Harkin: effective traceback needed

Sen. Tom Harkin makes a strong statement, with many points of his long letter in support of industry concerns expressed over the past several weeks. The question is now: what will "effective traceback" look like? From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the Chairman of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate an effective trace-back system to allow tracing of the origins of fresh produce in food safety outbreaks. Harkin did so as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced this week that since April, 1148 persons have been infected with Salmonella Saintpaul, with cases that have been identified in 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt, Harkin said that the Salmonella outbreak demonstrates the need for better coordination and communication among federal agencies, industry, and the states, as well as a strong trace-back system to determine the source of food-borne illness outbreaks.

“Each food-borne outbreak seems to be larger than the next, and in this case, over a month has lapsed and the origins of this case are still unknown,” said Harkin. “The victims of this outbreak are growing by the day and don’t know what food made them sick because the source of contamination remains a mystery to the Food and Drug Administration. How do you tell over 1000 people we don’t know what made them sick?

“In the face of stark warnings about the vulnerability of our food supply, it is time for the government to take action and implement effective trace-back processes so that we can quickly track the origins of contaminated food products in order to prevent increasing cases of illness. It is long past time for the government to take comprehensive steps to increase our response to food-borne illness outbreaks.”

The full text of the letter follows.

July 15, 2008

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Leavitt:

For over a month now, since June 3, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been communicating to the public and with the fresh produce industry about an extensive outbreak of Salmonella while conducting a trace-back investigation to determine the source of the outbreak. The growing outbreak - with 1,148 persons infected with Salmonella Saintpaul to date and with a growing list of suspected fresh produce items - points to the need for better coordination and communication among federal agencies and departments, and with states and industry. Most importantly, the outbreak once again underscores the need for a tracking and trace-back system that is modern, effective, and protects public health. This outbreak has shown that the systems in place at FDA and CDC to track down the source of a contamination event, regardless of whether the contamination is intentional or not, are woefully inadequate. The Salmonella outbreak also shows that substantive changes are needed in how FDA and CDC communicate with the public and with industry.

I don’t doubt the difficulty of the task or the dedication and hard work of FDA and CDC personnel. There are, however, many questions that need to be answered about this particular investigation, particularly if the source of the contamination is determined to be a product other than tomatoes, the primary suspect in this particular Salmonella outbreak. Both the tomato industry and at least one prominent food safety expert have questioned the slow, cumbersome, and potentially erroneous manner in which FDA has been conducting its trace-back investigation. For example, FDA and CDC have not emphasized comparing the origin of food products consumed by individuals who became ill with Salmonella Saintpaul and the origin of the same type of food products consumed by individuals who have not become ill from Salmonella. This practice of conducting a trace-back investigation of food products consumed by patients who are not sick seems to be one tool commonly used to identify the source of contamination. Why haven’t FDA and CDC employed this strategy during their own outbreak investigation? It seems that the scope of the search could have been narrowed down early by better investigation techniques and had a functional trace-back system been in place.

The inability of FDA and CDC to trace food products from farm to fork has been called into question by the Salmonella outbreak. There should have been a better system in place before this outbreak. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 requires facilities that manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or import food, except for farms and restaurants, to keep records on the immediate previous source and the immediate subsequent recipients of the food to establish a better trace-back process. The implementation of this Act’s trace-back requirement, as well as the trace-back techniques used in outbreak investigations, needs to be re-evaluated and improved upon in order for the agencies to conduct efficient and adequate trace-back investigations in the future. It is essential FDA move quickly to establish a strong trace-back system using its authority under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and its other authorities. I believe there is adequate existing FDA authority to implement an effective trace-back system. If FDA lacks authority in any respect to achieve this critical objective, Congress must be advised immediately on what is needed.

The events surrounding the Salmonella outbreak demonstrates a startling unfamiliarity with an industry whose safe food production FDA is supposed to oversee. The tomato industry as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have extensive knowledge and information on harvests, distribution patterns, and retailers that FDA and CDC can tap into in order to speed up trace-back investigations. USDA, the federal department that has the most contact with our nation’s agriculture producers, has been woefully underutilized throughout the entire outbreak process. It has been disturbing to witness FDA and CDC choose not to access this readily-available information from USDA or the tomato industry. This was most apparent by FDA’s compilation of a list of states and foreign countries that were not implicated in producing tomatoes suspected to be the source of the Salmonella outbreak.

If a good share of the tomato supply had been eliminated as a source early on, that would have helped to refocus the search and would have likely sped up solving the mystery, it would have allowed consumers to consume tomatoes and not worry, and would have avoided the enormous losses experienced by tomato growers and distributors. It would seem that FDA and CDC could have easily compiled a list of states and countries where tomatoes were not being harvested at the time of the outbreak. Instead, it was up to all 50 states as well as foreign countries to contact FDA and make a case why they should be on the list of cleared states and foreign countries. Consequently, the process used by FDA to determine which states were not the source of contaminated tomatoes seemed to be a subjective determination based on the ability of the state or country to contact FDA and make the case why that state or foreign country should be declared as a safe tomato producing region for purposes of the Salmonella outbreak. The manner in which this list was compiled is contrary to a logical investigation where decisions are based on objective information, and where FDA automatically could have ruled out all states that were not harvesting tomatoes during the outbreak.

