Nicole Heslip reported late last week at Brownfield that, “Senate Agriculture Committee leaders say they are working toward a compromise on GMO labeling. But committee ranking member Debbie Stabenow admits it’s one of the toughest issues she’s had to deal with.

“‘This is tough. We’re working continually on this, trying to thread the needle, and I’m hopeful we can do that,’ says Stabenow. ‘I think we’re going to have to, because it is not sustainable to have 50 different states and 50 different rules.’

“Stabenow says finding the right balance has been very difficult.”

The Brownfield article pointed out that, “Ag Committee chair Pat Roberts says he’s waiting to see what Stabenow brings forward as a compromise. Roberts calls GMO labeling ‘a giant wrecking ball coming through the food industry.'”

Meanwhile, Politico’s Morning Agriculture reported today that, “Congress will be in session for only about 35 of the 60 days remaining before Vermont’s GMO-labeling law takes effect…”

Recall also that last week DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton quoted Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, as saying:  “I think the biggest problem we have in agriculture is all of this labeling.”

And Ken Anderson reported today at Brownfield that, “Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says the odds are ‘zero’ that a GMO labeling bill will make it through Congress before Vermont’s labeling law goes into effect July 1st. But Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, says the situation could change if other states start passing their own GMO labeling laws.”

A news release last week from USDA stated that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today unveiled the USDA Urban Agriculture Toolkit, a new resource created by USDA’s Know Your Farmer team to help entrepreneurs and community leaders successfully create jobs and increase access to healthy food through urban agriculture. From neighborhood gardens grown on repurposed lots, to innovative mobile markets and intensive hydroponic and aquaculture operations, urban food production is rapidly growing into a mature business sector in cities across the country.”

The news release explained that, “Industry estimates show U.S. local food sales totaled at least $12 billion in 2014, up from $5 billion in 2008, and experts anticipate that value to hit $20 billion by 2019. The numbers also show that these opportunities are helping to drive job growth in agriculture, increase entrepreneurship and expand food access and choice.

“USDA’s Toolkit is an electronic document that helps urban and small farms navigate more than 70 helpful resources, including technical assistance and financing opportunities. It focuses on some of the most pressing challenges confronting urban producers such as land access, soil quality, water resources, capital and financing, infrastructure, market development, production strategies, and applying for federal, state or private foundation grants. University extension service partners in Chicago and Indianapolis helped develop cost estimates for starting urban farms and the toolkit includes information on best practices and check lists for start-ups and early-stage producers planning outdoor or indoor operations.”

An update last week at USDA’s blog stated that, “Opportunities to buy food directly from farmers, in urban and rural areas, have increased considerably in recent years. The number of farms that sold food at roadside stands, farmers’ markets, pick-your-own farms, onfarm stores, and community-supported agricultural arrangements increased 24 percent between 2002 and 2012. Economists at the Economic Research Service (ERS) have found that farmers who market goods directly to consumers are more likely to remain in business than those who market only through traditional channels.

“Farmers face many business risks, including fluctuations in prices and yields. ERS looked at Census of Agriculture data showing that 61 percent of farms with direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales in 2007 were in business under the same operator in 2012, compared with 55 percent of farms without DTC sales.”

The USDA update added that, “What is it about DTC marketing that seems to enhance farmers’ chances of remaining in business? One advantage may stem from the fact that farms using DTC marketing may be less capital-intensive operations. The Census data show that farms with direct sales required less machinery and land to achieve a certain level of sales. Moreover, these farms had lower debt levels than similarly sized farms with no direct sales.

“A more secure income stream may also help account for some of the difference in survival rates. Income of DTC farms comes from both production and marketing. The portion from DTC marketing depends on the margin between the wholesale and retail price. Even when farmers’ input and output prices vary, the markup between the wholesale and retail prices tends to be relatively stable. Hence, the additional income that farmers can earn by selling directly to consumers rather than to wholesalers should not vary substantially because of farm price fluctuations, making their farm income less risky.”

A news release Thursday from the House Agriculture Committee stated that, “Today, Rep. Jackie Walorski (IN-2), Chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Nutrition, held a hearing to examine the connection between U.S. farm policy and the stability of food prices for consumers. This is the fourth hearing in the Focus on the Farm Economy series [a recap of the previous hearings can be found here, here and here], where each of the six subcommittees are reviewing the state of the farm economy from the perspective of the subcommittee. Members heard from a panel of witnesses who explained the share of the food dollar that goes to each segment of the food supply chain, the role U.S. farm policies play in stabilizing retail food prices, and the potential impact that shifts in food prices have on consumers.”

