Wednesday March 25 Ag News

Domina to Present Update on Water Law Issues & Syngenta Corn Litigation
Dave Domina and Brian Jorde, agricultural lawyers representing farmers and ranchers across Nebraska, will host a series of free informational meetings providing updates on issues critical to agricultural producers and our state's economy.   

Domina will discuss important water issues and what all corn sellers need to know about lawsuits related to Syngenta's MIR 162 and who is affected.

It is important those concerned about water issues and access to competitive markets stay informed on the latest legal challenges and opportunities.  There has also been an influx of out of state law firms chasing after Nebraska farmers recently and we want to let folks here know the facts,  not the hype, about their potential financial recovery against Syngenta and what to do.    

This informational meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 31st at 10:00am at Hilltop Lanes (1202 2nd St) in Dodge.  Domina is known for his decades of legal work successfully representing farmers, ranchers, and small businesses predominately with agricultural related issues and challenges.

More at http://www.dominalaw.com. 

Who:  Dave Domina and Brian Jorde of Domina Law Group
What:  Informational Meeting on Syngenta Corn Litigation & Water Update
Where:  Hilltop Lanes (1202 2nd St) in Dodge, NE
When:  Tuesday, March 31st at 10:00am




Ag Summit announcement, Newman Grove March 28th

The Newman Grove Ag Summit will be Saturday, March 28th in Newman Grove at the Fellowship Bible church located at 1011 Hale Avenue (three blocks east of the school) with Darren Hefty from AgPhD television and Dr. Al Dutcher, state climatologist, as guest speakers.  The summit begins with a breakfast from 8-9 a.m., and includes lunch at noon, with the event wrapping up at 2:15 p.m.  Area vendors will be present, there will be door prizes, and the event is free to all farmers and those involved in agriculture.



Smith Votes for Death Tax Repeal

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) released the following statement today after the House Ways and Means Committee met to consider H.R. 1105, the Death Tax Repeal Act.  This legislation, of which Smith is a cosponsor, passed the Committee and now goes to the House Floor for a vote.

“The Death Tax directly threatens many farms, ranches and small businesses, undermining the lifelong work of Nebraskans who hope to pass their livelihood on to their children and grandchildren,” Smith said.  “Considering farmers and ranchers already pay significant property taxes, the Death Tax really amounts to double taxation.  I am pleased to have the opportunity through my role on the Ways and Means Committee to support legislation which fully repeals this onerous tax.”

Smith also recently received the Benjamin Franklin Award from the 60 Plus Association in recognition of his efforts to repeal the Death Tax.



Western Iowa Coop & New Cooperative Discuss Merger

This past January was announced the start of discussions of a possible unification of two Iowa cooperatives, Western Iowa Coop based in Hornick and New Cooperative based in Fort Dodge.  Since that time, a very in depth merger study has been completed by both staffs and presented to the boards of both companies.  After a thorough review, both boards have voted unanimously to submit a merger plan to the memberships.

They have scheduled membership meetings for Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at three meeting sites; the first will be at the Blencoe Community Center at 9:00 am, the second will be at the Hornick office at 12:00 pm, and the third will be at the Pierson Community Center at 3:00 pm.  Representatives from both cooperatives will be on hand to answer any questions you may have.

All Western Iowa Coop members and customers that might have questions or concerns are encouraged to please attend one of these very informational meetings.



Soy Growers: GMO Labeling Bill would Provide Clarity with a National Non-GMO Label

The American Soybean Association (ASA) issued its firm support today for a bill introduced and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would provide for a national labeling standard for non-GMO foods. The bill, brought forward by Reps. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, bypasses a potentially conflicting patchwork of state laws and regulations governing the labeling of GMO and non-GMO foods, as well as multiple private sector non-GMO labeling standards, by establishing one common framework for labeling at the national level.

“We have heard loud and clear the message that consumers want to know what’s in their food, and we agree completely that this information should be easily available to them. At the retail level, though, consumers who want to choose non-GMO foods have to contend with an increasingly confused landscape of different labeling schemes with different requirements,” said Wade Cowan, ASA president and West Texas-based farmer. “This bill would end confusion for consumers over which food products do not contain biotech ingredients by establishing a national standard for non-GMO labels. That way, all of the products in the grocery store that don’t contain GMOs will have one simple, easy-to-understand label on them, and the consumer gets the information he or she is looking for.”

