Local Foods Memo - Farmers' Markets: Farmers' Market Season is Fast-Approaching

Customers line the vendor stalls at the popular farmers' market in the small city of Sonora in Northern California's Gold Country foothills region. It's a social market as well as a farmers' market. [Photo courtesy of ianandwendy.com.]

Farmers market season is fast approaching in the U.S., as well as elsewhere in North America and the world.

The end of March and first of April marks the opening (although some have already opened) of thousands of farmers markets throughout the U.S., where local farmers and other food purveyors sell their fresh produce and artisan foods directly to consumers.

The farmers' market season is part of spring, that time of renewal in all things lifestyle.

The farmers' market movement in the U.S. has been growing super-fast over the last decade, and even picking up more steam in just the last few years, as new open-air markets open in cities, suburbs and small towns throughout America. There are thousands of farmers markets operating in the U.S. today.

What makes farmers' markets a unique format for fresh produce and artisan-specialty-natural foods retailing are essentially five key elements:

>In most cases the vendors grow all of the produce they sell at the markets. In states like California and a number of others, "state certified" farmers' markets exist in which all of the sellers must also be the growers. Non-growers-sellers can sell at non-certified farmers' markets but consumers like the certified markets because it ensures they are buying directly from the farmer.

>Most of the fresh produce sold at farmers' markets in the U.S. is "locally grown," coming from a distance of generally no more than about 100 miles from the market location.

>Organic fruits and vegetables abound. Since many of the growers-sellers at farmers markets are on the cutting edge of farming, the fresh produce they offer is in many cases organically-grown. Much of it also is biodynamic. For many farmers who sell at the markets doing so is more about saving money by not buying chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fungicides than it is a marketing tool. It's also about being conservationists of their land.

>Price is generally good. The prices on both conventional and organic fresh produce at local farmers markets are generally as good or better than supermarket prices. Even in the cases when the prices are a bit higher, the value often is better because the produce tends to be fresher and of higher quality. There's also the added benefit of supporting local farmers.

>Farmers' markets are a social event. Farmers' markets allow consumers to get closer to the food they eat. As mentioned, most of the sellers at farmers' markets also are the growers. This allows for interaction between the farmers-vendors and consumers. Farmers' markets also provide a forum, centered around food, in which residents of a community can interact, visit and network. It's community at its best.

Since farmers' market season is fast-approaching, Natural~Specialty Foods Memo (NSFM) decided to search the web and choose a selection of stories and articles about farmers' markets in the U.S. (and one in the UK at the bottom of the list) for our readers. (We will have more about Canadian and UK farmers' markets in upcoming posts.)

Below are links to the articles we've selected. All of the stories are from March 17, 2009:

~Tampabay.com: Tampa farmers markets a boon for frugal food shoppers
~Seal Beach Daily: The beauty of buying local: fresh and fun at the new Seal Beach farmers market
~Valley Courier: Local flavor
~Vernon Morning star: Eating close to home
~California Farm Bureau magazine: Considering organics? Farmers offer advice on how to get started. And: Growth in organic food sales continues, at slower pace
~Boston Globe: Economy of scales
~Christian Science Monitor: Refugee job hopes wax and wane at farmers market
~Minneapolis City Pages: Great news from Chef Shack!
~Hobby Farms.com: Top 10 Ways to Support Agriculture
~WXII12.com: New Farmers Market To Open In Downtown Winston-Salem
~MPNNow.com: Farmers, families like veggie coupons
~Rural Northwest.com: Growing the Farmers' Market
~The Post-Standard: Farmers markets seminars coming up
~Richmond TimesFarmers market in western Henrico opens April 25
~United Kingdom: Liz Hurley to take up stall at Stroud Farmers' Market

Enjoy.

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo (NSFM) will be visiting a variety of farmers markets in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom in the upcoming spring and summer months, bringing first-person reports about local foods' selling and buying, along with photographs, to the Blog. Stay tuned.

Farm-Food Policy Memo USA: The New Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack Speaks; And His First Message is An Interesting One

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States in early November, 2008, a group of U.S. food and agriculture policy reformers that included the well known author and food policy reformist Michael Pollan ("In Defense of Food" and other books) and "foodie," organic and local foods activist, cookbook author and restaurant-owner Alice Waters, sent the then President-Elect a letter asking him to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture who would "put eaters first" in U.S. agriculture and food policy. The group also created an online petition in which they urged Americans who agreed with their position for an "eaters' first" Ag Secretary to post their names on it. The petition was then sent to the team Obama.

[Here are two links to the petition and related information from the farm-food policy activists: [Pollan Events Petition letter] [Pollan Events] 40,000 names!]