Another point that highlights the need for better communications from FDA and CDC is the continued warnings against tomato consumption. It seems highly unlikely that tomatoes harvested in April would still be consumed fresh by consumers in late June. It does not make sense why there remains a strong warning against eating certain fresh tomatoes when most states have been cleared by FDA as having produced tomatoes not implicated in the Salmonella outbreak. The warning could be stated in a clearer fashion to assure customers that most tomatoes are safe to eat and are not part of the Salmonella outbreak. FDA and CDC have also failed to clearly inform consumers and retailers that only a fraction of fresh tomatoes were suspect and that many varieties were safe to eat as were all tomatoes from some states. Large restaurant chains, such as McDonald’s, discontinued all tomato purchases needlessly, since there were and still are plenty of tomatoes cleared of any implication of Salmonella contamination. The agencies should have provided clearer information to tomato retailers since some retailers’ complete ban on tomatoes added immensely to consumer misinformation. FDA and CDC should have also provided stronger, publicly-available guidelines to tomato retailers about which tomatoes to sell in order for consumers to know that retailers were not serving tomatoes not approved by the FDA.

FDA and CDC need to take measures immediately to improve their ability to trace-back products and to improve communications with the public and industry. The federal government has been cautioned numerous times in recent years about the potential threats that exist for intentional and non-intentional contamination of the food supply. If we do not have adequate trace-back and communications, the damage to public health and to industry in a future outbreak event can be much more devastating than the current Salmonella outbreak. It is clear that stronger prevention measures of food-borne illness outbreaks are needed, but this particular outbreak shows that our response system is in sore need of improvements as well.

I appreciate your attention to these pressing questions and I look forward to your response.


Sincerely,



Tom Harkin
Chairman

cc: Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, Centers for Disease control and Prevention
The Honorable Ed Schafer, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

In Lenexa and in Rome - Biofuels

Agriculture Under Secretary Tom Dorr visited The Packer's offices yesterday, primarily speaking of biofuels and food security. I'll have more on that session with Dorr and Vance Publishing editors in my column and on the blog later, but suffice to say he put up a spirited defense of the ethanol industry and warned about short sighted policy moves that could derail America's efforts to find alternative fuels.

The issue of biofuels impact on food prices and availability is looming large at the UN Food Security Summit in Rome. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer held a Q and A and I pulled out a couple of questions during the exchange. For one thing, I was shocked to hear Schafer's prediction of a 40% rise in global food prices in the next year; I thought I had been hearing numbers in the single digits, at least in the U.S. From the press conference:

REPORTER: Is it that biofuels is just one of many contributing factors? Could you have any figures for that for them? How many percent is that, is it contributes to the --

SEC. SCHAFER: Yes. We at the United States Department of Agriculture have plotted the long-term trends of price, yield, availability and consumption; and as we've looked at those long-term trends we are anticipating this year an over 40 percent increase in food price inflation globally, 43 percent approximately. Of that, we can identify 2 to 3 percent of that price increase that is driven by biofuels. The majority of course is energy, and the second largest piece, or about equal piece, is the increase in consumption around the world which is using up the production stocks. So we see, the figures that we are looking at show about a 3 percent, or a little under, effort on biofuels to actually drive up the inflation rate of food.

REPORTER: Stephanie Holmes from BBC News Website. You said that you think the biofuels only accounts for 2 to 3 percent of the price increases, but there are lots of estimates from respected think tanks that say it might account for up to a third. Would the U.S. consider a moratorium on biofuels? And also, they are not considered incredibly efficient; corn-based ethanol is not considered efficient as a means of making energy.

SEC. SCHAFER: Well, you know, it's one of the great things about the gathering of many countries at a place like this is to be able to reconcile numbers, to look at differences of opinion, to be able to come to some conclusion about what real numbers are or are not. As we have looked at the numbers, I think it's very clear that biofuels produce about 3 percent or a little under of the global inflation rate of food.

And beyond that, they produce many, many positive aspects. By biofuels, we are reducing the use of the high cost of oil today. It's been estimated that we have, through biofuel production, reduced a million barrels a day of oil and oil record high prices. That makes a lot of difference to a lot of people. Environmentally, they are better. There are things in gasoline, in the aromatics and things, that aren't as good as biofuels; they are better issue. And whether the energy created is more or less, is again a subject of debate. Many studies show that it is not [less energy created], that it is an efficient producer of energy. That as we've increased the fermenting process and increased the yields per acre of corn for instance as a feedstock, we have seen the cost of that energy go down and the efficiency go up.

