California Fruit and Vegetable

Tag: COVID-19

  • Demand for Imported Citrus Softens in China

    In line with historical trends, fresh citrus production and consumption are forecast to continue upward in MY2020/21 to 35.6 MMT and 34 MMT, respectively. However, looking ahead, the rate of production growth is expected to slow as prices drop and consumer demand reaches its saturation point. Demand for imported citrus in MY2020/21 is expected to remain soft, down 25% overall from pre-COVID levels, though will return as the economy rebounds. Lower frozen concentrate orange juice imports and production show domestic industry challenges and signal consumers’ changing preferences to juices made from fresh fruits. Chinese countermeasures for COVID-19 will continue to add complication and cost to cold chain imports, including citrus. 

    Post forecasts total citrus production for marketing year (MY) 2020/21 will continue to grow because:

    • –  New trees planted 3-4 years ago start to produce more fruits.

    • –  New growing areas in various provinces.

    • –  New varieties are planted to replace the outdated ones.

    • –  Grafting and growing techniques shorten the time to bear fruits.

    • –  Increasing greenhouse planting for tangerines and mandarins.

      Despite the sustained growth, industry insiders speculate citrus production growth will slow in the next few years as the industry reaches what they believe to be the consumption saturation point.

      Prices: Overall citrus prices dropped in MY2019/20 with a larger crop. This downward pressure on prices will continue for MY2020/21 with an even larger crop forecasted. However, it is expected that the prices for premium fruits will remain high assuming the pandemic will be better controlled in MY2020/21 and Chinese consumers have stronger confidence in spending.

      The unprecedented surge and spread of COVID-19 in MY2019/20 had some key impacts on the Chinese citrus market:

    • –  The economic slowdown in 2020 made Chinese consumers more price sensitive and conservative in spending.

    • –  Major local citrus importers who purchased southern hemisphere products in early CY2020 encountered decreasing market demand and lost money, especially on imported oranges. As a result, for part of MY2019/20, they were hesitant to place further orders for imported fruits given the uncertainty of COVID-19 and challenges with trade.

    • –  Lockdowns and higher operational costs limited exports in MY2019/20, leaving more in the domestic market and creating downward pressure on prices.

    • –  Labor shortages and port backups in China and elsewhere had some negative impact on Chinese imports and exports in early CY2020.

    • –  Fewer imported fruits available in the wholesale market are leading some Chinese traders to put increasing attention on domestic fruit trade.

    • –  The disinfection measures required at Chinese ports for all cold chain food products starting in late MY2019/20 further raise the import costs.

    • –  Post believes consumers’ adoption of online and digital sales in the first half of 2020 will create lasting changes for offline retail stores.

    • –  Brand building, even in fruit, is becoming more important to attract high-end consumers.

    • –  The appreciation of the Chinese RMB in CY2019/20 will make it less expensive to import and more expensive to export possibly leaving more fruits in the domestic market. — Read the full report from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service HERE.

  • Pandemic Conditions and Growing Vegetarian Population Increases Fresh Fruit Demand in India

    India’s market year (MY) 2020/21 apple and pear production are estimated at 2.3 million metric tons (MMT) and 305,000 metric tons (MT), respectively, as unfavorable weather conditions during the flowering stage have led to reduced yields from MY 2019/20. Apple and pear imports for 2020/21 are forecast at 0.24 MMT and 22,500 MT, respectively. Table grape production is expected to marginally increase to 2.3 MMT, while Indian table grape exports are expected to decline, largely to meet domestic demand. Fresh deciduous fruit demand remains stable, and the COVID-19 pandemic that influenced consumer behavioral changes will continue to drive fruit consumption through both online and physical retail.

    Indian apple production is limited to the northern states of Jammu and Kashmir with a 70 percent market share, followed by Himachal Pradesh with 21.5-25 percent, and Uttarakhand with six percent share. The Northeastern hill states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Sikkim also produce small apple quantities. Read the full report from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service HERE.

  • The Essential Pieces of Protecting Ag Workers, Preventing COVID-19 Spread

    Christopher Valadez — As president of the Grower Shipper Association of Central California (GSA), I talk to farmers, farming companies, farm labor contractors and farm workers about the challenges faced when protecting essential employees from COVID-19 exposure. These conversations and hearing the needs firsthand formed the impetus for many of the programs established by GSA over the last few months to lessen or prevent the spread of COVID-19 among the farm worker community.

    But I also speak regularly with county health officials, local hospitals and health clinics, farm labor advocates, academics, state regulators, elected officials and local community leaders about COVID-19 and its impact on farm workers. Many have become important partners and have worked with GSA and the local ag community to develop on-farm prevention training programs led by health professionals, provide daily health checks for farm workers in GSA’s quarantined housing program, acquire additional PPE and establish expedited testing programs to provide faster results for farm workers.