In early January of this year, then President-Elect Obama nominated former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to be his Secretary of Agriculture. As Governor of Iowa Vilsack was a solid supporter of the state's agribusiness industry, as well as a "go-getter" in bringing ethanol fuel plants, production and refineries to the Midwestern, farm-belt state, as one would suspect the Governor of Iowa to do if he wanted to get re-elected.

Vilsack was also a strong supporter of now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President rather than President Obama. However, as soon as Barack Obama cinched the nomination, Vilsack was on board as a major supporter. It was Iowa in fact, where the President won the crucial first-in-the-nation key Presidential primary, that Barack Obama says was key to his victory in November, 2008.

Following the announcement that Vilsack would be the nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, feelings and opinions among the members of the U.S. ag-food policy reform movement ranged from outright indignation, to reservation that it would be "business as usual." For others, including Obama supporters, it wasn't such a shock. After all President Obama campaigned from day one as a moderate Democrat. He advocated change for sure but in a more evolutionary rather than revolutionary manner. Vilsack is a moderate Democrat, just like the President.

A few folks in the farm-food policy reform movement urged the others to give Vilsack (and President Obama since the Secretary carries out the President's policies) a chance. Michael Pollan has been one of those taking a more moderate voice regarding the Vilsack selection. Natural~Specialty Foods Memo (NSFM) has been urging the same. Seldom are things so black and white as it's either "Eaters First" or "Agribusiness First."

Vilsack, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate just a little over two weeks ago, hasn't offered much publicly in terms of how he views the Department of Agriculture and U.S. ag-farm policy -- until now. That's probably good because we appreciate cabinet secretaries who take a couple-to-three weeks to first figure out where the bathrooms are before speaking out. And there are many bathrooms in the huge U.S. Department of Agriculture building where Vilsack now works.

In today's Washington Post, Secretary Vilsack gives his first full interview since being confirmed. The interview is written as a feature piece by Washington Post staff writer Jane Black.

And in the interview piece, the Secretary of Agriculture addresses just the issue the farm-food policy reformers are most concerned with: The focus and balance in U.S. agricultural and food policy between "eaters" (consumers), farmers and agribusiness. We toss in food companies and retailers of all shapes and sizes as well. They need to be at the table.

In fact, the story's headline is: "Vilsack: USDA Must Serve Eaters as Well as Farmers." Rather on-message for those looking to hear that message, we must say. And keep this in mind: If a U.S. Secretary of Agriculture who didn't have the trust and respect of agribusiness took the position Vilsack takes in the Washington Post interview piece, he or she likely would be the subject of tons of political backlash, as would the President that appointed that Secretary.

While Vilsack probably wouldn't have been our first choice for a variety of reasons, those who dismiss him out of hand should think about the fact that merely having a head of the U.S. Department of Agricultural who agrees across the board on the goals of the farm-food policy reformist movement doesn't mean he or she could get anything done. It's all about that credibility issue we mentioned. There are multiple constituencies to address, not just one. And like it or not that cuts both ways -- reformist and agribusiness (constituencies), along with a couple others.

Below is how Washington Post staff writer Jane Black begins her story about the new head of the massive U.S. Department of Agriculture, who she interviewed this week:

"When former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack was nominated as secretary of agriculture, many food policy activists, noting his reputation as a friend to corporate agriculture and ethanol producers, rendered a verdict that was swift and harsh: agribusiness as usual.

But Vilsack, newly installed in his regal but still-undecorated office on Independence Avenue, is out to redefine himself and his vision. In an interview this week, he called for a "new day" for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's sprawling bureaucracy, which he believes should champion not only farmers but also everyone who eats.

'This is a department that intersects the lives of Americans two to three times a day. Every single American,'he said. 'o I absolutely see the constituency of this department as broader than those who produce our food -- it extends to those who consume it."

The writer also quotes Michael Pollan in the piece, presumably after reading him the comments Secretary Vilsack made in the interview, published above and elsewhere in the story. In response, Ms. Black quotes Pollan: "He's definitely sounding a different note than his predecessors," said Michael Pollan, the reform-minded author of the bestseller "In Defense of Food." "Whether they'll be reflected in policies remains to be seen."

[Click here to read the full story from today's Washington Post: "Vilsack: USDA Must Serve Eaters as Well as Farmers."]

Indeed Vilsack is sounding considerably different than his predecessors. The mere fact he is speaking out makes him completely different than the George W. Bush Administration Secretary's of Agriculture the past eight years. Quick quiz: Can you name the last Secretary of Agriculture; the one who left with the outgoing Bush Administration? Not easy to do, is it?

