With over 40,000 products in the average supermarket, people don't have time (or the money) to test
every product on the shelves - so we do it for you! (Points system explained below the products!)

Each week we will post the latest reviews and I hope you will log in to see what's hot...and what's not!

Click to watch Phil Lempert's new product reviews

United Airlines is now the fifth major airline, and the third largest in the U.S., to adopt new policies when it comes to overweight passengers. As of now, any tickets purchased on or after March 4, 2009 for travel on or after April 15th, 2009, will be affected.

The new policy follows a series of complaints the airlines claims they have received from passengers saying they feel cramped seated when they are seated next to overweight guests. According to the airline's new policy, in the event that a passenger does not fit properly into one seat, they will be asked to pay for two seats. If the oversized passenger cannot be relocated to a two seats, they will be asked to book a ticket onto the next flight and purchase two seats.

Obesity rates are still high, according to the Centers For Disease Control, however, they have not increased measurably since 2004. Currently, an estimated 34% of adults in America over the age 20 are obese.

We only wonder if this comes as yet another method for the airlines to make extra money, or try to in fact make flying more pleasant for all - and to be fair, there is little doubt it is a bit of both. Last year, United reports that they had over 700 complaints from passengers who were physically uncomfortable having to fly next to an overweight passenger. I've been there, and frankly as a third of Americans inch there way into obesity we can expect to see a lot more problems between seat mates.

Topline is that this is a form of discrimination; however, let's look a little deeper and it is just common sense that someone who is 300 pounds uses more resources than someone who is 150 pounds. The added weight does increase fuel consumption at the least. And as someone who has to fly over 150,000 miles a year I would suggest that both the obese passenger and the person adjacent might find their next trip to be more comfortable. Question is if this is the solution, or perhaps another section in the plane with wider seats? Or will this give some entrepreneur the idea of a new airline built to meet the needs of the obese passenger?


What are your thoughts? Please leave a comment below.

Related Content:

• Food in the news
  

It is about more than just sustainability; It's about feeding the World.

Practically every retailing or food focused conference includes at least a half dozen sessions on sustainability. Companies large and small, and consumers democrats or republicans all seem to be aligned around the fact that unless we initial major efforts to help the environment, our plane and people are doomed.

However, what I do not see a lot of discussion around is just how we are going to keep the population of the plane fed. And there is no more important issue surrounding sustainability than that.

By 2050, the world's population is estimated to reach 9 billion, which is 40 percent higher than today's population. At the same time, the world's dietary interests are expected to continue changing. For example, since 1980, global production of meat has more than doubled. In the developing world, meat consumption has tripled. Production of meat and dairy, which are major dietary sources of protein, uses 30 percent of earth's land surface, 70 percent of agricultural land, and accounts for 8 percent of water use, mostly to irrigate feed crops.

I recently attended the Canadian Canola Council's Annual Meeting and met with very passionate farmers who quite effectively have increased their production output; but their passion did not come from increased volume - it came from their dedication to offering one of the healthiest oils to the world population. These farmers are looking at their crops holistically - and that is exactly what we need to do when it comes to putting sustainability into practice.

One of my concerns is as we look to be more sustainable, a lot of discussion is centered on "local". But the truth is that there are not enough foods grown or animals raised within 100 miles of every person on the planet to make local a reality. What we must do is to finally define what sustainability means for the food world, and then educate retailers, manufacturers and shoppers.

One aspect of sustainability that needs clarification and education is plant biotechnology. This, as I heard from the Canadian farmers, is the key to increasing productivity per acre, and not just in the United States or Canada. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the total crop production gains globally for the four principal biotech crops (soybean, maize, cotton and canola) was 32 million metric tons in 2007, which would have required more than 20 million additional acres had biotechnology not been used. We will have to rely on smarter science to enhance productivity in a sustainable way. Simply producing more on the acre is just one component. The real goal should be using fewer key resources.

By achieving that goal, we'll be well positioned to help meet the growing food demands of our growing population, sustainably.

