For the past few months, lawmakers in the U.S. Senate have been working to resolve issues regarding legislation dealing with the labeling of food products that contain Genetically Modified (GMO) ingredients.

Ken Anderson reported last Monday that, “Senate Agriculture Committee leaders say they made some progress last week on a GMO labeling compromise, but several issues remain unresolved.

“Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking member Debbie Stabenow have reportedly been engaged in ‘intense negotiations,’ trying to find common ground on the issue. One remaining argument, according to a Politico report, is over what to do about processed foods that contain both meat and genetically modified crops like corn, soybeans and sugar from sugar beets. The livestock and dairy industries are pushing for a labeling exemption for meat and dairy products that come from animals fed GMO feed.”

On Thursday, Des Moines Register writer Christopher Doering reported that, “Senate lawmakers struggling to reach a deal on how to label food containing genetically modified ingredients said Thursday they are making progress, but acknowledged time is running out before Vermont’s first-in-the-nation labeling law takes effect next month.

“Congress has only six working days before July 1, when Vermont begins requiring that all foods containing genetically modified products be labeled. Any bill approved by the Senate would have to clear the House, which is in recess the last week of June.”

The Register article added: “‘We are still negotiating, and I think we’re getting much closer,’ Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters. ‘We have to act. We can’t allow this to happen on the first of July with the Vermont labeling law.’

“Roberts said there are still ‘several areas of disagreement‘ but he declined to say what they were.”

Recall that last week, voters in North Dakota went to the polls to reconsider a ban on corporate farming.

Reuters writers Fiona Ortiz and Karl Plume reported on Wednesday that, “North Dakotans on Tuesday soundly rejected a law enacted last year that changed decades of family-farming rules in the state by allowing corporations to own and operate dairy and hog farms.

“Some 75 percent of North Dakotans who went to the ballot box voted to repeal Senate Bill 2351, according to preliminary results posted on a state website.

“The law, signed into law in March 2015 by Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple, exempted dairy and swine production from the state’s Depression-era corporate farming prohibition.”

The Reuters article noted that, “Corporate and foreign control of U.S. farmland has been a hot-button issue in several major agricultural states in recent years as a multi-year commodities boom that began in 2007 has attracted non-farm investors.

“State laws prohibiting corporations and foreign entities from owning U.S. farmland complicated a $4.7 billion acquisition in 2013 of U.S. pork producer Smithfield Foods by China’s Shuanghui International. The deal ultimately closed.

“This February, a U.S. district judge issued an injunction barring Nebraska officials from enforcing the state’s ban on farmland ownership by corporations.”

DTN writer Todd Neeley reported yesterday that, “The national stay on the waters of the United States rule likely will remain in place and the legal challenge to the rule will continue well into 2017, under a court order Tuesday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

“There are a number of briefing deadlines extending into 2017.

“Based on the order, oral arguments on the merits of the case likely would take place beyond February 2017.”

Mr. Neeley noted that, “Numerous legal challenges to the rule have been consolidated by the three-judge panel because of the sheer number of challenges filed.

“The Sixth Circuit ruled in April there would be no hearing of the full 23-judge court as requested by a group of petitioners led by the American Farm Bureau Federation.”

The DTN article added that, “There are 22 petitions for review involving more than 150 petitioners. In addition, ‘numerous parties’ have intervened in the cases, according to court documents.

“The rule remains on hold nationally.

“The rule, commonly called WOTUS, was meant to clarify EPA and Corps of Engineers authority over areas around waterways where the federal government has authority to either require a federal permit or stop any activity that would disturb the waterway. Opponents claim the rule would give the regulatory agencies broad authority over basic farming practices simply because water may pool somewhere after a rain or fill a ditch.”

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday that, “The tide has turned this spring in corn and soybean prices, leaving farmers with unexpected marketing opportunities, and also possibly nagging worries about selling too early in a market rally.”

Mr. Clayton noted that, “Producers are more upbeat about the market situation than they were a few months ago when the emphasis was on just how much money farmers were going to lose per acre. Some say it’s important to take advantage of the market rallies over the past month considering how low marketing expectations were earlier this spring.”

And the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) indicated yesterday in it’s Feed Outlook report that, “The 2016/17 corn price is projected up 15 cents per bushel from last month due to tighter supplies and stronger export prospects.”

The ERS report added that, “The projected range for the 2016/17 corn price received by farmers is $3.20 to $3.80 per bushel, up 15 cents on both the high and low ends of the range from last month’s projection, which was the first for the year. The resulting midpoint price of $3.50 per bushel compares with last month’s midpoint of $3.35 per bushel.”