Additionally, the fact that Vilsack is speaking out so early and so clearly (such clarity, which isn't a Washington D.C. trait, leaves him very little wiggle room later on) means he's going to have to follow-through on much of what he is advocating. Of course, keep in mind that Congress, with its power of the purse, will ultimately decide the direction of U.S. farm-food policy, which is something reformist need to always keep top-of-mind. In other words, don't just focus on and put all your hopes in President Obama.

But the Administration can certainly lead. Set the course. And it is a course that needs balancing. It's not about good "eaters" and small-growers and bad agribusiness and global food companies. If only it were so simple.

But balance indeed is needed. And as President Obama has been advocating, and so far walking the walk on, it's time to put aside the heavy partisanship. We suggest the same when it comes to farm and food policy. A little cooperation and a meeting of the minds from all sides will go a very long way.

[NSFM Editor's Note: The artwork at the top of this post is titled "The American Farm." It's by American artist Warren Kimble. You can learn more about the artist and his work here.]

Global Food & Agriculture Memo: Will Parts of the Underdeveloped World Become the New Breadbaskets for Companies and Nations in the Developed World?

The practice of tenant farming primarily by family farmers was a common practice in the United States and elsewhere in the western more-developed world until the Dust Bowl years and the Great Depression of the 1930's, which when over ushered in what we see today as modern family-owned farming and corporate agribusiness in the west.

The tenant farming practice (also referred to as sharecropping, which in the U.S. was a common practice during the long period of slavery but also included poor whites), in which farmers rent land from landowners and then share a major portion of the profits from the sale of their crops with the landowners, still goes on in parts of the underdeveloped world. However, in nearly all of these situations the landowners, who reap the majority of the benefits from the arrangement, and the farmers, who are poor and willing to crow crops on land they don't own because they basically have no alternative, are local landlords and poor folks living in the countries where this practice continues today.

This practice, which most people would like to eliminate altogether and replace by giving the tenant farmers in these underdeveloped countries a helping hand to buy the land they work, is making a major comeback though -- but in a corporate way, including the new landowners being corporations and even nation's (Kingdoms mostly) based far away from the underdeveloped countries where the practice is starting to occur.

For example, South Korea's Daewoo Logistics this week announced it had negotiated a 99-year lease on some 3.2 million acres of farmland on the dirt-poor tropical island of Madagascar, off southern Africa's Indian Ocean coast. That's nearly half of Madagascar's arable land, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, and Daewoo plans to put about three quarters of it under corn. The remainder will be used to produce palm oil - a key commodity for the global biofuels market, according to a story in Time magazine today.

According to the piece in Time.com, 'A Daewoo manager, Hong Jong-wan, told the Financial Times newspaper recently that the crops would "ensure our food security," and would use "totally undeveloped land which had been left untouched."' 'Land is scarce and expensive in South Korea, which makes it the world's third-largest importer of corn. Daewoo says the Madagascar land will be leased for a price of around $12 an acre, which is a fraction of the price for farmland in the corporation's home country,' according to Time.

South Korea's Daewoo, a huge conglomerate which might be best known for the automobiles of the same name, isn't the only entity looking to acquire mass-acreage outside its own nation to grow and then export food back to the country where the company is based.

Time magazine reports in today's article that 'Africa's fertile soil certainly appeals to the countries of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, whose vast deserts force them to import most of their food.'

"The Gulf states have an incredible surplus to invest and now that the old economies are facing recession they are looking at Africa," says Marie Bos, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. 'Although such wealthy countries as South Korea and the Gulf states are easily able to pay for food imports, this turmoil on global food markets may have increased the incentive for food-importing countries to secure their own sources of supply,' writes Vivenne Walt in Time.

Read the full article, "The Breadbasket of South Korea: Madagascar," from today's Time.com here.

This new development in global agriculture, should it become widespread, could change the way crops are grown and food is marketed over time in the world.

For example, if foreign corporations based in Asia like Daewoo, and Kingdoms like those in the middle east mentioned in the story, acquire tens or hundreds of millions of acres of land in underdeveloped countries like Africa and then grow crops for exportation exclusively back to their respective home nations, such a practice could seriously hamper the underdeveloped nations' ability to produce food for its own peoples as well as to eventually develop an agricultural exportation industry which would create jobs.

On the other hand, if it is true like Daewoo says that in its case the 3.2 million acres of land its acquired is otherwise useless land for farming, then the practice would seem to use to be much more benign. We find it hard to believe though that most corporations and foreign nations would be searching for useless land to create their overseas farming programs on. The logic of doing so goes counter to common sense and would seem to result in vastly higher expenses in initial and ongoing land improvements than any for-profit company would want to make, although in the case of Daewoo it is subsidized by the South Korean government. Time will tell if this is the case or not we suspect.