If you are one of the Americans that suffer from food allergies, you probably know that reading labels is a high priority to avoid what can be life threatening situations. And although, The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA) required new labels on packaged foods containing "major food allergens," which were defined as milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts and soybeans, or any other ingredient that contains protein derived from one of these foods or food groups, a new study shows that it's the ones that say "may contain" or nothing at all that can be risky.

Findings from a new study presented Monday at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's annual meeting, in Washington, D.C., showed that a small number of products contain allergens no matter ingredients are listed.

Senior author Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, warned that it is the smaller companies that consumers with food allergies may need to look out for. After 399 products were tested, researchers found a small number of food products with a "may contain" label actually do contain an allergen, while about 2 percent of foods products without such a claim also contain allergens.

The research suggests that some smaller companies may not have the oversight to make sure there products are labeled properly and as of now. Its the issue of "may contain"-type labels that was not addressed in the FALCPA. Such warnings can include "may contain peanuts," "processed on shared equipment," or "manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts or milk."

Although egg allergies are generally life threatening, it's the peanut allergies that are most dangerous. Scientists suggest that those with this type of allergy may want to stick to products that come from larger companies.


And remember, for your free Food Allergy Buddy card to use whenever you dine out, just log on to www.foodallergybuddy.com

Related Content:

• More on food allergies

Get ready for the next series of food price increases. While the trend seems to be retailers making headlines by demanding that CPG companies lower prices and margins - the reality is that a new report from the USDA forecasts that commodity prices this year will remain at above the historical levels. And that means that while retailers may want to appear to be the "good guys" very little in price reductions may actually be able to be realized.

According to the report, many factors contributed to the increase in food commodity prices including increased global demand for biofuels, feedstocks and adverse weather conditions in 2006 and 2007 in some major grain and oil seed producing areas; the declining value of the U.S. dollar; rising energy prices; increasing agricultural costs of production; growing foreign exchange holdings by major food importing countries; and policies adopted recently by some exporting and importing countries to mitigate their own food price inflation.

Joseph Glauber, USDA chief economist, said the impact of the economic crisis on food consumption would depress agriculture commodity prices temporarily, but he warned that prices would remain well above average for the eight years since 2000.

Mr Glauber went on to tell the Financial Times that the outlook was "for a return to higher prices" as some of the pressures that drove last year's increases and relatively strong growth in emerging markets "will return to play a major role" this year or in early 2010. "This is going to be again a tough year [for poor countries]," he said.

Christopher Delgado, a policy adviser in agriculture at the World Bank, warns' that the food crisis in not going to gone away and in fact, is coming back. Although their was a drop in food prices, corn prices were at least 40 per cent above the 2003-06 average, and rice prices 100 per cent higher. 


What's old is new again, and there is little doubt that the 'retro' flavors of both Pepsi and Mountain Dew that are slated to hit the shelves in early April will be a very interesting test to see if consumers will do what they say they will.

It is all about the sugars: These two beverages, with distinct retro labels, will be made with "real sugar" (although its not yet disclosed if it is cane sugar or beet sugar) instead of the controversial High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The photo shows renderings of what may just be the label, but note that fine print says that the final design may differ.

The "throwback" strategy leaves Pepsi an easy out. If the throwback formula works to get people to drink these two sodas instead of other beverages, Pepsi can easily make the move to include these in their regular offerings. Sure, the novelty will attract trial, but we would suggest that the strategy also has a huge opportunity to regain some of the lost baby boomer drinkers who have shunned away from HFCS as well as an entire new generation of beverage drinkers who have not gone the soda route.

Initial reports say that these two sodas will be sold at the identical price as the conventional HFCS formula and be available only from April 20 till June 13th. Expect to see those die hard anti HFCS soda drinkers use this as an opportunity to load up as insurance just in case the products disappear after June 13th (although our bet is that they will be around for a long time).

While the strategy may seem risky to some, both Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been producing a limited run of Coke without HFCS and using sugar to make its Kosher for Passover products for decades - and yes, there are the "real Coke" aficionados who use the opportunity to stock up for months to come; just remember to be sure to store the products in a cool dark location, otherwise you may actually have a loss of sweetness over an extended period of time.

What do you think? Will you buy it?

