A news release late last week from the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) stated that, “A coalition of major farm organizations, commodity groups and agriculture technology providers (ATPs) debuted a tool designed to help farmers understand how their data will be used when they adopt precision agriculture technologies.”

The AFBF item explained that, “The Ag Data Transparency Evaluator was created to help producers understand where their data is going and who has access and control over it. The evaluator requires participating ATPs to answer 10 key questions about their technology products’ use and control of farmer data. A third-party administrator then reviews the answers and determines whether the products meet the standards of transparency set by the Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data (Data Principles). Products that meet the standards will receive the ‘Ag Data Transparent’ seal to be displayed on promotional materials and product pages. Additionally, farmers can go to the Transparency Evaluator website to see and compare all the products and services that have undergone the evaluation.”

Last week’s update added that, “Some of the 10 questions addressed by the Evaluator include: What categories of data do the product or service collect from the farmer?; Will the ATP obtain the farmer’s consent before providing other companies with access to the data?; and Will the ATP notify the farmer if a breach of data security occurs that causes disclosure of the farmer’s data to an outside party?”

As the Senate considers GMO labeling legislation for food products, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilasck addressed the issue Friday at the Commodity Classic convention in New Orleans.

Mike McGinnis reported yesterday at Agriculture Online that, “In a reporters briefing Friday, at the Commodity Classic, Secretary Vilsack says that he is proposing mandatory labeling because in order to get anything done, 60 votes are needed in the U.S. Senate. ‘That’s the key,’ Vilsack says. ‘If you don’t get this requirement, then you create a situation where every company could decide for itself to do something, which could create confusion. Plus, you don’t want state laws that could potentially be at odds.’

“Vilsack wants to give the food industry some time to create a label. ‘You give the food industry some time to figure out how flexible the label needs to be, whether it’s a toll-free number for consumers, a website, a smart label, or something else. And then you use that time to educate people that this label is going to be available, and this is an opportunity for them to know about the food that they are buying.’

“Secretary Vilsack believes that the Senate would pass mandatory labeling if it was packaged this way. ‘I think the House will give it great consideration and the president will sign it,’ Vilsack says.”

American Soybean Assn says GMO labeling bill in the Senate is the most important issue facing agriculture today. #Classic16

— Chris Clayton (@ChrisClaytonDTN) March 3, 2016

DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday that, “On biotech labeling, Vilsack said he’s worried that ‘chaos ensues’ if Congress doesn’t act on biotech labeling legislation now in the Senate. His main goal is to ensure a bill gets 60 votes in the Senate that conveys consumers’ right to know what’s in their food without giving the wrong impression about the safety of biotechnology. He said food costs would rise and consumers could be unnecessarily concerned about their food if every state is allowed to create a different labeling scheme for foods with ingredients from biotech crops.

“‘I’m here today to say unequivocally they are safe to consume,’ he said. ‘There is no risk associated with them, and we need to make that clear to the consuming public.’

“Beyond generating fears among consumers, farmers and the food industry should be proud of the technology, reflecting the innovation of the country. ‘It’s something that’s going to allow producers to be more productive, but to do so with less inputs. It’s going to allow the producer to be an even better environmental steward,’ Vilsack said. Recalling a conversation he had with a biotech company executive, he said, ‘You need to aggressively market this not only to producers, but also to consumers. We need to be extraordinarily proud of American agriculture.'”

Michal Addady reported yesterday at Fortune Online that, “Want to know if your food contains genetically modified organisms? Hope that food companies feel like telling you.

“In a 14-6 vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture approved a bill that makes GMO labeling voluntary, preempting any state or local initiatives that would have made it mandatory. The legislation will now make its way to the full Senate for consideration.”

Recall that the House passed legislation on this topic with a bipartisan vote of 275-150 last summer.

Meanwhile, a news release yesterday from former Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D., Vt.) stated that, “Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley and Senators [Leahy], Jon Tester (D-MT), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Wednesday introduced legislation that would ensure that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging while ensuring that food producers are not subject to confusing or conflicting labeling requirements in different locations.

“The senators’ legislation presents an alternative to a Senate Agriculture Committee bill that would hide ingredient information from consumers by overturning state GMO labeling laws.”

