For
Outstanding Research on Food Distribution and Marketing
The
Food Distribution Research Society (FDRS) is pleased to accept applications for
the 2015 Richardson-Applebaum
Scholarship Award, which is awarded annually for outstanding student
research in the area of food distribution and marketing. Broadly defined, this
area encompasses all economic functions that occur between the farm gate and
final consumer.
The
competition is open to all graduate students with scholarly interest and career
aspirations in the food distribution system who have completed the degree in
2014 or by May, 2015.
Award
·Cash
stipends of:
o$1,250
for the best PhD Dissertation
o$750
for the best MS Thesis
o$750
for the best MS Case Study or Research Paper
·Complementary
student membership to FDRS
·Complementary conference
registration fees and recognition at the 2015 FDRS Annual
Conference
scheduled for October 9-14, 2015 in Philadelphia, PA. The recipients’ domestic
travel expenses will also be paid by the society.
·The
PhD recipient is invited to present his/her research at the conference.
·A brief synopsis of academic training, career interests,
career goals and objectives, and a description of any food industry experience
and/or research experience
·Name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail of the
applicant
·A copy of the dissertation/thesis/case study
·A letter of recommendation from the academic advisor
Please visit the FDRS website at: www.fdrsinc.orgor
contact FDRS’s Vice President for Education: Dr. Alba Collart at ac2479@msstate.edu.
Fresh produce is displayed at the Ferry Plaza Farmers Market on March 27, 2014 in San Francisco.Justin Sullivan—Getty Images
It’s no secret that the organic food market is ever-growing. Organic food hit $28.4 billion in sales last year, and the Nutrition Business Journal reports that organic food products will
reach and estimated $35 billion in 2014. Yet despite the popularity of
“local” and “organic,” Americans are still very confused about what
those words mean, according to a recent study published in the International Food and Agribusiness Management Review.
A
team of researchers surveyed consumers across the U.S. and Canada and
discovered that 17% of the people they spoke with incorrectly believed
that foods labelled “organic” were also grown locally. Another 23%
falsely believe that local produce is grown organically. Researches also
found that 40% of consumers think “organic” food is more nutritious
than conventional food, while 29% believe that “local” products are more
nutritious than their imported equivalents.
But
when you scrutinize the laws governing what food companies can and
cannot say on labels, it becomes obvious why consumers are so confused.
Words like “all natural” and even “free range” are not easily (or often)
policed, and many words used on so-called health foods have no legal
definition enforceable by the Food and Drug Administration or the
Federal Trade Commission.
So, what’s organic?
“Organic” is more straightforward, from a legal perspective, but most
consumers likely do not know that. To be labelled organic, a producer
must abide by a stringent set of government standards. The USDA
qualifies produce as organic if no synthetic pesticides, chemical
fertilizers or genetically modified organisms (GMO) are used. Pest
control and crop nutrients must be managed through natural physical,
mechanical and biological controls. And when producing organic meat,
eggs and dairy, for instance, farmers must provide non-GMO livestock
with year-round outdoor access. They are also prohibited from using
growth hormones or antibiotics. The U.S. and Canada follow fairly
similar organic guidelines, said the study.
And what’s local?
“Local,” meanwhile, is murky. A 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
stated that “though ‘local’ has a geographic connotation, there is no
consensus on a definition in terms of the distance between production
and consumption.” This despite a provision in the 2008 Farm Act, that
stated, in part, that any food labeled “local” must be produced in the
“locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the
total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles
from the origin of the product.”
To put the distance in perspective, a drive from Washington, D.C., to
Boston is about 400 miles, which means “local” is not necessarily
close-by. Many states have limited “local” to mean produced within the
state, and some retailers and restaurants have their own definitions.
Many farm-to-table restaurants, for example, only serve food from within
a 100-mile radius.
And are they healthier?
