AgWired

I remember watching tv commercials for Perdue chicken during the couple of years I lived outside Baltimore. They featured Frank Perdue, who passed away this year. They were funny and you just believed him so we cooked a lot of it on the grill. You can see a nice tribute to Frank on the Perdue website. Now they’ve got a new spokesperson.

Julie DeYoung is moving to Perdue Farms Inc. as Vice President of Corporate Communications. DeYoung will oversee Perdue’s Communications and Public Affairs Department. She will be responsible for media and community relations, internal and external communications, corporate contributions, and will be the primary spokesperson for the corporation according to Jim Perdue, Chairman.

Julie started her career in 1983 after graduating from Iowa State. Perdue is the No. 1 brand of fresh chicken in the Eastern United States.

Since so many companies (and farmers) depend on consumer food habits and choices the information contained in the latest NPD Group’s, 20th Annual Eating Patterns in America report should be a must read. There’s some very interesting information in it. Some of it what you would expect and some of it surprising.

For example:

The number of meals eaten in a restaurant annually has decreased from 93 meals per person in 1985, to 80 meals per person today. However, the number of meals purchased at a restaurant and eaten in the car has increased from 19 meals per person in 1985, to 32 meals per person today. Ninety-two percent of take-out lunches come from fast food restaurants today, and 92 percent of individuals consume some form of “ready-to-eat” foods in the home on a daily basis. Americans are more likely to take out from a restaurant than to eat there. Whether traffic is the driving force, or simply impatience, we cannot wait to get home to eat our meals.

The usage of fresh products in our main meals at home has decreased today, as compared to 1985. Back then, 56 percent of inhome main meals included a fresh product. Today, 46 percent of in-home main meals include a fresh product.

NPD FoodWorld’s Harry Balzer has an interesting viewpoint you might want to read too.

Biotechnology get a lot of press, both good and bad. That’s why it’s nice to see research that focuses on realities. Thanks to a heads up from Monsanto, I found out about a new report just out today called, “GM crops: the global socio-economic and environmental impact – the first nine years 1996-2004.” Many of you are involved in marketing biotech products so you might want to see the report. There’s a lot of information in it.

This report was presented at the CORDIA Biotech Convention in London by PG Economics. Here’s a couple of highlights:

“Since 1996, adoption of biotech crops has contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and decreased pesticide spraying,” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, and one of the authors who conducted the study. “While greatly enhancing the way farmers in 18 countries produce food, feed and fiber, biotech crops have reduced the environmental footprint associated with agricultural practices. This study offers the first quantifiable global look at the impact of biotech crop production.”

Biotech crops have reduced the volume of pesticide spraying globally by 6 percent since 1996, equivalent to a decrease of 380 million pounds according to the study. That’s equivalent to eliminating 1,514 rail cars of pesticide’s active ingredient. The largest environmental gains from changes in pesticide spraying have been from biotech soybeans and cotton, which have reduced the associated environmental footprint by 19 percent and 17 percent, respectively.