Flue-Cured Tobacco Co-op Certificate Redemption Deadline is Feb. 28

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

The U.S. Tobacco Cooperative Inc. has issued an announcement to “tobacco farmers who delivered tobacco to Flue Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. in 1967 through and including 1973.”
During those years Stabilization issued certificates of interest in capital reserve to its members who delivered tobacco. U.S. Tobacco Cooperative is offering to redeem those certificates. Growers may not need to have the actual certificates to accept the offer.
Anyone interested in applying to accept the offer, including certificate recipients, heirs, beneficiaries and estate administrators, can find an application form and offer details at tobaccocheck.com or call 877-277-7422 for more information. Interested parties can request an application by mail by sending a self-addressed, stamped envelope to Certificate Redemption, P.O. Box 12300, Raleigh, NC 27605.
The application deadline is Feb. 28.

Virginia Clean Cities to Host Biofuels Workshop Jan. 30

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Virginia Clean Cities will host a Biofuels Workshop at Virginia Farm Bureau’s West Creek Office on Friday, January 30, 2015, from 9am to 1 pm.  The workshop will present the benefits of biodiesel and ethanol in Virginia and hear from producers, fleets and retailers who are utilizing these renewable fuels.
Anyone interested in attending must register in advance online at http://www.vacleancities.org/events/. The workshop is being co-sponsored by Virginia Clean Cities, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Virginia Grain Producers Association, and Virginia Soybean Association. 

Five Counties, One City Receive Funds to Place Working Farmlands under Permanent Conservation Easements

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
Governor Terry McAuliffe has announced the recipients of fiscal year 2015 farmland preservation grants.  Six localities have been awarded more than $1,581,000 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS).  Localities must use the grant monies to permanently preserve working farmland within their boundaries through local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs.  PDR programs compensate landowners who work with localities to permanently preserve their land by voluntarily placing a perpetual conservation easement on it.

VDACS allocated $286,983 each to the counties of Albemarle, Fauquier, James City and Stafford, as well as the City of Virginia Beach.  Clarke County will receive a $146,778 grant.  These allocations total more than $1,581,000, bringing the total allocation of state matching funds to $9.7 million since 2008, when PDR funds were first distributed. 

Speaking about the farmland preservation grants, Governor McAuliffe said, “This announcement takes another step toward my administration’s goal of permanently conserving 400,000 acres of open space and working lands across Virginia.  Last year, we provided more than $1 million from this program to eight localities.  With this announcement of new recipients, we are providing more than $1.5 million to further our conservation goal.  Preserving our working farmland is a great way to help our largest private sector industry, agriculture, and work toward building the New Virginia Economy.”

“Virginia’s successful PDR program continues to play a key role in helping localities and landowners strategically preserve working farmlands, which are obviously vital to production agriculture,” said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore. “This voluntary public-private partnership increases Virginia’s ability to produce high quality agricultural products that are marketed here and around the world, generate tax revenue, and protect our precious natural resources.  All of these are important components within the McAuliffe administration’s larger efforts to create new jobs and build a New Virginia Economy.”

Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward added, “The preservation of agriculture and forest land also supports our natural resource goals of healthy fish and wildlife populations, clean air, clean water and productive land.”

This is the eighth time that the Commonwealth has provided state matching funds for certified local PDR programs.  Of the 22 local PDR programs in Virginia, 18 have received local funding over the past few years.  To date, more than 8,015 acres on 59 farms in 15 localities have been permanently protected in part with $7 million of these funds.  Additional easements are expected to close using the remaining funds over the next two years. 

Localities interested in creating a PDR program or applying for future rounds of grant applications for PDR matching funds should contact the Office of Farmland Preservation at VDACS.  They may e-mail Andrew Sorrell, the Office of Farmland Preservation Coordinator, at andrew.sorrell@vdacs.virginia.gov or call 804.786.1906.

Legal Unpasteurized Milk Sales Result in More Foodborne Illness

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
A study in the January issue of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal found that the number of U.S. foodborne illnesses caused by unpasteurized milk increased from 30 between 2007 and 2009 to 51 between 2010 and 2012.

Eighty-one percent of those outbreaks were caused by unpasteurized milk purchased in states where the sale of such milk is legal.

That raises concerns among Virginia farmers about legislation before this year’s Virginia General Assembly. HB 1290, also known as the Virginia Food Freedom Act, would exempt food products, including unpasteurized milk, made in private homes from government regulations as long as they are sold directly to the consumer and labeled with a disclosure statement. Two other bills, HB 1461 and HJ 519, also would allow for sales of unpasteurized milk.

