China says it has found the virus on the packaging of products from 20 countries including German pork, Brazilian beef and Indian fish, but foreign officials say the lack of evidence produced by authorities means it is damaging trade and hurting the reputation of imported food without reason.

In a World Trade Organization meeting Nov. 5-6, Canada called China’s testing of imported foods and rejection of products that had positive nucleic acid tests “unjustified trade restrictions” and urged it to stop it, said a Geneva-based trade official briefed on the meeting who declined to be identified.

Supported by Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Britain and the U.S., Canada argued that China had not provided scientific justification for the measures, said the official.

Canada’s Geneva-based mission to the WTO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. said on Tuesday it asked China “bilaterally” and at the WTO to ensure its measures “appropriately assess actual risks, particularly when they unjustifiably restrict trade.”

“China’s most recent COVID-19 restrictions on imported food products are not based on science and threaten to disrupt trade,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.

China has only intensified its imported food screening since then.

This week, the Global Times, a tabloid backed by the ruling Communist Party, suggested that the presence of the novel coronavirus on imported food raised the possibility that the virus, widely believed to have originated in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year, may have come from overseas.

China began testing chilled and frozen food imports for the virus in June, after a cluster of infections among workers at a wholesale food market in the capital.

The World Health Organization says neither food nor packaging are known transmission routes for the virus.

But China, which has all-but stamped out local transmission of the disease, says there is risk of the virus re-entering the country on food products.

‘Is it true?’

The pushback came after months of growing frustration at the way customs and health authorities have been increasingly scrutinizing imports, which trade partners complain does not adhere to global norms.

“Whenever a health authority performs a test, and finds something, they should share the results,” said a Beijing-based diplomat who declined to be identified as he was not authorized to speak to media.

“We haven’t received one single lab analysis,” he said. “Everyone is asking ‘Is it true? Did they really find anything?’ Everyone is surprised that no proof is given.”

On Monday, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also questioned China’s findings, after the city of Jinan said it had detected coronavirus on frozen New Zealand beef.

Ardern said she was confident no meat products were exported from her country with the coronavirus but no clarification had come from China.

In August, Brazilian officials travelled to the city of Shenzhen after it found traces of the coronavirus on chicken wings from their country.

Authorities could not provide information on whether they had found the active virus or not, the Brazilian agriculture ministry said.

In its response at the WTO, China said its actions were “provisional based on scientific basis” and designed to “protect people’s lives to the maximum extent,” according to a Chinese trade official.

China has pointed to its isolation of live coronavirus from samples on imported frozen cod, a world-first, as proof, though with the evidence unpublished, that the coronavirus can be transmitted from food to people.

Speaking at a food safety conference this month, Gudrun Gallhoff, minister counsellor for health and food safety at the European Union delegation to China, said exporters needed more information on China’s test methods and results.

“If you have trade partners you have to treat them fairly and give them a chance to be complicit,” she said.

— Reporting for Reuters by Dominique Patton in Beijing and Emma Farge in Geneva; additional reporting by Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post Irritated trade partners push back on China’s coronavirus food tests appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Canary seed was designated safe for human consumption in 2016, after which Saskatchewan’s then-agriculture minister Lyle Stewart predicted acreage dedicated to the crop would increase as it was incorporated into more human food products.

The gluten-free grain was previously consumed only as birdseed, with Mexico and Europe being the main importers of the Canadian crop.

However, since retailers haven’t taken to the crop with the same verve as for other non-traditional grains such as quinoa, canary seed prices have stayed flat for a number of years.

Kevin Hursh, executive director of the Canaryseed Development Commission of Saskatchewan, is undeterred.

“We were warned adoption would be a slow process, but there has always been a market in health foods,” he said. “Penetration into seed use in snack bars, ground into flour, and on hamburger buns has been slow to develop.”

Currently, producers make decisions based solely on demand from the birdseed market, Hursh said.

As the 2019 growing season nears, prices are holding steady at 24 cents/lb. delivered. This is a modest increase from 2018, which saw prices swing between 20 and 23 cents/lb.

Decisions on whether to plant canary seed are largely influenced by prices of other major crops.

“There was disappointment with durum prices at one point, and though they’ve come back, it doesn’t take a lot to rather dramatically change acreage projections” said Hursh.

Statistics Canada estimates that production will fall by 23 per cent in 2019, due to lower area and yields. However, Hursh believes output will ultimately remain stable.

“Given the current situation, prices aren’t really exciting, but [aren’t] declining” he said.

Statistics Canada also forecast that the stocks-to-use ratio will decrease significantly in 2019 to reflect tightening production levels. The agency will publish an updated 2019 principal field crop areas report on April 24.

— Marlo Glass writes for MarketsFarm, a Glacier FarmMedia division specializing in grain and commodity market analysis and reporting.

The post Canary seed holds steady despite food adoption hopes appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In response to U.S.-imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, Canada intends to do the same on our side. Like any trade war, it could unfortunately escalate.

• Read more: As U.S., Canada spar, farm hopes ride on two men in lobster boat

Canada will unlawfully implement countermeasures which will take effect on July 1, if the U.S. does not end its steel and aluminum duties. It’s like Walmart going up against that cute little gift store we visit every so often. And just to be clear, Canada is not Walmart in this scenario. Interesting times.

The trade war appears to be moving into agri-food, one of the most sensitive economic sectors when it comes to trade. Of the 84 items mentioned on Canada’s “Table 2” list, 23 are food products. History has shown us that trade wars are not kind to consumers when agriculture and food products are targeted.

Food inflation tends to skyrocket when barriers are erected. We import for over $25 billion worth of agri-food products from the U.S. Fruits, nuts, vegetables, beverages, and baked goods represent a big portion of what we buy from the Americans. Interestingly, none of the items are mentioned in Ottawa’s recently issued notice of intent. In other words, it is highly unlikely these countermeasures will become a threat to Canada’s food security – something trade wars tend to do.

In fact, categories with lower sales volume are being targeted, and most of the food products on the list do have Canadian-based alternatives in the marketplace. Yogurt, ketchup, pizza, mustard, maple syrup, chocolate, jam, and whiskey are also made in Canada.

Other categories, like prepared foods, mustard, soy sauce, or mayonnaise may be more problematic. As such, Canadians will likely see some American goods becoming more expensive, or perhaps some will be as expensive as many Canadian-produced products. This could be welcome news for some of our businesses.

The “Buy Canadian” movement will certainly see this as a needed boost. The challenge, of course, is that many of the U.S. products are cheaper – much cheaper – even when our dollar was worth below 75 cents against the U.S. greenback. Price points will likely go up and cheaper options could be limited.

• Read more: Canada’s dairy farmers cling to protections as Trump demands concessions

But food retail prices have barely moved since January. Food inflation is at 0.1 per cent. Prices have room to increase, allowing grocers to breathe, and increase margins. If tariffs are implemented, grocers could see this as an opportunity to raise prices, regardless. If they opt to do this, it will be brilliantly subtle and consumers may not even notice the three to four per cent hike on prices of American-based food products.

Back in early 2017, Ottawa eliminated many tariffs on a long list of ingredients, including cereals and grains, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, and food preparations. These measures allowed Canadian processors to save more than $200 million a year and strengthen their competitiveness both at home and abroad.

The list published does not suggest that Ottawa intends to reinstate these tariffs, sparing the processing industry. The notice of intent appears to be quite populist, targeting consumable food products many Canadians buy regularly but not frequently. In fact, the list seems to include either products we manufacture, or products we actually should be manufacturing more of, like soy sauce and mustard.

In the case of mustard, few Canadians are aware that Canada is the largest exporter of mustard seed in the world. Most of it is sold to the U.S., and we buy it back in bottles, at 20 times the price. This could perhaps be the excuse we’ve been looking for in order to change this practice, but it is still too early to tell. So, in a sense, the list was cleverly put together.

Ottawa has decided to retaliate by using an age-old scheme in trade wars: tariff barriers on food. Throughout history, countries protecting their market by issuing duties on food imports have seen how measures can be dangerously short sighted and can often backfire, usually hurting those who are supposedly being protected.

