Agreement may alter Ohio food handling

There’s always something in the news about one food or another causing consumers grief – Spinach, peanuts and pork have been recent culprits.

Foods can be occasionally spoiled during their transport cycle – or how food gets from the farm to grocery stores and local markets.

Americans are becoming increasingly cognizant of this process. Because of the enhanced attention, Congress is considering several food safety policies.

The National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (NLGMA) is one such proposal. It would require Ohio produce growers to meet California-style food safety standards; forcing Ohio growers to adhere to growing policies and practices developed for and by California growers. Though this proposal is limited to leafy greens, the potential for similar proposals regarding fruits and vegetables seems imminent to some in Ohio’s produce industry.

To circumvent the potential of a complex food-safety regulation system being implemented in Ohio, The Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association (OPGMA) proactively established its own food safety plan for the Buckeye State.

The Ohio Fresh Produce Marketing Agreement program elements:

• A tiered approach that takes into consideration operation size
• Developed by and for Ohio growers
• Every produce-industry stakeholder has program input
• Provides access to additional markets now and in the future
• Provides customers with "peace of mind;" due diligence in growing safe food
• Blends good food safety practices with good environmental principles
• Encompasses all types of growers and is especially small-farm friendly

“We are trying to help the FDA because it is to our benefit to help them. If we don’t, we’ll get something that will put growers out of business,” said Bob Jones, Jr., OPGMA board member.

OPGMA believes that adhering to the NLGMA standards will adversely impact Ohio's small and medium-sized producers, who will be financially strapped to remain compliant.

Ohio’s Country Journal reported the recent development in its July edition. The story’s author, Matt Reese, reports:

“Unfortunately, whether it is really their fault or not, the blame often falls upon the farm. And as more scrutiny falls on farms, many of the larger Ohio produce operations have been required by their buyers to meet specific food safety standard operating procedures. For many operations this has resulted in the need to employ a full-time food safety quality assurance person to manage the complexities of the requirements that often have no backing in science or any potential for increased revenue for the farmer.”

Many state producers worry about the specifications of the NLGMA’s proposal spilling over into future produce-handling requirements in Ohio.

“Given the California agreement as an example, Ohio growers have major concerns with a number of specific on-farm requirements such as water use and usage, animal intrusion, field sanitation, harvest requirements, soil amendments and more. These specifics were designed around some California cultural practices and are not conducive to Ohio and many other states’ accepted practices,” said Lisa Schacht, an Ohio produce grower and member of Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF.

The Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Innovative Farmers of Ohio, OFBF, Farmers' Market Management Network, Inc., Growing! Ohio Farmers' Markets and The Ohio State University support the Ohio Fresh Produce Marketing Agreement.

Reese reported that after the draft is completed, it must be reviewed by the Ohio Department of Agriculture and will move through the process (which includes an industry vote) for the development of a market agreement sometime in 2011.

People may contact OPGMA board member or the Ohio Fresh Produce Marketing Agreement project manager Karl Kolb at foodsafety@opgma.org with questions/comments.

*Photo obtained from: www. southbound.ph

Chicken producers receive help

Taking care of “cluck cluck” costs a lot of “cha-ching.”

But, new rules are in the works to improve fairness in the marketplace for America’s poultry producers.

Agriculture businesses are expensive to launch; extensive equipment, buildings, machinery, labor and animal costs add up.

Now, financial risks could be far less for one of agriculture’s most important sectors.

Most producers take out loans to build and maintain their farms, then sign contracts with poultry processors (Tyson Foods, Perdue and others) to produce specified amounts of chicken.

Poultry processors are at liberty to terminate contracts if they deem a producer is not abiding by required equipment/building upgrades.

As the cost of animal-production increases, stemming from increased energy and alleged animal-feed costs, coupled with a declining demand, poultry producers’ pocketbooks are taking the hit. The downturn has lead to reduced poultry orders, a decline in renewed poultry contracts and the termination of poultry-processing plants.

According to the USDA, Americans who participated in the Obama Administration’s Rural Tour stops throughout the country expressed concern about the financial implications of poultry farmers and the lack of oversight of the nation’s poultry processors.

Since then, the USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) released new antitrust provisions to the 2008 Farm Bill to address the feedback.

"Concerns about a lack of fairness and commonsense treatment for poultry producers have gone unaddressed far too long," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement. "This proposed rules will help ensure a level playing field for producers by providing additional protections against unfair practices and addressing new market conditions not covered by existing rules."

Some of the proposed rules as published include:

• Establish new protections for producers required to provide expensive capital upgrades to their growing facilities, including protections to ensure producers have the opportunity to recoup 80 percent of the cost of a required capital investment.
• Provide poultry growers with a written notice of a company’s intent to suspend the delivery of birds as confirmed in a poultry-growing arrangement at least 90 days prior to the date it intends to suspend the delivery.
• Improve market transparency by making sample contracts (except for trade secrets or other confidential information) be made available at GIPSA’s website for producers.
• Improve competition in markets by limiting exclusive arrangements between packers and dealers.

"The USDA has never gone this far before in what are unfair practices," said Becky Ceartas of Rural Advancement Foundation International.

