


Letter From The Editor

Dear Colleagues:

The Merchants Messenger, like our organization itself, is truly a
collaborative effort.  This issue is no exception.  From Iowa to
Maryland, from Kentucky to Colorado the National Federation of the
Blind Merchants Division continues our work to create more and
better business opportunities for the blind.  We hope you enjoy
reading the accounts of our many activities on the pages of this
newsletter.  We hope these accounts inspire you and hope that you
will share with us what you are doing.  This will help us all.

With great sincerity, we wish for all of you who read our
newsletter a Happy and Healthy New Year!  May your daily sales be
great in 1995.
                                             Kevan Worley




Hey Folks -  It's Our Decision Too!
by Alan C. Gabriel

Editors Note:  Alan Gabriel Chairs the elected committee of blind
vendors of Colorado.  The following article written by him describes the
benefit of collective action and the need for all State Licensing
Agencies to adopt the definition of Active Participation developed by
the joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Vending Program.  See also the
Merchants Messenger of Spring 1994.


To refer to Colorado  spring weather as tumultuous might be considered
a kindness.  On any given day one might meet with a raging blizzard, the
snow clear up to one's tail feathers (one of my favorite days for cane
travel).  The next day the sun might be shining brightly, with
temperatures into the 70's.  As I was typing those last remarks my wife
quipped, "That can happen in the same day in Colorado!" and she is
right.   Well, this year our B.E. Program has been very much like our
spring weather, tumultuous at best.  As chairman of the Committee of
Licensed Blind Business Operators of Colorado I wasn't too surprised
when Stan Boxer, our longtime B.E. Program manager announced his
retirement date of July, 1994.  

Stan's beginnings in our B.E. Program hark back   *** to a simpler time,
long before the pesky '74 Amendments, long before there was committee of
blind so and so's, back when blind vendors knew their place!  Back when
the blind stand program manager was an autocrat, and he ruled the
program with an iron fist, for he knew what was best for the unfortunate
blind vendor who was under his benevolent care.  It was he who placed a
blind vendor in a blind stand and moved them as he saw fit.  Forced
partnerships were very common in those days with no choice on the part
of the blind vendors involved.  The blind stand supervisors would stop
at every blind stand once a week to collect that week's receipts and
make sure that all was under control.  Ah! those were the good ol'
days.(Note: the tongue in cheek beginning at the three asterisks above). 
But enough reminiscing!  

Our operators now have an active committee in Colorado and with Stan's
announcement of retirement we fully expected to actively participate in
the hiring process of the new B.E. Program manager.  But as we know all
too well, old ways die hard at the Division of Rehabilitation Services
for the Blind (DOR).  So even as the administration assured us that we
would be actively involved in the hiring process, they were choosing a
new B.E. Program manager without any input from us.  Later, we were
invited to attend a meeting that the Division of Rehabilitation  had set
up to meet our new B.E. Program manager.  Meet him we did.  Although the
State set the meeting for midmorning on a work day, more than one third
of Colorado's licensed blind vendors came to the meeting.  In no
uncertain terms, blind vendors at the meeting, said that regardless of
how good a candidate might be, that candidate would be acceptable only
if vendors had the opportunity of active participation in the selection
process.  The DOR administrators spent a few days regrouping and then
they came back to us with a revised proposal.  First they agreed to
change the lateral transfer employment announcement to a promotional
employment announcement.  That meant that the candidate who we felt was
best qualified for the position could now apply.  Also we would now be
involved in the development of the questions that the interview panel
would ask of all the candidates.  And finally, our operators would make
up one half of the interview panel.  This sounded great, and we accepted
our responsibility and opportunity to actively participate  in the
hiring process of our new B.E. Program manager.  Tony Frankavillia, who
at that time was the director of the DOR, met with us and told us that
he would make a decision before the end of August, once again reminding
us that he had the right of final decision.  

Permit me an aside about that administrator's final decision concept. 
When he tells me that he makes the final decision, I laugh to myself and
candidly remind him that I can always appeal his final decision.  So in
reality the administrators of our program do not make the final
decisions unless we agree with them.  Why not work with the operators on
all administrative decisions as the law instructs and save yourself the
grief?  Well, back to our story.  

By the end of August, Tony was retired without making a decision and
this was very good news for us, as Tony had never been a friend of our
B.E. Program and rumor had it that his decision would not have been to
our liking.  

