A FB contender with a local preference

H.R. !551 is another farm bill wannabe, and while not broadly backed by industry like the EAT Healthy America Act, it has provisions of interest to fruit and vegetable producers. Primarily, it offers significant extension of conservation programs. The bill was introduced by Rep. Ronald Kind, D-Wisc., and has a thumping 74 co-sponsors. It boasts big funding for expansion of the fresh fruit and vegetable program, proposes a federally backed promotion program and revision of funding for school lunches based on dietary guidelines. It also contains this wrinkle about installing a a preference for locally produced agricultural products.

SEC. 307. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROCUREMENT OF LOCALLY PRODUCED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) Locally procured agricultural products, as compared to products transported from distant sources--
(A) are often harvested closer to full ripeness and can have higher nutritional quality;
(B) can have improved ripeness, taste, or selection, which can increase rates of consumption of agricultural products; and
(C) are more efficient to store, distribute, and package.
(2) Use of local produce--
(A) reduces dependence upon foreign oil by reducing fuel consumption rates associated with the production or transportation of agricultural products;
(B) can help to improve the ability of those using the procurement system to provide education on nutrition, farming, sustainability, energy efficiency, and the importance of local purchases to the local economy;
(C) helps to maintain a robust logistics network for agricultural product procurement; and
(D) promotes farm, business, and economic development by accessing local markets.
(3) Section 9(j) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage institutions participating in the school lunch program established under that Act and the school breakfast program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) to purchase, in addition to other food purchases, locally produced foods, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate.
(b) Department of Defense Geographic Procurement Preference- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense may use a geographic preference to purchase locally produced agricultural products for--
(1) the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia;
(2) the Department of Defense Farm to School Program;
(3) the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program;
(4) the service academies;
(5) Department of Defense domestic dependant schools;
(6) other Department of Defense schools under chapter 108 of title 10, United States Code;
(7) commissary and exchange stores; and
(8) morale, welfare, and recreation facilities operated by the Department of Defense
(c) Department of Agriculture and Related Entities Geographic Procurement Preference- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Agriculture, schools, local educational agencies, and other entities may use a geographic preference to purchase locally produced agricultural products for--
(1) the school breakfast program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773);
(2) the school lunch program established under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(3) the summer food service program for children established under section 13 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761); and
(4) the child and adult care food program established under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766).
(d) Addition of Geographic Preference- In the case of the purchase of agricultural products for a program or entity described in subsection (b) or (c), the local food service director or other entity making the purchase may include the geographic preference provided by such subsections in bid specifications and may select a bid involving locally produced agricultural products, even if that bid is not the lowest bid.
(e) Reporting- A school, local educational agency, or other entity participating in one or more of the programs described in subsection (c) shall report to the Secretary of Agriculture if the school, local educational agency, or other entity pays more than 10 percent more than the lowest bid to purchase locally produced agricultural products in accordance with this section. (f) Review- The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Agriculture shall periodically review the use of the geographic preference provided by this section to prevent fraud or abuse.

H2A growth

I have been making some calls today about the H2A program, the guest worker program for agriculture. Despite the program's flaws , which include high wages and heavy paperwork jams - growers facing worker shortages are turning to the program in bigger numbers. Department of Labor statistics for fiscal year 2006 show that 59,112 workers were certified for the H2A program, up from 44,619 workers in fiscal year 2004 and just 19,500 workers certified in 1997.

Usage of H2A should reflect another strong uptick this year. Mike Stuart of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association said ag employers there using the association's H2A services brought in only a few hundred guest workers last year. "We've seen a dramatic increase of our members use of the program in the last six to twelve months....essentially about an eight to ten fold increase in utilization of it," he said. Stuart said 3,000 to 4,000 H2A workers are being utilized by FFVA members in Florida this year.

TK: Obviously, enforcement actions against undocumented workers and the resulting labor shortages in fruit and vegetable fields have heightened the interest in the guest worker program. The future of the agricultural workforce appears to be with H2A, making AgJobs reforms that would add flexibility and ease of use of the program that much more urgent.