If there's one thing people are hungry for today, even more so than food, it's money. So when they put dough on the line to emphasize their weight-loss plans, they're not just baiting friends, family or co-workers into bets. They're using those bets as motivation to stay on course and drop pounds and inches.

They're shedding excuses to fail quietly and hope no one notices. Many go beyond their circle of contacts into public view through free websites like fatbet.net and makemoneylosingweight.com, which facilitate challenges, or stickK.com, a site at which people sign contracts and pay money to designers if they miss their weight-loss goals. Friends or charities might get the dough, but so might enemies. The website reads: "Wouldn't it just kill you to hand over your hard-earned money to someone you can't stand?"

The New York Times reported the stickK.com site, launched by two Yale University professors Dean Karlan and Ian Ayres, has more than 23,000 users, including 42% with commitment contracts.

One recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (December 2008 issue) concluded that "people who had financial incentives to lose weight were much more successful at dieting than those who did not," the Times account noted. "The prospect of losing or winning money was a significant incentive, especially when the money was not rewarded until the end," said Dr. Kevin Volpp, co-author of the research and an associate professor in behavioral economics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and the Wharton School.

Dr. Volpp, who is also a physician at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, co-authored another study of the impact of financial incentives on smokers who try to quit the habit. Money matters here, too.

In the New England Journal of Medicine (February 11, 2009 issue), co-authors Volpp and Robert Galvin, the chief medical officer at General Electric (the owner of iVillage.com), wrote that 15% of study participants who received financial incentives were smoke-free after one year, compared with 5% of the rest who weren't offered monetary incentives. The rewards were significant: $100 for completing a smoking-cessation class, another $250 for being smoke-free after six months, and $400 more for being smoke-free after one year, USA Today reported.

In the study of nearly 900 smokers who work at GE, all participants had information about local smoking-cessation classes and GE's health care coverage of drugs designed to help them quit. Half were offered financial incentives, and half were not. Each group had about the same number of heavily addicted smokers, noted USA Today.

According to Dr. Volpp, 70% of smokers want to quit, but only 3% succeed each year.

Of course, money is always on the line in the form of higher national health care costs due to obesity and smoking, and the complications that arise. The significance of these studies is the behavioral change that could be driven when money issues get personal and when pride is also on the line.

Cooperative ventures for farming have been a mainstay for decades here in the US, and their appeal has increased noticeably as concern has increased for both the nutritional value of our foods and their costs. The two primary ventures are co-op farms which welcome people to harvest crops for their own use and co-op stores which sell foods grown from pre-selected farms which may or may not be owned by the co-op.

All cooperative organizations are supported by memberships with a wide range of responsibilities attached, from paying up front to offering labor to pay-as-you buy. While states in the East and Midwest have the most of these farm-to-you arrangements, nearly every state has at least a few for you to explore.

CO-OP MARKETS

A cooperative market, or co-op, is both a stand-alone store and a concept of buying foods in bulk to reduce the per-pound selling costs. The members participate in all steps of the operation and benefit when buying produce at considerable savings. The members can be asked to do anything from planting and harvesting farms to staffing and running the in-store operation or, for those with time limits, paying higher membership fees for the privilege of buying the farm-fresh produce and other goods commonly found in a traditional supermarket. Membership fees are on a sliding scale commensurate with the amount of time and labor one puts into the co-op. Profits from the produce and other goods sold go for wholesale costs, rent, insurance and other similar business costs.

Best of all, excellent choices for both conventionally grown and organically grown produce are made, fancy packaging and other disposable elements found in other food stores are eliminated, and this frills-free business can be quite a money saver for both individuals and large families even with a membership fee attached.

Visit the Coop Directory Listing for a location nearest you. The site also has information about starting a co-op market in areas where none currently exists.

Only three percent of kids' meals offered at fast food restaurants meet federal dietary guidelines for nutrient quality, says researchers at Michigan State University and Baylor College of Medicine. Their recent study is the first to examine the nutrient quality of such meals in a chief U.S. metropolitan market.

Researchers assessed the nutritional quality of kids' meals offered by major fast food companies using standards delineated by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Each meal was analyzed for items like total energy, fat, sodium, carbohydrates, dietary fiber, added sugars, protein, calcium, iron and vitamins A and C.

