Watch Out for-- Pallets??

While not normally a topic that gets the blood racing, a real fight has broken out between the wood and plastic pallet industries on which method of shipping food is safer.

In a nutshell, a plastic pallet manufacturer is asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to launch a probe into allegations wood pallets pose a risk to the food supply. The National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) claims to welcome the probe, saying it has studies done in Europe that exonerate wooden pallets from such charges. Over 1bn wood pallets are currently in use in the U.S. Among charges against the wooden variety are that:

1.) they allow the breeding and spread of diseases such as Listeria, E. coli and salmonella, and
2.) formaldehyde (used to prevent pest infestations like the tree-killing Asian longhorn beetle) is a known carcinogen that could leak onto any food coming in contact with the wood, or
3.) that said formaldehyde might be released in gaseous form during storage in areas where food is also present.

NWPCA has countered saying plastic pallets are composed of a honeycomb-like structure that can act as a breeding ground for diseases, and that the deca-bromine chemical fire retardant used in plastic pallets should be studied. Several U.S. states have had passed laws banning deca in household products as a potential health hazard. Industry analysts say the plastic pallet company is caught between its dependence on deca-bromine and its risk factors with consumers.

Aren't you glad you're a regular reader?

This blog includes excerpts from a weekly round-up of food industry & food licensing news provided free to Broad Street Licensing Group's clients, and as a paid subscription service (6 months $695; 1 year $1,125).

Too busy to keep up with the news wires & publications about the food business? If you or your company would like to subscribe to our news service, call Danielle Foley at Broad Street Licensing Group (tel. 973-655-0598) and ask for your free sample or click on our website.

Green Food Trends

• While most surveys indicate that organic purchases are becoming a victim of the recession, a new JD Power canvass (press release attached) shows that the introduction of organic products via store brands helped elevate private label from just "cheap imitations" of brand names to unique offerings. Singled out for special mention are Whole Foods and Safeway's O-Organics line.

• Whole Foods isn't resting on those laurels, nor the distinction of being the first US retailer to have all its stores certified organic: it is partnering with Bosch Appliances to give away their high-end Evolution refrigerators stocked with organic and natural products.

• The organic movement has pressed for more than simply removing additives, hormones and pesticides from the food chain, arguing that agriculture and farming must sustainable. The Smithsonian Museum recently hosted a symposium on sustaining the world's seafood stocks. Demand for fish has reduced some stocks to perilously low levels, and fish farms have drawn the ire of environmentalists and some scientists for pollution, incubating water-borne diseases and parasites, and introducing hormones and synthetic colors to seafood. Participants in the round table argued that if fish stocks aren't sustainable, then the advantages of eating fish will be wiped out by the environmental impact.

• The sustainability question has reached McDonald's which has been pressured to shift its potato supplies away from the heavy use of pesticides. The company is feeling the pressure, and has promised to consider a shift.

• In a nod to the commercial and public relations advantages of "buy local," foodservice giant ARAMARK has indicated it will “shop locally” for suppliers, introduce biodegradable service ware, encourage composting, and facilitate the recycling of bottles, cans, cardboard and frying oil through the its Green Thread program.

• PepsiCo is introducing a new environmentally-friendly vending machine they claim will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12%. The machines will use CO2 for a refrigerant instead of hydrofluorocarbons, but the company says gases from the insulation foam and refrigerant make up only 5% of the machine’s carbon footprint with fully 95% coming from the energy required to power it. The company is also testing machines using isobutane and propane as refrigerants.

Excerpted from BSLG's weekly subscription news reader service Food Business News. To subscribe or for information about licensing, contact Broad Street Licensing Group (tel. 973-655-0598)

Just How Green IS My Valley?

(steak photo courtesy of The Perfect Steak)

Debate about "local sourcing" and "sustainability" generally favors reducing the carbon footprint of food distribution by relying on locally-grown and raised foods, rather than the current supply chain that brings foods from around the world to your local grocery store. For example, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University estimates food travels on average 1,500 miles from producer to consumer within the U.S. However, this argument has been denounced by Third World countries as another form of Western arrogance, since the globalization of the food supply chain has brought prosperity to poorer regions who account for an increasing portion of the West’s food consumption as Chilean peppers find their way to produce aisles in the depth of Winter and apples stored in gigantic warehouses are available year-round.