So I am hoping that we can get together on some of these vast differences of opinion and come to some conclusions as to what's real versus what's emotional or socially driven or governmental driven. But you know, let's look at the numbers and see what we have.

REPORTER: Can I ask you, what's the subsidy the U.S. provides for its corn biofuel each year?

SEC. SCHAFER: We have currently a subsidy of [51] cents per gallon. That is going down now to [45] cents per gallon.

REPORTER: But as a total on an annual basis, how many millions of dollars?

SEC. SCHAFER: Oh, I don't know that number.

REPORTER: ... is that right?

SEC. SCHAFER: I don't know the number. Does anybody? We can get the number. We'll get the number for you. Thank you.

She's asking the total.

Odds and ends

Congratulations to all associations and lobbyists working with the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, with a special nod to United Fresh. While the larger farm bill has some pork and "airdropped earmarks" - what a great phrase, by the way - the specialty crop coalition may have set the model for federal support designed to boost competitiveness and improve public health with nary a worry for adjusted gross income limits of growers.

I just "rejected" an anonymous comment about Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. It didn't really offer much of reasoned critique, merely a unrestrained slam. Let's keep the criticism intelligent and issue and policy based, please.

The USDA's 196 page pdf of the Vegetable and Melon report is now available.

Check out the summary below:


U.S. production of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops increased 5 percent in calendar year 2007. In addition, fresh and processed imports for these crops were above a year earlier plus inventories of processed vegetables coming into the year were greater. As a result, total vegetable and melon supplies available for domestic use and export were up 5 percent to about 181 billion pounds in 2007. Buoyed by larger supplies, per capita net domestic use (disappearance) of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops increased 2 percent to 444 pounds (fresh-weight basis) in 2007. Potatoes (including potato products) remained the top vegetable crop in the United States (28 percent of total use), followed by tomatoes and products (20 percent), all lettuce (8 percent), sweet corn and products (6 percent), and onions (5 percent). Retail prices for fresh market vegetables increased 3 percent in 2007—the second smallest increase this decade. So far in the 2000s, fresh vegetable retail prices have increased an average of 4 percent annually, about the same as during the 1990s when prices were more variable. Consumer prices for processed fruit and vegetables increased 4 percent in 2007—the largest year-over-year gain since 2002. Although prices for frozen vegetables were little changed from a year earlier, for the second consecutive year, retail prices for canned and dried vegetables rose 3 percent. The farm value share of the retail cost of all fresh vegetables increased 4 percent in 2007 to an estimated 19.6 percent. The farm value share increased for fresh tomatoes and lettuce but declined for broccoli and potatoes. Although it has been relatively steady over the past 5 years, the share of retail value accounted for by the shipping-point price of fresh tomatoes has averaged about 28 percent this decade—down from 31 percent in the 1990s and 37 percent during the 1980s. The vegetable and melon trade deficit widened in 2007 as the value of imports increased more than the value of vegetable and melon exports. In 2007, nearly 17 percent of all the vegetables and melons consumed domestically was imported, with 32 percent of frozen vegetables being sourced from other nations, compared with 18 percent a decade earlier.

Schafer: Farm bill is bloated and earmark laden

Agriculture Secretary Schafer said in a statement yesterday the farm bill will "balance subsidy payments to the wealthy on the backs of the middle class taxpayer." President Bush will evidently veto this bill with gusto, though a majority of Republicans in the House voted for the bill. From the USDA:

Statement by Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer on House Passage of the Farm Bill Conference Report

Washington, D.C. - May 14, 2008 "For over a year, Congress has had the opportunity to work with the Administration to craft a farm bill that delivers reform to outdated, costly farm programs while strengthening the safety net and adhering to fiscal discipline in a time of nationwide economic challenge. Instead, Congress chose a different path, and today they passed a bloated, earmark laden bill that spends nearly $20 billion over its original cost and continues to balance subsidy payments to the wealthy on the backs of the middle class taxpayer.

"The bill passed today is a farm bill in name only. It does not target help for the farmers who really need it, and it increases the size and cost of government while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by damaging the credibility of farm bills in general. At a time of record setting income for farmers, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the country who are not experiencing the boom of the agriculture sector. This bill is loaded with taxpayer funded pet projects at a time when Americans are struggling to buy groceries and afford gas to get to work.

"Eight months behind schedule, Congress will send a bill to the President that is trade distorting and fails to provide meaningful reform to the adjusted gross income limit, beneficial interest or the international food aid program. However it is better late than never for the beneficiaries of the massive earmarks in this bill, like the $170 million for the salmon fishermen on the West Coast, or $500 million for a single entity land buy in Montana, just to name a few.

"Reckless spending like this is not what farm bills should be about. Congress had a real chance to implement reform and strengthen farm programs for the next decade. This reform could have allowed for savings to be reinvested in future agriculture needs, such as energy and research. Instead, they decided to spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to grow government and invest in the tired status quo.

