simply publishing the report, Ocean Spray could reassure the industry that it is being upfront about this entire matter.
You can find a continuously updated “hot topic” summary of our writings on this lawsuit right here.

Looking forward to A 1.3 billion crop
Record almond crop expected in California
By OLIVIA MUNOZ Associated Press WriterNews Fuze
Article Launched:05/31/2007 02:25:35 PM PDT
LIVINGSTON, Calif.- They may have started as a few pet trees planted by Spanish missionaries, but almonds are now a big, big crop in California, where ideal climate and irrigation have let the nuts bloom into a $2 billion a year business.
On Scott Hunter's farm in the hot, fertile San Joaquin Valley, the limbs on some of the younger trees are having a hard time holding up what he predicts will be part of "a once-in-a-lifetime type of crop" when the harvest begins in mid-August.
"Like any ag commodity, we've been faced with a lot of ups and downs," said Hunter, 37, who farms 1,200 acres of almonds in Livingston. "This year is definitely an up."
The record harvest, along with more growers dedicating acreage to almonds, is expected to solidify California's position as the world's leading producer of a crop that once grew wild in Mediterranean countries. The state already produces 80 percent of the almonds sold worldwide.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts growers will harvest more than 1.3 billion pounds this year, a 17 percent jump from the 1.12 billion pounds harvested last year. Just a decade ago, the state's almond trees yielded 759 million pounds.
The predicted almond boom is due to a mix of auspicious conditions: a strong market, a spring bloom that went well despite a mysterious illness that killed bees used during pollination, and favorable weather for the crop, which thrives in Central Valley soil from Bakersfield to Chico.
"There aren't a lot of places in the world where you can grow almonds. We have a unique situation here in that the climate is good and we have the water system that has made it possible," said Bruce Lampinen, a nut specialist with the University of California's Cooperative Extension in Davis.
As almonds have become more popular with health-conscious consumers, growers have banded together under the Almond Board of California, a marketing group made up of most of the state's 6,000 almond farmers.
The board has sponsored health research for many years and in 2002 successfully petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the right to promote the claim that almonds help with long-term weight loss.
It's become a powerful agency that has helped make the almond the "it" nut by publishing glossy advertisements in women's magazines and pushing hard into foreign markets, said Marsha Venable, spokeswoman for the board. Export targets include countries like India and China where the nuts already are a familiar food.
In the United States, companies already offer prepackaged almonds flavored, seasoned, roasted and raw to appeal to a variety of tastes.
"They're no longer just considered for desserts and pastries. They're on menus, they're a snack," Venable said.
The nuts' popularity has some growers worried about a saturated market that could drive prices down—but not Hunter, who said he sees the almond market as ever-expanding.
"Even though we're producing more, we're also shipping more. The market is there," Hunter said. "We once feared having a billion-pound crop, but now look at us."
———
On the Net:
Almond Board of California: http://www.almondboard.com