Lunches that met all NSLP criteria offered a side of fruit plus milk and were mostly deli-sandwich-based. These meals contained about one-third the fat, one-sixth the added sugars, twice the iron and three times the amount of vitamin A and calcium as those meals that did not meet the criteria. The remaining 97% were more than one and a half times more energy dense. Several of these meals contained fried potatoes and a sweetened beverage.

Chicken-based meal combos accounted for 51% of the meals that did not met NSLP guidelines. Many of those meals were fried. Twenty-eight percent of meals not meeting the guidelines were burger-based. On the flip side, bean burrito meals contained high amounts of fiber and deli-sandwiches with cheese, fruit and milk were high in calcium.

While most meals analyzed contained adequate protein, more than one-half exceeded recommendations for sodium. Average iron from kids' meal combos was low. Fiber was low too. Fat fared better, though. More than 30% of the meals provided fewer than 30 percent of their calories from fat. More than 66% provided less than 10% of their calories from saturated fat.

But according to the researchers, there were some pleasant surprises. There were more healthful choices available than they first thought. Dr. Sharon L. Hoerr, Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Michigan State University says however, "there are many improvements to be made. For example, with the fiber content on most meals coming in very low, the fast food industry needs to make an effort to include more whole grains."

The diet quality of kids' meals offered at fast food restaurants warranted study, says Hoerr, because nearly 25% of children aged four to eight consume some type of fast food daily. Also of concern are rising obesity numbers and the trend for kids to consume more calories out of the house. Clearly, fast food has a significant role to play in overall nutrition.

FDA regulations require restaurants to provide nutrition information only if they make a health or nutrition claim. That said, the majority of fast food companies analyzed for this study publically provided their nutritional information. Meals were examined at Arby's, Burger King, Chick-fil-A, KFC, McDonald's, Sonic, Subway, Taco Bell, Wendy's, and Whataburger in the Houston, Texas market.

High fructose corn syrup has become a common ingredient that extends shelf life and replaces sugar as a sweetener in many everyday processed foods. Although FDA has ruled that HFCS can be labeled "natural," and the American Medical Association concluded "it doesn't appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners," its detractors now have one more reason to be upset by its ubiquity on supermarket shelves.

Much of it is contaminated with mercury, according to findings of two new studies--one published in yesterday's issue of the Environmental Health science journal, and the other also disclosed Jan. 26 by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

"High fructose corn syrup samples were collected from three different manufacturers and analyzed...[and] were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup," wrote Renee Dufault et al, in the article, Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar. "Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations," they urged.

Mercury turned up in nine out of 20 samples of commercial HFCS collected by Dufault while she was an environmental health officer for FDA in 2005. She and co-authors published their findings now after FDA didn't press the issue.

The separate IATP study detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient. Examined for the Not so sweet: missing mercury and high fructose corn syrup report were beverages, salad dressings, barbecue sauce, yogurt and more. Mercury was most prevalent in dairy items, dressings and condiments, said IATP.

"Mercury is toxic in all its forms," said IATP's David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author of both studies. "Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply."

A good place to improve would be in completing the phase-out of mercury cell technology, which is sometimes used to produce caustic soda to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. This process, says IATP, could contaminate the caustic soda and ultimately HFCS with mercury. Beyond that, we feel the more light we shine on any questionable aspects of HFCS, the smarter the food choices we all will make and the sooner federal food policies could address any possible risks of this substance.

Related Content:

• More from Phil Lempert on Food Safety
• More from Phil Lempert on food in the news
  
• Get more info from TODAY on iVillage

The Boston Globe this morning reported that federal health authorities have confirmed that salmonella has been found in a single package of Kellogg's Austin Quality Foods peanut butter crackers, and that General Mills is recalling some products because of food safety concerns.

According to the story, "Food companies and retailers have been recalling products with peanut butter in them because of suspicion of contamination amid a salmonella outbreak that has killed at least six people and sickened more than 470 others in 43 states. At least 90 people have been hospitalized.

