LOCAVORE "FLAVOR" FOR BIG RETAILERS-JOINING THE "BANDWAGON"!

It looks as if the new found popularity of local food movement is pinching the fortunes of organized retailers, if recent reports regarding attempts by a few of them to start some thing like a farmers' market within their premises to attract more customers or to recapture some of their lost clientèle. Foods offered at the farmers' markets are supposed to be with low carbon foot prints because they come from nearby farms where cultivation is managed with minimum use of energy, fertilizers and pesticides. How supermarkets depending on large scale production systems and economy of scale can co-exist with the small scale operations that characterizes farmers' markets is some thing one has to wait and see. If it is based on philanthropy with an intention to give protection to the local growers, such practices need to be encouraged. But the economics and logistics do not favor such an interpretation of the move by large retailers to open up local food section in their premises. If it is a part of a slow process of integrating local producers into the location specific retail stores, one can only appreciate such changes.

"It's not hard to see why supermarkets are nervously intrigued by farmer's markets. In the past five years, the number of markets in the US has ballooned, up from 1,755 in 1994 to 5,274 in 2009, according to the USDA. But the problem for Big Food is that farmers' markets exist as an alternative to the centralized, mass-produced, industrialized system that delivers most of our food. The items at farmer's markets come from small farms or bakeries located within 100 miles from where they live. They're also ultra-fresh, seasonal and mostly unprocessed, and the direct-to-consumer system lets farmers earn a healthy profit for their food. Supermarkets, in contrast, sell food from all over the globe and pay the sorts of prices only large producers can afford to accept. Mike Siemienas, a spokesperson for Supervalu (SVU), which owns Albertsons, defended the use of farmers' markets signs in 200 of its stores in Washington, Oregon and Idaho over the Labor Day weekend because the produce advertised came from local farms. It's certainly a better approach than Safeway's interpretation of a farmer's market, but the price those local farms are getting for their produce is probably much less than what they'd get at an actual farmers' market. By comparison, organic, which is also a reaction to mainstream food production, has been a much easier trend for big food companies to monopolize. Large manufacturers like Kellogg (K) and General Mills (GIS) operate major organic brands and many large, conventional fruit and vegetable producers have organic side businesses. Local may actually be the sort of party food companies can't get into, at least not without looking like they're trying way too hard.Frito-Lay (PEP) and McDonald's (MCD) have already mounted ridiculous attempts to establish local cred. Frito-Lay wheeled a traveling greenhouse into the middle of Times Square and brought along potato farmers to explain how Lay's potato chips are made with actual potatoes. In July, McDonald's put up billboards in Washington state announcing things like "Served in Seattle, Grown in Pasco," accompanied by the disclaimer "participation and duration may vary."

The issue of returns to the farmers who join league with super market chains is still a ticklish issue because of the compulsion to share the sale proceeds between the established retailer and the local producer. In contrast in a genuine farmers' market there is no middle man to gobble up a part of the sale proceeds resulting in a higher net return to the grower. It is not clear as to what other services the retailer is offering to the growers besides the premises and the brand value. Ideally the super markets must lend their expertise to the local grower community in producing high quality products and train them in proper handling and packing before channeling them through their store facilities. Only such a symbiotic relationship can promote locavore movement to any significant extent without affecting the fortunes of existing super markets. Under no circumstances large players should be allowed to misuse the "goodwill" generated by the "local food" concept for increasing their cash flow.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

DECLINING FOOD SAFETY-ADULTERATION ON THE INCREASE

India is a vast country and its management is highly complex requiring multifaceted talents in different fields. In the food area there is a mix of organized and informal industrial sectors manufacturing thousands of products with value addition varying from 25% to 2500%. Besides there are more than 8 million retailers peddling foods- raw, semi processed as well as fully processed, in loose and packed formats. Governments at the state and center have a constitutional responsibility to safeguard the interests of the citizens by preventing sale of spurious, adulterated, unsafe and sub-standard quality foods. But ever since independence, during the last 6 decades people's representatives have failed miserably in restraining unsocial criminals who indulge in rampant food adulteration to make illegal profits. Here is the case of Ahmedabad Muncipal Corpration which has recently enumerated the difficulties it is facing in keeping ahead of the food adulterators

"Samples of maida, cow milk, khoya, ghee, curd, chilly powder, jam and pulses, among others failed to meet the stipulated standards. According to official figures available, the percentage of food adulterants has increased from 11 to 15 per cent in last 10 years. Recently, AMC recovered tons of spurious food items in the city. The existing public health laboratory functioning from a makeshift space at NHL Medical College in VS Hospital compound has the capacity to test an average of 15 to 20 samples. It also takes at least two to three days for the results to be out. However, AMC city limits have grown from the earlier 196 sq m to 466 sq m. Within these limits, there are thousands of food establishments which need to be monitored regularly and inspected for their quality of food".

The above situation applies to hundreds of other bodies also across the country. How can the policy makers expect to monitor the quality of food in the market with practically no worthwhile laboratory facilities or experienced personnel available. Most of the existing facilities can hardly handle about 10-20 samples a day while the population can be in the range of 1 to 100 lakh! No wonder adulterators have a field day in this country riding high on the procrastination and inaction by the country's politicians and bureaucrats who do not seem to have neither time nor inclination to attend to the woes of the citizens.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

RETAIL BUSINESS AND THE FARMER-ACCENTUATING THE DISCONNECT!

Indian farmers have been exploited for decades by the repulsive middle man system that is prevalent in the country for decades. The money power of the crop contractors, difficulty in accessing to distant markets and high perishability of the produce force the farmers to surrender their precious possessions from land at literally throw away prices. The cooperative sector supposed to be capable of replacing the current system of agri marketing has not yet taken off in any significant way, continuing the misery of the growers. Organized retailing which have come to stay in the country is not able to establish linkages with the growers and integrate their back office operations to any meaningful extent due to many reasons for which solutions lie at the door steps of the GOI.

A recent study in Jharkhand has brought out this reality, literally mocking at out impotency in not doing any thing to address these burning issues. " Based on a primary survey conducted with vegetable farmers, it has been found that the average farmer spends 7.5 hours (two hours to travel to the market and another two hours to return as well as 3.5 hours at the wholesale market itself) to conduct an agricultural transaction that is valued on an average at about Rs 3,000.Further, it has been found that few of the regulated market rules are respected in these markets and that brokers routinely charge commission rates to farmers as well as retailers that exceed the mandated rates".It transpires that the farmer has to fore go 25-38% of the realized price, leaving practically nothing for his efforts in growing, protecting the crop, harvesting, packing and bringing to the regulated market!.

The fact that big retailers are able to by pass the middlemen in many cases and give higher prices for their procurements does not seem to have sunk in with the political bosses at Delhi as reflected by the reiteration by a Parliamentary committee not to permit foreign investments in retailing business. Just bad luck for the Indian farmer. Only hope, for a better wisdom in Delhi, can sustain his will to continue!.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com