For the health-conscious, organic food is probably better for you—but
not necessarily because of traditional nutrition measures. A 2012 study
conducted by Stanford’s Center for Health Policy concluded that organic
produce is not more nutrition-dense than its generic counterparts.
However, the research was widely panned for taking a narrow view of
nutrition. Counterarguments insisted that food grown without chemical
fertilizers and pesticides—which is to say organic—are by definition
healthier choices.
As for the 29% of consumer who believe local food is more nutritious,
they may be right. Most nutrients begin to degrade the moment a fresh
piece of produce is picked, so the sooner it gets to you the better.
Many studies have shown that a peach or berry picked closer to ripeness
is more nutritious than a fruit—organic or not—picked before or after
its peak of ripeness.
The bottom line
Both organic and local are good healthy options, but knowing the
difference is important—especially when you consider the cost that can
be attached to both.
We
saw falls in consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for beef and pork
products this month, and a slight uptick in WTP for chicken. Expected
prices and spending patterns remained similar to last month.
Concern
for all food issues rose, notably for bird flu and swine flu.
Consumers noticed fewer stories about GMOs in the news this month
compared to last.
We also added three new ad hoc questions this month.
The first question asked: “Do you support or oppose the following government policies?” 86.5%
of respondents support mandatory country of origin labels for meat. A
large majority (82%) support mandatory labels on GMOs, but curiously
about the same amount (80%) also support mandatory labels on foods
containing DNA. The least popular policies were bans on transfats, bans
on sales of marijuana, and a tax on sugared sodas. Only about 39% of
respondents supported a sugared soda tax.
Secondly,
participants were asked “Did you read any books about food and
agriculture in the past year?” Just over 16% of participants stated
that they had read a book related to food and agriculture in the past
year. About 81% answered “No”, and 3% answered “I don’t know”.
Those
who answered “Yes” were asked: “What is the title of the most recent
book you read about food and agriculture?” The vast majority of
responses were of the form “I don’t remember” or “cannot recall”. Fast
Food Nation, Food Inc., and Omnivore’s Dilemma were each mentioned about
three times. The Farmer’s Almanac and Skinny Bitch were mentioned
twice. One respondent mentioned the bible.
Global Growth Agendas: Regions,
Institutions and Sustainability
May 24-27, 2015
Università
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy
Rural areas are
at times assumed to be characterized by low distribution income and low levels
of social and economic capital. This lagging condition was due to a multitude
of constraints to development: poor economic potential,
isolation, absence of agglomeration economies and creativity. In addition, many scholars thought that
these areas were only reservoir of natural resources or specialized only in traditional agricultural
activities.
At present, these
areas are facing severe pressure: urban sprawl and secondary and tertiary
sectors restructuring promote their evident transformation into new territories
with untraditional
characteristics.
In fact, these
changes are not only economic, but also define social and environmental
variations; at the same time, the reaction to these changes is not identical
for all rural areas.
“Rural” area is
now a succession of full and empty spaces, marginal and rehabilitated areas,
from the apparent concentration of population and economic activities or
disorderly dispersion of settlements, sometimes abandoned. It has a variety of
landscapes, such as small urban areas and cities, forests, farms, greenfield
sites, concentrations of industrial crops. It has also a social structure and
relationship that is not based on the most typical values of rural society and
an economic structure based not only on agriculture.
Rural areas are
facing their traditional isolation, weakness and vulnerability in new ways.
This session
would like to invite to critically debate about all these changes. Assumptions
concerning transformations on socio-cultural, environmental and economic
realities will be analyzed in order to identify their impacts on rural
characteristics and their possible resurgence and dynamism. In addition, government
and promotion choices about these changes will be studied. The session tried to
bring together papers from a range of discipline, such as regional and rural
economics, environmental and social studies.
If you need any
information about it, please feel free to contact Valentina Cattivelli
(chairman)
Complementary conference
registration fees and recognition at the 2015 FDRS Annual 
