Welcome
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Meat Import Containers Piling Up in Chinese Ports
There are thousands of containers of frozen pork, chicken, and beef, all sitting in major Chinese ports because of the impact of the coronavirus outbreak. Bloomberg says transportation disruptions and labor shortages are slowing operations down drastically. People familiar with the situation tell Bloomberg that there aren’t enough truck drivers to pick up and move the containers due to travel restrictions imposed on the country to control the coronavirus. Ports are running out of electricity to help freeze the containers, while some ships have been told to move on to other destinations in mainland China or Hong Kong. China imports massive amounts of meat products from South America, Europe, and the United States. It’s been boosting purchases to help ease some of the shortages caused by the African Swine Fever outbreak that decimated its hog herds. Customs data shows that China boosted its imports of meat and offal by almost 50 percent last year to a record 6.2 million tons. It’s not known if or when port operations will be able to return to normal as truck drivers returning from other cities are quarantined for 14 days. Other transport restrictions on trucks also remain in place.
China Offers More Tariff-Relief on U.S. Imports
The University of Illinois’ Farm Policy News website says reports are surfacing that China is looking at purchasing some U.S. farm products by early March. The gesture would be intended to show the U.S. that it will meet its commitments outlined in the Phase One trade deal. The Chinese government is in discussions over what commodities it could potentially buy at the end of February or in early March. The purchases would show the U.S. that China intends to stick to the trade deal despite the impact of the coronavirus outbreak. Additional reports from Reuters show that China intends to “grant exemptions on retaliatory duties imposed on almost 700 U.S. products,” which would be the most substantial tariff relief to be offered so far. That would be the third round of tariff relief offered by China and comes after the Phase One trade deal officially went into effect on February 14. China has already been issuing tariff waivers on more of an ad hoc basis for U.S. farm products, including soybeans. The exemption announcement that came this week includes energy products like crude oil.
Don’t Forget to Complete Census of Agriculture Special Studies
The USDA’s National Ag Statistics Service continues to collect responses to the 2019 Organic Survey and the 2019 Census of Horticultural Specialties, both of which are special studies that take place every five years. The response window runs through March of this year. NASS is asking producers who received the questionnaires to respond online, by mail, or by telephone. “We are extending the deadlines for responses since we still have a steady stream of completed questionnaires coming in,” says NASS Administrator Hubert Hamer. “NASS produces the most comprehensive data about U.S. agriculture. Our record of accuracy is why NASS data continues to be used throughout the industry.” Hamer says the better response they get from the questionnaires means the better data they have to offer. “Responding to NASS surveys and censuses means contributing to the future,” Hamer adds. The resulting data will be used by commodity associations, agribusinesses, policymakers, researchers, Extension, and more. Producers who didn’t respond to the original deadline will receive a second questionnaire this month.
CRP Signup Deadline Rapidly Approaching
The USDA is reminding producers interested in the Conservation Reserve Program that the signup deadline is on February 28. The signup is available to farmers and private landowners who are either enrolling for the first time or re-enrolling for another 10-to-15-year term. Farmers and ranchers who enroll in the program get yearly rental payments for voluntarily establishing long-term, resource-conserving plant species, such as approved grasses or trees, which can control soil erosion, improve water quality, and develop wildlife habitat on marginally productive agricultural lands. The CRP has 22 million acres currently enrolled, but the 2018 Farm Bill lifted that cap to 27 million. The program is marking its 35th anniversary in 2020 with many milestones. It’s prevented more than nine billion tons of soil from eroding, which is enough soil to fill 600 million dump trucks. The program has also sequestered an average of 49 million tons of greenhouse gases, equal to taking nine million cars off the road.
Washington Insider: Growing Obesity Threat
The New York Times science section recently featured a report that argued that climate change “is not the only source of dire projections for the coming decade.” The article was responding to “a predicted continued rise in obesity among American adults.”
It featured projections from a prestigious team of medical scientists who conclude that “by 2030, nearly one in two U.S. adults will be obese, and nearly one in four will be severely obese.” The estimates are thought to be particularly reliable, NYT says because the team corrected for current underestimates of weight given by individuals in national surveys.
In as many as 29 states, the prevalence of obesity will exceed 50%, with no state having less than 35% of residents who are obese, the team said.
Likewise, it expects that in 25 states the prevalence of severe obesity will be higher than one adult in four and could become the most common weight category among women, non-Hispanic black adults and low-income adults nationally.
Given the role obesity plays in fostering of many chronic, disabling and often fatal diseases, these are dire predictions indeed, the Times said. Yet it notes that “the powers that be” in the U.S. are doing very little to head off these potentially disastrous results.
Well-intentioned efforts like limiting access to huge portions of sugar-sweetened soda, the scientists note, have been “effectively thwarted” by well-heeled industries able to dwarf the impact of efforts by health departments that have minuscule budgets by comparison.
