Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Friday, June 29, 2012

Federal Partners Continue to Support Response Efforts Combating Western Wildfires

President Obama approves disaster declaration for Colorado making additional resources available WASHINGTON, June 29, 2012 –The U.S. Forest Service, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense and FEMA continue to ramp up efforts to protect life, public safety and aid in community recovery. On top of resources already deployed to support response efforts in a number of Western states, early this morning President Obama approved a disaster declaration for Colorado providing additional support to State and local officials responding to the fires, as well as federal assistance for individuals affected by the High Park and Waldo Canyon Fires. The Forest Service today mobilized the remaining four Department of Defense C-130s equipped with Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS). The airtankers will be available on Saturday to assist with wildfire suppression efforts in Colorado and elsewhere. They will be based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., along with the four MAFFS that have already been mobilized. To date, the MAFFS aircraft have conducted 62 sorties, 53 air drops and dropped 138,400 gallons of retardant in the Rocky Mountain Region with a primary focus on the Waldo Canyon fire. Those four C-130’s are in addition to the nineteen airtankers currently available nationally to combat fires. More than 10,400 personnel, more than 700 fire engines and more than 100 helicopters are also fighting wildfires around the U.S., supporting state and local efforts. As part of heightened efforts, the Forest Service is today training an Army battalion at Fort Carson, located near Colorado Springs, Colo., to potentially serve as ground firefighters to boost the number of firefighters available for wildfire suppression throughout the nation. The training will involve one day of classroom training and one to two days of field training. During the classroom training, soldiers will learn about wildfire suppression including fire behavior and fireline safety. During field training, soldiers will receive instruction in fire suppression methods and procedures. This effort will ensure there are additional resources available should the U.S. Forest Service require them. Since the beginning of the fire, Fort Carson units and services have committed more than 120 soldiers, 10 bulldozers and other equipment and resources to provide assistance to ongoing fire containment operations and interagency support to the Greater Colorado Springs community. Firefighters, in the face of adverse weather and difficult terrain, continue to make progress on the Waldo Canyon fire and more than 1,100 federal, state and local firefighters, over 80 fire engines and eight helicopters are fighting the fire today in the hillsides west of Colorado Springs. Joint Federal, state and local damage surveys are continuing in other areas, and more counties and additional forms of assistance may be designated as part of the disaster declaration after the assessments are fully completed. The President's approval of the disaster declaration makes federal funding available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for El Paso and Larimer Counties impacted by the High Park and Waldo Canyon Fires. Federal funding is also available for Crisis Counseling and Disaster Unemployment Assistance for affected individuals in El Paso and Larimer Counties impacted by the High Park and Waldo Canyon Fires. Overall, federal partners have deployed 16 Incident Management Teams (IMT), including five Type 1 IMTs, to help provide a coordinated and aggressive response to wildfires across the country, including at the Flagstaff Fire near Boulder, Colorado, the Dahl and Ash Creek fires in Montana, the Seeley and Fontenelle Fires in Utah, the Neighbor Mountain Fire in Virginia, and others. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in partnerships with states and local agencies, have developed a cohesive strategy to respond to the increase in wildfires in recent years by focusing on: • Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. Through forest restoration activities such as mechanical thinning and controlled burns, officials can make forests healthier and less susceptible to catastrophic fire. • Creating fire-adapted communities. The Forest Service, the Department of the Interior and their partners are working with communities to reduce fire hazards around houses to make them more resistant to wildfire threats. • Responding to Wildfires. This element considers the full spectrum of fire management activities and recognizes the differences in missions among local, state, tribal and Federal agencies. On average, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior bureaus respond to about 16,500 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction and assist state and local agencies in responding to a significant number of the approximately 60,000 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction. Federal firefighters, aircraft, and ground equipment are strategically assigned to parts of the country as the fire season shifts across the nation. Firefighting experts will continuously monitor conditions and move these assets as necessary to be best positioned and increase initial response capabilities. In addition, federal agencies are conducting accelerated restoration activities nationwide aimed at healthier forests and reduced fire risks in the years to come. Federal land managers are also helping communities prepare for wildfire. Federal partnerships with state, tribal and local agencies strengthen preparedness programs, such as Firewise http://www.firewise.org/ and Ready Set Go! http://www.iafc.org/readySetGo that help families and communities prepare for and survive wildfire. You can also visit FEMA's Ready.gov http://www.ready.gov, to learn more about steps you and your family can take now to be prepared for an emergency. ###

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Chamber: Fiscal cliff coming


The so called “Fiscal Cliff” is comprised of several major components, all coming to a head at the same time:
  • The 2001 and 2003 tax rates will expire, which means tax hikes on all Americans,
  • The end of alternative minimum tax (AMT) patches,
  • The expiration of the  payroll tax cut and jobless benefits,
  • The end of doc fixes,
  • The expiration of various tax extenders,
  • The activation of the “sequestration,” which will cut billions of dollars capriciously from the budget, and
  • Hitting the debt ceiling
There’s no telling the cumulative toll these negative economic hits will take on the economy.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, if Congress fails to act, growth could plummet to 0.5% in 2013. That, coupled with a change in output, would see us back into a recession.

That’s why Congress needs to act.  To remind them of their duty to all American taxpayers, we’ve launched a new website — The Fiscal Cliff Countdown.

Click here to visit our new website and check out the resources you will need to hold your members of Congress accountable.

Curious what your taxes will look like if Congress doesn’t act by December 31st?  We have calculator where you can see what kind of a hit you’ll take if tax rates spike on January 1st.

Need more resources on what will happen if Congress doesn’t avert the nation flying over and off the fiscal cliff?  The website will provide daily updated news clips and resources for you to share with your friends and family and on social media.

Most importantly, the site provides a quick way to contact Congress and tell them to act now.

Click here to check out the site today.

With your help, we can remind Congress of their duty and make sure we avoid the fiscal cliff altogether.

Sincerely,


Rob Engstrom
Senior Vice President and National Political Director
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Visits OSU, Highlights Cancer-Fighting Research and 150 Years of Land Grant University Partnerships

COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 28, 2012—Shining a light on agricultural research that has implications for fighting cancer, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today visited The Ohio State University's (OSU) Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship (CAFFRE), where researchers are studying the development of novel functional foods and components that offer impressive benefits to health. Vilsack's visit coincides with the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the founding of the land grant university system with the signing of the Morrill Act of 1862. "Many people do not understand the contributions to human health that agricultural research makes," said Vilsack. "But here at Ohio State, there are many vivid examples showcasing the essential role agricultural research plays in solving some of the world's most pressing health problems, all while building and revitalizing rural America." CAFFRE researchers recently used a $1,275,000 USDA grant to develop a soy‐fortified tomato juice that could potentially benefit prostate cancer patients. They also are conducting clinical trials to study the impact of raspberries and a soy bread on certain cancers. Ohio State's business partners joined Vilsack to discuss how the research is making its way from crops to the clinic to the consumer. USDA partners with Ohio State on a wide variety of food and agricultural research that provides an important investment in the Columbus community and beyond. Currently, OSU has 67 active research and integrated grants competitively awarded through USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), funded at more than $28.5 million. OSU regularly receives annual capacity building allocations to fund agricultural research and extension. In federal fiscal year 2012, the institution received over $13 million in extension formula dollars and over $8 million in formula research dollars from USDA/NIFA. NIFA's flagship competitive grants program established under the 2008 Farm Bill is the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). AFRI makes awards in five challenge areas—childhood obesity prevention, global food security, climate variability, food safety, and sustainable bioenergy—and through foundational and fellowship programs. The AFRI challenge areas will continue to support societal challenge areas where research, education, and extension can achieve significant and measurable outcomes. Examples of AFRI grants recently awarded to OSU scientists are: • OSU food scientists are working to increase the absorption of antioxidants by the human body. By encapsulating the antioxidants in plant-based polymers, the researchers will create micro particles that can be broken down in the gastrointestinal tract. This award totaled approximately $500,000 and will be conducted over 3 years. • OSU researchers are using Hatch Act funds to study new and emerging intestinal diseases in swine and cattle. The scientists developed a real-time tool that can detect St. Valerian-like viruses in swine. This information can help prevent the spread of the disease to animals in other regions or event to humans. Through federal funding and leadership for research, education and extension programs, USDA NIFA focuses on investing in science and solving critical issues impacting people's daily lives and the nation's future. Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture partners with more than 100 state colleges and universities who in turn have graduated more than 20 million students; produced countless scientific breakthroughs; vastly increased agricultural productivity; and improved the lives of people everywhere. Additional information on USDA research accomplishments can be found here.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

