************************************************
What Can Be Done Now to Protect the Integrity of the Organic
Food Production Act
Who and What Initiated the Changes to the Organic
Food Production Act:
In late October 2005, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) successfully
lobbied for a significant change to the Organic Foods Productions Act
(OFPA). OTA took this action after a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in agreement
with a lawsuit filed by Arthur Harvey, an organic blueberry grower, that
the USDA organic regulations were inconsistent with the Organic Foods
Production Act on several counts. Specifically, the court ruled that the
OFPA does not permit synthetic substances in processed foods labeled organic,
that all non-organic agricultural ingredients used because of commercial
availability issues must appear on the National List, and that dairy farms
must feed their cows organic feed for a minimum of 12 months prior to
the sale of organic milk.
OTA’s decision to seek amendments to the Organic Foods Productions
Act was taken without consultation with vital stakeholders in the organic
community, including many of their own members.
Despite an active attempt by public interest, consumer and retail sector
groups to hold discussions and find common ground with the Organic Trade
Association, after a few initial meetings, OTA, through its legal counsel,
refused to discuss any positions other than legal changes, and then refused
to discuss the content of proposed law changes. After OTA sent its OFPA
changes to Congress, OTA refused to discuss any compromise language, including
a version drafted by Senator Harkin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture
Committee. Finding no alternative, the public interest sector activated
its membership and Congress received over 320,000 calls and letters from
consumers, farmers and businesses opposing OTA’ s amendment.
In November, behind closed doors and without a single debate, the Organic
Foods Production Act was amended at the behest of the large food processors
(members of the OTA pushing this amendment) and without the benefit of
the organic community reaching a compromise.
What These Changes Mean:
As passed, the amendment sponsored by the Organic Trade Association allows:
- Numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, including more
than 500 Food Contact Substances, may be allowed to be used in foods
labeled organic without public review
- Young dairy cows to continue to be treated with antibiotics and fed
genetically engineered feed prior to being converted to organic production
- Loopholes by which non-organic agricultural ingredients could be
substituted for organic ingredients without any notification of the
public based on emergency decrees.
In short these changes have not strengthened or improved
the Organic Foods Production Act in any way. They have only retained the
allowance for synthetics that previously existed in the regulation, created
a potential loophole for non-organic ingredients, added ambiguity on the
issue of processing aids, removed authority from the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB), and failed to strengthen dairy standards.
Where To Go From Here:
The OTA-sponsored law change will require USDA to promulgate new organic
regulations to bring the current organic rule into line with OTA’s
changes into law. We will need to create collaborative public pressure
to maintain strong standards at the regulatory level and to require that
all substances used in or on processed organic products to be subject
to NOSB review. This public and scientific review, along with additional
regulatory boundaries as to what criteria and categories of synthetics
can be reviewed (similar to what is required for materials on the crops
and livestock materials allowed on the National List) will help to protect
the integrity of the organic label. Please go the National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture’s website http://www.sustainableagriculture.net/Organic.php
and sign-on to a letter supporting this continued public pressure and
diligence.
For more questions about this sign-on letter or the new amendment changes
contact either Michael Sligh at msligh@rafiusa.org,
919-641-9341 or Liana Hoodes at the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture at Liana@hvc.rr.com
or 845-744-2304.
|
| *************************************************************
Meeting Outcomes: A Conference to Reinvigorate Public
Breeding of Seeds and Animals for a Healthy 21st Century Agriculture
September 12-15 2005 - Ames, Iowa
For centuries, farmers have contributed to the health of their communities
through breeding optimal plant and animal varieties. Today this practice
is being threatened by lack of funding for these traditional-breeding
initiatives. The result of private companies' focus on genetic engineering,
which is often a quicker alternative less adaptable to local environments,
is that this practice has begun to overshadow traditional ones.
Unfortunately, private companies' profit-drive often clouds their view,
occluding a holistic vision of the factors that must be incorporated into
sustainable agriculture. To share views and devise productive solutions
for this dilemma, diverse stakeholders convened for the second "Seeds
and Breeds" Conference on September 12-15, 2005.
The 2005 Conference, built upon the first Seeds and Breeds Summit in 2003,
engaged an increased array of actors who discussed the current state of
breeding practices and strategies for achieving ideal conditions. Specifically,
this conference strove to provide a forum for groups and people interested
in increasing public funding for seed and animal breeding in the 2007
Farm Bill, as well as to develop strategies for communicating their message
to policymakers. Government preparation for this bill is anticipated to
begin as early as spring of 2006; therefore, those interested in influencing
policy agreed on the need to organize and prepare materials as soon as
possible.