Subcommittee Chairwoman Walorski indicated that, “One factor that tends to be overlooked is the role of effective farm policies in keeping prices affordable and stable for consumers. While the average American spends 9.8% of their disposable income on food, those with lower incomes, who are already estimated to spend 34% of their disposable income on food, are much more susceptible to swings in food prices. For them, an increase in the price of food means foregoing other needed purchases.”

Dr. Ephraim Leibtag, the Assistant Administrator for USDA’s Economic Research Service, who testified at least week’s hearing, noted that, “In 2014, for example, U.S. households in the middle income quintile spent an average of $5,992 on food, representing 13.4 percent of income, while the lowest income households spent $3,667 on food, representing 34.1 percent of income.

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported earlier this week that, “A single reporter had just one more question about GMO labeling for Sen. Debbie Stabenow as the senator rushed from a conversation with reporters to another event on Tuesday.

“With the letters GMO still ringing in the air, a pack of reporters followed Stabenow out the door to catch one more snippet of information on what direction the Senate could go GMOs.

“Low commodity prices, input costs and planting season might be the issues taking up the attention of farmers, but GMO labels continue to dominate the conversation among leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees who met Tuesday with members of the North American Agricultural Journalists.”

The DTN article indicated that, “‘I think the biggest problem we have in agriculture is all of this labeling,’ said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

“Vermont is moving on with its GMO labeling regime and companies have responded in different ways as some have decided to label whether their products contain ingredients from genetically modified crops while other companies are reformulating their food products to avoid using ingredients from biotech crops.

“The U.S. Senate failed to pass a federal preemption bill in March in a 48-49 vote when the bill needed 60 votes to pass. That bill, however, and a House version that was passed last year, would have prevented labeling a food product as genetically modified or genetically engineered unless the Food and Drug Administration saw a health reason to do so.”

Mr. Clayton explained that, “Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, wouldn’t use the term GMO when talking to reporters. He said ‘agricultural biotechnology’ but said there was not yet another compromise to sway at least 12 senators to shift their votes and back it.

“‘When that happens on the other side of the aisle that should be vetted by the producers, the growers and everybody connected to the food industry,’ Roberts said. ‘That simply has not happened.’

“Roberts said staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee continue to work on a solution. He added that the problem isn’t isolated to Vermont or a handful of states, but to as many as 31 states considering different labeling rules that could completely hamper food-processing companies around the country.”

The DTN article added that, “[Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.)] said the marketplace could sort out the labeling issues and everyone could discover the vast majority of consumers aren’t as interested in the biotechnology aspects of a product as advocacy groups and others believe. At the same time, Peterson noted right now companies are starting to label everything including salt as ‘non-GMO.'”

Recall that Oklahoma State University agricultural economist Jayson Lusk indicated in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that, “My research shows that when people are directly asked how they want the issue of GMO labeling to be decided, they do not defer to politicians or their fellow citizens. In a survey last May, a strong majority, 61%, preferred to put the matter to experts at the Food and Drug Administration. This seems to be borne out at the ballot box: To date, referendums on mandatory labeling have been held in five states, and none has passed.”

Stephanie Strom reported in yesterday’s New York Times that, “The yogurt giant Dannon, looking to tap into the public’s growing concern about the source of its food, is establishing a direct pipeline to some farms that supply the company with milk, part of an ambitious plan to influence farm practices right down to the dirt.

“Under a new supply system that the company will announce on Wednesday, farmers in the program must adhere to Dannon-dictated animal welfare standards and work to improve and conserve soil on their farms, among other things.”

Ms. Strom noted that, “The company’s program plays into an array of consumer trends, from the desire for better treatment of farm animals to a preference for the wares of small, new food companies that promote the simplicity and purity of their products. Those upstarts represent stiff competition for Dannon, whose yogurts represent more than a third of those sold in America.

“Many big food companies are responding to the pressure like Dannon, by chipping away at an industrial food system built for efficiency, speed and low cost. Over the last year, companies including Nestlé and General Mills have pledged to use eggs only from hens living in cage-free, or aviary, housing systems, and Unilever has promised to increase ‘sustainability‘ in its business by doing some of the same things Dannon is trying to do with its new program.

“But few have made plans as far-reaching to an ingredient as central to its business as milk is to Dannon.”

Yesterday’s article added that, “Sourcing milk directly is a sharp departure from the way big dairy companies usually get their milk. Typically, dairy farms load their milk into refrigerated trucks, which take it to a plant where it is combined with milk from other farms and processed.

“That process, used by Dannon’s former milk supplier, Dairy Farmers of America, a large cooperative, can make it difficult to figure out where the milk originated. Such information is increasingly important to improving food safety and addressing consumer demands for transparency.