    As we end the harvest season in our region, we have an opportunity to reflect and learn before workers return in the spring. What can we do better to enhance efforts to prevent the spread of this virus on the job and within our communities to keep our workforce healthy? At GSA, we hope to see more emphasis on contact tracing as well as a prioritization of farm workers to receive vaccinations against this virus. But let’s start with contact tracing.

    After a positive test is confirmed, contact tracing is the process of identification of persons who may have come into contact with an infected person and subsequent collection of further information about these contacts. It is vitally important that public health officials have the resources to conduct more extensive contact tracing once a positive test is obtained so we are effectively targeting prevention strategies with a focus on where the virus is spread – work, transit to work, at home or within our community. Otherwise we may be enacting rules and regulations in one area when better information on where the virus is being spread may indicate they are actually needed in another. Or, the solution may not address the real problem.

    While public health officials are integral to effective contact tracing, employers are also required to conduct their own tracing to determine if a COVID-positive employee may have exposed others and where – work or home. Once an employer learns of an employee potentially exposed or sick, they can then provide options and information about quarantined housing. GSA’s quarantined housing program provides COVID-positive or exposed farm workers with daily meal deliveries and health checks to ensure they can isolate or recover in a safe and comfortable environment.  And, California mandates that essential workers receive two weeks paid sick leave if they test positive or are sickened by the virus.

    Farmers and farming companies are spending significant time and monetary resources to protect workers through both regulatory compliance and their own best practices. And, as we learn more about the virus, prevention practices in agriculture are continually improving. But, we are not experts in public health and we are reliant on public health guidance. Adequate testing and effective contact tracing combined with isolation alternatives through quarantined housing is the best way to yield real results and target the spread of this virus at its source.

    While GSA will work collaboratively to ensure these crucial prevention strategies are improved and ready in 2021, it is the prioritization of providing vaccines to essential workers that will ultimately protect our workforce from this persistent and relentless virus. GSA will join with industry, local elected officials, labor groups and community leaders to advocate for vaccine prioritization so farm workers are among the first groups to receive them.

    We have learned a significant amount since the early days of the pandemic when farmers and farming companies had to quickly learn and implement prevention strategies while striving to provide healthy fruits and vegetables to consumers. I look back over these last few months and ponder what was accomplished, what has changed and what we could have done better. But one thing is clear: Our work to protect farm workers at the workplace as well as educate this community about prevention practices at home must continue to evolve and improve. The 2021 harvest season will be here before we know it. We must be ready.

  • Is COVID-19 Aid Reaching Farmers?

    The second iteration of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP-2) developed by USDA to help compensate farmers for losses due to the coronavirus pandemic is working much better and reaching more farmers than the first round of aid launched earlier this year. Since CFAP-2 opened to farmers on September 21, 2020 participation has been brisk and as the program application window has only one month left (closing December 11, 2020), it is time to revisit how the program is benefitting farmers, questions and concerns that have arisen, and if there are any lessons to draw upon for future aid to farmers as the pandemic continues to spread unchecked through most parts of the country.

    This blog will highlight some elements of CFAP-2 but for a far more authoritative treatment, please see the Farmers’ Guide to Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 2recently published by our colleagues at the Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG).

    Who Is Benefitting?

    The original CFAP-1 program had severe shortcomings but one in particular limited its utility for many farmers. CFAP-1 had a single payment option – the price loss payment – where farmers received a formula payment based on the national average price decline of a crop or commodity. The payment rates were extremely low and the number of commodities that were eligible was limited. While some payment rates were increased and the list of eligible commodities expanded over time, the basic formula remained.

    Because the formula employed a national average price decline to calculate payment rates, the checks farmers received did not necessarily reflect what they would have earned in their own market. This was especially true for farmers and ranchers that sold directly to their customers – restaurants, institutions, schools, and everyone at local farmers markets – as they often earn a price premium on these products. So too for producers of organic farm goods or any other products, such as pasture raised meats, that typically command a higher price compared to conventional products.

    By the time the CFAP-1 program ran its course, 651,099 farmers had received more than $10 Billion in payments, but it was widely acknowledged that the primary beneficiaries were cattle producers ($4.3 Billion) while diversified specialty crop growers ($834 Million) came up short.

    This is where CFAP-2 is a marked improvement over CFAP-1. While CFAP-2 retains the price loss payment for some commodities (a major problem for producers that are still required to take this payment option because of the crops they grow) it also includes two new payment options for farmers – the flat rate and the sales commodities payment. The flat rate payment option pays $15 per acre and is targeted to a wide variety of small grains and other similar non-commodity row crops. This opened the program to many diversified small grain growers and oil seed producers who were excluded from CFAP-1.

    The more significant change was the addition of the sales commodity payment, which is open to producers of specialty crops, nursery crops, tobacco, some minor livestock species, and aquaculture products. This payment is based on a producer’s revenue derived from those farm products in 2019 and mirrors the revenue based payment program proposed in the Local and Regional Farmer and Market Support Act (Local Farmer Act), that was developed with support of NSAC and Coalition member the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. This payment option has been especially important for diversified growers, farmers who grow organic or otherwise higher valued farm products, and producers who sell directly to their customers. Payments based on historic revenue, rather than wholesale price declines, better reflect farmers’ real losses due to market disruptions.