UPDATE: Federal Partners Continue to Support State and Local Partners as They Fight Wildfires

National Preparedness Level Raised to 4; Heightened response to fighting Waldo Canyon fire today WASHINGTON, June 27, 2012 – As the federal family continues to aggressively respond to the wildfires in the Western states, the U.S. Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and FEMA today announced additional resources have been deployed to support state and local partners. In light of the severity of current fire activity, the National Interagency Fire Center has raised the national preparedness level to level 4, on a scale of 1-5. Preparedness Level 4 (PL 4) triggers increased planning for additional resources and greater oversight of resource allocations in order to achieve the most effective deployment. PL 4 calls for additional restrictions on the practice of prescribed fire application or managing fires for multiple objectives to ensure resources are being deployed to the highest priorities. Seventeen airtankers have cycled in and out of firefighting action over the last 48 hours across the western states, and more than 8,400 personnel, 578 fire engines and 79 helicopters are operating on wildfires around the U.S. Approximately half of active federal wildfire-fighting resources are currently staged in Colorado. More than 760 federal, state and local firefighters and six helicopters are fighting the aggressive Waldo Canyon fire today in the hillsides west of Colorado Springs. Additionally, a total of nine large airtankers, including four military C-130s equipped with Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems, are currently in Colorado working on the Waldo Canyon and other fires, in support of local officials leading the fight against the wildfire. Federal partners also continue to work closely with first responders and firefighters from local, state, and tribal agencies to combat and monitor large wildfires including those in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. "As we continue this fight, the Forest Service and its federal partners continue to bring extensive resources to bear and work closely with our local partners to combat these destructive fires," said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "Thousands of brave men and women on the front line are battling dry conditions, a lack of snowpack, excessive dead trees, hot weather and complex terrain to try to get the fires throughout the West under control." The Waldo Canyon fire stretches in three directions across very dry forests. The fire has consumed more than 15,375 acres of forested land since Saturday, and has forced thousands of evacuations. With low humidity, winds as high as 65 mph and temperatures in the 90s forecast for the coming days, the situation remains challenging as firefighters work in what is described as very difficult terrain. Through the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, which mobilizes assets from across the country, firefighters, incident management teams, airtankers, helicopters, fire engines and other resources are being provided to supplement state and local resources as teams continue to respond to fires across the West. Earlier today, FEMA's National Watch Center in Washington, D.C. elevated to an enhanced watch level, which means that additional personnel are assisting with monitoring activities related to the wildfires. On Sunday, FEMA approved Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs) that authorize the use of federal funds to help states and local entities with firefighting costs for the Waldo Canyon Fire in El Paso County, Colorado; the Weber Fire in Montezuma County, Colorado; and the Hollow Fire in Sanpete County, Utah. An FMAG makes FEMA funding available to pay 75 percent of the state's eligible firefighting costs for managing, mitigating and controlling the fire. These grants do not provide assistance to individual home or business owners and do not cover other infrastructure damage caused by the fire. On June 6, FEMA approved a FMAG for the High Park Fire in Larimer County, Colorado, and on June 22 approved a FMAG for the Eagle Mountain/Dump Fire in Utah County, Utah. FMAGs are provided through the Disaster Relief Fund and made available by FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to cause a major disaster. Eligible items can include expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in partnerships with states and local agencies, have developed a cohesive strategy to respond to the increase in wildfires in recent years by focusing on: • Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes. Through forest restoration activities such as mechanical thinning and controlled burns, officials can make forests healthier and less susceptible to catastrophic fire. • Creating fire-adapted communities. The Forest Service and its partners are working with communities to reduce fire hazards around houses to make them more resistant to wildfire threats. • Responding to Wildfires. This element considers the full spectrum of fire management activities and recognizes the differences in missions among local, state, tribal and Federal agencies. On average, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior bureaus respond to about 16,500 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction and assist state and local agencies in responding to a significant number of the approximately 60,000 wildfires per year that occur on land under their jurisdiction. Federal firefighters, aircraft, and ground equipment are strategically assigned to parts of the country as the fire season shifts across the nation. Firefighting experts will continuously monitor conditions and move these assets as necessary to be best positioned and increase initial response capabilities. In addition, federal agencies are conducting accelerated restoration activities nationwide aimed at healthier forests and reduced fire risks in the years to come. Federal land managers are also helping communities prepare for wildfire. Federal partnerships with state, tribal and local agencies strengthen preparedness programs, such as Firewise http://www.firewise.org/ and Ready Set Go! http://www.iafc.org/readySetGo that help families and communities prepare for and survive wildfire. You can also visit FEMA's Ready.gov http://www.ready.gov, to learn more about steps you and your family can take now to be prepared for an emergency.

Growth in Global Oil Market Slows

New Worldwatch Institute report discusses worldwide developments in oil production and consumption Washington, D.C.----Global oil consumption increased by 0.7 percent in 2011 to reach an all-time high of 88.03 million barrels per day, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) for its Vital Signs Online service. This rate of increase was considerably slower than in 2010, when oil consumption rose by 3.3 percent following a decline of 1.3 percent in 2009 due to the global financial crisis. China's oil consumption increased by 5.5 percent in 2011, and China accounted for about 85 percent of global net growth in oil use. An increase in oil consumption of 5.7 percent in the former Soviet Union contributed another 37 percent of net growth. But these increases were offset by declines in the United States and European Union, where oil consumption fell by 1.8 and 2.8 percent respectively, writes Worldwatch Climate and Energy Research Associate Shakuntala Makhijani. The gap in oil consumption between countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and all other countries narrowed further in 2011, with the two groups respectively accounting for 51.5 and 48.5 percent of total oil consumption. Oil remained the largest source of primary energy worldwide in 2011, but its share fell for the twelfth consecutive year to 33 percent. To meet continued growth in demand, global oil production rose for the second year in a row, by 1.3 percent in 2011, to reach 83.58 million barrels per day. Most of this increase was driven by higher production in countries that belong to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which overall grew by 3 percent in 2011. Meanwhile oil production in non-OPEC countries fell slightly by 0.1 percent. Oil production growth was slow compared with natural gas and coal production, which grew by 3.1 and 6.1 percent, respectively, in 2011. Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa had a significant effect on oil production in certain countries in the region. Output in Libya fell by 71 percent in 2011----from 1.7 million barrels per day (2 percent of global production in 2010) to just 479,000 barrels (0.6 percent of global output) due to the disruptions related to the civil war. At the same time, tense political situations and violence in Iran, Syria, and Yemen resulted in production declines of 0.6, 13.7, and 24 percent, respectively, in 2011. The global impacts of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig blowout and oil spill have been limited thus far, with reviews in most countries finding that existing safety requirements suffice to prevent similar accidents. Despite expanding offshore drilling efforts, the share of offshore oil is expected to remain steady at 30 percent of global oil production due to declining output from North Sea and Mexican offshore oil wells. Deepwater oil production is expected to constitute a growing portion of this production and is projected to go from 6 percent of total global oil supply today to 9 percent by 2016. "Against the backdrop of fluctuating oil prices and concerns about supply risk, many countries are paying more attention to their dependence on imports and the stability of the countries they purchase oil from," said Makhijani. "In 2011, the United States imported 60 percent of the oil it needed, Europe imported 90 percent, and imports accounted for 68 percent of China's oil consumption." The Middle East remains the world's largest oil exporter, accounting for 36.2 percent of exports in 2011 and a growing share of the global market. The Soviet Union and the Asia Pacific region were the second and third largest exporters, with shares of 15.9 and 11.4 percent, respectively. Oil exports from North Africa fell by 32.8 percent in 2011 due largely to the disruptions in oil production caused by political instability in the region. Exports from the United States grew by 19.4 percent in 2011, faster than in any other region, but they accounted for only 4.7 percent of the global market. Further highlights from the report: • Oil remained the largest source of primary energy worldwide in 2011, but its share fell for the twelfth consecutive year to 33 percent. • Average annual prices for West Texas Intermediate crude reached $94.83 per barrel in 2011, close to the average 2008 price of $99.67 per barrel. • OPEC countries control 72.4 percent of global oil reserves, and the Middle East has the largest share of reserves of any region, at 48.1 percent of the total. ----END----

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

WP: Future of Food series in Denver

Washington Post Live’s “Future of Food” Breakfast Series Kicks Off in Denver Local Political, Agricultural and Education Leaders Discuss How to Make Healthy Food More Accessible to Children Washington, D.C.—FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—Washington Post Live, the live journalism division of The Washington Post, will host a series of breakfast discussions across the country that will focus on how to make produce and healthy food more accessible to Americans. The “Future of Food” breakfast series kicks off June 28 in the History Colorado Building in Denver, where local leaders will come together to talk about bringing food from the farm to the classroom and making it healthy and affordable for American kids. “We recently convened leading experts to talk about problems with our food supply during a day-long forum in Washington. By taking these discussions across the country, we will be able to dive deeper into how communities can provide better access to healthy food and prevent obesity and malnourishment,” said Mary Jordan, Editor of Washington Post Live. The upcoming breakfast discussion will be streamed live at washingtonpostlive.com beginning at 8:30 am MDT / 10:30 am EDT . Speakers and panels* : 8:30 am MDT: Bringing food from the farm to the classroom • Robert Hammond - Colorado Commissioner of Education • Dr. Anthony Frank – Colorado State University, President • Chris Kraft – Owner of Badger Creek Farms and Quail Ridge Dairy 9:15 am MDT: Healthy, affordable food for American kids • Kelly Brough - Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, President & CEO • Dr. Helayne Jones – Colorado Legacy Foundation, President & CEO • Anne Warhover – Colorado Health Foundation, President and CEO • Dayle Hayes, MS, RD - Nutrition for the Future, Inc., President The Future of Food breakfast series will continue in Litchfield, Arizona on July 16 and in Burlington, Vermont on July 28. A date will also be announced soon for a breakfast taking place in Chicago, Illinois. Washington Post Live’s Future of Food Breakfast Series in Denver is sponsored by Western Dairy Association (WDA), Colorado State University, Hunger Free Colorado, and the Innovation Center for US Dairy.

FAMILY CIRCLE’S 2012 PRESIDENTIAL COOKIE BAKE-OFF:

FAMILY CIRCLE’S 2012 PRESIDENTIAL COOKIE BAKE-OFF: VOTE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT WITH YOUR TASTE BUDS First Lady Michelle Obama and Ann Romney Compete for Best Cookie - Readers Cast Their Votes - Winners Have Predicted Election Results New York, NY (June 27, 2012) – For the past five presidential elections, Family Circle magazine has asked the spouses of the presidential candidates to share their favorite cookie recipe. She who claimed victory went on to live in the White House every time but one. Today Family Circle launches the 2012 Presidential Cookie Bake-Off and asks readers to do their patriotic duty: Bake, taste, vote. The contest, which goes live today on www.familycircle.com, is featured in the August issue of the magazine, which hits newsstands July 3, 2012. Family Circle’s first bipartisan quadrennial cookie bake-off took place in 1992, when Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush bumped spatulas over the importance of baking. Almost 20 years and five presidential election cycles later, the Family Circle Presidential Cookie Bake-Off has become a fun political tradition—and a political pacesetter. Whether it was Bill Clinton’s Oatmeal Cookies or Laura Bush’s Texas Governor’s Mansion Cowboy Cookies, more than 19 million Family Circle readers have participated in baking, taste testing and voting on recipes submitted by the spouses of the presidential candidates. During the 2008 election, Cindy McCain’s Oatmeal Butterscotch Cookie recipe generated some heat with accusations that the recipe was possibly copied. Controversy aside, readers’ taste buds spoke and Mrs. McCain’s cookies received 54% of the vote. And breaking with tradition, she is the only winner of the Family Circle contest not to become First Lady of the United States. Now First Lady Michelle Obama and Ann Romney face off in the sixth quadrennial cookie contest. Family Circle readers can find the culinary candidates’ recipes in Family Circle’s August issue, then vote online for their favorite treats at www.familycircle.com/cookievote or on Family Circle’s Facebook page. Polls will remain open until noon on August 15, 2012. Readers can vote once per day. Cast Your Vote: **First Lady Michelle Obama’s Mama Kaye’s White and Dark Chocolate Chip Cookies** Every evening the President, the First Lady and their daughters sit down for a family dinner with good conversation and healthy food. If they want to splurge, they enjoy these White and Dark Chocolate Chip Cookies created by the girls’ godmother. It’s the Obamas’ idea of the perfect treat. **Ann Romney’s M&M’s Cookies** The Romneys love spending time with their children and grandchildren. Whenever they’re together, they mix up a batch of their favorite M&M’s Cookies. “They smell delicious coming out of the oven—our grandkids can’t resist them!” says Ann Romney.

Carol Browner on climate change decision

STATEMENT: CAP’s Carol M. Browner on U.S. Court of Appeals Climate Change Decision Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today unanimously ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal authority to limit industrial carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans’ health. In response to this ruling, Carol M. Browner, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, released the following statement: The Court’s decision should put an end, once and for all, to any questions about the EPA’s legal authority to protect us from dangerous industrial carbon pollution through the Clean Air Act, including vehicle emissions. This decision is a devastating blow to those who challenge the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and deny its impact on public health and welfare. Coming on the heels of last week’s Senate defeat of a measure to block life-saving mercury air pollution protections, this historic decision is a win for every American and a win for clean air. Hopefully we can move forward in a bipartisan way to push for more solutions that protect public health and spur innovation and job creation.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Despite Drop from 2009 Peak, Agricultural Land Grabs Still Remain Above Pre-2005 Level

Despite Drop from 2009 Peak, Agricultural Land Grabs Still Remain Above Pre-2005 Level New Worldwatch Institute report discusses worldwide developments in land acquisitions by foreign investors Washington, D.C.----An estimated 70.2 million hectares of agricultural land worldwide have been sold or leased to foreign private and public investors since 2000, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) for its Vital Signs Online service. The bulk of these acquisitions, which are called "land grabs" by some observers, took place between 2008 and 2010, peaking in 2009. Although data for 2010 indicate that the amount of acquisitions dropped considerably after the 2009 peak, it still remains well above pre-2005 levels, writes Worldwatch author Cameron Scherer. Although definitions vary, "land grab" here refers to the large-scale purchase of agricultural land by foreign investors. Thus, land leases or purchases among domestic actors are omitted. In April 2012, the Land Matrix Project, a global network of some 45 research and civil society organizations, released the largest database to date on these types of land deals, gathering data from 1,006 deals covering 70.2 million hectares around the world. Africa has seen the greatest share of land involved in these acquisitions, with 34.3 million hectares sold or leased since 2000. East Africa accounts for the greatest investment, with 310 deals covering 16.8 million hectares. Increased investment in Africa's agricultural land reflects a decade-long trend of strengthening economic relationships between Africa and the rest of the world, with foreign direct investment to the continent growing 259 percent between 2000 and 2010. Asia and Latin America come in second and third for most heavily targeted regions, with 27.1 million and 6.6 million hectares of land deals, respectively. Investor countries, in contrast, are spread more evenly around the globe. Of the 82 listed investor countries in the Land Matrix Project database, Brazil, India, and China account for 16.5 million hectares, or around 24 percent of the total hectares sold or leased worldwide. When the East Asian nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea are included, this group of industrializing countries has been involved in 274 land deals covering 30.5 million hectares. The United States and the United Kingdom account for a combined 6.4 million hectares of land deals. The oil-rich but arid Gulf states make up the final group of major land investors, with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar responsible for 4.6 million hectares. "In several cases----namely, South Africa, China, Brazil, and India----there is an overlap between investor and target countries," said Scherer. "Yet most of the data paint one of two pictures: First, there is a new 'South-South' regionalism, in which emerging economies invest in nearby, culturally affiliated countries. The other trend is one of wealthy (or increasingly wealthy) countries, many with little arable land, buying up land in low-income nations----especially those that have been particularly vulnerable to the financial and food crises of recent years." The food crisis of 2007-08 helped spark the dramatic uptick in foreign acquisitions in 2009, as investors rushed to capitalize on the rising prices of staple crops. But food prices are not solely responsible for the land-grab trend. As fuel consumption and oil prices continue to rise, the demand for land on which to grow feedstocks for biofuels will likely rise too, increasing the pressure on limited cropland. The implications of the recent surge in foreign land acquisitions are still unclear. In many cases, the deals displace local farmers who already occupy and farm the land, but who frequently lack formal land rights or access to legal institutions to defend these rights. The land grabs also often result in the use of industrial agriculture and other practices that can bring serious ecological and other impacts to these regions. In the absence of clear regulations, robust enforcement mechanisms, government transparency, and channels for civil society participation, further investments in land may benefit a group of increasingly wealthy investorsat the expense of those living in the targeted land areas. Further highlights from the report: • Approximately 56.2 million hectares of land have been sold or leased in Africa----4.8 percent of the continent's agricultural land • Of the 658 land acquisition deals that took place in 2000-2010 that provided information on individual investors, 442 (67 percent) of them were carried out by private companies. • Just over a quarter of the acquired land is used for nonagricultural purposes: some 11 percent of investors are in the forestry sector, and 8 percent are from the mining, industry, livestock, or tourism sectors. ----END----