“Farmers have a responsibility to provide safe food products to consumers, and Virginia’s dairy farmers take that very seriously,” said Lindsay Reames, assistant director of governmental relations for Virginia Farm Bureau Federation. “There are known health risks associated with unpasteurized milk, and we want to ensure the food system remains safe for everyone, particularly children, who are most at risk.”

Pasteurization is the process of heating a liquid briefly to destroy disease-causing germs. Those germs, the CDC notes on its website, usually do not change the way milk looks, tastes or smells; pasteurization is a means to ensure that they are not present.

In 1987 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the interstate sale or distribution of unpasteurized milk. Laws regulating intrastate sales vary from complete bans to allowances for sales from farms or retail outlets. Some states allow cow-share or herd-share agreements, in which buyers pay farmers a fee for the care of animals in exchange for a percentage of milk produced.

Consumption of unpasteurized milk has been associated with serious illnesses caused by several pathogens, including E.coli and salmonella. Despite those risks, demand for unpasteurized milk has increased, and some states have considered relaxing restrictions on its sale.

State and local health departments voluntarily report foodborne illness outbreaks to the CDC. Between 2007 and 2012, 81 outbreaks due to consumption of unpasteurized milk were reported from 26 states.

The outbreaks resulted in 979 people becoming ill and 73 being hospitalized. Most occurred in states where the sale of unpasteurized milk was legal at the time. Information on how the milk was obtained was available for more than two-thirds of the outbreaks. Seventy-one percent of those were related to milk obtained from dairy farms; 13 percent were related to milk from licensed or commercial sellers; and 12 percent were related to milk from cow- or herd-share agreements.

The study found that the number of outbreaks caused by Campylobacter spp. bacteria nearly doubled in the six-year study period. “This increase,” the authors note, “was concurrent with a decline in the number of states in which the sale of unpasteurized milk was illegal, from 28 in 2004 to 20 in 2011 and with an increase in the number of states allowing cow-share programs.”

The study findings also note that the legal unpasteurized milk sales in one state can lead to illness outbreaks in nearby states if consumers travel to buy that milk.

Proponents of the Virginia bills that would allow sales of unpasteurized milk have asserted that current state law prevents farmers from accessing a willing local market.

“The local foods movement is incredibly robust and is in no way impaired by a ban on selling unpasteurized milk,” Reames said. “In fact, that movement would be imperiled by a change in the current law. If someone gets sick from consuming unpasteurized milk, we risk consumers being scared to buy any milk, local or otherwise, even though the vast majority of it is pasteurized and safe.”

The EID Journal article is available online at www.nc.cdc.gov/eid/article/21/1/14-0447_article.

Livestock Producers Say Coyote Control Program Essential

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment
The Virginia Cooperative Coyote Damage Control program works to help farmers resolve coyote predation problems, something that is essential for those who have lost livestock to coyotes.
Chuck Shorter of Montgomery County has lost sheep, cattle and goats to coyotes. Shorter, who has raised sheep since 1964, said coyotes first appeared on his farm in the 1980s. He lost 50 lambs.
“The specialists with the coyote damage program came out and helped me with my problem,” he said, by setting traps and providing technical assistance. “I’ve lost nowhere near that number since, but I also got out of the sheep business due to the coyotes.”
Shorter now raises goats. “Sheep stay in during the day and go out at night. That’s when the coyotes would be out grazing on them,” he explained. “Goats go out during the day and stay in at night, which helps, and our guard dogs keep an eye on them. But we do still lose a few each year to coyotes.”
Shorter called the Coyote Damage Control Program “very, very necessary.

“In Virginia we have a lot of coyotes, a lot of livestock and a lot of problems. I don’t know how (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Wildlife Services gets done what they do with such limited funding. The coyote problem has been around for a long time, and it’s not going to stop. So we need help with it.”
USDA Wildlife Services, which runs the program, provided direct control services to 195 livestock farms in 53 Virginia counties in fiscal year 2014. During that time, 285 sheep, 81 calves, and 32 goats were verified killed by coyotes on those farms. That represents a 39 percent increase in reported sheep predation and a 69 percent increase in reported calf predation from fiscal year 2013.
“Virginia is rare; there are few eastern states that have livestock protection programs like this with livestock professionals that can come out and help farmers with these types of issues,” said Scott Barras, state director for USDA Wildlife Services. “This is a real benefit for farmers. It’s bad enough to lose livestock to predation, especially now when livestock prices are what they are and farmers are really feeling the impact.”

