Our piece, Remembering Jack Pandol, brought back many
memories. Most of us, if we are lucky, have an imprint on our immediate family
or perhaps our community. Jack seemed to have impact on the whole world.
As Rick Eastes, whose letter about Jack we included in our
piece, wrote after the funeral:
The funeral was really a
celebration of Jack’s life and Frieda Caplan gave an excellent eulogy, as did
Jack’s physician son. This was a truly international event. It was as if the
world, and most of California agriculture, was in attendance.
Frieda also sent us a note after the funeral:
Karen and I just
returned from the JACK PANDOL MEMORIAL SERVICE... and saw both Rick and Mary
Eastes and Bruce Obbink... so I commented to them about their letters that
appeared in the PUNDIT piece regarding the passing of Jack Pandol... By the way,
the church had a capacity of 1000 and it looked pretty full!
Just so you know ...
Fred Williamson, President of Andrew & Williamson... was reading the PUNDIT late
the night before the funeral... and learned of Jack’s passing. Though he didn’t
know Jack personally, he was so overwhelmed by your story, he got up (In San
Diego the morning of the funeral) at 5 a.m. and drove to Bakersfield in order to
attend!
The power of the Prevor
Pen!
—Frieda Rapoport Caplan
Founder
Frieda’s, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
Since Jack was known across the planet, many couldn’t make
it to the funeral. We asked both Frieda, and Jack’s eldest son, Stephen, if they
would allow us to share their eulogies with the industry which they most
graciously did. Frieda Rapoport Caplan spoke these words:
The last time I saw Jack
Pandol was a very joyous occasion. It was about four or five years ago at the
Produce Marketing Convention in Anaheim. These are cherished events where you
not only renew business relationships but it is a wonderful opportunity to visit
and greet long time friends.
When Jack and Winnie
walked up to our booth... and we made eye contact... both Jack and I became
teary-eyed as we hugged. Since my daughters, Karen and Jackie, were there, they
joined us in a group hug. My daughters were well aware of our long term
relationship with this wonderful, giving couple.
Karen thanked Jack
profusely for taking her phone call a few years earlier when we needed guidance
on how to handle a potential new grower. Like many others, we turned to Jack on
how to handle what might be a difficult relationship. His advice... this
particular time... stay away from these people... they are nothing but trouble.
I met Jack in 1957...
just after I started selling fresh mushrooms at Giumarra brothers on the 7th
Street Produce Market in Los Angeles.. He was walking by our stall and paused to
ask if I would sell him some of our white button mushrooms. He was getting ready
for his annual Delano barbeque at the Slav Club... for which he was famous
because he did all the cooking for his many friends and associates.
Having no clue to who he
was... I was still pretty new to the produce business... I had to ask someone at
Giumarra Bros. if Jack Pandol was credit-worthy!... And this was the beginning
of a relationship that lasted all these many years.
Soon after I founded
what is now known as Frieda’s Specialty Produce... Jack needed an outlet to help
market and introduce the first produce item that he sourced from China. Many
people, even today, are totally unaware of Jack’s visionary role in opening up
trade with China. The item was fresh waterchestnuts. Frankly, this was not a
particularly successful venture, financially... but demonstrated Jack’s
inventive way of opening the door for our produce industry... and it paid off in
relationship-building... not only for Pandol brothers... but it pried open the
door for other U.S. produce companies as well.
Though it may not have
been popular politically... opening business in China at that time... this
didn’t stop Jack. He was one of those rare individuals who was able to envision
opportunities that would eventually benefit, not only Pandol Brothers, but U.S.
businesses of all types.
Knowing the importance
of industry associations, Jack literally changed the direction of the Produce
Marketing Association, by serving as the first chairman of PMA’s international
trade committee, which was created in 1983... largely at his initiative.
As many of you know,
Jack enjoyed stirring up controversy in our industry, especially if he felt it
would help us reach new heights of produce consumption.
My most vivid personal
experience with Jack was the time... when he and I were invited to address the
International Apple Association’s annual convention. I think we were both
invited because we had recently, though independently, challenged conventional
wisdom on the direction that the apple industry was taking.
While my talk questioned
the future of the Red Delicious apple, Jack stunned this audience (and did he
love the controversy that ensued) when he challenged the growers in the audience
to rethink their growing processes and consider growing apples organically.
“Orangic” was a dirty word for many of the growers present.
You can’t imagine the
hell and backlash he caused that day... he was lucky that he got out of this
convention unscathed... and then, our produce press picked up on Jack’s comments
and helped spread the word to the many thousands of industry members who weren’t
present to hear what Jack had to say that day.
Time, of course, has
shown that Jack’s visionary ability was once again, right on!
Jack, over the years,
has literally mentored hundreds of members of our industry. I want to read to
you an especially touching tribute my daughter Karen received on August 6th,
after she wrote to Bill Lewis, a former Pandol employee, who still lives in
Chile.
“Hi karen... thank you
for thinking of me. Jack truly was such an important influence, in business and
in my case... romance. When I foolishly fell hopelessly in love with Andrea, who
was living on the other side of the world, Jack immediately solved the problem
for me. I never asked what my salary was and really had no idea what I was
getting into, but I have never regretted leaving Topco (former employer) because
it was exciting to work for Jack. He was much more than an employer; he was like
my favorite uncle who we always were trying to keep out of trouble. I’ve learned
so much from him.
“I’m in the Elqui valley
right now and in deep reflection. Jack’s death is bittersweet as he suffered the
past years. We worked hard to get him the Bernardo O’Higgins knighthood and when
he received it, he was not truly able to enjoy the honor. Still, it is a
testament to the kind of man he was.”
In 2009, Jack was
presented with this award by Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet, the highest
honor given by the people of Chile to a foreign citizen.
One prestigeous award he
was able to receive and enjoy in person was the “produce man for all seasons,”
presented at PMA’s national convention by the Packer newspaper in 1987.