Inspections then and now

The Congressional Research Service in March updated a report on Agro-Terrorism. Included in the report is some insight about border inspectors, frequent targets of criticism by industry leaders:

Adding Agriculture Specialists. Under the CBP cross-training initiative in 2003 (also known as “One Face at the Border”), CBP inspectors from the former customs, immigration, and agriculture agencies were to be trained to perform inspections in all three areas equally, without specialization, — customs, immigration, and agriculture. However, due to criticism from USDA, inspection unions, and the agricultural industry, DHS created another class of inspectors called “agriculture specialists.” Agriculture specialists work mainly in secondary inspection stations in passenger terminals and are deployed at cargo terminals. The cadre of agriculture specialists include former APHIS inspectors who decided not to convert to CBP generalist inspectors plus new graduates from the agricultural specialist training program. Before DHS was created, APHIS trained its inspectors in a nine-week course that had science prerequisites. The initial DHS cross-training program announced in 2003 had only 12-16 hours for agriculture in a 71-day course covering customs, immigration, and agriculture. This difference in training was one of the reasons DHS was forced to add the agricultural specialist position DHS now has an eight-week (43-day) training program for agriculture specialists. The course is taught by CBP and APHIS instructors at a USDA training facility in Frederick, Maryland. Agriculture specialists also receive two weeks of law enforcement training, and can exercise law enforcement authority similar to regular CBP officers. However, CBP does not necessarily allow agriculture specialists to use the full extent of their law enforcement powers. The first class of agriculture specialists graduated in July 2004. Regular CBP officers receive about 12-16 hours of agricultural training during their multi-week program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Georgia. The agriculture module was developed by APHIS and provided to DHS. Although DHS is training new agriculture specialists, the future size of the agricultural specialist corps is not certain, given the eventual attrition of former APHIS inspectors. Also, details are not available as to how these inspectors will be deployed and how many ports of entry will be staffed with agriculture specialists (compared with the APHIS deployment prior to DHS). Without agriculture specialists, primary agricultural inspections — the first line of defense for agricultural security — may be conducted by cross-trained inspectors with limited agricultural training. Congressional agriculture committees have been concerned about whether enough attention will be devoted to agricultural inspections by DHS, and whether the United States will be as safe from the introduction of foreign pests as it was under the previous inspection system. Inspection statistics from the fall of 2003 indicate that 32% fewer insect infestations were found (under DHS) than in the previous year (under APHIS). APHIS officials cite unfilled agricultural inspector positions and difficulty in adequately cross-training former customs and immigration officers to conduct agricultural inspections.

TK: With the continued struggle to convert customs and immigration officials to capable inspectors for ag pests, the time may be right to switch back border inspection duties to the USDA.

Guest blogger invite

Tom Stenzel, Bryan Silbermann, Tom Nassif, Mike Stuart, Lorelei DiSogra, John Keeling, Kathy Means, Kevin Moffitt, Elizabeth Pivonka, Amy Philpott, Tim York, Karin Gardner, any Packer 25 personality, food safety expert. etc.

If any of the aforementioned industry leaders - or anyone else I deem worthy - wants to try a hand at guest blogging in this space, drop me an email and I'll set you up. No shameless self-promotion or stilted news release copy permitted, but if you would like to drop in a post in Fresh Talk I will set you up as a guest blogger.

My email tkarst@thepacker.com

Bid for bucks

One Senate staffer told me this morning that there is still uncertainty about whether the Senate version of the specialty crop bill will be introduced this week. The Democratic side of the aisle is still making tweaks to the bill, the staffer said. The Senate is on recess next week, but it is unknown if the bill will dropped before the recess.

The House version of the specialty crop bill - the EAT Healthy America Act, if you will - has this ambitious language for funding for promotion dollars for fruits and vegetables in the U.S. Observe that national, state and regional trade associations would be eligible for funds. Beyond that, even businesses could use promotion funds on a matching basis. To receive $25 million yearly for generic promotion of fruits and vegetables is a reach, but perhaps the industry and its Congressional allies can get a foot in the door and build from there.



SEC. 503. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE NUTRITION PROMOTION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall establish and carry out a program to provide assistance to eligible trade organizations described in subsection (c) in support of efforts to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States to meet Federal health guidelines.
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION.—To be eligible for assistance under this section, an eligible trade organization shall—
(1) submit to the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service a plan, meeting such guidelines as the Administrator may establish, to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States; and
(2) meet any other requirements established by the Administrator.
(c) ELIGIBLE TRADE ORGANIZATIONS.—An eligible
trade organization referred to in subsection (a) means any
of the following:
(1) A non-profit fruit and vegetable trade organization in the United States;
(2) A non-profit State or regional fruit and vegetable organization.
(3) A fruit and vegetable agricultural cooperative in the United States.
(4) A commodity board or commission in the
United States.
(5) A business engaged in the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States.

(d) MATCHING FUNDS.—Assistance provided under
this section shall not exceed—
(1) in the case of an entity referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (c), 50 percent of the cost of the plan submitted by the entity under subsection (b) and approved by the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service; and (2) in the case of a business referred to in paragraph (5) of such subsection, 50 percent of the cost of the plan submitted by the business under subsection (b) and approved by the Administrator. (e) FUNDING.—The Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service shall use the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this section in the following amounts:
(1) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(4) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.