Tag Archives: Food

Tobacco: Top User of Agriculture Guest Worker (H-2A) Visa Program

18 Monday Jan 2016

Posted by in Food Security and Safety, Government, Immigration, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

With the run up to the 2016 presidential election, we have seen a growing debate on the need for border security versus the shortage of agriculture workers. Tales of apples rotting on trees and produce left in the field are offered as evidence of jobs Americans won’t do. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Foreign Labor Certification program, we have a record number of guest worker visa holders. In agriculture alone, the number of H-2A visa holders has risen nearly 35% in the past decade.

Visa Certifications

Considering the increase of H-2A visa holders, how is it those who grow our food are struggling to bring in their crops? Where are all the workers? Well, according to DOL reports, a majority are harvesting tobacco, working in landscape nurseries, and operating equipment. Annual reports show the tobacco industry is consistently the largest single sector employer of agriculture guest worker visa holders. In fact, a tobacco trade organization, the North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), touts itself as the nation’s largest user of the H-2A agricultural “guest worker” program. And, though the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports a steady decline in U.S. smokers, the industry is experiencing a growth in acres planted and yields.Visa Top 10

The resurgence comes after an initial dramatic decline in tobacco farming following the implementation of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA). That legislation ended nearly 70 years of farm subsidies and marketing quotas. Then, beginning with the following year (2005), the feds stepped in with the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP). A program that paid nearly $9.6 billion to farmers for the lost value of their marketing quotas over a ten-year period. Also, with the low costs guest workers and the benefit of federal export assistance, the industry has gained a world of new consumers through exporting. For those health conscious consumers, tobacco now qualifies for certification under the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP).

As well, according to a recent report by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in 2012, tobacco companies spent $9.6 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in the United States alone. An amount of about $26 million each day, or more than $1 million an hour. Not to mention federal funds at work to assist in identifying medicinal uses for tobacco.

It may appear the relationship between tobacco farming and the government makes no sense, but it actually makes an awful lot of cents. In 2014 alone, federal revenue from tobacco tax amounted to $15.56 billion dollars. Projections through 2020 show an anticipated $157.12 billion into government coffers (no pun intended). American tobacco farming is a windfall tax source for the federal government.

In summary, tens of thousands of agriculture guest workers are designated to work in tobacco while food products go unharvested. The government spends billions to burn food for fuel in its failed ethanol experiment. We have an unprecedented amount of illegal immigration due to a broken system. It goes to show, even a practical program, as is the H-2A visa, government involvement inevitably distorts the original intent.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/tobacco-top-user-of-agriculture-guest-worker-h-2a-visa-program/#sthash.NEBzRYdh.dpuf

Advertisement

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

12 Tuesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Food Security and Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

usda-organicThe Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups, and scientific research do not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher, calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above-designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/organics-another-fine-government-mess/#sthash.SHfTXGlJ.dpuf

WTO Ruling Forces the Repeal of Popular U.S. Law

31 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by in Congress, Food Security and Safety, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

‘Twas the night before Christmas in 2002 when I received notice the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had confirmed America’scool-WTO first case of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). At the time, I was an elected representative of the dairy industry in the Northwest, and random sampling found an infected slaughtered milk cow in Washington State.

More commonly known as mad-cow, BSE is a degenerative brain disease with 100% mortality rate. Although, not contagious it is transmittable through consumption of food containing ingredients from BSE-infected animals. An alarming linkage of BSE is the human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCID), a horribly devastating and fatal illness that can have an incubation period of up to 8-years after consumption of meat from an infected animal.

Although confirmed BSE cases are world-wide, the greatest epidemic was in Great Britain. Incidentally, Britain also holds the distinction of having the highest number of human victims of vCID. During the British outbreak, BSE traveled to all regions of the world. Trade agreements facilitated the global spread of the disease as animals moved across borders with little to no inspection, quarantine, or tracking regulations. In fact, the 2002 Washington State BSE cow was shipped from Canada. Regardless, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Thailand and Hong Kong immediately banned imports of all U.S. beef and many countries followed. The trade embargos ultimately caused a near 80% drop in export sales.

Domestically, citizens had little confidence in the safety of their meat purchases. The USDA assured the public the risk was minimal, and the beef industry urged American’s to clear the inventory by eating more beef. But, unlike fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and seafood meat products did not carry labels identifying the country of origin. Shoppers understood the infected animal came from Canada, yet, they had no information on the origin of shelved meat. Had meat products been readily identified by its source country consumers could have made an informed choice. Likewise, merchants could have quickly pulled the Canadian-originated products from store shelves. Actions that would have assisted in assuring the public and reducing the market impact for beef producers.

It was the 2002 Canadian mad-cow case that triggered the push for meat products to carry a country-of-origin-label (COOL) as is required for other foods. The development of the meat version of COOL was not a hurried, or imprudent process. What began in 2002 became effective in 2009 after years of analysis, public comments, reviews, challenges, and extensions. The rule went through a rigorous legislative process, as well as legal challenges, and survived the daunting review of the Administrative Procedures Act.

With 90% public support according to USDA surveys, the reported “little economic benefit to consumers,” does nothing to hamper its popularity. After all, the demand for the labeling had little to do with food costs and everything to do with the right of a consumer to know where their food originates. When fully informed, the choice is then left to the buyer, a free-market principle.

Few laws or regulations are as publicly beneficial or as broadly popular as the COOL programs. Yet, on December 18th, nearly thirteen years after the Canadian mad-cow incident, Congress passed an omnibus bill that contained the repeal of COOL for beef and pork products.

The ultimatum to end the mandatory labeling came from the World Trade Organization (WTO) after Mexico and Canada argued the program discriminated against their imported meats. The WTO found the mandatory use of COOL violated three technical barriers to trade (TBT). Also, they ruled the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, violated General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Art. X:3(a), by sending an explanatory letter to only domestic meat producers, thereby giving special/unequal treatment. In its ruling against the U.S., the WTO approved retaliatory export tariffs $1 billion (Canadian) equivalent to 100% of U.S. export sales to Canada and Mexico if mandatory labeling continued.

Key considerations regarding this issue:

  • An unelected, international tribunal effectively dictated the U.S. must reverse part of a well processed, legitimate, and popular piece of domestic legislation.
  • COOL provided for quick identification and tracking of meats, facilitating efficient recall in the event of safety concerns.
  • Consumers’ right-to-know was not a consideration in the WTO decision.
  • Congress over-acted by repealing the entire labeling program as opposed to merely the mandatory aspect of labeling muscle meat.
  • Processors can continue to label their products as U.S., but only voluntarily. A practice the consumers should demand.
  • The ruling has the precedents setting potential to impact other origin labels for fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish and seafood.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/wto-ruling-forces-the-repeal-of-popular-u-s-law/#sthash.eeIu2QTl.dpuf