Jack may have passed
from planet earth... but his impact in and on our industry has been and will be
enormous... not only because of the international markets he opened and
developed, and the produce items he introduced, but most importantly, the many
talented family members and Pandol staff members he nurtured. With the help of
his lifelong partner, Winnie, this will keep his presence uppermost in our
industry’s daily lives for many years to come.
To Jack’s amazing
family… and especially to Winnie… I thank you so much for asking me to be part
of this celebration of Jack Pandol’s life and legacy.
Stephen Pandol
represented His family with these thoughts:
I am Stephen, Jack’s
oldest son representing his family. First, thank you all for coming today. Each
and every one of you here today played key roles in enriching and making his
life the wonderful event that it was. We thank you, and Jack thanks you for
being there and the blessings you brought to him and his family.
Now I will tell you the
story of the inception of our family.
When Jack returned from
the Service after WWII, he had a singular mission — to court Winifred
Zaninovich. She was a few years younger and grew up in her family home that was
about 20 miles from his family’s home both on Road 192, a country road in Tulare
County. They didn’t have an official relationship before he left for the service
but they wrote to each other while he was away.
Upon returning, he
wanted to show his intentions by going to meet with her and her family soon
after returning. This was so important to him that he described to us in later
years the stress, emotion and details of his driving this 20 miles from his
house to her family’s house. Like many men returning from the service, he felt
somehow less than worthy of such an important girl. He was an emotional wreck
trying to make this 20 mile drive.
Many years later he
recalled his pounding heart and difficulty breathing as he started on his way.
He stopped the car and even turned around to return back to his home a couple of
times. He talked about being weak in the knees going up the steps to her house.
Imagine this man who had just fought bravely in the war having such a difficult
time in going to see Winifred to court her. Well, that is who he was and how
important Winifred was to him. And that is how the family started.
There were many things
we admired about Jack. Even though he had a shy way about him as you see from
the story I just told, he stood strong in his convictions, in his love for his
family, in his passion for his work and love for those he worked with. He was
confident and unapologetic in his approach. We all saw that special quality and
how it impacted all of us both in the family and his world. His convictions and
values have been so powerful that they are influencing the oldest to the
youngest generations in our family.
Now, I have a poetic
prayer from Jack to all of us
Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there, I do not sleep
I am a thousand winds that blow
I am the diamond glints on snow
I am the sunlight on ripened grain
I am the gentle autumn rain
When you awaken in the morning’s hush, I am the swift up-flinging rush of quiet
birds in circling flight
I am the soft star that shines at night
Do not stand at my grave and cry
I am not there
I did not die
Jack lives with us.
******
Stephen elected to recite
Do Not Stand at my Grave and Weep, a 1932 poem written by Mary Elizabeth Frye. The poem is believed to have been written to Frye’s friend, a Jewish girl of German descent whose mother died back in Germany, and it was not possible for her to go back and visit her mother.
It also strikes us as especially appropriate to be read at
Jack Pandol’s funeral. So many who knew him could not have the satisfaction of
being with him and seeing him laid to rest.
They will, however, draw solace from Frieda’s boisterous jaunt through a real life business relationship and friendship with Jack and his son’s poetic admonition that the great live on through our own conduct.
We have one more important piece to write about Jack Pandol in the next Pundit for now we say, simply, peace be with Jack and all who loved him.
Tom Reardon of Michigan State University Speaks Out:
Wither Local?
We’ve received many letters on the piece including a piece from some of the panel participants. We thought, however, that we would start with a submission from a distinguished academic who sees local from halfway around the world:
Jim, as usual I found
your writing brilliant, and this time it was regarding the “local foods” issue.
At dawn here in Beijing I wanted to send some additional and/or confirming
thoughts. I hope you accept these points, even though I am writing from more
than 50 miles away from you.
First, let’s face it,
the Chinese, the French, and the Italians (and I can add the Mexicans and
Indians, and have actually listed what foodies often list as the great original
cuisines) are (or I can soften that by saying, are among) the greatest food
cultures on earth, with the greatest variety, taste, refinement, obsession with
freshness, the history of each dish, mania for regional specialties.
I have found that the
average (I mean average) Chinese, Italian or French person I know talks, thinks
and knows as much about produce as the “industry practitioners and experts” as
one finds in PMA meetings and so on. (I love PMA so I am not “dissing” them, I
am just saying the obvious for anyone who spends time in the great food culture
countries.) I think that these countries “have it right” in terms of local foods
— they think “FOOD REGIONS.”
At any time, in my
offices in China or India, or the university where I spend time in France, I can
just grab anyone… secretary, professional, local baker, trucker… anyone… and I
can say “what’s in season and where is it from?” Anyone… anyone... will tell me
in enthusiastic, vivid, and voluminous detail about what peaches or mangos are
“coming in” (please remember the verb… “coming in”) coming in from what region.
They can describe
exactly when they start “coming in”, and when they “are over” and aren’t worth a
word or a chew. In my office in Beijing the other day, I watched everyone (not
“food experts”!) crowd around a table at a work break; we were all cutting up,
shouting, laughing (the usual scene, I have found, in China, one of the great
fun places to work); they were obsessing about … Thai mangosteen (we had a few
open and the crowd was digging into them with a kind of food insanity), peaches
from Xianjin (these will give my home state California a run for their money…),
melons from a local province (only 200 miles away), and an apple from the US.
They liked these things
and paid their lower incomes for them because they think they have good TASTE.
They CELEBRATED the regions they are from. They did not say, oh, I am sorry, I
only eat things grown 100 miles around Beijing! IF and ONLY IF the BEST version
of that kind of produce were grown that close to Beijing would they eat it,
unless it is just some commodity product that anyone can grow anywhere about the
same, unless they mess it up.
I have seen the same
scene in offices and homes in France, Italy, India (for fruit and certain
vegetables) and obviously Mexico. As usual, France, I think, is leading the way
in marrying the modern food system with this traditional food love and culture
of “food regions.” They have programs (one of the government, one of the private
sector), one of which is called “Reflets de France”, reflections of France. They
SELL each region’s specialities (of many foods) … ALL OVER FRANCE.
