Since sixteen members of the National Association of Attorneys General signed a model contract Producer Protection Act in August 2000 (see list of states at end of article) , several states have introduced all or parts of the bill into their state legislatures. These bills attempt to ensure fair dealing between producers of agricultural commodities and the contractors for these commodities. According to the May 14, 2001 issue of the Poultry Times, "Some legislators have said passage of producer protection bills in a number of states could put pressure on Congress to pass something at the federal level." Farmers, processors and packers are watching the progress on the bills closely.

The following is the status of those state bills as of October 2001:

Georgia - Survivors

Ten poultry processors have contracts with the more than 3,400 growers in Georgia, the state that produces the most poultry in the nation. Some states have more growers, but many of the Georgia growers have 20 or more houses.

Six state Democratic Representatives introduced the Producers Protection Act (H.B.308) in the state House in mid-January 2001. HB308 would protect farmers raising livestock (beef cattle, dairy cattle, poultry, sheep, swine) and crops (any plant used for food, animal feed, fiber, oil or nutriceuticals - including tobacco but not timber).

State Senator Mike Beatty, R-Jefferson , introduced the Family Farm Fairness Act(SB227) into the state Senate February 20th. This bill was read and referred to the Judiciary Committee.. The bills survived the closing of the legislative session and one hearing has been held. More hearings are planned for late Fall.

Tom Hensley, a Fieldale Farms vice-president, said the poultry grower contracts are fair and any new legislation to regulate the industry is unnecessary. But Senator Beatty, a farmer who owns four chicken houses on 200 acres in Jackson County, said the agricultural industry lacks an "objective standard" in its compensation method and the bill is needed to correct that among other things.

There is enough support for the bills to cause some Atlanta watchers to suggest that if the poultry growers and other contract farmers push hard enough, the bills will pass.

Indiana - Great start, poor finish

While other states were attempting to pass fair contract legislation, Indiana focused on the farmers' need to be able to market their produce and bargain for fair contracts with processors/handlers.

In a 94 to 0 vote in favor, the Indiana State House of Representatives passed H.B. 1543, the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act. The legislation required good faith bargaining and was similar to the existing bargaining laws already in place in Michigan. The bill would create an agricultural marketing and bargaining board within the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture to review disputes and monitor compliance. It also had provisions for mediation and arbitration if negotiations come to an impasse.

Unlike the Michigan law, HB 1543 applies to all commodities - including livestock. The Indiana Farm Bureau supported the bargaining concept for farmers but not the producer protections bill because FB felt that it could make farmers in Indiana uncompetitive with those in other states. The Indiana Farmers Union supported and actively campaigned for the measure. However, the Bill was referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it sat until the Legislative Session adjourned for 2001..

Illinois - Survivor Too

By a vote of 72 to 41 the Illinois House of Representatives passed H.B.524, a replica of the model Producer Protection Act with the exception of not providing for farmers to file liens. Farmers in Illinois already have that protection.

After that great start, the bill was sent to the Senate where it was opposed by the huge grain and seed companies- Pioneer, Monsanto, ADM, AMI and others. Monsanto sent out letters to farmers asking that they contact their State Senator and request that he oppose the bill because it is not needed for all crops and livestock. They said that the only problem in Illinois now is with some hog contracts.

The Illinois Beef Association, Illinois Pork Producers and the Dept. of Agriculture all were neutral. The Illinois Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, Corn Growers Association, and the Soybean Growers Association all supported the measure.

In spite of efforts of Monsanto and the other "big guns" to send the bill to the Senate Rules committee, referred to as the "political graveyard" where it would die, the bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further review. Hearings will be held in November.

Heartland Pioneer Quality Crop Systems is busily warning farmers that the bill could make Illinois corn and soybean farmers uncompetitive with farmers from other nearby states. Identity preserved grains are being concentrated and contracted in that area.

Iowa - Holding Steady

Legislation protecting the rights of contract growers was introduced in the Iowa House and Senate(SF254 and HF547) Neither bill was reported out of the Agriculture Committee prior to the close of this year's session. The proposed legislation had many positive sections including a prohibition on requiring new or additional major investments unless the farmers is willing to agree in writing to the company's proposed compensation to offset the cost. While the Iowa bills did not prohibit the ranking system, they do spell out farmers' rights to breeding stock information and to know exactly how the company figures the farmer's pay or compensation.

Iowa already has a law on the books prohibiting confidentiality clauses in agricultural contracts.This law has allowed the Office of the Attorney General, Tom Miller, to create a web page with posted copies of ag contracts including production contracts for broilers, hogs, cattle, corn, soybeans and organic soybeans. The ability of the Attorney General to provide public access to production contracts was under heavy attack by the large corporations. Luckily, they did not succeed and any one can access these contracts at http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/farm.htm

Kansas - Never say die

A contract producer protection bill was introduced into the Kansas Senate but it never received a hearing from the Senate Ag Committee.