"The President will veto this bill, and I encourage Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to support his stand for fiscal discipline and the best interests of America's farmers and ranchers."

Showdown

"I can't see calling the committee back together to pass an extension...if he vetoes the bill, looks like we will be back on the '49 act." Those are the words of Sen. Tom Harkin in an afternoon press conference.

Meanwhile, Earlier in the day, Agriculture Ed Schafer said President Bush will veto the bill and the Administration would like a two year extension of the current farm bill. And he said the Administration will work to sustain the veto -the veto pen won't be brought out just for political effect. Next week could be one of the more interesting weeks we have seen in farm policy in quite some time.....

The President will veto this bill

Start the vote counting in the House - The President will veto the farm bill. Just sliding across the inbox:

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ED SCHAFER ON CONGRESS' ANNOUNCEMENT OF A NEW FARM BILL
WASHINGTON, May 8, 2008- In January 2007, the President put forward a farm bill proposal that represents fiscal responsibility, would improve the safety-net for farmers and move current programs toward market oriented policies. Our proposals were warranted and timely considering that 2008 net farm income is forecast to be $92 billion - 51 percent above its 10 year average.
"Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs.

In addition, Congress decided to include a new permanent disaster program. This program represents a return to outdated farm policy and questions the government's investment in crop insurance which was designed to protect farmers against low commodity prices and crop failures. This action will discredit farm programs and jeopardize public support for future farm bills..

Americans appreciate our farmers and ranchers and understand the uncertainties and risks that farming presents. However, they do not understand why their taxes should be used to provide payments to individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 and higher, some of the wealthiest people in America.

We are also concerned about a lengthy list of extraneous provisions that are not related to farm programs and have no place in this legislation.
For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."

No idle threat

What was that line for Clint Eastwood's character in Sudden Impact? - "Go ahead, make my day." I wouldn't say President Bush wants to veto the farm bill, but he is acting a lot like Harry Callahan with a .44 of late. I'll have some coverage of Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer's speech at United for The Packer, but in general he wasn't very optimistic that the farm bill as it is now constituted has much of a chance to be signed by President Bush. I asked Schafer if the farm bill is going to fall victim to a political choice by President Bush to make a statement against excess government spending and taxes. He didn't agree with my premise and in fact suggested that Congress may be willing to override a Presidential veto on an unworthy farm bill to score political points with their constituents. Eye of the beholder...

KORUS FTA back in play

Will the opening of the South Korea market for U.S. beef spur prospects for the U.S. - Korean free trade deal? That's certainly the wish of the Administration, and such an outcome could be a big boost to U.S. fruit exporters as well. Here is the statement from Agriculture Ed Schafer:

Today's announcement that South Korea has fully complied with international trade standards regarding beef and beef products is great news for America's ranchers and beef industry. By allowing complete market access for U.S. beef and beef products from cattle of all ages, South Korea has made a decision that is based on science and in line with international guidelines. As a result of a constructive and steady dialogue, Korean consumers will again have access to safe, affordable, high-quality beef at a time when global commodity prices are tightening.

"In May 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) formally classified the United States as a controlled risk country for BSE. This status confirmed that U.S. BSE regulatory controls are effective and that U.S. beef and beef products of all ages can be safely traded. Before the Korean market was closed to U.S. beef and beef products in December 2003, following the detection of a case of BSE in the state of Washington, Korea was the third largest export market for U.S. beef and beef products, with annual sales more than $815 million. Since that time, Korea's economy has grown and more of its population enjoys increased incomes and a better way of life. That is why Congress's immediate consideration of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) is important. Once the KORUS FTA is ratified and implemented, and the current 40 percent tariffs on U.S. beef are fully lifted, the FTA is expected to generate tariff savings of approximately $500 million a year for U.S beef exporters. The International Trade Commission estimates that under the FTA, U.S. beef exports to South Korea could increase by $600 million to $1.8 billion.

"South Korea has raised the bar for other Asian nations, such as Japan, Taiwan and China, and the United States will continue to press for full market access throughout the rest of the Pacific Rim so that unreasonable restrictions on U.S. beef and beef products are fully removed."

Optimism O-Meter running low

I asked a Washington lobbyist today how optimistic she was about the farm bill. How is the Optimism-O-Meter running?

Right now the needle is wavering and dipping down to the red zone. There are only so many ways to give a "farm bill update" - truly an oxymoronic expression in recent weeks. I wish Las Vegas odds makers had a book on the chance of the farm bill passing. Then perhaps we could get a realistic perspective on where the process stands. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer is nothing but "optimistic" about passing a new farm bill. The same goes with Sen. Tom Harkin, also doggedly upbeat.

But will we have a bill, or close to it, by April 18?

Will offsets be found that everyone can agree on ?

What types of new reforms will be necessary for farm bill passage?

Will specialty crops and nutrition receive their fair share?

Will the White House demand a two year extension if Congress can't come to grips with a solution?