So a “consumer” in
Bordeaux will go to the supermarket and pick up, savor, love, discuss,
celebrate, the specialties of departments in the South, North, East, and West.
(It is never “local versus non-local” that dominates their choices, or I have
never seen this… it is the taste, the season, the tradition of specialty, and if
the local is producing something good, they just pull it into the general set of
things they love.)
These same persons will
ooh and ahhh over an orange from Israel, a mango from India, and berries from
Serbia. IF and ONLY IF their local producers can produce the best option for
taste (for things with taste differentials), they will buy it. They will eye it,
sniff it, touch it, figure it out. Typically they will… already know… what
things the local folks can do well, and when, and just then judge among the
local producers, assuming that anyone worth his/her salt will do well the local
traditional thing, or if they introduce a new thing, they will have the common
sense to make sure that it upholds the same quality tradition as the other
things made.
But of course these same
consumers will pick over bargains for produce and other foods that they are not
looking for particular flavor or differentiation in, and if they are poor or
lower middle or even middle, those things may be most of what they buy. So they
will combine looking for cheap commodities, and looking for the “regional home
runs” … whatever region, inside or outside France, that they can find. The same
I see in China, the same in India, in Mexico, in Italy. In my personal life, I
try to follow the food ideas of these people, as I think that they know … a lot
more than I do about food. I go to the local farmers market when I can because I
know there are some local things around my Michigan area and San Diego area that
folks there do well, and when they do it, and little by little, I learn who can
do it.
Second, it seems to me
that the mix we now see of “globalization” (just another way of saying what Jim
said, the development first of national rather than local, then international
rather than only national, markets with great variety of foreign produce and
other products to choose from) and the “buy local” “movement” are inevitable
partners, neither will go away, and neither will beat out the other for the next
10-20 years – and then the “markets” side will (again, as it already did once..
in the 1950s/1960s) win. For several reasons I note below:
1. Consumers AND producers
LOVE the growth of national and international markets — the formation of
national, and then the development of international markets — for everything,
and produce is part of that. One famous berry grower in Michigan told me when I
asked him about “buy local movement”, he said, “Well Tom, I can’t sell a lot of
berries within 100 miles of my operation.” I am sure that anyone who is
COMPETITIVE (on quality or cost or both) and has a SHIPPABLE product would say
that. Producers want big markets! They want FREE MARKETS, not quotas, tariffs,
blockages and constraints; they want the right to compete for their apples to
get in and duke it out in Beijing with Chinese apples, their grapes and cherries
to be sold in Japan, their oranges to sit on French supermarket shelves. Having
little local markets means that the producer cannot get scale, return on her
investment, and become more and more competitive to expand her market and grow.
This is, of course, obvious. Consumers also want big markets. They want choice.
They want to save money, they want to find the best product. They want things in
season, wherever that product is coming from. They want to buy from the most
competitive (in quality, or cost, or both) producers… from anywhere. That is why
a local major retailer in Michigan told my class that the “country of origin”
thing had nearly no effect on his sales; he noted that by far the regular
consumer does not even register any of that. They want quality, or price, or
both, and assume the supermarket chain has the sense to screen product to make
sure they buy safe.
2. Consumers AND producers
LOVE the growth of local markets — for the things that local suppliers can
produce with quality and/or good price. I obsessively buy Michigan peaches and
tomatoes in season, and go into a kind of juice-covered trance eating them by
the bushel. These peaches are like the ones I ate as a boy in California. We all
want that. Few consumers really want to eat “pink baseballs” (my term since a
kid for the tomatoes found in most supermarkets at least until the recent trend
toward slightly better tomatoes). Consumers love to be able to “connect” (so
little experienced in modern life) with farmers and the “land” through at least
thinking that “hey, this is produced by the local folks, I feel part of their
community;this is not some ‘big farm to big box’ cage I am confined to…” and so
on. This love and yearning for the local will only grow and grow as several
things happen: (a) for defensive reasons, as it slowly dawns on us that
foreigners are doing things more and more with the same or better quality but
lower cost, and we panic and hug our local produce to reassure that we are still
somehow more important and better than the foreigners are; (b) for proactive
reasons, as the local produce becomes better or cheaper or more available as
local producers, such as in delicate greens, scale up, and hopefully have a big
enough market to make enough money to make the needed investments in food
safety!
Third, however, it seems
to me that over time the “buy local” movement will simply wither on the vine.
Not that I want it to (this letter is odd because when I am in any place,
including Michigan or China, I obsessively buy the local specialties, frequent
farmers markets, etc.) … but … modern packaging and shipping methods are … more
and more… making it possible to keep a product, even a delicate one, fresh even
if shipped, and allow harvesting when the product is ripe.
Greenhouse technology is
constantly improving. My usual dinner in East Lansing is Indiana chicken, cooked
in California Meyer lemons, with a salad of Mexican tomatoes and organic arugula
from a massive organic farm in California, and Hawaiian or Brazilian papaya or
Michigan or Chilean berries for dessert (yet I am still fat! Explain that!!!). I
was amazed a few years ago when I could get the delicate—and I thought
unshippable Meyer lemons, arugula, and papayas—and a few years later, I think of
that as commonplace. And it all is more and more. The LOCAL operations, in other
places, became more and more competitive, and the shipping technology better and
better, so that THEIR LOCAL BECAME MY MEAL.
As these technologies
develop, the local producers will lose any “automatic advantage” in the local
market. In fact, of course (as this is already happening), the COMPETITIVE
producers of delicate fresh produce will be PROMOTING the development of better
packaging and shipping, so they can grow their market beyond the local. That is
exactly the story of the Michigan berry producers, or the Chileans. I think
those competitive companies would find the “buy local” movement in fact a way to
TORPEDO the development of competitiveness in their industry… just like
subsidizing soybean production etc.