• Read more: Trudeau safe for now as Trump attacks, but angry farmers loom

But Ottawa seems to be using a different playbook with Washington. Ottawa seems to want to send a clear message to Washington, while at the same time offering the food industry an opportunity to grow. In a sense, its notice of intent delicately strikes a balance between diplomatic resilience and economic inducement for our agri-food economy. Consequently, it may not be such a bad thing if mustard and mayonnaise get more expensive.

But based on pure economics, Canada cannot win against the United States – not even close. The “we’ll show them” attitude can only go so far and doesn’t really stand a chance.

Some argue that the Trudeau government is playing a game of chess with Washington. Objectively, the game looks more like Russian roulette than anything else. Many things could happen before July 1 though.

We should all hope Canada has a long-term plan if this trade war lasts awhile, as it likely will.

The post Comment: Canada’s strategic trade war appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Four models have been presented – Health Canada appears to want to keep its options open (although all the logos look the same). Saturated fats, sugar and sodium are targeted, and are to be predominantly placed on the labels of all packaged goods sold in Canada.

• Read more: Dairy sector wary of proposed food label policy

The suggested label policy appears to be straightforward. All products that include more than 15 per cent of the daily recommended consumption of each ingredient must list them at the top of the package. Raw commodities with natural ingredients, such as maple syrup, honey or meat products, will be exempt, which makes perfect sense.

Front-of-package nutrition symbols and notices should require minimal prior knowledge to use. The label needs to be clear and simple, which is exactly what Health Canada is proposing. But simplicity doesn’t necessarily guarantee a confusion-free experience.

Although consumers pay attention to sugar, fat and sodium, they may rely on this data to the exclusion of others. (You could argue that the more we eat sugar, fat and sodium, the lower our grasp of what’s healthy.)

At the same time, Health Canada appears to overvalue some nutrients. This may lead consumers away from certain nutrients and encourage the purchase of others. For example, certain packaged cheeses may be high in fat but are rich in important nutrients such as vitamins C and D, and calcium.

One good step is that calories aren’t emphasized. Studies suggest that people focus too much on calories and that can stop them from selecting a healthier product.

Ultimately, the accuracy of the nutritional labels should be underscored. Many studies show that sodium and fats are often underreported. These ingredients should be more closely monitored to make sure labels are accurate. This would provide tangible health benefits, and reduce fraudulent food products and cases of adulteration.

Simplicity has its challenges and limitations, and industry has expressed concerns and even some level of opposition. In part, that’s because labelling rules could force food manufacturers to reformulate decades-old food products or discontinue entire product lines. It will be interesting to see how industry adapts.

Given the pressures of everyday life, Health Canada’s plan is likely the most effective way to help consumers.

But for the new rules to be effective, the labels should have colour and words to indicate levels. Studies show that the traffic light system is the best model: consumers exposed to a green-yellow-red system are three times more likely to identify healthier food products than consumers exposed to other systems.

Over time, consumers understand that the health value of food products can be assessed in relative terms. But Health Canada’s planned approach is dangerously binary – it doesn’t allow for interpretation and enhanced nutritional literacy.

Some critics suggest the new plan doesn’t go far enough. Several advocate that cartoons and colourful packaging be banned because they seek to engage children. However, clear and unassuming front-of-package labels would provide parents with the information and tools to decide for themselves and their children.

Giving quality information to consumers or overprotecting society is a delicate balance. Overprotection rarely entices consumers to become better educated about important issues such as proper nutrition. New policies should encourage consumers to make healthier choices, not necessarily protect them from themselves.

Short of a traffic light approach, Health Canada appears to be striking the right balance between labelling simplicity and effectiveness.

And there appears to be some international momentum towards such labelling policies, so Canada is not a lone wolf. Several countries, including Australia, are looking at making changes simultaneously. That means importers will see this new approach as less of an obstacle.

For our own food security and economic welfare, uniformity must be kept in mind as we try to empower consumers with more information about what they eat.