Kathy Means - ATAC

It is good to see Kathy Means back in the news cycle, and this news release from PMA indicates a prestigious appointment for the long time association exec. From PMA:


Produce Marketing Association’s (PMA) Vice President of Government Relations Kathy Means has been named to serve the 2008-2012 term on the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) for Trade in Fruits and Vegetables. Appointed by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer and U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, Means is one of 34 chosen nationally to sit on the committee.

The ATAC for Trade in Fruits and Vegetables provides technical information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative on matters specific to produce. The committee is part of the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Trade Representatives Agriculture Advisory program, which includes the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee and five other commodity-specific ATACs in addition to fruits and vegetables. The program’s committees ensure cooperation between the federal government and private sector on agricultural trade issues.

“I’m honored to have been selected and ready to act as a voice for our industry at this influential level,” Means commented. “On behalf of PMA, I have been involved in food safety and security issues, immigration reform, country of origin labeling, and other critical industry concerns. Those experiences will help me advocate in the interests of the produce industry and PMA’s members.”

The USTR defers to the committee’s counsel on “…U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before the United States enters into trade agreements; on the operation of existing trade agreements; and on other matters related to the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. agricultural trade policy.”

“Advisory committee members must balance varied perspectives, are recognized leaders in their fields, and possess significant knowledge of the effects trade barriers or lack of barriers have on fruits and vegetables,” said PMA President Bryan Silbermann. “Kathy fits the role perfectly, and PMA is thrilled the USTR recognizes the same leadership qualities in Kathy our association and membership is fortunate to benefit from every day.”

Means joined PMA in 1989 and is responsible for government affairs, public affairs, and self-regulatory programs in addition to leading the association’s food safety and security efforts. Prior to PMA, she spent nine years with The Packer, the trade newspaper for the produce industry, as an editor and reporter. She earned the Certified Association Executive (CAE) designation in 1996, and carries a master’s in nonprofit management and bachelor's degrees in journalism and French.

The throng at the gates and looking for Mr. Daschle

While United Fresh lobbyist Robert Guenther said tenuous progress is reported in farm bill negotiations, nothing is certain yet. Meanwhile, I read in some farm bill coverage that the process needs a "stopper" to get this thing to an end game, much like Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota, did in 2002 farm bill negotiations. From Delta Farm Press:

Where’s Tom Daschle when you need him? The last time Congress wrote a farm bill, Daschle, or so the story goes, called agriculture committee leaders in at one point and told them to pass a farm bill. Period. End of story.
House and Senate conference committee members went back to work, compromised on some tough issues, voted out a conference report that was passed by both Houses and signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002.
By the time Daschle, the then-Senate majority leader, took action, House and Senate conferees had been meeting from January until April — longer than they’ve been negotiating the current bill. The conference committee for this farm bill has yet to meet.
That’s not the only difference. In 2002, the Bush administration played the role of observer, providing deputy undersecretaries to answer questions about how USDA mght implement provisions of the bill.
Then-Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman made general statements about administration policy on the farm bill but did travel around the country telling groups how the president would veto the farm bill if it (1) contained tax increases or (2) did not include reforms such as a lower adjusted gross income ceiling on payments.
Both Secretary Ed Schafer and Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, have missed few opportunities to get out and claim the House and Senate farm bills raise taxes and “do not target support to producers who need it the most.”
In response, House and Senate agriculture leaders claim the bills are more about closing tax loopholes and requiring royalty payments on offshore oil wells. And they note they are paying for the farm bill as they go rather than simply increasing spending as the administration has done with the economic stimulus package.
The House and Senate conference committee could reconcile the two versions of the farm bill within a matter of days — once House leaders actually name the House members. Instead, committee leaders have spent most of the last three months trying to compromise with the White House.
Reps. Collin Peterson and Bob Goodlatte, the chairman and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, and Sens. Tom Harkin and Saxby Chambliss, chairman and ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, reportedly have agreed on a spending figure of $10 billion over the baseline projected for the farm bill.
But that has caused other committee members such as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., to call the compromise “dead on arrival” because other spending priorities will not leave the $5.5 billion they need for their permanent disaster program.
For now, Congress is working on a new deadline of April 19 to replace or extend the current law. After that, the fall elections will begin to prove more distracting. If farmers are to have a new law in 2008, it’s time for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step up and do a “Tom Daschle.”

TK: Farmers aren't the only ones upset at the process. This column Ditch this farm bill by Deroy Murdock, takes a more acidic view of the farm bill and the "family farm."

In short, Congress shakes down taxpayers (many in foreclosure) for $286 billion to subsidize farmers already in cornucopian bliss. Their record crop prices, in turn, fatten supermarket and restaurant tabs, which squeeze taxpayers' wallets yet again. Frightfully, these factors stir Third World hunger and chaos.

If this were Bourbon, France, citizens would be at Versailles' gates, justifiably screaming for justice.