    Nearly all crops and products not covered under the other two payment options are eligible for the sales commodity payment and although the payment rates are relatively modest (approximately 10%) they have been well received by diversified growers and specialty crop and livestock producers. With nearly a month left to sign up for the program, CFAP-2 has already paid 576,399 farmers more than $9.5 Billion in payments, well ahead of the CFAP-1 program during the same time period.

    What is more telling is the distribution of those payments. While row crop and cattle producers continue to derive the greatest payments, specialty crop and specialty livestock payments have increased from $833 Million under CFAP-1 to $1.2 Billion under CFAP-2 and the rate of payments to farmers for eligible sales commodities continues to grow even as claims for other payments slow. This is particularly remarkable given that early projections of CFAP-2 payments anticipated that specialty crops would likely receive only $313 million in payments.

    Are there problems with CFAP-2?

    Yes, but there is progress. In the process of helping farmers understand CFAP-2 through webinars and developing supporting materials, a number of questions and concerns have been raised about the structure and administration of the program. NSAC has worked with USDA to get answers to some of the farmer questions which are summarized below.

    1. Will farmers be required to obtain an FSA number to apply for CFAP-2?

    Yes. An acreage report is required for the acreage-based assistance, which includes both price-trigger and flat rate payments. To file an acreage report, a farm must be established with FSA. 

    • Is there any reservation of funding, or other mechanism, to ensure that farmers who apply late in the application cycle will receive the payment for which they are eligible?

    No. The funding allocated for CFAP-2 is based on USDA’s rigorous analysis of the impacts of market disruptions and associated costs caused by COVID-19 (farmers.gov/cfap) and is anticipated to meet the applications submitted by farmers and ranchers. However, there is no contingency in place if demand exceeds existing funding. 

    • What material will be accepted as documentation of 2019 sales from farmers who are subject to a USDA ‘spot check’?

    The USDA CFAP-2 handbook contains several examples. If selected for spot check, participants will be required to provide documentation to support their certification. The Department recognizes available documentation will vary significantly by commodity as well as method of sale and will work with participants, as appropriate, on any concerns with documentation to support certifications.

    • How will USDA determine which farmers will be ‘spot checked?’ Will this selection process be random, a set percentage of applications made to each program payment option, or based on payment amounts, familiarity of the FSA office staff with the farmer/applicant, or on a perceived risk of fraudulent activity? There is a serious concern that any selection criteria used by the agency be uniform and that the standards applied not increase the probability that small, diversified operations are audited or that applications submitted by historically underserved farmers, including Black, indigenous, and producers of color, are reviewed at higher rates than the total pool of applicants reviewed.

    Spot checks will be based on a statistically-sound, random sample with additional selections identified to ensure a sufficient sample of all types of commodities is completed to meet program integrity requirements.

    • Who will conduct the ‘spot checks’ of program eligibility? What is the role of FSA field staff and central office staff in identifying cases for review or in conducting the reviews? There is a serious concern that the review of eligibility by agency staff be uniform and equitable.

    The national office outlines and oversees the spot check process. Spot checks will be completed by FSA staff, which may be the local office staff, regional staff, or staff from within the state and/or neighboring state.

    • When will USDA make Spanish language versions of all CFAP-2 application materials (including supporting documents CCC-902, AD-1026, etc.) available and will both online and paper forms be available? In what other languages will the application documents be available?

    Translations for the CFAP 2 application (AD-3117) and CCC-902I (for individuals) will be available soon. The CCC-902E (for entities) is available in Spanish, as is the CCC-902 Continuation. The AD-1026 is currently available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Vietnamese.

    • What is the process that USDA will use to inform producers that their CFAP-1 and CFAP-2 applications were denied or that the amount of the payment for which they were approved was “adjusted” by USDA, and is therefore different from that on the farmer’s application? Has USDA sent any denial letters to farmers for either CFAP-1 or CFAP-2?

    If an application is disapproved or any information on the application is adjusted from what is certified by the applicant, the local FSA office provides written notification to the applicant and provides appeal rights. This is the process with CFAP-1, CFAP-2, and all other programs administered by FSA. 

    • Producers that do not have current records on file at their FSA offices will likely need to demonstrate their conservation compliance when applying for CFAP-2 through the submission of Form AD-1026 “Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification.” Is there a process in place to ensure that farmers that need NRCS determinations of HELC and WC can receive them quickly so that their applications can be submitted and considered before the program closes on December 11th?

    CFAP payments will be processed in advance of the determination being completed for any producer certifying in compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland provisions. The determination will still need to be completed but will not result in delaying issuance of payments.

    How can future coronavirus aid work better for farmers?