Most important though for Africa and other similar underdeveloped countries is being able to feed their own peoples through a domestic agricultural industry, something they aren't even able to do at present, despite an abundance of land. The mass ownership of land in these countries by foreign corporations and nations also makes it much less likely tenant farmers in these places will be able to own the land they farm anytime in the future.

This emerging new form of corporate and nationalistic global agriculture also could have implications for changes in food exportation. For example, it's likely a giant company like Daewoo would for example sell any surplus product, either in commodity or value-added form, it produces in Africa beyond what the South Korean market doesn't demand, especially if selling it globally to say European countries brings in a significant financial premium.

Many corporations already produce crops on lands outside the countries those firms are based in. However most operate on a corporate agribusiness model rather than using tenant farming practices. And the practice is nowhere as widespread as it would be if other corporations follow the Daewoo model of grabbing massive acreages in one fell swoop.

It's also qualitatively different because the corporations like Daewoo, and the middle eastern nations looking to do the same thing, aren't producing crops in these lands to then sell in these same countries and globally. Instead the express purpose of this overseas farming practice is to bring most if not all of the crops back to their respective home countries.

If such a practice were to prove successful, we could see numerous other corporations copying it. After all, land and labor is far cheaper and much more available in these underdeveloped countries than it is in Europe and even North America. Crops could be produced in Africa and elsewhere using super-low labor (tenant farmers) and then sold at reduced prices globally. This practice also has the potential, if it became widespread, of undercutting agribusiness company's and family farmers in places like the United States, Canada and Europe -- and even Mexico and Central America -- which in all cases likely have higher costs of labor and certainly higher land and production costs for the crops they produce.

This emerging new global farming practice is one worthy of watching closely in our analysis.

Food Safety Memo: U.S. President-Elect Obama Said to Plan On Beefing Up FDA Enforcement, Regulations; Speculation Rampant On New FDA Chief

USA: Election 2008 Special Report

For the last few years under the administration of President George W. Bush, the United States has experienced food safety after food safety problem, with both domestically-grown fresh produce and imported foods.

For example, there have been the major salmonella outbreaks from domestically-grown fresh produce -- first in bagged spinach and lettuce greens, then in Roma tomatoes and peppers. Numerous people died from these outbreaks and many more fell ill.

Then there's been the host of food safety problems from imported foods. The most recent one being Chinese-produced powdered and fluid milk intentionally contaminated with melamine, along with products like candy made in China with the adulterated milk. Additionally, there have been many others as well, including contaminated snack foods from China and candy from Mexico with high lead content, to name just two incidents.

None of the adulterated Chinese powdered milk made it to U.S. shores. But some of the melamine-laced candy did. Fortunately it has thus far been discovered and pulled off the shelves of Asian food stores in the U.S. before it could harm consumers.

Milk laced with higher than trace amounts of melamine, like the Chinese milk and milk-related products have been, can cause serious kidney damage, particularly in small children. As of yet there haven't been any reported deaths or cases of serious illness in the U.S. from the milk-based candy containing melamine.

Most experts and observers -- including many agricultural and food industry companies -- blame the rash of food safety problems in both domestic and imported foods in the U.S. on the deregulation policies over the last eight years of the Bush Administration, along with a lack of proper funding of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) by both the President and Congress.

The lack of enforcement is likely to change under the new administration of President-Elect Brarack Obama though, Neera Tanden, a senior Obama advisor, tells the Associated Press (AP).

Food safety will be a priority for Obama's FDA, she says. "He (Obama) thinks this is a fundamental role of government to ensure that people's food is safe and he has been concerned that we are not in a position to ensure that."

Read the AP's full report (in Italics) below:

Obama expected to bolster FDA oversigh for domestic, imported foods
By Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar
October 10, 2008

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bedeviled by a salmonella outbreak and tainted medicine and milk from China, is likely to monitor imports and fresh produce more closely under an Obama administration.

With President Bush no longer a roadblock, health officials also can expect new powers to control tobacco, from cigarettes to the recently introduced smokeless products called snus.

President-elect Obama, a former smoker struggling to avoid relapse, is a sponsor of legislation giving the FDA authority to control, but not ban, tobacco and nicotine.

Long seen as the government's premier consumer protection agency, the FDA stumbled under Bush. Recurring drug and food safety lapses came against a backdrop of shrinking budgets and long periods without a permanent leader. In Congress, a senior Republican complained the FDA had gotten too cozy with industry.