Subsidize the producer
(that is what the “buy local” movement boils down to), and, of course, the
producer gets some short-term gains, but as usual, because thus protected from
competition, does not invest enough, stay safe enough, keep quality in mind,
thinks she has a captive local consumer, and then lets quality decline or costs
creep up. The local consumers, of course, eventually tire of that, and they
embrace non-local product, and the local guy is wiped out. Is this not a story
we hear over and over and over, not just in agriculture?
So I think that what
will happen is that the “buy local” movement will be caught from two sides in a
pincer — the formerly non-shippable (ripe fruit, delicate greens, etc.) products
will become increasingly cheap and shippable and undermine the advantage of any
firm hoping to be protected from competition by the transport barrier — and the
local firms that are producing products that were by nature supposedly local
(like organic arugula! Usually cited a decade ago as the super duper local-only
product!) will compete with each other and a handful per region and product will
emerge victorious, maybe surrounded by a cluster of smaller firms serving niches
(that add up to say 10% of the main market for the product).
This seems to me to be
exactly what has happened in organic greens in the US… Then these local strong
firms will use the increasing shipment and packaging technology to ship all
around (and will fight to keep markets free and open) – and/or they will pepper
the cities of the US and other places with roboticized greenhouses that
reproduce their product and ship it locally by special train compartments in the
elevated trains that will replace freeways…
His perspective on “local” is especially intriguing
because he travels for extended periods due to his global work. So he has come
to see local from the standpoint of being many different places. This is an
enriching perspective and Professor Reardon’s views are enlightening.
Professor Reardon is, though, an economist, and one
wonders if the economically sensible comeuppance he envisions for local might
not be superseded by politics.
Stated most rationally, those who promote local as a
virtue in and of itself are really claiming that there exist
externalities in shipping food long distances that are not properly being
reflected in the price of food brought into an area. These externalities could
include anything from the costs of global warming, to the need to maintain a
navy to protect shipping lanes transporting food, to nutrient loss from food
being shipped for extended periods.
This is a weak argument, though, because, first, it is not
sufficient to proclaim the vague existence of externalities; those who want to
claim this are obligated to detail what specific externalities exist and what
burden they impose. Second, although moving produce may result in externalities,
so does local growing. So, for example, although transport may cause carbon
emission, so does farming and at differential rates in different places
utilizing different methods. If the claim is externalities, one must contrast
externalities.
Third, the proper solution to externalities is typically
taxation — not a ban. So, if transporting produce does emit carbon more than
local grower, the policy response would be to impose a tax that would allow us
to rectify that situation. If, even with the tax, the distant produce can
compete, there is no reason to not use it.
Though the externality argument strikes us as the
strongest argument for the local movement, in most cases advocates don’t even
attempt to make it.
Very often actions are advocated as a kind of
protectionism. The whole COOL effort, which we wrote about
here in Pundit sister-publication, PRODUCE BUSINESS, was less about any consumer demand for such labeling than
about producers hoping it would change consumer behavior.
As Professor Reardon writes, improved transport and
packaging and the spread of sophisticated horticultural techniques means that
many production communities that were once isolated now face competition and are
seeking solutions.
The danger is that they may turn to politics to achieve
protection from international trade and use a “locavore” cover as justification.
This would stop the withering away of the local movement that Professor Reardon
projects — but it would be a shame. It would deprive consumers of the produce
they would like to buy; it would deprive shippers of the economy of scale needed
to be most efficient, and, perhaps saddest of all, it would in the end atrophy
the local producers. Think of French cinema, protected, nurtured, subsidized, —
and barely watched.
For producers to be world class, the only answer is
competition.
We enjoy locavore interests. To taste locally grown Red
Amish Deer Tongue lettuce that doesn’t ship and is always suffering from crop
failures is neat, it is fun — but it is not a way to feed the world.
Many thanks to Professor Reardon for providing a different
perspective.
When All Else Fails… Raise Rates And Inconvenience
Customers More
The way you can treat your customers when you have a
monopoly is amazing. The volume of letters and packages is dropping each year at
the U.S. Postal Service. In 2006 it handled 213 billion pieces of mail; volume
dropped in 2007, 2008, and in 2009 the volume handled was only 177 billion
pieces. The brilliant solution the Post Office came up with to deal with the terrible problem was to
raise rates, so come January 1, 2011, the cost of a first class stamp will
rise to 46 cents.
Now that postage has some competition in the form of
e-mail, texting, twittering etc., the postal service will have to think
differently if it is to stem its rapid decline.
Now The Washington Post
reports that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is no longer
going to allow riders to leave the system without paying full fare. The old
system let the riders who had electronic SmarTrip cards leave even if they had a
negative balance on their card. The balance due was then deducted when they
refilled their card, and the consumer then couldn’t get back in without having a
positive balance on the card.
The change was part of many fare changes, including a
reduction in the cost of the SmarTrip card from $5.00 to $2.50. The WMATA fears
that some consumers will try to game the system by buying new cards rather than
paying the balance due on the old.
However, the WMATA had no estimate of how much revenue
would be raised by this change, nor how it might impact exit lines as people
tried to leave, were told they couldn’t, retried and finally went to the cash
exit line.
The WMATA also didn’t say what it would do if a customer
didn’t have the cash to pay the balance of the fare. It brings to mind the
famous 1959 Kingston Trio song about the Boston MTA
“The M.T.A. Song,” which is better known as “Charlie on the M.T.A.” or “The
Man Who Never Returned”—which was inspired by the “exit fare” collected in the
late 1940s by the Boston MTA when it raised its fare but didn’t upgrade the
turnstiles and other fare collection devices.
Obviously without estimates of
revenue lost, it is difficult to assess the WMATA’s actions. We suspect,
however, that most businesses would find inconveniencing the customer to this
degree unacceptable.
We also wonder if it is not an example of inside-the-box
thinking. Why can’t WMATA deduct the fare from everyone’s cell phone? Why can’t
a system be set up to automatically add value to the SmartTrip card via credit
card when its value drops below a set amount. Why can’t the system automatically
deduct any balance due from a credit card so there never is a negative balance?
