Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- April  2000

Legislative News

Budget Resolution
Incredible Disappearing Supplemental
Crop Insurance Conference Committee
Ag Anti Trust Bill Introduced
State-inspected Meat hearing

Executive Sessions

Pork Check-Off Vote Rules Proposed
Conservation Reserve Enhancements -- Finally!
Biotech I - NRC report
Biotech II - USDA Advisory Committee
Biotech III - Comment on FDA Labeling
USDA Rural Biz Grants named
GIPSA to Meet on Family Farm Issues
Comment on State Wetland Certification

NGOs A-Go-Go

National Campaign on New Organic Rule

Brief, but Very, Very Important!

IPM RFP, Harkin "Conservation Security
Act," EWG report on Biotech, and much,
much more...

Previous editions of Inside the Beltway

Inside the Beltway is Sustainable Farming Connection's online version of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group's Washington Report. We reproduce it with MSAWG's permission. Do not reproduce or post to any electronic network without specific permission. Contact Brad DeVries bdevries@cais.com for more information.

No matter how fast we move our little paws here in D.C. Report Central, we never seem to be done reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of your servants here in the nation's capital. Soon as one report is out the door, we're on to the next, with an even longer table of contents. 

Not that we're complaining, mind you. I'd be happy just so long as someone would grease that squeaky hub on the exercise wheel. That and maybe a different flavor of hamster food.

Most important, keep your eyes open for a survey we're distributing to readers of the MSAWG D.C. Report and its sister publication Making Hay. We want to make sure that we're not only giving you the news you need in the format you want, but that we're doing it in a way that keeps us off that newsletter treadmill just a bit. To do that, we need to hear back from you!

And while we've got your attention, it would be criminal to fail to reprint the note that landed in my e-mail box early this week - great news from Renee Hunt: Aidan Jonathan Hunt was born on Friday, April 14 at 8:47 a.m.; 8# 1 oz., 20 inches. Everyone is doing well, and we're adjusting to life with a newborn. 

As they prepared to leave town for recess, Congress passed its budget resolution for 2001, setting the basic assumptions in place that will control this year's agricultural appropriations bill as well as an Agriculture Committee farm crisis spending bill.

The bill assumes a $150 billion, 5 year tax cut (with provision for larger cuts if surpluses increase), a $25 billion boost in Pentagon spending above inflation adjusted amounts, a $40 billion new Medicare prescription drug plan, plus additional farm program spending. The tax cuts and new spending would force cuts in discretionary domestic spending in 2001 of over 6 percent if applied across the board, and more if one factors in nearly certain increases in education and other hot election year spending items. The non-defense discretionary spending figure is about $7 billion below FY 2000 levels and nearly $30 billion below the levels President Clinton recommended in his budget proposal.

Four Senate Republicans voted against the budget along with all Democrats. In the House, six Democrats voted for it, and five Republicans against it on what was otherwise a party-line vote. The GOP tax bill will likely lead to a presidential veto, while at least some of the spending bills, if they remain within the budget outline, will also likely lead to confrontation with the White House as the summer heats up and election day approaches.

Agriculture Committees: As opposed to the past two years, this year's emergency spending for agriculture will be launched from the authorizing committees in an "on-budget" fashion rather than as an emergency "off-budget" supplemental appropriations bill.

The budget resolution provides for an extra $2.2 billion in crop and revenue insurance subsidies, on top of the $6 billion (over 4 years) already being divvied up in the crop insurance bill currently in conference committee between the House and Senate Ag Committees (see story below). The extra funding will be used in part to extend the deal an extra year and in part to sweeten the pot.

The budget resolution also provides about $5.5 billion for another round of "double AMTA" payments - increasing the size of Freedom to Farm commodity checks by 100%. This budget assumption, of course, remains to be actualized by the Ag Committees when they take up an emergency-type bill, legislation that will now have a budget-imposed June 29 deadline. The $5.5 billion will be charged against the FY 2000 budget. The resolution also adds another $1.6 billion for farm program spending in FY 2001.

We will be watching closely to see what is proposed in regard to continuing or discontinuing last year's doubling of the payment limitation. By adopting the Senate's $5.5 billion rather than the House's $6 billion, the budget conferees seem to be signaling an end to double dipping for the nation's largest farms, though even the $5.5 billion provides some extra funny money that could be used to ill-gotten ends.