    At this moment, the prospects for another coronavirus response bill are dim until the new Congress convenes in January. Control of the Senate is still outstanding, pending runoff elections in Georgia, and the transition between the Trump and Biden Administrations is more fraught than any in living history. This makes the bipartisan work necessary to craft a coronavirus aid package that could help farmers during this difficult year extremely hard to achieve. However, this dynamic is likely to change in the next Congress as rates of coronavirus continue to increase and the spread into rural communities changes the political calculus of some legislators.

    In a future coronavirus package (C4), there are a number of actions that could help across all Americans across the entire food system and NSAC recently wrote to Congressional leadership to detail these priorities. In addition to those urgent needs, the next version of CFAP direct farmer aid should be improved by:

    • Opening the sales commodity payment program to all direct marketing farmers and other producers who grow products that command a price premium such as organic, pasture raised, or similar.
    • Making contract producers eligible for payments CFAP payments.
    • Increasing the payment rates for the sales commodity payment program and including a mechanism for farmers to demonstrate – and be eligible to be compensated for – costs they have incurred to adapt to marketing their commodities during the pandemic.
    • Ensuring greater training and resources – particularly farmer oriented materials in a variety of languages – for FSA fields staff so that they can better serve all farmers and expand outreach efforts to ensure that all eligible farmers – particularly Black, Indigenous, and Farmers of Color – understand the program and how to apply for assistance.
    • Conducting a rigorous analysis of the farmers who applied for, received, or were deemed ineligible to receive assistance under CFAP-1 and -2 to ensure that the programs were administered equitably and that any future program actively counters any bias or discriminatory practices that may be discovered.

    The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition remains committed to ensuring that any future coronavirus response supports farmers, farmworkers, food system workers and all who rely on them for healthy, safe, nutritious food and that it align with the long term goal of creating a more just, equitable, and sustainable food system. — By National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

  • Quarantined Housing Program for Farm Workers in Imperial/Yuma Growing Regions

    In April, the Grower Shipper Association of Central California (GSA) established a first-of-its-kind housing program for farm workers in the Salinas Valley who were exposed to COVID-19, tested positive for the virus or were symptomatic.  To assist its members in protecting farm workers as the growing season transitions to the Yuma and Imperial areas, GSA has established a similar quarantined housing program in that region.

    Quarantined housing in Yuma and Imperial was accessible as of November 1.  It will offer the same services to farm workers as the Central Coast program, including safe and comfortable rooms, daily deliveries of meals and other necessities as well as daily health checks with a team of nursing professionals.

    “We learned a great deal over the last several months and we were happy to lend our expertise to setting up and managing this program to ensure farm workers in the Yuma and Imperial areas have access to quarantined housing whenever needed,” says Christopher Valadez, President of GSA.

    GSA’s program earned praise from Governor Gavin Newsom who modeled the state’s “Housing for the Harvest” program on the organization’s efforts. In Newsom’s housing program announcement in July, the governor thanked the Monterey County farming community for the work they have done in their region to protect workers describing these efforts as “an incredible job in this state supporting ag workers and farm workers.”    

    The quarantined housing program not only provides farm workers with a comfortable environment where they can rest and recover, but it protects their families and housemates by limiting their exposure to the virus.

    In addition to the quarantined housing program, GSA was also part of a collaborative group that created among the first workplace protection standards to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in agricultural operations, accessed and distributed over a million face masks; developed a program with local hospitals to provide on-site prevention training for farm workers by health professionals and partnered with Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas to provide expedited COVID-19 testing which allowed more timely results and more convenient locations for workers.

    Farmers and farming companies in the Yuma and Imperial areas who want more information on the quarantined housing program should contact Christopher Valadez.

  • Survey Asks Californians About Views on Agriculture

    In February 2020, the Grower Shipper Association of Central California (GSA) conducted a survey of residents in the Bay Area and in our local farming regions.  While this survey was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the results and responses still have value and provide important information to GSA as we work to advance families, food and farming in our region.

    Among the most gratifying result was how much Northern Californians valued agriculture.  Seventy-seven percent stated that agriculture was most or very important to the quality of life and the economy of California.  “We were very pleased to see that so many residents recognized the important work of farmers and farm workers, even before the pandemic,” says Chris Valadez, GSA President.

    The survey shows residents also appear to understand some of the issues facing agriculture, including labor and potential shortages.  Seventy-seven percent of respondents supported the employment of guest workers by agriculture under the H-2A visa program to offset domestic labor shortages and 71% agreed guest worker programs are important to California’s economy.  However, 54% said they were concerned about the impact of guest workers on housing in the region, a concern shared by the agricultural community.

    “While new farm worker housing projects along the Central Coast are in process now, we must continue to work to find innovative solutions to ensure adequate and safe housing is a priority for our community,” Valadez says. “The pandemic further underscored the need for more affordable housing in our region.”

