On board with the Senate farm bill

Despite postponement of a press event today hailing tomorrow's Senate Agriculture Committee's markup of the farm bill and a rival press event touting a reform minded bill, signs are that the farm bill that emerges from the committee should be well received by industry lobbyists.

Based on limited conversations so far, the chairman's mark for the Senate Agriculture Committee's farm bill is finding the support of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance.What follows are some excerpts from a section by section analysis of the chairman's mark that is posted the Senate Agriculture Committee Web site. I was a little puzzled that I didn't find reference to mandatory funding as it relates to the fruit and vegetable program in the section by section analysis: earlier reports put the annual funding at $225 million a year, or about $1 billion over the course of the farm bill.
From Harkin's office:


Sec. 4903
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Current law: Section 18(g) of the Richard B Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(g)) establishes the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides free fresh fruits and vegetables to children at school. This section replaces the existing Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program at section 18(g) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(g) and replaces it with an expanded and modified Fruit and Vegetable Program at section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (7 U.S.C. 1870). Whereas the Fruit and Vegetable Program was previously limited to a limited number of states, the program established by this section would operate in every state in the country. Each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia would be entitled to a minimum grant of 1 percent of the funds made available to carry out the program in a given fiscal year. Additional funding would be made available to each state based upon the proportion of the population of a state to the population of the United States. States would be responsible for selecting schools to participate in the Program and would be required to ensure that each school chosen to participate in the program is a school in which not less than 50 percent of the students are eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. In addition, a state would be required to give priority to schools with the highest proportion of children who are eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. Finally, USDA is required to ensure that at least 100 schools chosen to participate in the program are schools on Indian reservations. Under this provision, states would retain some flexibility regarding the per-student grant provided under the program provided that the grant would be not less than $50 and not greater than $75 dollars.


PART IV—Specialty Crops Competitiveness
Sec.1841. Specialty crop block grants.
Extends Section 101(a) of the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 to ensure that authorities for specialty crop block grants extend through fiscal year 2012. This program allows states to invest in programs and projects that support production-related research, commodity promotion, product quality enhancement, consumer health, food safety and other programs that enhance the competitiveness of specialty crop producers. This section also amends this authority to ensure that each state’s base funding level is ½ of 1 percent of the total amount of funding made available to carry out this section.
Provides $365,000,000 in mandatory funding.
Sec.1842. Grant program to improve movement of specialty crops.
This provision amends title II of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-465; 118 Stat. 3884) to authorize the Secretary to make grants to State and local governments, grower cooperatives, and producer and shipper organizations to improve the cost-effective movement of specialty crops. The language also establishes matching requirements for grant recipients, and authorizes discretionary funding to carry out the program.
Sec.1843. Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center.
This provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish, through a competitive grant process, the Health Enterprise Development Center, the mission of which is to increase access to healthy, affordable foods to underserved communities. The Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center will be required to collect, develop, and provide technical assistance to agricultural producers, food wholesalers and retailers, schools, and other entities regarding best practices for aggregating, storing, processing, and marketing local agricultural products and increasing the availability of such products in underserved communities. The Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center is also provided with the authority to subgrant funds to carry out feasibility studies to carry out the purposes of the Center.
Provides $7,000,000 in mandatory money
PART V—Miscellaneous
Sec.1851. Clean plant network.
This provision directs the Secretary to establish a National Clean Plant Network program. Plant materials such as apples, peaches, grapes, and other fruits which are provided by nurseries to orchards and vineyards, can be particularly vulnerable to viruses. This provision would establish a network of clean plant centers in the United States that would conduct diagnostic and pathogen elimination services to ensure that nurseries can continue to provide safe, virus-free plant materials to orchards, vineyards and other growers.
Provides $20,000,000 in mandatory funding
Sec.1852. Market loss assistance for asparagus producers.
Establishes a program to pay those producers currently growing asparagus for revenue losses during the 2004-2007 crop years due to imports.
Provides $15,000,000 in mandatory funding ($7,500,000 for producers of fresh asparagus and $7,500,000 for producers of processed or frozen asparagus).
Sec.1853. Mushroom promotion, research, and consumer information.
The provision updates section 1925(b)(2) of the Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (subtitle B of title XIX of Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 6104(b)(2)) to better reflect current mushroom production and geographic distribution of mushroom growers. This language also allows the development of good agricultural and handling practices for mushrooms.

