GOP CYA

With a cloture vote in the Senate coming on the farm bill and likely to fail on an expected party line vote, look for a pretty toxic atmosphere on the Hill. From House Republicans, a plan to extend the farm bill by a year and duck the obstructionist label Democrats are all too eager to pin on the GOP:

Today, Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced a bill to extend current farm policy for one year to ensure stability for America’s farmers and ranchers as they begin planting their 2008 crops. While the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization remains stymied in the Senate, farmers and ranchers throughout the nation are already feeling the negative effects of the bill’s expiration and more severe consequences will soon be realized. Without reauthorization, farm policy will revert to permanent statues established in 1938 and 1949 laws which are drastically different from current programs. The permanent statues exclude many commodities, such as rice, soybeans and peanuts; set support prices much higher than current levels; and prevent new enrollment in various conservation programs. Currently, 22 Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors of this much needed legislation.

“Farmers and ranchers depend on agriculture policy and they depend on the Congress to ensure they have the tools they need to operate in a high risk environment. Without a doubt we need a new, forward-looking farm bill and I am committed to working to that end. However, the Senate’s inability to move forward with their bill is starting to take a real, potentially devastating toll on American agriculture. Without stable farm policy our farmers and ranchers cannot make planning decisions, finalize land-lease contracts or negotiate lending agreements. This inaction is putting our producers between a rock and a hard place and that is unacceptable. This extension provides producers with a little certainity to make it through this crop year until we can get a long-term farm bill finished,” said Rep. Goodlatte.
Permanent agriculture law established by the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 are superseded by subsequent legislation, such as the 2002 Farm Bill, and remain dormant until the subsequent legislation expires. The underlying law does not reflect current farming and marketing practices, trade agreements, or market circumstances. For example, permanent law does not authorize counter-cyclical payments or decoupled direct payments and imposes acreage allotments and marketing quotas for wheat and cotton. Moreover, the milk marketing year begins January 1 and without any new legislation in place, the milk price support would escalate to between 75 and 90 percent of parity, or between $30.52 and $36.63, as of October 2007. The current support price for milk is $9.90 per cwt. Due to the parity prices far exceeding market prices, even a short term escalation in milk prices of this magnitude would have long-lasting, devastating effects on dairy producers and consumers.
“It is unacceptable that we are nearing the end of the year without a farm bill to take home to our farmers and ranchers. Our producers face the uncertainty of making next year’s crop decisions without knowing what type of safety net will be available in the coming year. Securing future financing is exceptionally difficult without certainty of farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers are already burdened with many responsibilities. They should not have to worry about whether Congress can complete a farm bill. I would have expected the Senate Democratic leadership to understand the policy and political implications of their unwillingness to act,” said bill sponsor and Subcommittee on General Commodities and Risk Management Ranking Member Jerry Moran.
“I’m disappointed we haven’t passed a farm bill already because our producers need to make business decisions and need to know what the government programs will look like. Producers have enough uncertainties to deal with, from droughts, to floods, to fluctuations in fuel costs or commodity prices, so extending the current farm bill is our best alternative right now,” said Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research Ranking Member Frank Lucas.

A common response

At 4:42 PM CST yesterday, from the email address of Amy Philpott of the United Fresh Produce Association, came this note addressed to the produce industry trade press:

“We want to provide you with a copy of a letter that is being sent this afternoon to the Food Safety Leadership Council on behalf of a wide cross-section of produce industry associations. This letter expresses the shared concerns of our organizations about recent communications received by many industry members requiring compliance with a new set of on-farm standards apparently developed by this group. While we are clear in stating our concerns, we are also committed to a positive dialogue with these industry partners. Food safety is a shared commitment and a shared responsibility across our total supply chain, and we look forward to working with all of our partners to ensure that together we are putting consumer safety first based on the best science and expert judgment available.”


