Family feud

The U.S. citrus industry can typically close ranks pretty well, but the recent dispute between the Florida Department of Agriculture and California citrus interests is not a case in point. Cal of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group posts a letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture to Florida receivers and distributors of California origin citrus, mailed out Dec. 3, and a retort letter from Sunkist to its citrus customers in Florida. The Florida Dept. of Ag letter, from Richard Gaskalla of the Division of Plant Industry, states that citrus fruit from citrus areas in California will be denied entry into Florida beginning Dec. 7 unless accompanied by a certificate that says the fruit was inspected and found to be apparently free of the pest. Gaskalla calls the fungal pest an "unwanted citrus pathogen" similar in many respects to citrus canker lesions.

Meanwhile, the Sunkist letter, mailed Dec. 5 to its Florida customers, says Florida's requirements are "basically impossible" and will make it exceedingly difficult for Sunkist or any other California shipper to do business in the state of Florida. Sunkist calls on its receivers to call the Florida Department of Agriculture and object to the protocol.

Meanwhile, The Packer's Don Schrack reports:

A judge likely will serve as referee in the escalating California-Florida feud over the shipping of the Golden State’s fresh citrus to the Sunshine State.

California Citrus Mutual, Exeter, and other members of the state’s citrus industry retained a Florida law firm, said Joel Nelsen, president of Citrus Mutual. The attorneys planned to file suit Dec. 6 in Tallahassee, Fla., seeking a restraining order against the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, he said.

Nelsen said other California-based plaintiffs in the suit are Sunkist Growers Inc., Sherman Oaks; Pro*Act, Monterey; and Corona-College Heights Orange & Lemon Association, Riverside. Nelsen said Dec. 6 that the list of plaintiffs could grow before the suit was filed.

The dispute erupted in early November when the Florida state agency notified its counterpart, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, that effective Dec. 1 all California fresh citrus shipped to Florida would have to be inspected for Septoria citri, a fungus found in two California counties. That deadline was pushed back to Dec. 7.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies septoria as a nonactionable pest.

Emotions escalated in California when citrus industry officials learned their Florida counterparts had no input on the decision.

WIC Pic

Lorelei and United pass along this a pic from the WIC Interim Rule Press Conference held at USDA last Thursday, 12/6. From left to right:. Rev. Douglas Greenaway – National WIC Association; Sen. Bob Dole - authored the original WIC legislation in the 1970’s;Under Secretary Nancy Montanez-Johner – USDA, FNS; USDA Acting Secretary Chuck Conner.

By the way, Bob Dole - I don't want to be a name dropper, really - knows my mom through hometown connections in Russell, Kan. A small world. Here are the remarks of Chuck Conner, provided by the USDA, from Dec. 6 at the WIC rollout:

Nancy, thank you very, very much for that warm introduction.

I do want to recognize Nancy [Johner, Under Secretary for Food and Nutrition Programs] for her tireless work. She is an enthusiastic champion of our nutrition programs and her commitment to a healthier America through effective and strong nutrition programs that we operate out of this agency.

Just over a month ago, Nancy and I were honored to announce "My Pyramid for Moms," which is a new website that we provided for expectant women and new moms to get them nutrition guidance to meet what we regard as their very unique needs.

Now today, of course, in our continuing effort to improve nutrition across all sectors of the people we serve we're pleased to announce the first major revision in the foods offered in our WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program, as has been noted, in nearly three decades.

These changes, I believe, will make a strong program even stronger going forward.

They reflect our constant efforts, albeit a long time in coming, to make sure our nutrition programs work for every American and at every stage of life and, of course, always with a special focus on our most vulnerable within our population.

This was the intent of one of the original co-sponsors of the legislation that created WIC, Senator Bob Dole as has been noted already.

Senator, we are deeply honored to have you here at USDA. I know you feel at home here and you should. You have a place in USDA's "Hall of Heroes"; if you haven't seen the plaque on this wall on the other side of these pillars again it demonstrate the fact that Bob Dole is indeed a pillar here at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He brought an atmosphere of bipartisanship to nutrition issues that has really persisted to this day on Capitol Hill and our most vulnerable have been effectively served by that bipartisanship.

I am also delighted that Father Doug Greenaway is joining us, as well, again an institution within our own organization. And again, Doug, thanks for all that you do on behalf of all of us.

And I want to extend a warm welcome to everyone here including our WIC participants and my thanks to our partners and everyone we work with. These nutrition programs involve so many levels of cooperation and participation.

This is a critical program that would not reach 8.5 million people without commitment from all the people involved in this.

With the interim final rule that we're announcing today, we're responding, we believe to the repeated requests that we have received; those from WIC agencies, those from stakeholders and, of course, from participants themselves, to revise the food package so it does reflect the latest nutrition science and dietary recommendations for Americans.

We believe this rule will do just that.

By including fruits, vegetables and whole grains, for example, it will also reinforce MyPyramid and the 2005 Dietary Guidelines as the foundation for federal nutrition policy and nutrition education activities.

The rule will also better align our food packages for infants and young children with the guidelines established by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

It will also provide stronger incentives for continued breastfeeding.

And it will help address emerging public health and nutrition issues, like the importance of consuming more fruits, vegetables, whole grains into a healthier diet. Certainly advice we can all use I suspect.

Under the rule, we have revised WIC's food packages so they do a better job of offering choices and serving the changing needs of WIC's very diverse population in America today.

To accomplish this, we've added:

New food categories and optional substitutions;

And of course, fruits and vegetables for women and children;

Baby foods for infants six-to-12 months of age; and in some cases

soy-based beverages and tofu as milk alternatives for women and children who desire that option.

And for the first time whole wheat bread or other grain options such as soft corn tortillas for women and children, again to note oftentimes the cultural diversity that exists within our WIC population.

As you can see, and I hope you understand, we've designed these changes to meet the very special needs of our participants. Participants need help during critical times of growth and development for themselves and in some cases their young children.

It is one of USDA's 15 nutrition assistance programs that work together to provide our low-income children and their families with better health through better nutrition.

It is available in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, tribal organizations and of course, many American territories. We are proud of the accomplishments we have achieved by reaching so many people in America today.

Studies have shown that WIC helps reduce premature births, infant mortality and other birth-related issues. On the education side, health care referrals and social services help boost immunization rates and help children grow up to be healthier and stronger and obviously that is a very, very good thing.

WIC works and through the years, our fundamental goals for that program have not changed.

The revisions we're announcing today will advance those goals by providing a healthier diet for our most valuable resource, our children, and those, of course, who provide the first meal to those children: pregnant, breastfeeding and, in some cases, postpartum mothers.

I'll be the first to say we couldn't have achieved these revisions alone.

We did rely upon an outstanding group of dedicated people for their expert guidance, including our own agency personnel and stakeholders across the country.

I do want to single out the National Academies' Institute of Medicine for collaborating with us on the key study of the nutritional requirements of our WIC population.

The recommendations from that study were critical and fundamental to us in guiding this process.

We received over 46,000 comments on this proposed rule, ladies and gentlemen. This feedback was invaluable to us in bringing all the concerns into account when we drafted this interim final rule.

Thanks to all of this deliberate and thoughtful input, we feel these comprehensive revisions to the WIC food packages better meet the nutritional needs of our participants, and, of course, staying within a reasonable program cost as well.

My thanks to all of you who helped us develop these changes and who work every day on the ground to make sure this program reaches those most in need.

I believe this is an historic moment in terms of moving forward with better nutrition for some of the most vulnerable in our society. In keeping with that history, today we're advancing the vision of Senator Robert Dole who once asked the question that inspires so many of us in this room even today. He said, "What greater human right is there than the right to eat?"

It is a genuine honor for me to welcome and introduce Senator Dole to you today. He needs no introduction. We know him as a true statesman. We know him as a humanitarian.

The Senator followed the advice of his predecessor from Kansas, Senator Frank Carlson, to "sit back, listen, and then of course, simply stand up for what you believe in". And that has been what has marked his career.

There are so many areas where the Senator stood up for what he believed in, veterans,

agriculture, and, of course, as he's perhaps most widely known for nutrition issues.

He was the author of many pieces of farm legislation and has always understood the link between production agriculture and nutrition.

For more than 30 years, Senator Dole and his good friend and colleague Senator George McGovern worked together to support life-saving hunger relief in the United States as well as many people around the globe.

In helping to create landmark anti-hunger legislation, Senator Dole demonstrated that combating malnourishment and hunger is more important than partisan politics. And fortunately that position has really prevailed on the Hill to this day.

Our nutrition safety net of 15 programs and the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program are testaments to his partnerships, his leadership. We welcome him today, ladies and gentlemen, Senator Bob Dole.

Senate Farm bill amendment lineup

On today's farm bill debate in the Senate. From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Monday, December 10, 2007

• The Senate will convene at 3pm.

· No morning business.

· The Senate immediately will resume consideration of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419).

· The following amendments are pending to this bill:

· Harkin-Chambliss-Baucus-Grassley amendment in the nature of a substitute (#3500)

o Dorgan-Grassley amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to strengthen payment limitations and direct the savings to increase funding for certain programs. (#3695)

o Brown-Sununu amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to increase funding for critical Farm Bill programs and improve crop insurance (#3819)

o Klobuchar amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit (#3810)

o Lugar-Lautenberg amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 relative to traditional payments and loans (#3711)

o Cornyn amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to prevent duplicative payments for agricultural disaster assistance already covered by the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund (#3687)

o Coburn amendment to Harkin-Chambliss #3500 to ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on casinos, golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns (#3807)

o Coburn amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to limit the distribution to deceased individuals, and estates of those individuals, of certain agricultural payments (#3530)

o Coburn amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500 to modify a provision relating to the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (#3632)

During Friday’s Session

Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (H.R. 6)

Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 was not agreed to by a roll-call vote of 53-42.

Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419)

The following amendments were withdrawn by unanimous consent:

· Dorgan-Grassley amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500, to strengthen payment limitations and direct the savings to increased funding for certain programs (#3508)

o Reid second-degree amendment to Dorgan-Grassley amendment #3508, to change the enactment date (#3509)

• Reid amendment to change the enactment date (#3510)

o Reid second-degree amendment to Reid amendment #3510, to change the enactment date (#3511)

• Reid motion to commit H.R. 2419 to the Committee on Agriculture, with instructions to report back forthwith with Reid amendment to change the enactment date (#3512)

o Reid amendment to the instructions to the motion to commit (Reid amendment #3512), to change the enactment date (#3513)

o Reid second-degree amendment to Reid amendment #3513, to change the enactment date (#3514)

Top Ten

Here at The Packer we are working on the Top Ten stories of the year 2007 for presentation in wrap-up style for a coming issue. The top stories have already been ranked by the editorial team, but I'm curious how Fresh Talk readers would place these stories. Give me your own ranking, and if anyone matches The Packer's Top Ten, well, I'll find a an old Packer coffee mug to send to you. In alpha order:

AVOCADO WOES
CALIFORNIA FREEZE
CHANGING CONSUMER TRENDS:
DEVALUED DOLLAR
FARM BILL'S INCLUSION OF SPECIALTY CROPS
FOOD SAFETY CONCERNS CONTINUE -
IMMIGRATION REFORM A NO-GO -
SALAD BOWL UPHEAVAL
TESCO LANDS IN AMERICA
WHOLE FOODS/WILD OATS SAGA

More free trade perspective

As you know, the Fresh Talk poll question this week tries to survey the impact of the NAFTA on the U.S. produce industry. So far, those who believe the impact has had a negative impact are leading in the early voting. Ask the Mexican sugar producer and the Florida tomato grower and you may get one answer. Ask the Northwest apple shipper, Ontario greenhouse operator and the Mexican avocado grower and you may get another. To offer more perspective on this issue, here is a link to a Congressional Research Service report on the impact of free trade agreements on U.S. agriculture. From the "just the facts, ma'am" August 2007 report:

Canada......

Canada is the leading agricultural trading partner of the United States, and accounted for almost 19% of two-way U.S. agricultural trade in 2006. Since the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement (CUSTA) took effect in 1989, bilateral trade in agricultural and food products has increased more than six times (from an average $4 billion in 1986-1988, to $25.4 billion in 2006). For comparison, during this same period, U.S. two-way agricultural trade with the rest of the world slightly more than doubled. U.S. agricultural exports to Canada increased almost seven times (from an average $1.8 billion in 1986-88 to $11.9 billion in 2006). Imports from Canada rose six times (from an average $2.2 billion in 1986-88 to $13.4 billion in 2006). In 2006, the main U.S. exports to Canada in terms of value were: vegetables — fresh, processed, frozen and dried ($1,732 million), fresh fruit ($1,122 million), breakfast cereals and baked goods ($709 million), food preparations ($495 million), beef and veal ($424 million), fruit juices ($406 million), pet food ($393 million), pork ($365 million), cocoa ($317 million), coffee ($274 million), and confectionery products ($186 million). In 2006, main U.S. imports from Canada were live cattle ($1,032 million), bakery products and snacks ($966 million), beef and veal ($923 million), pork ($889 million), fresh vegetables — primarily greenhouse tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers ($724 million), chocolate ($690 million), frozen vegetables ($664 million), live hogs ($579 million), rapeseed oil ($424 million), confectionery products ($380 million), wheat ($304 million), food preparations ($278 million), beer ($275 million), and cheese mixes and doughs ($232 million). Under the CUSTA’s agricultural provisions (incorporated into NAFTA in 1994), almost all agricultural products have traded freely between both countries since 1998. Exceptions are those commodities that each country still subjects to tariff-rate quotas ( TRQs). Canada uses TRQs to limit imports from the United States of its import-sensitive commodities (dairy products, margarine, poultry, turkey, and eggs). The United States uses TRQs to restrict imports of Canadian dairy products, peanuts, peanut butter, cotton, sugar and certain sugar-containing products (SCPs). Both countries also retain the option under CUSTA to apply temporary safeguards on bilateral trade in selected fruits, vegetables, and flowers through year-end 2007. Since mid-2003, the discovery of BSE on both sides of the border has significantly affected bilateral trade in live cattle and beef products.


