Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| Agricultural
Cooperatives |
|
| Agricultural cooperatives
are a vital part of our private competitive enterprise system. The
strength of cooperatives lies in their ability to serve their
members. We oppose any attempt to repeal or weaken the Capper-Volstead
Act. |
Antitrust
laws interfere with more than just agricultural cooperatives. |
| We support the formation
of a perpetual funding incentive source to assist farmer owned
cooperatives in processing Missouri agriculture products into value
added consumer goods. |
|
| Missouri Farm Bureau
should provide leadership in the development of marketing
cooperatives and the creation of networking opportunities for
smaller producers. |
|
| We support participation
in production and/or marketing activities such as producer alliances
or new generation cooperatives. |
|
| We support legislation to
modernize federal law to ensure that farmer cooperatives, including
new generation cooperatives, continue to have access to credit. |
|
| Agricultural Drugs and
Chemicals |
|
| We support labeling requirements
for feed additives to accurately identify actual drug strength in
products. |
In the long run, a society which turns
over personal responsibility to a government nanny will not prosper.
Labeling must be consumer-driven, not government-imposed. |
| We oppose label restrictions
on essential agricultural pesticides for the protection of
endangered species when such restrictions will jeopardize
agricultural production. Restricting pesticide use to protect
endangered species will only be workable when the scope of the
habitat has been narrowly and clearly defined and when economically
affordable alternative chemicals or methods of control are approved
and available for use. |
|
| Any record-keeping
requirements for farm chemicals should meet the following criteria: |
|
| 1. Mandatory
record-keeping should be limited to restricted-use products only and
not apply to general-use products. |
|
| 2. Records should be kept
on the farm for a period of two years. |
|
| 3. Records may be
inspected by the appropriate state pesticide agency only after
showing just cause. |
|
| 4. Records should be kept
confidential and treated as confidential business information. |
|
| We urge adequate supplies
of fungicides remain available to prevent and treat soybean rust. |
|
| We vigorously support the
release of effective chemicals banned by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for use in emergency cases such as serious
grasshopper and cutworm infestations. |
|
| We support a regulatory
process which does not discourage the development and
commercialization of minor use pesticides. |
|
| We recommend the United
States Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection
Agency cooperate with private industry in actively searching out
such products and providing clearance, when possible, from data used
to approve these products in other countries. |
|
| For the sake of accuracy
and convenience, we do not believe crop protection chemical
manufacturers should be required to convert to the metric system in
the U.S. With our land areas being described in U.S. measures, we
believe it will be difficult to even convert pesticide rates to
metric. |
|
| We are concerned that the
Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides, which have
been implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are
far more detailed and complicated than necessary for the protection
of the typical family farm operation. We recommend that EPA continue
to work with the farm community to modify this program in order to
develop guidelines that are more practical and workable. In
addition, we recommend that EPA focus their efforts on training and
informing farmers rather than seeking to penalize farmers through
enforcement actions. |
|
| We believe that Worker
Protection Safety Standards should be applied to all pesticide
applicators, both public and private. There should be no exemptions
for golf courses, state transportation departments, etc. |
|
| Agricultural Marketing |
|
| We believe access to open
and competitive markets is essential to all producers of farm
commodities. |
By definition, government cannot create
or impose an "open and competitive" market. |
| We believe that Farm
Bureau, commodity organizations, academic institutions and public
officials should become more active in providing agronomic, economic
and business assistance for agricultural producers . |
|
| Agri-Missouri Program |
|
| We support the Missouri
Department of Agriculture's Agri-Missouri Program which is designed
to help identify and promote Missouri grown and processed products.
We favor increased funding for the Agri-Missouri Program.
|
|
| Agritourism |
|
| We support efforts to
promote the importance of agritourism as a tool for local and
regional economic development.
Agritourism operations encounter a unique set of circumstances
that vary from the normal operation of a working farm or ranch. In
order to encourage more owners or operators of farms, ranches and
rural attractions to invite members of the public to view, observe
and participate in such operations and attractions for recreational
or entertainment purposes, we believe the General Assembly should
review and address these circumstances. They include, but are not
limited to the following: definitions for an agritourism activity
and inherent risk; warning notice requirements; assumption of risk
by the participant and liability of the operator.
