You don't say

Sen. Larry Craig is staying? Why, I ask?

Here is the link. From the AP story:

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.
"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.
Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.

TK: Sen. Craig wants to clear his name in the Ethics Committee but will he be able to do any good for his constituents? The late night joke writers for Leno and Letterman are already working.

"If there is a cheaper date in town, I'd like to meet them"

You may have seen The New York Times article about farm policy and produce juxtaposed with a picture of U.S. watermelon queens. The story questions whether the industry won the battle in the House farm bill but may lose the war in the end. From the story:


"If there is a cheaper date in town, I’d like to meet them,” said Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that backs changes in farm policy. “We would never trust them to work with again.”

TK; No, he definitely wasn't talking about the watermelon queens; Cook and other conservation- and reform-oriented lobbyists were spurned when produce industry lobbyists cut a deal with the House Agriculture Committee.

From the top of the NYT story by Andrew Martin:

With Americans eating bad diets and getting fatter by the year, the nation’s produce industry made a bold political calculation. Surely, farmers thought, the government could be talked into supporting crops like New Jersey tomatoes, Michigan apples and California spinach.
A new farm bill is on the drawing board in Washington, and growers of fruits, vegetables, tree nuts and nursery crops, known collectively as specialty crops, came up with an $8.5 billion wish list. They built political alliances. They doubled their campaign contributions. They even sent nine perky watermelon queens in white sashes to Capitol Hill to press their case.

TK: Of course, the writer has set it up to drop the hammer, or to tell the story of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.......

But confronting what a United States senator calls “old-time power politics,” mastered long ago by savvier farm lobbies like cotton and corn, the specialty crop growers are coming up short of their goals. They have secured only $1.6 billion so far in a House vote and are scrambling to improve on that as the Senate takes up the issue this week.
“We have a voice in Washington, but it isn’t anywhere near what the cotton boys or corn or soybeans or ethanol has,” said Chuck Obern, a vegetable farmer in Clewiston, Fla.


TK: No doubt, the writer is underestimating just how hard it is to get "only $1.6 billion."

The House version of the 2007 farm bill would keep most of the subsidies for commodities like corn and cotton intact. Specialty crop farmers would get $1.6 billion over five years, or about $320 million a year, for the programs they favor, which do not include direct subsidies. Under existing law, they get $65 million to $100 million a year. One reason commodity subsidies are so durable is that farm politics are regional, not Republican or Democratic. The strongest subsidy advocates in Congress come from rural states where commodity agriculture is a potent economic force, like Iowa, Mississippi and North Dakota. Those representatives dominate the Congressional agriculture committees that write the farm bill.

Another reason is that the farm lobby has sought allies to broaden its coalition beyond rural states. For instance, nutrition programs such as food stamps were added to the farm bill more than three decades ago in part to ensure support from urban lawmakers. The authors of the farm bill try to spread enough money among nutrition programs, crop subsidies and farm-related conservation programs to secure the votes for passage.
For decades, even as commodity growers collected hundreds of billions from the government, produce farmers wanted nothing to do with Washington. Concentrated in the Sun Belt states of California, Texas and Florida, they enjoyed healthy prices for their crops and managed to grow them with no government subsidies.
But in recent years, the industry has confronted unprecedented challenges. Outbreaks of food-borne illness from contaminated lettuce and spinach created an urgent need for research to safeguard the food supply. Foreign competition and labor shortages, meanwhile, have decimated some produce sectors like garlic, tomatoes and apricots.
Produce farmers argue that consumers have a stake in their success, and should therefore support their requests for farm bill dollars. Without a strong and competitive produce industry in the United States, consumers would depend on foreign sources of fruits and vegetables where regulations may not be as stringent, they contend.
And the industry wants government money to promote consumption of fruits and vegetables. For instance, the House version of the farm bill would expand a program that provides free fruits and vegetables as school snacks to all 50 states.