Mexico........


Mexico is the second largest agricultural trading partner of the United States, and accounted for almost 15% of two-way agricultural trade in 2006. Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, two-way bilateral trade in agricultural and food products has more than tripled (from an average $6 billion in 1991-1993, to $20.3 billion in 2006). For comparison, during this same period, U.S. two-way agricultural trade with the rest of the world nearly doubled. U.S. gricultural exports to Mexico rose by more than three times (from an average $3.5 billion in 1991-93, to $10.9 billion in 2006). In 2006, sales of corn ($1,472 million), soybeans ($906 million), beef and veal ($778 million), food preparations ($483 million), wheat ($418 million), cotton ($412 million), beef variety meats ($388 million), grain sorghum ($323 million), pork ($309 million), soybean meal ($255 million), and decidious fresh fruit ($245 million) accounted for more than one-half of U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico.
Agricultural imports from Mexico have almost quadrupled (from an average $2.5 billion just before NAFTA took effect, to $9.4 billion in 2006). Purchases of fresh vegetables, primarily tomatoes, chili and peppers, cucumbers, squash and onions ($2,573 million); beer ($1,600 million); fresh fruit, primarily avocados, melons, grapes, limes, mangoes, and strawberries ($1,149 million); live cattle ($524 million); confectionery products ($385 million); sugar ($320 million); and baked goods and snacks ($312 million) accounted for almost three-quarters of U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico. Under NAFTA, tariffs and quotas on most traded agricultural products were eliminated in 2003. However, the United States and Mexico still impose border protection on a few products subject to a 15-year transition period to free trade. All such protection will end on December 31, 2007. U.S. agricultural products that then will be eligible to freely enter the Mexican market will be: corn, dry beans, milk powder, sugar, dried onions, chicken leg quarters, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS); and under specified tariff lines, processed vegetables, frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ), and melons. Products imported into the United States from Mexico that then will be allowed to enter freely will be FCOJ, peanuts, and sugar; and under specified tariff lines cucumbers, asparagus, broccoli, melons, and processed vegetables. All other agricultural products now enter each other’s market freely, except for those that at times have become embroiled in trade disputes. Most of the bilateral disputes that have arisen since 1993 — when tariffs and quotas were eliminated for those agricultural commodities that fell in the 10-year staging category — have affected several U.S. agricultural commodities exported to Mexico (rice, beef, pork, apples, soy oil, and HFCS). At the same time, Mexican farmers and some Mexican commodity groups began pressuring the Mexican government to renegotiate certain NAFTA provisions. Calls for renegotiating NAFTA, particularly those provisions that apply to Mexico’s most sensitive agricultural commodities (dry beans and corn), were an election issue in Mexico’s 2006 presidential race. Though top Mexican officials under the previous presidential administration stated that reopening NAFTA was not possible and would not occur, current President Calderon continues to face heavy public pressure to revisit this position. Separately, sugar that enters from Mexico is the main sensitive product for the United States. The fact that sugar imports from Mexico will be unrestricted beginning in 2008 is already affecting the dynamics of the debate on the future U.S. sugar program as Congress considers the 2007 farm bill.

Farm bill sked

Senate debate on the farm bill is expected to conclude this week, though votes on the 20 amendments allowed for each side won't start until Tuesday. First up for the debate Friday was a bill to slim down adjusted gross income limits. From the office of Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar:


In remarks on the Senate floor Friday, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar said she is encouraged by progress this week on the 2007 Farm Bill and urged her colleagues to support an amendment she has offered to reform federal subsidy payments. The 2007 Farm Bill, which was passed by the Agriculture Committee in October, is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next week.

Klobuchar, who serves on the Agriculture Committee, called the legislation “a forward-looking farm bill’’ that would foster advances in cellulosic biofuels and improve rural conservation programs. The bill also creates a permanent program of disaster assistance, while preserving a strong safety net for farmers and strengthening federal nutrition programs.

But she said the bill would be even stronger with the amendment she has offered which would limit participation in the commodity programs to full-time farmers with incomes less than $750,000 per year, after expenses, and part-time farmers with incomes under $250,000 after expenses.

“This would ensure that urban millionaires do not pocket the farm subsidies intended for hardworking farmers,” Klobuchar said. “We’re proud that we have produced a farm bill that is fully paid-for and fiscally responsible, but that also requires us to make sure that federal resources go to farmers who genuinely need them.”

TK: Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., stood up against what he called the "unreasonable AGI test." Farm interests may have to give a little more ground on this AGI issue to secure Administration support. It will be interesting to see the recorded vote on this amendment, because it is hard to argue for "urban millionaires" getting farm subsidies.