Still pushing

I just listened to Agriculture Secretary's Ed Schafer's teleconference this morning and the main message was that the House and Senate should resolve their differences over funding and work with the White House from one negotiating position. Schafer said there continue to be fights in the House and Senate about jurisdiction, funding and control. "Frankly we can't go anywhere unless they come up with a solid effort and say, this is what we stand for," he said. It is clear the Administration doesn't want an extension of the 2002 farm bill. "Most operators fare better with the new farm bill than the current farm bill," he said, mentioning specialty crop growers, nutrition funding and energy provisions. "There are too many things we need to just set it aside."

Farm bill blink

It's a game of chicken, or rather corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, food stamps, conservation programs and specialty crop priorities. But who will blink? Here is the latest from the Administration about where farm bill negotiations stand, followed by an earlier statement about a new offer from Sens. Harkin and Chambliss.

Statement by Secretary Ed Schafer and Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner Regarding the Senate's Farm Bill Proposal
February 15, 2008
The Senate's most recent farm bill proposal recommends increases in taxes and significantly grows the size and scope of government while failing to implement much needed reform in our current farm bill programs. We are disappointed that the Senate has not joined the House in proposing a package that seeks fiscal discipline and real reform while providing a true safety net.
The President has said time and time again that he will not support a bill that raises taxes and uses taxpayer dollars to increase the size of government, and tof hat is exactly what this proposal does.
We believe that, working together, the House, Senate and the Administration can move forward with a true reform minded farm bill that remains at around $6 billion over baseline. The Senate offer looks to increase spending by at least $16.5 billion.
Although we remain encouraged with the efforts of the House and the amount of dialogue put forward in this process, this Senate proposal is a step away from passing a farm bill.
We continue to encourage the House and Senate to work together to quickly agree on a farm bill that the President can sign. This proposal does not reach this goal


From Sens. Harkin and Chambliss:

Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry today issued the following statement after the Senate submitted a farm bill proposal to the House. The farm bill is currently being negotiated between the Senate and House. Harkin is chair of the conference committee.

“This afternoon, Senate farm bill negotiators submitted a spending proposal to the House that meets the needs of this farm bill without having to cut back on the critical investments made by the Senate-passed bill in renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, rural development and better diets and health for all Americans. Support for these investments was strong in the Senate, where our measure passed by one of the largest farm bill votes in history. Support for this effort was also strong in rural America, where spending on agriculture is a small part of the overall federal budget. “The Senate proposal provides an outline of spending that is $12.3 billion above baseline – spending that is not only critical for farmers and rural America, but also our nation as a whole. The goal now is to reach agreement with House negotiators and the White House so we can identify funding mechanisms to support these investments that the White House, Senate and House can agree upon. I remain optimistic that all negotiators will see the benefits of swift action and agreement so that we can bring the farm bill to fruition.”

Farm bill progress?

No insider ag lobbyist info to share here, since I've been restricted to email communications this week because of travel. I'm within a stone's throw of the Kremlin right now(figuratively speaking), staying at the grand Hotel Metropol in Moscow as I wind up some interview on fresh produce exports to Russia. But I note that the USDA has issued this statement Wednesday afternoon:

Statement by USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner on Current Farm Bill Negotiations

February 13, 2008

The Administration appreciates the great work of Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte in bringing us this far. The funding limits outlined by the House represent the real reform sought by the Administration. Mr. Peterson and Goodlatte rightfully took the President's concern seriously and the outline was developed in an effort to reach fiscal responsibility. While there is still hard negotiating ahead on a number of items, we are pleased with our progress on budget issues.

The Administration is working hard to identify roughly $6 billion over baseline to be used to fund this package in such a way as to meet Congress' pay-go rules. We will continue to work closely with the conference committee in order to identify such offsets. We are confident this can be done and we can move forward with a good farm bill.

With these reforms and with acceptable offsets for the $6 billion of additional spending, we believe this offer represents a package that is moving in a direction of a bill that the President would sign.

We urge the House and Senate to use this proposal as the framework for a conference agreement. Without action sometime soon, we risk not reaching a final agreement that would provide a long-term safety net for America's farmers and ranchers.



TK: It sounds as if the Administration is being asked to do some of the heavy lifting in terms of finding funding, since their original proposal was over baseline but did not identify where the offsets would come from.


From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

“Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte have my thanks for working with their House colleagues to formulate and share their draft farm bill spending outline. This outline is provided as a basis for further collaborative work and negotiation, and that’s the spirit in which it should be received and judged here in the Senate, where we of course have our own perspectives.

“With the remaining time for enacting a new farm bill so short, it is critical that we now move ahead quickly to identify common ground, forge understandings and cooperatively build a joint, bipartisan framework for the new farm bill acceptable to both the Senate and House of Representatives.
“We cannot enact this critically important legislation for which farmers, rural America and our nation are waiting without the help of President Bush. While I commend USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner for all of his hard work and effort, the White House is still withholding the cooperation – particularly on obtaining funding – that we must have to complete a new farm bill. So I urge President Bush to lay aside veto threats and work with us so we can get this job done

Harkin rankled

Just sliding across my inbox, from the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following comment after President Bush explicitly threatened o veto the farm bill during the swearing in ceremony of Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and Chair of the conference committee on the farm bill.

