Bill Overview
Title: Wholesale Produce Market Review Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to submit to Congress a report on supply chain shortfalls at (1) the five largest wholesale produce markets by annual sales and amount of goods moved for the preceding four calendar years, and (2) a representative sample of eight wholesale produce markets that are not among the largest wholesale produce markets. The report must contain (1) an analysis of the supply chain shortfalls in each wholesale produce market, including the state of repair of infrastructure; (2) a description of any actions USDA recommends be taken as a result of the analysis; (3) recommendations for wholesale produce market owners and operators, and state and local entities, to improve the identified supply chain shortfalls; and (4) proposals for legislative actions and funding needed to improve the supply chain shortfalls.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: People who rely on supply chains involving large wholesale produce markets
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The bill focuses on wholesale produce markets, which are integral to the food supply chain.
- Supply chain shortfalls can affect food availability and pricing, impacting consumers globally.
- The infrastructure and management of these markets impact agricultural producers who rely on them to distribute their products.
- Workers at these markets and associated logistics services will be affected by potential changes in infrastructure and operations.
Reasoning
- The primary target group of this policy includes wholesale produce market operators, agricultural producers, logistics and supply chain workers, and indirectly, consumers who may experience changes in produce prices and availability.
- The budget allocated is modest compared to the widespread nature of US supply chains, meaning the immediate direct impact might be limited to a more strategic, planning phase.
- A significant improvement in infrastructure might take longer than 10 years and could require public-private partnerships and additional funding.
- It is also possible that policy responses could lead to changes in regulatory frameworks or practices, impacting various stakeholders differently.
Simulated Interviews
Family Farmer (Portland, ME)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the report will lead to improvements in how local markets work.
- Improving infrastructure might make it easier for us to get our products to larger distributors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Wholesale Market Manager (Fresno, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better infrastructure is absolutely needed.
- The report could help rationalize spending where it's most needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements to market operations could streamline our job.
- If infrastructure upgrades are prioritized, it might reduce delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Truck Driver (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this leads to improved roads and logistics.
- In the long run, it could mean less downtime and fewer repairs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Grocery Store Owner (Omaha, NE)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If these reviews lead to market efficiency, it could lower prices for customers.
- It may take time to see a direct financial impact on small businesses like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Regional Distributor (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The report might highlight critical bottlenecks we face daily.
- Even simple improvements with legislative support could stabilize my operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Consumer (Boston, MA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m okay as long as I can keep buying fresh and affordable produce.
- Understanding the chain might be complex, but it's important for prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Imports and Exports Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could provide essential data for strategic trade decisions.
- Understanding supply chains can provide competitive advantages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Union Representative for Market Workers (Chicago, IL)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements to infrastructure could mean better working conditions.
- There's a need for legislation focusing on worker benefits too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Food Bank Coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this bill leads to a more reliable supply chain, it could be revolutionary for food security.
- Access to affordable, fresh produce is critical for our operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $5500000)
Year 2: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The accuracy and depth of the USDA's findings are crucial in providing actionable insights for future legislation.
- Coordination with state and local entities will be necessary to ensure effective implementation of the study's recommendations.
- The scale of potential infrastructure improvements suggested by the study could lead to significant future budgetary considerations.