The Food and Drug Administration days ago informed Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) that new product samples in unopened containers tested positive for salmonella. But yet the news continues and escalates, why? (more on that later!)

PCA is a peanut processing company and maker of peanut butter for bulk distribution to institutions, food service industries, and private label food companies, and they have announced an expanded recall of peanut butter produced in its Blakely, Georgia processing facility as well as the voluntary recall of peanut paste produced in the same plant because these products have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

The announcement and voluntary recall affects all peanut butter produced on or after August 8, 2008 and peanut paste produced on or after September 26, 2008 at the Georgia facility.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THERE IS NOT ANY CONSUMER PACKAGES OF PEANUT BUTTER AFFECTED. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER TYPES OF PRODUCTS INCLUDING BAKED GOODS, SAUCES AND OTHER FOODS THAT DO CONTAIN PEANUT BUTTER AS AN INGREDIENT THAT MAY BE AFFECTED.

The peanut butter being recalled, so far, is sold by PCA in bulk packaging in containers ranging in size from five to 1,700 pounds. The peanut paste is sold in sizes ranging from 35 pound containers to tanker containers.

Eating food contaminated with Salmonella can result in abdominal cramping, diarrhea, and fever. Most people infected with Salmonella develop the symptoms 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most people recover with treatment. However, in some persons, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. According to the CDC, this strain of salmonella cannot be killed through cooking.

I've already received over 1,000 emails from our readers who cannot understand why the government is taking so long to figure this problem out and be able to give us a definitive answer to the cause. The truth is that they are working, but frankly until the USDA and FDA get the proper funding and staff, and start working WITH food producers to understand how manufacturing processes really work, this delayed response and ambiguity will continue. Food safety problems will continue to plague us and threaten our health until the folks in Washington DC wake up to reality. Hopefully today, with the inauguration of President Obama, who has openly declared war on food safety regulations, we have taken a huge step forward.

For more information on Salmonella bacteria, please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Website at http://www.cdc.gov.

Related Content:

• More from Phil Lempert on Food Safety
• Get more info from TODAY on iVillage

New agriculture-conservation alliance sets long-term goal...and just in time!

The world's food production will need to double to keep pace with population growth of 3 billion people between now and 2050, and this doubling must come without negative impact on the environment and society.

So warn the founders of a novel group of experts from the worlds of food, agriculture and conservation, who have come together to help make this happen under the auspices of Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.

This group of farmers, agribusiness, food companies, retailers and conservation groups will work to develop key sustainability outcomes and metrics, against which progress can be measured.

The group's first Environmental Resource Indicators Report, just issued, shows that agriculture production has been increasing efficiency over the past two decades. The initial index shows that soil-loss efficiency has risen by 30% to nearly 70% for the four crops evaluated; corn, soybean, cotton and wheat. Energy use per unit of output is down in corn, soybean, and cotton production by nearly 40% to more than 60%. Irrigated water use per unit of output has dropped 20% to nearly 50%, while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about a third for these three crops.

What will Barack Obama's election most likely mean for the food world?  Here are my predictions:

Farmers will survive and prosper. And we are talking about small farmers. His initiatives include establishing a new program to identify the next generation of farmers and ranchers, development of the needed skills and a tax incentive to bring new farmers into agriculture and help them afford their first farm. Obama and Biden have both pledged their support of family farmers and their right to fair access to markets and transparency in prices of larger farms.

Organic farming gets a boost with funds to help defray the costs of certification and a reform of crop insurance that eliminates the penalty for organic farming.

A war on E.coli with new food safety regulations for factory farms.

Country of Origin Labeling support which is likely to force expansion to more foods, and an effort to make all foods traceable.

Renewable energy tax credits--over $150 billion over the next decade--to encourage development, which is sure to make our supermarkets and manufacturing plants more cost efficient; and includes incentives for farmers to conduct sustainable agriculture.

The end of tax breaks for companies that have transferred U.S. jobs overseas

Additional funds for education, including nutrition and fitness programs and school lunch funding.

A new USDA and FDA. We should expect a major overhaul in their processes and hopefully a renewed effort to recruit the best and the brightest.