Obama is being urged to move quickly to appoint an FDA commissioner. Already more than a half-dozen names are in circulation: outside critics such as Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen; insiders such as Susan Wood, a former director of the FDA's women's health office; and public health advocates such as Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Baltimore's health chief.

Food safety will be a priority for Obama's FDA. "He thinks this is a fundamental role of government to ensure that people's food is safe and he has been concerned that we are not in a position to ensure that," said Neera Tanden, a senior campaign adviser.

Obama will be working with a Democratic-led Congress, including lawmakers who have written legislation to bolster import inspections.

Only a fraction of imported food is inspected now. Foreign drug manufacturing plants can go years without an FDA visit. Democrats had considered fees on industry to pay for more FDA inspectors, but could not persuade the Bush administration to go along. They expect Obama to be receptive.

Tanden said Obama is open to the idea of requiring a tracing system for fresh produce. That became an issue during this summer's salmonella outbreak, after the FDA spent weeks hunting for tainted tomatoes only to find the culprit might have been hot peppers.

"An Obama administration would swing the pendulum back more to protection of public health," said William Hubbard, a retired FDA official who held top posts. "This bodes well for greater regulation in the food safety area, on imports, and on drug safety."

Under the tobacco proposal, the agency would be able to order changes in tobacco products to make them less toxic and addictive, but could not ban tobacco or nicotine. The bill passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support, but a veto threat from Bush kept it from getting out of Congress.

Aides to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., co-author of the tobacco bill, say there is strong interest in getting the legislation passed soon after the new Congress convenes in January. Obama is a co-sponsor.

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo Issue Analysis

As the AP story also discusses, speculation is rampant over who President-Elect Obama will name to head the FDA. The names are all informed speculation right now. But one thing we know for sure is Obama won't carry the current Bush Administration FDA chief over into his administration like some are suggesting he might do with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The stories linked below further discuss and offer some analysis about the speculation on who Obama might name to head the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, including naming names:

Scientific American - November 7, 2008: Speculation swirls about Obama's EPA and FDA heads....Baltimore Sun - November 7, 2008: Baltimore's Sharfstein mentioned as possible FDA commissioner....Bloomberg - November 6, 2008: Woodcock Gains Support From Drugmakers for US FDA's Top Job. [Note: We think former Senator and Democratic candidate for President in 2004 Howard Dean, who is a medical doctor and announced yesterday he plans to leave his position as chairman of the Democratic Party when it is up next year, could be a candidate as well for FDA Commissioner, although we peg him more likely for Suregeon General if President-Elect Obama names him to a post in the administration.]

The Obama Administration isn't likely to get much opposition to strengthening the regulation of domestic and imported fresh produce and other foods from America's agriculture and food industries. For the last couple years the industries has been lobbying the Bush Administration for stronger enforcement of regulations , and higher FDA budgets, because the numerous food safety problems have not only hurt sales, they've also damaged the reputation of the food and agriculture industries among consumers.

In fact, earlier this year, the Bush Administration added a a couple billion dollars to the budget of the FDA as a reaction both to the numerous food safety problems as well as in response to requests directly from the industry to do so.

There's a particular across the board concern about stopping the food safety problems from goods imported into the U.S. -- and China just happens to be the country that time and again has had the most serious problems.

The U.S. (and the world) is locked in a financial and credit crisis, the U.S. is in an economic recession and the U.S. government has a record deficit and debt.

So far Since $700 billion has been appropriated -- $700 billion the U.S. doesn't have in real money -- to bail out America's banks and financial institutions.

Another nearly $100 billion has already been spent for a economic stimulus package (tax rebates to citizens). Those checks went out months ago and have seemed to do little to help the U.S. economy.

Congress is now talking about another stimulus package of $100 -to- $125 billion, perhaps enacted before the year is over.

Add just these three items together and you are talking about one trillion dollars. And there is more spending to come.

And of course, the U.S. doesn't have this trillion dollars. Rather, it just fires up the government printing presses, already running 24 hours a day, prints the currency, and then sells government-backed securities to the Chinese, Saudis, Japanese and Europeans to back the new money, greater a bigger deficit.

With the financial crisis and economic recession situation so pressing, we wonder how fast the Obama Administration will want to and be able to move on beefing up the FDA, which will cost at least a couple billion more to start? The new President can issue an immediate order right away though when he takes office on January 20, telling the agency the days of lax regulation enforcement are over, which should help if it does nothing else but sends a clear message to the tens of thousands who work at the FDA.

It's clear the economy is domestic priority number one for the President-Elect, who becomes the 44th U.S. President in 72 days. And that is how it should be. But it's also clear food safety will be pressed on the new President as a top concern as well -- from consumer advocates, health officials and even the food and agricultural industries.

