Ag Committee Members Press USDA on Payments to Deceased Farmers

Senate Ag Committee members Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan raised concerns with the USDA’s Farm Service Agency about farm program payments to deceased farmers. The Senators sent a letter to the agency, saying that they need to be careful stewards of taxpayer money and work to avoid wasteful payments. The letter says, “As we prepare to write the next farm bill, we write to request more information so we can understand more about USDA payments to an estate after the death of a farmer.” Current law says farmers must be “actively engaged in farming” in order to receive farm program benefits. Farmers do that by providing labor or management. USDA recently issued guidance that considers an estate to be actively engaged – and thus, eligible for farm payments – for up to two years after the death of a farmer, without review. The Government Accountability Office criticized USDA payments to the estate of dead farmers, saying it’s helped heirs to game the system and evade payment limits by collecting benefits on behalf of the deceased family member.

USDA Projecting Strong Red Meat, Poultry Exports

In spite of a strong U.S. dollar, the USDA is projecting red meat and poultry exports= to rise steadily over the next decade. The trade website, Meating Place Dot Com, says steady global economic growth, especially in developing economies, will drive foreign demand from the U.S. market. After dropping in the early part of this decade, beef exports should begin to rise slowly again. Despite the modest export growth, the U.S. share of global exports will likely decline. China is expected to bump the U.S. from the top spot as the largest beef importer over the second half of the upcoming decade. U.S. pork exports are projected to grow faster than beef exports and stay on par with poultry, although poultry will likely slow during the second half of the next decade. Production efficiency gains continue to enhance the pork sector’s international competitiveness. The U.S. will remain the second-largest pork exporter, just behind the European Union. Poultry exports will grow over the next decade, although slower in the second half. Export growth is faster in the first half of the period thanks to the continued recovery from the 2015 avian influenza outbreak. American will remain the second-largest poultry exporter behind Brazil.

Bayer-Monsanto Deal Should Close in the Second Quarter of 2018

Bayer AG CEO Werner Baumann says he’s confident they’ll win European Approval of their deal to acquire Monsanto. A Bloomberg report says he’s trying to win the approval of its $66 billion acquisition while contemplating the sale of more businesses. He says, without the Monsanto acquisition, Bayer sales and profits will grind to a halt this year. Company shares dropped almost four percent on the weak forecast, the biggest drop in months. The German-based company had expected to close the deal early this year. It remains confident that it can take care of EU antitrust concerns by either divesting or out-licensing businesses. The company has said it will sell its entire vegetable seed business in a deal that should wrap up in the second quarter of this year. Farming technology and the seed portfolio have emerged as key details in the EU talks. A Reuters report this week says that EU regulators have already decided to give the deal their approval. 

Montana Grain Growers Association and Montana Grains Foundation Offer Scholarships

Great Falls – The Montana Grain Growers Association (MGGA) and the Montana Grains Foundation (MGF) will each offer scholarships to be used for the 2018-2019 school year. MGGA will award two $1,000 scholarships to students pursuing an agricultural related degree at the college of their choice. Applicants or their parent, grandparent, or legal guardian must be a current producer member of MGGA. MGF will award two $2,500 scholarships to Montana State University juniors or seniors (appy through MSU), and two $2,500 scholarships, one of which is funded by CoBank, to graduate students, pursuing agricultural degrees in specific disciplines. Applications must be received no later than April 1, 2018, and the winners will be announced by May 1. More information and application forms are available by calling the MGGA office at 406-761-4596 or online at www.mgga.org. 

Washington Insider: Is It Natural?