In September, Ken Schmidt, the Administrator of Field Services, Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation took charge of things and he, knowing how
strongly we operators felt, worked diligently to make sure that the new
administrators above him understood our position thoroughly.  Ken's
efforts helped hasten the appointment of a B.E. Program manager.  Thank
you, Ken.  

We are happy to announce that John Perio who was a business consultant
in our B.E. Program is now our new B.E. Program manager.  Throughout
this entire process the NFB of Colorado and the Merchant's Division
stood shoulder to shoulder with the operators, championing our right to
actively participate in selecting the next B.E. Program manager. 
Without such support our man would not hold that position today.  This
is one more answer, "Why the NFB."



Annual Meeting of New York Blind Vendors
by Joseph Van Lent

The annual meeting of the State of New York Business Enterprise Program
(BEP) was held on Saturday, September 10th in Syracuse, NY.  Mr. Eugene
Luini, the Director for the Program for the Blind in New York and Mr.
Tom Robertson, Director of the New York BEP Program, were present and
participated in the conference and discussion with the blind vendors of
New York.

Carl Jacobsen, Chairman of the Blind Vendors Committee of New York,
invited Roger Erpelding, Director of the BEP Program in Iowa, and Joseph
Van Lent, Chairman of the Blind Vendors Committee in Iowa, to
participate in their meeting.

Roger Erpelding explained the operation of the BEP Program in Iowa. 
Roger said that Iowa's Program is funded by money appropriated by the
Iowa legislature and does not have any set aside charges.  Because of
this the Iowa Program does not provide for insurance, vacation or
retirement benefits.  Iowa vendors choose the benefits they want and pay
for them.

Van Lent talked about the participation of the Blind Vendors Committee
in Iowa.  He said that the vendors Committee meets monthly and takes an
active part in decisions that affect Iowa's blind vendors.  The
Committee decides which roadside vending locations will be built and the
type of building and machines that will be used.  The Committee decides
which vendor will receive a location, if a vendor should be put on
probation or suspension and participates in the making of administrative
rules for the BEP Program.

Carl Jacobsen talked about the BEP Program in New York and explained
that it is funded by set aside fees charged to New York Vendors.  The
New York Program provides for insurance, vacation pay and retirement
benefits.

There was a general discussion about the ever increasing cost of the
insurance and how the Program could continue to pay these increasing
costs.  Mr. Luini and Mr. Robertson explained the situation of the
insurance cost and possible alternatives.

The conference ended in late afternoon and was followed by an evening
banquet in which the New York Vendors and the Iowa Guests exchanged
views and opinions about the BEP Program in both states.  Roger and Joe
both felt that they have benefitted immensely from this conference and
are using some of the ideas given to them by the New York participants. 
They both were appreciative of the invitation issued to them by Carl and
the New York vendors.  


Fighting for the Right to Work
by Charles Allen

Federationist Jerry Grimes has managed the vending facility at Kentucky
State University, at Frankfort, since it opened in 1983.  He was
required to pay the University a commission equal to 5% of his net
profit, an amount he also pays to the Department for the Blind as set
aside.

In 1989, the University decided to end its contract with the Department
and hire a private vending company.  The Department negotiated with the
University and agreed to pay a higher commission in order to keep the
facility.  The money they agreed to pay belonged to Jerry Grimes not to
the Department.  Since the Department did not have the authority to give
away Grimes money, Grimes sued the Department and the University in
August, 1989.  On April 22, 1992, Grimes prevailed.  The University
wanted a private contractor but the court said, the KBEP was entitled to
operate the facility. The University wanted the right to have Grimes
replaced as manager. The court upheld Grimes right to stay, consistent
with KBEP Rules.  The court ordered that Grimes would pay the University
only the 5% required in the original contract.  The University wanted
the right to set prices. The court said, that Grimes  could not be
forced to charge less than prevailing prices in the local area.  The
court ordered a contract which reflected these decisions.

Though the court had spoken, the University seemed slow to learn. 
Unfortunately, the University still wants control  not only prices, but
product and wants a voice in determining Grimes' tenure.  Grimes
returned to court, this time with the Department as an ally, not an
adversary.