    Food safety is where survey respondents indicated they want agriculture to advance efforts to continuously improve and better protect public health. Respondents generally agreed they want farmers and government agencies to work jointly to improve food safety.

    The survey also explored views on water quality and water supply.  Almost 70% of respondents stated that their water quality was good to excellent.  And, seventy-eight percent agreed that their biggest water concern was an adequate supply and impacts from another drought.  While water was a less important issue among respondents overall, when probed, 64% of respondents stated that agricultural runoff was a concern.

    Finally the survey looked at residential, industrial and agricultural use of pesticides. Interestingly 42% of respondents said they understand the benefits of pesticide use with 23% stating they were unsure about those benefits. This may convey a need for agriculture to continue to provide more information about the safety standards and use of pesticides in organic and conventional production.

    Conclusions:  

    As it did for every one, the pandemic severely shifted the focus of the farming community and GSA.  Significant time and resources were devoted to protecting essential farm workers from COVID-19 exposure while working to ensure a consistent supply of safe and healthy foods reaches consumers.  As the pandemic evolves, GSA’s work to facilitate the availability of protective equipment for farm workers, in-field training by medical professionals, quarantined housing and adequate COVID-19 testing programs continues and remains of primary importance.

    However, the survey findings as well as conversations with media, residents, regulators, elected officials and labor groups throughout the pandemic show that Californians want and need more information about issues impacting agriculture and our industry’s response.  It is also clear respondents greatly value farming in California and its importance to a healthy economy.

    After examining the survey results, GSA’s focus will be on the continuance of solution-based programs, enhanced and transparent external communications about farming practices as well as continued dialogue and engagement with residents, elected officials, labor and environmental advocates.  This survey will help GSA prioritize its attention and efforts on the issues of key importance to Bay Area and Central Coast residents.

    GSA is preparing a white paper with complete survey results as well as a new webpage called “Our Work” which will provide information on these specific issues as well as GSA solution-based programs and activities.  The Our Work webpage will go live in the coming weeks.

    The online survey was conducted in eight counties in the Bay Area and Central Coast from February 7 through February 10.  The survey margin of error was 4.0. 

  • Five Steps for Ag Processors to Adapt their COVID-19 Incident Response Approach

    COVID-19 is a health crisis in the United States but major industries, like agriculture, chemical manufacturing, oil and gas exploration and production, all need to keep functioning as essential businesses in the midst of the crisis.  The response to COVID-19 has core parallels to major industrial accident response, which involves deploying the right resources for the task.  Every incident, be it a fire, explosion, or a government inspection and citation for regulatory compliance failures involves four key elements of response:  (1) the immediate response; (2) the extended response; (3) compliance and prevention; and (4) preparedness/lessons learned to improve.  This lifecycle of an incident applies equally to a COVID-19 contact among your employees or customers.  Make no mistake.  The stakes are high.  Recently, Cal/OSHA issued COVID-19 related citations to two companies of over $200,000 each, one to a frozen food manufacturer and the other to a temporary employment agency.  New legislation that becomes effective next year gives Cal/OSHA expanded authority to issue Orders Prohibiting Use for workplaces that pose risk of an “imminent hazard” relating to COVID-19.  In other words, they can shut your plant down if you don’t have the right procedures in place to respond to a COVID-19 incident.

    Processing plant managers are accustomed to incidents, such as injuries, agency inspections, or citations (hopefully not too frequently with respect to citations); applying the process in the context of COVID-19 can work extremely well, even where handling these situations requires adjustment for the particular crisis at hand.  In every crisis, the approach needs to be tailored, and COVID-19 incidents are no different.

    Examples of how a COVID-19 response needs to be tailored include determining work-relatedness to a positive test to COVID-19, identifying close contacts, identifying the agencies to whom notifications must be provided, and contact tracing for potentially exposed employees, testing, and implementing isolation protocols.  In the context of COVID-19, agriculture companies need to be keenly aware of increased Cal/OSHA oversight, as the agency has identified agricultural processing as a priority for enforcement because agricultural processing facility workers have been disproportionately impacted.

    When confronting a COVID-19 incident, follow these useful tips to help minimize liability and potential for citation by the government.

    1. Familiarize yourself with the Extensive Government Guidance Issued, Especially that Tailored to Your Industry

    There’s a saying in incident response:  your greatest exposure is not the incident itself but whether you follow the regulations for reporting and responding to the incident.  That’s true for a major chemical release from your operations and a COVID-19 incident, alike.  When the crisis emerged, several federal and state agencies provided guidance documents to companies on how to address potential cases of COVID-19.  Like the crisis, the guidance is evolving.  The government continues to update its approach and has even offered tailored to specific industries.  Following the agency guidance will put a facility in a much stronger compliance position when faced with a compliance inspection or determination of work-relatedness.