The urban press, including the New York Times, has a hard time with agricultural basics including what is milk, and even what is meat. Recently it reasoned that one bright spot in an otherwise lackluster market for packaged foods, beverages and consumer products has been merchandise promoted as "natural." And, since consumers mistrust ordinary supermarket goods and are paying premium prices for "natural" goods, from fruit juices and cereals to shampoos and baby wipes. The Times sort of argues that something consumers are demanding should be clearly definable and defined.For example, it says that "a spate of lawsuits and consumer advocacy efforts show, one person's "natural" is another person's methylisothiazolinone." It suggests that this confusion is the government's fault. The problem, consumer groups and even some manufacturers say, is that there is no legal or regulatory definition of what "natural" is. And, it reasons—wrongly—that the debate in many ways echoes the tussling in the 1990s over the word "organic," when food makers played fast and loose with the term and frustrated consumers tried to make sense of it all.And, so, the Times says, USDA, tasked with creating an "organic" program, was pestered by consumers, farmers, manufacturers and states as it developed a definition, guidelines and a "certification" process— not a standard, but a certificate.Today, the Times thinks, while regulators are weighing whether to define the term "natural," the lack of clarity for over the past decade has resulted in a freewheeling, and litigious, environment.On one side are companies eager to cash in on consumers' willingness to pay higher prices for natural products by slapping "all natural" labels on them. At times, the claims have stretched the limits of credulity — like "All Natural" 7Up, Pop-Tarts "Baked with Real Fruit" and Crystal Light "Natural" lemonade. (Some labels like these were eventually changed.)"The lawsuits you see are only a fraction of the claims that are made," said David Biderman, a partner at Perkins Coie who defends food companies in class-action lawsuits. Behind the scenes, Biderman said, plaintiffs' lawyers are sending letters to companies and threatening to file lawsuits over labels they argue are misleading or violate consumer protection laws. Those letters, Biderman said, are often rejected, go away or are resolved with a small payment.Whether the lawsuits are necessary, or a nuisance, depends on whom you ask.Corporations, lawyers say, have been reluctant to allow a case to go to trial and risk having a legal definition of "natural" emerge — which might set standards companies would have to meet. As a result, the bulk of the lawsuits filed over the past decade have been settled, dismissed or, more recently, stayed by judges who hope regulators will step in with a definition."We're really getting into splitting hairs about what is natural and what's not," said Maia Kats, the director of litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public advocacy group has been involved in a handful of lawsuits over so-called natural products.A survey of consumers in 2015 by Consumer Reports magazine showed that at least 60% of respondents believed "natural" on packaged and processed foods meant they contained no artificial colors or ingredients and no genetically modified materials."About two-thirds of consumers surveyed think that natural on a food package means no pesticides were used," said Charlotte Vallaeys, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports. "They're confusing it with organic," which prohibits nearly all pesticides from use on food products.The fact is that for terms like "natural" or even "healthy" it is extremely difficult -- maybe impossible --to come up with exclusive definitions. In late 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration sought feedback from consumers and the industry on whether it should define and regulate the word "natural" on food labeling.More than 7,600 comments flooded in. Some consumers wanted the word banned from all food labeling. Others asked that the term be defined simply-whatever that might mean."We recognize that consumers are trusting in products labeled 'natural' without clarity around the term," Scott Gottlieb, the commissioner of the FDA said. "Consumers have called upon the FDA to help define the term 'natural' and we take the responsibility to provide this clarity seriously. We will have more to say on the issue soon." We will see.Still, lawyers say that until regulators come up with a definition, the not-so-natural dance among consumers, manufacturers and lawyers will continue.Well, maybe Consumers Union is right—if you can't define a term, don't allow it. It is pretty hard to imagine what a completely natural processed food would look like. Maybe FDA should give up the pretense, and simply ban it—unless some genius finds something far more meaningful, Washington Insider believes. 

Senate Confirms Bill Northey to USDA Position

Senate Ag Committee Chair Pat Robers was pleased to announce that the Senate has confirmed Iowa Ag Secretary Bill Northey to a position with the USDA. After he is sworn in, he’ll serve as the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services within the USDA. “I’m pleased the Senate advanced his nomination,” Roberts says, “and I have no doubt he will be a champion for farmers and ranchers at USDA.” The Senate Ag Committee held a hearing on the Northey nomination back on October 5, where the nomination was approved by bipartisan voice vote. Northey had the support of more than 60 farm and ranch organizations. Texas Senator Ted Cruz had placed a hold on the Northey nomination in an attempt to force changes to the Renewable Fuels Standard, which he and a handful of refiners blame for hurting jobs in that sector. Northey was thankful that the process has been completed. “It’s a tremendous honor for me to be confirmed as an Under Secretary of Agriculture,” he says, “and while the process took longer than expected, I’m excited as ever to work with Secretary Perdue and the USDA staff to support our nation’s farmers and ranchers.”

No Deal After White House Biofuels Meeting

A Reuters article says there was no agreement in a meeting between lawmakers and Cabinet members regarding the Renewable Fuels Standard. President Donald Trump had called for a meeting between the two sides who have been feuding over the current state of the renewable fuels law. The decade-old policy was intended to help farmers and reduce the nation’s petroleum imports. However, a refining company in the key electoral state of Pennsylvania blamed the RFS as the cause for it having to recently file for bankruptcy. Iowa Republican Charles Grassley took to Twitter after the meeting, saying “No deal made.” Other lawmakers at the meeting included Joni Ernst of Iowa, as well as Ted Cruz of Texas and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Other than the Grassley tweet, there were no other comments immediately after the meeting. Philadelphia Energy Solutions employs more than 1,000 people and says the law forced it into bankruptcy protection. However, Reuters has reported that a $590 million withdrawal in dividend-style payments from the company to its investors likely played a big role in the filing. Other refineries, including RFS opponent Valero, are pulling in solid profit margins in spite of the regulation.