In addition to provisions for a national non-GMO label, the bill would also solve the problem created for consumers, farmers and retailers by the inconsistent patchwork of potential state regulations governing the labeling of GMOs.

“The bill also helps to provide consumers with greater clarity by replacing state laws and regulations that can be at odds with one another with a clear and simple national labeling standard,” added Cowan. “We know that labeling at the state level will only disrupt interstate commerce and result in increased costs to consumers since food companies would need to label products to meet potentially 50 different labeling requirements. Moreover, there is near unanimous agreement among members of Congress – including both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans – that a patchwork of conflicting state labeling laws is unworkable and would only increase consumer costs.”

Cowan also noted that both sides of the GMO debate have more in common than many think, and that ASA is working to highlight them, rather than focus on the small number of areas that divide the two camps.

“We’ve been a part of the debate over biotechnology and GMOs for almost 20 years now, and what we’ve found is that the science on the safety of this technology is solid and unanimous. We’ve also found, however, that consumers just want to know more about what they’re eating. As consumers ourselves, we agree wholeheartedly, and think that a simple, clear label for products that don’t contain GMOs is the way to provide shoppers the clarity and information they demand.”



National Corn Growers Association urges Congress to pass the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

The National Corn Growers Association applauded the introduction today of legislation to create a national, science-based labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified organisms and urged Congress to quickly pass the bill.

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), will ensure that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration remains the authority on food safety and labeling in the United States.

Additionally, by establishing federal standards around a voluntary GMO-free label, this bill strikes an important balance between providing consumers choice and clarity in the grocery aisle and protecting a technology that is vital to American farmers.

“Farmers and consumers agree on the need for clear, consistent labeling. Labels should be science-based and uniform in all 50 states,” said NCGA President Chip Bowling, a farmer from Maryland. “In the absence of a national solution to GMO labeling, we risk increased food prices for American families and continued confusion in the marketplace.

“This legislation provides a common-sense solution for American consumers looking for additional information about the food they buy, while providing certainty to the farmers who produce it. We urge Congress to support it.”



NMPF Applauds Introduction of Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

The National Milk Producers Federation today praised the introduction of legislation in the House of Representatives that would establish federal standards for the safety and labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms.

Under the bill, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, the Food and Drug Administration will set standards for companies that wish to label their products as containing or not containing GMOs. The legislation was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC). Rep. Pompeo introduced similar legislation in the House last year.

“Rather than create a confusing patchwork of state policies, the legislation would deal with this issue at the national level,” said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of NMPF. “It would improve clarity in foods carrying a GMO-free label by establishing uniform rules and a national certification program for foods that have been produced without bioengineering.”

GMOs have been proven safe by nearly 2,000 studies from the leading scientific bodies in the world, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association. Agencies including the FDA, the U.S. Agriculture Department, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization have found no negative health effects from consuming GMOs.

“Due to the complexity of the American food chain, state-by-state labeling is not an option,” Mulhern said. “The additional costs would be passed on to consumers, and many family-run businesses, including dairy farms, would be unable to navigate these new hurdles.”

There is no need for mandatory labeling of foods made with GMO process or ingredients, “but if food marketing companies wish to voluntarily label their products as being free of GMOs, this legislation establishes a national protocol for doing so,” Mulhern said.

Currently, up to 80 percent of the food available in the United States contains genetically modified ingredients.



NAWG Applauds Introduction of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act 

The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) applauds the introduction today of legislation that will create a national, science-based labeling standard for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and urges Congress to quickly pass the bill.

“We are pleased by the introduction of this bipartisan legislation. A uniform standard will bring the clarity desired by the consumer while ensuring they have direct access to fact-based, accurate information about how their food is grown, which is just not possible through conflicting state-by-state labeling laws,” said Brett Blankenship, NAWG President and wheat grower from Washtucna, Wash. “It is imperative that Congress pass this legislation this year to help consumers who are looking for more clarity in labeling.”

The legislation, which will ensure that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remains the authority on food safety and labeling standards in the United States, was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Rep.Mike Pompeo, (R-KS), and Rep. G.K Butterfield (D-NC).

