As Many As Six Farmers Have Fled HSUS Ag Advisory Panel: Report

When the Humane Society of the United States announced in May it was forming a National Agriculture Advisory Council, after having formed 11 at the state level, the Animal Agriculture Alliance sounded a warning: beware.“While today HSUS may be acting like the ally of the producers on this council, the tides will no doubt turn as the organization moves on to target other production methods — a lesson some brands have learned in trying to appease it,” warned Animal Agriculture Alliance President and CEO Kay Johnson Smith in May.An article this week in The Weekly Standard said that now as many as six farmers have fled the HSUS councils over the past year and that HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle removed high-profile rancher Kevin Fulton from HSUS' National Agricultural Advisory Council.In 2012, HSUS Nebraska State Director Jocelyn Nickerson called Fulton, "by far the biggest humane agricultural advocate in the state.” In May, Fulton was named the first chairman of the new HSUS National Agricultural Advisory Council. According to The Weekly Standard, Fulton, who runs an organic grazing operation, was pushing back on what he saw as a radical vegan agenda out of sync with HSUS’ own mission statement. Other farmers interviewed by the newspaper made similar charges. "They were using us as their poster child,” one farmer and former council member told The Weekly Standard. Another said they were used as “window dressing” and that HSUS did not make good on its promise to support farmers and ranchers who give proper care to their animals.Smith was not surprised.“The fact is, HSUS does not support the consumption of animal products, regardless of how the animal was raised. We are glad to see members of the ‘ag council’ beginning to see this for themselves,” she told Meatingplace. “This farmer’s experience should serve as a warning to anyone else in agriculture considering getting involved with this activist group.”HSUS, however, disputed the newspaper's portrayal of the situation with their ag councils and the reason Fulton was asked to step down."We asked Kevin to step down from the agriculture [council] because of a threat he made to one of our staff members," HSUS Senior Director of Public Relations Anna West told Meatingplace, "We still have around 50 farmers and ranchers who are actively involved on our agriculture councils, and HSUS has a raft of programs that drive good farm animal welfare outcomes that are aligned with the interests of family farmers." Fulton could not be immediately reached for comment.  

Farm Groups Draw Line In The Sand Against Companies Converting Product Lines to Non-GMO Crops

(DTN) -- Farm groups defending biotechnology are making it clear they have drawn a line in the sand against companies that convert product lines to non-GMO crops in the name of "sustainability." Spearheaded by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance -- a group funded by farm trade associations and industry partners -- ag organizations on Thursday announced a "straight talk" campaign to engage food companies about biotechnology and practices that should define sustainable agriculture. Farm groups also made it clear they intend to publicly call out food companies that criticize food produced with genetically modified organisms. Farm groups have been trying for years to reverse the conversation and angst about biotechnology from at least some consumers. Yet food companies have increasingly opted to tap into that consumer ignorance on GMOs -- and avoid a future federal GMO disclosure law -- by reformulating products and promoting the brand as non-GMO. General Mills did so with Cheerios, as Hershey's has done with its candy by switching from sugar beets to cane sugar. But the straw that broke the dairy cow's back was a decision by Dannon to commit to sourcing only non-GMO feed for dairy cattle producing milk for three specific yogurt product lines. Dannon took the idea this summer and rolled it into a sustainability pledge for consumers. "This was a tipping point in our opinion," said Missouri dairy farmer Randy Mooney, chairman of the National Milk Producers Federation. The risk, Mooney said, goes way beyond a single yogurt company reformulating its products. When one company in an industry such as dairy is successful with a marketing trend, then it creates a chain reaction in the industry. Mooney said that could lead to sweeping demand from dairy processors to source their milk from cows eating only non-GMO feed. "There is nothing different in the milk from non-GMO feed to regular feed. There's no difference," Mooney said. "But what we have seen in the dairy industry over the past several years is if one marketer does it, another marketer thinks it has got to do it and another marketer thinks they have got to do it." Mooney fears this will create a domino effect through the entrie food supply. " So this is a tipping point." The farm organizations find themselves criticizing a food-industry push to increase profits by marketing non-GMO products. Further, those companies such as Dannon are offering premiums to farmers willing to grow non-GMO crops or sell milk from cows fed diets of non-GMO feed. Dannon has acknowledged the safety of GMOs, but Mooney said the company continues to imply in a sustainability pledge that GMOs are undesirable. Mooney also said the push by companies such as Dannon will only drive up prices for consumers. "When you look at the product that Dannon is putting on the shelf, there's absolutely zero difference in the product that they claim to put on the shelf and the product they are putting out today," Mooney said. "There are only two differences: One is the writing on the carton and the other is the price." Marty Matlock, a professor of ecological engineering at the University of Arkansas, stressed that multiple industry groups across the food supply chain have embraced biotechnology as a tool for sustainable agricultural improvement. Matlock cited industry statistics on reduction of soil erosion across the industry and reduced carbon footprint per acre for soybean production. Such industry statistics can be found in reports from groups such as Field to Market. "We don't say we are sustainable," he said. "We say we are becoming more sustainable using better processes and practices and using every tool in our toolbox." 