The idea of forming a coalition of a broad array of stakeholders, including
those who are not traditionally included, was a recurrent theme. To leverage
the strongest impact on the Farm Bill, the broadest possible coalition
should be formed to demonstrate the diverse support behind the movement
for increased public funding. Teams of breeders, buyers, consumers, universities,
and NGOs currently collaborate on these issues, while new allies and those
who could be targeted for increased involvement may include media, groups
advocating for a healthy society, retired breeders, marketers and distributors,
among others. In forming this coalition, it is important to draw on sustainable
agriculture networks that already exist, as well as state crop-improvement
bodies and seed certification organizations. The international context
for organic agriculture and breeding practices was also discussed, reminding
participants of allies and similar campaigns throughout the world.
It was suggested that the coalition be realistic in its demands, presenting
accurate values for the amount of money necessary to implement crucial
programs, despite discouraging recent cuts to agriculture funding due
to increased allocation to other efforts like Katrina relief and Iraq.
The total amount authorized by Farm Bills is rarely met by subsequent
allocations, but it is necessary to have the potential to realize envisioned
initiatives. Likewise, by stressing the positive economic impact of the
organic farming industry, policymakers may be persuaded to consider alternate
options to the current industrialized, privatized model.
Creating non-traditional alliances will increase the weight of coalition
recommendations, but it also means dedicating even more effort to developing
a coherent vision. One of the principle conclusions of the conference
was that stakeholders need to craft a vision statement in a timely manner
so that their voice will be heard clearly by policymakers. In addition
to contributing ideas to the overall vision, participants were encouraged
to participate in ongoing dialogue with the US Department of Agriculture
via virtual interfaces accessible on the Internet at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome
.
A number of specific policy proposals were vetted, such as the establishment
of a national-level plant breeding institute or initiative, and a summary
of those will be published in a separate document of recommendations.
Recommendations addressed a wide assortment of issues ranging from alternatives
to intellectual property rights, solutions to infrastructure deficiencies,
ways to increase farmer participation, and mechanisms to define and tackle
funding issues. At the conclusion, the door was left open to the possibility
of a third Seeds and Breeds summit, once Farm Bill preparations have begun
in earnest, if such a meeting could further the cause. You can find more
information on the 2005 conference proceedings at the Seeds and Breeds
website: http://www.agron.iastate.edu/seedsandbreeds/
. Additional presentations, and meeting summaries will be forthwith coming.
This conference was sponsored by RAFI-USA, The Raymond F. Baker Center
for Plant Breeding, and The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. |
**********************************************
Senator Grassley and Feingold Introduce Fair Contracts
for Growers Act
Senator Charles
Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) have introduced legislation
in the Senate to prohibit binding mandatory arbitration in livestock and
poultry contracts. Original co-sponsors also include Senators Tom Harkin
(D-IA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). This legislation, called the Fair Contracts
for Growers Act (S. 2131), provides for greater fairness in livestock
and poultry contracts. The bill ensures that the decision to arbitrate
is truly voluntary, that farmers are not coerced into waiving their rights.
It specifies that if a livestock or poultry contract provides for use
of arbitration to resolve disputes, arbitration may be used to settle
a dispute only if, after the dispute arises, both parties agree in writing
to use arbitration.
This legislation is critical to protecting farmers’ rights as binding
mandatory arbitration has become embedded in an increasing number of agricultural
contracts. Farmers can be forced to sign mandatory arbitration clauses
as part of a take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with large agricultural
processing companies. By signing a binding mandatory arbitration clause
a farmer is signing away his/her right to a trial by jury. This is a problem
for a farmer because
- Arbitration can be very expensive and beyond the means of most farmers.
A grower in Texas was recently billed over $20,000 for her portion of
the initial costs, with payment due before the arbitration process could
begin. In comparison, court filing fees run around $200.
- It is more difficult for a farmer to prove his/her case in arbitration
since basic legal processes such as discovery can be waived.
- Arbitration is governed by procedures and rules chosen by the company
that wrote the contract.
Since a farmer signs a contract before any dispute arises, it allows
the companies to use practices that are abusive without fear of the
farmer bringing them to court or having a record of their wrong doings.
Arbitration can be a useful tool if it is a mutually agreed upon method
of settling a dispute. But the law should not permit large companies
to use arbitration to deny family farmers’ access to justice.
A bill similar to
the Fair Contract for Growers Act that provided voluntary arbitration
in contracts between car dealers and car manufacturers is now law.
In the months ahead, we will be looking for your help to build support
for this bill. If you would like to learn more about the Fair Contract
for Growers Act please contact Becky Ceartas at RAFI-USA at 919-542-1396
ext. 209, becky@rafiusa.org .
|
**********************************************
Protecting Contract Farmers' Rights in the 2007
Farm Bill
Contract farmers and others who care about fairness for farmers
have an easy opportunity to influence the USDA's recommendations for the
new Farm Bill by submitting comments on line by December 30, 2005.