Here is the letter:

November 14, 2007
Mr. Larry Kohl
Walt Disney World Co.
Food Safety & Health
PO Box 10000
Lake Buena Vista FL 32830-1000
Dear Mr. Kohl,
We understand that you help coordinate a group of company representatives that has prepared the attached Food Safety Leadership Council On-Farm Produce Standards. On behalf of the organizations shown below representing a wide cross section of the produce industry, we write to express our strongest concern about this document and its potential implementation, and ask that you share these concerns with all relevant parties. In recent days, many produce suppliers have received letters from Publix, Avendra LLC, and possibly others which state that their companies are members of the Food Safety Leadership Council FSLC) and go on to require suppliers to comply with the set of practices outlined in this ocument. It is unclear from this document exactly which companies are part of this effort, what legal and/or organizational structure exists for the FSLC, and what specific expectations may exist for your produce supply networks. The demands outlined in these individual companies’ letters and the content of the FSLC document present neither a scientific approach to enhance food safety nor a respect for the produce, retail and foodservice industries’ mutual commitment to deliver the safest possible fresh fruits and vegetables to our consumers everyday. As you know, we all share a commitment to providing consumers the safest possible foods, and we ask that you step back from this unilateral and unfounded direction to engage in a real scientific and professional dialogue with your produce suppliers, technical representatives from our industry’s trade associations, academia and government. Together, we should be engaged in mutual efforts to ensure an approach to food safety that can truly make a difference for our consumers, rather than focusing more concern on liability placement than actual sound,scientific and achievable food safety practices. Let us list several specific concerns with the FSLC document and approach.
1. Produce food safety demands a commodity-specific approach. While broad principles of risk prevention apply and are embodied in FDA’s Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for on-farm production, the specific standards and practices that should be employed for different commodities vary greatly. The FDA has directed industry to pursue commodity-specific GAPs as the best way to enhance produce safety overall, and huge strides have been made in addressing best practices for those commodities which have had recent linksto foodborne disease outbreaks. The FSLC document’s “one-size-fits-all” approach contains specifications that clearly should not apply to many commodities, and in fact, could be counter-productive in requiring growers to focus on the wrong things.
2. It appears that the FSLC document is based largely upon the approach industry has taken in preparation of Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Lettuce and Leafy Greens, which were subsequently adopted as the metrics for compliance measurement under the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. These standards have been developed and revised over several years with intense analysis of scientific issues, current research understanding, and production practices; and vetted extensively with industry, academic and government scientists. We believe this represents the current best practice standard for production of leafy greens. Both the National Restaurant Association and the Food Marketing Institute recognize the validity of these leafy greens food safety guidelines and support producers complying with these standards. Also,the Food and Drug Administration has reviewed these metrics, and never advised of any areas where they believe these are inadequate. Given that wide state of support for these best practices, FSLC members must be careful not to imply in any way that your approach would provide any higher level of safety than compliance with these industry standards. Our industry is committed to continuous improvement in food safety, and certainly expects to frequently revise best practices to incorporate the latest science and understanding of risk prevention strategies. We would be xtremely interested in discussing with you both the current best practice standards for leafy greens and the suggestions for production and testing that you have outlined in the FSLC document. But this must be a scientific discussion committed to mutual industry efforts to develop and agree on best practices to serve our consumers, not to create a bifurcated food safety system with different groups setting separate and unilateral
requirements.
3. On a practical level, you must know that some standards such as the water requirements outlined in the FSLC document cannot physically be achieved in many cases, even by world class producers. Perhaps you were thinking of a target for producers to strive for, but wthout further discussion, our best scientists just don’t understand what you have in mind. Similarly, some of the recommendations in your document are inherently based on opinion and judgment where science is insufficient, such as distance of production from animal grazing. Science today cannot tell us an exact distance, and we would therefore argue that expert consensus among industry, academia and government is the best way to address such unknown scientific questions until research can provide better evidence for risk-based decision-making. Otherwise, we are faced with an escalating, unscientific approach – if a 100-foot buffer is good; a 1,000-foot buffer must be better. Or why not 1,000 yards; or perhaps a mile, or two, or three. This is indeed a slippery slope without real science to guide these judgments. In conclusion, we respectfully urge FSLC members to reconsider your approach seeking to enforce the practices outlined in your document. We believe enforcing these practices would be inappropriate for many commodities, add unscientific and needless requirements to already existing best practice standards widely endorsed in the scientific community; could be counterproductive to produce safety in diverting attention from real issues; and would create an “us-against-them” food safety split in the produce supply chain. Perhaps that last point is our greatest risk, but one we should be able to avoid by working together. We know your companies well as industry leaders, and respect the fact that you want to do the very best for your customers in providing safe foods. Your produce suppliers share that unequivocal goal, and believe that we must work together as a total supply chain in order to fulfill our mutual objective of the safest possible produce. This issue cannot descend into an “us-against-them” fight or we all lose – we simply must work together to
bring wise, consistent, scientific and industrywide best practices to on-farm production, post-harvest handling and processing, distribution, retail and foodservice operations. No sector is exempt, and no one sector has all the answers. Mr. Kohl, please convey to your group our strong desire to engage in the earliest possible meeting to discuss these issues and ways we can work together for food safety. We will bring together scientific, technical and business representatives of our organizations and your produce suppliers to engage in dialogue to hopefully find a better course ahead that meets our shared goals for food safety. Please respond to Dr. David Gombas, senior vice president for food safety and technology, United Fresh Produce Association, as your primary contact in setting up a meeting and moving forward. Please also let David know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thank you.
Sincerely,
American Mushroom Institute
California Avocado Commission
California Citrus Mutual
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
California Strawberry Commission
California Table Grape Commission
California Tomato Farmers
California Tree Fruit Agreement
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
Florida Tomato Exchange
Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association
Grower Shipper Association of Central California
National Potato Council
National Watermelon Association
New York Apple Association, Inc
Northwest Horticultural Council
Produce Marketing Association
Texas Citrus Mutual
Texas Produce Association
Texas Vegetable Association
United Fresh Produce Association
U.S. Apple Association
Western Growers