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Senate Ag Committee: myth vs. reality

Myth #1: Past farm bills have meant big subsidies for big agriculture; this one is no different Facts: The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act is the most significant reform of American agriculture in decades. The bill ends direct payments and three other subsidy programs, saving $23.6 billion. The Washington Post said the bill is “a considerably slimmed down version of previous incarnations,” Bloomberg said the reform “represents one of the biggest policy changes in generations,” and the Wall Street Journal said “If signed into law, the subsidy cuts would mark one of the biggest changes to farm policy in years.” Myth #2: $23.6 billion in spending cuts is not enough Facts: $23.6 billion in spending cuts is more than double the amount the Simpson-Bowles commission and Gang of Six recommended in agriculture cuts. It is also more than agriculture would be cut under the super committee’s sequestration process. The portion of the budget under the Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction is approximately 2 percent of federal outlays, and $23.6 billion is roughly two percent of the super committee’s goal of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction— meaning agriculture is contributing its share. If every other committee came forward with this level of de"cit reduction, the super committee’s goal would be achieved. Myth #3: Crop insurance is a subsidy like direct payments Facts: Crop insurance is completely different from direct payments and other subsidy programs. Direct payments provide farmers tax dollars for crops they don’t grow, and even when farmers don’t take a loss. On the other hand, farmers pay into crop insurance, and crop insurance only pays claims when farmers suffer a loss for crops they actually grow. Ending direct payments and three other subsidy programs and transitioning to a risk management approach based on crop insurance saves taxpayers $15 billion, the bulk of the Farm Bill’s savings. Myth #4: The Senate Farm Bill cuts food assistance benefits for families in need Facts: The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act does not change the standard benefit structure for needy families. Instead, the bill reduces fraud and abuse and improves the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help ensure every dollar goes to families based on need. The bill eliminates overpayments, stops lottery winners from receiving assistance, ends misuse by college students supported by wealthy parents, cracks down on benefit trafficking and helps prevent liquor and tobacco stores from accepting food assistance benefits. These changes save $4 billion in SNAP while leaving standard benefits and eligibility rules unchanged. More Information: Myth #1: Past farm bills have meant big subsidies for big agriculture; this one is no different Facts: The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act is the most significant reform of American agriculture in decades. The Washington Post said the Farm Bill “was always a bloated, contentious piece of legislation that grew larger and more expensive as it lumbered through Congress. But the farm bill that the Senate will begin debating…is a considerably slimmed-down version of previous incarnations….” And the Wall Street Journal said, “The farm bill…would cut spending by $23.6 billion over a decade, mostly by pruning payments that farmland owners get regardless of whether they plant crops… If signed into law, the subsidy cuts would mark one of the biggest changes to farm policy in years.” The bill: • Eliminates direct payments and three other farm subsidy programs and instead supports farmers only when they take a real loss. • Implements a new risk management approach that allows the market to guide planting decisions rather than having Congress set !xed prices that guarantee subsidies when market prices fall below the price Congress sets. • Caps remaining risk management support at less than half of what an individual can receive under the current system (saving tax dollars and ensuring that small family farms will receive a greater share of federal farm support). • Stops millionaires from receiving support under any circumstances. • Closes the manager’s loophole to ensure only farmers receive farm support—under the current system, individuals can be designated as farm “managers” and receive farm payments even if they never set foot on a farm. These reforms cut spending by $23.6 billion, over double the amount the Simpson-Bowles commission and Gang of Six recommended agriculture programs be cut. Myth #2: $23.6 billion in spending cuts is not enough Facts: By ending unnecessary subsidies, streamlining and consolidating programs and cracking down on abuse, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act cuts spending by $23.6 billion. This level of de"cit reduction is over double the amount the Simpson-Bowles commission and Gang of Six recommended in agriculture cuts. It is also more than agriculture would be cut under the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction’s (“super committee’s”) sequestration process. The portion of the budget under the Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction is approximately two percent of federal outlays, and $23.6 billion is roughly two percent of the super committee’s goal of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction—meaning agriculture is contributing exactly its share. If every other committee had accomplished what the Agriculture Committee accomplished, the super committee would have been successful and Congress would have achieved major spending cuts and deficit reduction. However, he Agriculture Committee was the only committee to reach bipartisan agreement on legislative recommendations to the super committee. The Agriculture Committee is coming forward with these spending cuts even after agriculture was targeted with one of the highest cuts among all areas of the budget last year. The fact is that if the Senate Farm bill does not pass and the status quo is left in place, our country’s deficit will be higher. Direct payment subsidies and three other subsidy programs we cut will continue. One hundred eliminated programs or authorizations will be left in place. The fraud and abuse the bill restricts will go on. As the Washington Post said in an editorial: “Who says that the Senate can’t get anything done? On Thursday, it voted 90-8 to open debate on a bill that could actually cut projected spending on Agriculture Department programs… Most of the $23.6 billion in savings come from eliminating such notorious subsidies as the “direct payment” program…. The cuts represent not only systemic reform but also more than twice the agriculture savings that the Simpson-Bowles commission proposed. And the Agriculture Committee approved the bill on a bipartisan basis.” – Washington Post Editorial, 6/11/12 Myth #3: Crop insurance is a subsidy like direct payments. Facts: Crop insurance is completely different from direct payments and other subsidy programs. Direct payments provide farmers tax dollars for crops they don’t grow, and even if a farmer doesn’t take a loss. On the other hand, farmers pay into crop insurance, and crop insurance only pays claims when farmers suffer a loss. The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act cuts spending by $23.6 billion overall. Cutting subsidy programs and moving to a risk management approach based on crop insurance reduces the deficit by $15 billion, the bulk of the bill’s savings. It is important that farmers—and farm jobs—are not wiped out by weather disasters. Protecting from widespread farmer bankruptcy also protects American families from sudden spikes in food prices. While many farmers and farmers’ organizations have agreed that direct payments are indefensible, ensuring affordable crop insurance is available is the number one priority of farmers to keep themselves protected. Federal crop insurance support is not money into farmers’ pockets, it’s a discount on the high premiums farmers pay to protect themselves. Major cuts to crop insurance would likely mean more spending in ad hoc disaster relief. And putting strict caps on crop insurance support could mean larger operations opting not to purchase crop insurance—raising premiums for small producers and increasing costs for taxpayers. Real reform means shifting from the current system of subsidies to a responsible risk management approach that requires farmers to have skin in the game and only qualify for support when they take a real loss. Myth #4: The Senate Farm Bill cuts food assistance benefits for families in need. Facts: The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act does not change the standard benefit structure for needy families. Instead, the bill reduces fraud and abuse and improves the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help ensure every dollar is going to families based on need. These changes save $4 billion in SNAP while leaving standard benefits and eligibility rules unchanged. The Senate’s Farm Bill: • Eliminates gaps in standards to stop overpayments. Currently, a small number of states are providing individuals $1 in home heating assistance, even if they don’t have a heating bill, so they can get additional cash benefits above and beyond what similar SNAP recipients with the same expenses receive in other states. Ending this practice prevents overpayments while still maintaining standard benefits for families. • Stops lottery winners from continuing to receive assistance. In the past year, cases were uncovered in which a lottery winner accepted a large lump sum payment, then continued to (accurately) claim a lack of income while having hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in the bank. • Ends misuse by college students still being supported by non-low-income families. • Cracks down on retailers and recipients engaged in benefit trafficking. • Increases requirements to prevent liquor and tobacco stores from accepting food assistance benefits. The above savings reduce the deficit while continuing support for food banks, seniors’ food programs and healthy school lunch initiatives, as well maintaining a strong Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Senate Farm Bill also provides funding for Double-up Food Bucks, a partnership that leverages private dollars so that SNAP recipients’ benefits are worth double their normal value when used to purchase healthy foods at farmers’ markets. The 2012 House Republican budget (a.k.a the Ryan budget) attempts to slash the food assistance program by nearly $130 billion over 10 years. The House Agriculture committee recently approved $33 billion in cuts. Unlike the Senate Farm Bill, these proposals would change benefit and eligibility requirements, rather than focusing on fraud and improving program accountability.