The University had entered into a monetary agreement with the Coca-Cola
Company and therefore demanded that Grimes sell only Coca-Cola products
in his can drink machines.  The University also opened a food cart
service outside a building in which he had machines, thereby entering
into direct competition with him.

On November 18, 1994 Grimes prevailed again.  The court says that needed
food service contracts must be negotiated with KBEP in accordance with
state and federal law.  Under federal and state law, the Department has
the sole right to determine the facility manager; and the University may
not restrict the operation of a facility through its own exclusive brand
agreements.

With some financial assistance from the National Federation of the Blind
of Kentucky, Grimes has himself paid the cost of his legal action. 
Grimes supports the University not only with the commission he is
required to pay, but in other ways too.  For example he underwrites the
cost of the University's Easter Egg Hunt and supports other University
programs as well.  Even so, the University wants to get rid of him.  It
appears they don't like assertive blind people.  They have  moved his
storage room to a place far harder for him physically to manage.  The
University has appealed the November, 1994 decision and continues to
drag its feet. 

Jerry Grimes heard, at a National Federation of the Blind banquet
address, the words, "We know who we are, and we'll never go back." 
These ringing words are at the core of his being;  He cites them as his
inspiration to keep fighting.  His personal struggle for the right to
work has strengthened the entire Kentucky Vending Program.




Twentieth Anniversary - Ceremony

December 7, 1974 was the date on which the Randolph-sheppard Act was
amended.  On December 8, 1994, a ceremony was held recognizing the
event.  The following news release announced the program.

Twentieth Anniversary of the
Amendments of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act
1974-1994

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- DECEMBER 8, 1994,   Today, the Secretary of
Education, Richard W. Riley announces the Twentieth Anniversary of the
amendments of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.  The Randolph-Sheppard Act (the
Act) provides employment opportunities to persons who are blind through
the operation of vending facilities on federal, state, and other
property.

Over 24,000 persons have been employed in this program since its
inception in 1936, the date of the original legislation which was
sponsored by West Virginia Representative Jennings Randolph and
supported by Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas.

The Act was amended in 1954 and 1974.  The 1974 amendments greatly
strengthen the program and specifically amended the Act to mandate a
priority rather than a preference for licensed blind persons to operate
vending facilities on Federal property.

The Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility program today has annual gross
sales of food and other articles and services in excess of $400 million. 
The program is ranked among the fifty largest food service corporations
in America and provides employment to others both inside and outside the
disability community.

The U.S. Department of Education will have a special program celebrating
the Program's Achievements and those individuals and groups who have
contributed to the success of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.  An address
given by Fredric K. Schroeder, Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services
Administration, is a highlight of the ceremony.

Recipients of awards included, Mr. Robert Marcus, GSA Concessions
Officer.  (Note- Bob Marcus started his employment with GSA on December
7, 1964, received recognition today and retires December 31, 1994). 
Robert Humphreys, Attorney for ACB and former Commissioner of RSA;  Marc
Maurer, on behalf of the NFB;  Creig Slayton, Vending Committee
Chairman, National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; awards were
also given to postal service and Department of Defense.  A posthumous
award was presented to Durward K. McDaniel.

Madeleine Kunin, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education made a
presentation which included an acknowledgement that she was only now
learning about the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program and the good work
performed by blind vendors.  Howard Moses, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, served as
Master of Ceremonies and spoke on the worth of the program.

Many feel that although progress was made as a result of the regulations
and its attempt to empower blind vendors, most everyone agreed that much
remains to be done to make of the vending program all that it could be. 
We still face negative attitudes from within and outside the program.

Fred Schroeder committed RSA, himself, and his staff to helping blind
vendors and administrators improve the program and seeking to achieve a
commitment to its purposes by federal agencies and departments.

Refreshments were catered by a licensed blind vendor from the D.C.
Program and were paid for by the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America,
and the Merchants Division of the NFB.

                                    - - -

The Issue is Trust
by Gerald Young

When the Kentucky General Assembly of Blind Vendors met on October 8 in
Louisville, change was an unwritten item on the agenda.

The meeting began with a presentation by a Social Security
Representative on benefit eligibility which result from unincurred
business expenses.  More and more Kentucky vendors are utilizing this
benefit.