However, some believe the proposals are not justified.

“The regulation was clearly drafted to satisfy a small number of activist growers and will do nothing to enhance the business of the great majority of broiler producers who are satisfied with the current system," stated The National Chicken Council in a news release.

GIPSA will consider public comments via e-mail (comments.gipsa@usda.gov) received by August 23, 2010.

Do you feel that this industry is deserving of the new regulations? Are there other methods that can be used to financially safeguard chicken producers?

*Photo obtained from: www.britannica.com

Strickland shapes fate of ag sector

On June 30, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF), announced a compromise affecting Ohio’s agricultural groups.

This agreement terminates HSUS’ initial plan to advocate for an amendment inclusion of animal-care practices in the Ohio Constitution.

HSUS began rallying support for a constitutional amendment to be included on the November ballot about a year ago. HSUS wanted the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt minimum standards that would, “end confinement of animals in cages so small they can't turn around or extend their limbs,” as well as “cruel methods of killing sick or injured animals—to prevent the inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.”

This agreement was made a day prior to the planned presentation of 500,000 signatures representing opposition to stop factory farming, to the Ohio secretary of state by an advocacy group, Ohioans for Humane Farms.

Some believe this agreement is good for Ohio agriculture.

“This agreement represents a joint effort to find common ground. As a result, Ohio agriculture will remain strong and animals will be treated better,” Strickland said. “Instead of expending tens of millions of dollars and unproductive energy fighting an acrimonious campaign during the fall, both sides will be able to continue investing in our agricultural base and taking care of animals.”

The actual agreement includes:

• A ban on veal crates by 2017, which is the same timing as the ballot measure.
• A ban on new gestation crates in the state after Dec. 31, 2010. Existing facilities are grandfathered, but must cease use of these crates within 15 years.
• A moratorium about permits for new battery-cage confinement facilities for laying hens.
• A ban on strangulation of farm animals and mandatory humane euthanasia methods for sick or injured animals.
• A ban on the transport of downer cows for slaughter.
• Enactment of legislation establishing felony-level penalties for cockfighters.
• Enactment of legislation cracking down on puppy mills.
• Enactment of a ban on the acquisition of dangerous exotic animals as pets, such as primates, bears, lions, tigers, large constricting and venomous snakes, crocodiles and alligators.

In a news release distributed by HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS stated:

"I'm grateful to Governor Strickland and his administration for their outstanding leadership on these issues. This agreement moves us forward on all of the components of the proposed ballot measure as well as other important advances for animals, too. I look forward to working with the legislature and the Livestock Care Board to see these reforms adopted."

OFBF supports the agreement as well. According to Fisher, this agreement helps farmers live up to the promises they made during the November 2009 Issue 2 campaign.

“One of animal agriculture’s most vocal critics has agreed that the Livestock Care Standards Board is the proper authority to handle difficult questions about farm-animal care,” said Fisher. “This is truly a milestone and confirms Ohio’s position as a national leader in farm-animal care.”

Others however, do not have the same enthusiasm as HSUS and OFBF about the agreement. A blog authored by Butch Hash in the Zanesville Times Recorder, mentions his disappointment — a “dark day” in agriculture is how Hash referred to it.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) states that “Ohio's agricultural leadership has succumbed to pressures from HSUS — and the only group to benefit from this agreement is HSUS,” claiming that Ohio family farms will suffer greatly because they do not have the capital to make the move to alternative systems required in the agreement.

The AAA contends that because of the cost of the new compliance, such as new gestation stalls for hogs and new conventional cages for chicken housing, Ohio consumers will face increased prices for local produce or will rely on conventionally produced foods imported from nearby states or elsewhere.

A part of the agreement includes a ban on veal crates — all veal calves in Ohio must be raised in group housing by the end of 2017. Robert Cochrell, president of Beth El Veal, Inc., isn’t sure about the new rules that were put in place by the agreement.

“One of the intended or unintended consequences for the independent veal farmers in Ohio is that they will have two choices: Either cease production and go out of business because of an unsustainable, unproven method of production, or turn to an integrator that will own the calves, pay or finance the conversion and pay the farmer for his investment in labor and facilities,” said Cochrell.

In a recent editorial for The Columbus Dispatch, Cochrell mentioned that studies comparing group housing for calves with individual stalls found that in group pens there was twice the sickness, twice the mortality, increased medication use and poorer growth performance (an indication of the animals ability to thrive) than in individual stalls.

In an article by Brownfield Ag News, Ken Anderson describes farmers as being “dismayed,” and “betrayed.” According to Anderson, farmers across the country agree that HSUS’ primary goal is to abolish animal agriculture.

“I could not agree more with those people,” said Joe Cornely, spokesman for OFBF. “We at Ohio Farm Bureau fully recognize and believe that it is the ultimate goal of the Humane Society of the United States—just as our ultimate goal is to not let that happen. We haven’t given up the battle—we’ve just changed the rules of engagement.”

Do you feel that the agreement made by Ohio agriculture and HSUS is a positive action for Ohio agriculture? Do you think there was another option for Ohio?

*Photo obtained from: http://humaneeducation.org/IHEblog/confinedpigs.jpg