We would support the following parameters to be included in an
agritourism definition: the activity would be for recreational,
entertainment or educational purposes for members of the general
public; to view or enjoy rural activities, including, but not
limited to, farming activities, ranching activities or historic,
cultural or natural attractions; and an activity may be an
agritourism activity whether or not the participant pays to
participate in the activity.
We encourage Missouri Farm Bureau to continue a dialogue with the
Missouri Department of Transportation and other interested parties
to meet the needs of the agritourism industry in regards to
reasonable and adequate roadside signage.
We commend the MFB board of directors for establishing a Farm
Bureau advisory committee devoted to agritourism issues. |
|
| Animal Agriculture |
|
| When considering the
growing number of public policy issues that animal agriculture is
facing, we believe it should remain the objective of Missouri Farm
Bureau to (1) be the prominent agricultural organization
representing the interests and general concerns of the independent
farmer, (2) work for the improved competitiveness of independent
producers, and (3) aggressively work against unfair and unreasonable
governmental regulations that impair the economic viability of the
independent farmer. |
|
| We further believe that
those independent family operators who choose to contract with, or
form an alliance with a corporation, cooperative, or any other
entity should be recognized as part of an ever changing yet
continuing trend in animal agriculture. |
|
| We believe the
environmental concerns raised by the concentration of large numbers
of animals in confinement operations warrants the distinction, for
the purpose of regulating animal source nutrient management systems,
that the Clean Water Commission has made between very large
operations and smaller sized operations. We will vigorously oppose
any effort to apply the more stringent regulations to farming
operations that have a smaller concentration of animal units. |
|
| We believe that Missouri
currently has adequate laws to regulate animal agriculture. |
|
| We believe that llamas and
ratites should be treated and classified as domesticated livestock. |
|
| Animal Identification |
National Animal
Identification System |
| In light of past events
and the elevated threat of agri-terrorism, we favor a voluntary (not
a USDA or state mandatory) national animal identification system
that will provide support for animal disease control and eradication
and enable 48-hour traceback of the movements of any diseased or
exposed animal. |
|
| We do have concerns
related to the following issues: |
|
| 1. Producer
confidentiality is of utmost concern. Confidentiality should be
protected to the greatest extent possible. |
|
| 2. The cost of the
identification program should be distributed on a fair and equitable
basis without undue financial burden on the producers. |
|
| 3. Producers should have
liability protection from the actions of others after the animal has
been sold by the producer. |
|
| USDA is in the process of
integrating existing animal disease surveillance program information
into the NAIS as the central database and standardizing data
elements including the premise identification number as the national
location identifier standard. Due to the voluntary nature of NAIS, a
producer that participates in an animal disease surveillance program
should have the option to either continue to use the existing
producer identification system for the program or the NAIS system. |
|
| We oppose a mandatory
brand law, but support increased enforcement of current branding
laws with penalties for violations. |
|
| Animal Protection |
|
| The United States
livestock, poultry, and kennel industries are being threatened by
animal rights activists. These individuals are claiming that
livestock and poultry confinement operations subject animals to
inhumane conditions. We disagree with this contention and recognize
that animals were put on the earth for man's use by Almighty God,
and believe that animals are, in fact, benefiting from the
protection and care they receive from modern-day agricultural
practices. We oppose any efforts to develop laws or regulations
which would mandate impractical methods of production resulting in
higher costs of production for farmers and ultimately higher food
costs for the consumer. We believe laws prohibiting animal abuse
should not be construed to restrict modern livestock production
practices. |
|
| Ballot initiatives and
legislative public policy efforts are tools used by the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal activist groups
to carry out their ultimate goal of destroying animal agriculture in
the United States. We believe Farm Bureau must do everything
possible to protect Missouri agriculture from these threats and must
aggressively oppose any Missouri ballot initiative or related policy
advocated by these groups deemed detrimental to farmers and
ranchers. |
|
| We do not condone the
mistreatment of animals in any manner whatsoever and support
reasonable and proven standards; at the same time, we oppose any