The easy answers: In the case of the Postal Service… raise
prices; in the case of the WMATA… force consumers to settle their balances
before leaving the area, have a cost in customer alienation that these public
entities don’t seem to be wrestling with. They will probably be OK because the
government doesn’t go out of business.
How many of us in the private sector, though, are making
similar mistakes? And we don’t have a government guarantee??
There’s More To Spending Patterns Of Affluent Moms Than
Just Income
A new study of affluent
moms based on data from Ipsos Mendelsohn’s affluence surveys shows that affluent
women with kids behave a lot more like the rest of us — although maybe on a
larger scale — than do their peers without kids.
The numbers are also large:
the firm says that of 15.6 million heads of households with incomes of at least
$100,000 and ages 18 to 54, 60% have kids under 18.
The study, which comprises
surveys of 4,500 women, reveals that affluent women with children report
traveling ten percentage points less than those without; they are also less
likely to own a second home or luxury car, or to travel abroad by air or visit a
spa. For example, 20% of child-free wealthy women reported owning a luxury car
versus 15% of those with kids. Seventy-two percent of women without kids took an
airline trip in the past year versus 64% of those with kids.
Affluent women with kids,
however, were more likely to visit museums, the ballet, movies and sports
events. And far more likely — no surprise — to go to a theme park. They were
also far more likely to own an SUV or minivan.
Donna Sabino, SVP of kids
and family insights at Ipsos OTX MediaCT U.S., says this is the first time the
affluence data from Ipsos has been parsed to break out affluent women with
children under 18 versus those with no children.
“Initially, we were not
sure there were going to be any differences,” she says. “I come out of
advertising, where you think in terms of targets — say, 25-to-54 — more than
psychological definers. You don’t think, for example, about how having a child
under 18 impacts across product categories; stereotypically, you don’t think of
an affluent woman shopping at Kmart or Walmart.”
But they do, and, per
Sabino, the large size of the data set makes even small differences by
percentage statistically significant. While 86% of respondents who are affluent
women without kids said they shop at Target, 93% of those with kids say they
shop there. There is similar six-percentage-point difference for Sears; a
five-percentage-point spread for JC Penney; and a two-percentage-point spread
for the Home Depot (81% for those without kids versus 83% for those with).
There is a sense in which this study is obvious and
another sense in which we doubt it is true at all.
Clearly, life stage and life responsibilities lead to
purchasing behaviors that are based on these factors, not solely on wealth. So
many mothers who could afford more expensive cars will choose mini-vans because
they want the utility of sliding doors and a third seat for car pooling or
picking up friends after school or sports.
Also young children have social patterns, such as lots of
birthday parties that lead to certain patterns of adult behavior. For example,
young children often invite their whole class to birthday parties, and many
schools require that parents do so if they want to use the school backpack as
the mechanism for distributing the invitations. This means, however, that the
children attend dozens and dozens of birthday parties often for people the
parents barely know. No matter how rich someone is, it would be inappropriate to
buy really expensive birthday presents for all but one’s closest friends. Indeed
it would put pressure on people to reciprocate who couldn’t afford it.
It is also true that children want more widely distributed
products than adults. Adults want things specifically because they are not
widely available, such as a designer bag that is hard to get. Children typically
want the latest Batman toy. Once you are buying exactly identical products,
well… affluent people typically didn’t become affluent by being fools. If the
exact same toy is for sale at Wal-Mart for half the price of a local toy store,
many people will go to Wal-Mart — regardless of affluence. Indeed Wal-Mart has
spent much time strategizing how it can get people who come to Wal-Mart for
branded products such as Clorox or Monopoly to stay and buy fashion and fresh
food.
So, yes, of course, mothers have similarities that
transcend income to influence their purchasing patterns.
At the same time, we are also certain that the study
overstates this effect because of the way it defines affluent — a household with
income of $100,000 a year or more. This corresponds to the top 20% of households
in the US, and so, of course, the study is not incorrect — these are high income
people. However, everything is relative. Because the study does not adjust for
geography or for family assets, this definition of affluence stretches to
encompass a lot of people with widely varying situations.
Two medical interns might together make $100,000, but if
they live in high-tax, high-rent Manhattan and each carry $350,000 in school
loans and they have three children, their “affluence” is of a very different
sort than a one-child family that owns its home outright in rural
no-state-income-tax Texas, has no debt and makes its $100,000 income in
dividends off its holding of $5,000.000 in an S&P 500 tracking mutual fund.
The study, of course, just sets $100,000 as the minimum
family income to be “affluent,” so you are also mixing in people who have an
income of $100,000 a year with those who have an income many times that. It is
interesting that the President, when he was running for the office, felt the
need to promise no tax increase to families earning below $250,000 a year,
perhaps an indication of where a real separation starts to occur.
In any case, the study does serve to remind us that income
is at best a rough metric to use in anticipating consumer behavior. Age,
ethnicity, religion, marital status, parental status and many other factors play
into it. This is why efforts to classify stores strictly by income as A, B, C,
D, E etc., are only going half way there. The surge in ethnic retailers tells us
that many mainstream retailers are just not doing the job.
Fruit Flies Among Many Barriers To Produce Consumption
From time to time we leave a comment or two at various
culinary or gastronomical blogs. One we often enjoy is called Al Dente
and is part of a network of blogs maintained by Amazon.com. These blogs are not
specifically produce-related but sometimes they have
picked out our comments to address as when we wrote a
brief note on bluefin tuna:
A few weeks ago, I wrote a
blurb about tuna fish. The post got all sorts of comments, for various
reasons, but one thoughtful comment from Al Dente reader Jim Prevor about
bluefin sustainability caught my attention, and prompted me to do some further
research.
No sooner had I read Jim’s
comment than I was inundated with news about bluefin tuna everywhere I looked. I
now wonder how this issue previously escaped my attention.
We also dealt with the issue of bluefin tuna depletion in
this Pundit post.