Please go to the USDA site link (at the bottom of this article) to enter
your comments on how you think the 2007 Farm Bill should be shaped. You
can help to ensure fair and competitive markets for America’s farmers
and ranchers. Below are some sample comments you can use directly as a
reference as you write up your thoughts.
Sample Comments:
In order for U.S. agriculture to remain able to supply and respond to
changing global and domestic markets, farm policy should be designed to
enhance competitive domestic markets. During the 2002 Farm Bill debates,
public testimony provided clear and compelling evidence of the need for
free market competition and fairness for America's farmers and ranchers.
Since that time these concerns have become even more urgent and prominent
in the public eye. The role of government should be to facilitate properly
operating markets and to bring balance to the economic relationships among
farmers/ranchers, consumers and food companies.
Therefore, I urge the United States Department of Agriculture to include
the following provisions in its recommendations for the 2007 Farm Bill:
Producer Protection Act: This proposal is designed to
set minimum standards for contract fairness in agriculture. It addresses
the worst abuses contained in processor-drafted boilerplate contracts.
It includes: clear disclosure of producer risks; prohibition on confidentiality
clauses; prohibition of binding mandatory arbitration in contracts of
adhesion; recapture of capital investment (so that contracts that require
a significant capital investment by the producer cannot be capriciously
canceled without compensation); and a ban on unfair trade practices including
"tournament" or "ranking system" payment.
Closing Poultry Loopholes in the Packers & Stockyards (P&S) Act:
USDA does not have the authority to bring enforcement actions against
poultry dealers. The P&S Act omits this authority even as USDA can
enforce the law against packers and livestock dealers. We seek to clarify
that USDA's authority over poultry applies not only to broiler operations,
but also to growers raising pullets or breeder hens. These loopholes should
be closed.
Bargaining Rights for Contract Farmers: Loopholes should be closed in
the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (AFPA), and processors should
be required to bargain in good faith with producer organizations. The
AFPA was enacted to ensure that livestock and poultry producers could
join associations and market their products collectively without fear
of retribution by processors. These goals have not been attained due to
loopholes in that act. Retaliation by processors is commonplace in some
sectors. Legislation should be passed to promote bargaining rights and
prevent processor retaliation.
After you have gone to the Farm Bill site, please email Becky Ceartas,
becky@rafiusa.org or call her at
919-542-1396, ext. 209 so we can keep track of the number of comments
submitted.
Go to:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?navid=FARM_BILL_COMM |
| **********************************************
RAFI-USA Defends Farmers’ Rights to Due Process
In the last issue of the e-bulletin (e-bulletin
#29), we provided an update on the Gatlin v. Sanderson
Farms Inc. case and the upcoming appeal process. The Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA) has been asking organizations
to sign-on as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to a brief in support
of the plaintiffs on their appeal of Gatlin V. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
The filing period for the brief is extended, and the last day to sign
on is January 9th, 2006. Regardless of whether you are a member of an
organization that can sign on or not, this is an important case to follow.
The result of this appeal will affect several important issues relevant
to all farmers and their contractual relationship with integrators, processors,
manufacturers, and packers. Sanderson Farms, Inc. terminated the Gatlins’
contract, alleging they had violated Mississippi law. The Gatlin’s
contract was terminated just one year into their second- fifteen-year
contract, shortly after the couple had taken out extensive loans to build
new poultry houses to the company’s specifications.
Sanderson Farms terminated the Gatlins’ contract based on their
accusation that the growers had violated Mississippi Code concerning disposal
of poultry. The Gatlins’ denied the charge and asked the Mississippi
Board of Animal Health to investigate. The board found no sign that the
Gatlins’ had violated any of their codes. Despite being cleared
of charges, the Gatlins’ were unable to regain their contract with
Sanderson Farms or find work with any other poultry company. The Gatlins’
were left with massive debt and no means of making a living.
The case is now in the hands of the court. The court can uphold farmers’
rights by ruling that companies cannot determine whether a contract grower
is complying with a state or federal regulation. Such a judgment would
protect farmers’ access to fair administrative hearings in similar
cases. And a favorable ruling could establish a much-needed legal precedent
to support farmers’ rights and barring future inequitable contract
terminations of this type.
A link to the full description of the case is at http://www.rafiusa.org/programs/CONTRACTAG/CONTRAG.html.
If your organization is interested in signing on or if you have any questions
about this case, please contact Becky at RAFI-USA at becky@rafiusa.org
or 919-542-1396 (ext. 209).
|