|
|
|
|
NPPC Hires New Director To Oversee Grassroots Programs
NPPC Opposes Climate Change Measure
Food-Safety Bill Better But Concerns Remain
Producers Concerned About Food-Safety Bill
Cap and Trade Preferable To Carbon Tax But Added Costs Remain A Serious Concern
Greenhouse gas reporting plan could increase environmental problems
AgStar Financial, Tyson Foods lend support to U.S. pork industry's "We Care" program
NPPC Hires New Director To Oversee Grassroots Programs
June 19 - The National Pork Producers Council has hired Bryan Humphreys as director of grassroots in its Des Moines, Iowa, office. Humphreys will oversee NPPC’s Legislative Education Action Development Resource (LEADR) program and its Public Policy Leadership Institute (PPLI).
“Bryan will be a great addition to our team in Des Moines,” said Pat McGonegle, NPPC vice president for State Relations and Resource Development. “He brings a great deal of grassroots campaign and managerial experience with him.”
The goal of LEADR is to build, maintain and coordinate an effective grassroots movement of trained and willing pork producer volunteers who can be mobilized easily and rapidly to advance important pork industry issues or defend against bad public policy. Similar to LEADR, PPLI’s objective is to provide a carefully selected group of industry participants with advanced public-policy training. Those pork producer leaders represent the U.S. pork industry’s public-policy initiatives at the state and national levels.
Humphreys most recently served as a state party political field director and has worked on election campaigns in Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. A 2005 graduate of Iowa State University, Humphreys grew up on a crop and livestock operation in southeast Iowa.
To learn more about NPPC’s LEADR or PPLI program, visit http://nppc.org/Programs/LEADR.htm or http://nppc.org/Programs/PPLI.htm
NPPC Opposes Climate Change Measure
June 18 - In a letter sent today to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., the National Pork Producers Council indicated its opposition to climate change legislation, which it said will raise the cost of pork production.
The “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” H.R. 2454, could come up for a vote in the House of Representatives next week. Among other things, the bill would set a limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gases that specific large industries such as energy utilities could release to the atmosphere. A business that has an emissions amount that falls below its cap could sell the unused amount up to the cap as offset credits; one that exceeds its cap would need to buy credits or reduce its emissions. In addition, uncapped sectors could sell offset credits for adopting practices and technologies that reduce emissions. H.R. 2454 treats agriculture as an uncapped sector.
“America’s pork producers are intensely concerned over any policy proposals that will further raise the cost of production,” said NPPC. “In particular, producers fear the impact that H.R. 2454 will have on the cost of electricity, diesel fuel, grain, propane, animal health products, fertilizer, chemicals, farm equipment and materials such as steel and concrete that are necessary for the continued operations of their farms and well-being of their animals.
“Pork producers are already losing money for every pig sold – currently about $30 per hog – and any additional costs will drive them deeper and more firmly into financial despair.”
NPPC anticipates an increase in energy and input costs of more than 20 percent under the proposed climate change legislation, and it doesn’t believe that revenues from the sale of greenhouse gas offset credits will balance that increase. In addition, the organization is wary of the impact the legislation would have on pork producers’ ability to compete fairly in world export markets.
If Congress insists on passing a climate change bill, said NPPC, a number of areas in the bill must be improved before the organization could support it, including that the bill designate the U.S. Department of Agriculture, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, as the lead agency on the design and implementation of the agricultural greenhouse gas offset credits program and on the development of any regulations affecting livestock producers.
The bill also needs to more clearly address and account for the tremendous advances that livestock producers already have made in reducing their carbon footprint. NPPC pointed out that since 1990 production agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased only 3.5 percent while U.S. meat production has increased 40 percent; since 1948, manure generated by U.S. meat-producing animals has been reduced 25 percent while production of meat has increased 700 percent.
Food-Safety Bill Better But Concerns Remain
June 17 - The National Pork Producers Council today was successful in blocking from food-safety legislation new on-farm regulation of pork operations, which already are overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state agencies.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved an amendment to the “Food Safety and Enhancement Act of 2009,” H.R. 2749, that exempts livestock and poultry farms from a provision that expands the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s authority over food producers. It would allow FDA to conduct on-farm inspections, quarantine geographic areas over food-safety problems, create a tracing system for all food and require additional records to be kept. The provision will apply to the grain side of diversified livestock and grain operations.
NPPC pointed out that USDA already can quarantine animals when a state asks it to for animal health reasons, and it has an animal identification system that can trace back an animal to its farm of origin. NPPC also noted that farmers keep records according to state laws and industry programs and that complying with FDA record-keeping requirements would necessitate them overhauling their current record-keeping systems.
“We are pleased that the Energy and Commerce Committee addressed our key concerns with the food-safety legislation,” said NPPC President Don Butler, “They recognized that USDA has sufficient authority and the expertise to oversee livestock and poultry operations. But we still have some issues with the bill.”
What remains unclear, said NPPC, is whether the bill, for example, would allow FDA to conduct an on-farm inspection of or quarantine the livestock side of a diversified operation that has a food-safety issue with the grain side of its business.
H.R. 2749, which the energy committee approved by voice vote, still must be considered by the full House; the Senate has a separate food-safety bill. NPPC, which supports strengthening the U.S. food-safety system, will continue to work with congressional lawmakers to resolve other areas of concern with food-safety legislation.
During today’s consideration of the House bill, Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., offered an amendment to ban the use in livestock of certain antibiotics. Although the amendment was withdrawn, the move could be a harbinger of future efforts to include an antibiotics ban in legislation. NPPC opposes restrictions on animal health products.
Producers Concerned About Food-Safety Bill
June 12 - While they support efforts to strengthen the U.S. food- and animal feed-safety systems, pork producers have a number of concerns with food-safety reform legislation approved June 10 by a U.S. House subcommittee, said the National Pork Producers Council.
Chief among those concerns are provisions that would give authority to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conduct on-farm inspections, to quarantine geographic areas over food-safety problems and to create a “farm-to-fork” tracing system for food.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture already oversees farms, can quarantine animals when a state asks it to for animal health reasons and has an animal identification system that can trace back an animal to its farm of origin within 48 hours, NPPC pointed out.
The “Food Safety and Enhancement Act of 2009” also would allow FDA to write safety standards for on-farm issues, such as animal control, manure use and employee hygiene. Food from farms would be considered “adulterated” if the operations did not follow the safety standards outlined by FDA.
“Producing safe pork is a top priority of U.S. pork producers,” said NPPC President Don Butler, “but the legislation now moving through the House would set up duplicative regimes and would give broad authority over our operations to an agency that lacks the personnel and expertise to address on-farm issues. That’s a recipe for disaster for America’s food animal farmers and, ultimately, for America’s consumers.”
The food-safety bill, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health subcommittee and which could be considered by the full committee next week, also would require new records to be kept by farms and require those records to be compliant with FDA standards.
But farmers keep records according to state laws and industry programs, said NPPC. Complying with FDA record-keeping requirements would necessitate farmers overhauling their current record-keeping systems.
“We need a robust food-safety system in this country,” Butler said, “but the programs and provisions in such a system need to be based on sound science and should be targeted at the greatest food-safety risks.”
Cap and Trade Preferable To Carbon Tax,
But Added Costs Remain A Serious Concern
June 11 - A cap-and-trade program such as the one that soon will be before the House of Representatives is preferable to a carbon tax for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but added costs associated with climate change legislation remain a serious concern of America’s pork producers, the National Pork Producers Council said in written testimony submitted today.
NPPC told the House Agriculture Committee that a cap-and-trade program is likely to achieve greater and more sustainable emissions reductions—and do it for less—than a straight tax on greenhouse gas emissions. This is because cap-and-trade gives businesses flexibility to choose the lowest-cost emissions abatement method while also providing incentives for finding additional ways to reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions.
The agriculture panel today held a hearing on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which recently was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The climate change legislation, among other things, would set a limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gases that specific large emitters such as energy utilities could release to the atmosphere. Each unit of greenhouse gas an emitter is allowed to release under its cap is called a credit, which may be bought and sold. Those able to release less gas than they are allowed under their cap may sell credits; those over it will need to buy credits or reduce their energy production.
In addition, uncapped sectors may sell offset credits for adopting practices that reduce emissions. H.R. 2454 treats agriculture as an uncapped sector, an approach endorsed by NPPC. One such practice in livestock agriculture is installation of a digester to capture methane gas from manure and convert it to electricity.
“This combination of flexibility and positive incentives means a cap-and-trade program meets the environmental goal at the lowest cost to the economy,” NPPC said.
NPPC also asked that the bill include a list of agricultural projects and practices likely to qualify for offset credits, that those producers who adopted such practices in the past be
eligible for credits and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture—not the Environmental Protection Agency—design and oversee the agricultural offsets program.
“USDA has the institutional resources as well as the technical expertise necessary to carry out this function, while EPA does not,” NPPC said.
NPPC anticipates increased energy and input costs of at least 20 percent under climate change legislation, and it doesn’t think revenues from the sale of carbon offset credits will balance out that increase. This remains a serious concern of pork producers, given the industry’s bleak economic outlook. NPPC will continue to monitor the legislation as it moves through Congress.