“For President Bush to continue to take a hard line and threaten to veto a farm bill is unproductive and against the bipartisan spirit that made this bill a reality and that carried it through the Senate with one of the largest votes in the history of farm bills. This measure is critical for our farming families and rural communities in Iowa and across this country, so I urge the president to back away from this position and instead work with farm bill negotiators to come up with a bill he can sign. The Senate farm bill is a good, strong measure that balances spending with revenues raised by closing tax loopholes and ending tax abuses – not by raising taxes – as the President has suggested.”

Side by Side

Here is the link to the Senate Agriculture Committee Web site that provides "side by side" comparison of the House version and Senate versions of the farm bill, along with references to existing law. Meanwhile, the Senate has named members of farm bill conference from that chamber, with the good news for specialty crop growers that Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan is among their number. From a Senate Ag Committee news release:

Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, announced this evening the names of the Senators who will join the conference committee tasked with merging the Senate farm bill with the House of Representatives’ version. Senator Harkin will chair the conference committee.

“This group of Senators represents diversity in terms of geography, leadership posts and expertise. I know that we will work well together and meld together a farm bill that fits our country’s needs,” said Chairman Harkin. “I look forward to working with Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Colin Peterson as well as the new Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer in reaching our goals of a farm bill that makes important investments in conservation, renewable energy, nutrition and rural development.” “I am pleased to join Sen. Harkin in naming the Senators that will serve on the conference committee to complete the farm bill,” said Ranking Member Chambliss. “Our farmers and ranchers are in the midst of making important planting decisions and we must complete this bill as soon as possible.” The list of Democratic Senators selected for the conference committee: Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D-MT); Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-ND); Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Senate Agriculture Committee Member Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Senate Agriculture Committee Member Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The list of the Republican Senators selected for the conference committee in addition to Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) are: Former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley (R-IA); Ranking Member Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran (R-MS); and Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS).

Schafer: USDA budget summary

Here are some highlights from Agriculture Secretary Schafer's summary of the White House fiscal year 2009 agriculture budget. Note the large proportion of spending that is mandatory as opposed to discretionary funding and the big drop in farm program payments this year:

Total USDA expenditures are estimated at $95 billion in FY 2009, which is approximately the same level as FY 2008. Roughly 76 percent of expenditures, or $72 billion in 2009, will be for mandatory programs that provide services required by law, which include many of the nutrition assistance, commodity, export promotion and conservation programs.

USDA's discretionary programs account for the remaining 24 percent of expenditures, or $23 billion in 2009. Discretionary programs include the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program; rural development loans and grants; research and education; soil and water conservation technical assistance; management of National Forests and domestic marketing assistance.

In January 2007, the Administrationnnounced a comprehensive set of farm bill proposals for strengthening the farm economy and rural America. These proposals represent a reform-minded, fiscally responsible approach to supporting America's farmers and ranchers. The President's 2009 budget is based on the provisions of the 2002 farm bill and reflects the Administration's proposals for changes. Enactment of a farm bill will affect some of the estimates in the 2009 budget.

TK: The White House still pines for its own farm bill - but will it get what it wants?


Highlights....

Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative. The budget proposes $264 million for on-going programs to support the multi-agency Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative. The 2009 budget represents an $81 million increase for USDA to continue improving the safety and security of America's food supply and agriculture. Funding increases include: $14 million to enhance research related to protecting the Nation's food supplies; $20 million for research to improve animal vaccines, diagnostic tests, and other efforts; and $47 million to enhance surveillance and monitoring of pest and disease threats, strengthen response capabilities, improve animal identification, and other efforts.

Food Safety. The budget requests a record funding level of $1.1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This funding will ensure that the demand for inspection is met and will allow us to build on our success in improving the safety of the food supply. USDA has been working to strengthen the scientific basis of meat, poultry and egg products inspection so the risk of exposure to any food contaminant will be even less than it is now. This includes continuing the Department's effort to increase the speed with which we can detect and respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness.

Farm Support Programs. The Department's farm support programs receive mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Under current law, CCC expenditures are projected to decline from $20.2 billion in 2005 and 2006 to $10.5 billion in 2009 under current law. The decline in net outlays since 2006 has been the result of higher commodity prices due to the growth in ethanol production, poor weather conditions around the world, rising market demand in Asia, and other factors. In 2007, the Administration submitted a comprehensive set of fiscally responsible farm bill proposals for strengthening the farm economy. The Administration's proposals would save about $600 million in commodity program outlays in 2009 compared to projected costs under current law.


