The Washington Insider section of DTN reported today that, “In spite of their reputation for cold hearts, lawmakers and USDA regulators often show at least some signs of sensitivity. An example is lawmakers’ willingness to exclude the smallest farm operations from many of the FDA’s new requirements and rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act [FSMA].

“However, not everyone is happy with the initial approach. Some have suggested that recent outbreaks of foodborne illnesses have links to heavy reliance on local supplies. Retailers, restaurants and school districts, among others, are increasingly demanding that local products meet certain food-safety requirements, Food Safety News reports. As a result, USDA is using federal funds to help local producers comply. A new program costing nearly $5 million for food safety grants is the result.

“In addition to small and mid-sized farms, the grant program is intended to help beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, small fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers, food hubs and farmers’ markets.”

More specifically, a news release on this issue from USDA earlier this month stated that, “The grants, offered through the Food Safety Outreach Program and administered by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), are designed to help these stakeholders comply with new food safety guidelines established by the Food and Drug Administration under the [FSMA].”

The USDA release added that, “In fiscal year 2015, NIFA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funded an infrastructure of National and Regional Centers to extend food safety education, training, and technical assistance to specific audiences affected by new guidelines established under the FSMA. In fiscal year 2016, the Food Safety Outreach Program at NIFA will build upon this established national infrastructure by focusing on the delivery of customized training for owners and operators of small farms, food processors, small fruit and vegetable wholesalers, food hubs, farmers’ markets, terminal markets, and farms that lack access to food safety training and other educational opportunities.

“This year, NIFA will fund three types of projects to help producers comply with FSMA. Pilot projects will support the development and implementation of new and potentially high-risk, high-impact food safety education and outreach programs in local communities that address the needs of small, specialized audiences from among the various target groups. Community outreach projects will focus on the growth and expansion of already-existing food safety education and outreach programs that are currently offered in local communities. Multistate Education and training projects will support the development and implementation of multi-county, state-wide, or multi-state food safety education and outreach programs where there are common food safety concerns, but the states are not necessarily located within the same regions.”

Earlier this month, the Iowa State University (ISU) Extension Service provided a closer look at the potential costs and returns of organic crop production.

More specifically, the ISU update (“Organic Crop Production Enterprise Budgets“) stated that, “An enterprise budget is an estimate of the costs and returns to produce a product (enterprise). For example, a conventional Iowa corn and soybean producer would be interested in developing both a corn and soybean enterprise budget. Organic growers may have three to six different products they wish to develop budgets for depending upon the number of crops within their rotation. These budgets reflect a four-year rotation of corn, soybeans, oats with alfalfa, and a second year of alfalfa as the crops. Changing the rotation to include a second year of corn after soybeans for example would affect the corn budget described here.

“Why use enterprise budgets? In economic terms, enterprise budgets help to allocate land, labor and capital, which are limited, to the most appropriate use. The most appropriate use is defined by the person in control of the resources and may be used to maximize profits, minimize soil loss, or to achieve other goals.

“The estimated costs and returns illustrated are based on a long-term study located at an Iowa State University research farm in southwestern Iowa.”

The ISU budget summary did note that, “The illustrated budgets are to be used as an indication of what a particular crop could average over time and location. Individual farm results will vary from these numbers based on soil types, location to markets, availability to sources of manure and managerial ability, among other considerations.”

A news release yesterday from Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.) indicated that, “[Sen. Hoeven] today spoke on the Senate floor ahead of a vote on his legislation to defund the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waters of the U.S. rule, which would prevent its implementation. The senator stressed the rule’s severe impacts and excessive scope, as well as the agency’s lack of legal authority to issue such a broad regulation. The measure, which was offered as an amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, was supported by strong majority of the Senate, though it did not achieve the 60 votes required for passage; the final vote was 56 to 42.

“‘The EPA’s attempt to expand its reach through the Waters of the U.S. rule is the number one regulatory threat and a real problem for our farmers and ranchers,’ Hoeven said. ‘Further, there is a fundamental principle about how our government works at stake. The EPA has sought through administrative fiat to seize authority that legally belongs to Congress, not an executive agency. While I am disappointed that the vote failed, I will continue my work to stop this burdensome regulation through the appropriations process.'”

Also with respect to this amendment, Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) stated yesterday during the floor debate that, “Navigable waters have seemed to be a Federal responsibility since the 1840s in law, in bills that have passed the Congress. So in the early 1970s, the Clean Water Act was passed, and the EPA was formed. The Clean Water Act said the EPA will have jurisdiction over navigable waters. But with this outrageous waters of the United States rule, the EPA wants to now define ‘navigable waters’ as basically all the water in the country.

