Industry Analysts See Overall Food Prices Rise

   Woodland Hills, Calif.  (Business Wire) - 8/31/2013 - Analysts with Great American Group, Inc. report that pricing for meats and dairy products remains higher than average. The trend reflects the continued market response to the 2012 drought, in which pricing for corn used in animal feeds was at a historic high.
   “Increases in meat and dairy products were due to the lingering effects of the drought,” said Ken Bloore, chief operating officer of Great American Group’s Advisory and Valuation Services division. “As a result of higher costs for animal feed, many farmers were forced to sell off their stocks at the height of the drought, thereby lowering the current supply of meat in the marketplace.”
   According to Great American Group’s newest Food Monitor, margins have been increasing for meat and processed foods as many companies have been able to fully pass along price increases to customers. While seafood prices have recently been down, due primarily to excess supply in the market, companies were able to preserve margins by selling off lower-priced inventory at a markup to customers. The drought conditions that plagued U.S. crops last year appear to have abated, and farmers report favorable growing conditions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expects a record corn harvest of 13.95 billion bushels this year, an increase of 29 percent from 2012. Lower prices for animal feed would enable farmers to restore their herds to normal levels.
   “A return to normal feed prices would result in ample supplies of animal-based products such as meat and dairy,” explained Bloore. “As a result, food prices could be expected to experience only minimal inflation next year.”

    For more information about industry trends in food, download Great American Group’s latest Food Monitor available on the company’s website at http://www.greatamerican.com/news_media/downloads/Food_monitor_August_2013.pdf.

U.S. Farm and Food Policy Called Unbalanced

   WASHINGTON – (EWG) - 1/13/2013 - Buried in the 150-page “fiscal cliff” tax bill passed New Year's Day is a last-minute farm bill extension that buys time for Congress to craft and debate an improved measure to establish food and farm policy for the long haul.
  But it comes at a cost. The extension perpetuates the widely discredited direct payment farm subsidies that will send $5 billion this year alone to large farming operations that already reap record profits.
   “While a deeply flawed nine-month extension is marginally better than a deeply flawed five-year farm bill, this short-term band-aid is not good public policy,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. “A responsible measure would have cut direct payments and insurance subsidies and fully funded important conservation programs. It is critical that Congress craft a farm bill this year that supports family farmers and protects the environment.”
   Instead of eliminating the wasteful direct payments program, the bill passed by Congress shortly before midnight New Year’s Day cuts funding for organic agriculture, clean water, and beginning farmer initiatives.
  “This extension reflects the skewed priorities that continue to produce a totally unbalanced farm and food policy,” Cox said. “Soil erosion, land conversion, and water pollution from farm chemicals are enormous challenges. Yet this extension will hobble a major conservation program, while channeling billions in cash payments to already highly profitable farm businesses. It makes little sense to cut support for organics, the fastest growing sector of the agriculture economy, and to curtail a long list of other initiatives designed to increase access to healthy food and create new economic opportunities for family farms.”
   Congressional efforts to pass legislation authorizing food and farm programs for the next five years have been hampered by attempts by supporters of big agriculture to create new lavish insurance subsidies.
   “This latest deal underscores for the good food movement why organizations like Food Policy Action are so important to the task of expanding federal government support for innovative food and agriculture policies,” Cox said. “Without significant pressure on Congress and the White House, we can be sure that efforts to improve access to healthy food and reduce dangerous chemicals in the environment will fail.”
   Source: Environmental Working Group

