Not good enough

"We are exremely disappointed."

While the specialty crop industry has tried to work within the subcommittee process, Robert Guenther of United Fresh told me tonight that more tangible results and real dollars are needed for f/v priorities. Guenther said United and other specialty crop alliance members are looking at all options, including amendments at the full House Agriculture Committee and beyond that, on the House floor. And, of course, the Senate farm bill remains to take shape. More later on this interview with the chief lobbyist for United Fresh.

Peterson's principle

More reaction on the farm bill hearing today:

Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson issued the following statement after today's Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management's Business Meeting:

The proposals approved today by the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management reflect the message we heard loud and clear from farmers and ranchers nationwide - the structure of the 2002 Farm Bill works for them. We will continue to develop proposals on rebalancing and reform in farm programs that will build on this good foundation as we move forward. The Agriculture Committee has a tough job ahead, but I am committed to continuing a process that is open and allows for a complete debate of all the important issues involved in writing a Farm Bill.

TK: Produce industry leaders I have talked to have high marks for Peterson's communication skills and candor. He will need a good measure of both to keep various farm bill constituents happy - or at least equally upset.

Mike Johanns reaction to House work on farm programs

This just came over the wire from the USDA. Reaction by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to work by House subcommittee on general farm commodities and risk management:

"I am disappointed in the Title I legislation put forth today by the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management. The bill fails to recognize the need for greater equity and predictability in farm policy, and does nothing to provide a more responsive safety net.
"Having said that, I am encouraged by the signal from subcommittee members that this is only a starting point and I'm gratified by the kind and thoughtful comments offered by several members regarding the Administration's proposal. I will not waste a moment in responding to the interest expressed in adopting some of our ideas as part of the full committee mark up.
"We must address farm policy that provides the highest payments when abundant yields lead to moderate prices and provides no payments when low or no yields lead to high prices. The bill advanced today offers no remedy. The Administration's revenue-based counter cyclical program proposal is far more responsive to actual producer needs.
"The House draft also fails to bring greater equity to farm policy. Some farmers would continue to receive guaranteed money while others, including 60% of farmers, are left out. Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported. The Administration listened and proposes not direct subsidies, but rather more research and other forms of support. The Administration proposal is more equitable among crops, as well as farm sizes. Beginning farmers legitimately question policy that delivers more than half of government payments to 9% of farms - large, commercial operators. Yet, the House draft continues this disparate policy.
"I also believe there is a point at which successful farmers should graduate from subsidy programs. Farmers among the wealthiest 2% of Americans should be applauded for their success and graduated from government subsidies. The Administration's proposals provide a pathway to greater equity by eliminating commodity subsidies for farmers with Adjusted Gross Incomes of $200,000 or more, averaged over three years. It is the right thing to do and it allows us to direct increased support to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers.
"Additionally, the bill advanced today paints a bulls-eye on farmers' backs and risks jeopardizing a portion of the $78 billion in U.S. agricultural exports by increasing trade-distorting support. This is especially disappointing when the Administration proposes an alternative that provides greater protection from international trade challenges, an increase in predictable, non-trade distorting support and overall reforms that help to fund emerging priorities.
"As the full Committee on Agriculture prepares to mark up the 2007 farm bill, I am hopeful there will be renewed interest in providing real dollars to fund emerging priorities. Thus far, the dollars identified are dependant upon discretionary funds or elusive reserve funds that require offsets, yet no offsets have been identified.
"It is my hope that farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders who have expressed passionate support for an increased commitment to conservation, specialty crops and beginning and minority farmers are paying close attention, because the subject of their passion is at stake.
"The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the Administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion. The House draft offers no mandatory funding in an area Congress itself has identified as a top priority - renewable energy, while the Administration proposes more than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, targeted to cellulosic ethanol projects. The House draft offers no mandatory funding for specialty crop research, while the Administration proposes $1 billion in mandatory funds. The House draft offers no mandatory funding to expand eligibility for the Food Stamp Program, while the Administration proposes four areas of expansion. The list goes on and in each instance the House draft either fails to identify these priorities or fails to fund them with mandatory dollars.
"The Administration listened closely to farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders during USDA's Farm Bill Forums. We made the difficult decisions necessary to fund the priorities relayed to us while providing a more responsive safety net to farmers - and we did so within a budget that achieves balance within five years.
"We have much work ahead. I take committee members at their word regarding their interest in incorporating the ideas offered by the Administration to strengthen the current bill. I look forward to working with them to do what I firmly believe is right for American agriculture. Our farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders deserve to be presented with a vision for the future instead of reliance on policies of the past."


TK: Ag Secretary Mike Johanns offers an immediate rebuke to the subcommittee, and he jabs them on the issue of equity for fruit and vegetable growers, among many other points. It is apparent that Johanns will not be bashful with this House Agriculture Committee, whether or not they choose to listen to him.

Something we can all agree on

From the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association's Food News Update, which was sent today:

FFVA’s Board of Directors voted June 8 to support adoption of mandatory federal food safety standards throughout the produce supply chain. The Board issued a resolution that “these standards must be science-based and must reflect the risks associated with individual commodities and production regions.” Further, “they should apply to all fruits and vegetables produced in, or imported into, the United States.”The Board had instituted a policy in January that supported the adoption of these food safety standards. The new resolution, however, specifies adoption of “mandatory federal standards.” FFVA’s Board of Directors and committees met June 7-8 at the Breakers in Palm Beach.

TK: There is a comfort zone where all in the produce industry can co-exist, and that is "science-based," "commodity-specific" and "risk-based" produce safety standards that apply to domestic and imported fruits and vegetables.. How to create such a matrix of guidance, regulation, marketing order rules and Congressional legislation will take years to unpack.