Domestic Nutrition Assistance Participation and Funding. The budget provides resources for increased participation and food costs in USDA's three major nutrition assistance programs: Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and WIC, with the nutrition assistance budget totaling $62 billion. Food Stamp participation is projected to increase 200,000 from an average of 27.8 million in 2008 to about 28 million in 2009. The maximum Food Stamp allotment will increase by approximately 5 percent. The budget of $40.2 billion includes resources to fully fund estimated Food Stamp participation. The budget also provides a $3 billion contingency fund if actual costs exceed the estimated level. School Lunch participation is estimated to reach 32.1 million children each day. The budget provides nearly $600 million in increases in Child Nutrition Programs to accommodate program needs for a total budget of $15.3 billion. The budget proposes $6.3 billion to support an average of 8.6 million WIC participants per month, up from 8.5 million in 2008.
dget includes nearly $15 billion for rural development programs. This level of funding supports the Administration's policy to maintain rental assistance for 230,000 low-income households that reside in USDA financed multi-family housing. An estimated 43,000 rural homeownership opportunities would be generated by $4.8 billion in loan guarantees. Funding for USDA's other key loan, loan guarantee and grant programs includes $1.6 billion for the water and waste disposal program, $4.1 billion for electric loans, $690 million for the telecommunication program, $298 million for the broadband access loan program, $512 million for the community programs, and $700 million for the business and industry program.

Welcome aboard

One wonders if the newly minted Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer will greet the Feb. 7-8 meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee. Schafer will have to get up to speed quickly, and farm lobbyists are more than willing to help. Here, American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman gave this greeting to Ed Schafer yesterday:

“As the opportunity arises, we will offer Secretary Schafer insights on the new farm bill from our farmer and rancher members who work on the land to provide food, fiber and fuel for our nation. We look forward to working with him and thank his predecessor, Chuck Conner, for his efforts as acting secretary.”



From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

“As a former North Dakota Governor, Ed Schafer has a background leading a state in which agriculture is critical. Agriculture is likewise a vital part of our national economy and thus the leadership of USDA must be forward-looking and energetic. So I congratulate him on his Senate confirmation today and I look forward to working with him in the weeks and months ahead. It is critical that USDA work with Congress to overcome the challenges in completing a new farm bill for the department to implement. Governor Schafer’s leadership can help make this new farm bill a reality."

Schafer action today

It appears the Senate is poised to confirm Ed Schafer by consent agreement this afternoon, from a report from the office of Sen. Tom Harkin.

Here is the Wikipedia reference page on Schafer, with some recent history:

Schafer has also served as an advisor and sometimes spokesperson for the North Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a nationwide limited-government/pro-growth organization.

On October 31, 2007 Schafer was nominated by President Bush to be the next Secretary of Agriculture[1]. His hearing was originally scheduled for January 30, 2008, but was moved to January 24 on the request on North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad so that Schafer could attend the State of the Union address as a cabinet member[2]. The hearing was held on January 24; it was friendly[3], with Senators asking Gov. Schafer questions on various topics such as US beef exports to Japan and South Korea, the Department of Agriculture's ability to deliver on programs passed by Congress, policy on sugar, and cotton prices[4].

What's going on

If any members of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group want to participate in a trial run on the Google Talk feature (online chat embedded in the blog), shoot me an email and I will invite you. I anticipate this might be a new forum to conduct an interview with a member of The Packer's team and other industry leaders. (I thought one interesting subject out of the gate may be Pamela R of The Packer, as she is taking on media spokesperson duties for sister site Produce Guru). This may take time to figure out.

My email is tkarst@thepacker.com if you want me to send you an invite to check out the Google Talk feature. You do need to have a Google account to participate.

In other news, the nomination hearing of Agriculture Secretary designate Edward Schafer, former governor of North Dakota, was held today by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said this in his opening remarks (provided by his office).

“Among your key responsibilities is faithfully carrying out the laws that Congress writes and the President signs. Currently, we face a big challenge in completing a new farm bill for you to implement. The Senate and the House of Representatives have each passed versions of a new farm bill. Both bills have significant improvements and reforms to benefit agriculture, rural communities and our nation as a whole. In our Senate bill we continue and improve a solid farm income protection system, and we make critical new investments to conserve our resources, promote rural energy initiatives, alleviate hunger and malnutrition, and boost the economy and quality of life in rural communities.

“Unfortunately, we do not yet have the support of the President for funding the critical, forward-looking investments crafted by the Agriculture Committees and approved by the House and the Senate. We have a good deal of hard work and negotiation with the White House ahead of us on the new farm bill. Yet I am hopeful that we can approach this challenge reasonably and cooperate to reach agreements. Governor Schafer, we look forward to working with you, and we are counting on your help in working out differences in order to enact a sound new farm for our nation.

TK: Harkin and other senators are sure to test the resolve of Schafer out the gate, as the tension of the Administration's veto threat of the farm bill is balanced by Schafer's natural instincts to be agreeable. Schafer is expected to be confirmed easily. Still, look for Chuck Conner to continue to be the point person and tough talker for the Administration on the farm bill.