    Some key recent government guidance specific to the agricultural processing industry is listed below:

    • September 18, 2020, California Department of Public Health (CDPH) updated Guidelines intended for use by employers experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 in their workplace.  It emphasizes that employers should be proactive and keep in mind that identification of even a single positive case among employees may quickly develop into an outbreak.
    • July 29, 2020, California COVID-19 Guidance for the agriculture and livestock industry to support a safe, clean environment for workers.  Recommendations include that an employer investigate any COVID-19 illness and determine if any work-related factors could have contributed to risk of infection;    identify close contacts (within six feet for fifteen minutes or more) of an infected worker and take steps to isolate COVID-19 positive worker(s) and close contacts; implement the necessary processes and protocols when a workplace has an outbreak, in accordance with the CDPH guidelines.
    • July 21, 2020, Cal/OSHA updated Guidance for the agriculture industry.  This provides:
    • COVID-19 Daily Checklist for Agricultural Employers
    • COVID-19 General Checklist for Agricultural Employers
    • Infection Prevention for Agricultural Employees and Employers
    1. Make Required Government Notifications

    Understand requirements for reporting employee cases to Cal/OSHA.  Any serious injury, illness, or death occurring in any place of employment or in connection with any employment must be reported by the employer to the local Cal/OSHA district office immediately.  For COVID-19, this includes inpatient hospitalizations and deaths among employees.

    On September 17, 2020, Governor Newsom also signed into law AB 685 which enhances reporting requirements to local health authorities in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the worksite.  The law takes effect on January 1, 2021.

    Employers should also check local guidance to determine if there are other investigation, reporting, or recording obligations triggered by a positive COVID-19 case.

    Finally, recognize that if an employee is out with COVID-19 or quarantined, other government obligations, like environmental reporting may fall by the wayside in their absence.  Develop a plan to ensure your ongoing government reporting obligations are being met, even those not COVID-19-related.  Having an employee out due to COVID-19 is likely not going to serve as an acceptable excuse for environmental noncompliance.

    1. Do the Investigation

    To comply with Cal/OSHA requirements, plant managers should ensure their companies are investigating positive COVID-19 determinations in a timely manner to identify any work-related factors and to identify close contacts.  This will protect employees, comply with Cal/OSHA requirements, and provide information that may be needed to in regards to the “disputable presumption” that exists in California for an employee who suffers illness or death resulting from COVID-19 on or after July 6, 2020 through January 1, 2023.

    COVID-19 related citations recently issued by Cal/OSHA included a failure to investigate about 20 COVID-19 illnesses and one death for a food manufacturer. Cal/OSHA’s news release highlighted that Cal/OSHA created guidance for many industries in multiple languages including videos, daily checklists and detailed guidelines on how to protect workers from the virus. This guidance is meant to provide a roadmap for employers on their existing obligations to protect workers from COVID-19.  If you don’t conduct required investigations, you will be placing your company at risk of being shut down through Cal/OSHA’s expanded authority to issue Orders Prohibiting Use for workplaces that pose a risks of an “imminent hazard” relating to COVID-19.

    1. Meet Requirements for Identifying and Notifying Potentially Affected Employees

    As part of the investigation, additional employee cases and close contacts (within six feet for fifteen minutes or more) should be identified in accordance with the regulations and guidance.  The facility will then need to conduct testing or alternative methods (e.g., contact tracing or quarantining) in consultation with the local health department to control the outbreak.

    All potentially exposed employees must be notified and employers must meet obligations regarding confidentiality of employees with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).

    1. Review and Update the Facility COVID-19 Plan to Apply Lessons Learned and Improve

    In the July 29, 2020 COVID-19 Guidance for agriculture and livestock, the state of California  recommended that each facility establish a written, workplace-specific COVID-19 prevention plan, perform a comprehensive risk assessment of all work areas and work tasks, and designate a person at each facility to implement the plan. The plan should include sanitation practices, physical distancing, individual control measures, screening, and other incidental practices to prevent the spread amongst workers. Upon completion of the incident investigation, the facility should update the plan as needed to prevent further cases.

    Conclusion

    COVID-19 presents unique challenges to processing plant managers responding to incidents because of the difficulty in determining the source of infection, agency notification and attention, contact tracing, employee notification, testing, control measures, and return to work. Like any incident, COVID-19 incident response should focus on:  (1) the immediate response by making required agency notifications and dealing with the immediate employee concerns including contact tracing; (2) the extended response by conducting an incident investigation; (3) compliance and prevention by conducting testing or implement isolation protocols; and (4) preparedness/lessons learned to improve by reviewing and updating the facility COVID-19 plan. Processing plant managers who work quickly and diligently to respond to a COVID-19 incident will reap the benefit of minimizing regulatory scrutiny protecting employees and comply with legal reporting and notification requirements. They should also regularly check local, state, and federal guidance to determine if there are new or revised investigation, reporting, or recording obligations triggered by a positive COVID-19.   – By Daniel J. Grucza & Shannon S. Broome

    Dan Grucza is Counsel with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. He regularly advises companies on health and safety issues and has been a speaker and author on COVID-19 response issues and is a lead member of the firm’s incident response practice.

