A news release yesterday from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated that, “U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, passed by Congress in July of 2016, directed USDA to establish this national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are or may be bioengineered. The Standard requires food manufacturers, importers and certain retailers to ensure bioengineered foods are appropriately disclosed.

“‘The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard increases the transparency of our nation’s food system, establishing guidelines for regulated entities on when and how to disclose bioengineered ingredients. This ensures clear information and labeling consistency for consumers about the ingredients in their food,’ said Secretary Perdue. ‘The Standard also avoids a patchwork state-by-state system that could be confusing to consumers.’

“The Standard defines bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature. The implementation date of the Standard is January 1, 2020, except for small food manufacturers, whose implementation date is January 1, 2021. The mandatory compliance date is January 1, 2022. Regulated entities may voluntarily comply with the Standard until December 31, 2021.”

Yesterday’s update added that, “USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) developed the List of Bioengineered Foods to identify the crops or foods that are available in a bioengineered form throughout the world and for which regulated entities must maintain records. The records will inform regulated entities on whether the food must have a bioengineered disclosure to be communicated to consumers. Regulated entities have several disclosure options: text, symbol, electronic or digital link, and/or text message. Additional options such as a phone number or web address are available to small food manufacturers or for small and very small packages.”

“The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2018. Following publication of this rule, USDA will provide outreach and education to inform regulated entities and the public about the new disclosure terms. The entire record of the rulemaking is available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard.”

Associated Press writer Ryan J. Foley reported yesterday that, “A Missouri farmer and businessman ripped off consumers nationwide by falsely marketing more than $140 million worth of corn, soybeans and wheat as certified organic grains, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

“The long-running fraud scheme outlined in court documents by prosecutors in Iowa is one of the largest uncovered in the fast-growing organic farming industry. The victims included food companies and their customers who paid higher prices because they thought they were buying grains that had been grown using environmentally sustainable practices.

“The alleged leader of the scheme was identified as Randy Constant of Chillicothe, Missouri, who was charged with one count of wire fraud. He is expected to plead guilty during a hearing that is scheduled at the federal courthouse in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday.”

The AP article noted that, “Industry watchdog Mark Kastel called the scale of the fraud ‘jaw-dropping’ and probably the largest ever documented involving U.S. farmers. He said the case points to weak oversight of the organic industry by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

Mr. Foley added that, “Constant told customers his grain was certified organic because some of it had been grown on his farms in Missouri and Nebraska. But the charging document alleges that at least 90 percent of the grain being sold was non-organic grain that he either grew himself elsewhere or bought from other farmers.

“Constant was aware that farmers he purchased from used unapproved substances, including pesticides and nitrogen, to grow their crops, the document says.”

Associated Press writer Kimberlee Kruesi reported yesterday that, “The Trump administration on Tuesday called on farmers to throw their support behind a proposal to withdraw federal protections for many of the country’s waterways and wetlands.

“Environmental Protection Agency acting administrator Andrew Wheeler and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue on Tuesday traveled to middle Tennessee to drum up support among the state’s agricultural community in their pursuit to replace the Obama-era water protections.

“‘When Obama-EPA put forward these definitions, they claimed it was in the interest of water quality. But it was really about power, power in the hands of federal government over farmers, developers and land owners,’ Wheeler told the several hundred person crowd in the small town of Lebanon. ‘We are here today to tell you that we’re putting an end of that power grab.'”

The AP article noted that, “The changes would affect what waterways and wetlands fall under jurisdiction of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Trump administration would remove federal protections for wetlands nationally unless they are connected to another federally protected waterway.

“Groundwater, stormwater, most farm ditches, wastewater treatment systems and land already converted for crops would also no longer be regulated under the Clean Water Act.”

Yesterday’s article added that, “‘We believe that farmers are rule followers … when you begin with that premise, it’s very unsettling to be on our own land doing what you’ve done for years and then having a federal regulator give you a summons,’ Perdue said.”

A news release yesterday from the U.S. Department of Agriculture stated that, “At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today launched the second and final round of trade mitigation payments aimed at assisting farmers suffering from damage due to unjustified trade retaliation by foreign nations. Producers of certain commodities will now be eligible to receive Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments for the second half of their 2018 production.