Discussion became heated when the Program Director, Stephen Johnson,
gave results of a vendor survey conducted by the Department.  The
Committee and the Department had agreed to send out the survey to all
vendors with a definite deadline for response.  When less than half of
the vendors had responded by the deadline, the department decided to
poll the vendors by telephone.  (Outside pollsters were used.)
Unfortunately, some vendors expressed the opinion this was done because
the Department had not received the responses they wanted and were
trying to balance the results.  Other vendors wanted to know how they
chose who to call because the written responses were unsigned.  The
discussion underscored one very serious opinion expressed by the survey
- that the majority of vendors do not believe that agency personnel deal
honestly with them.

The meeting ended with a bang.  For several weeks, some of the vendors
had been working to gather support for a slate of candidates who were
either Federationists or friends of the Federation.  The slate of
candidates was typed and presented to like-minded vendors at the
meeting.  A vendor rose in opposition, saying that these candidates all
supported Kentucky developing a single vendor plan.  He nominated a
second slate of candidates not committed to single vendor operations. 
The first slate, supporting single vendors for Kentucky, won by an
overwhelming majority.

Elected were Charles Allen, Chairman;  James Earl Hardin, Vice-Chairman; 
Mac Carnes; Gerald Young; Robert Page; Bill Farris; Faye Autrey; Ray
Katon; George Stokes; Jerry Grimes; and Don Pruitt.  The philosophy of
the National Federation of the Blind is alive and well in the Kentucky
Vending Program.

                                    - - -
                                       

Report on the
Joint Ad Hoc Committee
on Vending
by Don Morris


Its been nearly a year since the joint meeting of blind vendors and
state administrators took place in Washington, D.C.  As you may recall
from the spring, 1994 Merchants Messenger, the NFB Merchants Division
was well represented.  At that meeting we presented ten points for
consideration and discussion.  These ten subjects came before each of
the 17 separate discussion groups.  Reports from each of the 17
discussion groups were presented and without fail each discussion group
had one or more of the NFB points on their priority list.  Four items
came forward from the entire group as points on which consensus was
achieved.  Those four points involved active participation, no forced
partnerships, no limitation on vendor income and national training.  A
fifth item which came out of the "wrap up" meeting also achieved
consensus; that item called for an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of three
representatives to be named by the National Council of State Agencies
for the Blind, three representatives named by the American Council of
the Blind and three representatives named by the National Federation of
the Blind.

The nine members appointed, the group they represent, and their home
state follow:  George Abbott, ACB, MD;  Charles Allen, NFB, KY; Richard
Davis, NCSAB, MN; Gene Heisler, ACB, TX; Don Morris, NFB, MD; George
Precourt, NCSAB, CT; LeRoy Saunders, ACB, OK; Wayne Shevlin, NFB, NC;
Creig Slayton, NCSAB, IA.  Durward McDaniel was originally appointed as
an ACB representative.  At Durward's death, LeRoy Saunders stepped in to
fill that position.  In July a meeting of the committee was convened by
conference telephone.  Each of the participants described how they
thought this joint Ad Hoc Committee could best do its work.  The
following points were outlined for action and agreed to by the
committee.  1.  A report on the March meeting should be presented to the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration.  The report
should include  details of the four consensus issues. 2.  These four
points should also be widely communicated to state licensing agency and
other government personnel.  3.  Subcommittees should be appointed, one
for each of the four issues.  These subcommittees were to finalize and
polish the presentation of the issues.  4.  A chairperson and secretary
should be selected to shepherd the project.

Don Morris was elected to chair the group and Dick Davis agreed to
perform secretarial duties.  Creig Slayton also agreed to provide
support services by way of Braille reproduction, etc.  

Throughout the summer and early fall, the committee met several more
times by conference telephone.  The subcommittees each drafted and
presented proposed language for their topic.  The subcommittee reports
were discussed, accepted or amended until consensus was achieved from
the entire joint Ad Hoc Committee.  Those four points and the language
we accepted follow.    





                    AD HOC COMMITTEE ON RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD

                                RECOMMENDATION

                             ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

                                  BACKGROUND

It is the belief of the Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard that it
was the intent of Congress to make the Elected Committee of Blind
Vendors an active partner in the decision processes relative to rules,
policies, and practices under which the State Licensing agency, or
designee, guides the activities of the Randolph-Sheppard Program.