Currently, a growing patchwork of mandatory state labeling laws threatens to harm interstate commerce, drive up the price of food and increase consumer confusion.  The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act will ensure labeling decisions are established by science-based, uniform standards that are consistent in every grocery store in all 50 states.

GMOs have been proven safe by nearly 2,000 studies from the leading scientific bodies in the world, including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association. The legislation sets uniform rules for foods carrying a GMO-Free label through a national certification program for foods that have been produced without bioengineering.



USDA abandons Farm Payment Limit Reform

This week, USDA issued their proposed rule to define what it means to be “actively engaged in farming,” and therefore eligible to receive federal farm payments.

“The purpose of revising the actively engaged definition was to make farm payment limits more effective,” said Traci Bruckner, Senior Associate at the Center for Rural Affairs. “USDA is, however, clearly more interested in defending the interests of mega-farms by preserving loose definitions that will continue to allow the nation’s largest farms to avoid meaningful payment limits.”

“This is not reform,” added Bruckner. “In 2007, while campaigning in Iowa for his first election, President Obama promised to close these loopholes, and so did Vice President Biden. But when given yet another opportunity to fulfill that promise, the White House and Secretary Vilsack took a pass, again.”

“The lack of effective payment limitations has resulted in federal farm programs financing farm consolidation and the elimination of many mid-size family farms….Barack Obama and Joe Biden will close the loopholes that allow mega farms to get around the limits by subdividing their operations into multiple paper corporations.  They will take immediate action to close the loophole by proposing regulations to limit payments to active farmers who work the land….Every President since Ronald Reagan has had the authority to close this loophole without additional action by Congress, but has failed to act." President Barack Obama, writing as a candidate for President in his rural platform - Obama-Biden: Real Leadership For Rural America

According to Bruckner, Secretary Vilsack has said since the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill that the bill ties his hands and he can not apply any new rule to farms structured solely of family members.

“We have disagreed with that premise from day one, and this rule does nothing more than say the largest and wealthiest farms structured solely of family members are not subject to this new rule or any payment limitation,” argued Bruckner.

Most of the few farms this rule would impact, those structured as non-family member operations, will surely work with an attorney to reorganize their operations to be structured solely of family members to evade any payment limitations, Bruckner concluded.



NPPC On COOL Law: U.S. Must Avoid Retaliation

In congressional testimony today, the National Pork Producers Council said the United States must address its mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) law to avoid trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) last fall ruled that the U.S. meat labeling law violates U.S. international trade obligations by discriminating against Canadian cattle and pigs and Mexican cattle. COOL requires meat to be labeled with the country where the animal from which it was derived was born, raised and slaughtered.

The United States appealed that decision, and the WTO is expected to rule on it by May 18. Should the international trade body reject the appeal, Canada and Mexico would be allowed to place retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, including pork and beef.

“We cannot afford to have [pork] exports disrupted nor can workers in allied sectors,” NPPC President-elect John Weber, a pork producer from Dysart, Iowa, told the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture. “The loss of the Mexican and Canadian markets, valued at $2.4 billion, could cost over 16,000 non-farm jobs.”

While pork and beef almost certainly will be on the Canadian and Mexican retaliation lists, non-agricultural products also likely will be included. Canada’s preliminary retaliation list included not only fresh pork and beef but bakery goods, rice, apples, wine, maple syrup and furniture.

“Because the damage to U.S. exports will be multiplied across our economy,” said Weber, “the economic effect will greatly exceed whatever retaliation is ultimately authorized by the WTO and will hurt many Americans who had nothing to do with implementing the COOL law. Not only will innocent bystanders be harmed, the economy as a whole will suffer.

“Congress must be prepared to repeal the offending parts of the statue to bring the U.S. into compliance with WTO rules,” said Weber. “Congress should not allow retaliation against pork producers and other sectors of the U.S. economy.”



EIA: Ethanol Stocks Increase 2.4%

U.S. ethanol supplies rose nearly 500,000 barrels (bbl), or 2.4%, to a three-week high of 21.3 million bbl during the week-ended March 20 while up 36.2% compared to a year earlier, Energy Information Administration's latest data showed.