At the same time, the Senate bill was split into three parts and introduced into the Kansas House as three separate bills.- HB2278, 2280 and 2281 . Each of these bills received a hearing in the House Ag Committee on the same day. Contract turkey growers testified to the need for these bills. Church groups, NFO, NFU, and other Sustainable Ag groups supported the bills. Even Farm Bureau testified in favor of the "concept" of contract fair practices. However, the bills were never "worked" in the committee or brought out on a vote.

Then an amendment giving contract farmers the right to state inspected scales and the right to have an observer present at any weigh-in was added to a bill already on the House floor - HB2101.

In the meantime, the Farm Bureau helped write yet another bill similar to the bill in the Senate- SB355 taking out the confidentiality clause and weakening some of the language. Furthermore, it applies only to poultry and specifically states that it does not apply to hogs or cattle.

The good news is that one amendment giving contract growers the right to have an observer present for weighing (an amendment originally added to HB 2102, then this bill was attached to HB 2101 in conference committee) made it through the conference committee despite fierce opposition from Kansas Livestock Association, Pork Producers, and others. Both the Senate and House voted in favor of the final bill with the amendment that was attached.

Legislators also got a clarification from the Kansas Department of Agriculture that contract growers in Kansas have the right to ask for state inspected scales for weights, measures and counts with civil and criminal penalties and the opportunity to recover twice the amount of damages and attorneys fees if a dispute goes to court.

Kentucky -Tobacco Going Contract but Farmers Get No Help

In February of 2000, the largest purchaser of burley tobacco - Philip Morris - announced they would begin purchasing their tobacco by contracting directly with tobacco farmers in Kentucky. The Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op members researched the long range impact of contracting. They gathered information from NCPGA members and others about their contracting experience.

The 150,000 member strong Burley Growers Co-op lobbied the Kentucky General Assembly that spring for legislation that would have enabled an association to negotiate a "minimum contract" for all tobacco farmers.

Despite support from the Governor of Kentucky, the State Attorney General, the Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture, public health organizations and others, the bill failed to get introduced. The tobacco companies went on the defensive, organizing a powerful lobbying campaign against any action to empower farmers. Legislation did pass that created a Tobacco Task Force to study the impact of contracting.

However, Philip Morris, aware of the fact they were being watched very closely, increased the premium they offered contract tobacco farmers at least three times during the season. They sent every farmer contracting a "Christmas basket" thanking them for participating in the "Partnership" with the company.

In the fall of 2000, when the National Association of Attorneys General released the model Producer Protection Act, the Burley Co-op and the Kentucky Farm Bureau worked together to develop legislation for Kentucky. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies successfully lobbied the other commodity organizations in the state to fight against any legislation that would regulate contracts. To date, no legislation has been successfully introduced in either chamber to help farmers.

While less than 10% of tobacco was produced under contract in 2000, experts estimate that approximately 80% will be under contract in 2001. Farmers are signing contracts hoping to ensure their future in tobacco production.

Mississippi - DOA in the Senate

Mississippi legislators and citizens have a right to be tired of fighting for fair agricultural contracts for their farmers. In 1996, they fought long and hard to pass a bill that would set up an agricultural advisory board which would include a representative poultry grower and to prohibit unfair practices. They succeeded in passing the bill in both the Mississippi House and Senate only to have it killed by former Governor Fordice's veto .

In 1998, they were successful in getting a producer protection bill through the state House again only to have it killed this time in the Senate.

In 2000, the legislators and poultry growers decided to see if the model Producer Protection Act (SB2865) with some added variations could be passed by the Senate first before it was introduced in the House to avoid wasting time and energy if the Senate should kill it. The bill was defeated in the Senate.

Senator Gloria Williamson, original sponsor of the bill, wrote to "Friends in farming" in the state explaining that "the loss of the battle does not equal the loss of the war. " The bill was important to farmers in general and to contract farmers in particular. "I was trying to protect our growers from becoming tenant farmers to the big processors. We must continue the fight because contracting poses serious risks for the producers (farmers) and ultimately for consumers."

Missouri - Short-lived

Missouri Representatives Wiggins, Clayton, Shoemeyer, Berkowitz, and Ransdall introduced HB306 to amend existing chapter 265 RSMo by adding fifteen new sections relating to the agricultural producer protection act. The new sections defined the terms and covered all of the sections of the model bill with an emphasis on liens. HB306 was referred to the Agriculture Committee where it was heard once but was not voted out of the Committee.