Transportation bottlenecks

The Agriculture Transportation Coalition has issued a news release that details problems with rail service, truck shortages and port congestion for U.S. ag exporters. The group challenges the U.S. to look at the state of its infrastructure for ag products. Find the news release and some discussion at this link.

One Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group member puts it well:


Trade goes both ways and much as been written about difficulties of implementing ACE (Automated Commercial Environment). It seems that given the volume of trade and need for security, the infrastructure supporting the movement of goods and people is under strain. Very large amounts of funds have been proposed to improve the border patrol but let's not forget about customs.

Status Woe

The House Ag subcommittee on general commodities and risk management just wrapped up their markup session. The subcommittee extended the 2002 farm bill and then had several amendments to that 2002 language. One of those amendments was for a pilot program in Indiana that provides for an exception to the fruit and vegetable planting restriction on flex acres. That language for the pilot program was also part of the subcommittee's mark before the commodity title was changed out in favor of the simple 2002 farm bill extension.

The Farm Flex pilot project in Indiana allows for tomatoes to be planted on up to 10,000 base acres. The industry should not be happy with this development, since at some point the producers of subsidized tomatoes and unsubsidized tomatoes will compete.

The subcommittee was also considering a permanent disaster relief program, though I did not catch the final deliberations of that amendment.

All in all, the subcommittee's work was not that ambitious. By voting to extended the 2002 farm bill, it spurned voices that urged creation of a more forward-looking, WTO-friendly farm program.

All signs point to the reality that lawmakers invested in the commodity title want more money yet from the budget. You can bank on the fact Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas is not going to be staying up nights worrying whether specialty crop block grants are funded.

Extending the 2002 farm bill

Members of the House subcommittee on general farm commodities and risk management are flirting with extending the commodity title of the 2002 farm bill, which was offered by Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.. Several members have spoken so far, all in support of the 2002 farm bill extension. Not having video of the hearing, it seems support is bipartisan so far. It looks as if the 2002 farm bill will be extended, with some tweaks and changes added along the way. While this may be what the Farm Bureau wants, it certainly begs the question of where all the talk about a more equitable farm bill has gone.

Back in 2004, Moran told The Packer, "If we get split, program crops versus specialty crops, our chances of success are greatly diminished," he said. However, Moran not only wants the 2002 farm bill extended, he wants money for a permanent disaster relief program and money for rebalancing loan rates for program commodities.

Where is the money for f/v priorities?

Chuck Conner of the USDA said the current farm bill offers the best support during the best years, and the least help during a bad. "I don't believe it was the intent of the committee to provide the least when a farmer has a total wipeout." He also criticized the committee for not providing funds for young farmers.

One member from North Dakota spoke of support of permanent disaster funding and real payment limits on farm program payments.

In the end, it was a unanimous vote for extending the commodity title of the 2002 farm bill.
18 in favor and zero opposed.

Not so kind to Kind

The farm bill offered by Ron Kind, D-Wisc., is getting rough treatment by the House subcommittee on general commodities and risk management. The Kind-Flake farm bill, introduced in mid-June, would strip out traditional farm programs and emphasize conservation and energy payments; it would also expand the fruit and vegetable program generously. Here is summary of the the Kind farm bill. It appeared to be a unanimous no voice vote by the subcommittee, but a recorded vote was taken to drive the vote home. 18 opposed - 0 supporting.

Still, House Agriculture Committee members are way that Kind, a Democrat, could hold sway in farm bill debate on the House floor. Clearly, the sharp knives are out for Kind and his unwelcome farm bill reform.

Tuesday headline roundup

Hydroponic cukes in Fla. supply Target store Pero Vegetables Co.'s 14 acres of greenhouses on State Road 7 in West Delray


Crop diseases detected from space Big Apple from the Fresh Produce discussion group passes on this link from Iowa State

Agenda discussed for Center for Produce Safety Coverage from the Salinas Californian


Organic agriculture and "pollution free" food make up 20% of China's ag base These numbers stretch credulity. This story explains some nuances of "pollution free," "green" and "organic."

How to grow without Wal-Mart With Wal-Mart expansion plans slowing, packaged goods suppliers are looking at other way to grow sales

U.S. needs immigration reform not endless raids A plea for action on immigration reform

Morning drama

One lobbyist told me yesterday that the House Ag subcommittee session Tuesday morning on general farm commodities and risk management will offer drama for a number of reasons. Several reform bills will be voted on, and Chairman Peterson will make Republicans squirm by offering the Administration's reform minded and not so popular version of the farm bill for a vote. Republicans will turn the tables by offering an an amendment that would extend the 2002 farm bill, which many farmers would prefer. Democrats won't like to vote against that amendment but will of course be compelled to.

Meanwhile, I note with interest this post from the Mulch blog, which details the extent of farm subsidies received in the Congressional districts of member of the general farm commodities subcommittee.

F/V advisory committee renewed; nominations open

From today's Federal Register:

Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture.ACTION: Notice of reestablishment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee and a request for nominations.
SUMMARY: The USDA reestablished the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. USDA also seeks nominations of individuals to be considered for selection as Committee members.DATES: Written nominations must be received on or before July 19,2007.ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Robert C. Keeney, Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2077-S, Stop 0235, Washington, DC20250-0235; Facsimile: (202) 720-0016. E-mail: robert.keeney@usda.gov.



TK: One citrus industry leader in Florida I visited with yesterday anticipates USDA APHIS may publish in the Federal Register this week the rule on fresh shipments for Florida citrus from regions infested with canker. The rule is expected to be in place by this fall's shipping season, so time is of the essence.