Sometimes, though, these blogs do touch upon fresh produce
and issues surrounding produce. Al Dente, for example, just ran a post
geared for consumers titled,
How To Get Rid of Fruit Flies (Low-Tech Version, High-Tech Version). In the
piece, Rebekah Denn, an accomplished food writer who had been the food writer
for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, writes about one of her frustrations
with fresh produce:
The downside of juicy, ripe
summer produce? It attracts swarms of pesty fruit flies, which soon multiply
into mega-swarms.
The remedies I’ve tried in
the past? Failures. I’ve been told to leave out a glass of wine, or try a few
drops of dishwasher liquid in a container of water. What did I get? House
parties of flies who seemed to particularly enjoy a nice Cabernet.
She then points out that there are various methods that can improve upon these “Low-tech” approaches and that now there is a “Hi-tech” approach:
Then Terro, the pest
control company, sent over a sample of
its new fruit fly trap. The trap is a little apple-shaped plastic ball,
filled with a non-toxic compound (more or less vinegar and dish soap, looking at
the ingredients).
It operates on the same
theory as the jam jar, and also works quite well. Bonus points to the Terro
device for looking a lot nicer on the countertop than a rubber-banded jam jar.
I’m tempted to ding it because the contents stained my counter when my curious
toddler turned it upside down... but with enough scrubbing, the stain came out,
and a red wine spill would have caused problems too.
We confess that we know nothing about the Terro Fruit Fly
Trap or, for that matter, this business of leaving out wine or soap to catch the
flies.
What we think is interesting is that things such as this
are real obstacles to increasing purchase and consumption of fresh produce. Ms.
Denn is a foodie and so probably will put up with it, but there are millions of
people who, if they find their fruit covered with flies, will get the message
that either it should all be in the refrigerator — probably causing a
significant reduction in consumption as compared to a countertop fruit bowl — or
that they are buying too much and it is going rotten.
One of things that became obvious during that process was
that we actually have very little information about what are the real obstacles
to increasing produce consumption. Although many believed that the health
message could work if we could just get it out there with sufficient exposures,
others saw flaws in the varieties the industry was selling.
This piece points out that fruit flies may be bothering
consumers. PMA and other organizations have often looked for ways to increase
produce consumption, and the Produce for Better Health Foundation is, in fact,
charged with such an effort. Perhaps the industry has been putting the cart
before the horse. Maybe PMA, for example, should fund a research program to
identify the obstacles that consumers encounter in increasing consumption of
fresh produce.
We have spoken about taste and flavor in our piece,
Little Taste Bud, in Pundit sister publication PRODUCE BUSINESS and,
recently in Pundit pieces focused on apples
here and
here. Yet bothersome fruit flies weren’t on the radar screen. Who knows what
else a proper research effort could uncover?
When we wrote about Dole’s effort to reinvent the bagged
salad category
here and
here, what impressed us most was the degree to which the company had gone
out to research and thus better understand the obstacles to consumers buying
more bagged salads. Then Dole’s efforts to change its products were methodical
approaches to addressing consumer needs.
Maybe Terro will solve the fruit fly problem for
consumers, but it is still an industry problem to know how we delight and
disappoint our customers.
Our piece,
Supreme Court Ruling May Push Political Donations Toward Trade Associations,
addressed a then-new Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v
Federal Election Committee. The gist of the decision was that corporations would
have much greater freedom to engage in political speech. We also suggested, and
still believe, that the end result will make trade associations more important
as confidential conduits for political donations.
Target, however,
has gotten itself in a fix. It donated $150,000 to a group called
Minnesota Forward, whose purpose is to elect Minnesota politicians who are
in favor of low taxes and are focused on private sector job growth. Since Target
pays a lot of taxes, it is perfectly understandable that it would like to see
politicians who favor lower taxes elected.
In fact, Target made no effort to hide its donation, doing
it not through a 501c4 or 501c6 — both of which could have protected Target’s
anonymity. It did it through an electioneering entity that makes full
disclosure.
Of course, the problem is that politicians take many
positions, and it turns out that Republican Representative Tom Emmer, whose
gubernatorial campaign was supported by Minnesota Forward, opposes gay marriage.
Next thing you know Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights, was
asking Target to donate $150,000 to pro gay marriage candidates, and Moveon.org
called for a boycott. Here is a video of a “flashmob” staged at a Target Store:
The substance of the protestors’ argument is weak.
Corporations, unions, etc., are all mechanisms which people use to join together
to efficiently do their business. It is not clear why two individuals can each
donate $50,000 but a corporation owned by those same two individuals should not
be able to make the donation.
This still leaves open the question of whether corporate
political donations are wise.
It depends. Target got caught because it has cultivated a
clientele with an attempt to portray itself as more worldly, sophisticated and,
yes, liberal, than the behemoth from Bentonville. So consumers who had chosen to
shop at Target because it made them feel more sophisticated than shopping at
Wal-Mart could be more easily roused as the donation was counter to the image
they had of the company.
In contrast, not much happened when News Corp.,
which owns, among other things, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal,
made a
million dollar donation directly to the Republican Governors Association. Of
course, political opponents are
screaming bias, although
many media companies have made political donations in the past. Mostly,
though, the outcry against this much larger and more directly political donation
has not risen to the level that Target is experiencing.
Most probably, it is because the News Corp.
donation is generally in line with what viewers of Fox expect. In other
words, if Ben & Jerry’s were still a private company and it donated money to
reelect the Socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, it would be hard to
get a consumer boycott going. If Ben & Jerry’s announced a big donation to some
right-wing caucus, the petition would be filled in a day.
We saw a similar issue arrive when John Mackey, the
co-founder and CEO at Whole Foods Market, wrote a piece for The Wall Street
Journal op-ed page opposing ObamaCare — titled
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Because this piece caused
cognitive dissonance among the Whole Foods shoppers who assumed the company
was consistently Liberal and Democratic, it was quick business to set up a
boycott.