Organic Produce Lowers Pesticide Exposure

   Washington, D.C. – 9/8/2012 - Consumers can markedly reduce their intake of pesticide residues and their exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by choosing organic produce and meat, according to researchers at Stanford University who reviewed a massive body of scientific studies on the much-debated issue.
   The Stanford team analyzed more than 230 field studies and 17 human studies conducted in the United States and Europe to compare pesticide residues, antibiotic resistance and vitamin and nutrient levels in organic and conventionally produced foods.
    “The study confirms the message that EWG and scores of public health experts have been sending for years, that consumers who eat organic fruits and vegetables can significantly reduce pesticide concentrations in their bodies,” Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at Environmental Working Group, said. “This is a particularly important finding for expectant mothers and kids, because the risks of dietary exposures to synthetic pesticides, especially organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides, are greatest during pregnancy and childhood, when the brain and nervous system are most vulnerable. These are two groups that should really avoid eating foods with high levels of pesticide residues.”
   Based on its review of the available research, the Stanford team also concluded that conventionally raised meat harbors more antibiotic resistant bacteria. It found that consumers of non-organic chicken or pork are 33 percent more likely to ingest three or more strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria than those who eat organic meat.
   “What jumped out at us in this study is that conventionally-raised meat treated heavily with antibiotics is much more likely to carry drug-resistant bacteria than meat produced on organic farms,” said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag, who focuses on organic and conventional agriculture. “Antibiotics, which are banned in organic production, promote the development of resistant super-bugs that are a serious risk to human health.”
   The researchers did not find “significant” or “robust” differences in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods. But Charles Benbrook, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center who reviewed the Stanford study and most of the underlying literature, had this to say in response:
   "This study draws a markedly different conclusion than I do about the nutritional benefits of organic crops. Several well-designed US studies show that organic crops have higher concentrations of antioxidants and vitamins than conventional crops. For crops like apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, and grains organic produce has 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids in most studies."
   The Stanford study also contradicts the findings of what many consider the most definitive analysis in the scientific literature of the nutrient content of organic versus conventional food.
   In that 2011 study, a team led by Dr. Kirsten Brandt of the Human Nutrition Research Center of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom analyzed most of the same research and concluded that organic crops had approximately 12 to 16 percent more nutrients than conventional crops.
   EWG noted that the Stanford study also did not directly address the important environmental and public health benefits that result from reduced pesticide and antibiotic use. Synthetic pesticides can kill insect pollinators, harm wildlife and farm workers, and often end up in the air and water. Tests conducted in 2011 by the US Geological Survey found that glyphosate (commonly sold as Roundup), one of the most widely used herbicides, was a ubiquitous contaminant in air, water and rainfall in two Midwest states.
   “Organic produce and meat products live up to their promise,” EWG President Ken Cook said. “Consumers selecting organic produce ingest fewer pesticides. They also eat meats that harbor fewer deadly bacteria. While you still need to take responsibility for eating a varied and healthy diet, you can rest assured that organic food provides a healthier choice for people and the planet.”
   While the Stanford study briefly mentioned previous research on the effects of organic foods on children’s health, it did not focus on the growing body of studies published in the last decade that have demonstrated children’s higher sensitivity to the effects of neurotoxic pesticides. Last year, Cook, along with several of the world’s most respected authorities in environmental health, sent a letter to the Obama Administration requesting that the federal government expand the testing it conducts on crop chemical residues in foods “to give Americans a full accounting of risks faced by children who consume pesticides on produce.”
   “Studies that have come out in the last two years have linked exposures to organophosphate pesticides with increased risks of ADHD and lower IQ in children, and to low birth weight and early gestation among newborns,” Cook said. “The authors of this study, for whatever reason, decided not to focus on this new and troubling research showing that a diet of food high in certain pesticides could pose such serious and lasting health impacts in children. That’s a glaring omission, in my opinion.”
   Source: EWG 

Holding Company CEO Charged with Bank Fraud

   BROOKLYN, N.Y. – 4/13/2012 - The former chief executive officer of a publicly held food products company that traded on the NASDAQ and manufactured and distributed a line of baking mixes and spices was indicted on April 13 on conspiracy, bank fraud and false statement charges arising out his scheme to inflate Synergy’s sales through a $26 million bank fraud scheme. Mair Faibish, the former chief executive officer of Synergy Brands Inc., was arrested earlier in the day and was due to appear in court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky in Brooklyn.
   The charges were announced by Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; James T. Hayes Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), New York Field Office; and Nassau County, N.Y., Police Commissioner Thomas V. Dale.
    As alleged in the indictment, the defendant and his co-conspirators fraudulently inflated Synergy’s sales by approximately 20 percent for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, through an international check kiting scheme in which they kited approximately $750 million worth of checks not backed by sufficient funds through various banks in the United States and Canada.
   The defendant caused those checks to be deposited into bank accounts of associated food manufacturers and distributors in Canada. The Canadian companies then sent checks in corresponding amounts, but also not backed by sufficient funds, back to Synergy. Because the banks made deposited funds immediately available for withdrawal, the scheme artificially inflated the companies’ bank account balances while the scheme was ongoing. The defendant and his co-conspirators used Synergy’s fraudulently inflated bank account balance to book millions of dollars in fictitious accounts receivable and revenue. By the end of the scheme, Signature Bank had lost approximately $26 million that the defendant and his co-conspirators had withdrawn before the bank discovered the scheme.
   In addition to the bank fraud and conspiracy charges, the indictment charges that the defendant made false statements to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about Synergy’s financial condition in a public filing, specifically: (1) that Synergy had approximately $44.5 million in sales, when approximately 20 percent of those sales were fictitious; (2) that Synergy had approximately $40 million in cost of goods sold, when approximately 20 percent of the cost of goods sold was fictitious; and (3) that Synergy recognized approximately $1.5 million in “prepaid expenses,” when at least 25 percent of those prepaid expenses were fictitious.
    According to the company’s filings with the SEC, Synergy was a holding company with subsidiaries that distributed nationally known food and beauty products to retailers and wholesalers and manufactured baking products through its Loretta Baking Mix Products subsidiary. Synergy also sold premium cigars to restaurants, hotels, casinos and country clubs as well as directly to consumers over the Internet and through its retail store in Miami.
   “The defendant allegedly defrauded an FDIC-insured bank out of millions of dollars through a massive check-kiting scheme, as well as fraudulently inflated Synergy’s financial statements in order to make the struggling company appear prosperous. These false representations were then provided to the SEC and the investing public,” Lynch said. “Corporate executives who abuse their positions of trust can expect to be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
   If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison on the most serious charge in the indictment.
   The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ilene Jaroslaw and Sylvia Shweder.
   Source: Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force