initiative petition or legislation in Missouri that would impose
unnecessary and unreasonable regulations on the breeding and raising
of animals. |
|
| We believe animal
protection authorities should be prohibited from confiscating
livestock herds with animals in good condition. |
|
| We believe animal
protection authorities should be required to obtain the approval of
the state veterinarian before confiscating hooved animals. In such
cases, we believe animal protection authorities should be required
to give advance notification to the animal owners as well as the
farm or facility manager. |
|
| Research utilizing animals
is necessary to ensure more effective and humane veterinary medical
practices. We oppose legislation and regulations which would
prohibit or unduly restrict the use of animals in research. |
|
| We believe that animal
researchers should do a better job of verifying the ownership of
animals used for research. |
|
| We support the creation,
establishment, and strict enforcement of federal and state laws and
regulations that increase the penalties for individuals who break
into, vandalize, remove animals from, trespass on or demonstrate the
intent to disrupt farming, ranching or agricultural research
facilities. |
|
| Humane Society personnel
or other activists must be required to obtain a search warrant with
the following stipulations to access our farms or kennels: |
|
| 1. Any search warrant must
be issued by the local magistrate of the district where the farm or
kennel is located, and |
|
| 2. The local law
enforcement authorities must accompany the Humane Society or
activists at all times while at the farm or kennel. |
|
| We support an aggressive,
comprehensive education program presenting the facts of animal and
poultry production and well-being to the general public and to
school children. |
|
| We support practical,
on-farm research to help document minimal stress placed on farm
animals under current production systems. |
|
|
Biomass
Fuel Pellets
We support the establishment of uniform
standards for biomass fuel pellets. |
|
| Biotechnology |
|
| We support using the tools
of biotechnology in agriculture to develop proven and safe products
and practices that improve farm efficiency and profitability. |
|
| We favor a regulatory
process which would assure that products developed through
biotechnology are reviewed in a timely and scientific manner. |
|
| We believe biotechnology
should be regulated only at the state and federal levels. |
|
| Plant-made pharmaceuticals
are being developed to increase the availability and affordability
of compounds for medicinal purposes. In addition to the humanitarian
benefits, plant-made pharmaceuticals have the potential to open new
markets for U.S. farmers and increase the value of their annual
production. |
|
| We support the production
of plant-made pharmaceuticals in Missouri in accordance with the
scientific protocols set in place by the U.S. government. |
|
| Carbon Sequestration
and Credits |
|
| We are concerned about
agriculture becoming involved in the trading or selling of carbon
credits, an approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
formalized during the U.N. Kyoto Climate Change Treaty negotiations. |
|
| The implementation of a
mandatory cap-and-trade system and/or regulations will increase the
price of carbon-based energy and threaten the viability of
production agriculture as an energy-intensive sector. We recognize
some agricultural producers may have an opportunity to offset a very
small portion of their increased energy and input costs through
carbon credit trading, but not all farmers and ranchers will be able
to participate due to their type of operation. All producers will
incur higher operating expenses. |
"Cap
and Trade" is not the way
The politicians seem to be unifying around "cap and trade"
as a way to cut CO2 emissions. If they take this step it may be the
largest increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government
since the creation of Medicare. Worse still, it may not even achieve
its purpose. Kevin Craig opposes "cap and trade." Learn
more » |
| We oppose a federally
imposed carbon credit trading system. |
|
| Confidentiality of Farm
Information |
|
| We oppose the release of
individual farmer-specific records or census data. We also oppose
the release of confidential farm records by employees of the
Missouri Department of Conservation's Private Lands Initiative
operating in county USDA and/or Soil and Water Conservation District
offices. |
|
| Country of Origin
Labeling |
|
| We support a voluntary
country of origin labeling (COOL) program for agricultural products
that is market driven and adds value to the products. |
|
| Implementation of the
mandatory COOL program by USDA remains a concern. MFB should
continue to monitor program administration to ensure it is carried
out without imposing undue compliance costs, liability,
recordkeeping and verification requirements on farmers and ranchers. |
|
| We support the concept of
establishing a recognizable "national logo" that
designates USA produced products. |
|
| Farmers' Markets |
|
We support farmers’
markets.