    Shannon S. Broome is the Managing Partner of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s San Francisco office and leads its environmental practice in California.  She routinely advises clients on Cal/OSHA compliance issues and on major accident and other incident response for industrial facilities.

  • Five Steps for Ag Processors to Adapt their COVID-19 Incident Response Approach

    COVID-19 is a health crisis in the United States but major industries, like agriculture, chemical manufacturing, oil and gas exploration and production, all need to keep functioning as essential businesses in the midst of the crisis.  The response to COVID-19 has core parallels to major industrial accident response, which involves deploying the right resources for the task.  Every incident, be it a fire, explosion, or a government inspection and citation for regulatory compliance failures involves four key elements of response:  (1) the immediate response; (2) the extended response; (3) compliance and prevention; and (4) preparedness/lessons learned to improve.  This lifecycle of an incident applies equally to a COVID-19 contact among your employees or customers.  Make no mistake.  The stakes are high.  Recently, Cal/OSHA issued COVID-19 related citations to two companies of over $200,000 each, one to a frozen food manufacturer and the other to a temporary employment agency.  New legislation that becomes effective next year gives Cal/OSHA expanded authority to issue Orders Prohibiting Use for workplaces that pose risk of an “imminent hazard” relating to COVID-19.  In other words, they can shut your plant down if you don’t have the right procedures in place to respond to a COVID-19 incident.

    Processing plant managers are accustomed to incidents, such as injuries, agency inspections, or citations (hopefully not too frequently with respect to citations); applying the process in the context of COVID-19 can work extremely well, even where handling these situations requires adjustment for the particular crisis at hand.  In every crisis, the approach needs to be tailored, and COVID-19 incidents are no different.

    Examples of how a COVID-19 response needs to be tailored include determining work-relatedness to a positive test to COVID-19, identifying close contacts, identifying the agencies to whom notifications must be provided, and contact tracing for potentially exposed employees, testing, and implementing isolation protocols.  In the context of COVID-19, agriculture companies need to be keenly aware of increased Cal/OSHA oversight, as the agency has identified agricultural processing as a priority for enforcement because agricultural processing facility workers have been disproportionately impacted.

    When confronting a COVID-19 incident, follow these useful tips to help minimize liability and potential for citation by the government.

    1. Familiarize yourself with the Extensive Government Guidance Issued, Especially that Tailored to Your Industry

    There’s a saying in incident response:  your greatest exposure is not the incident itself but whether you follow the regulations for reporting and responding to the incident.  That’s true for a major chemical release from your operations and a COVID-19 incident, alike.  When the crisis emerged, several federal and state agencies provided guidance documents to companies on how to address potential cases of COVID-19.  Like the crisis, the guidance is evolving.  The government continues to update its approach and has even offered tailored to specific industries.  Following the agency guidance will put a facility in a much stronger compliance position when faced with a compliance inspection or determination of work-relatedness.

    Some key recent government guidance specific to the agricultural processing industry is listed below:

    • September 18, 2020, California Department of Public Health (CDPH) updated Guidelines intended for use by employers experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 in their workplace.  It emphasizes that employers should be proactive and keep in mind that identification of even a single positive case among employees may quickly develop into an outbreak.
    • July 29, 2020, California COVID-19 Guidance for the agriculture and livestock industry to support a safe, clean environment for workers.  Recommendations include that an employer investigate any COVID-19 illness and determine if any work-related factors could have contributed to risk of infection;    identify close contacts (within six feet for fifteen minutes or more) of an infected worker and take steps to isolate COVID-19 positive worker(s) and close contacts; implement the necessary processes and protocols when a workplace has an outbreak, in accordance with the CDPH guidelines.
    • July 21, 2020, Cal/OSHA updated Guidance for the agriculture industry.  This provides:
    • COVID-19 Daily Checklist for Agricultural Employers
    • COVID-19 General Checklist for Agricultural Employers
    • Infection Prevention for Agricultural Employees and Employers
    1. Make Required Government Notifications

    Understand requirements for reporting employee cases to Cal/OSHA.  Any serious injury, illness, or death occurring in any place of employment or in connection with any employment must be reported by the employer to the local Cal/OSHA district office immediately.  For COVID-19, this includes inpatient hospitalizations and deaths among employees.

    On September 17, 2020, Governor Newsom also signed into law AB 685 which enhances reporting requirements to local health authorities in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the worksite.  The law takes effect on January 1, 2021.

    Employers should also check local guidance to determine if there are other investigation, reporting, or recording obligations triggered by a positive COVID-19 case.

    Finally, recognize that if an employee is out with COVID-19 or quarantined, other government obligations, like environmental reporting may fall by the wayside in their absence.  Develop a plan to ensure your ongoing government reporting obligations are being met, even those not COVID-19-related.  Having an employee out due to COVID-19 is likely not going to serve as an acceptable excuse for environmental noncompliance.