The post Health Canada’s suggested new food labelling has limitations appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In September Academy Award-winning film director James Cameron announced he would be investing in a new multimillion-dollar pea-processing plant in Vanscoy, Sask. As well there is talk of a $100-million pea-processing facility to be built in Moose Jaw, Sask. and other possible pea-processing facilities in Alberta.

The news hasn’t upset Roquette’s plans at all, however.

“We know that (the market) can absorb new capacities and we are satisfied that there are other investments, which have confirmed the market trend is robust,” said Pascal Leroy, vice-president of pea and new proteins business line with Roquette.

At the end of September, Roquette held a sod turning for its $400-million pea-processing plant in Portage la Prairie, Man. The plant, which will employ 350 people during construction and 150 people when operating, will need 120,000 tonnes of peas a year. According to Leroy, the project is on track for a tentative opening mid-year 2019.

“At the end of the day what is quite important for Roquette is to be close to the customer, markets, to develop the right grade for all the applications that we serve,” he said.

The pulse protein market is expected to grow substantially as consumer eating habits shift. According to Leroy, the pea protein market is expected to grow by 15 per cent per year.

“Pea protein has value and can be eaten in a lot of meals like sport nutrition, meat (substitutes) and so forth. And it addresses consumer concerns like non-GMO,” he said.

The French starch processor has been in the pea-processing business since 2005, when it opened its first plant north of the French capital of Paris. Since then the company has worked to refine its process for extracting pea protein.

“We have developed a unique process to develop protein with good attribute in terms of nutrition properties and functionalities as well,” Leroy said.

With the expansion into North America Roquette is considering future growth opportunities within the pulse industry.

“You need time to be in a position to master a new crop… so for the time being we are quite happy to work on pea and pea protein,” Leroy said. “Having said that, for sure we are as well looking for new proteins, but again we know Canada has a good potential for that.”

Low costs

Pulse industry groups say the recent spate of announcements is partly due to the region’s growing reputation as a pulse producer, but mainly the focus on peas boils down to the costs of doing business.

“It’s a combination of the tonnage available and then, what is the cost? And given that they’re producing protein isolate, it becomes, what’s the cost per tonne of protein isolate?” said Gordon Bacon, CEO of Pulse Canada.

Yellow peas are currently trading at $8 per bushel (22 cents per pound), according to Prairie Ag Hotwire, compared to Richelea No. 1 lentils at 35 cents per pound, which are grown as well in the Prairies.

“When peas start out as a commodity form in a lower cost per tonne then they become a very interesting crop to fractionate because we as the pulse industry are going to compete with other proteins,” Bacon said.

Rachel Kehrig, director of communications for Saskatchewan Pulse Growers agrees cost factors significantly into choices for processing facilities.

“If you’re looking to put peas into food products or other manufactured goods, which is what some of these plants will be supplying is those ingredients, they’ve got to be cost competitive,” she said.

As well, Kehrig said there has been a lot of focus in the last decade on developing pulse ingredients especially peas.

“Work is being done on lentils and other pulses as well and we expect to see some kind of drive in the ingredient utilization of those as we move into the future. Right now peas are kind of opening that door for everyone,” she said.

Bacon said as well, consumer interests drive the processing industry. There has been an explosion of interest in plant-based proteins as people are looking for gluten- and soy-free products, due to allergies. As well, some companies are interested in GMO free and environmental sustainable products.

“You have companies that are looking for cost advantages relative to other sources of protein and you have people who are looking for novel ingredients,” Bacon said.

Bacon said there is opportunity for other pulse processing. Fababeans have a higher protein content than yellow peas but currently fababean production is much less than peas.

“You’re not going to build a plant for something that doesn’t yet get produced in Western Canada. But I think for sure it’s the combination of price availability and then the functionality of the protein as well,” Bacon said.

The post Pea processing attracting wide interest appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Wanting to push back on Mexico’s influence over the American economy, Washington now is indicating that the bilateral option with Canada is more appealing. In Trump’s playbook, multilateral deals are highly complex and can only benefit smaller markets to a greater degree. Bilateral deals are perceived as being more predictable, as they make it easier to access potential long-term gains.