“Now, all the milk in Dannon’s yogurt will come directly from farms and two co-ops, whose members have agreed to the plan. The suppliers have said they will follow the animal welfare standards set by Validus a third-party certification company; these include providing cattle shades to reduce heat stress, and prohibiting tail-docking. The farms and co-op members have also agreed to take steps to change their farm management to deliver the environmental benefits Dannon seeks.”

Jacob Bunge reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Monsanto Co. and Harvard University scientists have claimed a breakthrough in a yearslong battle against pests that can resist genetically modified crops designed to kill them.

“A new technology allowing for rapid changes to bug-killing proteins could provide a new way to tweak biotech crops like corn and cotton to boost resistance to pests, according to a study published by the scientists Wednesday.

“It is years away from being deployed in farm fields and it’s unclear if such pest-resistant crops would require new regulatory reviews. But if successfully deployed, the technology could restore the value of genetically modified crops that have become less effective in recent years as insect resistance has spread in major crop-growing areas like the U.S. south and India’s cotton fields.”

Mr. Bunge noted that, “U.S. regulators have become increasingly concerned about pest resistance, worrying that farmers may respond with more synthetic chemical insecticides that can be harsher on the environment.

“Some farmers have boosted insecticide purchases and regulators have sought tougher rules on the GMO crops.”

A news release yesterday from the House Agriculture Committee stated that, “Today, Rep. Rodney Davis (R., Il.), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, held a hearing to highlight the positive and negative factors impacting cost of production. This is the third hearing in the series Focus on the Farm Economy [note that a summary of the first two hearings can be found here and here], where each of the six subcommittees will examine the state of the farm economy from the perspective of the subcommittee. Members heard from witnesses who provided insight into different programs and policies impacting farm efficiency, productivity, and profitability.”

In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Davis noted that, “I had an amendment in the 2014 farm bill, which would establish a permanent subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board to ensure the voice of agriculture was represented in the agency’s decision making process. Not surprisingly, more than two years later, the EPA leadership has yet to appoint even a single member to this committee. The result of this disregard for the law is a continuing flood of decisions and actions contrary to the needs and desires of America’s farmers and ranchers.

“Unfortunately, it is not just the policies of the EPA that add unreasonable production costs. The implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act will pose enormous challenges for producers and processors with little evidence that some requirements will offer quantifiable food safety benefits. We have often spoken about the threat of the ill-conceived Vermont law governing agricultural biotechnology, yet we are also concerned about what many observers believe is unnecessary regulatory hurdles researchers must go through to bring new applications of biotechnology to the market. As anyone can plainly see, the list of overly burdensome regulations threatening the farm economy is apparently endless.

“Today, the subcommittee will focus more broadly on many of the factors that contribute positively and negatively to the cost of production for our nation’s farmers and ranchers. While the farm safety net helps somewhat mitigate the impact of chronically low prices, our nation’s farmers continue to operate on very thin (and in some cases negative) margins. Going forward, their ability to contain costs will be key to their survival, particularly if low prices persist.”

Subcommittee ranking member Suzan DelBene (D., Wash.) noted yesterday that, “Passing the 2014 Farm Bill itself was a huge accomplishment. But it was also, in my view, the best Farm Bill yet for specialty crop growers, which make up a sizeable percentage of producers in my district. The investments made in programs like the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, Specialty Crop Block Grants, and the Organic Research and Extension Initiative were unprecedented and have a huge impact in the real world. This is a prime example of how Congress should be investing in programs that give us a great return on our investment, while saving money in the long run.”

Chuck Connor, the former Deputy Agriculture Secretary at USDA, who is now the President & Chief Executive Officer National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, pointed out at yesterday’s hearing that, “In examining the dynamics of the farm economy, we are reminded that numerous influences – some of which are out of our control—come into play. Extremely volatile weather and global markets result in equally volatile farm gate prices, yields, and costs of production. Today’s margins for most agricultural commodities are tight, and farm income has retreated significantly from its highs just a few years ago. Our common, ultimate goal— and at the heart of the farm bill— is to preserve the productive capacity of our farms by maintaining a responsive and equitable safety net, combined with adequate funding, for all regions and commodities, as well as comprehensive risk management tools, such as a strong crop insurance program.”

Mr. Connor added that, “Biotech crops contribute substantially to the rural economy by enabling farmers to produce more food in a more time efficient way while using fewer inputs. Globally, farmers growing biotech crops saw net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to more than $20 billion in 2013, the most recent year for which there is data, and more than $133 billion in the thirty years since biotech crops were first introduced. Of the total farm income benefit, 60 percent is due to yield gains.