Dr. Slavko Komarnytsky Contributes Chapter on Plant-Derived Antibodies to New Book

KANNAPOLIS, NC – A North Carolina State University professor is one of the authors of a new book about using antibodies to deliver drugs more accurately to diagnose and treat various diseases. Dr. Slavko Komarnytsky, a metabolic biologist and assistant professor with the N.C. State University Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences and the Plants for Human Health Institute at the N.C. Research Campus in Kannapolis, wrote a chapter of the new book, “Antibody-Mediated Drug Delivery Systems,” edited by Yashwant Pathak and Simon Benita. The contributing authors represent more than 10 different countries, covering recent developments around the globe. The book was published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Antibodies are proteins that play a central role in the body’s immune system by identifying and neutralizing foreign objects such as bacteria and viruses. The book focuses on the use of monoclonal antibodies to help diagnose and treat diseases. Monoclonal antibodies are made in the lab rather than by a person’s own immune system. The book includes information on using monoclonal antibodies to treat cancer, pulmonary and ocular diseases and to deliver drugs and vaccines to target organs. Antibody-based therapies hold promise in targeting malignant cells while sparing normal cells. Such targeted approaches are employed to reduce the nonspecific toxicity of chemotherapy and to improve the efficacy of the treatment. According to the editors, the field of antibody-mediated delivery systems has developed rapidly since the first book was published in 1988 and this new book aims “to provide medical and scientific researchers and students working in this field with an up-to-date, practical, all-encompassing reference source on the concept, analytical development, antibody processing, and applications of antibody-mediated drug delivery systems.” Dr. Komarnytsky’s chapter, co-authored with Nikolai Borisjuk, of Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, is titled “Plant-derived Antibodies for Academic, Industrial, and Therapeutic Applications.” The chapter includes an historical perspective of molecular pharming, information on plant-based production of recombinant proteins, protein expression in an entire plant versus a plant organ, expression in seeds and recent examples of plant-derived antibodies effective in animals. “Plant-derived antibodies offer a wide range of applications in biomedical research and metabolic engineering, and as clinical diagnostic or therapeutic agents,” according to the editors. “The increasing number of plant antibody-based products entering clinical trials and the market indicates an exponential growth of activities in this field. This technology is just beginning to mature,” they added. “Proteins for pharmaceutical use have been produced in a number of plants, such as maize, rice, wheat, soybeans, tobacco and tomatoes,” explained Dr. Komarnytsky. “Their benefits are lower manufacturing costs, relative to animal cell culture, and a reduced risk of transmission of animal pathogens. Now that Good Manufacturing Practices systems are available for whole plants, it is likely that the plant-based protein pipeline will advance rapidly with novel antibody and vaccine candidates.” Dr. Komarnytsky currently is studying tobacco, which could potentially be a host plant for the production of helpful proteins. “I’m pleased to join with other researchers around the world to contribute to this important body of knowledge contained in this new book,” Dr. Kormarnytsky added. “I hope it will help lead to new breakthroughs, particularly as we seek to understand how to develop recombinant antibody manufacturing in plants that can provide pharmaceutical or other benefits to human health.” About Plants for Human Health Institute The N.C. State University Plants for Human Health Institute is part of the N.C. Research Campus in Kannapolis. Its Cooperative Extension outreach is known as N.C. MarketReady. The campus is a public-private venture including eight universities, the David H. Murdock Research Institute (DHMRI) and corporate entities that collaborate to advance the fields of nutrition and health. Learn more at http://plantsforhumanhealth.ncsu.edu

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Family Food Revolution: America Makes Dinner Launches

Cozi and Partnership for a Healthier America Launch National Campaign to Encourage American Families to Sit Down to Dinner Together Tom Colicchio, Laurie David, Sierra McCormick and other celebrities share their favorite family recipes for America Makes Dinner; Families can enter to win a private cooking lesson from Chopped’s Allison Sosna Seattle, Wash.— June12, 2012 –Cozi, the No. 1 online and mobile family calendar and organizer, and the Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA),an organization focused on making the healthy choice the easy choice for busy parents and families, today announced America Makes Dinner, a national campaign focused on changing the way American families think about dinner, and providing them with the tools and encouragement they need to prioritize healthy, sit-down dinners. America Makes Dinner kicks off today, with new family dinner selections each week from celebrities, chefs and food bloggers including Tom Colicchio, owner of Craft Restaurants; Laurie David, producer and author of “The Family Dinner: Great Ways to Connect with Your Kids, One Meal at a Time;” and Sierra McCormick, from the Disney Channel Original Series “A.N.T. Farm,” all of whom have shared their healthy and affordable family recipes. Families across the country can visit www.AmericaMakesDinner.com to find simple, nutritious meal ideas and, by preparing each week’s featured recipe and sharing their feedback, help choose recipe finalists. Once America’s favorite recipes have been chosen, the America Makes Dinner campaign will culminate with America Makes Dinner Day on Oct. 17, when families across the country will sit down and enjoy the winning recipes. Families also can enter their favorite family-friendly dinner recipes at www.AmericaMakesDinner.com. Three finalists will be featured during one week of the America Makes Dinner challenge, and the winning family will win a private cooking lesson from chef-preneur Allison Sosna, former executive chef of DC Central Kitchen, a competitor on Food Network’s “Chopped” and a passionate advocate of healthy food for children. During the three-hour cooking lesson, Sosna will teach the basics of preparing quick and easy dinners, and leave the family with a full week’s worth of delicious family dinner ideas. The winner will also receive an All-Clad sauté pan, perfect for large families who like to cook one-dish meals. Families are encouraged to submit a recipe that helps them get a healthy meal on the table, even on a busy weeknight. To be eligible, dinner recipes must be simple, original and appropriate for families with children. The final recipes also will follow federal MyPlate guidelines for a healthy meal. “The single most important act anyone can do with their family is to sit down together and enjoy a home-cooked meal,” said Laurie David. “And if you do, your children will reap the benefits long into their adult years.” America Makes Dinner partners who will be sharing their favorite family dinner recipes include: • Daniel and Shauna Ahern, authors of “Gluten Free Girl: How I Found the Food That Loves Me Back” and “Gluten-Free Girl and the Chef” • Kristy Bernardo, personal chef and blogger for “The Wicked Noodle” • Floyd Cardoz, chef and Top Chef Masters winner • Tom Colicchio and Maria Hines, James Beard Award-winning chefs • Laurie David, producer and author of “The Family Dinner: Great Ways to Connect with Your Kids, One Meal at a Time” and her co-author, Kirstin Uhrenholdt • Cara Eisenpress, author of “In the Small Kitchen” and a Meatless Monday blogger • Sierra McCormick, of Disney’s “A.N.T. Farm” • Holly Smith, chef and James Beard Foundation Medal winner, and her son Oliver • Allison Sosna, chef and contestant on Food Network's “Chopped” “Most everyone agrees that eating dinner together is a good thing—good for our health, our families and our wallets,” said Cozi CEO Robbie Cape. “But things get in the way—like homework, soccer practice and not knowing quick and healthy recipes. Both Cozi and PHA are committed to helping build healthier futures for children, and we hope that families across the nation will join us to promote the importance of sitting down together as a family to have dinner and talk about their day.” “We know that when families eat together at home, they inevitably eat healthier,” said Larry Soler, PHA CEO. “America Makes Dinner is a great way to celebrate the power of families to make healthier choices together, and to inspire everyday families to share their favorite quick, healthy meals. We look forward to the recipes that America will cook up together this fall!” Families can visit www.americamakesdinner.com to find simple recipe ideas that follow MyPlate guidelines for a healthy meal and help choose the recipe finalists. About Cozi Cozi is a free Web and mobile service that simplifies busy family life. With Cozi, families have the tools to manage schedules and activities with an online calendar, track grocery lists, shopping lists and to do lists, plan meals and store recipes, organize household chores, and share family moments with relatives and friends—all with one solution. Families can access Cozi from any computer at home or at work, and can get their grocery list, shopping list, to do list,schedule and messages on any mobile phone. Located in Seattle, Wash., Cozi was founded by veterans of Microsoft, Expedia and Amazon with a vision for creating technology tuned to the family. Cozi has over 6million registered family members, and is available for free at www.cozi.com. About the Partnership for a Healthier America The Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) is devoted to working with the private sector to ensure the health of our nation’s youth by solving the childhood obesity crisis. In 2010, PHA was created in conjunction with – but independent from – First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! effort. PHA is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that is led by some of the nation's most respected health and childhood obesity experts. PHA brings together public, private and nonprofit leaders to broker meaningful commitments and develop strategies to end childhood obesity. Most important, PHA ensures that commitments made are commitments kept by working with unbiased, third parties to monitor and publicly report on the progress our partners are making. For more information about PHA, please visit www.aHealthierAmerica.org and follow PHA on Twitter @PHAnews.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