Pesticides Associated With Lower Birth Weight

   Oakland, Calif. – (EWG) - 4/9/2012 - A new study is reinforcing obstetricians’ standard warning that pregnant women should avoid exposure to pesticides in foods and weed killers because the chemicals can harm the developing fetus.
   In the study, Cincinnati-area women had levels of organophosphate insecticides that significantly affected birth weight and gestation period.
   “This latest report is further evidence that babies in the womb are exquisitely sensitive to pesticide exposure,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group. “While much has been done to reduce people’s exposure to organophosphates, this important study shows that even remaining exposures are harmful.”
   Lead researcher Bruce Lanphear MD MPH, and his colleagues tracked an ethnically and economically diverse group of more than 300 expectant mothers from the Cincinnati area. They found that newborns of women with the highest levels of organophosphates in their urine were delivered, on average, about half a week earlier and weighed one-third of a pound less than those of women with the lowest exposures.
   The abstract of the new study can be found in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
   For years, EWG has urged the US Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the use of these highly toxic pesticides in agriculture and advised consumers to avoid fruits and vegetables with the highest levels of pesticides. Last year, three studies found that prenatal exposure to organophosphates was associated with diminished IQ in children. Other research has linked organophosphate exposure in children to increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
   Source: EWG release

Decision on BPA Food Packaging Expected Soon

   Washington, D.C. - (EWG) - 3/11/2012 - The federal Food and Drug Administration, faced with a series of legal actions from environmental groups, is poised to decide whether to move toward barring the toxic chemical bisphenol-A from food packaging.
   The agency’s decision is expected by March 31.
   Five years have passed since Environmental Working Group’s groundbreaking 2007 study showed that BPA leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG’s tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula.
   “FDA is the only agency with the power to protect consumers from being exposed to BPA from the food they eat,” said Sonya Lunder, Senior Research Analyst for Environmental Working Group. “Let’s hope the agency’s upcoming decision will keep the public’s health at the forefront.”
   A second EWG study in 2007 showed that 1 in 16 formula-fed infants were being exposed to levels of BPA toxic to animals in research studies.
   Because BPA has been shown to disrupt the hormone system, EWG has repeatedly called on FDA to order it removed from food and beverage packaging, starting with infant formula.
   FDA decision comes as Campbell’s Soup has announced its intention to seek a safer substitute for BPA-laden epoxy in the linings of its cans.
   “If one of the world’s largest food suppliers and users of BPA in its packaging feels it should move away from using it, maybe the federal health agency charged with protecting people from contaminated food will follow suit,” Lunder said.
   The prevalence of BPA in the environment and in people was underscored by 2009 tests commissioned by EWG and Rachel's Network that detected BPA for the first time in the umbilical cord blood of 9 of 10 American newborns.

   Source: EWG release of 3/9/2012

CDC Cites Widespread Food Contamination in U.S.

   NEW YORK - (BUSINESS WIRE) - 4/16/2011 - According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, up to 48 million cases of illness in the United States each year are caused by spoiled or contaminated food. Many of these come from fresh produce that is consumed in its raw state. Two ways to ameliorate this “epidemic” are to improve our control over the conditions in which food is kept as it moves from farm to consumer markets or to enhance the traceability of food shipments within the supply chain.
   New US legislation (The Food Safety Modernization Act) focuses on the establishment of industry-wide data standards for this information, and requires the FDA to develop and publish regulations that address the prevention of foodborne disease outbreaks.
    According to ABI Research principal analyst Bill Arnold, “RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) systems with temperature sensors can contribute to less tainted produce and provide the same standards-based tracing, while delivering information that could prevent as much as $35 billion/year in wasted produce.”
    Once the initial FDA trials–to be conducted in partnership with industry associations such as the United Fresh Produce Association for produce and the American Meat Institute for fresh meats–are completed, the question will be: which stakeholders in the industry will actually buy and use these systems?
    “That is a very big question,” Arnold said. “It is of most benefit to food retailers, but they don't control the harvest point or the shipper, so it's a matter of who decides they either have the clout or the ability to make it happen. Self-interest and liability limitation will be the motivators. In some cases large retail chains will buy RFID systems and require their suppliers to use them. In other cases, large food brands such as Dole, Hawaiian Tropic, Chiquita and others may invest to promote their food freshness and safety, allowing them to justify a premium price.”
    ABI Research’s new “RFID-enabled Food Safety and Traceability Systems” study (http://www.abiresearch.com/research/1006522) reviews the Food Safety Modernization Act’s impact on food-industry use of auto ID technology in both the short and intermediate terms. It provides forecasts for the use of RFID-enabled data logging devices from 2010 through 2015 in cold chain applications.
    The report is part of the RFID Research Service (http://www.abiresearch.com/products/service/RFID_Research_Service). ABI Research provides in-depth analysis and quantitative forecasting of trends in global connectivity and other emerging technologies.