                                  Definition

Active participation means an ongoing process of negotiation between the
State Licensing agency and the Elected  Committee of Blind Vendors to
achieve joint planning and approval of rules, policies, and practices
prior to implementation by the State Licensing Agency.
                                    - - -

                                RECOMMENDATION

                           LIMITATIONS ON EARNINGS

                                  Background

It is the position of the Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard that
there should be no policies developed by State Licensing Agencies for
the express purpose of limiting earnings of blind vendors.  The Ad Hoc
Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the Randolph-
Sheppard Program that individual operators be permitted to earn as much
as their initiatives and facility locations will permit.

The Ad Hoc Committee adopts this position in full realization that there
is a need to expand the Randolph-Sheppard Program and that a primary
objective is to create more and better facilities for licensed vendors.


                                  Statement

The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, other federal agencies or the
State Licensing Agencies, or their designees, shall not develop any
rules, policies, or practices which are specifically designed to limit
the income of licensed blind vendors.

In the event that a secondary effect of such rules, policies, or
practices is to limit such income, said rules, policies, or practices
must be ratified by the Elected Committee of Blind Vendors.
                                    - - -

                                RECOMMENDATION

                  FORCED PARTNERSHIPS AND DIRECT COMPETITION

                                  Background

The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that it is not in the
best interest of the Randolph-Sheppard Program to permit forced
partnerships whether that be in the form of two managers for one
location or two (2) facilities so located as to be in direct competition
with each other.  Factors which need to be considered when determining
whether competition is occurring include:  type of
operation, location, and size.


                                  Statement

The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, other federal agencies or the
State Licensing Agencies, or their designees, shall not develop any
rules, policies, or practices which are specifically designed to create
forced partnerships, i.e. co-managers or develop facilities that are in
direct competition with another Randolph-Sheppard facility.

In the event that a secondary effect of such rules, policies, or
practices is to create forced partnerships, said rules, policies, or
practices must be ratified by the elected Committee of Blind Vendors.


                                    - - -


                                RECOMMENDATION

                              NATIONAL TRAINING

                                  Background

The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard concurs with the March 1994
Conference on the Randolph-Sheppard Program on the need for a national
training effort.  It is felt that this national training should be for
both State Licensing Agency Staff and Randolph-Sheppard Facility
Operators.

                                  Statement

The Rehabilitation Services Administration should conduct an adequate
needs assessment so as to determine the training needs for both State
Licensing Agency Staff and Randolph-Sheppard Facility Operators.  This
assessment data should then be used to establish a comprehensive
national training program.
                                    - - -
On October 11, 1994, we met with RSA Commissioner, Fred Schroeder in his
office.  Also present were members of the Commissioner's staff.  The
four points were presented and discussed and were well received by the
Commissioner.  Commissioner Schroeder wondered aloud if there would be
difficulty getting acceptance from the larger groups  (NCSAB, ACB and
NFB).  Charles Allen, president of the NFB Merchants Division stated
that he, Wayne Shevlin and Don Morris were elected and appointed to
speak for NFB Vendors and stated that the NFB supported these points. 
LeRoy Saunders, ACB President, Gene Heisler and George Abbott said they
represented and spoke for the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America and
that they too supported these points.  The NCSAB representatives
indicated that the three of them support these points and advocate for
them and even though they were the official authorized representatives
of the NCSAB to our joint Ad Hoc Committee, they must present these
positions to a national NCSAB meeting which will be held in Florida
later in the year.  

They acknowledged the possibility of resistance from some SLA Directors
who might believe that empowering blind vendors diminishes SLA
authority.  

Regarding the balance between vendor empowerment and SLA authority, it
is generally recognized that communication and cooperation between the
parties is best in those states where committees are well organized and
rules are current and well defined.  It was generally accepted that
blind vendors have accepted responsibility along with their empowerment. 
Instead of diminishing SLA authority, but has lessened the need for such
authority since "both sides" are working toward a common objective.  

Commissioner Schoreder indicated his willingness to help us advocate for
these consensus issues.  At the meeting he also pledged to seek a
satisfactory resolution in the several Veterans Administration issues
(Minnesota and Maryland) which are currently pending.  

The joint Ad Hoc Committee has not met since October. 

Although we have not received any "official" acceptance or rejection
from NCSAB officials, the rumor mill has it that these four points were
rejected by the larger body of the NCSAB, even though their
representatives participated in developing the consensus issues and
developing the final language for their presentation.  