Approved vendors at farmers’ markets should be an acceptable point
of redemption for food and nutrition assistance. |
|
| Feed Law |
|
| We oppose exempting any
segment of the poultry or livestock industry from the Missouri feed
inspection fee which is collected on feed ingredients. |
|
| If the Missouri Department
of Agriculture replaces feed registrations with facility licenses,
small livestock feed dealers should not be adversely impacted. |
|
| Fertilizer Regulation |
|
| We are opposed to any
further regulation of the sale of ammonium nitrate or anhydrous
ammonia for agricultural use. |
|
| We support designating the
release or escape of anhydrous ammonia into the atmosphere by any
person not the owner or in lawful control of an approved container
of anhydrous ammonia as illegal. |
|
| We support classifying
such illegal release as a Class B felony, unless such release causes
death or serious physical injury to any person, in which case it
would be a Class A felony. |
|
| Food Quality and Safety |
|
| The American food supply
is the safest and most abundant in the world. Agricultural chemicals
and other technological advances play a major role in maintaining
both the quality and quantity of our food supply. Farmers are
trained and well-equipped to use farm chemicals and fertilizers
effectively and safely and in amounts that are no more than what is
necessary to combat pests and disease. |
|
| We believe the protection
of the U.S. food supply would be enhanced by requiring that imported
food products be subjected to the same high safety standards and
testing as food produced in the U.S. |
|
| Balanced and science-based
implementation of food quality and safety laws and regulations is of
the utmost concern to Missouri farmers and ranchers. We believe that
failure to implement laws and regulations in a balanced way could
have serious negative effects on pest management and food and fiber
production in the United States, with subsequent adverse impacts on
the health and well-being of the American people. Specifically, we
support the following principles: |
|
| 1. sound science—implementation
must be based on sound science and reliable information; |
|
| 2. transparency—the
public must be informed of the criteria used to assess risk and the
process by which decisions are reached; |
|
| 3. balance—as EPA
considers canceling older pesticide products as a result of the
tolerance reassessment and re-registration process, it must give
high priority to the review and approval of new products; and |
|
| 4. workability—the law
must be administered in a practical and realistic way. |
|
| If EPA fails to follow
Congressional intent during the implementation process, we support
the use of options such as litigation and legislation. |
|
| We support continued
federal funding of research through the Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program (PIAP) on the value of agricultural chemicals to Missouri
agriculture. |
|
| We support legislative and
regulatory decisions concerning food irradiation that are based on
valid research. |
|
| We support the voluntary
labeling of food and agricultural products that contain Genetically
Enhanced Organisms (GEOs). |
|
| We oppose the use of
public funds by specialty, niche or value-added producers for
derogatory, destructive or disparaging campaigns against
conventionally raised farm products. |
|
| Futures Trading |
|
| The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) should continue to be the regulator of the
commodity futures business. We oppose combining the CFTC with the
Securities Exchange Commission or weakening the CFTC by transferring
or reducing its authorities. We favor continued monitoring of the
CFTC to make sure they are providing the safeguards necessary to
protect the integrity of the futures market trading system in
providing price discovery and risk management tools for farmers and
ranchers. |
|
| We also favor having at
least one farmer or agricultural representative on the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. |
|
| To help protect the
interests of producers, we believe the delivery of the actual
commodity should be as efficient as possible and a reflection of the
cash market. Steers and heifers should be deliverable at the market
and delivery weights should reflect the cash market. |
|
| We believe regulatory
action by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the individual
commodity exchanges should be taken in a way that will have the
least disruptive impact on the producers of the commodities
involved. |
|
| We oppose any increase of
fees charged by commodity exchanges for subscribers to marketing
services. |
|
| The emergence of index
funds as a new class of market participant and their use of
"swaps" has created serious challenges for traditional
hedgers, producers, and other market participants in gauging market
fundamentals. Given the fact that index funds have no involvement in
the physical commodity or marketing channel, we feel it is
inappropriate for them to be granted a hedge exemption. Furthermore,
we feel it inappropriate to classify them as a
"commercial" account in the Commitment of Traders reports.
We strongly support that the reporting activity of index funds be
separated from the trading activity of traditional
"commercial" accounts, historically a category reserved
for grain companies and processors hedging price and inventory risk,
in future Commitment of Traders reports. |
|
| We encourage the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission to adopt some form of demand certificates
(compelled loadout) for all delivery locations, both existing
locations and new locations proposed by the CME Group. |
|
| Grain Grading |
|
| We favor revision of the
grading and pricing system for all grains to reflect premiums for
quality and to reward producers for dryer grain in the same manner
the producer is penalized for moisture content. If premiums for
moisture and test weight cannot be accomplished, we would favor a
system of averaging loads of grain to determine prices. |
|
| We believe grain sold to
farmers from a commercial source should be sold on a graded basis. |
|
| We oppose the use of
vacuum drawn grain samples used for grading purposes, but we do not
oppose mechanically drawn, vacuum transferred systems. |
|
| We believe sellers of
agricultural products should have grades and discounts available
before those products are unloaded. |
|
| Revised grain standards
should indicate clearly and give assurance that we will provide
clean grains for our customers at home and abroad. We recommend that
blending regulations be better enforced so that foreign material is
not added to exported grain. Blending requirements as to moisture
should be better enforced so that we can export an improved quality
of grain. |
|
| We support a grain grading
system that separates broken kernels and foreign matter into
separate grade factors. |
|
| We believe the Missouri
Department of Agriculture should develop a process that allows
producers and processors to certify that raw or processed products
are free of genetically-enhanced organisms according to tolerances
set by export customers. |
|
| Grain Indemnity Fund |
|
| Farm Bureau remains
concerned with the cumulative loss of general revenue support for
the Department of Agriculture over the past decade and how the loss
of staff and other resources is affecting fundamental programs,
including grain regulatory functions. Before statutory changes are
approved, the Legislature needs to make sure the Department is
funded at levels to adequately carry out their statutory
responsibilities on a timely basis. |
|
| We believe that before a
state grain indemnity fund is considered, state bonding requirements
for grain dealers and warehouses should be thoroughly reviewed and
increased as needed. |
|
| Grain Warehouse |
|
| While we support
Missouri's Grain Warehouse law, we caution against overly stringent
requirements which might force smaller grain elevators or grain
dealers out of business leaving farmers with fewer markets for their
grain. |
|
| We support allowing grain
dealers and warehousemen to submit compiled financial statements
prepared by a Certified Public Accountant instead of the review or
audit level statements required by the Missouri Grain Warehouse and
Grain Dealer Laws. |
|
| We believe CCC measurement
rules should be made more lenient so farmers will be able to fill
their bins to peak capacity. With the limited storage available,
this could add as much as ten percent to storage capacity. |
|
| We oppose any federal
pre-emption of state grain dealer laws by the United States Grain
Warehouse Act. We feel it is in the best interests of Missouri grain
producers that all grain dealers and warehouses doing business in
Missouri be licensed by the state of Missouri and under the
regulatory scrutiny of the Missouri Grain Dealer Law. |
|
| Hay Testing |
|
| We support the NIR
(near-infrared reflectance) spectrometer hay testing program in
Missouri. We encourage the University of Missouri to continue
funding of this program. |
|
| Industrial Hemp |
|
| We do not support the
production of industrial hemp. |
Does this mean that the government should
lock industrial
hemp producers in jail? How would America's
Founding Fathers, many of whom were industrial hemp producers,
react to this proposal? |
| Kennel Regulations |
|
| We oppose any unnecessary
and excessive laws and regulations affecting kennel owners. |
|
| We support authorizing
only trained USDA or Missouri Department of Agriculture officials to
inspect state and federally licensed kennels. We oppose authorizing
the Humane Society, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, or similar organizations to enforce kennel laws and
regulations. |
|
| We recommend canines in
kennels licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture and/or
USDA be considered as an agricultural commodity with protection of
customary agricultural exemptions and policies. |
|
| Licensing and Titling
of Farm Motorized Equipment |
|
| We oppose the licensing
and/or titling of motorized farm equipment (for example, tractors
and combines). We further oppose any effort to license operators of
farm equipment. We believe the farm machinery identification program
is an acceptable means of identifying stolen property and urge
continued support for this program from local sheriffs' departments
and the Missouri Highway Patrol. |
|
| Livestock Marketing |
|
| In order to be
competitive, Missouri livestock producers must have readily
available market outlets. We believe Farm Bureau should take the
lead in closely monitoring all mergers, ownership changes or other
trends in the livestock packing industry that would signal a
lessening of competitive market availability or a violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act or any other state or federal statute. |
|
| Producers should be able
to forward contract with packers for the sale of livestock, but we
are concerned that packers, through the use of forward contracting,
are able to adversely affect the cash market for livestock. We
should closely monitor the ability of packers to manipulate the
market by forward contracting with producers. |
|
| We believe the ownership
of all livestock selling through private sale barns should be
announced at ringside before the animals are sold. |
|
| We believe all livestock
being sold by the pound at private sale barns should be weighed
prior to the sale. |
|
| We support strict
enforcement of the federal Packers and Stockyards Act. |
|
| We support breeder hens
and all forms of poultry being added to the protection under the
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act (GIPSA). In addition,
we favor GIPSA making rule changes to coincide with Missouri Farm
Bureau policy concerning production contracts, such as banning
mandatory arbitration and prohibiting retaliation. |
|
| Farm Bureau should
intensify their efforts to monitor and oppose further market/packer
consolidation that would be detrimental to livestock producers. |
|
| We oppose any restrictions
on livestock production and/or marketing in Missouri that would
limit or restrict production and/or marketing options or
opportunities for livestock producers. |
|
| We support the Missouri
Department of Agriculture's Quality Systems Assessment (QSA) program
that will allow producers to sell source and age verified cattle
with third party verification. |
|
| We support efforts of the
Missouri Department of Agriculture to develop and implement
strategies that add value to Missouri’s high quality cattle herd. |
|
| Livestock Price
Reporting |
|
| Any packer who processes
more than 5% of the national daily slaughter should be required to
report cash and contract prices and terms of sale to the federal
market news service. |
|
| Livestock Regulations |
|
| County health ordinances
regulating animal agriculture are being adopted or considered for
adoption by a number of Missouri counties. Although the ordinances
are being promoted under the guise of protection of public health,
the ordinances are designed for the primary purpose of restricting
animal agriculture. |
|
| Missouri Farm Bureau
should continue working to eliminate the use of county ordinances
for regulating animal agriculture. They not only add one more layer
of regulations on livestock producers, but will eventually drive the
livestock industry out of the counties so affected and very possibly
the whole state. |
|
| Meat Quality &
Inspection |
|
| We recommend that the
permissible "water added" content of meat and poultry
products be reduced to protect the quality of meat without adding
undue cost to the product. |
|
| We support and favor
promoting a Meat Quality Assurance Program. |
|
| We strongly support
enforcement of meat inspection standards. We recommend that the meat
inspection program remain under USDA and not be placed with the Food
and Drug Administration. |
|
| We support allowing
state-inspected meat processing facilities, which meet all federal
regulations and policies under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Products Inspection Act and are approved by USDA, to
ship products in interstate commerce as set forth in the 2008 Farm
Bill. |
|
| We support increasing the
number of state inspectors to ensure safety of Missouri meat
products and to create more opportunities for direct marketing to
consumers. |
|
| We support meat handling
labels that educate the consumer about meat quality and safety
issues. |
|
| Mergers and
Acquisitions |
|
| We believe that
consolidation, and subsequent concentration, within the U.S.
