Apr 7, 2007

Letters to the Editor: Health Claims, Intellectual Property Rights

FDA Not Too Tough On Health Claims

This letter is in response to your question, “Is the FDA too tough on health claims for fruits and vegetables?” I say no because the agriculture industry, food processors and the medical community are working together in the United States and will continue to do so. Their voices need to be heard through the FDA, USDA and USEPA. Medical research will always be concerned about pesticide residues when considering foods for health benefits. The EPA must ensure proper research to allow medical research to make their claims. Claims made by organic producers need research to achieve credibility and thus be allowed to produce and market products under USDA guidelines. Genetically altered foods also need sufficient testing to be certain that high levels of toxins will not be in mature fruits or vegetables.

Research is expensive and (must be) long term for USEPA, USDA or FDA to make claims for health benefits. It would be wrong to make claims to the public without certification and without a reasonable level of proof. Growers, however, need to be informed as to the claims that can be made – such as “eat five portions of fruits and vegetables every day,” “rinse your fresh fruits and vegetables with cold water before consuming them,” etc. – and there is sufficient proof that these are credible suggestions.

Richard C. Funt
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science
Ohio State University

U.S. Produce The ‘Gold’ Standard

No, the FDA should be tough on fruit and vegetables. We grow excellent produce in the United States. We should withstand rigorous testing and any protocol they wish to heap on us. We are the “gold” standard. The rest can be left in our dust – then we can substantiate the claims that, in fact, if it isn’t grown here, you really aren’t getting what you paid for.

American made, American grown, for American standards. Set them high. Let the FDA raise the bar.

Keri Wilson
Wilson Banner Ranch
Lewiston, Idaho

Intellectual Property An Issue Of Relationships

In reference to your December 2005 article about commodity groups and Michigan State University (MSU) on page 22, blueberry growers continue to have issues with MSU. The “ownership” issue is tied closely to the “relationship” issue. MSU damaged a long, strong and healthy relationship with the Michigan blueberry industry. MSU’s Office of Intellectual Properties failed to communicate with Michigan blueberry growers and nurserymen. When growers and nurseries established communication, MSU failed to acknowledge the value of contributions by the Michigan blueberry industry: “… the industry… was not a big contributor to the breeding program,” and “he doesn’t think the criticism is fair,” indicate that individuals at MSU even yet don’t understand the damage to the relationship that their attitudes have caused. How can the university expect to build relationships for the future when the prevailing attitude is that the industry’s contributions don’t amount to much?

The Michigan blueberry industry, and specifically the Michigan Blueberry Growers Association (MBG), has had a long and mutually beneficial relationship with MSU from the 1920s, when South Haven Experiment Station manager Stanley Johnston purchased blueberry plants from New Jersey with his own money. He propagated these plants and made the first planting of cultivated blueberries at Grand Junction in 1928. Johnston was also instrumental in starting MBG in 1936. When MSU decided to close the South Haven research station in the mid ’60s, MBG took over the test plot, added plant material from around the world and maintains it to the present. MBG was vital in helping MSU restart its breeding program and hiring Dr. (Jim) Hancock. In the past 15 years, MBG has given MSU close to $700,000 worth of research grants.

MBG and the Michigan blueberry industry as a whole have been full research partners with MSU for the lifetime of the industry, cooperating on a multitude of on-farm trials, serving on research boards and committees, contributing time and money and helping to secure grants.

It takes all of us working together to maintain a strong industry, and now the MSU attitude is that it developed these varieties and the industry hasn’t contributed much.

When the state of Michigan is threatening to cut budgets of the Cooperative Extension Service, Experiment Stations or MSU, will MSU ask the high bidders from South America and Oregon to lobby the state legislature for funds?

Michigan is the No.1 producing state of highbush blueberries because all segments have worked together to assure success since the early days of the industry. Going forward, we will have to work together even harder for a formidable blueberry industry, a strong agriculture, a great university and a robust state economy.

Ronald Bodtke
Thomas Bodtke
Lawrence Bodtke
Karolyn Trevino
Cornerstone Ag Enterprises
South Haven, Mich.