Plant production increased for the third straight week, edging up 6,000 barrels per day (bpd), or 0.6%, to 953,000 bpd while up 7.7% year-over-year.

Blender inputs, a proxy for ethanol demand, increased 3,000 bpd, or 0.3%, to 866,000 bpd last week, while up 1.0% year-over-year.

EIA also reported implied demand for motor gasoline decreased 641,000 bpd to 8.619 million bpd while down 4.3% year-over-year.



Agroconsult Raises Brazil 2014-15 Soy View to 95.8 MMT

Excellent yields across the south of Brazil and strong results in the center-west states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul prompted Agroconsult, a local farm analytics firm, to raise its 2014-15 soybean forecast to 95.8 million metric tons (mmt).

The forecast represents an 11% jump on the previous record crop produced in 2013-14 and is higher than most market numbers that sit in a range between 91 mmt and 95 mmt.

Yields would have been even higher had it not been for pressure from Asian rust over the last few weeks in Rio Grande do Sul, the No. 3 state. Still, the state will register record yields of 2,950 kg per hectare.

Dry weather did cause problems in parts of Mato Grosso, the No. 1 producing state, but crops mostly produced well, with average yields of 3,186 kg per ha, 3.7% higher than last year for the state.

Agroconsult pegs overall 2014-15 corn production at 79.4 mmt, down marginally from the 80.1 mmt produced last year.  Good summer corn yields in the south partially offset the decline in planted area. Production is pegged at 29.0 mmt, down from 31.7 mmt last year.



Growth Energy Responds to Thoughtless Appropriations Request Aimed at Undercutting Renewable Fuel Standard

In response to a letter from several members of Congress requesting that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Programs undercut the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by prohibiting the instillation of blender pumps and the promotion of ethanol exports, Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, issued the following statement:

“This request stems from a flawed and inaccurate argument that has been disproven time and again that we must choose either food or fuel. The reality is that ethanol production produces both food AND fuel.

“The government is not creating an artificial market for ethanol, but the RFS is seeking to level the playing field and ensure alternatives to fossil fuels have market access so consumers are given a choice instead of a de-facto mandate to use petroleum based products. This request is neither helpful nor logical. It seeks to destroy a homegrown industry that is creating jobs, improving our environment and significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. Furthermore, it has been a boon to the rural economy, providing certainty and some of the most profitable times for American farmers. To say the RFS is not working is delusional. The RFS is one of those rare pieces of bipartisan legislation that nearly a decade later has been successful in delivering on the results it was designed to achieve, helping diversify our energy portfolio and strengthen our economic, energy and national security.

“Furthermore, in typical Washington fashion – this is unnecessary legislation, as there is already a prohibition on USDA funding blender pump grants in the 2014 Farm Bill. The sponsors of this legislation are bent on trying to alter or damage the RFS as a favor to special interests. To claim that the RFS or ethanol production is driving up the cost of food is irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering in attempt to fool the American public as to who is really to blame for rising food prices – Big Oil and Big Food. A 2013 World Bank study demonstrated that the primary driver of increased global food costs is the rising price of energy, not higher farm commodity prices or ethanol production. It outlined how crude oil prices are responsible for more than 50 percent of the increase in food prices since 2004.

“Additionally the USDA estimates that for every dollar an American spends on food, 82 cents pays for things other than the food commodity – including labor, packaging, processing, transportation, and energy. So if the farmer is not making the money for increasing food prices, who is? The answer is simple, Big Food and its drive for excessive profits.

“This request is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by special interests to push their agenda through Congress. This request is a waste of time and effort and should be treated as such.”



NFU Urges House Agriculture Committee to Review Recent COOL Study, Allow WTO Process to Play Out
National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger Johnson today presented the findings of a recent econometric study showing that Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) did not have a negative impact on Canadian cattle exports to the U.S. at a U.S. House Committee on Agriculture hearing. Johnson also urged the committee to wait for the WTO to rule on COOL, as Canada and Mexico cannot retaliate if no damages are found.

“The results of the recent study done on COOL by C. Robert Taylor, Ph.D., a professor at Auburn University, refute Canadian claims of economic damage to their beef exports to America,” said Johnson. “Congress should leave COOL alone and allow the WTO process to run its course.”