Claims that such taxes are regressive “and unfairly target low-income people” are shortsighted, according to Zachary Ward, public health specialist at Harvard and the lead author of the new report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December.
“What people would save in health care costs would dwarf the extra money paid as taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages,” he said told the press.
Still, in “a city like Philadelphia,” where a soda tax of 1.5 cents an ounce took effect three years ago, total purchases declined by 38% even after accounting for beverages people bought outside the city, the report’s authors said.
However, the report downplayed piecemeal policy changes like this as too small to make a significant difference in the obesity forecast for the country. Rather, nationwide changes are needed as the “food environment” has fostered a steady climb toward a weight-and-health “disaster”.
NYT says that this health threat is relatively new and that since 1990, the prevalence of obesity in this country has doubled.
This change is not from genetics, which have “not changed in the last decade,” Dr. Sara Bleich said. Rather, what has changed is the environment in which our genes now function. Food is super easy to access, said Bleich, a professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We eat out more, consuming more foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt, and our portion sizes are bigger.”
“It doesn’t take that many extra calories to result in weight gain,” Dr. Bleich said. “Through marketing, we’re constantly being sold on foods we didn’t even know we wanted.”
Unless something is done to reverse current trends, Ward said, “Obesity will be the new normal.”
In addition, the study authors think that there is “no one thing to throw at the problem.” However, they point out that policies that reduce added sugars have reduced weight gains and health problems and that “when people drink their calories, they don’t feel as full as when they consume solid food, so they end up eating more.”
With a third of meals now being eaten out, Dr. Bleich suggested that prompting restaurants to gradually reduce the amount of fat, sugar and calories in the meals they serve could help dampen societal weight gain. “Menus could make healthier, lower-calorie meals the default option,” she said.
Controlling portion sizes is another critically important step. “Big portions are especially motivating for low-income people who reasonably want to get more calories for their dollar,” she said. Low-income groups already have the highest rates of obesity and, the new projections show, they are the groups most likely to experience a rising prevalence of obesity and severe obesity.
“From a policy perspective,” Ward said, “prevention is the way to go. Children aren’t born obese, but we can already see excessive weight gain as early as age 2. Changes in the food environment are needed at every level, local, state and federal. It’s hard for individuals to voluntarily change their behavior.”
So, we will see. Taxes are unpopular and face an uphill fight for acceptance, so education likely is the most acceptable policy choice. Whether or not warnings and nutrition education can effectively derail this trend remains to be seen, but it is a growing industry wide threat with potential implications for the food industry that should be watched closely by producers, Washington Insider believes.
It featured projections from a prestigious team of medical scientists who conclude that “by 2030, nearly one in two U.S. adults will be obese, and nearly one in four will be severely obese.” The estimates are thought to be particularly reliable, NYT says because the team corrected for current underestimates of weight given by individuals in national surveys.
In as many as 29 states, the prevalence of obesity will exceed 50%, with no state having less than 35% of residents who are obese, the team said.
Likewise, it expects that in 25 states the prevalence of severe obesity will be higher than one adult in four and could become the most common weight category among women, non-Hispanic black adults and low-income adults nationally.
Given the role obesity plays in fostering of many chronic, disabling and often fatal diseases, these are dire predictions indeed, the Times said. Yet it notes that “the powers that be” in the U.S. are doing very little to head off these potentially disastrous results.
Well-intentioned efforts like limiting access to huge portions of sugar-sweetened soda, the scientists note, have been “effectively thwarted” by well-heeled industries able to dwarf the impact of efforts by health departments that have minuscule budgets by comparison.
Claims that such taxes are regressive “and unfairly target low-income people” are shortsighted, according to Zachary Ward, public health specialist at Harvard and the lead author of the new report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December.
“What people would save in health care costs would dwarf the extra money paid as taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages,” he said told the press.
Still, in “a city like Philadelphia,” where a soda tax of 1.5 cents an ounce took effect three years ago, total purchases declined by 38% even after accounting for beverages people bought outside the city, the report’s authors said.
However, the report downplayed piecemeal policy changes like this as too small to make a significant difference in the obesity forecast for the country. Rather, nationwide changes are needed as the “food environment” has fostered a steady climb toward a weight-and-health “disaster”.
NYT says that this health threat is relatively new and that since 1990, the prevalence of obesity in this country has doubled.
This change is not from genetics, which have “not changed in the last decade,” Dr. Sara Bleich said. Rather, what has changed is the environment in which our genes now function. Food is super easy to access, said Bleich, a professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We eat out more, consuming more foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt, and our portion sizes are bigger.”
“It doesn’t take that many extra calories to result in weight gain,” Dr. Bleich said. “Through marketing, we’re constantly being sold on foods we didn’t even know we wanted.”
Unless something is done to reverse current trends, Ward said, “Obesity will be the new normal.”
In addition, the study authors think that there is “no one thing to throw at the problem.” However, they point out that policies that reduce added sugars have reduced weight gains and health problems and that “when people drink their calories, they don’t feel as full as when they consume solid food, so they end up eating more.”