The Ag Minute: EPA's Eyes in the Sky Concerns Ag Community

The Ag Minute: EPA's Eyes in the Sky Concerns Ag Community WASHINGTON – This week during The Ag Minute, guest host Rep. Jeff Fortenberry discusses the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of aerial surveillance inspections of regulated livestock operations in Nebraska. Last week Rep. Fortenberry joined his Nebraska colleagues in writing a bipartisan, bicameral letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for information on the practice, specifically what statutory authority the agency is using to conduct these inspections. Click here to listen to The Ag Minute. The transcript is below. "Hi, I’m Congressman Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska. We are proud that agriculture is a bright spot in America’s economy, and the work of our farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers is essential to food security, conservation, energy policy, and even national security "But a problem has recently arisen that concerns much of the agricultural community. We learned that the government has eyes in the sky over good farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and surrounding states. "I'm working with my Nebraska colleagues in Congress to find out why the government has been sending planes over the farm operations of ag producers in the heartland. The Environmental Protection Agency has been using military-style drone planes to secretly observe livestock operations. Their rational is that this aerial surveillance is a cost-effective means of ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. But my colleagues and I are greatly concerned about the violations of farmers’ and ranchers’ civil liberties, and we want to know under what statutory authority the EPA believes it can conduct these flights. "Many Americans are rightly concerned with this government intrusion. There are many questions: How do they choose who is subject to this surveillance? Is surveillance strictly limited to compliance with the Clean Water Act? What happens to the photos and videos of these good citizens and their property afterward? There are a lot of privacy-related questions that the EPA should answer and I believe rural Americans deserve to know." The Ag Minute is Chairman Lucas's weekly radio address that is released from the House Agriculture Committee. a

