A letter to the Cranberry Community 

from John Decas

Yesterday, a message was posted on Ocean Spray’s Extranet from Joe Darlington, a New Jersey Ocean Spray grower, which painted Decas Cranberry Products, Inc. in a misleading light. Because I do not have access to Ocean Spray’s computer network, I am posting this message to everyone in the cranberry community over the Stressline so I can set the record straight.

As we all know, Ocean Spray has encountered serious difficulties, enduring strong competition from companies like Decas, numerous grower defections, diminishing market share, and eight consecutive years of losses. We have seen Ocean Spray flounder in its effort to recover, continually sidetracked by poor management decisions. Now, it appears that Ocean Spray has concluded that if it cannot compete fairly with others in the industry, it should try to drag them down by spreading rumors and innuendo.

Unlike Ocean Spray, which is constrained by a substantial glut of fruit, Decas has no surplus. The posting on Ocean Spray’s Extranet (authored by the cooperative’s representative on the Cranberry Marketing Committee) falsely suggests that Decas does have a surplus, and the posting apparently seeks to use that alleged surplus as another reason for another restrictive marketing order. The fact of the matter is that Decas does not have enough fruit to meet its current processing needs. Just a few weeks ago, we wrote all Massachusetts growers seeking additional supplies.

The posting on Ocean Spray’s Extranet refers to an auction of Decas inventory that is allegedly to occur today. That auction will not take place. Decas has sued a Maine warehouse as a result of damage done to some of its 1999 inventory when the fruit was improperly frozen. Our quality standards do not allow us to market berries that have been improperly frozen. Seeking a tactical advantage before the suit was filed, the warehouse purported to assert a lien on the damaged cranberries, and it then gave notice that it intended to sell the fruit at auction. The warehouse took these steps although it owes Decas hundreds of thousands of dollars for the damage it caused. When it filed suit, Decas asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting that auction, and its request will be considered by the court in February. We expect to obtain that injunction, as well as to prevail in the underlying lawsuit.

Finally, the Ocean Spray Extranet posting seeks to indict Decas by association when it speaks of "contracts broken by Independent handlers in the past couple years." Could Mr. Darlington be suggesting that our problem with the freezer company somehow caused us to violate our grower contracts? Decas growers received $18/barrel for the 1999 berries, including those stored in the Maine freezer. I would suggest Mr. Darlington compare that to what he received from Ocean Spray for his 1999 crop.

I believe Mr. Darlington and Ocean Spray owe me an apology for posting false comments about my company. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

I hope this message clarifies any misunderstandings that might have been created by yesterday’s posting on Ocean Spray’s Extranet.

Home