Technology comes to the food world, finally. Obama has shown his technology side with extraordinary web-based campaigning and social networking; look for the same to manifest in traceability, nutrition and all things food.

Our economy and the cost of fuel are without a doubt two of the biggest drivers of the food world, and while no one person can reverse the current economic situation, we can only hope and support that the new administration will put into action the change and promises our industry needs to grow and prosper.

Related Content:

• Phil Lempert on food in the news
  
• Get more info from TODAY on iVillage.

Healthier choices come in small steps at low-priced food service outlets, where a product's signature taste could take years to develop. Tinker with taste--even for sound nutritional reasons and good-for-you benefits--and risk losing the traffic they've worked so hard to build.

That's why it was news when KFC switched to soybean oil to eliminate trans fats from its chicken in 2006 and splashed the news on its window signs, and when Long John Silver's, its sister Yum Brands division, began to roll out Freshside Grille, its first menu of non-fried fish, in October. The new offerings include Pacific salmon, shrimp scampi and vegetables.

Similarly, ChickFilA has figured out how to free its waffle fries and breakfast biscuits of trans fats--and join the feeder's iconic chicken sandwiches, nuggets and strips in that respect.

And after nearly four years of research, Dunkin' Donuts turned to a blend of palm, soybean and cottonseed oils to lower each serving of donuts, croissants, muffins and cookies to less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving in 2007, and scoot under the Federal threshold to be able to say 'zero.'

Kudos to these restaurants for these decisions. However, SG urges more restaurants to take up the cause to offer more healthful choices, and make them very easy to find on menus--such as egg white sandwiches on flatbread at Dunkin' Donuts. Besides the nutritional gains, alternatives help override the veto vote among a household or group of friends about where to go for food, so everyone has a selection they can live with.

And while a 0g trans fat claim may give people more confidence to consume these foods, restaurants should also tell the truth--visibly--about the fat, sodium, sugar and carbohydrate profiles of their products. Perhaps then, while consumers determine the role of these foods in their diets, they might also be motivated to plan some visits to the local Farmers' Markets.

Related Content:

• Get more info from TODAY on iVillage.

With all the attention on the failings of Wall Street over the past couple of weeks, few people gave notice to what, in my mind, is even a more severe long term problem. Yes, the reality is that the storms and hurricanes of the past few years are creating a real problem for agriculture, and adding much pressure to the rising costs of producing food.

The headlines told us that Hurricane Ike was the ninth storm to hit the U.S. so far this year; which followed closely on the heels of the devastation of Gustav. Louisiana first, and then Galveston. Reports as of this writing is that there are still tens of thousands of homes without power. Some estimates are that the damage in Louisiana in many cases is worse than from Katrina or Rita. But this column is not about the human sufferings, which countless others have written about far better than I could ever do. This column is about the story that needs to be told about the weather and our food world.

The reality is that by the year 2050, we will need to produce almost twice as much food as we do today based on current population trends which predicts a global population of over 11 billion mouths to feed; and be able to produce it on a shrinking land mass.

It is the impact of this year’s storms on the agricultural, fishing and seafood industries which the rest of the nation will feel the effects of for years to follow. As examples, the Texas alfalfa crops that have been decimated will surely increase the costs for cattle feed, and the price of beef at retail. Sugarcane producers in southern Louisiana have been faced with salt-water intrusion by both storms. And for our agricultural production to even have a chance for success means that farmers of all sizes must be able to make a profit.

The USDA has released its September corn yield projection as 152.3 bushels per acre – a drop of 2-percent from its August prediction of 155 bushels. The Storm Exchange estimate is 6 percent below the prediction. As a result, USDA also increased its price estimates for corn and soybeans, an increase of ten-cents per bushel for both commodities in just one month.

And that’s just the beginning...

It is all about consumer confidence, and "Black Sunday," as it is now being called, may have a significant impact on our food choices.

The troubles at Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG follow almost a year of consumer anxiety that has been caused by a housing crash, a mortgage crisis, and home foreclosures. The investor sell-off this past Monday was the worst in seven years. The Dow dropped 4.4%, more than 500 points, the NASDAQ index fell 80 points – a 3.6 % drop. And then just yesterday, as the folks in Washington, D.C. decided that the “tone” of the Speaker of the House was “offensive," the Dow dropped another 777 points.