Produce growers first decided they needed help the last time the farm bill was up for revision, in 2002. They debated whether to ask Congress for subsidies but ultimately decided to seek money for research and marketing instead, mostly to help farmers compete with an onslaught of foreign competition.
With little experience lobbying Congress, the industry’s campaign fell flat.
“We put together a nice little booklet for the farm bill. We were so proud of it,” said Robert L. Guenther, senior vice president of public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association. “We didn’t work the Hill much.”
Having learned from those mistakes, industry leaders began planning for the current farm bill in May 2005. They set their sights much higher, $8.5 billion for marketing, research and grants, but no direct subsidies. They built an alliance that included winemakers, nurseries and other groups, and started cultivating ties on the Hill.
Simultaneously, the industry sidled up to a coalition seeking huge cuts in subsidies for commodity groups. But some groups, including the specialty crop industry, abandoned that coalition after House negotiators offered money for their programs.
Industry leaders acknowledge they used the reform coalition to gain leverage. After winning $1.6 billion in the House, they noted it was bigger than any previous appropriation — but also said it was far less than they wanted.
“We would not have been able to support it if it was any lower,” Mr. Guenther said.
The industry tactics angered some longtime critics of farm subsidies.
“If there is a cheaper date in town, I’d like to meet them,” said Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that backs changes in farm policy. “We would never trust them to work with again.”
Whether the specialty crop industry’s political strategy will pay off should become apparent in coming weeks.

TK: Did the industry pick the wrong side when they chose establishment over anti-establishment? Would the industry be better served to be on board with the EWG? I can tell you that fresh produce industry lobbyists feel it was a much better move not to have to go outside the Agriculture Committee to get funds in the House farm bill How they feel about the Senate may be another question.

The story concludes:

The specialty crop industry has put out a letter from 36 senators promoting its size and importance and seeking $3.2 billion, twice the amount in the House bill.The industry also brought farmers and the watermelon queens to Washington last month to plead its case.
“We all came, and we all got separated into groups and did the lobbying thing,” Emily Frey, the 20-year-old watermelon queen from Illinois and Indiana, said afterward. Members of Congress “definitely knew that we meant it, we were serious and we needed their help.”

Long train coming

What train will arrive in the station first? Will it be Congressional legislation on produce safety or the industry's own work to establish a national leafy greens marketing agreement or marketing order? It may be a question of which glacier is fastest, though I would have to give the nod at this point to a USDA marketing agreement/order for leafy greens.

Western Growers wants authorizing language added to the farm bill revised so that handlers can vote on a marketing order. Currently, the law allows only growers to vote on a marketing order. There is nothing stopping leafy green growers voting for a marketing order, but WG wants the handlers involved and voting on a federal marketing order.

Whether or not WG can score an amendment to change the law is in question, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of Calif. is apparently lobbying Sen. Tom Harkin to include that provision in the farm bill.

In any case, California and Arizona account for perhaps four-fifths of the nation's leafy green output, but only two-thirds of the volume, or two thirds of the number of growers, is needed to approve a marketing order. It would seem a lead pipe cinch that a vote would be "yes" for a marketing order, whether voted on by leafy greens handlers or growers.

One key advantage of a national marketing order approach is that would avoid the "crazy quilt" approach of state-based and regional regulation on food safety. All leafy green growers in the U.S. - and to some uncertain degree, those overseas who supply the U.S. market - would be subject to a marketing order.

There are many questions to consider, however.

1. Would the work and toil that goes into the effort to establish a national order or agreement be wasted if Congress creates new requirements that will be enforced by the FDA separately from a marketing order?

2. How expensive will this approach be?

3. Only USDA inspectors, or federal-state inspectors, will be allowed to conduct audits. Is that inspection force well-trained for the job of looking at food safety issues? Should third party inspections be part of the program?

4. Does the marketing order model get beyond the broad brush stigma of self-regulation painted by critics?

5. How would the efforts of the marketing agreement/order be communicated to consumers? How damaging would it be if a consumer package had the badge or seal of USDA appproval but was later found to have pathogens?

6. What will be the FDA's reaction to the USDA assuming some oversight of produce safety, even if USDA insists it is not usurping FDA authority?

United's reaction to advance notice of rulemaking for leafy greens

Amy Philpott passes along United's reaction to USDA's advance notice of rulemaking for a national leafy greens marketing agreement:

“United Fresh Produce Association has been discussing with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service various options under its authority that might be useful in supporting best agricultural practices for leafy greens, and enhancing public confidence in the safety of these products.

“While USDA does not have regulatory authority over food safety for produce, we appreciate their efforts to work with industry in ways they can to assist us in meeting these goals. We will look carefully at the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and review this with our members, volunteer leaders on our Food Safety and Government Relations Councils, and our Board to evaluate its pros and cons and then provide further comments to the agency.

We have already communicated to USDA the three principles our Board adopted earlier this year that we believe must be part of an overall produce safety regulatory framework.