    1. Do the Investigation

    To comply with Cal/OSHA requirements, plant managers should ensure their companies are investigating positive COVID-19 determinations in a timely manner to identify any work-related factors and to identify close contacts.  This will protect employees, comply with Cal/OSHA requirements, and provide information that may be needed to in regards to the “disputable presumption” that exists in California for an employee who suffers illness or death resulting from COVID-19 on or after July 6, 2020 through January 1, 2023.

    COVID-19 related citations recently issued by Cal/OSHA included a failure to investigate about 20 COVID-19 illnesses and one death for a food manufacturer. Cal/OSHA’s news release highlighted that Cal/OSHA created guidance for many industries in multiple languages including videos, daily checklists and detailed guidelines on how to protect workers from the virus. This guidance is meant to provide a roadmap for employers on their existing obligations to protect workers from COVID-19.  If you don’t conduct required investigations, you will be placing your company at risk of being shut down through Cal/OSHA’s expanded authority to issue Orders Prohibiting Use for workplaces that pose a risks of an “imminent hazard” relating to COVID-19.

    1. Meet Requirements for Identifying and Notifying Potentially Affected Employees

    As part of the investigation, additional employee cases and close contacts (within six feet for fifteen minutes or more) should be identified in accordance with the regulations and guidance.  The facility will then need to conduct testing or alternative methods (e.g., contact tracing or quarantining) in consultation with the local health department to control the outbreak.

    All potentially exposed employees must be notified and employers must meet obligations regarding confidentiality of employees with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).

    1. Review and Update the Facility COVID-19 Plan to Apply Lessons Learned and Improve

    In the July 29, 2020 COVID-19 Guidance for agriculture and livestock, the state of California  recommended that each facility establish a written, workplace-specific COVID-19 prevention plan, perform a comprehensive risk assessment of all work areas and work tasks, and designate a person at each facility to implement the plan. The plan should include sanitation practices, physical distancing, individual control measures, screening, and other incidental practices to prevent the spread amongst workers. Upon completion of the incident investigation, the facility should update the plan as needed to prevent further cases.

    Conclusion

    COVID-19 presents unique challenges to processing plant managers responding to incidents because of the difficulty in determining the source of infection, agency notification and attention, contact tracing, employee notification, testing, control measures, and return to work. Like any incident, COVID-19 incident response should focus on:  (1) the immediate response by making required agency notifications and dealing with the immediate employee concerns including contact tracing; (2) the extended response by conducting an incident investigation; (3) compliance and prevention by conducting testing or implement isolation protocols; and (4) preparedness/lessons learned to improve by reviewing and updating the facility COVID-19 plan. Processing plant managers who work quickly and diligently to respond to a COVID-19 incident will reap the benefit of minimizing regulatory scrutiny protecting employees and comply with legal reporting and notification requirements. They should also regularly check local, state, and federal guidance to determine if there are new or revised investigation, reporting, or recording obligations triggered by a positive COVID-19.   – By Daniel J. Grucza & Shannon S. Broome

    Dan Grucza is Counsel with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. He regularly advises companies on health and safety issues and has been a speaker and author on COVID-19 response issues and is a lead member of the firm’s incident response practice.

    Shannon S. Broome is the Managing Partner of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s San Francisco office and leads its environmental practice in California.  She routinely advises clients on Cal/OSHA compliance issues and on major accident and other incident response for industrial facilities.

  • EU Stone Fruit Production & World Market Share Declines

    In market year (MY) 2020/21, EU production of peaches and nectarines may decline 15 percent to 3.4 million metric tons (MT). The drop is due to unfavorable weather conditions and a continuous decrease in total European Union (EU) planted area in response to low profits. Similarly, EU cherry production is projected to lower almost five percent compared to last season to 702,700 MT. During this marketing year, the expected drop in EU stone fruit production may rebalance the market and improve EU stone fruits prices. EU stone fruit exports continue to decline because of the 2014 Russian embargo imposed on EU food products. In MY 2020/21, in response to EU domestic supplies, EU imports of stone fruits may increase. The United States is the fifth largest non-EU supplier of cherries, but imports are trending down. The EU stone fruit sector was not negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and harvest season developed normally. Read the full report from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service HERE.

  • US Increases Market Share of Stone Fruit Exports in Taiwan

    In 2019, U.S. peach, nectarine, and cherry exports to Taiwan increased as competitor market share declined. Taiwan’s peach and nectarine production is forecast to increase from 16,171 metric tons (MT) in 2019 to 19,000 MT in 2020 due to improved bearing. Taiwan’s robust handling of COVID-19 has led to a modest recovery in domestic consumption, which has allowed consumption to remain strong and imports to remain stable. In 2020, total Taiwan peach and nectarine imports are forecast to increase nominally to 15,000 MT and imports of cherries are forecast up at 12,000 MT.

    Read the full report from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service HERE.