Bill Overview
Title: Defending Domestic Orange Juice Production Act
Description: This bill requires finished pasteurized orange juice to contain at least 10% by weight of orange juice soluble solids (currently 10.5%), exclusive of the solids of any added optional sweetening ingredients.
Sponsors: Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-25]
Target Audience
Population: People connected to the orange juice industry and consumers
Estimated Size: 90000000
- The bill focuses on domestic orange juice production, which includes orange growers, juice producers, and associated supply chains.
- Any changes to required soluble solids in orange juice may impact juice producers’ costs and processes.
- Consumers of orange juice may experience changes in taste or potentially in pricing.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those involved in the orange juice supply chain, including farmers, distributors, and potentially consumers who purchase orange juice repeatedly.
- Florida, as a major orange-producing state, will be significantly impacted, meaning many farmers' and juice manufacturers' livelihoods might be affected by changes in production standards.
- There could be economic implications for farmers who may need to adjust their production methods to meet new standards, influencing their well-being.
- Changes in taste or pricing might affect consumers' satisfaction with orange juice products, slightly impacting their perceived quality of life.
Simulated Interviews
Orange Grower (Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy helps lower the cost of production, I'm all for it.
- My main concern is maintaining the quality of the juice we produce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Juice Production Supervisor (California)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change in soluble solids could streamline production.
- Our company is already optimizing our processes, but this might mean more changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail Manager (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in quality will affect sales.
- We might need to adjust pricing if costs change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer Advocate (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change could lead to honest advertising issues.
- Consumers deserve the same quality they're accustomed to.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could balance production costs and standards.
- Long-term implications for quality will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Small Juice Company Owner (Georgia)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to reformulation needs in our products.
- This might be an opportunity to market the novelty of change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Marketing Specialist (Illinois)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adjustments in labeling might be necessary.
- We may focus on taste tests to assure consumers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Health and Nutrition Researcher (New Jersey)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lowering soluble solids might have dietary benefits.
- Nutrition labeling might eventually change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Nutrition Consultant (Massachusetts)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in juice quality is crucial for school programs.
- Any decline in quality may affect student acceptance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried my favorite juice will taste different.
- The flavor quality is a big part of my morning routine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $500000 (Low: $200000, High: $800000)
Year 10: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $75000)
Key Considerations
- Potential resistance from certain segments of the industry preferring the current standard.
- Consumer acceptance may vary if perceived changes in taste or quality occur.
- This policy is likely to have larger effects in states like Florida, contributing significantly to domestic orange juice production.