A new argument claims that shifting consumption away from red meats and dairy— even for as little as one day/week— might have a greater salutary impact on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than cutting down the time foods are en-route. Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews, analysts for the Carnegie Mellon Institute, argue it is virtually impossible to reduce transportation costs equivalent to the change on the environment by reducing the consumption of meat and dairy. “Replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week would save the equivalent of driving 760 miles per year. "Replacing red meat and dairy with vegetables one day a week would be like driving 1,160 miles less." Analysts admit their estimates are mostly theoretical in nature. Further meat producers argue that organic farming would be impossible without the manure produced by feed and dairy animals.

Other "green" initiatives include the one by Kraft to increase its use of Rainforest Alliance-certified coffee farms by 50%. As part of the company's sustainability goals it has targeted reducing plant energy use by 25%, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount, slashing production plant water consumption by 15%, reducing plant waste by 15%, and eliminating 150 million lbs. of packaging. A flurry of such announcements from major companies will likely result at some point in a wave of audits by skeptical media outlets.

Stay tuned.

Just How Bad IS Meat?

There is an increasing body of evidence that meat is bad.

Not just bad for your body, but possibly bad for the planet.

A study by the National Cancer Institute indicates those who ate even 4 oz. of red meat a day (which includes pork) had increased rates for some cancers up to 20%, and were in general more likely to die earlier. This wasn't one of those studies involving mice or with 2 1/2 participants. No, the NCI studied a half-million subjects over a decade. Scientists aren't sure why eating meat increases cancer risk, but point to things like possible carcinogens produced during cooking, or the high fat content of meat. Those in the study who ate chicken or fish were less likely to die.

The connection between meat consumption and heart disease has already been established, so the study has added more pressure on the meat industry.

Now it turns out meat production may be bad for the environment. For one thing, the amount of resources required to produce meat is huge. Not only do livestock raised for human consumption require lots of feed themselves (which "eats up" fertilizer and demands pest control measures), but they soak up medical resources, since confining large herds of them in industrial feed lots makes them more susceptible to disease. This doesn't take into account the residue of the antibiotics and hormones given to raise bigger, healthier, more-profitable livestock that ends up in our bodies when we eat industrial food farmed meat.

The other issue is the impact meat farming has on the planet in general and on global warming in particular. A 2006 United Nations report claimed that 18% of greenhouse gases could be attributed to meat and meat production. Now as you can well imagine, the meat industry doesn't think too much of these studies. When they're not fighting PETA, the animal rights crazies, they're trying to undercut scientists who have tried to argue that meat eating is just plain bad for you.

One mouthpiece for the meat industry is the Center for Consumer Freedom, a phantom "think tank" devoted to serving the interest of restaurants and food companies. They have focused their wrath on Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, hardly a fly-by-night diploma mill. Dr. Popkin has written that meat production "in the United States accounts for 55% of the erosion process, 37% of pesticides applied, 50% of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water." Nitrogen and phosphates in rivers, lakes and streams nourishes algae blooms which can suck the oxygen out of the water and kill off fish stocks.

It may surprise you to learn that China produces the greatest total volume of meat (28.5% of the annual global volume), but is outstripped by the U.S. per capita meat consumption (270 lbs./123 kg vs. 119 lbs/54 kg).

The CCF insists Dr. Popkin has stretched his research, and the good professor says the meat industry is obfuscating the situation with the same tactics the tobacco lobby employed in the past. In fact, some are calling the food industry dangerous in the same way that Big Tobacco once was.

I find that sort of hyperbole contributes not only to a hardening of opinion on both sides, but clouds that debate. The food business has some blame for the current problems associated with the American diet, including putting too many things in processed foods that don't belong there, among them salt and preservatives. But Americans have to take some measure of responsibility for what they eat and not expect those who enable their obesity, diabetes and heart disease to look out for their interests.