• Read more: NAFTA negotiators trade barbs, agree on extension
• Read more: U.S. now seeking end to supply management in NAFTA talks

Whether we agree with this premise or not, what the U.S. believes to be true matters to everyone. But for our agri-food sector, many wonder how life will look like without NAFTA.

Should NAFTA end, there is no doubt that tariffs will rise and will affect cross-border supply chain efficiency. In fact, The Peterson Institute for International Eco­nom­ics suggests tariffs on agricultural commodities and other food products could go up by 3.5 per cent on average for the U.S., 4.2 per cent for Canada, and 7.5 per cent for Mexico. This brings a lot of uncertainty for major agricultural sectors like cattle, hogs, and many grains.

In agri-food, Canada has a trade deficit with the U.S. market. We sell them about $22 billion worth of goods while the Americans sell us $24 billion worth of food products, ranging from produce, baked goods, and processed food items. But these numbers hide an inconvenient truth as to what our agri-food economy is about on a global stage. Most of what we sell are raw commodities which have been processed at a very basic level, only to buy them back, packaged or in a bottle, at 20 times the price.

This is perhaps the wake-up call Canada needed. For years, Canada has been a trade-reliant, agricultural economy and has never been compelled to become more strategic about trade. Our global position on agri-food trades has been weak at best.

With over 120 marketing boards across the country, our economy has been obsessed with countervailing oligopolistic powers upstream to protect our farmers. Farming needs support, but most of our agricultural policies have been at the expense of companies in processing and distribution.

Some companies have successfully hedged against Ottawa’s decades-long nonchalant focus on trades. Saputo in Montreal and AGT in Saskatchewan are some brilliant examples. It is only recently, with attempts to join TPP and with CETA, that Ottawa has shown signs that it realizes it needs to up its game on trades.

With NAFTA, we can blame Washington all we want, but Canada has not demonstrated that it wants to liberalize its trading position either. Ottawa has perhaps signalled it wants to modernize the tri-country trade pact, but it seemed unwilling to make any major concessions. We seem content to play defence against Goliath. Some of the most vibrant agri-food economies in the world have been proactively engaged on the global stage in order to give their agri-food sector a sense of purpose.

Meanwhile, as the rest of the world progresses, we continue to support cartel-esque agencies to support commodity groups like dairy, eggs, poultry, maple syrup and many other sectors. Furthermore, we are still trying to figure out what our agri-food strategy will look like.

To offset Trump’s wrath, Ottawa did everything right to prepare itself accordingly for NAFTA talks — except that Canada has failed to consider itself as an agri-food powerhouse in the making. To get there, we need a shift, a paradigmatic change in our mindset. Washington is now inviting Canada to address a dilemma, which, to this day, we have never wanted to deliberately face. CETA was a miracle and it happened in spite of ourselves. Canada is not even close to having a trade deal with the second-largest economy in the world, China. If this was not a priority for Ottawa, it should be.

Now that NAFTA seems to be on life-support, Canada should start thinking about its supply management and how it could reform it so it makes sense to the rest of the world, not just us. It should also think of ways we can capitalize on our new trading friends, the EU. A new deal with the U.S. could put Canada in a very enviable position.

We also need to think about increasing our processing capacity, and sell semi-processed or finished food goods to the rest of the world, and not just wheat, barley, or beef. Research suggests that exporting companies are always more innovative. For any agri-food economy, it is always challenging to build a competitive advantage with raw commodities. Belief in your own products is one thing, but the rest of the world has to approve to build a brand.

The cruel truth is that Canada’s agri-food influence is completely irrelevant to the rest of the world. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was created, and killed, and Canada’s opinion hardly mattered. U.S. media barely covered Trudeau’s latest visit to Washington.

So instead of trying to please an ambivalent neighbour, it is time for Canada to seek more new friends on the world stage.