Meanwhile, University of Illinois agricultural economist Darrel Good pointed out earlier this week at the farmdoc daily blog (“Weekly Outlook: Corn Stocks, Acreage, and Yield“) that, “Corn futures prices have increased about $0.75 since the surprisingly large 2016 corn planting intentions were reported on March 31. The strength reflects declining South American production prospects and the associated strength in export demand for U.S. corn; expectations that planted acreage fell short of intentions; and recent yield concerns associated with an extended period of hot weather.”

The farmdoc update noted that, “Producers have waited for and now welcome the higher corn prices. The higher prices coupled with uncertainty about summer weather, however, means that producers now have more price risk along with some production risk.”

Nonetheless, despite the positive price developments for corn, Bloomberg writers Alan Bjerga and Jeff Wilson reported this week that, “American farmers who expanded production using rented land during the commodity boom a few years ago are now struggling to repay loans.

“A crop glut has eroded prices and sent profit to a 14-year low, but rents have barely budged and debt levels are the highest in more than three decades, government data show. Bankers are cutting back on loans that aren’t secured by land, so more farmers are tapping into a U.S. Department of Agriculture program designed to be the lender of last resort. And it’s almost out of money.”

The Bloomberg writers stated that, “The USDA’s Farm Service Agency has allocated $140 million a month on average for direct operating loans since Oct. 1, leaving just $129 million in the budget for the remaining four months of the fiscal year. With about 39 percent of U.S. farms operating on rented property, increased government intervention signals lower land values and more consolidation because debt-strapped and younger farmers will be forced to quit, according to farm groups advocating for more financial aid.”

The Bloomberg article added that, “The shortfall may be temporary. Senator Jerry Moran, the Kansas Republican who chairs the agricultural appropriations subcommittee, said in an e-mailed statement that lawmakers intend ‘to fully fund the loan programs’ for farmers in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.

“A rally in prices over the past three months also may help. While still well below their records, corn gained about 23 percent since the end of March and soybeans advanced 25 percent to a two-year high.”

Also with respect to the agricultural economy, a news release yesterday from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) stated that, “It was more of the same in May for U.S. retail sales of ag tractors and combines, with under 40HP tractors leading the way and sales of larger tractors and combines continuing to lag, according to data from the [AEM], the leading trade organization for off-road equipment manufacturers and suppliers.”

The release pointed out that, “Combine sales declined 40.2 percent year-over-year for May but for January through May dropped 28.8 percent compared to 2015 year-to-date sales.”

Ken Anderson reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “A Nebraska state senator says he plans to reintroduce a Right to Farm bill in the 2017 Nebraska legislature.

“Senator John Kuehn of Heartwell sponsored legislation in this year’s session that would have placed a Right to Farm constitutional amendment before Nebraska voters. However, he withdrew the bill following a contentious first round floor debate.

“Kuehn tells Brownfield he’s more convinced than ever that Nebraska needs Right to Farm.”

The article explained that, “Animal rights groups, led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have vigorously fought Right to Farm efforts in other states and would likely do the same in Nebraska. But Kuehn says that’s not a reason to back down…[M]issouri and North Dakota have passed Right to Farm laws. Oklahoma voters will consider a Right to Farm amendment this November.”

Julie Bosman reported on Monday’s New York Times that, “The Wagner family farmstead in central North Dakota could have been lifted from a Grant Wood painting: bales of hay rest on a gently sloping hill, cattle graze near a bright blue pond, green tendrils of durum and sunflowers peek out of the dirt.

“The Wagners fear that all of this could someday be under threat from big, impersonal corporations. It is a concern that is expected to drive them, and other North Dakotans, to the polls on Tuesday to vote on a referendum that would make it possible for companies to buy up farms like theirs.”

The Times article indicated that, “Starting in 1932, North Dakota law barred nonfamily corporations from owning farmland or operating farms. But that changed in March of last year when the state Legislature passed a bill that would relax the corporate farming ban and Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed it into law.

“Citizens protested the new law, with the state’s farmers union at the forefront, which led to the referendum that voters will face on Tuesday. The law was set to take effect last August, but its fate rests on the outcome of the referendum.”

Monday’s article added that, “A vote for the measure would uphold the new law, which allows domestic corporations and limited liability companies to own and to operate dairy farms and swine production facilities on land that is no larger than 640 acres, or one square mile. A vote against the measure would repeal the new legislation and restore the law that had governed farm and dairy operations in the state for more than eight decades.”