“‘The President reaffirmed his support for American farmers and ranchers and made good on his promise, authorizing the second round of payments to be made in short order. While there have been positive movements on the trade front, American farmers are continuing to experience losses due to unjustified trade retaliation by foreign nations. This assistance will help with short-term cash flow issues as we move into the new year,’ said Perdue.

“Secretary Perdue announced in July that USDA would act to aid farmers in response to trade damage from unjustified retaliation. President Trump directed Secretary Perdue to craft a short-term relief strategy to help protect agricultural producers while the Administration works on free, fair, and reciprocal trade deals to open more markets to help American farmers compete globally. In September, USDA initiated three programs to aid American agriculture in sustaining the short-term damages associated with the trade disputes and securing long-term, stable export markets.”

Yesterday’s news update added that, “Producers need only sign-up once for the MFP to be eligible for the first and second payments. The MFP sign-up period opened in September and runs through January 15, 2019, with information and instructions provided at www.farmers.gov/mfp. Producers must complete an application by January 15, 2019 but have until May 1, 2019 to certify their 2018 production. The MFP provides payments to almond, cotton, corn, dairy, hog, sorghum, soybean, fresh sweet cherry, and wheat producers who have been significantly impacted by actions of foreign governments resulting in the loss of traditional exports. The MFP is established under the statutory authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation CCC Charter Act and is under the administration of USDA’s FSA. Eligible producers should apply after harvest is complete, as payments will only be issued once production is reported.

“For farmers who have already applied, completed harvest, and certified their 2018 production, a second payment will be issued on the remaining 50 percent of the producer’s total production, multiplied by the MFP rate for the specific commodity.”

Nathan Owens reported last week at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette Online that, “A group from Harrison is among the activists suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a 2016 exemption rule that allows ‘medium-sized’ feedlots and poultry farms, which can hold tens of thousands of animals, to sidestep the risk analysis process required of ‘large’ operations.

“The rule, court documents show, exempts certain poultry, pork, beef and dairy operations that apply for taxpayer-subsidized loans or loan guarantees from the usual process of public notice, public comment and federal oversight and has allowed for the establishment of dozens of ‘factory farms.’

“At least 100 medium concentrated animal feeding operations were approved for Arkansas from 2016 to 2017, according to USDA records cited in the complaint. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 5. The defendants include the USDA and its Farm Service Agency, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and Administrator Richard Fordyce.”

Mr. Owens noted that, “The plaintiffs — eight U.S. agricultural and environmental advocacy groups — allege that the Agriculture Department developed a rule ‘categorically excluding [Farm Service Agency] funding of medium-sized concentrated animal feeding operations from National Environmental Policy Act review.'”

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette article added that, “Before 2016, the USDA’s Farm Service Agency performed environmental analyses under an EPA act to assess the impact of government loans or loan guarantees on concentrated farm operations, before the loans or guarantees were approved. The farm agency would weigh the ‘negative externalities’ of the operations on nearby communities and then notify neighbors, farmers and other interested parties of the planned facility or expansion and the risks involved, so they could raise concerns ‘before the federal government disbursed funds,’ the complaint said. Risk assessments were conducted if an operation held at least 50,000 chickens, 27,500 turkeys, 1,250 pigs, 500 cattle or 350 dairy cows.

“Under the current rule, medium concentrated animal feeding operations are exempt from the rule-making procedure, fast-tracking them for approval of federal loans or loan guarantees. The plaintiffs claim the Agriculture Department is in violation of federal clean air and water acts by allowing the rule’s exemption to stand.

“Proponents argue the rule makes it easier for farmers to secure funding. Critics say the rule keeps residents in the dark until construction is underway. The plaintiffs contend that through the current rule the Farm Service Agency ‘now assumes these facilities have no environmental impact and exempts them entirely from analysis under [the National Environmental Policy Act].'”

A news release yesterday from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) stated that, “Farmers now have a low-cost option for insuring small parcels of land in one county by combining them into a single enterprise unit with land in a neighboring county under their crop insurance. The [RMA] is offering the new endorsement known as the Multi-County Enterprise Unit for farmers interested in covering two counties in the same state under their crop insurance policy.

