Archives for the 'Organic Agriculture' Category
RMA Drops Surcharge on Some Organic Crops
Tuesday, August 31st, 2010
On Tuesday, August 31, USDA’s Risk Management Agency announced that it would eliminate the 5 percent surcharge imposed on organic producers for certain tree crops and would offer an organic price election for cotton, corn, soybeans and processing tomatoes.
NSAC members and allies fought hard to remove unjustified barriers to participation in crop insurance programs for organic producers in the 2008 Farm Bill. USDA’s Risk Management Agency has required all organic farmers participating in crop insurance programs to pay a 5 percent surcharge. Adding insult to injury, organic producers are only reimbursed for the conventional rather than organic crop price when they suffer a loss.
In the 2008 Farm Bill Congress directed RMA to evaluate available data on risk of loss between organic and conventional systems and to determine whether the surcharge was justified. The Farm Bill also directed RMA to offer producers of organic crops an additional price election that reflects actual prices received by organic producers for crops.
The crops for which the surcharge is now being removed are figs, pears, peppers, prunes, macadamia trees, Florida citrus fruit, Texas citrus fruit, Florida fruit trees, and Texas citrus trees. The surcharge will continue for now on all other crops.
Also on Tuesday, USDA released three reports here, here and here which evaluate available data on risk assessment and organic prices. In its release USDA promises to continue to accumulate and evaluate data necessary to eliminate the surcharge and offer an organic price election on a wider range of crops.
This is a good first step but it would appear that USDA has yet to justify the surcharge as the 2008 Farm Bill requires and more progress needs to be made in providing appropriate risk management options to organic producers. Hopefully additional announcements will be forthcoming soon.
National Organic Program News
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010
The August edition of the National Organic Program newsletter features stories on the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program and its new program manager, as well as news on the upcoming National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in October. The NOP also released news this week on the use of methionine in organic poultry production.
Cost Share Money Still Available
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition member groups and allies recently had a conference call with Betsy Rakola, the new cost share program manager (and a graduate of the Agriculture, Food and Environment program at Tufts University), to discuss ways to increase outreach for the program.
NSAC helped create and win funding for the program during the last two farm bill campaigns.
Once certified by an accredited certifying agent, organic farmers and handlers may be reimbursed up to 75 percent of the costs related to certification, not to exceed $750 annually.
The article correctly notes that the program originated “when Congress designated funds to alleviate the financial burden of organic certification. Recognizing the increased costs for those participating in the organic market, the program was intended to make certification more affordable.”
Funding is still available in the current fiscal year.
“It’s important for producers and handlers to take advantage of this opportunity before the fiscal year ends,” noted Rakola. “Sept. 30 is rapidly approaching, so individuals seeking reimbursement should work with their state agencies and certifiers to submit a complete application as soon as possible.”
NSAC members are pleased to know that Rakola intends to streamline service to state agencies, improve program reporting, institute better guidance and training, and increase outreach.
To participate in the program, contact your state agency. Contact information can be found here.
NOSB in October
The next NOSB meeting is set for October 25-28 in Madison, Wisconsin. The meeting is open to the public, with public comment scheduled for the 25th and 27th. To sign up to make comments, contact Lisa Ahramjian at 202-690-3962.
The agenda includes proposed recommendations on nanotechnology, apiculture, use of animal healthcare products, the “made with” organic claim, and updates to the NOSB Policy and Procedures Manual and New Member Guide.
Discussion documents include animal stocking rates; animal handling, transit, and slaughter; and nutrient vitamins and minerals.
Methionine in Organic Poultry Production
Revised Senate Food Safety Bill Includes Important Amendments
Friday, August 13th, 2010
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee released a copy of the “manager’s amendment” to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) which is, in essence, the bill as reported out of the HELP Committee late last year as modified by a long and arduous set of negotiations that have taken place since that time to work out particular issues.
The manager’s package has the support of HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) as well as the four lead sponsors of the underlying bill, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Richard Burr (R-NC).
The manager’s amendment will be adopted if and when the bill comes to the Senate floor in September when Congress returns from its summer recess.
The full manager’s package is available at http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/WHI10337.pdf.
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Manager’s package version of the bill as costing $1.6 billion over the next five years.
In releasing the new version of the bill, Senator Harkin said, “For far too long, the headlines have told the story of why this measure is so urgently needed: foodborne illness outbreaks, product recalls and Americans sickened over the food they eat. This 100-year-old plus food safety structure needed to be modernized. I am pleased that after a great deal of time and effort from members on both sides of the aisle, we have a strong, bipartisan proposal that will overhaul our current food safety system – a system that right now fails far too many American consumers. I am confident that the remaining details will be worked out and am hopeful that the measure will come to the Senate floor as soon as possible.”
Most sustainable agriculture and family farm groups think the Senate bill is a very significant improvement over the companion bill passed by the House of Representatives (HR 2749) last year. We’ve been able to help make substantial improvements in the Senate bill through the HELP markup and in changes that will be adopted as part of the manager’s amendment when the bill comes to the Senate floor. Assuming the Tester amendment (see below) can be worked out and agreed to before Senate floor action, we will be able to support the Senate bill. However, we strongly oppose the companion House measure, and stand ready to defend the Senate bill in conference with the House should that prove necessary.
The Managers package includes the following important improvements to the bill as reported out of committee last year:
- The amendment sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pertaining to farms that engage in value-added processing or that co-mingle product from several farms. It will provide the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to either exempt farms engaged in low or no risk processing or co-mingling activities from new regulatory requirements or to modify particular regulatory requirements for such farming operations. Included within the purview of the amendment are exemptions or flexibilities with respect to requirements within S. 510 for food safety preventative control plans and FDA on-farm inspections.
- The amendments sponsored by Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) to reduce unnecessary paperwork and excess regulation. The Bennet language pertains to both the preventative control plan and the produce standards sections of the bill. FDA is instructed to provide flexibility for small processors including on-farm processing, to minimize the burden of compliance with regulations, and to minimize the number of different standards that apply to separate foods. FDA will also be prohibited from requiring farms and other food facilities to hire consultants to write food safety plans or to identify, implement, certify or audit those plans. With respect to produce standards, FDA will also be given the discretion to develop rules for categories of foods or for mixtures of foods rather than necessarily needing to have a separate rule for each specific commodity or to regulate specific crops if the real food safety issue involved mixtures only.
- The amendment sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to provide for a USDA-delivered competitive grants program for food safety training for farmers, small processors and wholesalers. The training projects will prioritize small and mid-scale farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and small food processors and wholesalers. The program will be administered by USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture. As is the case for all of the provisions in S. 510, funding for the bill and for this competitive grants program will happen through the annual agriculture appropriations bill process.
- The effort championed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to strip the bill of wildlife-threatening enforcement against “animal encroachment” of farms is also in the manager’s package. It will require FDA to apply sound science to any requirements that might impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms.
- An amendment proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to amend the traceability and recordkeeping section of the bill that will exempt food that is direct marketed from farmers to consumers or to grocery stores and exempt food that has labeling that preserves the identity of the farm that produced the food. The amendment also prevents FDA from requiring any farm from needing to keep records beyond the first point of sale when the product leaves the farm, except in the case of farms that co-mingle product from multiple farms, in which case they must also keep records one step back as well as one step forward.
Not in the package but still under serious negotiation for inclusion in the bill when it reaches the floor of the Senate is an amendment by Senator John Tester (D-MT) to exempt food facilities with under a certain annual gross sales threshold from preventative control plan requirements and to exempt farmers who primarily direct market product to consumers, stores or restaurants from the bill’s produce standards regulations. Our expectation is this amendment will be successfully negotiated over the coming weeks and will be accepted as part of the final bill once the bill reaches the Senate floor.
We also continue to note and emphasize the additional provisions NSAC helped secure when the bill was marked up in Committee last year. Those changes included:
- requiring FDA and USDA coordination (including with respect to organic farming);
- limiting recordkeeping for farmers to just the initial sale to the first purchaser of the crop; and
- language in the produce section directing FDA to create rules that are appropriate to the scale and diversity of the farm, that take into consideration conservation and environmental standards established by other federal agencies, that do not conflict with organic certification standards, and that prioritize high risk crops.
Still pending is an amendment from Senator Feinstein (D-CA) banning the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in all food and beverage containers. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and other industry groups have come out strongly against the measure. Negotiations are ongoing to work out compromise language, but it is unclear to us what the status is of those talks.
Know Your Farmer Blog and Agency Guides
Sunday, August 1st, 2010
USDA programs can often seem enigmatic and confusing. Many farmers, rural development and conservation groups in need of financial or technical assistance are often either unaware of what USDA programs exist, or lack access to the assistance they seek.
The USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative seeks to remedy this disconnect by strengthening local food systems and improving access to USDA programs.
On Friday, July 30, Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food published a blog, “USDA Programs at Glance,” with links to memorandum outlining programs that can be used to foster local and regional food systems in four areas of USDA: Rural Development, Farm Service Agency, Research, Education & Economics, and Agriculture Marketing Service.
We have reported on the first three as they were issued. The AMS memo is new. According to the memo from Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan (herself a former head of AMS): AMS research and technical assistance in the fields of food deserts and regional food hubs, along with their support and analysis of farmers markets and other forms of direct marketing, access to market news, and help for farmers working to enhance food safety practices, form the backbone of the Department’s effort to provide fresh, nutritious, easily accessible food to the public, with special focus on underserved areas of this country.
The memo provides basic information on ten programs and research areas, including two that were initiated and championed by NSAC – the Farmers Market Promotion Program and the Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.
The USDA blog post indicates they will be adding information on other USDA agencies’ programs related to Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food in coming months.
Summaries of programs created or significantly amended in the 2008 Farm Bill can also be found in NSAC’s Grassroots Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill. Another good place to find accessible USDA program information is ATTRA’s Building Sustainable Farms, Ranches and Communities: Federal Programs for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry, Entrepreneurship, Conservation and Community Development.
Specialty Crop and Organic Producers Testify
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
Specialty crop and organic producers are “classic entrepreneurs” said Subcommittee Chair, Dennis Cardoza (D-CA). Rep. Cardoza spoke on Wednesday, July 21st at the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture hearing to review specialty crop and organic programs in preparation for the 2012 Farm Bill.
Cardoza began the hearing with praise for specialty crop producers, noting their entrepreneurial ability to produce half the value of America’s crops. Cardoza also spoke to the importance of this sector for providing the fruits and vegetables that nourish our families.
Block Grants
All seven producers on the panel testified to the crucial role that the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBG) plays for specialty crop production across the U.S. They emphasized the need to extend and expand this program in the 2012 Farm Bill and applauded the flexibility the SCBG program offers to State Agriculture Departments for awarding grants. It was clear from their testimony, however, that some states do a better job than others in including farmers in the state decision-making process. In general, most witnesses also favored moving the application and decision-making process t
o earlier in the year, centered around the off-season.
Dr. Margaret Smith Testifies
NSAC hosted Margaret Smith, from Ash Grove Farm in Iowa and Extension Agent at Iowa State University (ISU), as the sole female and organic producer voice on the panel of witnesses. Click here to view her testimony.
Margaret and her husband Doug farm 950 acres of organic corn, soy, oats, wheat barley and and pasture and run a beef cow herd. They market their crops to various food, feed and seed markets. They began their transition to organic systems in 1994 and reached 100 percent organic production in 2007.
As an extension agent at ISU, Smith works with fruit and vegetable producers in the Value-Added Agriculture Extension Program in addition to co-facilitating the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group.
Smith began her testimony to the Subcommittee with data pointing to the rapid growth in the organic industry, both in terms of number of farms and value of sales. Organics offer a critical marketing niche for small and beginning farmers. In light of the important role of the organic industry, Smith made sure the Subcommittee understood that the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) is under-funded, even with the 2008 Farm Bill funding increase, citing that only about 20% of the applicants receive OREI funding.
Smith also expressed strong support for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program’s Organic Initiative.
Smith urged the Subcommittee to improve the crop and revenue insurance policies and rules for specialty crops and for organics. As she explained, “In Iowa, there is no satisfactory crop insurance available for fruit and vegetables. When compared with crop insurance options for corn and soybean growers, this seems a gross oversight and neglect of these important crops and crop producers.”
She went on to explain the risk management struggle confronting diversified, small to mid-sized producers: “Not only is there no safety net in the event of weather, crop disease, or insect yield reductions, but lenders are wary of working with growers of non-traditional commodities if they have no guarantee of some minimum income level.”
Chairman Cordoza applauded Smith’s work and testimony and brought the hearing to a personal level, disclosing his preference grass-fed beef. He also noted the profit opportunities offered by grass-fed beef production, a strategy that raises fewer cattle in a more productive system.
The hearing also ended on a personal note, and a strong note for organics. Ranking Member, Jean Schmidt (R-OH), confessed that her daughter and husband, despite the price differential, buy and eat exclusively organically produced foods.
“The organic voice is small,” she said “Lets raise that voice!”
Other Highlights
Robert Jones, a fruit and vegetable producer from Ohio’s The Chef’s Farm, spoke about the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of what he described as a “one size fits all” National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement proposal. In response to a question from Chairman Cardoza, Jones also applauded the USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Program for improving consumer awareness and bolstering the local food movement.
Testifying on behalf of the nursery industry, Bernie Kohl, Jr. of Angelica Nurseries on Maryland’s Eastern Shore told the Subcommittee that the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) started by the last farm bill was doing great harm to the nursery crop industry. He explained that trees and shrubs grown in containers are grown in a substance that is primarily bark. He explained that 83 percent of softwood bark and 70 percent of hardwood bark is already used for energy generation and removing more of it through BCAP subsidies to energy uses could devastate the nursery industry. Similar arguments have been made by the forest products industry. Kohl called the BCAP collection, harvest and storage incentive payments “a solution in search of a problem.”
Paul Platz, a farmer from Lafayette, Minnesota, spoke about growing vegetables for processing. He urged the Committee to ease and simplify the rules for the “farm flex” pilot program created in the last farm bill allowing certain counties in certain states to produce vegetables for the processing industry on farm program base acres. Platz noted that he was able to start growing sweet corn and green peas in 1993 because the planting restrictions against growing fruits and vegetables on program acres that started with the 1996 Farm Bill were not in place yet. He urged a movement back in that direction, at least for processed vegetables.
Several witnesses expressed disappointment with the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for not addressing the most pressing concerns of specialty crop growers. Chairman Cardoza sympathized with the concern and said he would follow-up with the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over USDA research.
Margaret Smith cautioned the Subcommittee to remember that the most important research to help fruit and vegetable producers will be long-term systems research that will take time to conduct. Smith also suggested that the SCRI is too focused on big multi-state, multi-institution projects and needs to be more balanced between local, regional, and national concerns.
Child Nutrition with Farm to School Passes House Committee
Thursday, July 15th, 2010
On Thursday, July 15, the House Education and Labor Committee approved the child nutrition reauthorization bill authored by Chairman George Miller (D-CA) (Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act, H.R. 5504) by a vote of 32 -13 with Republicans Todd Platts (PA), Michael Castle (DE), and Vernon Ehlers (MI) joining all of the Democratic members of the committee in supporting the bill.
The bill includes $50 million in mandatory funding over five years for farm to school programs nationwide and incorporates language very similar to Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-NJ) Farm to School Improvements Act that NSAC strongly supports. The companion Senate Agriculture Committee-passed a bill that includes $40 million in mandatory funding for the Farm to School program.
“Farm to school programs support our local farmers and help in the fight against childhood obesity,” Holt said at the markup.
The overall bill is designed to expand access and improve the nutritional quality of the National School Lunch program, offering a six cent per meal reimbursement increase for schools and setting standards for foods sold outside the cafeteria.
An amendment by Representatives Woolsey (D-CA) and Kucinich (D-OH) was accepted to authorize an organic food pilot program that would provide competitively-awarded grants to school authorities to create pilot efforts to buy more organic foods for the school meal program. The measure parallels a similar provision sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) included in the companion Senate bill. While included in both the House and Senate pending authorization bills, it would still need to be funded by the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee in future years to get off the ground.
The House bill passed out of Committee today includes $8 billion in new spending over the next ten years, money that must be offset from cuts to other programs or raised through new revenue. No offsets have been announced yet but must be agreed upon before the bill can go to the floor for a full vote of the House.
The Senate’s child nutrition bill passed out of Committee on March 24 with $4.5 billion in new spending offset, in part, by a $2.8 billion cut to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). NSAC opposes the inclusion of the cut to conservation and instead supports the repeal of tax loopholes to pay for the child nutrition measure. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has said that Farm Bill program cuts should not be used for child nutrition program expansion. Miller and the House Democratic leadership will now try to work out the funding offsets as they attempt to get the bill ready for a vote on the House floor.
The current authorization for the child nutrition programs expires on September 30 so the bills in both chambers must move to floor votes before Congress leaves for recess on August 9 for the bill to become law without the necessity for heroic last minute rescue measures. If passed before the August recess, the differences in the two bills could then be worked out during the recess and there would be enough time for the compromise language to be approved by both houses of Congress after they return to Washington on September 12.
As has been true, then, since the very beginning of work on the measure, it will all come down to finding offsets that can win majority support, a process that has been painfully slow but could potentially move more quickly now that the policy and spending side of the bill has been reported out of the House committee.
Farmers Fly to Washington D.C. to Have Their Voices Heard
Friday, June 25th, 2010
On June 23rd, 11 farmers from around the country flew to Washington D.C. to have their voices heard.
NSAC hosted the Budget and Appropriations “Fly-In” at a critical juncture as the USDA prepares it’s budget proposals for the Fiscal Year 2012 and Congress starts work to finalize 2011 agricultural appropriations. The farmers and NSAC staff spent the morning with officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the afternoon in individual meetings with their Congressional representatives as they expressed funding requests for indispensable sustainable agriculture programs. Click here to read a direct account from Steve Warshawer from Mesa Top Farm in New Mexico.
These top officials from the USDA carved out their morning to meet with farmers:
- Kathleen Merrigan, USDA Deputy Secretary,
- Erroll Bragg, Director of the Marketing Services Division of the Agriculture Marketing Service,
- Cheryl Cook, Deputy Undersecretary for Rural Development,
- David White, Chief of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
- Meryl Broussard, Interim Deputy Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Participating farmers expressed their needs for conservation technical assistance and investment in research for transitioning to organic production in addition to their appreciation for ongoing funding opportunities such as the Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE) grant program and Value-Added Producer Grants and hoped-for new opportunities via the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account program. They also spoke to the utility of the Conservation Stewardship Program and other mandatory farm bill conservation programs.
“These programs offer more than capital or incentives, they are a vote of confidence in your farm,” said Amy Courtney a fruit & vegetable farmer from Santa Cruz County, California.
Although authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, funding for most rural development, marketing, and research programs require annual appropriations to get started and to remain available. Click here to read more about the appropriations process. This “fly-in” allowed farmers to tell USDA officials and their Congressional representatives what programs to prioritize and to give specific budget recommendations. To read NSAC’s 2011 appropriations priorities, click here.
In the afternoon meetings on the Hill, farmers emphasized funding for the same programs in the context of the upcoming appropriations bill for 2011. For instance, Margaret Smith, an organic crop and livestock farmer from Ash Grove Farm in Iowa, explained to Senator Harkin’s (D-IA) staff how cost-share CSP funding helped her purchase fencing to transition to a more sustainable rotational grazing livestock system. She also emphasized the importance of investment in organic production research systems, for sustainable and conventional agriculture alike.
Farmers in this year’s budget and appropriations fly-in hailed from GA, PA, CT, WI, IA, KS, and CA. Co-sponsors of the event included Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Center for Rural Affairs, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Fay-Penn Economic Development Council, and California Farmlink.
House and Senate Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittees may be working on their funding bills for FY 2011 in the near future. You can stay on top of agricultural funding issues by signing up for NSAC action alerts.
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in GE Alfalfa Case
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
On Monday, June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farm. The ruling involved a challenge by the USDA and Monsanto to a federal court decision to impose a permanent and nationwide injunction on the commercial planting of “Roundup Ready” alfalfa, genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate (RR alfalfa), pending completion of a full environmental impact statement (EIS).
The case began when alfalfa farmers and sustainable agriculture and environmental organizations challenged the decision of USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate the RR alfalfa, which would allow commercial planting. A federal court found that in making this decision, APHIS failed in its legal duty under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by issuing an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact rather than a full EIS. The judge vacated the determination of APHIS that the RR alfalfa was deregulated and imposed the injunction, with one exception to allow farmers to harvest and sell RR alfalfa planted before March 30, 2007. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the lower court.
Monsanto and USDA then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court contending that the plaintiffs would suffer no injury if RR alfalfa continued to be planted pending completion of the EIS. They also argued that a permanent nationwide injunction on RR commercial planting was too broad a legal remedy. They wanted the lower court to impose a limited restriction which would have allowed continued commercial planting of RR alfalfa subject to requirements for distances from fields with non-GE alfalfa, cleaning of equipment used to harvest GE seed, requirements for identifying and handling GE seed and other measures.
The good news is that the Supreme Court ruling does not lift the current prohibition on the commercial planting of RR alfalfa because there was no challenge to the lower court’s order which vacated the APHIS determination to deregulate RR alfalfa. The Court also agreed with the plaintiff alfalfa farmers and sustainable agriculture and environmental organizations that contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa crops by the commercial planting of the RR alfalfa seed and pollen had a reasonable probability of causing an injury that could be recognized by federal courts. Even if conventional and organic alfalfa were not actually contaminated by gene flow from RR alfalfa, farmers would have to bear increased costs to protect and test their crops or find sources of non-GE alfalfa seed from areas with no GE alfalfa. This injury is sufficient to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to seek a legal remedy that would restrict gene flow from RR alfalfa to their crops.
The bad news is that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with USDA that the lower court should not have issued an injunction that would prevent USDA from proposing a partial deregulation of RR alfalfa, with limited geographic scope and restrictions, before preparing the full EIS. Under this ruling, if plaintiffs prevail in a NEPA challenge to a federal agency action, the agency could adjust the scope of its action and issue a more limited regulation to try to avoid preparing an EIS. The burden would be on those challenging the action to launch another lawsuit against that limited action.
The Court’s ruling is also, unfortunately, an invitation to federal agencies to indulge in “project chopping.” This is the shorthand term for an agency trying to avoid comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of major federal action on the human environment required by NEPA, simply by segmenting the action into partial actions to avoid full environmental review. With enough of these limited actions, a federal agency could take major federal action that in total imposes a significant impact on the environment without preparing an EIS. This flies in the face of well-established NEPA policy that requires that a federal agency responsible for environmental review must group together and evaluate as a single project all individual activities that are related on either a geographical or a functional basis, or are logical parts of a composite of contemplated actions.
USDA’s APHIS has not yet determined whether it will accept the invitation of the Court to prepare a regulation for a more restricted planting of RR alfalfa. The agency has announced its intention to complete the full EIS in time for the spring planting of alfalfa crops in 2011.
Comments Invited on the Value-Added Producer Grant Program
Friday, June 18th, 2010
Family farm advocates have an important opportunity to help shape the Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG). USDA has requested comments on the administrative rules that will govern the implementation of this important program. VAPG offers competitive grants to farmers and ranchers developing new farm and food-related business enterprises that boost farm income, create jobs, and increase rural economic opportunity. VAPG offers both working capital and planning grants that strengthen the profitability and competitiveness of small and medium-sized farmers and ranchers.
The 2008 Farm Bill established ranking priorities for VAPG projects that benefit beginning, socially disadvantaged and small and moderate-sized family farmers and ranchers. Special reserve funds have been established for beginning farmers and projects involving mid-tier value chains.
While the rules are positive overall, NSAC has identified three areas in particular that require your input to ensure that VAPG fulfills its promise. Go to our action alert for talking points and instructions on how to submit a comment.
USDA Seeks Nominations for Research Advisory Board
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Today USDA announced that it is seeking nominations for its research advisory board, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB). The 25-member Advisory Board provides recommendations to the Secretary on food and agriculture research, extension, education, and economics. The Board also consults directly with congressional agriculture committees and agricultural appropriations subcommittees.
Members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Terms are for 3 years. Individuals from organizations, associations, societies, universities, councils, federations, groups, and companies from a range of agricultural and food interests can be nominated.
This year, nine slots are open, including the Rural Economic Development, the National Consumer Group, the National Conservation or Natural Resource Group, and the National Forestry Group slots. Those four slots are currently filled by Walt Armbruster (Farm Foundation), Robin Douthitt (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Edward Runge (Texas A&M), and Steven Quarles (Partner at Crowell & Moring LLP).
Current members whose terms are not expiring include Ralph Paige (Federation of Southern Coops), Jean-Mari Peltier (National Grape and Wine Initiative), Marianne Smith Edge (Former President, American Dietetic Association), Mary Wagner (Senior Vice President, Starbucks), and Steve Hamburg (Environmental Defense Fund).
In 2008, NAREEEAB made recommendations on organic agriculture research at USDA (pdf), in recognition of the growing role that organic agriculture plays in U.S. agriculture and the need for facilitating research into organic systems. To date, USDA has fulfilled one of the recommendations to hire a national program leader for organic agriculture at USDA’s extramural research agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Other recommendations, including creating an REE-wide roadmap on organic agriculture and support for higher education activities in organic agriculture, have not yet been fulfilled.
Nominations to NAREEEAB are due July 9, 2010. For more information, click here (pdf).