Politico’s Morning Agriculture publication reported today that, “Supporters of Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts’ state GMO labeling preemption bill are getting more confident that enough Democrats will get on board to move the measure before the Easter recess, possibly even next week. The vote ‘count is getting better on our end,’ a supporter of the bill told Morning Agriculture, adding that despite what some Democrats have said about the measure, ‘statements don’t matter. Votes matter.'”

A summary and discussion related to Sen. Roberts’ bill can be found here.  Recall also that an alternative GMO labeling measure, which was co-sponsord by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) has also been introduced in the Senate.

Senator Merkley discussed this issue on the Senate floor both Wednesday and yesterday; respective transcripts of his remarks can be found here and here.

The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri released its U.S. Baseline Briefing Book today.

The FAPRI report noted that, “Lower agricultural commodity prices have contributed to a sharp reduction in net farm income. The outlook for the next several years suggests continued pressure on farm finances is likely.”

The report added that, “Projected corn prices average $3.75 per bushel for the 2016/17 marketing year, up only slightly from 2015/16. Corn prices average less than $4.00 per bushel for the 2017-2025 period.

Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) was a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, where the conversation focused on GMO labeling issues and Senate action on a GMO labeling bill that passed the Senate Ag Committee last week.  (In part, the bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 by providing definitions for the national voluntary bioengineered food labeling standard).

Below is an unofficial transcript of the AgriTalk discussion.

Recall that an alternative GMO labeling bill has also been introduced in the Senate (ensures that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging), and that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has also weighed in the issue (thinks mandatory labeling necessary to get 60 votes in the Senate).

The editorial boards at both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have also recently expressed strong, and opposite, opinions on GMO labeling.

Unofficial AgriTalk transcript (audio replay here (MP3- 10:00)):

Mike Adams: Mr. Chairman, thank you for being with us. Let’s get right to your GMO labeling bill. How are things going in trying to come up with a compromise bill? How close are you?

Sen. Ag. Comm. Chairman Pat Roberts: Well, the good thing is that the leader has said that we’re going to take up this bill next week. Certainly before the break, we have to. Last week, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted on a 14-6 bipartisan vote to pass the Chairman’s mark–my mark–on the Biotechnology Labeling Solutions. So we passed the bill in the Senate [Ag Committee]. We are now working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to see if we can’t get a bill that, well, that can pass the Senate. So that’s where we are, and we will continue. We have to address the labeling concerns as soon as possible. We have to provide certainty well before July when the Vermont state labeling all would go into effect.

Read More »

In the most recent USDA online magazine Amber Waves, Nigel Key indicated that, “The market for local foods continues to expand in the United States. Farm operations with direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales of food increased from 116,733 to 144,530 between 2002 and 2012. Consumers have more opportunities to purchase food directly from producers, with 8,268 farmers’ markets operating in 2014, up 180 percent since 2006. DTC marketing—where producers engage with consumers face-to-face at roadside stands, farmers’ markets, pick-your-own farms, onfarm stores, and community-supported agricultural arrangements (CSAs)—is a substantially different business model from traditional marketing and is one that could help some farmers survive and prosper in a risky and competitive business environment.

“This article [“Local Foods and Farm Business Survival and Growth“] compares the farm business survival and growth rates of farms with DTC sales to those who market through traditional channels, such as grain distributors, processors, and wholesalers. Data show that farmers with DTC sales are more likely to remain in business than other farms but increase in size (measured by sales) more slowly. These differences in survival and growth rates could be explained by attributes of DTC marketing that result in different debt-to-asset ratios, farm income risk, and labor requirements, or possibly by differences in off-farm employment opportunities or preferences for farm versus nonfarm work.”

The USDA article pointed out that, “What is it about DTC marketing that seems to enhance farmers’ chances of remaining in business? One advantage for DTC farms may stem from having lower rates of machinery purchases and land ownership than farms using traditional marketing. According to data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, farmers who marketed directly to consumers owned $20.82 worth of machinery per dollar of sales, compared with $31.10 for those who marketed through traditional channels. And farmers selling directly to consumers owned $240 worth of land per dollar of sales, compared with $309 per dollar of sales for other farmers. Because they did not need to purchase as much machinery and land to achieve a certain level of sales, farmers with direct sales did not need to leverage as much of their wealth to obtain financing. Furthermore, Census data reveal that farmers with direct sales had annual interest payments of only $7.85 per $1,000 of owned assets, compared with $10.55 for farmers with no direct sales. A lower debt-to-asset ratio should indicate a better ability to repay loans and has been associated with a lower risk of small business failure.”

Concluding, the Amber Waves article explained that: “Higher survival rates and slower growth for farms with direct-to-consumer sales may also stem from different attitudes toward farm versus nonfarm work. Researchers have found evidence that nonfinancial benefits from self-employment may encourage small business owners to remain in business despite earning less income. There is also evidence that the nonfinancial benefits to farming (e.g., greater autonomy, independence, and lifestyle factors) are substantial. It is possible that farmers who sell directly to consumers derive greater nonfinancial benefits from their work—perhaps they enjoy interacting with their customers. This would provide a greater incentive for them to remain in business even with lower business expansion possibilities.”

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that, “Lawyers for John Deere and other farm and heavy equipment managers are taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court following a state court decision that rejected most of their challenges to New Hampshire’s Auto Dealers Bill of Rights law.

“The law, signed by Gov. Maggie Hassan in 2013, was expanded to include manufacturers of tractors and yard and garden equipment. Hassan said it leveled the playing field between manufacturers and dealers, but a judge barred it from taking effect after Deere and others filed suit.

“Those manufacturers say the law looping them into protections designed for automobile and truck dealers unconstitutionally interferes with their equipment dealer contracts. They said they were improperly lumped in with auto manufacturers. The state Supreme Court rejected most of their arguments in December.”

The AP article stated that, “The manufacturers asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to halt enforcement of the law so they can petition the court to review their case by the end of March.

“‘The equipment industry does not operate in the same way as the motor vehicle industry,’ lawyers for the manufacturers wrote. ‘It sells different products for different uses to different individuals and entities, and it contracts differently with its distributors and dealers.'”

This week’s article added that: “The state had argued that the law is a merger of regulations that dealt separately with automobile manufacturers and farm and tractor manufacturers. It bars manufacturers from terminating contracts with dealers without just cause, limits mandatory upgrades to facilities and requires proper reimbursement for warranty work done by dealers.”