It's going to be a tough, and expensive, 2009. But that's what HOPE is all about -- along with some good plans and strategies -- and a whole lot of good luck along with them.

Farm-to-Market Memo: Massive Floods in the U.S. Heartland, Severe Drought in the West Coupled With Soaring Fuel Prices, Spells More Food Price Hikes

About 38% of Iowa's corn and soy crops are under water from the recent floods, according to the state's Department of Agriculture. There's an old saying in the Midwest: If a corn crop is 'knee high by the fourth of July,' it means it will be a good crop for that year. Not this year.

Earlier this year, Safeway Stores, Inc. CEO Steve Burd told a group of financial analysts, reporters and writers on a conference call that food inflation was the highest in the U.S. he has seen since he became CEO of the nation's third-largest supermarket chain 15 years ago.

'You ain't seen nothing yet,' as the old show business saying goes.

On June 13, Natural~Specialty Foods Memo wrote this analysis and commentary piece about how the soaring per-barrel cost of oil, and the resulting price increases of diesel fuel, gasoline and fossil fuel-based energy, was causing severe shock within the food and grocery industry, as well as among U.S. consumers, who are experiencing some of the fastest and most extensive food and grocery product price increases in many of their lifetimes.

Since we published that piece, two major events have occurred which, coupled with the soaring price of oil, fuel and energy costs, threaten to send food prices soaring even higher faster in the U.S.

Those two events, both natural and climatological in the main, are the massive floods that have been hitting the Midwestern U.S. farm belt and the increasingly severe drought in the Western U.S., which in California, the nation's number one farming state, resulted in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declaring an official drought state of emergency in early June.

California not only is the number one farm state in the U.S., its huge Central Valley, which stretches from Kern County in the South to the Sacramento Valley in the north (about 400 miles) also is the world's number one region in terms of total farm crop output.

America's heartland, the Midwest, also referred to as the farm belt, produces the majority of corn for the nation, which in addition to being the most used U.S. farm crop for food, animal feed and ingredients, also is increasingly being used as a fuel crop to produce ethanol, which is mixed with petroleum-based gasoline in nearly every U.S. state to make what is called blended fuel, such at E-10 (10% gasoline, 10% ethanol) and E-20 (20% ethanol).

The massive floods which ravaged Iowa, the number one U.S. corn producing state, and other Midwest states, have many corn (and other crops) fields submerged under water, rendering the crops unable to be harvested. Additionally, because of the timing of the floods, farmers will be unable to plant their crops in those fields, meaning not only that the current crops are lost, but in many cases next year's will be as well.

Both the Midwest floods and the Western USA drought are guaranteed to contribute to further increased food costs to food retail chains and wholesalers, and thus to consumers. Already, food prices are soaring across the board in the U.S. as they are elsewhere in the world because of a combination of oil price hikes, severe weather globally, growing demand for certain foods by developing countries like China and India, decreased surpluses, and a number of other factors.

Our analysis is Steve Burd's correct observation that food inflation in the U.S. is the highest he's seen in his 15 years at the helm of Safeway Stores, Inc. is that he--and the rest of the U.S. food and grocery industry along with consumers--are about to see the price of food soar even higher, faster in the coming months due to the added negative conditions from the Midwest floods and the Western U.S. drought, combined with the factors already in play described above.

Today we've chosen six articles/opinion pieces--three about the Midwest drought situation and its effect on food and farming, and three about the Western USA drought--for our readers. The pieces each approach the conditions from a different but unified perspective and offer insight from the writers' perspectives on the current situation.

The first three pieces are about the recent massive floods in the Midwest and the effect they already are having on the price of food, especially corn, which is used by the U.S. food processing industry in nearly every processed food and beverage product it produces as well as being the primary grain used to feed market hogs, chickens and cattle.

High Water, higher food costs, David Roeder, Chicago, Illinois Sun Times, June 17, 2008

The second piece about the effect of the Midwestern region floods and food prices discusses how the flooding, particularly in Iowa which was the state hit the hardest, is going to create a ripple effect of higher food prices beyond just the Midwest and throughout the United States.

Iowa's flooding will produce economic ripples beyond the Midwest, Susan Albright, Minneapolis, Minnesota Post, June 17, 2008

The last article, a feature piece from the Los Angeles Times, examines how the Midwest floods could send the prices of everything from corn and soy-based foods to meat soaring nationally in the U.S., beyond the serious price increases already experienced since just the start of 2008.