Julie Jargon reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “A lawsuit accusing Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. of deceiving customers with claims that its food is free of genetically modified organisms can move ahead, a federal judge has ruled.

“The case, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida in September and seeking class action status, claims that Chipotle misled consumers in ads saying its food is GMO-free. Chipotle’s meat and dairy products come from animals that consume genetically modified feed, the suit alleges. A Miami judge on Wednesday rejected Chipotle’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A trial date is set for November.”

The Journal article noted that, “Chipotle last year thrust itself into the controversy over GMOs when it said it would become the first national restaurant company to use only non-GMO ingredients.”

Amy Haimerl reported today at The New York Times Online that, “Cowgirl Creamery, a small food producer in Marin County, Calif., was elated when Whole Foods came calling to buy Cowgirl’s organic triple-cream cheese for 45 of its stores. After five years of selling shop to shop, the entrepreneurs behind the company finally had their first big order. To meet the new production demands, they borrowed $200,000 to build new aging rooms for the cheese.”

The Times article indicated that, “Other companies too have learned that the excitement of the ‘Whole Foods effect’ can quickly turn to fear as they face producing and distributing their recipes at larger volumes while maintaining quality and consistency. And most critically, they have to find the money to pay for the expansions.

“It’s an opportunity — and challenge — that more entrepreneurs are confronting as retailers turn to start-ups and small businesses to fulfill consumer demand for locally grown food.

“The percentage of customers buying these products rose to 25 percent in 2013, from 13 percent in 2007, according to a recent report from the Food Marketing Institute in Arlington, Va.”

The article pointed out that, “Local food sales could hit $20 billion by 2019, up from $5 billion in 2008, the research firm Packaged Facts predicts. The success of the local food movement has drawn backing from Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, as well as from environmental groups and food enthusiasts. Even traditionally commoditized food products like milk are burnishing local bona fides.

“Whole Foods has driven much of the demand for such products at the national level. The company employs ‘local foragers’ tasked with finding new products. It also offers a loan fund to help vendors cover the costs of growth. Since 2007, it has lent nearly $20 million to 247 recipients, with an average interest rate of 5 percent.”

“But as demand has grown, so has the number of major retailers seeking such products for their shelves. Kroger has created partnerships with several state ‘buy local’ programs and Costco recently started a loan program for organic farmers who need capital to meet growth targets,” the article said.

Today’s NYT story on small food makers struggling to scale for Whole Foods https://t.co/ELMydWwWMS v ours 1 YEAR ago https://t.co/7ZlFGNQeWI

— kelsey gee (@kelseykgee) April 20, 2016

Recall that last year, Wall Street Journal writers Annie Gasparro and Leslie Josephs reported that, “Whole Foods may not dominate specialty-foods retailing the way it once did, but for startups targeting Americans’ growing hunger for natural and organic fare, it remains the ultimate gatekeeper. Its imprimatur can open the way not only to Whole Foods’ more than 400 stores, but to bigger retailers who covet the cachet of brands carried at Whole Foods, entrepreneurs say.

“As a result, small companies are willing to do a lot to get into Whole Foods and stay there—from changing recipes and tweaking packaging to selling certain products exclusively through the chain.”

The Journal article added that, “Meeting Whole Foods’ druthers can be expensive. Kate McAleer, founder of Bixby & Co., which supplies candy bars to Whole Foods, says certifications cost at least $10,000 a year—a hefty sum for her company, which she expects to break even this year. And Whole Foods lists roughly 80 “unacceptable” ingredients including vanillin, bleached flour, and aspartame that must be removed from products seeking to appear on its shelves.”

A news release from the House Appropriations Committee yesterday indicated that, “The House Appropriations Committee today approved the fiscal year 2017 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The proposed legislation funds important agricultural and food programs and services, including food and medical product safety, animal and plant health programs, rural development and farm services, marketplace oversight, and nutrition programs.

“The bill totals $21.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $451 million lower than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level and $281 million below the President’s budget request. The legislation targets funding to programs to provide the most benefit to the American people and the U.S. economy, while reducing funding for inefficient, wasteful, or lower-priority programs and agencies. In addition, the bill contains several policy provisions to rein in unnecessary and burdensome regulations that harm U.S. food producers and that impede growth in important U.S. industries.”

According to a summary of the measure, “The legislation provides $1.51 billion for FSA, which is the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. This funding will continue support for various farm, conservation, and emergency loan programs, and will help American farmers and ranchers with the implementation of the farm bill.”

In addition, “The bill provides $868 million to help farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners conserve and protect their land. This includes $12 million for infrastructure rehabilitation to help small communities meet current safety standards for watershed projects.”