The release explained that, “Specifically, the Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act would amend the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers to disclose the presence of GM ingredients on the Nutrition Fact Panel in one of four ways:

– “Manufacturers may use a parenthesis following the relevant ingredient to indicate that this ingredient is ‘Genetically Engineered.’

-“Manufacturers may identify GM ingredients with an asterisk and provide an explanation at the bottom of the ingredients list.

-“Manufacturers may simply apply a catch all statement at the end of the ingredient list stating the product was ‘produced with genetic engineering.’

-“The FDA would have the authority to develop a symbol, in consultation with food manufacturers, that would clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of GM ingredients on packaging.

“None of these options would require front panel disclosures or ‘warning’ statements intending to disparage GM ingredients.”

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Merkley stated that, “I will be rising periodically to address issues that affect Americans across our country and that this Chamber should be addressing. This week I am using my speech to highlight the labeling of genetically modified foods. This is truly a ‘We the people’ versus ‘We the Titans’ battle because citizens routinely poll in very high numbers about their desire to know what is in their food, and they like the idea of being alerted when their food contains genetically modified organisms or GMOs, but that is not necessarily the consequence, as when we go through the legislative process, often the ‘We the people’s’ commonsense vision is lost in favor of pressures applied by powerful interest groups. We are in the middle of a debate like that right now. So that is why I thought it appropriate to rise at this moment to address this.”

Sen. Merkley added that, “Just yesterday in the Senate, the Senate Agricultural Committee voted out a law to block the rights of citizens to know whether GMOs are in their food. That is an outrageous—outrageous—bill. It would halt any progress in ensuring that consumers can simply and easily access information about GMO ingredients through labeling.”

“Blocking States from being able to provide information that those State legislators or those State citizens, by initiative, say they want, that is an overstepping of Federal authority to crush States’ rights on an issue important to citizens,” Sen Merkley said.

A complete transcript of Sen. Merkley’s remarks can be found here.

Today, the Federal Reserve Board released its Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions. Commonly referred to as the “Beige Book,” the report included the following observations with respect to the U.S. agricultural economy:

* Fifth District- Richmond– “Commodity prices remained depressed.”

* Sixth District- Atlanta– “On a year-over-year basis, monthly prices paid to farmers for corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, beef, broilers, and eggs have declined.”

* Seventh District- Chicago– “Crop farmers continued to cut capacity following another year of low incomes coupled with unexpectedly small declines in input costs. There were reports of major downsizings of large operations and of some farms going out of business. Farmers are also cutting capacity by purchasing cheaper but lower-yielding seeds and by selling machinery. Correspondingly, prices for used farm machinery are low because of plentiful supply. Corn, soybean, and wheat prices moved higher during the reporting period, but remained quite low compared to their five-year averages. Dairy, egg, hog, and cattle prices were up from the prior reporting period, but remained low.”

* Eighth District – St. Louis– “As of the end of January, almost 93 percent of the District winter wheat crop was rated fair or better. Red meat production in 2015 was 6 percent higher than in the previous year, an increase that has been explained, in part, by lower feed costs, although meat prices also fell during the year.”

* Ninth District- Minneapolis– “District agricultural conditions remained weak. A majority of respondents to the Minneapolis Fed’s fourth quarter (January) survey of agricultural credit conditions reported that farm incomes and capital spending fell in the previous three months compared with a year earlier. An animal feed dealer reported that after several years of strong sales, its revenue outlook was flat due to recent declines in the prices of livestock. Prices received by farmers fell in December from a year earlier for corn, wheat, soybeans, hay, hogs, cattle, chickens, eggs, and milk; prices for turkeys increased from a year earlier.”

* Tenth District- Kansas City– “Tenth District farm income weakened further since the last survey period, and cropland values declined modestly. Persistently low crop prices and sharp declines in cattle prices contributed to lower farm income in all District states. District cropland values continued to decrease slightly, while ranchland values levelled off. Similarly, cash rental rates on all types of farmland moderated and were expected to fall further in the next three months. Alongside lower farm income, farm loan repayment rates weakened further, and demand increased for new loans as well as loan renewals and extensions. Looking forward, District contacts expected modest declines in cropland values as well as continued pressure on credit conditions amid tighter profit margins for crop and livestock producers.”

* Eleventh District- Dallas– “Soil moisture conditions remained healthy, with only 2 percent of Texas considered abnormally dry in February, compared with 56 percent last year in some level of drought. While prospects for 2016 crop production are strong, farmers face low prices and downward pressure on exports because of the strong dollar. Industry contacts said many producers will not be able to cover their production costs at the current crop price levels, and some have received calls from their lenders voicing concern. Cotton—Texas’ top crop—has seen prices push even lower with risks to the downside. Contacts reported that low prices and weakening demand will likely result in fewer cotton acres planted this year. Milk prices continued to drift unprofitably low, despite the supply disruption in the wake of winter storm Goliath, which killed roughly 30,000 dairy cows in West Texas and New Mexico. Cattle prices were lower than the record levels posted a year ago but are still relatively high.”

* Twelfth District- San Francisco– “Activity in the agriculture sector was flat over the reporting period. Continued dollar appreciation slowed agricultural exports in general, although exports of pork products rose as demand from Asia strengthened. Contacts reported that domestic demand from restaurants slowed for some vegetable products. Despite an unusually wet winter, overcoming prior drought conditions remains a costly challenge for growers and ranchers in much of the District. Contacts expect conditions in the agriculture sector to remain roughly the same over the coming year as commodity prices remain soft and exports continue to be subdued.”

Yesterday, the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, which is chaired by Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kans.), held a roundtable discussion on the state of the farm economy.

In prepared remarks, Dr. Patrick Westhoff, the Director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri, indicated that, “Farm commodity prices have declined sharply after reaching record highs in recent years. For example, the marketing year average price for corn fell from $6.89 per bushel in the drought year of 2012/13 to an estimated $3.60 per bushel just three years later (Table 1). Wheat, soybean and cotton prices have also declined. The high prices of the 2010-2012 period and more favorable weather conditions resulted in a large increase in U.S. and global crop production, while a variety of factors limited demand growth, so carryover stocks increased. Crop cash receipts fell by 17 percent between 2012 and 2015.”

Dr. Westhoff added that, “The decline in crop and livestock receipts has resulted in a dramatic reduction in net farm income relative to the record level of 2013. Lower fuel, fertilizer and feed prices helped reduce production costs by about $10 billion in 2015 and another reduction is expected in 2016, but the projected cost reductions are not nearly enough to offset revenue losses.

“Given all the assumptions of our analysis, net farm income remains well below recent peak levels.”

At the conlcusion of his prepared remarks yesterday, Dr. Westhoff indicated that, “If these projections prove correct, it suggests an extended period of financial stress in U.S. agriculture. Not only are farm incomes expected to remain well below recent peaks, but businesses that sell machinery and inputs to farmers are also likely to be negatively affected. Farm asset values are likely to be under pressure, especially if interest rates increase.

“However, it is also important to maintain perspective. While rising debt is a serious concern, debt-asset ratios remain low by historical standards. Even if interest rates increase from current levels, they are likely to remain well below the levels that prevailed during the farm crisis of the 1980s. While commodity prices are well below recent peaks, they remain high by pre-2007 standards.”

Meanwhile, Nathan S. Kauffman from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City observed that, “Corn prices, for example, dropped by more than 50 percent from the peak in 2012 to the latter part of 2014. Since 2014, prices have fluctuated some, but have largely remained flat over the past 18 months. Soybean prices also dropped significantly from 2012 to 2014 and have continued to fall over the past year. The prices for other major crops, such as wheat, sorghum and rice, have experienced similar declines in varying degrees. Input costs for crop production have declined somewhat over the past 12 to 18 months due to lower fuel costs and modest reductions in fertilizer prices. However, costs have generally remained high, and many producers have continued to report negative profit margins, with crop prices below their breakeven cost of production.”

Dr. Kauffman also noted that, “The persistent declines in farm income and poor profit margins have reduced cash flow and increased short-term lending needs in the farm sector.”

The prepared remarks also included this graph depicting regarding land values: