The New York Times reported Friday morning that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would drop its program to trace all livestock. In fact, the USDA announced Friday morning that it was announcing a "new framework for animal disease traceability." Clearly, the USDA has not dropped its plans to trace animals, but has shifted its focus.
The old policy would have every farm animal tracked through implanted devices. (Every animal would have its own electronic bar code.) This complicated system drove small operators crazy and the National Animal Identification System nearly set off a revolt in farm country from Maine to California. The USDA held "listening sessions" across the country and heard uniform opposition from animal owners. So, the headline in the Times was welcome.
Yes, but. In the USDA's news release, it's clear the NAIS scheme has not gone away. The agency announced that it wanted a national animal tracing system that would only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce and that the news system would be administered by the states under federal regulations. The USDA plans to "convene a forum with animal health leaders" from the states and the Tribes to "initiate a dialogue" about ways to build a new NAIS. What does all this mean? Stay tuned.
U.S. Department of Agriculture spending would rise 2.3% under President Obama's proposed 2011 budget. Most of that increase would go to people receiving assistance in buying food. Food stamp expenditures would rise 3.9%. Meanwhile, however, ag subsidies would fall 11 percent, according to Bloomberg, as "the administration tries to limit payments to wealthy farmers."
This is a replay of the fight over the 2008 farm bill, when there was an attempt to limit direct payments to farmers who reached a certain level of gross income. The Obama plan would restrict direct payments to those with gross farm incomes of less than $500,000. Some farm groups responded in the negative. “I guess what the cut does, for one, it takes money out of rural America, just like that,” Keven Bradley, Montana Grain Growers Association president, told Tom Lutey of the Billings Gazette. “I cannot stand by as the president moves to cut direct payments to farmers and ranchers. We’re only two years into the 2008 Farm Bill, and Montana producers have made long-term plans based on what they thought was a solid agreement with the government for the life of that bill,” Montana Sen. Max Baucus said in a written statement.
Meanwhile, an editorial in the Washington Post said that "Agri-hypocrites" attack the Obama plan to cut subsidies. (Whom might these people be? The Post quotes Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia as two who oppose the cuts.) The country is in "deep trouble" financially, the Post. "And the fatuous hypocrisy of self-proclaimed deficit hawks who then go to bat for welfare to well-to-do landowners is endangering us all."
Some parts of the Obama administration are moving faster than others. The Washington Post reports this morning that the White House has had difficulty picking someone to fill the food safety post at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Obama has finally picked Elizabeth Hagen, a 40-year-old doctor who has limited experience with food safety issues. Consumer groups are puzzled by the choice. The folks over at the American Meat Institute are pleased. The administration's first choice for the post, Mike Doyle at the University of Georgia, dropped out of the running after he was told he'd have to give up a patent he held for a meat cleansing wash.
Meanwhile, over at the Department of Justice, the antitrust division is going full bore. The DOJ has formalized its investigation of Monsanto and has filed suit against the mild producer Dean Foods, seeking to undo Dean's acquisition of two dairy companies in Wisconsin. (The Bush administration didn't file one major anti-monopoly case.) Dean Foods now controls 57 percent of the market for processed milk in northeastern Illinois, Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan.
You lose most of the time, but every so often you have a blue moon moment. Like the time pork raisers killed the checkoff tax and Sen. Jon Tester ended funding for NAIS.
Once a year, the leaders of ag committees in the state legislature get together to talk. What they discuss will be the issues states will likely wrestle with in the coming year.
Does a company that develops a new genetically modified seed have to conduct a full environmental review before it can put that product on the market? The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it would hear an appeal by Monsanto of a ruling that barred the company from selling a new alfalfa seed until it conducted an environmental study.
The background: In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that it did not have to conduct a formal environmental review of a new, Roundup Ready alfalfa seed produced by Monsanto. A conventional seed company, Geerston Seed Farms, and environmental groups sued the US. Department of Agriculture in 2006 to force the agency to conduct an environmental review of the seed before it granted approval. The company said USDA should review how the seed might affect nearby fields. A federal judge agreed with Geerston and that ruling was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in California. The USDA proceeded with its environmental review and on December 18th began a 60 day comment period on a draft environmental impact statement on the alfalfa seed.
Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The U.S. Department of Justice opposed Monsanto's request, but the Supreme Court said it would hear the case. It will hear arguments in April. Justice Stephen Breyer will not take part in this case, since his brother, a federal judge in California, issued the first decision in this case.