TK: One of the questions I submitted to Dwaine Stevens, the public relations contact at Publix, is whether Publix heard any direct response from individual suppliers on this issue. It wouldn't surprise me if they haven't. Certainly, Western Growers was helpful to their members and to the entire trade with its very public handling of supplier concerns about the FSLC on-farm standards. I don't think this follow up letter happens if WG hadn't started the ball rolling.

Meanwhile, we wonder who will be the voice of the FSLC. Will it be Publix, Disney, Wal-Mart or no one? Certainly it is disappointing to have the deafening silence from the group on these industry issues so far. How can the FSLC produce a document so strong without mounting a spirited defense?

More than the on-farm standards themselves - and there are very real technical concerns with those standards pointed out in the joint association letter - suppliers may feel put out about the FSLC "taking that tone" with them. For example, if I was writing the FSLC letter, I would have started it something like this:

Dear valued produce supplier,

We trust that produce safety and the well-being of consumers is your number one concern and we share that passion with you. As you know, we place great value on appropriate food safety standards at the farm level. We ask every supplier to detail their on farm food safety procedures they have in place. We conduct independent audits to check on compliance with stated standards.

In addition, now we are seeking your input on risk-based on farm food safety standards we have developed in conjunction with a group called the Food Safety Leadership Council.....

The Publix letter to suppliers can be seen here. Below are excerpts from the text of that letter. From the letter:

Please review these standards, together with the food safety procedures used by your firm, to ensure that you meet the standards required by Publix.

TK: As if that is as easy as a walk in the park....,Back to the letter:

It is our intention to utilize these FSLC On-Farm Produce Standards to evaluate vendor farms that provide produce to Publix. As a vendor, you agree by signing below to adhere to the standards.

TK: "And as a buyer, we agree to purchase only from FSLC approved farms". No, just kidding, those are my words. But if those words were in the letter, there may be no controversy here. Asking suppliers to conform to these "enhanced" standards without any reciprocal obligation by FSLC members may be galling to some suppliers. Again, back to the letter:

To assist us in maintaining the FSLC On-Farm Produce Standards, we request our supplier’s farms be inspected and audited for conformance to these standards by representatives of member companies of the FSLC, or designated inspection agencies that have been certified by the FSLC to conduct food safety audits. As a supplier to Publix, this standard will be verified through Primus and their good agricultural practice auditing program. This is not a new audit, but rather a standard to be verified by the auditing company.
By signing below, you acknowledge and agree to conduct and pay for an audit by an FSLC
certified auditor at least once per growing season. The results of any such inspection or audit will be shared among all members of the FSLC as a means to enhance consistent safety standards.