Midwest flood may cover nation in higher food prices, Jerry Hirsch and P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2008

While most of Iowa and other parts of the Midwestern USA heartland are under water, California and other states in the west are experiencing drought conditions. These three pieces examine the drought in the west, especially California, from different perspectives, all having to do with the effects the drought is and will continue to have on food prices, the food industry and consumers.

The first article, from the Fresno Bee, which is the major daily newspaper in the Fresno area in California's Central Valley, one of the top food producing regions in the world, examines what effect the drought will have on food prices, since the region produces foods not only for U.S. sales and consumption but for export throughout the world as well.

Expect higher food costs with drought, Dennis Pollock and Mark Grossi, Fresno, California Bee, June 5, 2008.

Paul H. Betancourt is a farmer in the Central Valley. He farms in the Westlands and Fresno Irrigation District regions in what is a top-producing farm region in America. Betancourt wrote an opinion piece about how farmers are taking drastic steps to conserve water during the current drought, but also says food prices will rise because of the lack of water needed to meet farmers needs in the Golden State.

Drought: Farmers taking drastic steps, Paul H. Betancourt, Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2008

Lastly, former Associated Press and Fresno Bee reporter Lloyd Carter, who covered the state's agriculture and related industries with a focus on water issues for decades and now is a lawyer and director of the California Water Impact Network, http://www.c-win.org/, offers a well-written and expert-opinion piece about the drought in California, its effects on agriculture, business, consumers, the entire state of nearly 40 billion people, and beyond.

Lloyd G. Carter: Much of California is a desert, we should live in it as such, Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2008 [For more of Carter's writing about the water issue you can go to http://www.lloydgcarter.com/]

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo has been suggesting and writing for some time that the "era of cheap food" is over in the U.S. This fact has profound economic and social implications to a country that since the end of World War II has in the main made available to the majority of its citizens an abundance of cheap food, relative to the rest of the world.

Like cheap gasoline--it was less than half its $4 per-gallon U.S. average less than a year ago and under $2 gallon less than two years ago--cheap food has allowed most working class Americans the extra disposable income to live a good life, including home ownership, owning multiple automobiles, putting the kids through college, and other aspects of what's been come to be known as "middle class" living in the U.S.

The U.S. food and grocery industry has created a model in which nearly every cost imaginable has been driven out of the distribution system in order to keep food costs as low as possible for American consumers. There's plenty of room to argue about the industry's ways- a focus on less than healthy processed foods and the like--but the fact is the industry has done much to focus on providing as reasonable priced foods as it can to consumers.

The current conditions--soaring oil and fuel prices, floods, drought and other challenges--are testing America's agricultural and food distribution system like never before in modern history. How it all will play out is unknown. However, clearly alternatives to fossil fuels and similar changes are a must, and recognized by most progressive industry leaders.

As for floods and droughts, mother nature does play a major role there. However, as Lloyd Carter points out in his piece, there's also a pretty good logic for understanding mother nature and geography and designing methods to live within its dictates at times.

The U.S. food and grocery industry has managed to thrive despite the fact it survives on about the lowest profit margin (about 1% net) of any industry in the nation.

It's also an industry built on innovation. In the 1950's, for example, the concept of a self-service grocery stores was just beginning to take root in U.S. food retailing. A decade later in the 1960's it was the norm. The challenges are there today. But so is the innovation. What's lacking however is leadership in America. Therefore, the industry is pretty much on its own for the time being.

Farm-to-Food Memo Pro or Con: Is the Overplanting of Ethanol Crops Responsible For Higher Food Prices?

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo Editor's Note: The current U.S. Federal Government program of providing farmers subsidies and other economic incentives to plant corn to be used to produce ethanol fuel is being hotly debated by the U.S. Congress, which on a bipartisan basis created these subsidies just a few years ago in partnership with President George W. Bush.

However, with the soaring cost of food in the U.S. and elsewhere, including everything made with corn, Congress and others in the U.S. are wondering if creating the economic incentives, which have resulted in a record ethanol corn crop this year, was such a good idea after all.



A number of U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, recently called for hearings to evaluate the nation's ethanol policy and the subsidies that are encouraging more corn crops to be planted for the fuel.

The vast majority of corn grown by U.S. farmers is still for food, feed and ingredient uses, but the type of corn grown for fuel is rapidly increasing.

Additionally, U.S. states ranging from mega-California with 38 million people, to farm-belt states like Illinois and Iowa, have passed laws which require gasoline refiners to mix a higher percentage of ethanol, which in the U.S. is made nearly 100% from corn, with petroleum-based gasoline in order to make what's called blended fuels for use in those states. Numerous other states have similar laws and policies.

