|
The dominant private corporations and public
policies shaping the U.S. farm and food system are failing the family
farmers and ranchers who produce our food. Farmers and ranchers
have lost income, independence, and their farms and ranches to a
system tilted in favor of input suppliers and food processors.
Agricultural commodity markets and family farms
and ranches are threatened by what Iowa State agricultural economist
Neil Harl calls "the deadly combination" of concentration
and vertical integration in agriculture.
- A provision of the 2002 Farm Bill requires retail
labeling of meat, fish and produce by its country of origin.
This law required
these foods be labeled in grocery stores by September 2004. However,
opponents of mandatory labeling don't want consumers to know
where
their food comes from, or to allow ranchers and farmers to the
right to identify their crops and livestock as products of the
United States.
In January, the opponents of labeling meats attempted to kill
mandatory labeling. They passed an amendment postponing the
implementation
of mandatory labeling until September 2006.
Supporters of country of origin labeling are standing their ground.
They know that consumers have the right to know the country
from
which their food came. U.S. cattle producers are proud of the
product they raise and want the consumer to have the choice
of
buying meat that is born, raised and processed in the United
States.
on Country of Origin Labeling.
Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) have introduced
legislation to require captive supply contracts to include a fixed base price
and to be available on the open market to any interested producer. Captive
supplies are livestock acquired by packers for slaughter through forwarding
or marketing contracts.
Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and three
other Senators introduced S.
27 to prohibit packers from owning livestock.
Representatives Bill Janklow, Barbara Cubin, Earl Pomeroy, and
six other Representatives introduced a companion bill, H.R.
719.
Read WORC's
factsheet for more information on packer ownership of livestock.
 Independent cattle producers are
looking forward to a final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on
the mandatory beef checkoff program. In late May, the Court agreed
to review a lower court decision that the beef checkoff violates
cattle producers’ free speech rights.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 8. A decision is expected in
early
2005.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) and the Livestock Marketing
Association (LMA) are co-plaintiffs in the case. They want to end the mandatory
checkoff program. The U.S. Justice Department, which is defending the checkoff
program, asked the Court for review.
The beef checkoff is a mandatory one-dollar fee on the sale of every head of
cattle in the U.S. More than 80% of funds collected under the checkoff program
go to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). The NCBA relies
on checkoff funds for 85% of its budget.
The NCBA opposes Country of Origin Labeling and a ban on packer ownership while
promoting free trade agreements. Family farmers and ranchers who disagree with
NCBA on these issues say the mandatory checkoff forces them to underwrite an
organization that is undermining their interests.
WORC and the LMA sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in December 2000
seeking a vote of cattle producers on the checkoff. The case was amended in August
2001 after the Supreme Court ended the mushroom checkoff. In June 2002, U.S.
District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled the beef checkoff violated cattle producers’ First
Amendment rights by compelling them to pay for speech with which they disagreed.
In
July 2003, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Kornmann’s
decision.
Click here to see a chronology
of WORC's beef checkoff case, known as LMA v. Veneman.
More on the checkoff.
WORC joined with 75 farm groups in filing a Friend of the Court
brief urging theU.S. Supreme Court to uphold the states' authority
to enact laws that help family farmers. The Amicus brief seeds
a review and the reversal of an October 2003 decision of the Eighth
Circuit striking down "Amendment E." This South Dakota
constitutional amendment restricts corporations from engaging
in farming.
The Eighth Circuit held the amendment is unconstitutional because
it was intended to discriminate against out-of-state corporations.
The coalition argues that Amendment E, like other corporate farm
statutes, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities,
and is a legitimate regulation of a state’s agriculture.
U.S. farm policy, as embodied in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act,
is an econoic and political failure, and must be reformed. WORC
supports the Food
From Family Farms Act, a comprehensive proposal developed
by farm organizations fighting for a just federal farm policy.
Read
report "Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy: Changing
Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide"
Read
article by John Nichols - Needed: A Rural Strategy (Oct,
'03)
The Senate has defeated the nomination of Thomas Dorr as U.S.
Department of Agriculture Undersecretary of Rural Development.
WORC opposed Door's nomination because of his defense of increased
corporate concentration in U.S. agriculture, his record strongly
opposing sustainable agriculture, his support of large livestock
confinement operations, and his public comments tying rural economic
development with lack of ethnic and religious diversity. 11/03
More information on Dorr nomination |