TK: By what authority do members of the FSLC share the results of any inspection or audit with all members of the FSLC? It is authority they appropriate themselves or does it exist in a formal organizational bond between members of the FSLC?

You further acknowledge that, regardless of the results of any audit, each FSLC member company will make its own independent purchasing decisions based on multiple factors which may be important to each such company in its sole discretion. Participation in the auditing process does not commit any FSLC member company to purchase products from your firm, and no such purchases may in fact occur.

TK: "Regardless of the results of any audit." Truly, "regardless"? What's the point of standards if they can be ignored for whatever reason? In fact, suppliers who are indeed committed to food safety will have on farm standards in place, "regardless" of the FSLC. The FSLC should be credited for appreciating the value of on farm food safety standards, but their blunt, if not heavy handed, approach has not been helpful. Perhaps the long term solution is a federal requirement for risk-based GAP standards at the farm level or common industry use of the GlobalGAP standard for suppliers.

Not getting better

The up and down negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on how to proceed with debate on the farm bill are now mostly just down. From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin yesterday:

Cloture Filed on Senate Farm Bill

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today issued the following statement after Senate Majority Leader Reid filed cloture on the Senate farm bill.

“It is frustrating and perplexing that we cannot move such a strong, bipartisan measure that came out of Committee without a dissenting vote. We cannot give up on this bill. Rural America, farming families and the nation are waiting. The Senate’s Republican leadership cannot be allowed to throw up obstacles to delay this measure.

“With the farm bill in week two of consideration by the full Senate and still no action, we are seeing a pattern in the Republican leadership: while the Administration threatens a veto, Congressional leadership stalls. The Majority Leader has filed cloture to place a limit on the delaying tactics, and I fully support this action as a necessary effort to enact a new farm bill.”



From the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky was this statement yesterday:

"I am a little perplexed as to whether or not the majority actually wants this bill to pass’
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the Majority’s decision to block an open amendment process for the Farm Bill:
“The remarks I’m about to make could have been made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle when his party was in the minority. We all know that we will pass a farm bill. The amendments list on our side is actually about 120 and the Democratic list is 140. Approximately 265 amendments just on the list.
“Before my good friend on the other side protests to me too much about this number, let me remind Senators that 246 amendments were filed to the 2002 farm bill. 339 amendments were filed to the 1996 farm bill—averaging about 300 amendments per bill.
“In fact, when Republicans were attempting to move the 1996 farm bill through the Senate, Senator Harkin himself filed 35 amendments. So if all Senators emulated the Senator from Iowa, 3,500 amendments would be the number of amendments.
“It is not at all unusual at the process of beginning a farm bill; this is a complex bill that only gets reauthorized every five years. This time it's 1,600 pages long and includes the first farm bill tax title since 1933, adding an extra degree of difficulty. However, Republicans are ready and willing to begin working in earnest to address these amendments.
“What always happens is most of the amendments go away and we gradually work down the list.
“But that is a massive bill, Mr. President. The notion -- if I can lift it here -- the notion that we're going to basically call up a bill of this magnitude, file cloture, and basically have no amendments strikes me as, shall I say, odd at least. What we always do is try to work out an orderly way to go forward, and the issue of getting a fixed amendment list, which we were prepared to enter into last night is the way it usually begins.
“I am a little perplexed as to whether or not the majority actually wants this bill to pass and is trying to simply blame the minority for trying to bring it down.
“Now, we all know, I’m sure anybody who's followed the Senate at all knows we're going to pass a farm bill. No question about that. The farm bill is not going to be killed. The issue is whether we're going to have any kind of reasonable process for going forward. And I think getting an amendment list is the first step.
“I was hoping that we could do that, but apparently that is not the case and I regret that we are where we are. But let me reassure everyone, I don't think there's anybody in the country who thinks we aren't going to pass a farm bill and nobody is going to kill the farm bill.
“But we’re going to insist on a reasonable procedure for going forward, and with that I yield the floor.”

TK: Here is more coverage of the issue from the AP. Doesn't seem to be an easy way out of this jam, but look for a backlash from farm country if this bill gets delayed past the start of the new year.