NFAPP's Newsletter May 1996

Featured Articles :

"Border Crossings: Are the Mexican Trucks Unsafe?", by Daphne McKenzie
Topic: Mexico-U.S. Border Crossings.

"Legislative Update.....Delaney Reform", by Pamela Mischen
Topic: Delaney Reform, Methyl Bromide

"Market Watch.....Lettuce Market Update", by Richard Adu-Asamoah
Topic: Economics, Technology to Rescue Faltering Lettuce Demand

This year, an estimated 2 million trucks will cross the US/Mexican border, 25 percent increase from last year. The NAFTA agreement, with the intention of liberalizing North American markets, authorized Mexican trucks to travel freely in the four border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. This access was scheduled to begin on December 18, 1995, with full access to the United States to begin in January 2000. However, due to the increased DOT inspections of Mexican truckers due to safety related issues, they are currently allowed to travel only 25 miles across the border in these states. The Mexican government responded to the increased US border inspections by placing the same restrictions on US truckers traveling into Mexico.

Are these Mexican truckers really as unsafe as the Teamsters Union and the media have led us to believe? According to sources at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Arizona and Texas Departments of Transportation, there is not enough information to form any conclusions. The US and Mexican governments are trying to standardize the requirements for truckers but this becomes an arduous process as there are some issues that cannot be agreed upon. Drivers' age, inspection criteria, traffic control devices and road signs, and certain hazardous materials regulations have been standardized by negotiators already. There are some major differences in Mexican and US trucking regulations that have yet to be negotiated and will be difficult to come to an agreement.

These differences in regulations (see Table 1) have caused so much of the friction related to this program. The US claims that lack of restriction on hours of service by Mexican truckers puts truckers and other people on the road in danger due to driver exhaustion when on the road for more than 10 hours. Mexican drivers with heavier gross weight limits are able to overload their trucks causing dangerous situations and more rapid deterioration of road surfaces. This causes problems with that states that have the most border traffic due to the greater need for road construction. Although these differences have not yet been negotiated, they will need to be addressed and accepted by both parties in order to alleviate the fears surrounding the current border crossings policies.



There is very little data to determine the safety of Mexican trucks. Weekly data collected by the US Department of Transportation does not provide conclusive information on the safety of Mexican trucks. In a January 20-26 weekly report on border crossings, there were 952 inspections by US Border officials. 80 percent of the trucks inspected were Mexican and 20 percent were US trucks. Although the number of truckers put out of service for vehicle violations were 22 percent higher for Mexican trucks, both US and Mexican trucks were above the US national average for 1994. Mexican vehicles were taken out of service most often with tire, brake, wheel, lighting, and fuel system problems (in descending order). Data on what problems affected the US trucks put out of service was not available.

The Mexican trucking industry is at a disadvantage compared to US truckers. They lack much of the financing to bring their trucks up to US standards but have agreed to comply with nearly all of the US standards. The US, on the other hand, has not made many concessions to allow the Mexicans to "catch-up". The border crossing program has been in effect for five months. Although it seems as if the Mexican trucks are unsafe in comparison with US trucks, the US has only been inspecting Mexican trucks for a short time. With time, the quality and quantity of the Mexican trucks crossing the border and traveling in the US will improve. Time is also needed to change misconceptions about the safety of Mexican truckers and allow them to comply with US safety standards.

The Senate Agriculture Committee will be holding hearings on the Food Protection Act of 1995 (S. 1166) on May 22, 1996. This bill would amend the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act by:
1) Replacing the "zero risk" Delaney Clause with a "negligible risk" standard;
2) Encouraging USDA, EPA and HHS to implement the National Academy of Sciences recommendations regarding pesticides and children; and
3) Providing minor use crop protection.

The Delaney Clause, which was written in 1958, prohibits from foods any pesticides or additives that are possible carcinogens with a "zero risk" standard. Critics of Delaney argue that this standard has become increasingly difficult to meet as technological improvements in detection of such compounds have made it possible to detect concentrations of a few parts per trillion. As a result, the Delaney Clause has not been strictly enforced in recent years.

Proponents of reform would like to see the zero risk tolerance replaced with a "negligible risk" standard that would apply to both raw and processed foods. The Bill would also allow the EPA to increase the tolerance for certain pesticide residues. For instance, if loss of the pesticide would jeopardize the food supply or if the alternative pest control measure poses a greater threat than the pesticide residues, tolerances could be altered.

Furthermore, states would be barred from setting pesticide residue standards higher than the federal standards. However, states may petition EPA to grant it a different standard.

In the House, the Minor Use provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (H.R. 1627) has gone through the House Agriculture Committee. The Delaney provisions are awaiting action from the House Commerce Committee.

The House Bill currently has 240 cosponsors. The Senate Bill has 30 cosponsors. Both chambers expect passage before the end of the session.