Gone from the final bill is the Senate-passed provision that would have allowed an additional $1.7 billion for more farm program spending and/or "conservation program enhancements." Also gone is the Senate-passed "sense of Congress" language supporting increases in the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program.

While the budget resolution is intended as a road map, it does not carry the force of law, and the Ag Committees are free to enact whatever they like within the prescribed budgetary limits. By forcing the Ag Committees to act, rather than dealing with emergency spending within appropriations, the budget sets up at least the possibility of pressing the case for farm bill reauthorizations (e.g., WRP, state mediation program) and "technical corrections" (e.g., credit title problems), and for extraneous items (e.g., Packers and Stockyards improvements) to be brought up. Also possibly in play will be items that were scheduled to be part of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that has now been yanked from consideration (see story below), including extra technical assistance money for NRCS and extra salaries and expenses for FSA.

With an end of June deadline for this legislation, you can expect to be receiving an action alert on this legislation sometime in May, once we have had a chance to better evaluate the "lay of the land" in terms of what might be possible to advocate.


Agriculture Appropriations: With regard to appropriations and discretionary spending, the budget resolution spells serious trouble. At best, the resolution is likely to result in an allocation to the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee that freezes spending at FY 2000 levels or perhaps adds about $100 million or so. Once inflation adjustments in government salaries and program costs are factored in, this represents significant real cutbacks. We won't know the exact amount for sure until each subcommittee receives its allocation in May. Nonetheless, it appears likely that cuts in mandatory accounts such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the zeroing out of the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems will continue. Moreover, it means that the fighting for program increases will be intense, with probably only a small handful of "winners." Hence, our DC and grassroots efforts to win increases for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education will need to be redoubled.

Caught in particular difficulty will be farm ownership and operating credit, which the President's budget continues to low-ball and which has been ramped up the past two years via supplemental appropriations. Without a supplemental bill in sight this year, there may be no vehicle for gaining the extra funds needed -- in which case there will be a major credit crunch by spring planting time next year.

The House leadership has decided that the agriculture spending bill will be one of the first three appropriations bills to go to the floor, so we are now expecting House subcommittee markup to happen fairly quickly in May.

In the March edition of this newsletter, we reported on the emerging emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Much to the shock of congressional appropriators and the House GOP leadership (and us), the bill is now apparently dead, victim to an unwavering blocking maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). The spending items from the proposed supplemental, including farm disaster relief, will have to fend for themselves in the regular appropriations process, putting a further squeeze on available spending allocations.

The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, which the House version of the supplemental had eliminated, is now alive once again, but possibly for only a short while. The money might once again be taken to offset disaster relief - but then again, maybe it won't be. No decent predictions can be made at this
time.

As long as it remains up in the air, all those planning to submit IFAFS proposals should go ahead and do so. In the meantime, everyone who cares about nearly $20 million being available for research to aid small and moderate-sized farms -- the most in at least several decades -- should write or call their state delegations and tell them to save the FY 2000 funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

As Congress breaks for recess, the House and Senate versions of the crop insurance bills have been in conference committee at the staff level for almost two weeks, with only slow progress to report. Staffers will pick up again the week of April 25 and hope to have something ready for the conference members to convene on in early May. On our particular issues, only one has been resolved - the provision that explicitly counts sustainable and organic farming practices as "good farming practices" for crop insurance purposes, included in both bills, has been approved. Still remaining to be discussed are the conservation compliance provisions, whole farm revenue insurance, and risk management payment provisions, all of which are in the Senate bill only.

Senators Daschle (D-SD) and Leahy (D-VT), along with 10 other Democrats, introduced the Farmers and Ranchers Competition Act on April 12. The bill would give USDA expanded powers to pursue anti-trust cases by broadening provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. A week earlier, Senator Grassley (R-IA) introduced his own ag antitrust bill, and in May, Senator Leahy plans to introduce a second bill to increase Justice Department powers and fines in the ag antitrust arena. The Senate Agriculture Committee has a hearing scheduled for April 27 to discuss concentration at which time Chairman Lugar (R-IN) plans to push for making the new agriculture position within the Antitrust Division at DOJ a permanent, statutory position. Senator Johnson (D-SD) has written to the chairman asking for consideration of his own bill (S 1738) to ban packer ownership of livestock.