Corn, Soybean And Wheat Inspections Bullish

OMAHA (DTN) -- Corn, soybean and wheat inspections were all bullish in this week's export inspections report, according to DTN Analyst Todd Hultman.Corn weekly export inspections were 31.2 million bushels (791,896 metric tons) for the week ending Thursday, Oct. 27. This is above 19.1 mb for the same week a year ago. Inspections for 2016-17 totaled 360 million bushels, up 74% from the previous year and well above USDA's projected 17% demand increase. Monday's report was bullish for corn, Hultman said.Soybean weekly export inspections were 105.4 mb (2,867,212 mt) for the week ending Oct. 27. This is above 94.1 mb for the same week a year ago. Inspections for 2016-17 total 490 million bushels, up 11% from the previous year and above USDA's projected 5% demand increase. Monday's report was bullish for soybeans, Hultman said.Wheat weekly export inspections were 12.0 mb (325,496 mt) for the week ending Oct. 27. This is above 6.3 mb for the same week a year ago. Marketing-year inspections for 2016-17 total 427 mb, up 29% from the previous year and slightly above USDA's projected 26% demand increase. Monday's report should be viewed as bullish for wheat, Hultman said. 

House Republicans Say EPA Did Not Follow Rulemaking Process On WOTUS

(DTN) -- House Republicans say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't follow the federal rulemaking process on the final waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule, and pressed other federal agencies to complete analyses for political reasons, according to a majority report released last week.   A new 182-page House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report is a summary of conclusions reached as a result of Congressional hearings and documents collected from federal agencies in the past couple of years on the WOTUS rule. Opponents of the new rule, which is now hung up in federal court, fear the EPA is unilaterally extending jurisdiction to new waters. Farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, believe the new rule will require farmers and ranchers to obtain more Clean Water Act permits or face federal penalties. Much has been made about the expected economic effect of the WOTUS rule on a wide variety of industries and communities. WOTUS opponents including farm groups have maintained the rule would be costly to comply with, as it is expected to expand the need for federal permits, for example. Emails released as part of the report show EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was at odds with other Obama administration officials about the need to classify the rule as "economically significant," or by EPA's own standards, costing the economy at least $100 million. EPA has maintained the rule would not be economically significant, but agency officials disagreed on that point. 

New York Times Claims GM Crops Offer No Benefit

A study by the New York Times claims genetically modified crops offer no significant yield benefit and lead to increased herbicide use. An article published over the weekend by the New York Times says: “Genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.” The study compared data from the U.S. and Canada with Europe, which the study says has largely rejected genetic modification, to reach its findings. The study says herbicide use has increased in the U.S. at a time when genetic engineering was touted to reduce chemical use. Citing an Agriculture Department study, the New York Times says herbicide use has grown two and half times in the last two decades. Monsanto’s chief technology officer, Rob Fraley, alleges the Times “cherry-picked” data to reflect poorly on the industry. He told the Times: “Every farmer is a smart businessperson, and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don’t think it provides a major benefit,” adding that “biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously.”

Opponents Filing WOTUS Lawsuit Opening Briefs

Critics of the Waters of the U.S. rule will file opening briefs today (Tuesday) in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, opponents of the rule cannot use or cite internal memos from the Army Corps of Engineers in their filings. Those memos include comments from a top general objecting to the rulemaking process for WOTUS. But the three-judge panel hearing the case decided to bar most of those documents from the administrative record because they were deliberative process materials. Judges fear that allowing such documents into court could chill agency officials from speaking frankly during the rulemaking process, according to Politico. Groups filing complaints against the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency represent agriculture and mining companies alongside a handful of state attorney generals.

Enrollment Open for 2017 Farm Safety Net Programs

Farmers can now enroll in farm bill safety net programs for 2017. The enrollment period started today (Tuesday) and will continue until next August. Farm Service Agency Administrator Val Dolcini says producers on farms with base acres under the Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage programs can enroll. Dolcini says the FSA issued more than $7 billion worth of payments this year for the 2015 crop to assist farmers who suffered price and revenue losses. If a farm is not enrolled during the 2017 enrollment period, the producers on that farm will not be eligible for financial assistance from the ARC or PLC programs for the 2017 crop should crop prices or farm revenues fall below the historical price or revenue benchmarks. Producers who made their elections in 2015 must still enroll during the 2017 enrollment period. Farmers can enroll in the programs by contacting their local FSA office.