Sec.1856. Expedited marketing order for hass avocados for grades and standards and other purposes.
This provision authorizes an organization of domestic avocado producers to submit to the Secretary a proposal for a grades and standards marketing order for Hass avocados. Once that proposal is received, the Secretary is required to initiate established procedures under the normal marketing order process for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient industry support for the proposal submitted by the organization. If the Secretary deems it appropriate to establish a marketing order, the language also requires the Secretary to complete that order within 15 months.

Subtitle G—Risk Management
Section 1901. Definition of Organic Crop.
This section amends Section 502 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502). It defines organic crops for the purposes of the Federal crop insurance program.
Section 1902. General Powers.
This section amends Section 506 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506). Subsection (a)(1) clarifies that the provision added in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Section 508(j)(2)(A), which allows farmers to sue the Corporation over a denied claim only in the U.S. District Court for the district where the insured farm is located, takes precedent over the more general provision in Section 506(d).
Subsection (a)(2) strikes subsection (n) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, in order to clarify that it is superseded by Section 515(h) added in the Agricultural Risk Protection
Act which specifically establishes sanctions for producers, agents, and loss adjusters for program noncompliance and fraud.

Avocado market look in

Fresh Talk Agenda

Here is what is on the Fresh Talk calendar this week. Find details about each show in the calendar at the bottom of the blog, and remember to send me notice of industry events to post on the calendar at tkarst@thepacker.com.

Tuesday, October 23
International Fresh Produce Exhibition

Wednesday, October 24
International Fresh Produce Exhibition
USDA Vegetable and Melons Outlook Report

Thursday, October 25
International Fresh Produce Exhibition
USDA ERS Vegetables report
Fresh Produce & Floral Council

Sunday, October 28
California Association of Pest Control Advisers 33rd annual conference

Poll closing

The Fresh Talk poll question about what PMA should do about the future of its Fresh Summit expo is closing today. This one dimensional question does not address all the variables involved in PMA's management of its highly successful expo, but it does reveal that at least some readers believe that PMA should do something that would allow it to provide more flexibility in choosing venues for its show.

Here are a few simple maxims I picked up from the Houston show:
1. Exhibitors trust PMA to make the right decisions
2. At the same time, they don't understand why San Diego can't be in the convention rotation
3. There was some disappointment in the attendance at the Houston show, particularly late Sunday and Monday.
4. Ideas for changing the show to increase flexibility included limiting booth size and/or breaking out the floral exhibitors.

If PMA loses the San Diego venue, can there be any doubt that United will target that city for its expo? How much of the success of a trade show reflects the inherent strength of the organization, and how much is linked to the city it is held? That is a question that looms large for both PMA and United.

Farm bill runup

The battle for U.S. farm policy is on. Here is a release from Sen. Tom Harkin's office:

Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, will join with members of the Committee to unveil the Chairman’s Mark of the 2007 farm bill, TOMORROW, Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. EDT in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building. The 2007 farm bill that will continue a strong safety net for farmers and make investments for the future in nutrition, conservation, renewable energy rural development, and promoting healthy diets.

An open business meeting of the Committee to consider and report out the 2007 farm bill is scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. EDT in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Here is the link to the farm bill titles at the Senate Agriculture Committee.

An alternate future for farm policy is being advocated by a coalition of environmental and reform minded senators.