“‘Today’s farmers and ranchers face tremendous challenges. Access to affordable, flexible crop insurance options shouldn’t be one of them.’ said RMA Administrator Martin Barbre. ‘This simple policy change will help producers manage their overall production risk by combining acreage into a larger unit, which could also lead to lower insurance premiums for policyholders. It’s a win-win.’

“The endorsement is available for spring crops with a November 30, 2018, and later contract change date. Initially targeted crops include coarse grains (corn, grain sorghum, soybeans), cotton, canola, peanuts, rice, small grains (barley, wheat), and sunflowers.”

The RMA update noted that, “To qualify for the endorsement, one county must qualify independently for an enterprise unit and the other county must not qualify for an enterprise unit. Both county crop policies in the Multi-County Enterprise Unit must be with the same Approved Insurance Provider and have the same elections for Multi-County Enterprise Units, insurance plan, coverage level, and enterprise unit by practice. Interested farmers should contact their crop insurance agent to discuss options. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers and online at the RMA Agent Locator.”

Craig Jarvis and Josh Shaffer reported yesterday at the News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina) Online that, “A federal court jury on Wednesday ruled in favor of eight Sampson County neighbors who sued the world’s largest pork producer for bringing foul odors and excessive noise to their rural community.

“The plaintiffs were each awarded between $100 and $75,000 to compensate them for harm caused by living near a hog farm. Following Wednesday morning’s verdict the jury began hearing testimony in the punitive damages phase of the trial on Wednesday afternoon. The jury is likely to decide later this week on the amount of punitive damages, if any.

“Based on the three previous hog nuisance trials, all of which the company also lost, punitive damages could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Yesterday’a article stated that, “Murphy-Brown attorney James Neale of Richmond, Va., said the plaintiffs’ contentions about the hog industry have nothing to do with the specific farm that is the subject of the trial. He listed improvements the company has made over the years to address concerns.

“Punitive damages, Neale said, are reserved for the worst corporate offenders. The allegations in this trial fall short of that standard, he said. Citing state law, Neale said punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of personal ill will or conscious and intentional disregard of the rights and safety of others.”

The article added that, “This latest trial is the fourth such case against Murphy-Brown.

“In August, a federal jury awarded $470 million to neighbors of a Pender County farm run by Murphy-Brown, an award that was reduced due to a state cap on punitive damages. Under the cap, punitive damages can’t exceed three times compensatory damages or $250,000.”

Wall Street Journal writer Heidi Vogt reported yesterday that, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal Tuesday that reduces the number of federally protected bodies of water compared with an Obama-era rule it seeks to replace.

“EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the rule will give states needed flexibility in managing their streams and wetlands and provides greater certainty to Americans about when permits are needed, while reining in what he described as the overreach of the Obama administration.

“Mr. Wheeler said former President Obama’s rule wrongly included many bodies of water that don’t regularly flow into larger waterways. The new proposed rule ‘puts an end to the previous administration’s power grab,’ he said.”

The Journal article pointed out that, “The proposal requires a 60-day public comment period before the EPA begins drafting a final version, which the agency said it expects to publish by June.

“The new EPA proposal, like the rule it seeks to replace, is designed to clarify the definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ which the 1972 Clean Water Act stipulates should be regulated by the federal government. The Obama administration’s 2015 rule said if streams, wetlands or ditches have a significant impact on more major waterways, they fall under federal jurisdiction.

“Mr. Wheeler’s proposal is for a rule that is more narrow in scope. ‘The Congress hasn’t told us to regulate all development across the entire country. They’ve told us to regulate navigable waters,’ Mr. Wheeler told The Wall Street Journal in his first interview about the rule. ‘You have to draw a line.'”

Ms. Vogt added that, “The change will appeal to some in the business world, and especially farming groups, which complained that the Obama rule was so broad that it made it difficult to know when permits were needed. Restrictions regarding ditches and groundwater could easily end up restricting the way they use their land, said Don Parrish, director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.”