Today's Pricing

WATERMELON — F.O.B.S AS OF MAY 13

MEXICO CROSSINGS THROUGH NOGALES, ARIZ. — Crossings (705-766-766, seedless 683-751-759, seeded 22-15-7) — Movement expected about the same. Trading seeded slow, others moderate. Prices seedless 35-60 counts lower, others generally unchanged. Red-flesh seedless-type per pound 24-inch bins approximately 35-60 counts mostly 20 cents, 75-80s 14-16 cents; red-flesh seeded-type approximately 35-55 counts 12-14 cents. Flat cartons red-flesh seedless miniature 6-9s $7-9. Quality variable. Many present shipments from prior bookings and/or previous commitments.

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TEXAS — Shipments (29-96-255, seedless 26-83-223, seeded 3-13-32) — Movement expected to decrease slightly. Trading very active at slightly lower prices. Prices 24-inch bins per-pound red-flesh seedless-type approximately 35-60 counts 28 cents, seeded-type approximately 28-35 counts mostly 21-22 cents. Quality generally good. Most present shipments from prior bookings and/or previous commitments at lower prices.

FLORIDA — Shipments (124-159-233, red-flesh seeded 16-29-53, red-flesh seedless 51-130-180) — Movement expected to increase as more growers start the season in central Florida. Harvesting slowed. Trading very active. Prices generally unchanged. 24-inch bins per-pound red-flesh seeded-type 35s 24-25 cents; red-flesh seedless-type 45 count 29-30 cents, 60 count 29-30 cents. Quality generally good.

IMPERIAL AND COACHELLA VALLEYS, CALIF., AND CENTRAL AND WESTERN ARIZONA — Shipments (AZ seedless 0-23-16, CA 0-26-78, seedless 0-24-73, seeded 0-2-5) — Movement from western Arizona, Imperial and Coachella valleys expected to increase seasonally. Trading fairly active at slightly lower prices. Prices slightly lower. Red-flesh seedless-type per pound 24-inch bins approximately 35 and 45 counts mostly 22 cents. Organic red-flesh seedless 24-inch bins per pound approximately 35 and 45 counts 35 cents; miniature carton 6s and 8s $20.50. Quality generally good. Harvest central Arizona expected to begin the week of May 27.



Learn More
  • Industry Alerts: USDA proceedings,
    Bankruptcy petitions — Learn more...
  • New Companies: PACA new
    licensees — Learn more...
  • Bankruptcy petitions have been filed by these companies — Learn more...
  • Company Listing changes: Address, personnel,
    contact information — Learn more...

Opinion

Q&A | David Acheson, former FDA associate commissioner

National Editor Tom Karst recently chatted with David Acheson, a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner for food protection, leaving the agency in August 2009.

4:05 p.m. Tom Karst: The length of time we are waiting on the FDA produce safety regulations is starting to become an issue. What do you make of that? Is that something you expected or is that a surprise to you?

Acheson 4:06 p.m. David Acheson: No. I didn’t expect it. I was expecting to see something in February, to be honest with you. I thought January was a bit of a stretch, given just the scope of the four proposals that were sent to the OMB (White House Office of Management and Budget). I honestly thought we would see something in February or possibly early March. And now we are heading toward May and we still don’t have anything.

I have gone with our newsletter and said publicly that it wouldn’t shock me if this doesn’t pop until November, until after the election. The longer it waits, that’s where I’m seeing it head for political reasons, frankly.

4:09 p.m. Karst: I have heard some speculate that the OMB has some issues of how all the regulations mesh into the idea of not discriminating between domestic and foreign food. Is that a thorny issue, do you think, in how the law was written?

4:09 p.m. Acheson: It has got the potential for that, no question. I have not read the proposed rules any more than you have. So I don’t know whether it has created thorny issues but if you look at some of the language of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, you can sort of look at it through (the lens) of a trade issue or WTO issue, given the way Congress wrote it. I’m thinking about maybe two or three specific areas.

One that struck me is lot by lot certification, which is specific language under Foreign Supplier Verification. Another one that struck me is annual on-site visits. Another one was a looser suggestion about testing and certification around testing. Now that one is a (bit) grayer.

But those first two, if you take them by face value — lot by lot certification and annual on-site certification. We don’t subject our domestic companies to that, so that incurs costs and that incurs delays and it incurs a potential trade issue. So I could interpret pieces of this — if the agency took the Congressional language at face value and put that as a requirement in Foreign Supplier Verification — that it could create a trade concern.

4:13 p.m. Karst: And writing the Tester amendment into the Food Safety Modernization Act made it more difficult too, didn’t it?

4:14 p.m. Acheson: I think it did. I opposed (the Tester amendment) saying that this isn’t a good idea from a public health perspective. Let’s regulate (the small operators) but help them, let’s educate them. Let’s not simply say there are rules for big guys and medium guys, but different rules for little guys. That’s just not good for anybody, and it’s not going to improve the system. That’s got to be navigated, as to how do you give them the leeway that the law requires yet ensure that you have got some sort of robust program around controlled risk on small facilities.


Prev 1 2 Next All


Comments (0) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight