Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
Gristmill

Countdown to the 2008 Farm Bill: Part V

Direct and value-added marketing in the farm bill

Posted by Aimee Witteman (Guest Contributor) at 5:35 PM on 20 Jan 2008

Read more about: politics | agriculture | ag policy | food

This is the last installment of a five-part series of farm bill fact sheets from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. For additional information about the status of sustainable agriculture priorities in the House and Senate versions of the farm bill, please check out SAC's farm bill progress chart.

Farm Bill "conference" negotiations are underway at the staff level. Please call your Senators and Representative today and tell them what you want to see in the final Farm Bill!

Increasing consumer demand for healthy, sustainably-produced food and agricultural products from local and regional markets has great potential to improve farm income. However, tremendous challenges stand in the way of producers satisfying these consumer preferences, in part because federal policies and programs have been slow to respond.

A number of grassroots farmer and consumer organizations have been working to ensure that the final farm bill includes increased funding for direct market and value-added enterprise opportunities, and the removal of the prohibition on interstate sale of meat products processed in state-inspected plants. Greater federal support for these programs in the 2008 Farm Bill will help a larger number of consumers access good food and allow more producers to stay on the land.

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

* Farmers and ranchers take home a larger portion of the food dollar when they sell directly to consumers, turn farm products into food products, or join farmer cooperatives/alliances that do their own processing and marketing. The farm value share of the money spent in conventional supply chains shrunk from 36 cents for every food dollar in the 1970s to only 22 cents in 2005. Meanwhile, an informal survey performed by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition of growers selling at New York City's Greenmarket in 2007, revealed that farmers there take home roughly 75% of the food dollar spent at the market.

* Despite the huge demand for farmers' markets and other farmer-to-consumer direct marketing opportunities, federal support for developing, improving, and expanding these markets has not kept pace. In 2007, 326 applications equaling $15.6 million were submitted for funding under the Farmers' Market Promotion Program, but because the program was appropriated $1 million in FY07, only 23 grants were awarded. Similarly, from 2001 through 2006, USDA could only fund 35% of the Value Added Producer Grant applications submitted.

* Interstate commerce restrictions for state-inspected meat processing plants have shut smaller processors out of key markets, contributing to their decline. Although the Federal Meat Inspection Act requires state inspection standards to be "at least equal to" their federal counterparts, federal law bars meat products processed in state-inspected plants from being sold in interstate commerce. An increasing number of farmers, ranchers, and small meat processors have been calling for a repeal of this ban because of the unfair limits it places on potential markets for small and sustainable livestock producers, and the prohibitive expense small-scale producers must bear to comply with federal inspection standards.

STATUS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS

There are key differences between the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill that affect marketing opportunities for producers that must be resolved during conference committee negotiations:

Value-Added Producer Grants Program

* Despite the success of value-added grants in raising farm income and the overwhelming popularity of the VAPG program, the House version of the farm bill cuts the program by $10 million to $30 million in annual mandatory funding and the Senate bill includes no mandatory funding at all. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conferees to provide no less than the current $40 million in annual mandatory funding for the program.

* The House bill includes a 10% set-aside for mid-tier value chain food network projects. The Senate bill, on the other hand, includes a 10% set-aside for technical assistance, outreach, and market research, including funding for local food system infrastructure grants and mid-tier value chain grants. Both bills include a funding priority for projects targeting small and mid-sized farms. The conference committee should combine the House's mid-tier value chain provisions with the Senate technical assistance and local food system provisions, with the preference for small and mid-sized farms and renewed full funding to create a strong, comprehensive package.

Farmers Market Promotion Program

* The House bill provides $35 million in mandatory funding over 5 years and clarifies that the program is intended to promote all forms of direct farmer-to-consumer marketing. The House bill also includes funding for Electronic Benefits Technology (EBT) at farmer markets to provide access to local food for food assistance program participants. The Senate bill provides $30 million in mandatory funding over the five years for FMPP plus an additional $5 million in a separate program for farmers market EBT. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conferees to retain the funding for this program in the final bill, to adopt the House clarifying language, and to ensure $5 million in EBT funding is included in some manner.

Interstate Shipment of State-Inspected Meat

* The Senate bill includes a provision that is the result of a compromise between farmer, consumer safety, and union groups which allows meat processed in state-inspected facilities to be sold in interstate commerce, but only those plants with 25 or fewer employees. It also provides federal oversight of state plants, an outreach and training program for small plants, and cost share for inspection and testing. The House bill, on the other hand, includes a provision that allows state-inspected meat to be shipped across state lines, but requires the state inspection criteria to be identical to the federal with no provision for improved regulation, training or inspection. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate version of in the final farm bill.

Inspection

It would seem that having producers pay for inspection creates monopolies as well as conflict of interest.

Shouldn't reform include a shift to taxpayer funded food safety inspection?  Virtually no inspection exists of imported food products.

Inspection that aims to eliminate defects in the food supply system must operate with random inspections acroos the whole spectrum of imported and local food, no matter what the source is.  That is the mathematical/statistical nature of quality control.

Random testing.  If it is biased in any way, repeated defects will sneak through the inspection process continually.

If every 20th part coming off an assembley line (for instance) is tested, then a periodic error in manufacturing can get through.  Every 12th to 15th widget, with a crucial defect.  The 20th part perfect.

Modern quality control methods, standardized by american lesdership around the world, have never been applied to government regulation and inspection.  

This would free small producers and large alike from costs due to corruption of the inspection process.  And costs to consumers and local producers due to monopolization of markets.

Real quality control, using random testing, is also a lot less expensive than the present system.  Fewer samples result in a much higher degree of quality and a lot less litigation related costs overall.  Problems are corrected, intead of repeated over and over.  Resulting in lower and lower percentahes of costly recalls.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Corn Lobby:

Special interest in government muddy the water and often destroy the most obviious solutions to problems just to protect their turf. Brazil for instance used sugar cane to become energy independent, alcohol from sugar cane  has 7 times the BTU efficiency. This crop is not a food staple and did not raise the cost of eating in Brazil. Corn is an inefficient alcohol fuel, it is also a food staple. It helped the farmers get top dollar for corn but raised the price of many food products at the grocery store. Meat, poultry feed stock and a host of food additives made from corn. It is not cost efficient because of the low btu, cost as much to make it as it saves in oil. Sugar cane will grow up to the 42 latitude in this country and some strains will even grow in the northern part of the country. The Brazil model was obvious, why did we go with corn?

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Local Inspection

The local slaughterhouse I am most familiar with has a Federal-level inspector provided and paid for by the State.  The owner only pays for any overtime.  The taxpayer pays the rest.  There is no need for random inspection, as the inspector is always there, and reviews every single animal, no exception.  Can't get a downer cow through here.  This is a local business with about 20 employees.  These businesses have been disappearing for years due to consolidation around large CAFO operations, but are essential for local farmers who want to sell their own animals directly to restaurants and consumers at farmers markets, where as was noted, they retain a much higher portion of the proceeds.  These dollars then stay in circulation in the community, instead of going to the pockets of big agribusiness, or wired home to Jalisco.  There are several Latinos that do work in this plant, all legal workers or citizens.  They work very very hard on a tough job.

Bacon, the gateway meat.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks