Should first handlers be charged for a health-oriented campaign to increase produce consumption?

By Barbara Wunder, FFVA Communications Manager

Pivonka told the group that in 2008, PBH’s executive committee decided the best way to approach the idea was to appoint an industry task force to look into past barriers to such a promotion board. “We thought we’d pull together six members representing different commodities, different areas of the country and USDA,” Pivonka said. “We thought we’d have the group take a look at problems that presented themselves in past efforts to do this kind of thing, such as making assessments fair and requiring importers to pay.”

After a yearlong discussion, the task force presented its best thinking to PBH’s executive committee. “Best thinking,” Pivonka explained, "was that in spite of disagreements, if we were to do this, we’ll determine the best way to go about it.” Those ideas were shared with the PBH Board of Trustees at its annual meeting on April 3.

The promotion board's objective would be to increase consumption of all forms of fruits and vegetables in the United States for better health through a comprehensive marketing, communication and education effort.

Determining how such a program would be funded was challenging, Pivonka said. “We looked at four ways to assess the product: by weight, by consumption or by market value – meaning make it lower when the market is low and higher when the market value is high. We found that the fairest way to assess the product is by market value."

In discussing whom to assess, the task force first considered retailers but realized that food service operators also would have to be included. “That would be pretty difficult,” said Pivonka. “So we focused on either the producer or the first handlers, which we define as the first person who buys and takes possession of the commodity. We also determined that importers should be assessed, and that the best point to do that was at the point of entry.”

Elizabeth Pivonka, head of the Produce for Better Health Foundation, tells FFVA board members about the proposed National Fruit & Vegetable Research & Promotion Board .

Thirty-eight commodities would be assessed, including tomatoes, citrus, lettuce, berries, potatoes, peppers, beans and melons. A full list may be found on the campaign’s Web site as well as updated information and frequently asked questions.

The creation of such a promotion board would be depend on the outcome of a vote of first handlers. If a decision is made to move forward, voting would occur in 2011; if the measure passes, assessments would likely not begin until 2012.

In the meantime, Pivonka says, the organization will be gathering more input and feedback from those affected. “We e-mailed a survey to 3,200 growers the week of June 8 to shippers, processors and importers,” she said in a June 10 update to the Web site. Anyone who did not receive the survey and would like to offer input, contact Pivonka at (302) 235-2329, ext. 315 or epivonka@pbhfoundation.org.

INDUSTRY OFFERS FEEDBACK

Pivonka told the FFVA board that the campaign's future will depend on stakeholder feedback. “The idea is to take your comments back to the executive committee in October and then decide if we want to do anything further,” she said. “We’re in the very, very early stages. As someone said, we’re in the second inning of a nine-inning game.”

Specialty tomato grower Teena Borek asked Pivonka a pointed question that brought the focus of conversation to the potential economic benefits that producers would see – or not. “So what I understand is that this will cost the growers and then the retailers benefit because their sales will possibly increase. Is this correct?” Borek asked.

“Well that’s the economic question,” Pivonka replied. “That’s one question we didn’t discuss and I think that’s the biggest question. But if you’re not talking to the consumer, your competition is."

Industry columnist Jim Prevor also asked whether it makes sense for the producer/first handler to foot the bill for a program that may increase consumption but may not actually result in more income for the farmer. “PBH is a charity. Its goal is to promote health through getting people to eat more produce,” Prevor said in his “Perishible Pundit” online column. “There is nothing in there about increasing the profitability of produce companies.”

Prevor added that "the ideal thing for the industry would probably be not to increase production (and production pretty much equals consumption) at all, just increase demand through marketing and then control production so that prices will rise.”

Prevor also brought up the possibility that those who grow lower-quality products and those who grow crops that take a long time to mature would receive a disproportionally greater benefit from an increase in consumption. And he wondered whether enough money actually would be made, since those who are now first handlers could choose to restructure the way they do business.

Potato grower Frank Johns said he doubts whether the money that eventually would be collected would be enough to do the job. “There will never be enough money to impact effectively  the consumers to the extent necessary to offset the efforts of other major food industries to promote their products,” Johns said. “I find it highly unlikely that a national promotional board will impact the decision-making process of the consuming public positively enough to offset the costs involved.”

Johns also is concerned about the potential politics of such a board. “While the concept and goals are very noble and to oppose it might seem like opposing apple pie and ice cream, I think it will only establish another endlessly growing bureaucracy.”

Johns served for six years on the National Potato Promotion Board and is a past FFVA chairman.

NEXT STEPS

PBH is available to speak to groups of first handlers and importers to present the information in more detail and to seek their feedback through October. In late October, the PBH executive committee will review feedback from the industry, including any suggestions for improvements, and will then decide whether to proceed with developing a proposal for a National Fruit & Vegetable Research & Promotion Board to submit to USDA.

If a decision is made to submit such a proposal to USDA, the agency then would issue the proposal in the Federal Register and would allow 90 days (or more) for industry comments. Depending on comments, USDA would decide whether to move forward or discontinue the discussion. If there is no strong opposition to the proposed rule, USDA then would issue a final proposal, and a referendum would be announced and conducted.

Find out how to express your opinions here or contact Pivonka at (302) 235-2329 or  via e-mail.