The Fruit Growers News

After I read your article “Michigan Apple Committee needs to find the cheese,” I wanted to share some thoughts with you.
As a trustee of the U.S. Apple Association (USApple) I greatly appreciate your acknowledgements of our efforts on behalf of the apple industry. I agree that we need to stay behind the increased assessment proposal of USApple, but as an industry member from Michigan, I am equally aware of all the positive results that come from the hard work of the Michigan Apple Committee.

Mark Arney, Ken Meyer, Jan VanDriessche and the rest of the staff do an outstanding job promoting our product both domestically and internationally, and they do it on a shoestring budget. I admit that I rarely book really aggressive and effective ads without the committee’s promotions and dollars behind me. However, as you pointed out so well, the committee cannot lobby. Conversely, USApple cannot merchandise Michigan apples. For these and scores of other good reasons, we desperately need both organizations. Day after day I watch these two groups work independently on their missions, yet so often mesh their focus and efforts. In the everyday workplace where creative minds meet, differences of opinion arise. Differences do not necessarily constitute the inability to function cooperatively, but only exercise the right of freedom of speech.

I have felt that Michigan folks are behind the assessment increase proposal. The shippers recognize the importance of the programs, polled growers want the expanded activities on their behalf, and in you own March 2001 publication, on page 6 Mark Arney was quoted as saying, “I support, and I feel the board supports the mission of the U.S. Apple Association.” Probably a review of the February committee meeting minutes would reveal a similar statement that I heard from Arney and board members that day.

The major apple states you named voted to support the increased assessment, but some have also expressed concern about reducing their advertising budgets in future years. Virginia declined to participate altogether. New York’s contribution, I have been told, comes not from their budget, but from an outside source. At this time, because of extreme pressure to maintain our market share, dollars have not been spent to hire the third field staffer that we so desperately need. An additional strain on our budget of a reduction of approximately $57,500 the first year, and an additional $11,500 for each of the next three years could ultimately reduce the effectiveness of the committee’s programs.

I believe the committee members were well informed about the assessment proposal at the February meeting. Arney, always active at USApple, was a member of the Ways and Means Task Force that proposed the increased assessment. Two of the six current board members hold the positions of trustees at USApple, and one of those is an officer of the association. Kraig Naasz, president and CEO of USApple was invited to the December board meeting to explain the activities of the association, and to detail the increase proposal. A few days before the February meeting, Naasz personally called the board members to discuss the matter and to answer questions and provide printed materials. Arney invited me to the meeting to quickly review the three focuses of the increased assessment: public relations, public affairs and crisis communications and to be available for questions. Ed Wittenbach, board member and trustee of USApple outlined the potential fiscal impact proposal. The only concern repeated was where to find the money for the program. A one-cent grower referendum was discussed to fund the increase from the committee’s budget at the rate of one mil for four years. At that point, a representative of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, not Arney, stepped in and stopped the vote, stating that the board could not commit future boards with such a vote. The matter was tabled, not dropped, which indicated that it would be brought again before the board when a formal legal opinion on such votes could be received from the state. Before I left the meeting room that day, I found myself a member of a five-man committee to pursue all outside funding sources, following New York’s pattern. Another person volunteered to investigate only grants. The increased assessment proposal has not been dropped!

The Michigan Apple Shippers Association and the Michigan Apple Task Force (as I have been informed) both have discussed or are discussing cooperative marketing strategies. During a panel discussion at the USApple meetings during the United Fresh fruit & Vegetable Convention this weekend, a prominent Washington shipper reported that a co-op was formed last week, which would, among other things, allow a discussion of prices among members. However, already it was feared that some members would be selling below those prices because of oversupplies of apples in their facilities. So much for co-ops.

I’d also like to clarify that of the $100 million granted nationally in the Market Loss Assistance program, the cap per grower is approximately $30,000, and I expect that the $38 million for the national disaster assistance could amount to less than that per growers. Until the applications close, the pro-rata amounts will not be known.

Matt, I always appreciate your perspective on the Michigan apple industry, and am sorry you did not know about the information being relayed to committee members. At any time, I would be happy to answer questions about USApple and their activities.

Also, with your apple expertise and enthusiasm, you are a perfect candidate for membership in USApple! We encourage folks like you to join in our activities and to enjoy the numerous benefits of membership. I have enclosed an application for membership in our great organization. Please join us!