With a third of meals now being eaten out, Dr. Bleich suggested that prompting restaurants to gradually reduce the amount of fat, sugar and calories in the meals they serve could help dampen societal weight gain. “Menus could make healthier, lower-calorie meals the default option,” she said.
Controlling portion sizes is another critically important step. “Big portions are especially motivating for low-income people who reasonably want to get more calories for their dollar,” she said. Low-income groups already have the highest rates of obesity and, the new projections show, they are the groups most likely to experience a rising prevalence of obesity and severe obesity.
“From a policy perspective,” Ward said, “prevention is the way to go. Children aren’t born obese, but we can already see excessive weight gain as early as age 2. Changes in the food environment are needed at every level, local, state and federal. It’s hard for individuals to voluntarily change their behavior.”
So, we will see. Taxes are unpopular and face an uphill fight for acceptance, so education likely is the most acceptable policy choice. Whether or not warnings and nutrition education can effectively derail this trend remains to be seen, but it is a growing industry wide threat with potential implications for the food industry that should be watched closely by producers, Washington Insider believes.
Hormel to Stop Using Hogs That Are Fed With Ractopamine
Hormel Foods announced it will no longer accept hogs that have been fed or exposed to ractopamine after April 1 as the company seeks to expand its ability to sell products to China.
"We have been actively monitoring the changing global market dynamics for several years and believe this decision will further position us to meet growing international demand," Hormel said.
Hormel uses third-party suppliers for its pork and does not have slaughter operations.
Tyson Foods and JBS USA announced last year they would eliminate ractopamine from their supply chains for the same reason – they sought to boost exports to China which prevents the use of ractopamine for livestock.
The move comes even as the phase-one trade agreement between the U.S. and China calls for China to undergo a risk assessment of ractopamine in cattle and hogs “as soon as possible without undue delay.” The risk assessment is to be done in consultation with the U.S. and “verifiable data and the approved conditions of ractopamine use in the United States.”
"We have been actively monitoring the changing global market dynamics for several years and believe this decision will further position us to meet growing international demand," Hormel said.
Hormel uses third-party suppliers for its pork and does not have slaughter operations.
Tyson Foods and JBS USA announced last year they would eliminate ractopamine from their supply chains for the same reason – they sought to boost exports to China which prevents the use of ractopamine for livestock.
The move comes even as the phase-one trade agreement between the U.S. and China calls for China to undergo a risk assessment of ractopamine in cattle and hogs “as soon as possible without undue delay.” The risk assessment is to be done in consultation with the U.S. and “verifiable data and the approved conditions of ractopamine use in the United States.”
Caution: USDA Forecasts Ahead
USDA’s Annual Outlook Forum will take place the next two days near Washington, D.C., and a lot of attention will be placed on a series of USDA forecasts that will come out today.
The updates include the 2020 acreage expectations and price forecasts that will be delivered this morning by USDA Chief Economist Rob Johansson. Those will frame the supply picture for the 2020/21 marketing year, with those outlooks due Friday morning.
The other important update will be the Outlook for U.S. Agriculture Exports which will provide USDA’s latest look for the dollar value of U.S. ag exports and imports for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.
The attention point will be on the how much USDA chalks up to the Phase One trade deal between the U.S. and China. USDA will have to acknowledge the deal in their forecast, particularly now that the deal is in effect.
Then, USDA analysts on Friday morning will release their first run at the 2020/21 marketing year U.S. balance sheets.
But the key to keep in mind on these forecasts relative to the Phase One deal is that the agreement is on a calendar-year basis, while the forecasts due over the next two days will be a mix. The trade forecast is on a FY basis – an October-September year – while the U.S. commodity balance sheets are on a mix of marketing years.
Still, the data will provide some additional perspective on what USDA analysts expect to be a result of the Phase One deal with China.
The updates include the 2020 acreage expectations and price forecasts that will be delivered this morning by USDA Chief Economist Rob Johansson. Those will frame the supply picture for the 2020/21 marketing year, with those outlooks due Friday morning.
The other important update will be the Outlook for U.S. Agriculture Exports which will provide USDA’s latest look for the dollar value of U.S. ag exports and imports for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.
The attention point will be on the how much USDA chalks up to the Phase One trade deal between the U.S. and China. USDA will have to acknowledge the deal in their forecast, particularly now that the deal is in effect.
Then, USDA analysts on Friday morning will release their first run at the 2020/21 marketing year U.S. balance sheets.
But the key to keep in mind on these forecasts relative to the Phase One deal is that the agreement is on a calendar-year basis, while the forecasts due over the next two days will be a mix. The trade forecast is on a FY basis – an October-September year – while the U.S. commodity balance sheets are on a mix of marketing years.
Still, the data will provide some additional perspective on what USDA analysts expect to be a result of the Phase One deal with China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)