To protect public health and ensure consumer confidence, produce safety standards:

* Must allow for a commodity-specific approach, based on the best available science.

* Must be consistent and applicable to the identified commodity or commodity sector, no matter where grown or packaged in the United States, or imported into the country.

* Must be federally mandated with sufficient federal oversight of compliance in order to be most credible to consumers.

“It is our overriding goal for consumers to have confidence in the safety of all leafy greens they purchase, and that those commodities are grown according to the same safety standards, no matter where produced in the United States or internationally.”

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking - Leafy greens

True to an earlier post this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published advance notice of proposed rulemaking for leafy greens handling regulations. Note that a marketing order must be voted on by growers, where as a marketing agreement does not. Comments must be received by Dec. 3. From the Oct. 4 Federal Register summary:



The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in response to industry interest in the establishment of a marketing program to address the handling of fresh and fresh-cut leafy green vegetables. The program would allow packers, processors, shippers, and marketers (collectively referred to as handlers) to maintain the quality of their products by reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during the production and handling of leafy greens. Authorities and regulations under the program would not supplant those of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and sanitary. Comments are being sought from the public, particularly from growers, handlers, buyers, and sellers of leafy green commodities, regarding whether to issue such regulations under an AMS marketing program and if so, the possible substance and implementation of the program.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites comments on a potential regulatory program intended to maintain the quality of leafy green commodities by reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during their production and handling.


AMS is considering implementation of a marketing agreement (agreement) in response to heightened public and industry concern about the safe production and handling of leafy greens. Under the program being considered, handlers could voluntarily enter into the agreement, but signatories would then be required to comply with the agreement's regulations, which would specify Best Practices for minimizing the risk of pathogenic contamination of leafy greens. The Best Practices could include commodity-specific production and handling guidelines that would be developed in cooperation with the industry and based upon FDA's voluntary Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables, and other FDA-issued guidance

The agreement could include a compliance certification and verification program. For example, handlers could be required to certify that the leafy green products they handle are produced in accordance with the specified guidelines. Handlers would further certify that the shipping, processing, and packing of their leafy green products meet the agreement's specifications. Signatory handlers that meet the agreement's requirements may be authorized to affix an official certification mark to their leafy green products. Use of the mark would certify that the products bearing the mark have been grown, harvested, packed, shipped, processed, and/or handled in accordance with the agreement's regulations. Verification audits would be conducted by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Program to ensure that handlers have complied with the prescribed requirements. Violation of the requirements could disqualify a non-compliant handler from using the mark for a certain period of time.

In addition to handling regulations, the agreement could include consumer education, production research, generic promotion, or other programs, depending upon the industry's needs and goals.

The informational impact of this action would also be considered under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Any action undertaken as a result of this advance notice would be reviewed by USDA under Executive Orders 12866 and 12988. AMS is considering establishment of a marketing agreement rather than a marketing order (order), which is another regulatory program structure available through AMS.

Below is a brief comparison of these two regulatory instruments, which is intended to allow interested persons a way to distinguish between an agreement and an order so they may better be able to provide comments to USDA.Marketing Orders and Agreements The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act,'' authorizes the implementation of Federal marketing orders and agreements designed to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions for the regulated commodities. Orders and agreements are implemented by AMS following public notice and hearing at the request of industries that demonstrate interest in regulating the handling of commodities produced within specified geographic areas.


Orders may include the authority to regulate the grade, size, quality, packaging, inspection, and/or volume handled of certain agricultural commodities. Orders may also provide for production and marketing research, market development, and promotional activities. Once established, compliance with order regulations is mandatory for all handlers of the affected commodity within the production area. Orders must be approved by growers in referenda prior to implementation.

In comparison, agreements may be entered into by growers, handlers, processors, or others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or its product. Signatories voluntarily agree to participate in the programs and comply with the regulations established by the agreements, which may include--but are not limited to--the types authorized for orders. Violation of order regulations may result in the assessment of civil penalties. The violation of orders and agreements may result in enforcement actions filed in the United States District courts. Violation of agreements could also result in suspension of program privileges, such as use of the program's certification mark. Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, AMS is also authorized to investigate and prosecute alleged violations concerning misbranding or mislabeling of commodity containers, which would include misuse of a certification mark developed under the agreement.

The FDA is responsible for determining whether a regulated product is causing an illness and may recall products or take other actions to halt the spread of that illness.