Elimination of Methyl Bromide has also been a source of concern for the fruit and vegetable industry. Efforts to revise the Clean Air Act to delay the phase out have given way to a push through the Appropriations Committee to fund research on methyl bromide alternatives. Current provisions call for a complete phase out by 2010. (See January 1996 issue of the NFAPP Newsletter for more details.)

A casual look at the data on per capita consumption of iceberg lettuce leads to one basic question. Has the surge in lettuce consumption in the 1980s worn off? If the answer is yes, what happened, and what can be done to improve the situation? A much deeper look, however, reveals a changing structure of the industry that seems to shape the new trends in demand.

In the early 1980s a lot of effort went into promoting healthy eating to include servings of fresh vegetables, and salads. By the late 1980s, it appeared that a faltering per capita consumption of iceberg lettuce since 1977 (25.8 pounds) had recovered (1987 = 25.7 pounds; the 1978-86 average per capita consumption was 24.3 pounds.). Per capita consumption dramatically increased during the next two years (27.0 pounds in 1988, and 28.8 pounds in 1989), only to decline to a twenty-six-year low of 21.2 pounds in 1995 (Figure 1).
In recent years romaine and other leaf lettuces (R&L) have gained popularity, probably at the expense of iceberg lettuce. Per capita consumption of romaine and other leaf lettuce increased from 2.4 pounds in 1986 to 4.9 pounds in 1993. Consumption in 1995 is estimated at 4.4 pounds per capita. These increases in consumption of R&L appear to have improved the financial situation of growers who have diversified into R&L, and away from iceberg lettuce. The economic rewards offered by R&L have changed the dynamics of the lettuce industry through acreage increases, and investments to improve the yield of R&L. There seems to be a marginal structural change in the demand for iceberg lettuce necessitated by the variety that R&L can offer. R&L offers diverse use in caesar salads, and romaine in bagged salads. The popularity of romaine hearts, caesar salads, and the ability of romaine to hold up well in "fresh-cut processing" have contributed to expanding acreage in California. While iceberg lettuce is still "king"among lettuces in the marketplace, the momentum for market expansion has favored romaine and the other leaf lettuces during the past five years. The proportion of leaf/romaine acreage to total lettuce acreage has increased from 9.5% in 1986 to 33.3% in 1995; the proportion of production has increased from 7.0% in 1987 to 18.3% in 1995; and the percentage of total lettuce value attributable to romaine and other leaf lettuces has increased from 7.9% in 1987 to 27.1% in 1995 (Figure 2).

The nutrient-, taste-, and convenience-conscious consumer seems to be dictating the future of the lettuce industry. The apparent shift from iceberg lettuce to leaf/romaine is not surprising to many. The nutrient content of lettuce, especially iceberg lettuce, is not particularly high, and neither is the vegetable flavorful. Biotechnologists are entertaining the idea of including beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, and E in iceberg lettuce so as to make it something more than a carrier for salad dressing. Bioengineering can now be used to change enzyme production, and manage the characteristics of plant materials that produce sweetness, flavor and more appealing colors. Texture can also be changed to allow cut vegetables to stay crisper and firmer. It may also be possible to use a similar technology to turn off the gene that codes the enzyme that triggers browning on cut surfaces of lettuce. Lettuce bolts in hot weather, and romaine lettuce, especially, develops weak stems in early heat and dry conditions. Biotechnology can help produce lettuce varieties that are less susceptible to weather conditions, so that spoilage can be minimized.

The move toward more specialty lettuces is still strong and growing nationwide, especially in the Northeast and the West. In most regions, retail outlets and foodservice customers are helping to build demand for value-added specialty lettuces in salad mix products. Already, there are signs that 1996 will be a better year for both iceberg and R&L in terms of demand. Total shipments as of the end of April 1996 were about 3.7 percent higher than the same period in 1995. Iceberg and R&L shipments were 0.31 percent and 20 percent, respectively, higher than in 1995, suggesting a growth in demand. Again, the proportion of R&L in total lettuce shipments grew faster during the first four months of 1996 (20.1%) than during the same period in 1995 (17%), suggesting a higher growth in demand for R&L. Based on shipment projections, 1996 per capita consumption of iceberg lettuce will marginally improve to about 21.5 pounds while per capita consumption of R&L will increase to about 5.1 pounds. On the average R&L grower prices will be about 8 percent higher than iceberg lettuce for the year. The higher grower prices of R&L are expected to contribute to increased acreage (34.9% of total lettuce acreage), increased production (18.6%), and increased value to producers (28.1% of the total value of all lettuces)

If the attributes that investments in biotechnology can produce are realized, consumers can have their nutritious, flavorful, and colorful salads with desirable textures at reasonable prices. Demand is bound to increase under these conditions. It will be a dream come true for both producers and health-conscious consumers.

Back to NFAPP's Newsletter Articles Page

Back to NFAPP's Homepage