Sen. Stabenow at the farm bill introduction

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today we have before us the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. It is more commonly known as the farm bill. It is critically important for America's farmers and ranchers. But it might also be known as the conservation bill, as the food bill, and, even better, the kitchen table bill because this bill affects every one of us. The Agriculture Committee is different from most other committees in Congress. Our committee room does not have a raised dais. Instead, we sit around a table just like families across the country do and just like farmers and ranchers do after a long day of work in the fields. To write this farm bill, we sat down around our table and we talked to each other and we listened to each other and we worked in a bipartisan way to craft a bill that creates jobs while cutting subsidies and reducing the deficit. The result of that effort is what is before us in the Senate. It is a bill that affects every family across the country. The farm bill makes it possible for many families to come together around their own kitchen tables to enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply. We are also aware, especially in this very tough economy, that many of our neighbors, many of our friends, many of our family members are struggling to put food on their own tables. The farm bill is critically important to those families as well. As we begin our debate in the Senate on the farm bill, let us remember the families all across the country who are counting on us to get this right. I want my colleagues to also remember that the farm bill is a jobs bill--16 million jobs. Sixteen million jobs in this country rely on the continued strength of American agriculture. They are the people doing the work it takes to put the food on our kitchen tables, not just those on the farm but those who manufacture, sell farm equipment, the people who ship the crops from one place to another, the people who have the farmers markets and local food hubs, the people who work in food processing and crop protection and crop fertility, not to mention the researchers and the scientists who worked hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food supply. Throughout this recession, as those 16 million people can attest, agriculture has been one of the truly bright spots in our economy. That is why we made such an important effort, such an important bipartisan effort in this farm bill to support beginning farmers as well. We are giving them additional support for training, mentoring, and outreach to ensure the success of our next generation of farmers. In addition, we are giving opportunities for U.S. veterans who are interested in pursuing a career in agriculture, and we are creating a military veterans agricultural liaison within the Department of Agriculture to educate veterans about farming and connecting them with beginning farmer training programs. I would also remind my colleagues that for those who have served and are serving us in Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of them--over half of them--are coming from small towns and rural communities and they are coming home. One of the ways to provide opportunities for jobs is to support them coming back to their community by having the opportunity to go into agriculture. One of the brightest spots in agriculture has been in exports. This chart shows the incredible growth of agricultural exports over the last number of years. In fact, total agricultural exports in 2011 alone reached $136 billion. It is a 270-percent increase just in the last 10 years, an explosion, as we reach out. American agriculture is looked to and depended upon to feed the families of the world. Our trade surplus is $42.5 billion. Let me repeat that. We have a significant trade surplus in agriculture. We cannot say that in much of any other place in our economy. But in agriculture we are growing it here at home. The jobs are here at home, and we are exporting it overseas, which is what I would like to see in every one of our industries. It is one of the few areas where we have that kind of success. We know that for every $1 billion in agricultural exports, we are creating 8,400 American jobs--8,400 American jobs for every $1 billion in exports. The investments we make in market development, in access for our agricultural products overseas, will continue to create jobs here at home. As we were writing the farm bill, we also did something that families all cross the country are doing during these very hard times. We went through everything we are spending, everything we are spending money on, and we looked at how we could do more for less. We literally went through every page of farm policy and agriculture spending through USDA. This bill represents major reforms that will allow us to focus fewer resources on the things that create jobs and make the biggest difference. In other words, we are refocusing. We are cutting the things that are not important and refocusing on the things that are and the things that create jobs. The Agriculture Reform Food and Jobs Act is about cutting subsidies and creating jobs in America. The reforms in this bill start on page 1 with the repeal of direct payments, countercyclical payments, and the Average Crop Revenue Election, which has been called the ACRE Program. We are creating a new approach, a new program that only helps farmers when there is a loss and only for crops they have actually planted, and we are strengthening payment limits. We are ending more than 100 programs and authorizations that are no longer needed, and we are doing all of this in order to be able to cut the deficit by $23 billion. The most fundamental reform in the Agriculture Reform Food and Jobs Act is the shift away from direct payments [[Page S3750]] and toward risk management for farmers. Throughout this process, we have been focused on principles, not programs, and the No. 1 principle is risk management. So we are repealing direct payments. We know farmers face unique risks unlike those in other businesses. Let me stress that again. I do not know of any business that has the same kind of risks in market volatility, in weather volatility than our farmers and ranchers do. It is very fortunate we still have people who want to stay in that business, given all the risks, weather and market conditions, which are out of producers' control. They can have devastating effects. We know that. But the current system focused around direct and countercyclical payments does not focus on actual risk and it is no longer defensible or sustainable. In this current fiscal and political environment, these programs actually jeopardize our ability to have a real safety net for farmers and the jobs that depend on them. That is why we are eliminating those programs and instead strengthening crop insurance as the centerpiece of risk management in the farm bill. This is the No. 1 issue we heard from every farmer who has testified before the committee, whether it was in Michigan or in Kansas or across the country. Every region of the country we have heard the same thing loudly and clearly. The basic foundation of support for producers is crop insurance. We are expanding crop insurance in the bill to include specialty crops and others as well. Because while we know crop insurance is the foundation, it does not work the same. It is not available for every commodity. That is a commitment we have made to expand crop insurance, including specialty crops, which are essentially the kinds of crops we are likely to find in the produce aisle of our supermarket or at the local farmers market: nuts, vegetables, fruits, and other products. This is an extremely diverse group of crops, and the bill recognizes the unique crop insurance needs of specialty crop growers. We are also taking strides to help young and beginning farmers get started and succeed in farming. We have made revisions to crop insurance to better help those new farmers by reducing their crop insurance premiums and providing additional support when disasters strike. Supplement crop insurance. This bill creates a simple market-oriented and risk-based program we are calling ARC, Agricultural Risk Coverage. ARC represents a significant and historic reform in agriculture policy. For years, Congress has struggled to balance the needs of different commodities, different programs. This is solved with the new ARC Program, which uses the market as a guide and treats every commodity the same. The current system essentially amounts to an income transfer from the Federal Treasury to only certain people, certain farmers, because payments are made every year without regard to whether the farmer had a successful year or whether the individual is farming. I say ``certain people'' because many farmers do not qualify for the help today as well. Direct and countercyclical payments are made using what is called base acres. That is the current system to determine the payments. Base acres were set using what was planted on the farms back in 1980s. So these base acres have little relevance to what is actually happening on many farms today. This change is also very important for new farmers. We have told beginning farmers this is a very important way to support them. Our ARC, on the other hand, the program we have developed in this bill, uses only the acres a farmer actually plants. It is able to adapt to free market forces and the decisions made being made on the farm without interference from those business decisions a farmer makes. We want the marketplace making the decisions, not the government. ARC is market oriented. Farmers only get help when the market moves in the opposite direction from historic price trends farmers use to plan their business and make planning decisions. The payment amount is based on actual historic numbers from the marketplace, not from the Halls of Congress. Finally, too many current program payments are being made to people who do not actually farm or already have large incomes. The farm bill fixes this. Under current law, we say farm payments can only go to people who are actively engaged in farming. This requirement contained a loophole, however, known as the management loophole that lets a farm operation designate managers who are not actually farming, but because they are listed as managers, they can still get a payment from the government, and it can allow them to get around the payment limits. That does not make any sense. Thanks to Senator Grassley, Senator Tim Johnson, who has legislation in this area--and Senator Grassley is a member of our committee who has been such a champion on this issue--we have eliminated that loophole and made sure the payments are going to people who are actually farming. This farm bill also reforms the adjusted gross income eligibility requirement, lowers it substantially, eliminating any payment to millionaires. Current law includes two AGI calculations, one for farm income, one for nonfarm income, which is confusing and difficult to administer. It may allow some people to split their income in a way that they are eligible for payments they otherwise would not be eligible for. We close this loophole. We use a single, simple AGI calculation and restrict the eligibility to those who have less than $750,000 in AGI. Finally, the farm bill caps payments at $50,000, less than half of what a farmer can currently receive. Coupled with closing the management loophole, the farm bill contains the tightest and strongest payment limit reforms ever, while maintaining and strengthening the farm safety net for farmers who really need it. And this is very important. This is not about eliminating options, it is about focusing on those who have the most risk and have the most need. In dairy, we also reform our Nation's dairy policies, replacing the dairy programs with new, market-oriented programs that allow farmers to manage their own risk in a manner that works best for them. The dairy industry suffered serious hardship in 2009, as many of us know--and certainly the Presiding Officer knows we in Michigan have the same thing--when milk prices dropped substantially, wiping out many small and medium-sized dairies. Despite spending $1.3 billion that year, our current dairy programs weren't able to help many of the farmers in crisis. In some cases, dairy farms that had been passed down from generation to generation went bankrupt and, sadly, some farmers even took their own lives. Dairy operations across the country are extremely diverse, and the dairy policies we are setting in this bill recognize that diversity. We created programs that can be customized by each dairy, and we allow individual dairies to determine whether to participate in the programs at all. Two programs will now comprise the dairy risk management system: the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. The first provides support based on margin--that is, the difference between the milk price and the feed input costs. This is important because rising grain prices, coupled with dropping milk prices, can have a devastating impact on America's dairies. Producers will have to share in the program's costs--and this is important--but it will allow them to manage their risk on more of their production at higher protection levels. We are providing a discounted premium for the first 4 million pounds of milk marketed for each producer--which is somewhere around 200 to 250 cows--to make sure that small and medium-sized operations will be able to participate and that all farms will be eligible. The second program, the Market Stabilization Program, sends clear market signals to producers that indicate when they are oversupplying the market. Dairy is a unique commodity in that it is produced 365 days a year, cows must be milked daily, the raw product requires further handling and processing, and there are significant regional differences in management and marketing. By temporarily reducing a participating operation's payment for milk marketed by a small percentage when there is too much supply, the [[Page S3751]] margin program removes the incentive for dairies to overproduce during times of low margins. The program also includes a suspension trigger based on world prices that ensures U.S. dairies are competitive in the global market. Conservation. Throughout this farm bill, we took the same approach as a family sitting around the table would when they are trying to figure out cuts in their own budget. We went through every program, again looked at what was working, what wasn't, looked for duplication and waste, and we focused on principles, not programs. An excellent example of that really is conservation. Farming is measured in generations. Farms are passed down from children to grandchildren. But a farm can only be successful if it has quality soil and clean water. One of the farmers who testified before our committee told us that conservation programs which ``enhance and protect our natural resource base is a crop insurance program for the nation.'' I would agree. With a growing global population, it is even more important than ever that we conserve water and conserve soil resources. Advances in technology and farm practices have helped our farmers be more productive than ever before, but no amount of technology can overcome degraded soils, poor water quality, or a lack of water. The farm bill is actually our Nation's single biggest investment in land and water conservation on private lands in our country. As we went through every program, we focused on making them more flexible and easier to use. We have been able to focus 23 different programs into 13. We have reduced it to 13 and put them in 4 primary functions, with a lot more flexibility for the users. The first function is working lands--giving farmers and ranchers the tools they need to be better stewards of the land. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program--or EQIP--is one of the most important conservation programs for working lands, providing technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest owners to help them conserve soil and water. This function also includes the Conservation Stewardship Program, which encourages higher levels of conservation and the adoption of emerging conservation technologies. We also continued the conservation innovation grants and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, which allows private landowners to get added benefits from their lands by opening them up to hunting, fishing, bird watching, and other kinds of outdoor recreation. We made these programs more flexible--and this is very important--and we added a focus on wildlife habitats and made them easier for farmers to take advantage of. The second area is the Conservation Reserve Program--very important. It removes highly erodible land from production to benefit soil and water quality as well as wildlife habitat. Parts of the Southwest-- certainly my friend and colleague from Kansas knows this--have experienced record droughts this year. It is stunning what has happened, and it is the worst since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. But the soil, while it was dry, stayed on the ground because the Conservation Reserve Program was a part of that change protecting the soil and air. Our conservation efforts are actually working, and we are seeing changes even in the worst of times as it relates to the droughts. CRP has also been critical in our efforts to rebuild wildlife populations and to reduce pollution in our streams, our rivers, and our lakes. We also continued an important transition incentives program to help older farmers transition their land to beginning farmers. Third, we focused on regional partnerships. We consolidated four different programs into one that will provide competitive, merit-based grants to regional partnerships comprised of conservation groups, universities, farmers, ranchers, and private landowners to support improvements to soil health, water quality and quantity, and wildlife habitat. That is certainly important to me for the Great Lakes--and I know the Presiding Officer cares about that as well--but it is also critical for the Chesapeake Bay. And I want to thank our colleagues from the bay area, certainly Senator Cardin and Senator Casey, who are on the committee, but also Senator Warner and Members all across the bay who have been deeply involved in making sure we get this right. It is also there for other critical areas around the country that have large-scale regional challenges around conservation. Finally, I am really proud of the work that was done around easements. Easements allow landowners to voluntarily enter into an agreement to preserve wetlands and farmland to protect against development and sprawl. This year, funding for both the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program were was out. So we streamlined and consolidated to establish an easement program with a permanent baseline going forward to protect agricultural lands from development. This bill also includes a bipartisan sodsaver provision, and I wish to thank Senators Thune, Johanns, and Sherrod Brown for bringing it forward, authoring it, and working with us. This provision helps prevent the plowing up of native prairie. Sodsaver is aimed at protecting grasslands at high risk of being converted to cropland. This is not only good for conservation, it saves taxpayers $200 million over 10 years, and it is tied to crop insurance. I should also say that while the conservation title in the farm bill is a big win for conservation of our environment, I am proud to say we have continued to link the commodity title, which I described earlier, to conservation. In crop insurance, the sodsaver program creates a penalty if, in fact, someone is plowing up native prairie. They would lose part of their discount under crop insurance if they did that. So it is tied there, and that is very important. I am very proud of the fact that we received support for our approach from 643 different conservation and environmental groups in all 50 States. I think that says loudly and clearly that it is possible to make smart cuts that increase flexibility without sacrificing effectiveness. Another area in which we have made significant strides is nutrition and healthy foods. For too long our Nation's farm bill ignored the diversity of agriculture and the kinds of healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, that families in America want to put on their kitchen tables as well. We made significant progress on this front in the 2008 farm bill, with the first-ever specialty crops title, and we have continued the progress in the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. As I said earlier, as I go to every part of Michigan, I meet people who have worked all their lives, paid taxes, and never imagined they would be put in a position where they would need help putting food on the table for their families. Because of this recession, which has been way too long in Michigan--it is getting better, but we have been hit harder, deeper, and longer than anywhere--a lot of families have had to ask for temporary help. And when they need it, whether it is food assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which used to be called food stamps and is now called SNAP, or whether it is help from a food bank, those families are grateful, and we should be there when they need that temporary help. We all expect those programs to have integrity. And as someone whose State has been hit harder than anyone else's, I want to make absolutely sure these programs are in place for families who need it, and that means making absolutely sure every dollar goes to only the families who need it. That is why we are closing loopholes that allowed lottery winners--and, unbelievably, we have had at least two instances of this in Michigan, where someone won the lottery and was able to continue on food assistance. It is shameful that so many American children go to bed hungry at night and outrageous that people who have won millions of dollars in the lottery would be able to continue food assistance. So we made it absolutely clear that those individuals would be removed from SNAP immediately. We are also cracking down on the trafficking of food assistance benefits. Right now, thanks to the efforts of the last farm bill, fraud is at an alltime low, but we can do even more. We are [[Page S3752]] giving additional resources to monitor and prevent benefit trafficking, as well as cracking down on liquor and tobacco stores that are currently allowed to participate in the program. We are making sure that only people returning to school for career and technical training are eligible for food assistance, not college students who are currently at home or being supported by their parents. Again, with so many families and so many children in need, we can't afford to divert funds in a way that just shouldn't be there. We must also ensure that the standards Congress created for SNAP are followed by the States. We are eliminating a gap in standards that has allowed 16 States, including Michigan, to give just $1 to people in the form of energy assistance to help them automatically qualify for additional SNAP benefits. We know families in parts of the country with high energy bills are often those who are most food insecure, and that is why we created the link between food assistance and LIHEAP. But it is clear Congress never intended for State governments to use this in a way that could jeopardize additional assistance for families with the highest utility bills. Just like with commodity programs, we need to make sure the work we are doing has integrity and is defensible in our current budget climate, and we do this in a very careful way to make sure we do not inadvertently hurt families who truly do have significant energy costs. In addition to increasing accountability, we are building on the success of programs that reduce hunger and improve access to healthy fruits and vegetables. We increase assistance for food banks through the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In 2010 more than 5 million people visited a food bank, and as we recover from this recession, it is absolutely critical that these organizations have food in stock to help those in need. We are streamlining the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income individuals, to focus on seniors, and we are moving women and children into the WIC Program, where they can be better served. We are continuing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which was authored originally by Senator Harkin when he was chairing the committee, and I was very proud to work with him on that. It provides free and healthy snacks to schools with a high number of low-income children, and it has been incredibly successful. This bill triples our support for farmers markets and gives them resources to develop local infrastructure such as food hubs. And we are continuing an effort to give low-income seniors access to healthy fruits and vegetables at farmers markets and roadside stands. We are increasing funding for innovative projects such as community gardens and urban greenhouse initiatives and protecting funding for programs that improve people's health. I should say that all of these are done with small amounts of dollars, but they are very effective. We are creating a national pilot modeled after Michigan's successful Double Up Food Bucks, which gives families relying on SNAP the opportunity to truly be able to buy fresh fruits and vegetables for their families. We are also authorizing the Healthy Food Financing Initiative to offer loans and grants to help address the problem of food deserts in underserved communities. We increased funding for several organic programs, which, by the way, is the fastest growing segment of American agriculture. We increased support for organic research and extension, and we nearly doubled funding for the organic cost-share program that supports farmers. This farm bill is a jobs bill, but it is also a food bill, and the 2012 farm bill goes a long way toward making sure every mom and dad can put healthy, nutritious food on the table for their children. As we worked through the farm bill around our table in the Agriculture Committee, we focused on streamlining and consolidating programs to get the best possible results. I think that is what people want us to do. I certainly know that is what people in Michigan want us to do. We certainly see that in conservation, but we also approached this in every part of the farm bill. In farm credit and rural development, we are streamlining the existing laws, removing unused provisions, and making authorizations more effective and the administration more effective so that when we have a part-time mayor who is trying to figure out rural development programs, they can actually do it and they actually use what have been extremely effective programs for rural communities. In our research title, we eliminated dozens of unused or indefensible authorizations but continued the most important research components and functions, while streamlining operations, improving accountability in the use of Federal research funds, and creating an innovative, new research foundation that matches private dollars and leverages Federal research dollars to get more innovative food and agricultural research. And I wish to thank my friend from Kansas, Senator Roberts, for his important leadership in this as well. We funded important energy programs, invested in specialty crops and organic farming, as I mentioned, and we have done all of this while saving the Federal taxpayers $23 billion. We did it around our table in the ag room, in a bipartisan fashion, working out differences and arriving at real solutions. In the coming days, as we get to debate on the farm bill, we will talk more about specifics, and I will join my colleagues from the committee in further explaining various aspects of the bill, and we will continue to work with all of our colleagues to find additional solutions and to improve the bill so that our farm programs work best for all of our regions and all of our States. While I will do everything I can to work out issues with our colleagues, I wish to stress the important balance we have struck in a bipartisan effort, the reforms we have undertaken, and the work we put into making real reforms without hurting families and without hurting farmers, who are so important to our economic recovery. I am very proud of the work we have been able to accomplish--it has been a lot of hard work--and the way we saved American taxpayers $23 billion through these reforms. I would encourage colleagues to look closely at the work we have done in the bill, to find a way to support it, to help us send a strong message to all Americans that this Congress, this Senate can make tough, smart decisions that cut spending, invest in America, and that we can do it together. Speaking of doing it together, I could not have done this without my friend and my partner, Senator Roberts, the ranking member from Kansas. This has been a long and difficult process, but frankly there is nobody I would rather have had sitting across the table from me as we worked out this bill. Too many people look at Washington and only see dysfunction and partisanship and divisiveness. Yet we on the Agriculture Committee have found a way to work together for the good of the country, for 16 million people who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. That couldn't have happened without Senator Roberts' leadership and support, and I thank him as we move forward on this bill.