The demand for livestock protection services is expected to increase due to the development of statewide program availability and observed increases in coyote population and predation. During fiscal year 2014, farms in 26 additional counties requested assistance, with 76 new farms requesting assistance

Legislators Consider Unpasteurized Milk, Homemade Food Sales Without Inspection

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Farm Bureau Governmental Relations Assistant Director Lindsay Reames was recently interviewed by NBC 12 in Richmond on a bill that would legalize the sale of unpasteurized milk.

Click here to see the story: Legislators consider unpasteurized milk, homemade food sales without inspection
//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js

From AgWeb: 10 Things to Watch in 2015

/ VFB Governmental Relations / Leave a comment

Originally posted on AgWeb Dec. 31, 2014 by John Dillard in his column Ag in the Courtroom. John Dillard grew up on a beef cattle farm and now works as an agricultural and environmental litigation attorney with OFW Law. His blog analyzes legal issues and court decisions that affect America’s farmers and ranchers.

2014 was certainly an interesting year to be involved in agriculture. We got to see supply and demand in full effect. Good weather sent grain prices tumbling while continuing tight supplies have kept cattle prices soaring. The Republicans made strong gains and will enter 2015 with control of both the House and Senate.  In popular culture, Kanye West finally made an honest woman out of Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift swore off country music, and Serial has left us pondering the nature of truth.

While I have not spent the $27.68 necessary to acquire a crystal ball on Amazon, I do feel the need to join the crowded field of writers, bloggers and seers that are making predictions for the upcoming year. Accordingly, I have compiled a list of the 10 legal and policy issues that I see facing agriculture in 2015.

1.  Drones
2014 was supposed to be the year when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would release its proposed rules for integrating commercial drones into the national airspace. Because of this, I received a little flack for leaving drones off of last year’s list. However, FAA has continued to blow past every deadline that it has set for itself. Hopefully, this can be attributed to the agency trying to get the job done right the first time.

I am confident that FAA will release its proposed regulations for small drones (< 55 lbs.) some time in early 2015. The agency has acknowledged that it considers agricultural uses relatively low-risk and it understands that many farmers are moving ahead with adopting the technology regardless of the absence of regulations. Once FAA proposes its regulations for small drones, we’ll have a better idea of how the final rules will look in terms of operator qualifications, aircraft requirements, and allowable operations. This will be welcome news for those looking to capitalize on this new technology and the farmers and consultants that have been “recreationally” monitoring their crops for the past couple years.

2. The “Waters of the U.S.” Rule
While many hoped that Congress would use the recent “CROmnibus” (ugh) bill to stop EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers from implementing a broad definition of “waters of the United States,” the legislation failed to do so. This means that EPA and the Corps will continue to move forward on this measure. The agencies received almost half a million comments during the public comment period, with most in opposition to the new power grab. EPA and the Corps are expected to finalize the rule sometime in the first half of 2015. Once the rule is finalized, there will almost certainly be a lawsuit filed to enjoin the rule.

3. Vermont’s GMO-labeling Lawsuit
In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass binding legislation that will require food manufacturers to label products containing ingredients produced through genetic engineering. This law places an onerous and undue burden on food manufacturers in an attempt by the state of Vermont to stigmatize genetically-engineered food. With no firm scientific basis for requiring labels, Vermont’s law is particularly vulnerable to a legal challenge on First Amendment and Commerce Clause grounds. Grocery Manufacturers Association, joined by the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed suit against the Vermont’s Attorney General this summer to enjoin the law.

There will be a preliminary injunction hearing on January 7th to decide whether Vermont should halt moving forward on implementing this law while the courts decide this issue on the merits. Regardless of the outcome, I suspect that this case will reach at least the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Other states that are considering similar labeling measures would be wise to watch the outcome of this case.

4. Rep. Pompeo’s GMO-labeling Preemption Bill
In that same vein, the GMO-labeling preemption bill being pushed by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) may gain some traction in the 114th Congress. This legislation would preempt states from enacting their own GMO-labeling laws and codify our federal government’s current GMO policies. It would limit mandatory GMO-labeling to only ingredients that are unsafe or materially-different from their conventional counterparts. It would also require genetically-engineered crops bound for human consumption to receive approval from the federal Food and Drug Administration (this is currently a voluntary measure).

Pro-GMO labeling advocates vehemently oppose this legislation and it was initially dead-on-arrival in the 113th Congress. However, this bill has started to gain some momentum and faces better prospects in the new Congress. I would not be surprised if we saw this come to a vote in 2015.

5. Lawyers, Dust and Feathers: Rose Acre Farms v. N.C. DENR
Remember the Altcase? A West Virginia poultry producer sued EPA over its claim that she needed a NPDES permit based on dust and feather “discharges” from her farm’s ventilation fans. EPA asserted that a permit was necessary because these particles would enter “waters of the U.S.” during precipitation events. A federal district court judge disagreed. EPA initially appealed and then cynically withdrew its appeal to avoid the prospect of a precedent that would tie the agency’s hands.

The Rose Acre case is another opportunity to litigate the dust-and-feathers issue in federal court. Although there are some technical differences between the Rose Acre case and the Alt case, the court will ultimately be asked to determine whether the Clean Water Act allows dust emitted from poultry barns to be controlled as a “point source” discharge. This case may have huge implications for agriculture as it could set the boundaries for what does and does not constitute a point source discharge.

6. Mississippi River Basin Numeric Limitations on Nutrients
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL was supposed to be EPA’s case study in approaching large scale watershed restoration efforts. EPA’s plan was to take the lessons that it learned from the Bay TMDL and apply it to other watersheds across the country, with the Mississippi River being the ultimate goal. However, some environmental groups were impatient with EPA’s approach. They petitioned EPA to develop numeric limitations for nitrogen and phosphorus for all waters in the Mississippi River Basin. When EPA denied this petition, the environmental groups took them to court. A federal court held that EPA has to respond to the petition and determine whether numeric nutrient limitations are appropriate for the Mississippi River Basin. EPA has appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were heard on the appeal on December 4, 2014. We can expect a decision from the court in the first half of 2015.

7. FSMA Finalization
FDA is required to finalize its major rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) by June 30, 2015. The agency has been scrambling to put together the safety rules to meet this deadline over the last couple years. Except for produce operations, many farmers will not be directly affected. However, FSMA is going to have a substantial impact on the livestock feed and human food industry. Many of the requirements will not go into place until 2016, but we can expect to see several regulatory headaches this year as agribusinesses and food companies begin to implement the FSMA requirements.

8. Immigration Reform
A relatively small number of agricultural workers received relief under President Obama’s recent executive action that postponed deportation for approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants. The new Republican majority would like to override President Obama’s executive order. However, the President will most certainly veto any measure that does not offer a suitable alternative to his order. It is possible that Congress may answer the President’s challenge and propose immigration reform measures. There is hope that agriculture’s immigration issues could be addressed in this legislation if it comes to fruition.

9. Trade Agreements
Most of the growth opportunities for U.S. agriculture depend on increasing foreign demand. Agriculture has benefitted substantially from our free trade agreements (FTAs) with Canada, Mexico, and Central America. However, many valuable markets remain restricted due to protectionist tariffs and burdensome trade barriers. The U.S. Trade Representative is currently negotiating two major FTAs – the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Agriculture is one of the main sticking points in these negotiations, due in large part to America’s cost advantages. In particular, Japan is seeking to protect much of its agriculture sector from competition with American farmers while the E.U. is trying to use biotechnology as a wedge in the negotiations. The White House should make agriculture’s inclusion in these FTAs non-negotiable. Furthermore, it should ensure that all non-tariff trade barriers have a basis in science, not protectionism. Congress should fully support these efforts.

10. Country-of-Origin Labeling and the WTO
Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (mCOOL) for meat products, especially pork and beef, has proven to be an expensive measure for Canadian and Mexican livestock producers as well as packinghouses that depend on slaughtering imported livestock. Meanwhile, the only apparent winners so far have been attorneys. While a challenge to the law in the federal court system failed, the governments of Canada and Mexico were successful at challenging the labeling measure before the World Trade Organizations (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body. The U.S. Trade Representative is attempting to appeal this decision; however, it is unlikely that it will be overturned. This means that U.S. industries could face substantial retaliatory tariffs by this summer unless the mCOOL law is changed. It is highly unlikely that Congress is willing to let other industries suffer just to keep mCOOL going. Hopefully, Congress will put mCOOL out to pasture.

John Dillard is an attorney with Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz P.C. (OFW Law), a Washington, DC-based firm that serves agricultural clients and clients with issues before federal and state courts, EPA, FDA, USDA, and OSHA.  John focuses his practice on agricultural and environmental law.  He occasionally tweets at @DCAgLawyer.  This column is not a substitute for legal advice.