The Farmers and Ranchers Competition bill would attempt to get USDA to crack down on anti-competitive prices, including unreasonable preferences, unjustified price discrimination, and packer right of first refusal requirements. It would also require all agribusinesses with more than $100 million in sales to file with USDA all strategic alliances, cross-ownerships, and interlocking boards of directors, require USDA to conduct pre-merger community impact analyses, raise fines against companies violating the law, and establish a commission to reimburse producers who suffer extraordinary damages as a result of unfair practices. According to Senator Daschle's office, the bill has been endorsed by the Farm Bureau.

The bill is crafted in such a way as to make it very difficult to extract particular provisions to move legislatively this year. It thus appears to be more of an election year show piece than an attempt to get action on a few concrete steps as might very well be possible on a hot issue in an election year. If that prognosis changes after the upcoming hearings, we will let you know in the next issue of this newsletter.

On April 6, 2000, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a full committee hearing on S. 1988 - The New Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act of 1999, which was introduced in the Senate last November. The bill is sponsored by Senator Tom Daschle (ND) and currently has 19 co-sponsors in the Senate. Senators Pat Roberts (KS), Dick Durbin (IL), Peter Fitzgerald (IL) and Charles Grassley (IA) signed onto the bill in early April. S. 1988 would allow meat and poultry that is processed in state-inspected plants to be shipped in interstate commerce, if the state inspection program has received federal review and approval. Currently, only meat processed in federally inspected facilities may be marketed across state lines. Under the bill, federally-approved state inspection programs would adopt and enforce federal inspection requirements. Meat and poultry processed in state-inspected plants would bear a federal mark of inspection. Meat and poultry processed in state-inspected plants would be subject to Salmonella testing by federal inspectors, as well as in-distribution sampling. USDA would also conduct annual compliance audits of state inspection programs. The bill does not change current law allowing states to impose more stringent regulations for meat inspection than are provided for under the federal program.

The bill originated in a meeting on the issue held in 1997 by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service at the request of Senator Daschle. As a result of the meeting, the USDA's National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection issued a concept paper on interstate meat and poultry shipment, which was used as the basis for the legislation. At the Senate hearing, USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger expressed the Administration's strong support for the bill. With the exception of the representative of the American Meat Institute, the representatives of other organizations testifying at the hearing also supported S. 1981. Represented organizations included the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Association of Meat Processors, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the Consumer Federation of America. The American Meat Institute objected most strongly to the provision that would allow state programs to be more stringent than the federal program. Questioning from Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas indicated that large-scale poultry processors also object to the bill. At the end of the hearing, Committee Chair Senator Lugar (IN) indicated that in April committee staff would attempt to reach some agreement with those organizations still opposed to the bill. The witness list and testimony submitted at the hearing may be found on the web at www.senate.gov/agriculture/Hearings.

After months of turmoil, the USDA outlined the proposed rules by which it will conduct a referendum on the mandatory Pork Checkoff Program in the April 18, 2000 Federal Register. An initial reading of the proposal indicates that the ruckus is only beginning.

The Campaign for Family Farms, which spearheaded the petition drive that forced Secretary Glickman to call a vote, noted that the proposed rule excludes thousands of legitimate hog farmers - folks who were legally eligible to sign the petition calling for the referendum - from the vote itself. By requiring a producer to have sold at least one hog less than a year before the (eventual) date of the referendum, the Department will conveniently exclude producers who were wiped out by the $8 hog bloodbath, and perversely reward the National Pork Producers Council for the months and months the USDA spent tied up in knots over the Campaign's petition.

As if to add insult to injury, the ballot process turns the procedure of prior referendums - by which AMS mails out ballots to verified producers for a four-week vote - on its head by requiring hog farmers to either vote in person at their county offices in a two day election, or request an absentee ballot in person or by mail.

AMS is accepting comments on the proposed rule until May 18.

For the past 3 and a half years, we have been prodding USDA to improve incentive payment rates for CRP partial field buffer enrollments. As previously reported, the enhancements (estimated to cost $350 million) were announced at the beginning of the new year, though without any word on final details. Now that the regular, whole field CRP enrollment period is over and planting season has come, and thus another season has been wasted, USDA made it official on April 6th. Also as previously reported, the major incentive ($100 per acre one time payment for each acre enrolled, rather than the 50-100% bonus rental rate we proposed) is, for no logical or convincing reason, not available on contour grass strips and cross wind trap strips. But better late and short than never and nothing!