The post NAFTA’s potential end is Canada’s greatly needed wake-up call appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Minneapolis-based agribusiness will now sell new “native starches” produced from plants such as corn and wheat, as an alternative to more processed starch derivatives used to bulk up food products such as pasta sauce.

“Consumers are scrutinizing labels, looking for products made with plain ingredients they know,” a Cargill spokeswoman said in a statement. “This caused many food manufacturers to reconsider the use of modified food starch.”

The boost in “label-friendly” ingredients comes amid a broader push for diversification as Cargill and other merchants battle tight margins amid excess grain supplies. It said in September that gains in its starch business helped boost food processing earnings last quarter.

Large food manufacturers have been facing weakening growth in demand for packaged foods as consumers in the U.S. and Europe increasingly seek to curb consumption of sugar, genetically-engineered (GMO) and artificial ingredients.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in July showed that nearly half of U.S. respondents said they would consider paying more for foods with “recognizable ingredients.”

Also on Tuesday, rival Archer Daniels Midland said it will boost output of more high-protein, non-GMO ingredients in Germany due to rising demand.

— Reporting for Reuters by Chris Prentice.

The post Cargill expands food starch line-up in ‘clean label’ push appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Marijuana won’t be sold alongside wine or liquor, but in separate, independent stores, as was recommended by a parliamentary committee earlier this year. While Ontario deserves some credit for forging ahead with guidelines for its legal marijuana distribution system, the province’s statement was really filled with ambiguities and unknowns.

• Read more: Post-secondary cannabis credentials on offer

Private sector marijuana retailing seems to be off the table, which in turn will allow a government-run Crown corporation to distribute and sell this commodity to the public. Not surprising, given what has happened to the sales of alcohol over the last few decades in the province. Like beer and wines now, marijuana will eventually be available through privately owned retailers; however, little about cannabis is straightforward in our modern society.

Social stigmas related to cannabis use remain, so Ontario felt the public was not ready for private distribution. After all, cannabis has been illegal in Canada since 1923, so we need to give ourselves a chance to get used to the notion of living in a society where it is a legal part of everyday life.

Ontario has set the legal age limit at 19 for purchasing marijuana, but few specifics were given on pricing or costs. Most important, no consideration has been given to edible cannabis products, or how these products would be marketed. Nor have guidelines for home cultivation and use been contextualized, especially for households with children. Cooking at home with marijuana, for example, can be tricky. What’s more, the food-service industry and restaurants were not even mentioned in the announcement.

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the developed world. Its use has, for the longest time, been associated with negative social and economic outcomes. By legalizing marijuana for recreational use, many wonder how it could affect food in general, and it will, despite Ontario’s wishes. The province will not allow edibles, for now. But the black market remains and may impact everything else the province is trying to achieve in mitigating risks for the public.

Since Ottawa’s announcement, several food companies, processors, and distributors are considering the possibility of commercializing cannabis-infused products. In some U.S. states where marijuana is already legal, consumers can purchase a variety of marijuana-infused food products from fudge, cookies, and brownies, to hard candies, gelato, and even gummy bears. Yes, candy.

Some food products, like marijuana brownies, have long been a staple of cannabis coffee shops in some parts of the world, but the new products are quite different and may be deceiving. They are skilfully produced and packaged to closely mimic popular candies and other sweets. Making cannabis more readily available to children, especially in edible forms, represents significant risks.

Research shows marijuana use can be damaging to children and their developing brains, and of course, to fetuses through use by expectant women. No policy framework related to edibles, or by pretending the problem does not exist, will lead to more challenges down the road.

Ontario was completely tight lipped on many facets of a highly complex marijuana puzzle. The stigma of marijuana use clearly got the better of the Ontario government. Looking at retailing the product is one thing. But it is worthwhile considering its various applications beyond the exchange between the seller and the customer. Instead, Ontario has adopted an excessively prudent, incremental deployment strategy to the marketing of marijuana across the province. Again, this is unsurprisingly short sighted.