Johnson noted that Canada and Mexico, the two challengers to COOL at the WTO, would need to prove economic damage as a result of COOL in order to impose the trade retaliations they have been threatening through statements and visits to the offices of American lawmakers.

“Dr. Taylor’s report found that the fed cattle price basis actually declined after COOL went into effect; that COOL had no negative impact on imports of slaughter cattle; and that COOL did not significantly affect imports of feeder cattle,” said Johnson. “Congress should not listen to the overblown rhetoric and retaliatory threats made by foreign government officials and the meatpackers.”

Johnson noted that it would be highly unconventional for Congress to intervene in the WTO process until the WTO issues its final decision.

“The WTO has stated multiple times that countries have a right to label products with their country of origin and remain in compliance with WTO,” said Johnson. “We urge Congress to allow the WTO process to run its course.”



Tax Uncertainty Hurts Agricultural Investment

Congress must avoid the mistakes of 2014, when tax uncertainty delivered a harmful blow to the economy thanks to tax policies which were never clarified until the very end of the year, says Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) president Tom Giovanetti in a new publication.

In “How Tax Uncertainty Harms Economic Growth: Agricultural Investment and Section 179,” Giovanetti writes: “Tax policy has a direct impact on private sector investment, which drives economic growth. Businesses can only make decisions based on the tax rules at the time, not based on guesses about what Congress might do retroactively at the end of the year.”

One important tax preference, Section 179, encourages small- and medium-sized businesses to invest by allowing them to immediately expense capital purchases. But as Section 179 is subject to annual renewal and enormous uncertainty, it’s of limited value to those businesses it is intended to help.

Farmers in particular, whose industry is centered on mechanization, depend on Section 179 to mitigate the harm of the brutally high corporate tax rate, writes Giovanetti.

Giovanetti cites how in 2014, uncertainty about Section 179 depressed farmers’ investment in equipment and technology, and the John Deere Company then eliminated 800 jobs due to falling demand for farming equipment. “It is reasonable to link the drop in agricultural investment and the resultant job cuts to the failure of Congress to renew the higher Section 179 allowance early enough in 2014 to have its intended incentive effect,” writes Giovanetti.

Although the 114th Congress passed HR 636 in February to make the Section 179 expensing allowance permanent at $500,000, President Obama has threatened to veto the bill.

“This is no way to run a tax policy,” said Giovanetti. “There must be certainty about tax provisions designed to encourage investment, or the investment won’t take place. Fundamental tax reform that lowers the corporate rate to below 25 percent and eliminates the need for many of these tax preferences is long overdue.”

“Meanwhile, Congress should pass temporary tax preferences within the first quarter of the year in order to provide certainty and to encourage investment. Agriculture is one example of the harms to economic growth and employment that result from high tax rates and tax uncertainty.”



Monsanto Reinforces Documents on Safety of Glyphosate

Monsanto Company further addressed last week's assessment on glyphosate by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

"We are outraged with this assessment," said Dr. Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief technology officer. "This conclusion is inconsistent with the decades of ongoing comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world that have concluded that all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health. This result was reached by selective 'cherry picking' of data and is a clear example of agenda-driven bias."

The repeated safety assessments by regulatory authorities over the last three decades have formed the foundation for the long history of safe, highly effective use of this important agricultural tool in more than 160 countries around the world.

Decisions regarding product safety and approvals for pesticides are governed by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Commission, as well as independent scientific advisory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). IARC has no regulatory authority and its decision does not impact glyphosate's label, current registration or use.

"Safety is the top priority for every person who works at Monsanto. Glyphosate-based herbicides on the market meet the rigorous standards set by the regulatory and health authorities who work every day to protect human health, and we want our customers and consumers to be assured of these evaluations," Fraley added.

In contrast to the comprehensive review that regulators around the world have completed over three decades, IARC issued its classification based on a limited data review after hours of discussion at a one-week meeting. Further, IARC is one of four programs within the World Health Organization (WHO) that have reviewed the safety of glyphosate and their classification is inconsistent with the assessments of the other programs. Two of the WHO programs -- the Core Assessment Group and the International Programme on Chemical Safety -- both concluded glyphosate is not carcinogenic. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality program concluded glyphosate does not represent a hazard to human health.