Nebraska - Held hearings - gained support

Two bills were introduced into Nebraska's Unicameral (one room) legislature and hearings were held in February. LB587 prohibits unfair practices in cattle and swine production contracts, but does not include poultry contracts since there is little poultry production in Nebraska. The bill defines "unfair practices" including the comparison of LB 592 concerns the contracts themselves and would require most of those protections described in the model Producer Protection Act for cattle and swine contracts.

It is expected that both bills will be taken up again in the next session of the Legislature.

North Carolina - Bills on life support

Two bills were introduced in the NC Senate that deal with Contract Fairness.

The Agricultural Contract Fairness Act, S 1009, was introduced by Sen. Ellie Kinnaid. Under S1009, production contracts would be prohibited from including confidentiality clauses and binding arbitration clauses, would allow the producer to register a lien making the producer a secured creditor, and would make it more difficult to cancel a contract without evidence of poor performance. The Agricultural Contract Fairness Act also included a ban on unfair trade practices, including the ranking system (tournament pay). This bill has been sent to the Commerce Committee and no further action has occurred.

The Contract Fairness/ Fair Practices Act, S 1086, was introduced by Sen. Allen Wellons and amends the Unfair Practices by Handler's Act by expanding the commodities covered by this law from just "fruits and vegetables" to "other row crops," including tobacco. Besides including most of the protections in the model Producer Protection Act, the bill establishes the right of tobacco producers to have a third party grader present at the receiving station and prohibits exclusivity provisions in tobacco contracts (allowing one farmer to have tobacco contracts with more than one purchasing company).

Commerce Committee Action

The Contract Fairness/Fair Practices Act was brought before the Commerce Committee on April 24th and received a favorable report. During the committee debate the bill was amended to specify that "other row crops" meant just tobacco and no other crop. Senator Wellons explained that the bill was an effort to get ahead of the curve, given the rapid change that is taking place in tobacco markets this year. An estimated 80% of tobacco will be grown under a contract agreement this season, though less than 10% was under contract last year.

Concerns were voiced primarily by Senators Patrick Ballantine (R/Warren County), Tony Rand (D/Cumberland County), and John Kerr (D/Wayne County). A representative from Philip Morris gave the strongest statement in opposition to the bill though the Lorillard Tobacco Co. lobbyist also voiced significant concern.

Senator Frank Ballace (D/New Hanover County) spoke up in favor of the Contract Fairness/Fair Practices Act and noted his support for not narrowing the bill. North Carolina Farm Bureau stated that they were in support of the bill as it was originally written and introduced to the committee.

While the bill received an initial favorable report from a voice vote of the committee, it was later reconsidered and referred to the Rules Committee for study. There is a possibility the issue will be directed to a study commission this fall and possibly brought back up in the next session.

North Dakota - Died in Committee

Senate Bill 2145 was introduced by the Senate Agriculture Committee at the request of the Attorney General. The Bill would establish an Act to regulate agricultural contracts between ag producers and contractors; to provide a penalty; and to provide for application. A hearing was held, but the bill failed by a vote in committee of yeas 2, nays 47.

Oklahoma - Left to die in the House Judiciary Committee

State Senator Paul Muegge successfully steered a "contract growers protection act" (S162) through the Oklahoma Senate (28-13) with the help of many poultry growers who spent hours away from their farms to witness the proceedings. As the night wore on with no vote being taken, Sen. Muegge told his colleagues that the farmers "know where the bathroom is and are prepared to stay all night if that is what it takes." When it finally passed, there was great hope that the Oklahoma House of Representatives would also approve the bill. Rep. Kenneth Corn, co-author of the bill, was ready to go to work for passage.

However, the bill was sent to the House Judiciary Committee where Representative Toure of Oklahoma City refused to hear the bill "because the session is too short to hear all the bills." Representative Muegge blasted the "strong arm tactics" used by the poultry industry to kill the bill. "It's a shame that legislators can be bought and paid for by relentless companies who apparently have no regard for the lives its operation turns upside down," Muegge said. He charged that high-pressure tactics, intimidation and bribery were used to kill his regulatory bill.

South Dakota - Ran out of time

The South Dakota Legislature studied a contract farmer protection act (HB1136) with 21 Representatives and Senators sponsoring it. The initial sponsor was Rep. Kloucek , a senior representative in the House and a farmer convinced that South Dakota needs the bill for all farmers of the state.

After much study and debate while in the House Ag and Natural Resources Committee, the bill was "deferred to 41st legislative day" - which, in a 40 day session, is a pleasant way of killing it..

The South Dakota Farmers Union supported HB1136 totally. The Attorney General would support it only if the legislature would put the resources with it to enforce and administer the Act.. The Secretary of Agriculture would only support the 3 day waiting part of the bill. He argued that all the rest of the bill is already covered by one or another of South Dakota's laws.

Several legislators worried that the bill could adversely affect the way grain is sold. A provision to change one's mind three days after a commitment to sell at a certain price would not work