Making Hay May 2000 A sustainable ag e-mail bulletin on federal agency news and activities. This bulletin is produced by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (SAC). It is not meant to be a polished newsletter but an alert system. We will not worry about our prose and ask that our work not be reproduced or quoted. *********** CONTENTS * Top Story <> Initiative for Future Ag & Food Still Breathing * EPA Notes <> TMDL Joint Agreement <> GAO Report on Children Farmworkers * Biotech <> NRC Report <> USDA Advisory Committee <> Administration Biotech Initiatives <> NAS Biotech Commission <> Comment on FDA Labeling <> EPA Denies Petition on Plant Pesticides * USDA News <> Beginning Farmer Advisory Committee News <> CRP Update <> NRC on NRI <> USDA Rural Business Grants <> GIPSA on Family Farms <> NRCS Pesticide Policy Review Comment Period <> Loans for On-Farm Commodity Storage * Resources and RFPs <> SAN Website *********** *** Top Story *** <> Initiative for Future Ag & Food Still Breathing Starting with the bottom line - proposals for IFAFS funds are due to CSREES by May 22. All persons and organizations intending to submit proposals should do so. Could Congress still rescind the funds? The answer is yes, though there is increasing optimism they won't be. Will we know before the 22nd what will happen? Almost definitely not. Chances are the final answer will not be apparent until June or July. We will continue to advocate for congressional appropriators to leave the IFAFS and the Fund for Rural America (FRA) alone. The issue has unfortunately become incredibly complex, as the quick rundown of the funding facts to date below will indicate. * In December, USDA determined a loophole in previous appropriations bills allowed it to spend the $120 million a year IFAFS and the $60 million FRA in fiscal year 2000. * An IFAFS Request for Proposals was issued on March 6, including one of the best USDA RFPs ever with respect to funding for research to assist small and moderate farms, with clear priority for proposals that successfully integrate research, extension and education, and with preference for large grants to multi-state, multi- institutional, and multi-disciplinary projects. * A supplemental appropriations passed the House in March that revoked the IFAFS funds, using them as an offset for emergency disaster relief related to 1999 hurricane damage. * Majority Leader Trent Lott blocked Senate consideration of the supplemental, forcing the appropriators instead to include the emergency spending in its normal FY 2001 appropriations bills, including agriculture. * Both House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittees marked up their FY 01 bills on May 4. The Senate left the FY 00 IFAFS funds intact, denied IFAFS funds for FY 01, but left the loophole in place. Translated from budget arcana into English, this means USDA would be free to spend $120 million each year on IFAFS, with each year's spending coming from the previous year's budget. The Senate took the same action on the Fund for Rural America, also potentially putting that $60 million back into play annually. The House subcommittee, however, nixed both IFAFS and FRA in all years, removing the loophole. * On May 9, the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the supplemental appropriations along with its FY 01 agriculture appropriations bill and did not include any offsets, thus keeping this year's IFAFS intact. The full House committee is set to act on its bill on May 10. Eventually, after both bills go through floor action, the final decision on the fate of the IFAFS -- both in 2000 and in future years -- will be decided in the appropriations conference committee between the House and Senate. This would happen in June at the earliest. For more information about the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, contact Rodney Foil (202-401- 4921; [log in to unmask]), Director or Cindy Huebner (202) 401-4114; [log in to unmask]), Assistant Director. *** EPA Notes *** <> TMDL Joint Agreement On May 1, 2000, the EPA issued a joint statement with the USDA on Agricultural and Silvicultural Issues Within EPA Revisions to TMDL and NPDES Rules. The statement is posted on the web at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdlwhit.html. With regard to the NDPES permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), the statement provides that "agricultural stormwater discharges" are exempt from NPDES permits requirements. This provision appears to contradict recent court decisions on the scope of regulation of CAFO waste under the Clean Water Act. In addition, because EPA has failed to provide the public with a clear definition of what constitutes agricultural stormwater discharges, this provision leaves a gaping hole in EPA guidance on CAFO NPDES permits. Note also that NRCS State Conservationists are in the process of revising state nutrient management policy and that some states may be moving forward with Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan provisions in advance of the finalization of guidance from NRCS National Headquarters. Here at SAC, we are trying to track nutrient management developments at the state level. We would like to hear from those of you working on these issues, especially those of you on NRCS State Technical Committees. Please contact Martha Noble at the SAC office, by phone (202) 547-5754 or by e-mail [log in to unmask] <> GAO Report on Children Farmworkers An April 13 Report by the General Accounting Office told the EPA to take steps quickly to protect children who work on farms from pesticides. The report, "Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children," notes that there is a lack of comprehensive information on the health effects of pesticide exposure, especially for children. The EPA's Worker Protection Standard is not designed for children under 12. The report is available for download at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/newtitle.htm reports are listed there in alphabetical order. The report recommends warnings to farmworker parents about the adverse effects pesticides might have on their children, and including specific information on pesticide labels about how long children should be restricted from entering fields that have been treated with pesticides. The GAO also called for better EPA oversight across the board of states' implementation and enforcement of the existing Worker