		Michigan Apple Committee Does Support USApple After I read your article “Michigan Apple Committee needs to find the cheese,” I wanted to share some thoughts with you. As a trustee of the U.S. Apple Association (USApple) I greatly appreciate your acknowledgements of our efforts on behalf of the apple industry. I agree that we need to stay behind the increased assessment proposal of USApple, but as an industry member from Michigan, I am equally aware of all the positive results that come from the hard work of the Michigan Apple Committee. Mark Arney, Ken Meyer, Jan VanDriessche and the rest of the staff do an outstanding job promoting our product both domestically and internationally, and they do it on a shoestring budget. I admit that I rarely book really aggressive and effective ads without the committee’s promotions and dollars behind me. However, as you pointed out so well, the committee cannot lobby. Conversely, USApple cannot merchandise Michigan apples. For these and scores of other good reasons, we desperately need both organizations. Day after day I watch these two groups work independently on their missions, yet so often mesh their focus and efforts. In the everyday workplace where creative minds meet, differences of opinion arise. Differences do not necessarily constitute the inability to function cooperatively, but only exercise the right of freedom of speech. I have felt that Michigan folks are behind the assessment increase proposal. The shippers recognize the importance of the programs, polled growers want the expanded activities on their behalf, and in you own March 2001 publication, on page 6 Mark Arney was quoted as saying, “I support, and I feel the board supports the mission of the U.S. Apple Association.” Probably a review of the February committee meeting minutes would reveal a similar statement that I heard from Arney and board members that day. The major apple states you named voted to support the increased assessment, but some have also expressed concern about reducing their advertising budgets in future years. Virginia declined to participate altogether. New York’s contribution, I have been told, comes not from their budget, but from an outside source. At this time, because of extreme pressure to maintain our market share, dollars have not been spent to hire the third field staffer that we so desperately need. An additional strain on our budget of a reduction of approximately $57,500 the first year, and an additional $11,500 for each of the next three years could ultimately reduce the effectiveness of the committee’s programs. I believe the committee members were well informed about the assessment proposal at the February meeting. Arney, always active at USApple, was a member of the Ways and Means Task Force that proposed the increased assessment. Two of the six current board members hold the positions of trustees at USApple, and one of those is an officer of the association. Kraig Naasz, president and CEO of USApple was invited to the December board meeting to explain the activities of the association, and to detail the increase proposal. A few days before the February meeting, Naasz personally called the board members to discuss the matter and to answer questions and provide printed materials. Arney invited me to the meeting to quickly review the three focuses of the increased assessment: public relations, public affairs and crisis communications and to be available for questions. Ed Wittenbach, board member and trustee of USApple outlined the potential fiscal impact proposal. The only concern repeated was where to find the money for the program. A one-cent grower referendum was discussed to fund the increase from the committee’s budget at the rate of one mil for four years. At that point, a representative of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, not Arney, stepped in and stopped the vote, stating that the board could not commit future boards with such a vote. The matter was tabled, not dropped, which indicated that it would be brought again before the board when a formal legal opinion on such votes could be received from the state. Before I left the meeting room that day, I found myself a member of a five-man committee to pursue all outside funding sources, following New York’s pattern. Another person volunteered to investigate only grants. The increased assessment proposal has not been dropped! The Michigan Apple Shippers Association and the Michigan Apple Task Force (as I have been informed) both have discussed or are discussing cooperative marketing strategies. During a panel discussion at the USApple meetings during the United Fresh fruit & Vegetable Convention this weekend, a prominent Washington shipper reported that a co-op was formed last week, which would, among other things, allow a discussion of prices among members. However, already it was feared that some members would be selling below those prices because of oversupplies of apples in their facilities. So much for co-ops. I’d also like to clarify that of the $100 million granted nationally in the Market Loss Assistance program, the cap per grower is approximately $30,000, and I expect that the $38 million for the national disaster assistance could amount to less than that per growers. Until the applications close, the pro-rata amounts will not be known. Matt, I always appreciate your perspective on the Michigan apple industry, and am sorry you did not know about the information being relayed to committee members. At any time, I would be happy to answer questions about USApple and their activities. Also, with your apple expertise and enthusiasm, you are a perfect candidate for membership in USApple! We encourage folks like you to join in our activities and to enjoy the numerous benefits of membership. I have enclosed an application for membership in our great organization. Please join us! Pam Schwallier Vice President, Great Lakes Fruit USApple Trustee

Copyright 2001 Great American Publishing The Fruit Growers News 343 South Union Street - PO Box 128 - Sparta, MI 49345 Phone 616-887-9008 - Fax 616-887-2666 - email All Rights Reserved