Media Advisory for Tuesday, October 23, 3:15pm
Groups to Praise Introduction of Farm Bill Reform Legislation
on Eve on Senate Agriculture Committee Markup

What: Teleconference by groups interested in reforming U.S. farm policy to praise a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators for introducing legislation to reform farm policy on the eve the Senate Agriculture Committee markup of the 2007 farm bill. The reform legislation, The Farm Ranch Equity Stewardship and Health (FRESH) Act of 2007, is authored by Senate Agriculture Committee Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and cosponsored by Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The FRESH Act would bring about much needed reform to commodity programs and crop insurance that will serve more farmers more fairly, provide an effective safety net for small and large farms, and promote healthier diets for Americans. The FRESH Act would target government assistance to help farmers when farm revenue declines, and would not provide subsidies to farms when they don’t need help.
Who: Tim Male, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense
Jim Lyons, VP for Policy and Communications, Oxfam America
Scott Faber, VP for Federal Affairs Affairs, Grocery Manufacturers of America/Food Products Association
Neal Barnard, MD, President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
John Frydenlund, Director, Center for International Food and Agriculture Policy, Citizens Against Government Waste
Gina Villani, MD, MPH, Vice President, Health & Quality of Life, National Urban League
Kristina Rasmussen, Director of Government Affairs, National Taxpayers Union
Ms. Ryan Alexander, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Sandra Schubert, JD, MA, Director of Government Affairs, Environmental Working Group
When: Tuesday, October 23, 3:15pm
Why: The FRESH Act would provide an innovative, cost-saving farm safety net while overhauling crop subsidy programs, which currently help only one-third of American farmers. It would provide $6 billion more than the current farm bill in funding for farm conservation programs that help farmers improve water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat and protect working farm and ranchland from sprawl. These reforms also would align our agricultural programs with our international obligations at the World Trade Organization. The FRESH Act would encourage a healthy food supply and would provide greater funding for nutrition programs.

Avocados and the fires

Here is the link to The Packer's John Chadwell's coverage of the impact of the California fires on avocados. From John's story:

Raging Santa Ana winds that swept through the area Oct. 21-22 knocked an estimated 35 million pounds — 10% of the state’s production — of avocados off trees, said Guy Witney, director of industry affairs for the California Avocado Commission, Irvine.“Between the winds and the fires, that’s a reasonable estimate,” Witney said. “I’m guessing because there is such chaos right now. Our main concern is for our farm families, and we have 6,500 families who grow avocados, and the bulk of them are in north San Diego County.”He said he talked to growers north of Escondido, Calif., and they reported significant fire damage to their orchards. “While they were trying to get out, they could see what was happening,” he said. “It might be a week before we can make a good assessment of the damage.” He said wind gusts were blowing dry leaves across orchards and that eventually, with enough time and wind, the trees would go up in flames.“I’m praying we haven’t lost major acres in that area,” Witney said.

From coverage in The Ventura County Star:

Wildfires have yet to touch Ventura County farms, but fierce Santa Ana winds are wreaking havoc on local crops, particularly unripened avocados that are being blown off trees.
Grower Henry Vega said he knows of one farm where at least 10 percent of the avocados were on the ground.
“This is not all said and done,” Vega said. “We’re still experiencing drop.”
Damage estimates have not been assessed, according to Ventura County Farm Bureau Chief Executive Officer Rex Laird.
Fires that are raging through the Southland has growers scrambling, with Laird talking “almost constantly to growers in preparatory mode.”
Laird and growers are using a phone tree to track conditions, and growers are making sure brush is cleared away from the edge of orchards and sprinklers are running.
Lemons are also being stripped from trees, said Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner Earl McPhail, “but it’s mainly avocados.”
Avocados were the county’s sixth highest revenue generator in 2006, with $87.4 million in sales, according to the Agicultural Commissioner’s latest crop report. Lemons were third at $191.6 million.
As for the county’s top crop, strawberries, the “main concern right now is getting enough water on them so they don’t dry out and die,” McPhail said. Strawberries pulled in $366.3 million in 2006.
Losing more produce after last year’s freeze is just one more hit the county’s agricultural industry does not need, but considering how bad the situation has become in other counties, farmers are just thankful there’s been no direct fire damage.

Ain't that America?

Luis: What are the economic, social and technological forces that make an increasing number of people to move and live and work far from "home"? To what extent can the state, nowadays, shape both documented and undocumented migration? How can a society respect migrant's human rights while keeping the concepts of citizenship and nation meaningful?

These same questions are being asked in many places. How we respond may well determine how we commune with each other, see ourselves and conduct business in the 21st. Century. Meanwhile... now you can read The Packer en Español cada mañana.