Protection Standard. *** Biotech *** <> Biotech I - NRC report 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 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 genetically engineered plants 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's 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. <> Biotech II - USDA Advisory Committee The USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology held its first meeting on March 29-30, 2000 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 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 held 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 public comment period for written comments to be included as part of the official record for the first meeting closed on May 1, 2000. USDA, however, will continue to accept public comments, which should be directed 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: [log in to unmask] <> Biotech III Clinton Administration Food & Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives On May 3, 2000, the Clinton administration announced numerous Food & Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives. Details of the initiatives are posted on the web at www.usda.gov/special/biotech.htm. Food and Drug Administration actions under the initiative include publishing a proposed rule under which developers of bioengineered foods and animal feeds must notify the agency of the intent to market a food or animal feed from a bioengineered plant at least 120 days before marketing. The proposed rule will require that specific information be submitted to allow the agency to determine whether the foods or animal feeds pose any potential safety, labeling, or adulteration issues. The proposed rule will also authorize the FDA to make public, consistent with applicable disclosure laws, the submitted information and the agency's conclusions, by posting them on the FDA website. The FDA also announced that it will not require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Instead, the agency will prepare for public comment a draft guidance to assist manufacturers who wish to voluntarily label foods as being made with or without the use of bioengineered ingredients. USDA announced that the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration is initiating a procedure to accredit laboratories that are testing grains for the presence of genetically engineered grain. GIPSA will also be evaluating test kits for evaluating the presence of genetically engineered grain against the manufacturer's performance specifications. USDA also announced that it will issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking this summer to solicit public comment on other steps to differentiate non-bioengineered commodities to better meet the needs of the marketplace. The administration also announced that the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy will conduct a 6-month interagency assessment of federal environmental regulations concerning agricultural biotechnology and make recommendations, if appropriate, to improve them. With regard to public relations and international trade, USDA, EPA, FDA, and the State Department will enhance domestic and foreign public education and outreach activities to improve the understanding of the nature and strength of U.S. regulatory processes. <> Biotech IV - National Academy of Sciences Biotechnology Commission On May 4-5, 2000, the Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber Production, and the Environment met in Washington, D.C. At the request of USDA Secretary Glickman, the National Academy of Sciences established the Committee as a 5-year standing committee to advise USDA and other potential sponsors on scientific issues in the areas of plant, animal, and microorganism biotechnology used in food and fiber production and in other emerging applications. Further information on the Committee, its scope and membership, and the agenda for the May meeting are posted on the National Academy of Sciences website at www.nationalacademies.org, under the heading current projects <> Biotech V - Comment on FDA Labeling 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: [log in to unmask] (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. <> Biotech VI - EPA Denies Petition on Plant Pesticides On April 19, 2000, the EPA denied a petition requesting that EPA cancel registrations of Bt crops, which the agency regulates under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Greenpeace, the Center for Food Safety, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements and over seventy U.S. organic farmers, environmentalists and farming organizations, filed the petition. In its response to the petition, EPA said that it is not aware of any adverse environmental effects on the environment, including effects on non-target species such as the Monarch butterfly. The agency also concluded that its current policy for managing Bt resistance in pest populations is adequate and that unlikely that Bt genes will move from crops to weedy relatives. The agency also rejected claims that Bt toxins exuded from plants or in residues could have adverse effects on soil ecology. The EPA was required to respond to the petition under court order in a lawsuit filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have 30 days to assess EPA's response and decide whether to amend the complaint in the lawsuit. *** USDA News *** <> Beginning Farmer Advisory Committee News The USDA Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers held its second meeting April 11-12 in Kansas City. The well-attended meeting resulted in a letter to be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture with the following recommendations: * Increase FY 01 budget requests for FSA farm loan programs to the FY 00 levels to reflect expected demand in light of continuing economic downturn. * Support HR 1810 and S 1038 to remove aggie bonds from existing state volume caps on industrial revenue bonds. * Allocate funds for a survey of users and administrators of existing beginning farmer programs. * Add questions to the annual NASS farmer survey regarding beginning farmers and farm entry and transfer. * Develop a legislative proposal to make the existing federal-state beginning farmer partnership more flexible and more attractive to states. * Encourage cross-training of FSA employees and hire additional qualified employees to address severe