The result of these laws and policies means even if the U.S. wants to stop offering subsidies to farmers who grow corn crops for fuel, it's going to have a hard time doing so because the demand, created by these mixed-fuel laws, is already in place--and growing. California for example will soon require refiners to add an even higher percentage of ethanol to the petroleum-based gasoline they sell to service stations in the Golden state.

It seems a policy--creating economic incentives for farmers to grow corn for fuel--had its intended results, which was to create more supply of the grain-based fuel in the U.S.

It also appears the policy has had unintended consequences as well, depending on who you talk to, reducing the total acreage previously used to grow corn for food, feed and ingredients, thus creating less supply, resulting in soaring commodity prices for food-grade corn and reduced surpluses in U.S. grain silos.

Point/Counterpoint

Pro: Corn-ethanol production is responsible for soaring food prices

David A. Ridenour is the vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which describes itself as a conservative, free market organization. (http://www.ncppr.org/.

Mr. Ridenour argues the policies creating subsidies and economic incentives for farmers to grow corn for fuel, which many are, has resulted in today's soaring commodity price of corn, the increased costs of meat and poultry, which are fed primarily a corn-based diet, and numerous other foods which are either made from corn or have corn-based ingredients like sweeteners used to produce them.

Read David Ridenour's pro opinion that the growing of corn for fuel use is a leading cause of the current soaring prices for livestock and corn-based foods here.

Con: It's a misconception corn-ethanol is to blame

On the other hand, Bob Stallman,a rice and cattle producer from Texas and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, says it's a misconception that increased use of corn for ethanol production is the key or only factor driving higher food prices. (http://www.fb.org/.

Read Bob Stallman's con opinion that the increased practice of growing corn crops for ethanol production is what's causing the food price hikes currently being experienced by consumers at the supermarket here.

Natural~Specialty Foods Memo Analysis

You can determine for yourself which of the two arguments made in the essay's above you agree more with.

Each writer makes some fairly strong arguments--and some weak ones as well--regarding his respective positions.

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison last week called for the U.S. Senate to place a moratorium on the current subsidies and economic incentives the government gives to farmers for planting corn for ethanol production and a freeze on the amount of the fuel produced, until it can be determined if these programs--and the use of corn-based ethanol--are causing the soaring food prices for meats, poultry and foods produced using corn

President Bush, who Senator Hutchison was and is a big supporter of, disagrees with her move to have the Senate consider this plan. Rather, he says ethanol production from corn is a key part of his administration's plan to produce more fuel from sources other than imported oil.

Both Bush and most others--although some corn-belt Republicans and Democrats are silent on the issue--say the long-term goal is to produce ethanol in the U.S. using raw materials like switchgrass, which is a non food-use crop.

However, scientists working on the switchgrass-to-ethanol fuel concept (called cellulosic ethanol) say it will be a number of years before it can be done in any meaningful and plentiful manner.

These researchers and many others also argue the Bush Administration and Congress has allocated nowhere near enough money to fund such research, especially if they want like they say to have switchgrass-to-ethanol technology be able to come on-line anytime soon.

Many of these switchgrass advocates say some of the money currently being used to subsidies farmers to grow more corn for ethanol, should be used to fund the research into switchgrass-to-ethanol technology.

Nearly everybody in the debate agrees corn is merely a short-term solution in producing ethanol; that it's far from the best crop to use to produce the fuel.

Meanwhile, the per-barrel cost of oil seems to increase daily, sitting at about $130 barrel today. This fact, along with $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump and soaring food prices in the U.S., makes the ethanol debate even hotter.

Most experts on the U.S. Congress are saying they don't believe the legislators will touch the current corn-for-ethanol subsidies and economic incentives like Senator Hutchison is suggesting it does. There are too many Democrat and Republican farm state legislators to let that happen.

Additionally, since President Bush apposes any such move, he would veto any legislation in that regard anyway, say the Congressional watchers.

This issue is only going to get hotter, since very few people believe the prices of food, oil and gasoline is going to stop increasing for the rest of the year and into 2009.

This also is a Presidential and Congressional election year in the U.S. Congress is currently on recess for the Memorial Day holiday in the U.S., a time when most of the members go back to their respective districts to attend holiday events and talk with constituents.

You can bet the members will be getting an earful about the perfect economic storm consumers are facing. That perfect storm being a combination of soaring food costs, coupled with never-ending increases of the price of gasoline at the pump, and an overall sluggish and uncertain economy on main street.

Illustration Credit: The illustration at the top of this piece depicting the gas pumps growing side-by-side in a corn field is by Anita Langemach, courtesy of The Gazette, Colrado Springs, Colorado.