“We are already losing money today for every pig sold, and any additional costs will simply drive us deeper and more firmly into the hole,” NPPC said. The organization said pork producers lost an average of $22 on each hog sold last year, and an improved outlook early this year was wiped out by losses suffered as a result of publicity surrounding the H1N1 flu outbreak.
Added costs associated with climate change legislation also will put U.S. pork producers at a disadvantage compared with producers overseas, NPPC said. “We are heavily dependent on the export of pork to consumers worldwide for a large portion of our revenues,” it said, “and without these export opportunities, our chances of sustaining our farms and industry simply do not exist.”
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Plan Could Increase Environmental Problems
June 10 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to require livestock agriculture to report manure-related greenhouse gas emissions is not well thought out and could increase environmental problems, according to the National Pork Producers Council.
In comments on the plan submitted yesterday, NPPC applauded EPA’s efforts to address global climate change and provide leadership in protecting the environment. But the group said requiring livestock producers to report manure-related emissions will add costs to pork operations while basically duplicating information EPA already compiles. The group said EPA should step back and let the Agriculture Department take the lead in attempting to reduce greenhouse gases coming from farms and ranches.
“The current greenhouse gas inventory that EPA compiles every year, along with the information from a cap and trade offsets program, is more than enough to support the rule’s objectives,” NPPC said. “Its proposal simply adds great costs to the covered producers without adding anything to the current body of knowledge regarding manure emissions.”
Congress is considering climate change legislation that, among other things, would set a limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gases that specific large emitters such as energy utilities could release to the atmosphere. Each unit of greenhouse gas an emitter is allowed to release under its cap is called a credit, which may be bought and sold. Those able to release less gas than they are allowed under their cap may sell credits; those over it will need to buy credits or reduce their energy production.
In March, EPA proposed to require businesses, including livestock operations, to report emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide under the Clean Air Act. Those emitting at least 25,000 metric tons of gas annually would be affected under the plan. EPA estimated this would be only 40 to 50 livestock operations nationwide and that compliance costs would be only $900 per facility.
Minnesota hog farmer Randy Spronk, chairman of NPPC’s environmental committee, questioned EPA’s reporting threshold, saying the agency misjudged the number of producers the rule would affect and the costs it would impose.
The pork industry, Spronk pointed out, is participating in an EPA air monitoring study that will determine with much more certainty the greenhouse gases coming from hog farms, but that data won’t be available until next year. “Until we know what’s coming off our farms and in what amounts, producers should be protected from regulation for air emissions,” he said.
In its comments, NPPC offered a number of reasons why EPA’s mandatory emissions reporting program is not appropriate for hog farms and needs to be revised.
Among them:
While EPA estimated that farms with at least 73,000 hogs will be required to report emissions, it did not explain how it arrived at this number. NPPC, working with industry and university scientists, has been unable to duplicate it.
The costs of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the rule are underestimated. EPA’s estimate of $900 to conduct tests and do emissions calculations bears little relation to the actual costs hog farmers will incur to comply with the rule.
AgStar Financial, Tyson Foods Lend Support
To U.S. Pork Industry’s ‘We Care’ Initiative
June 3 - AgStar Financial Services, a top lender to the U.S. pork industry, and Tyson Foods Inc., one of the nation’s leading pork processors, today at the World Pork Expo pledged their support for the pork industry’s “We Care” responsible pork initiative, a move welcomed by the National Pork Producers Council.
The “We Care” program was developed by NPPC and the National Pork Board to help demonstrate that pork producers are committed to caring for their animals, producing safe food, protecting the environment and public health and giving back to the communities in which they live. The initiative also includes the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Plus program, which provides pork producers guidelines on food safety and animal well-being. Producers can become PQA Plus-certified by adhering to the guidelines and undergoing an on-farm assessment of their production practices.
AgStar Financial presented NPPC and the Pork Board $50,000, which will be used to develop and maintain a Web site dedicated to the “We Care” initiative. The site is expected to be launched soon.
Tyson Foods donated $10,000, which will be used to help conduct on-farm assessments. It also announced that it will require all of its hog suppliers to become PQA Plus-certified by June 30, 2010; suppliers will need to have their operations assessed by Dec. 31, 2010.
Tyson joins Hormel Foods, Hatfield Quality Meats, JBS Swift, Farmer John, Independent Meats and others in supporting the “We Care” program and in requiring hog suppliers to become PQA Plus-certified and to conduct on-farm assessments.
“We are extremely appreciative of AgStar and Tyson for their public endorsement of the ‘We Care’ program,” said R.C. Hunt, chairman of the “We Care” Advisory Group and a pork producer from Wilson, N.C. “Their support is vital, and we hope that other industry partners will join them in backing an initiative that shows the commitment that pork producers have to being conscientious in raising their animals, producing safe food and protecting the land, water and air.”