The one time payment bonuses are being called "stewardship incentive payments" or SIP. They apply to field windbreaks, grass waterways, field shelterbelts, living snowfences, filter strips, and riparian buffers. The bonus is calculated as $10 per acre per year, or $100 per acre for a 10 year contract, $150 for a 15 year contract. An additional incentive - being called a "practice incentive payments" or PIP -- will set at 40% of the cost of installing a practice, effectively bringing the cost share rate for the continuous sign-up up to 90%. PIP is available on all practices, including contour grass strips, cross wind trap strips, and shallow water areas for wildlife. Per acre maintenance rates were also increased for windbreaks, shelterbelts, living snow fences, filter strips, and riparian buffers. Rental rates  were raised for marginal pasture land being enrolled as riparian buffers, with a per acre rate established for each county that go as high as $66 per acre in the eastern corn belt.

In related CRP news, on April 13 Secretary Glickman announced a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreement with the State of Pennsylvania, focused on the watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Up to 100,000 acres may be enrolled. This agreement makes Pennsylvania the fourth Chesapeake Bay state with a CREP. The terms call for double payments (two times the normal rental rate) for filter strips, riparian buffers, contour grass strips, grass waterways, and wetland restoration, plus an extra $5 per acre per year to reflect maintenance burdens. These terms make it one of the more lucrative CREPs to date.

Also, on April 10, USDA announced that 3.5 million acres were offered during the recently completed 20th CRP sign-up. The average requested rental rate was $51. More than one-third of the total was from Minnesota, Montana, and the Dakotas. Depending on how many of these acres USDA accepts, the resulting total CRP acreage will be getting close to the 36.4 million acre limit. On March 9, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition joined with 14 other groups including the National Conservation Buffer Council, Agricultural Retailers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, and the Soil and Water Conservation Society to plead with Secretary Glickman to accommodate the full, promised 4 million acre CRP buffer initiative within the existing 36.4 million acre cap.

On April 5, 2000, the National Research Council's Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants released a report entitled "Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants: Science and Regulation." To order the report or view a prepublication version of the report go to the website www.nap.edu/catalog/9795.html. The report was prepared primarily in response to controversy over a regulation proposed by the EPA in 1994, which that gives the agency jurisdiction over plants genetically engineered to resist pests. The report recommended that the rule be adopted and that EPA extend the rule to cover plants genetically engineered to resist viruses. The Committee concluded in the report that no foods containing these genetically engineered plants, which are currently on the market, are unsafe but recommended that tests be developed for assessing any harms from long-term consumption of genetically engineered foods. The report also criticized the USDA process for approval of genetically engineered plants with regard to ecological risks, noting for example that the department did not have adequate scientific support for the controversial approval of a biotech squash, which some feared could produce a super weed. The report acknowledged that Bt corn plants do have the potential to harm monarch butterflies, as indicated in a study by Cornell University scientists published in May, 1999.

The USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology held its first meeting on March 29-30 in Washington, D.C. USDA Secretary Glickman has asked the Committee to address a wide range of social, economic, and ecological issues. The Committee will also assess the performance of USDA's biotech policies and programs. The USDA Advisory Committee will also identify scientific issues regarding food safety, environmental harms, etc. for referral to a National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biotechnology, Food & Fiber Production & the Environment, which will be holding its first meeting on May 4-5, 2000. During the period for oral presentations at the Agricultural Biotechnology Committee meeting, Martha Noble with the SAC office submitted for the record the position paper on agricultural genetic engineering prepared for the MSAWG and endorsed by numerous MSAWG organizations and other organizations. This position paper is posted on the web at www.cfra.org.

USDA has opened a public comment period until May 1, 2000 to allow written comments to be submitted as part of the official record for the meeting. The USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology includes many members representing the sustainable agriculture community, organic farmers, environmental interests, and concerned consumer organizations. These members need your support and comments. The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture has also issued an action alert on the comments with suggested talking points for written comments. The Campaign action alert is posted on the web at www.SustainableAgriculture.net. Written comments should be submitted by May 1, 2000 to USDA/ACAB, Dr. Schectman, DFO, Office of the Deputy Secretary, 202A Jamie Whitten Federal Building, 12th & Independence Ave., Washington, D.C. 20250; Phone: (202) 690-4265; FAX: (202) 720-3817: e-mail: michael.g.schectman@usda.gov.

On March 21, 2000, the Center for Food Safety submitted a petition to the Food and Drug Administration calling for mandatory pre-market food safety testing and environmental assessment of genetically engineered food, as well as mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. The filing of the petition has opened a public comment period on the petition. Comments should be submitted Commissioner Jane Henney, FDA Dockets Management Branch, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305), Rockville MD 20852, RE: Docket No. 00P-1211/CP1 & Docket No. 99N-4282 or by e-mail: FDADockets@bangate.FDA.GOV/FDA (include docket numbers on e-mail subject line).

For a sample comment letter and more information on the petition, see the Center for Food Safety's action alert website at www.foodsafetynow.org.

USDA Rural Biz Grants named

The USDA announced the award of more than $900,000 in grants through the Rural Business Cooperative Service to projects in Georgia, Maine, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Three grants of note included the $500,000 award to the George D. Aiken Resource Conservation and Development Council of Vermont for a statewide agri-tourism project, a $97,712 grant to the Tatnall County Development Authority in Georgia to purchase processing and storage equipment for a minority vegetable growers cooperative, and $75,000 that went to the Wisconsin Farmers Union to establish the Wisconsin Farmers Union Specialty Cheese Co. as a farmers' cooperative enterprise.

GIPSA Meeting on Family Farm Issues

The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration will be holding a Conference on Family Farms entitled Visions for the Millennium: Structural Changes Facing Livestock & Grain Markets in the 21st Century in Kansas City, Missouri on May 9-10, 2000. According to GIPSA, the purpose of the Conference is to bring together family farmers, senior officials of processing companies, representatives of trade associations, academia, and state and federal officials to debate the future structure of agriculture. The Conference will be held at the Kansas City Airport Marriott Hotel. The registration fee is $55. You can register for the Conference online through the website www.usda.gov/gipsa/millennium/millindex.htm. For further information, contact GIPSA at (202) 720-7051.

On March 9, 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a final rule replacing the Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 26 with a set of new and revised Nationwide Permits. The SAC office submitted comments critical of the revised Nationwide Permit No. 40 which applies to Agricultural Activities. The scope of activities allowed under the permit was greatly expanded from activities related to building construction to all agricultural activities. The permit was also revised so that the term "farm" to define a project is replaced by "farm tract." This change would allow multiple nationwide permits to be issued for the a single farming operation. In addition, the new rule prohibits Regional Army Corps Districts from placing more protective regional conditions on NWP 40 permits issued to participants in the federal farm programs. We strongly objected to these measures in the NWP 40
rule.

Now it is the turn of the states to certify the new and revised permits for use at the state level. The states can impose more stringent state certification requirements on NWP 40 or can completely revoke certification for NWP 40. For more information on how you can comment and participate in the state certification process, contact Ami Grace at the Clean Water Network by phone at (202) 289-2421 or by e-mail at cleanwaternt@igc.org. For information on contacting your state agency, go to the wetlands section of the Clean Water Network website www.cwn.org. A link to the new permits and more information is also available on the Endangered Species and Wetlands Newsletter website at www.eswr.com/ish54.htm.

The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is pulling together fact sheets and action alerts on the second iteration of the draft rule for the National Organic Standard. Working through a quite intensive reading of the rule, the Campaign's organic committee identified eight important points for its first fact sheet on the issue:

1. Don't penalize the steward! The proposed rule holds organic farmers responsible for the polluting actions of others and fails to address the economic consequences of gene pollution and mandatory spray programs.
   
2. USDA's message: "Get Big or Get Out"? The Rule disproportionately harms small farmers, businesses, and certifiers.
   
3. Keep Animal Factories out of Organic. This Rule actually allows for animal factories. Contrary to its stated goals and international norms, there are exemptions from the outdoor access and pasture requirements that would allow for animals to be kept without outdoor access for most of their lives.
   
4. Make sure the "Big Three -- Genetically Modified Organisms, Irradiation, and Sewage Sludge-are dead! The USDA's proposed rule, for the most part, lives up to its claim of prohibiting these practices in organic agriculture. The Department must close several important loopholes, however.
   
5. Keep the Public/Private Partnership. The original intent of the law for the National Organic Program was for USDA to build equitable partnerships with the private sector so that government would not usurp the role of non-governmental organizations and individuals.
   
6. Meet Consumer expectations for Organic and Consumer Right-to-Know. The Rule fails to meet consumer expectations for consistency and clarity in organic labels in several ways.
   
7. Strengthen Enforcement Provisions. The whole organic enterprise will crumble unless these rules are enforced against those who would fraudulently try to claim the organic premium without meeting the strict requirements of the law.
   
8. Support USDA where they got it right. The revised Rule gets a lot of things right, and it's important that we thank the NOP for their diligence in responding to comments from the last proposed Rule. We also need to make sure that pressures from elsewhere don't weaken these standards in the Final Rule.

For more information and detailed recommendations on each of these points, contact the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture at (914) 744-8448, email: campaign@magiccarpet.com, or on the web at www.SustainableAgriculture.net.

• The April 7th Federal Register includes the Requests for Proposals for Integrated Pest Management, Water Quality, and Food Safety under the new "section 406" integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants program within CSREES. There is $11 million for IPM, $12 million for water quality, and $14 million for food safety. Proposals are due by
  June 6.
• The latest marketing guide from the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) is available on the web at www.sare.org/san/market99/index.htm and includes real-life stories and practical tips on marketing agricultural products through alternative channels, such as farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) arrangements, restaurant sales, and other methods.
• We now expect the Conservation Security Act to be introduced by Senator Harkin and others sometime in May. The bill draft, based closely on a version Ferd prepared for the Senator, is going through final revisions and will be distributed to a variety of agricultural groups soon for review and comment prior to introduction.
• We continue to work on re-instating sodbuster prohibitions on CRP beneficiaries. Last year's emergency farm bill repealed the provision prohibiting CRP participants from collecting CRP payments while breaking out native prairie and range for crop production. Early reports from Texas and Colorado show that this new found "freedom to sodbust" has been jumped on by landowners looking to make fools out of US taxpayers. Leaving no stone unturned, the Farm Service Administration -- which supported the repeal -- sent letters out to all CRP recipients in late March, informing them of the change. We hope to re-instate the prohibition in this year's appropriation bill, though support from Secretary Glickman is not yet forthcoming and resistance from FSA continues.
• Eric Olsen has moved up from Counsel to the Secretary to Chief of Staff to the Secretary at USDA. Eric has been with the Department since 1994 and previously served as ag aid to Representative Minge (D-MN) and as an attorney with the Farmers Legal Action Group. Eric's promotion was made possible when Greg Frazier, Glickman's USDA Chief of Staff and long-time ag aide while in Congress, moved on to become the Special Trade Negotiator for Agriculture and Food Policy at the office of the US Trade Representative.
• The Environmental Working Group recently published a report entitled "Maladroit Farm: Biotech Crops Won and Organic Food Lost in the Clinton-Gore Years" (see www.ewg.org), a biting critique of the biotech bias of USDA and the White House and the foot dragging on organic certification, FQPA implementation, and redirecting research money to sustainable agriculture. One quibble - usually more clever with titles, EWG begins with the small minority of folks who've even heard of Louis Bromfield's book "Malabar Farm," and divides it even further by the subset of people who have the faintest clue what "maladroit" means.
• Ferd recently participated in the second meeting (held in Kansas City on April 11&12) of the USDA Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, on which he serves. He also attended the April 13 meeting of the SARE National Operations Committee meeting. Martha will be attending a portion of the upcoming meeting of the USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee. Call Ferd or Martha for more information.
• Copies of the MSAWG 1999 Annual Reports -- "At the Ground Level" -- are available. Contact Brad.

Previous editions of Inside the Beltway

• March 2000
• February 2000
• January 2000
• December '99
• November '99
• October '99
• August '99 II 
• August '99 I
• July '99
• May '99
• Spring '99
• February '99
• January '99
• December '98
• November '98
• October '98
• July '98
• June '98
• May '98
• April '98
• March '98
• Feb. '98
• Jan. '98
• Oct. '97
• July '97

Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- April 2000