It is predictable. We would also say it is bad for
America. Whole Foods is mostly seen as a paragon of “corporate responsibility”
by those who value such things. Its CEO wrote a very adult policy proposal. To
boycott the chain is to imply that independent thought is not allowed. It is bad
for the country.
The actual business effect of these boycotts on Whole
Foods or Target is quite questionable. Most people aren’t that engaged, and to
what degree they impact business is unclear. It is also true that in politics,
for every action there is a counter-reaction. Megan McArdle, the astute business
and economics editor of The Atlantic,
promised to support Whole Foods because of the boycott:
I myself do not particularly
care for Whole Foods — I find them overpriced, and their prepared food isn’t
very good. But as long as the progressive boycott lasts . . . well, Mr. Mackey,
you’ve got another customer. I doubt I’m the only conservative or libertarian
who will make the same pledge.
So the Citizens United Supreme Court Case has added a new
piece to the three-dimensional chess game of corporate image for businesses.
Wise executives will think carefully about how and if they donate.
Most advocacy groups probably care more about getting
headlines and donations than actually having a boycott succeed. But those who do
care about the impact of their boycotts ought to also be wary. After all, if a
lot of people, who have demonstrated that they prefer supercenters through their
shopping choices, were to actually boycott Target, isn’t it highly likely that
they would wind up shopping at Wal-Mart?
Is that actually what the Target boycott advocates
actually desire? Seems unlikely, but it is the most logical impact of their
actions.
Famed Food Writer Joan Nathan To Speak At New York
Produce Show And Conference
Most recently, we highlighted the panel of “Thought Leaders” who will take the stage at The New York Produce Show and Conference to discuss the state of our industry. This panel includes:
Jim Bisogno, Director of Produce, Floral, and Bakery, Pathmark Supermarkets
Rich Conger, Director of Produce, King Kullen Supermarkets
Steve Coomes, Manager Division Operations-Produce, Safeway Eastern Division
Dave Corsi, Vice President of Produce and Floral, Wegmans Food Markets
Dean Holmquist, Director of Produce & Floral, Foodtown Supermarkets
Derrick Jenkins, Vice President of Produce/Floral, Wakefern Food Corporation
Paul Kneeland, Vice President of Produce & Floral, Kings Super Markets
Of course, some of you may just know Joan Nathan because
she became a champion of foodservice establishments’ training in the
Heimlich Maneuver after chef and restaurateur (and Top Chef judge) Tom
Colicchio saved her life by performing it on her. She wrote about the experience
in a piece titled
A Heimlich in Every Pot.
We turned to Joan Nathan for this year’s conference for a
specific reason though. She worked under Mayor Abraham Beame and, way back in
1974, launched the 9th Avenue Food Festival.
It was a celebration of the incredible diversity of New
York and the beginning of a broader recognition in American culture that food is
more than sustenance.
New York is an ingatherer of people… and produce and Joan
Nathan’s life celebrates that ingathering.
As a kind of preview of the role that produce has played
in her culinary and professional life, we asked Mira Slott, Pundit Investigator and
Special Projects Editor, to find out more:
Joan Nathan
Q: We are excited you will be a part of the inaugural
edition of The New York Produce Show and Conference, the first such event to be
held in New York in over half a century. It seems quite apropos, with your rich
ties to New York and its ethnically diverse cultures and cuisines, and your
affinity for fresh fruits and vegetables. How have you embraced produce in your
innovative work as an author, chef, and food curator?
A: In thinking of what I should speak about, I came to
realize that I can trace certain fruits and vegetables through my life and
career and note how their discovery, especially early on in my childhood and
teenage years, inspired my creativity and enthusiasm for food, and helped me to
grow and influenced the direction of my work.
Q: Could you take us on a trip down Joan Nathan’s produce
memory lane?
A: Different things I remember are emblematic of the
times. Let’s start in France when I was in my teens. That’s where I first
learned about food and markets. In those days, one only thought of France for
good markets.
Actually, my love for fresh fruits and vegetables
started even
earlier when I was a kid because my father was from Europe and he
liked fresh foods. He brought that mentality into our household. That was in the
late 1950’s, early 1960’s when everyone was using cans of food, all those
processed canned vegetables. We relished getting great local Rhode Island corn.
My mother was always growing herbs in the backyard. I would go out to pick the
fresh basil.
Even though I was Jewish, I was American. Then in
college, I went to study in France and discovered market places. Junior year
abroad is where I first tasted Swiss chard. It was in Paris that my taste buds
were opened.
Q: Was fresh produce gaining stature in the U.S. during
that time?
A: In those days when I was at University of Michigan,
there were farmer’s markets, but they were considered leftist; you’d buy brown
rice there and alternative foods. Now everyone goes to buy those items, but in
those days it was a hippie thing to do.
Q: Continuing on your produce retrospective, where does
Israel fit in your journey? I understand you worked for
Mayor Teddy Kollek, the first man elected Mayor of Jerusalem after the city
was reunited following the
Six-Day War. He served six terms.
A: In the early 1970’s, I lived in Israel, and I lived
near the markets where I could get fresh everything from everywhere in the
world. Discovering food in Jerusalem in my 20’s, I was fascinated at how they
were coming out with varieties of kiwis and I couldn’t believe they had so many
different avocados there. Israelis would travel around the world and bring
seeds back then develop them in Israel. I learned how to make hummus, and back
in the States, I gave it to people to taste and they said I should sell it to
Zabar’s.
A: That’s right. I believe the annual event started in
May 1974. I was working for
Mayor Abraham Beame at the time and I had an idea to do an ethnic food
festival on 9th Avenue.
All these food people, like
Diana Kennedy, were doing demos with fresh fruits and vegetables at the
first festival. Working at the Mayor’s office, we had no budget, but we
concocted committees. We recruited
James Beard and Craig Claiborne.
I contacted someone I knew at New York magazine, who
wanted
an exclusive on the first 9th Avenue Festival. Craig
Claiborne wouldn’t hear of it and announced, ‘Were doing a whole section on 9th
Avenue. We had no idea how the festival would be received, and thousands and
thousands of people showed up! There were so many funny stories.