The potential changes from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the sale of Merrill to Bank of America recalls the consolidations of the Big Eight accounting firms into today's "Big Four". No doubt many of those attached to Wall Street will be out of work, and clearly their lack of disposable income will have an impact on what and where they buy.

There will no doubt be a reevaluation of how we spend. This latest crisis expands the anxiety well beyond the lower- and middle-income consumer to the upper-middle- and even upper-income consumer.

Coupon redemption and private label sales have already found new shoppers and continue on the upswing. We can only predict even more growth for both.

Wal-Mart's new television advertising message is simple: Consumers buying foods at their stores will save an average of $700 as compared to those who shop at a supermarket. Let the price wars begin, as retailers—even Whole Foods—have decided that value is the war to be won. Good news for shoppers.

New technologies promise even more savings, with handheld devices delivering custom paperless coupons and discounts. Look for frequent shopper programs to finally come of age and include rewards that go well beyond cents-off promotions, finally utilizing the information stored in intelligent customer-centric databases. While the short-term focus will be on offering savings, retailers must look to the longer-term opportunity of strengthening their relationship with their shoppers.

The domino effect of these financial stories of woe on shoppers will no doubt affect the use of credit cards, consumer spending, and a reignited concern over the price of gas. As shoppers, we will be looking for food retailers to underscore their commitment and financial stability. We also will be looking for value, and perhaps the weeks right before the holiday season are the perfect time for that reevaluation of how we spend.

The once lively and heated discussions about Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) are hushed these days, with the law finally taking effect on September 30th after 6 years of fighting. Many groups are still touting their projections that this new regulation will cost the industry (and subsequently the consumer) $2.5 billion in just the first year of implementation; and questioning just what is the point.

The point came clear this past weekend with the announcement that over 50,000 children in China have become sick from tainted infant formula. Four children have already died. Unlike many of the food safety problems that we read about, this one was caused not by a bacterium or disease – but just from greed.

Dairies in China had reportedly watered down milk and then added melamine to boost the protein levels, and their profits. Melamine, you may recall made headlines in 2007 when it was discovered that the compound was added to pet foods for the same purpose, and with similar results.

A recent Harvard study found that 56% of respondents consider foods from China unsafe. (The same survey found that only 4% thought foods from the U.S. were not safe.) A Deloitte & Touche Survey found the same percentage of people felt the same way about all imported foods.

Last week I visited a supermarket just outside of Philadelphia on the Jersey side. I counted 223 different styles, packages and brands of olive oil. Perhaps too much of a choice…but when I passed by the Lobster tank that proclaimed “Live Maine Lobsters” on a large sign I moved closer to see the much smaller size letter that read “Product of Thailand”.

There should not be any further question or discussion about our right to know where our foods come from.

Hurricane Ike was the ninth storm to hit the U.S. so far this year; which followed closely on the heels of the devastation of Gustav. Louisiana first, and now Galveston. Residents of both communities are without power or shelter and in need of aid. More on that coming up...

It is the impact on the agricultural, fishing and seafood industries which the rest of the nation will feel the effects of, for years to follow. The Texas alfalfa crops that have been decimated will surely increase the costs for cattle feed, and the price of beef at retail. Sugarcane producers in southern Louisiana have been faced with salt-water intrusion by both storms. And some estimate that the damage in Louisiana in many cases is worse than from Katrina or Rita.

The USDA has released its September corn yield projection as 152.3 bushels per acre – a drop of 2-percent from its August prediction of 155 bushels. The Storm Exchange estimate is 6 percent below that.

USDA also increased its price estimates for corn and soybeans, an increase of ten-cents per bushel for both commodities in just one month.

Click here to download to the complete USDA Weekly Weather Bulletin.

Nearly 40,000 people are in shelters in both areas and there is no word on when they may return to their homes. Over 2 million people in Texas are without power. We hope you will join us in making a donation in foods or cash to America’s Second Harvest – go to www.secondharvest.org