shortage in farm loan officers. * Seek $20 million in FY 02 budget request for the outreach and technical assistance program for minority farmers (Section 2501). * Develop a legislative proposal to increase term limit on direct operating loans from 7 years to 10 years, and to exclude disaster years from the 10 year limit and the current 15 year limit on direct and guaranteed loans combined. * Undertake a comprehensive review of the borrower training program, including the issue of waivers, cost, and number/location of vendors. * Consider development of a legislative proposal to lengthen the repayment period for the FSA portion of beginning farmer down payment loans. * Support legislation to increase the actual production history of beginning farmers from crop insurance purposes to 110% of county average. * Design and encourage model programs to train high school students in farm operation and management. <> CRP UPDATE Note that further information on all the CRP Update announcements can be found at the FSA website www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm. I Continuous Sign-up Incentives On April 6, 2000, the USDA announced a program of incentives for the CRP continuous sign-up program. The enhancements (estimated to cost $350 million) were announced at the beginning of the year, but details were not resolved and the program did not become effective until April 6th. The major incentive is a $100 per acre one time payment for each acre enrolled, rather than the 50-100% bonus rental rate we proposed. Note that, for no logical or convincing reason, the incentive is not available for contour grass strips and cross wind trap strips. 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. CRP II PA and OH CREPS 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. On April 18, 2000, Vice-President Gore announced an Ohio Lake Erie CREP intended to improve the water quality of Lake Erie, and streams and rivers in the Western Lake Erie watershed, by reducing the load of sediment, pesticides, and nutrients flowing into the Lake. The program goal is to establish 10 to 15 year contracts for 5,000 linear miles of filter strips and riparian buffers, including forested buffers to lower stream temperature. For filter strips, special incentive payments for the program include the normal cropland rental rate plus an additional amount of 55 percent of the normal cropland rental rate from the USDA, as well as a lump sum payment of $200 per acre from the state. For land devoted to wetland restoration, riparian buffer, field windbreak, wildlife habitat improvement, or hardwood trees, the special incentive payment from USDA is the normal cropland rental rate plus 75 percent of this rate, as well as a lump sum payment of $500 per acre from the state. Maintenance and cost-share payments are also available. The sign-up for the Ohio Lake Erie CREP began May 1, 2000. CRP III 20th CRP SIGN-UP 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. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on May 4 approved language urging the USDA to ensure the 4 million acres are reserved. The Subcommittee also urged USDA to offer stewardship incentive payments on contour grass strips and cross wind trap strips. <> NRC on NRI On April 27, 2000, the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources released a report on the USDA's National Research Initiative entitled "National Research Initiative: A Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and Natural Resources Research (2000)." The report is not yet published but it may be ordered and a prepublication copy may be previewed at the National Academy of Sciences website http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9844.html. The report was authored by the Committee on an Evaluation of the US Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. Industry interests were well represented, with four committee members directly employed by corporations. Aside from industry representatives, the remaining members of the fourteen-member Committee were all part of the government-university research establishment. The Committee made numerous recommendations, including the removal of the NRI from the CSREES and the establishment of an Extramural Competitive Research Service reporting directly to the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and the establishment of a new NRI Advisory Board. The Committee also recommended that NRI grant awards be increased to an average of $100,000 per year over 3 years and that the NRI overhead limit be increased. <> USDA Rural Business Grants 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 on Family Farms 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. <> NRCS Pest Management Policy Review Comment Period NRCS announced availability in the May 1, 2000 Federal Register of its draft Revised Pest Management Policy. The comment period on this notice is quite short, ending May 31, 2000. You can access the full text of the draft policy at www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/BCS/pest/pest.html . Unfortunately, the NRCS has published this draft complete, without noting what it intends to change from the current policy, so it will take a bit of sleuthing to figure out what's new policy and what's not. <> Loans for On-Farm Commodity Storage USDA Secretary Glickman announced on May 9, 2000, that the USDA is establishing a program to make seven-year, low interest loans to farmers to build or upgrade storage and handling facilities for commodities including wheat, rice, soybeans, sunflower seeds, canola, rapeseed, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, other oilseeds to be announced, corn, grain, sorghum, oats, and barley. Loans may cover up to 75 percent of the net cost of the needed storage or handling equipment, up to an amount of $100,000. Borrowers are limited to one loan per fiscal year. Farmers may begin filing applications on May 30, 2000. USDA will publish regulations for the program in the Federal Register during the week of May 8 and take comments for 30 days. The Farm Service Agency has posted a fact sheet for the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program on its website at www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/2000/05/1499.htm. *** Resources and RFPs *** <> SAN Website 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. END TEXT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]