When we had a pre-run, James Beard was supposed to walk
down 9th Avenue, but we realized he was too heavy, so we got a golf
cart for him. Then Mayor Beame was so little, he wanted a cart so he could be
higher up since he was the mayor. We also got a food artist who cooked a
thousand pounds of rice and colored it and he made a food float.
It was period in which food was emerging in the American
consciousness as something more than sustenance. In 1976, Julia Child was doing
her T.V. show.
The American Culinary Federation pushed and had changed the category Chef in
the
U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles from domestic
to professional. Chefs changed from blue collar to white collar, and now chefs
were respected in the mainstream and no longer just servants. Food was in a
better place. Great chefs were looking for the freshest ingredients.
Q: Was this a transformational time for the fresh produce
industry?
A: I would say a hopeful time. In 1975, I interviewed
the Chef in the White House. He was French but all he used was dry basil.
Slowly but surely, all these farmers markets started. In
those
days, there were 300 around the country compared to something like 6,000
today. Conventional supermarkets also began expanding their produce sections
both in square footage and in the number of items sold, tremendously expanding
sales of winter fruit for example.
Now what’s occurring is that people today want fresh
taste and flavor. The problem with mass production is we’ve often been focused
on shipping quality and appearance; we’ve been losing taste and flavor. The next
step, the great challenge, is figuring out ways to bring that back.
There was a lot of hope for organics but what’s happened
is that organics grew so quickly, instead of having time to develop new
varieties of vegetables; the big farms used the same varieties to achieve mass
production. Taste and flavor is still a challenge.
I’m in Martha’s Vineyard during the summer where there
are so
many farmers, but we have a glut on the market. The next step is finding
ways to preserve the abundance of produce so it’s not thrown away. Small farmers
are learning to sun-dry tomatoes and preserve produce in other ways, but they
are doing all these things themselves and they are not often very good
businessmen. And, of course, there is a separate challenge of distributing food
where it needs to be.
Q: What other insights have you garnered regarding the
evolution of fresh produce here and abroad?
A: In France, farmer’s markets are not looking as good
anymore. Their markets have a lot of imported produce from other countries. We
have better and more dynamic markets in the U.S.
We’re also not so constrained as the French in what we
cook. There has been an explosion in what Americans cook; we’re just trying
everything. Of course, California farmers markets have the most wonderful
produce as ingredients. But this year, in many places, I’m seeing all kinds of
tomatoes, eggplants, peppers and other beautiful varieties. People are learning
how to use Swiss chard and kale.
Q: What key factors would you attribute to this explosion
in global and exotic cooking?
A: It started with the Peace Corps in the mid-1960’s and
1970’s when young Americans were exposed to new cultures, and the advent of
international travel, combined with the influx of immigrants from countries like
India, Thailand, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Now there is so much more
intermarriage, people are more adventurous, and we see more high-end eating.
My focus is on Jewish cooking but Jewish merchants have
always transported goods. From the eighth century on, they would look around the
world and come back with seeds for their family, and trade with other people
within their communities. That’s the way so many fruits and vegetables traveled
through history. It didn’t take a lot of room to carry seeds. Jews have been
very much a part of French history for 2000 years. They’re still in that kind of
business, just as Italians and Arabs were.
Q: Let’s get back to our timeline of how you’ve
incorporated fresh produce into your career…
A: Another poignant moment was in 2005 when I was the
curator for
Smithsonian’s Food Culture USA, which featured American food and
multi-ethnicity. It brought
Alice Waters’
Edible Garden on to the mall. It created a platform for people to start
thinking about vegetables.
Although
Food Culture USA was a special one time event, the cultural influences that gave rise to it have grown only stronger. It now seems as if every school has a vegetable garden, and Michelle Obama is doing her vegetable garden at the White House. Although it seems like a celebration of small scale and local, the reality is that this will make people want fresh produce and will demand more from their supermarkets.
After that time, I went back to France and realized what
a long way we’ve come.
Q: This seems like a nice segue to highlight your new book
coming out, “Quiches, Kugels, and Couscous: My Search for Jewish Cooking in France.” Traditionally, France is viewed as the pinnacle of great cooking. How
does that tradition influence the use of fruits and vegetables?
A: As I mentioned there is a 2000-year-old history of
the Jews bringing people food. In the way I wrote about those influences in my
book “
Jewish
Cooking in America,” Jews influence French cooking and the
French influence Jewish cooking. There are dispersions kicking out of France and
going into France. I’ve always believed in the love affair of Jews for France.
While Jews might traditionally follow the dietary laws,
the food is still regional within different areas of France.
Since 1789, France was considered a country where people
felt free so people flocked there from other countries. Because of its
agricultural richness there was work for people. It’s like the U.S., because
people came for a better life. America is a melting pot, and we’ve always
thought of France as just French, but there are Russians, Romanians… people have
migrated there from all over the world. Since the Industrial Revolution people
have flocked to Paris.
Paris is a polyglot city just like New York. It’s really
exciting to have a produce show in New York. It’s the first one, and it’s about
time. New York is the largest ethnically diverse city in the U.S., and its
Jewish community is the largest in the world after Tel Aviv.
It’s a food Mecca, with access to countless varieties of
the freshest produce. We’re trying to go back to real food from a world where
too much is manufactured and processed, and produce is at the heart of what we
eat. I’m so thrilled to have an opportunity to celebrate that heart in the City
of New York.
And we are thrilled to introduce Joan Nathan to the
broader produce industry. We’ve set our minds on using this event to elevate the
industry by urging important voices to think hard about fresh produce. That Joan
Nathan, the “mother” of New York’s 9th Avenue Food Festival, should
be there for the birth of this new industry institution is a terrific
opportunity for the industry to rise to a new level.
![Jim Prevor's Perishable Pundit [header]](images/pp_headtop_842x45.jpg){kind=small}
![Jim Prevor's Perishable Pundit [header]](images/pptopnav_01.jpg)
—
New
York Times Cookbook