Contact your State Licensing Agency and ask how they voted at the
Florida, NCSAB meeting.  If they admit they voted no, talk with them
about their problem with the four points or the rationale for their
vote.  If they voted to accept the four points, enlist their assistance
in helping to sway their colleagues from other states.  These four
points are fundamental to building a cooperative effort or a joint
venture between blind vendors and SLA's.

If it is true that NCSAB has rejected these issues, then blind vendors
must take the steps necessary to drag these reluctant administrators
into the present.  Once they join us here, perhaps together we can
explore the future of the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program.  


                                    - - -

Monetary Musings
by Charles Allen

New from Blue diamond is a SmokeHouse Almond Mix which is 30% almonds
and peanuts.  It comes in a 1.5 oz bag and has a nine month shelf life.

Frito-Lay has four new vend items:  Doritos Zesty Salsa Tortilla chips; 
Rold Gold Fat Free Thins Pretzels;  Golden Toast Cream Cheese and Chives
Cracker Snacks: and Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Grandma's Big Cookies. 
They have added Wavy Lay's Regular to their Large Single Serve Chips.

A fun addition is the No Nut Chocolate Chip cookie (36 ct/2 oz) from the
Uncle No Name Cookie Company.


Bon Appetit has two fat free 4 oz muffins --lemon and blueberry, packed
frozen in a 24 count case.

Cloverhill Fresh on Arrival Pastry has a new item--the 5 oz. Iddy Biddy
Honey Bun, packed in a 32 count case.

O'Brien's has a 24 count/3.4 oz Snack Magic Pack.  It needs no
refrigeration, has a six month shelf life and fits chip or pastry
vending machine slots.  It contains beef summer sausage, crackers and
cheese spread and one starlight mint candy.

Snyders of Hanover is distributing Louise's Fat Free Snacks in vend
size.  Included are caramel corn, regular potato chips and BBQ potato
chips.

Our colleagues in cafeterias might be interested in the following
information based on "Hot Trends of '94" written by Terri Stone-Conrath
and Nancy Cooper and appearing in the November/December, 1994 issue of
Midwest Foodservice News.

Barbecue consumption seems to be a national trend with regional
differences.  Look for beef west of the Mississippi River with pork in
the East.  The South wants a barbecue sauce with a vinegar base; a
tomato-based sauce with a tang is in the Midwest.  Our friends in the
Southwest use regional spices - especially red and black peppers.

We Americans are using more herbs and spices in our cooking.  Especially
popular are basil, oregano, thyme, bay leaves and sage.  (I am reminded
of the bay leaves I found in sauerkraut baked in beer when dining out
recently.)  Watch out for peppers, chilies and hot pepper sauce.

Ever popular are the so-called "comfort foods," including mashed
potatoes and hot rolls.  It sounds to me that good old country cooking
is a strong contender in the food market.  Becoming more popular is the
sweet potato which is actually good for us with its high level of beta
carotene, a component of Vitamin A.  Of course, once we add toppings to
it, as we do to our familiar baked potato (a fine source of Vitamin C)
we offset its food value.

Stone-Conrath and Cooper discuss our long-time friend, coffee.  Our
customers 55 years of age and older bought almost half of the coffee 
purchased away from home.  The real growth in the industry, which is
rebounding after a 20 year downward trend, is on the gourmet end.  There
may be 10,000 specialty coffee shops by the end of the century. 
Cappuccino is coming on strong.  Serve Mocha Java, Chocolate Raspberry
Creme, Hazelnut, Irish Creme, Vanilla Almond, etc.

Bagels continue to be a strong item in the bread industry.  (What
happened to croissants?)  Increasing in popularity are unusually
flavored breads--ricotta, polenta, potato dill, sun-dried tomato, red
pepper, etc.  Recently, in a "comfort food" establishment, I found sweet
blueberry cornbread.

Red peppers are not only appearing in bread, they are becoming more
popular than the traditional green bell pepper.  They do add a touch of
color to a dish.

At one end of the food industry, the movement continues to be toward a
lower fat content in entrees and appetizers.  Leaner cuts of meat are
used with more meat being grilled.

Stone-Conrath and Cooper report the appearance of fast-food outlets in
non-traditional locations, such as airports, discount department stores
and service stations.  It seems to me that the Business enterprise
Program should take note and compete!

                                       