Such delays, Smith-Vighetti confirms, impact the entire supply chain from field to fork. “Restricted hours of operation have decreased truck availability,” she says, often to the extent that it is “necessary for us to notify retailers of more time needed between order and delivery.”
The recent spending bill passed by Congress in December, however, may help—as enforcement of some parts of the 34-hour restart rule will be put on hold.
Another issue concerns temperature monitoring, related to potential new shipping regulations from FSMA. The current proposal is for shippers to keep temperature monitoring information for two years. “Right now, if you put a temperature monitor on an incoming truck and they check it and everything’s fine, they throw it away,” Lund explains. The bigger question, he insists, is “who has to retain that data—the trucker, the shipper, the receiver? The technology will have to change, because you can’t use a simple recorder that’s thrown away at delivery.”
Ed Treacy, vice president of supply chain efficiencies for the Produce Marketing Association, sees the very real possibility of a shift in the trucking industry. As an industry so heavily reliant on over-the-road trucking to ship its products, he suggests some carriers may stop hauling produce altogether, as perishables “put the most onus on transportation companies.” He agrees with Lund that proposed FSMA regulations may make things even more difficult, placing “more responsibility on truckers than they currently have today.”
Water, Immigration & Food Safety
The ongoing California drought is a source of frustration and concern as suppliers and legislators alike argue about ways to remedy the situation. Bob Rinker, managing partner at Bakersfield-based Fresh Link Group, LLC is fed up with what he characterizes as “bad policy and the wrong priorities” by state legislators, hampering efforts to find a workable water solution.
Rinker does see some hope in the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which passed with a whopping 67 percent of the vote in November. The proposal authorizes $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state projects including water recycling, treatment, management, and conveyance, as well as water storage and watershed protection and restoration. “As far as being a prompt response to the water supply crisis,” Rinker asserts, “it’s going to take ten years probably, at a minimum. California water consumers, whether agricultural or domestic, really aren’t going to see any kind of immediate, positive impact on current conditions.”