The Federal or Federal-State Inspection Programs inspect commodities, audit handler procedures, and/or review handler records to verify compliance with mandatory regulations under marketing orders and agreements.

Background In mid-September 2006, the FDA issued the first public alerts \1\ of a multi-state Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak linked to fresh spinach grown in California's Salinas Valley. The resulting recall was the largest ever for leafy green products. The produce industry responded quickly to the recall in an effort to rebuild consumer confidence and minimize the risk of future outbreaks.

Investigations by the FDA and the California Department of Health Services, in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, concluded that the E. coli contamination might have been attributed to environmental factors in the production area. In response, members of the California industry initiated the establishment of a State marketing agreement for handlers of leafy greens, which became effective February 10, 2007. Signatories to the State agreement certify that the production, handling, shipment, and sale of leafy green products they handle are compliant with commodity-specific food safety guidelines adopted as Best Practices under the agreement. The Best Practices and its guidelines are designed[[Page 56680]]to minimize the risk of pathogenic contamination. Compliance with the Best Practices is verified by agricultural inspection agencies under contract with the administrative Board established under the agreement.

Although AMS has not received an official proposal, members of the leafy greens industry have expressed interest in the establishment of similar standards through a Federal marketing program. Industry discussions have focused on the need for a program with national scope. In response, AMS is considering the development of a marketing agreement as previously described in this document.

AMS believes that an agreement, rather than an order, is more likely to meet the needs of the produce industry across the fifty States and the District of Columbia. Agreements offer greater flexibility in designing regulatory programs since the programs authorized for agreements are not limited to those specified for orders under the Act. Also, handlers voluntarily enter into agreements, giving individuals the opportunity to determine whether they want to participate, which may be more responsive to the needs of a nationwide industry. As part of its review, AMS is seeking public comments and proposals regarding establishment of a nationwide agreement for the handling of leafy green products. If further development is warranted by response to this request, AMS would publish a notice of hearing on a proposed marketing agreement in the Federal Register in accordance with the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).

Public hearings regarding the proposed agreement would be held throughout the country, and handler sign-ups would be conducted if the agreement was approved by USDA.Agency Request for Information AMS is soliciting the views of growers, handlers, buyers, sellers, consumers, and other interested persons on a possible marketing agreement to regulate the handling of leafy green commodities. Additionally,

AMS is interested in any information from industry organizations that could assist with the development of leafy green produce industry profiles. The agency will use information, comments, and proposals received to evaluate whether development of such an agreement for the fifty States and the District of Columbia should be pursued.

In particular, AMS invites responses to the following questions:
(1) Would the handling of leafy greens be better addressed though regulations under a voluntary marketing agreement signed by handlers, or under a mandatory marketing order regulating handlers and approved by a producer referendum?
(2) Would such a program be better implemented on a national or a regional basis?
(3) How should the United States be subdivided into smaller regions for the purposes of committee representation and program administration?
(4) How should committee membership be allocated to adequately represent the interests of industry throughout all regions of the United States?
(5) What process should the committee follow to recommend regulations appropriate to the various regions? For example, would regulations for handling leafy greens on the east coast differ from those on the west coast, and if so, how should the administrative committee address the differences while developing recommendations for regulations?
(6) What specific problems or issues should be addressed by such a marketing program?
(7) Would Best Practices based upon FDA guidelines be the best criteria for regulation of leafy green handling, or are there other criteria available that might better meet the industry's needs?
(8) Which specific leafy green commodities should be included under the program's handling regulations?
(9) What are potential obstacles to the implementation of such a marketing program? For example, would distance make it impractical for the committee to meet frequently? Might regional subcommittees be appointed to meet more frequently and consider local matters for presentation at annual national committee meetings?
(10) What are the potential costs associated with the implementation of such a program, including changes to current production and handling procedures, assessments, and audits? (11) How would a marketing program complement, duplicate, or conflict with any other existing programs, such as state food safety regulations? and
(12) Are there other issues and/or suggestions about such a marketing program? All views are solicited so that every aspect of this potential regulation may be studied prior to formulating a proposed rule, if warranted, by AMS. This request for public comment does not constitute notification that the agreement described in this document is or will be proposed or adopted. A 60-day comment period is provided to allow sufficient time for interested parties to comment on a possible leafy green marketing program. All timely written comments received will be considered before any subsequent rulemaking action is undertaken.