With the legalization of recreational marijuana, Canada is following in the footsteps of a few states in the U.S., and edible marijuana products have been tremendously popular in these markets. Edibles with marijuana raise public health concerns, including, as mentioned above, the risk of consumption by children. Making them illegal won’t solve anything since they will reach the market, one way or another. The food-service industry is also considering its options with the looming legalization of marijuana. Some guidance by provinces would serve the public well, particularly at a time where many wonder how marijuana, as a legal food ingredient, could potentially impact our society.

While governments may see the legalization of recreational marijuana as an interesting new source of substantial revenue, risks associated with the prevalence of marijuana use as a food ingredient have not been clearly articulated. Even with the few stores Ontario will operate, the amount of revenue will likely motivate the province to reconsider its options in this field. No doubt, more stores will open. But as the province grows its addiction to marijuana tax revenues, it should also consider how it will develop guidelines for edibles, and for marijuana as a food ingredient for domestic use. Or else, the underground market will occupy that space and that is not a desirable outcome.

The post Weeding out what is missing appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The eight-page guide Direct Marketing Your Food Product covers allowable production levels, grading requirements, and processing standards. Safe food-handling practices and labelling requirements are also explained.

The release of the document fulfills a recommendation of the Small Scale Food Report released in January 2015, calling for development of a ‘plain language guidebook’ to clarify what was otherwise being experienced as a confusing array of regulation available through too many government departments.

The guide covers specifics around processing, handling and direct marketing fruit and vegetables, honey, meat and poultry, dairy, eggs, and meat and meat products.

It also includes a glossary explaining terms such as what a non-potentially hazardous food means and a frequently-asked-questions section covering matters such as requirements for nutritional labelling and selling uninspected chicken or ungraded eggs.

Direct marketing year round is on the uptick in Manitoba but gears up when summer arrives and many direct-to-consumers sales are made at farm gate, through deliveries at pre-arranged locations, community-supported agriculture ventures (CSAs), and at farmers’ markets.

The guide book can be downloaded from Manitoba Agriculture [PDF].

The post New guide explains rules for direct marketing food appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Demand for meat-based snacks has been growing as Americans shun candy and overly processed foods. This has led to a spurt in buyouts of meat snack makers in recent years, including chocolate maker Hershey’s acquisition of Krave beef jerky and Conagra Brands Inc’s deal to buy Duke’s meat snacks.

Tyson said AdvancePierre’s product portfolio fits well with its strategy to expand its prepared food products.

AdvancePierre, whose shares hit a record high of $40.29, sells a variety of meat sandwiches and snacks through its Landshire and Barber Foods brands.

Tyson’s prepared food brands such as Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm and Ball Park primarily make products such as pepperoni, bacon, hot dogs, pizza crusts and toppings.

The meat processor’s offer of $40.25 per share is a 9.8 percent premium to AdvancePierre’s Monday close. The deal, which has an enterprise value of about $4.2 billion, includes $1.1 billion of AdvancePierre debt.

The acquisition is expected to immediately add to Tyson’s earnings per share on both a GAAP and cash basis, excluding one-time costs.

The deal, which is expected to close during Tyson’s fiscal third quarter, will result in cost synergies of about $200 million, to be realized within three years.

Funds affiliated with investment manager Oaktree Capital Management LP, which own about 42 percent of AdvancePierre, have agreed to support the deal.

Tyson had said on Monday it was exploring a sale of its three non-protein brands, including Sara Lee Frozen Bakery, to sharpen its focus on its core businesses.

The company has tried to increase profit by selling more value-added items such as pre-seasoned products and heat-and-serve meals, which command higher margins than basic meats.

The three brands — Sara Lee, the Kettle business and Van’s — sell items such as frozen desserts, waffles, breakfast bars and soups. Rothschild is acting as Tyson’s financial adviser for the sale.

Morgan Stanley & Co LLC is advising Tyson, while Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is providing legal counsel for the AdvancePierre deal.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Moelis & Co LLC are serving as financial advisers to AdvancePierre, while Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is providing legal counsel.

– Reporting by Anya George Tharakan in Bengaluru

The post Tyson Foods beefs up prepared foods with AdvancePierre buy appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.