agricultural sector is having adverse economic impacts on U.S.
family farmers. To address this trend, we believe Congress should
review existing statutes, develop legislation where necessary and
strengthen enforcement activities. This includes examining the
Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Hart/Scott/Rodino Act, Packers and
Stockyards Act and other applicable laws. |
|
| In the event the Congress
fails to act, and consolidation continues, we believe a moratorium
on future mergers and acquisitions or other measures should be
pursued. |
|
| Milk Inspection Program |
|
| We support adequate
general revenue funding to the state milk inspection program so as
not to increase funding from raising the milk inspection fees on
processors and producers. |
|
| Missouri Market News
Program |
|
| Access to unbiased market
information is critical to farmers and ranchers when making
marketing decisions. We support funding
for the Missouri Department of Agriculture's "Missouri Market
News Program" that allows for the continuation of market news
reports at current and/or expanded level(s) of service. |
"funding" by which level of
government? |
| Missouri Seed Law |
|
| In order to protect and
encourage the development of new seed varieties, we recommend
changing the Missouri Seed Law to prohibit the sale by commercial
seedsmen of "variety not stated" or "brown
bagged" wheat or soybean seed. |
|
| We oppose the
incorporation of a sterile gene designed specifically to prevent the
public and private propagation of seed. |
|
| We believe that extreme
care should be taken to ensure that adding genetically engineered
traits to seed does not accidentally make most of that crop more
susceptible to some disease. |
|
| We believe extreme care
should be taken to ensure that adding genetically engineered traits
to seed does not create unacceptable risk to humans, animals or the
environment. |
|
| We favor farmers being
allowed to save seed for their own use. However, we recognize some
seed is subject to federal patent protection, and we do not support
state law to allow farmers to save patented seed, which would put
those farmers who save seed in violation of federal law. We favor
changing federal seed patent law to allow farmers to save patented
seed. |
|
| Farmers should be allowed
to save and replant patented seed by paying a minimal technology fee
on saved seed. Companies that sell patented seed should keep the
price of U.S. seed competitive with the price of seed sold in other
countries. While we recognize that the costs of research and
development must be recouped, we believe American farmers are being
put at a disadvantage through the high cost of biotech fees, i.e.
royalties. We believe South American competition with Roundup Ready
products through pirating and unenforceable seed laws in those
countries are contributing factors that need to be addressed by
private companies and public institutions. |
|
| We are concerned with
consolidation in the seed industry and the lack of competition that
allows patented seed products to be priced in a questionably fair
manner. |
|
| We believe Kentucky 31
Fescue Seed production is an important Missouri agriculture
industry, and we support seed purchasing standards that promote high
quality seed production that will maintain our current market, but
are against any state rule, regulation or law that would limit or
prohibit a farmer from selling his/her tall fescue seed crop as the
variety Kentucky 31, as he/she knows or understands it to be. |
|
| Production Contracts |
|
| We believe contract
production agriculture is a way to assist individual producers in
competing in the agriculture industry. |
|
| We support the rights of
producers to enter into contracts. |
|
| We support: |
|
| 1. Ensuring that
confidentiality clauses allow producers to share information with
business advisors and attorneys and allow a period for contract
review prior to signing; |
|
| 2. Improving the
readability of contracts; |
|
| 3. Requiring the
disclosure of material risks; |
|
| 4. Allowing contract
producers/growers the ability to review and discuss contract terms
with the contractor/integrator in making their business agreements
without apprehension of retaliation from the contractor/integrator;
and |
|
| 5. Banning mandatory
arbitration clauses in contracts. We believe arbitration should be
left as a choice; not mandatory, for contract producers. |
|
| Promotion and
Check-Offs |
|
| We support commodity
check-off and self-imposed funding programs in cooperation with the
goals of the various agricultural commodity organizations. We
believe that all legislated commodity check-offs should be passed by
producer referendum and should comply with all provisions of each
check-off's respective act and order. |
|
| Specifically, commodity
legislative check-offs should continue to be used for promotion,
education and research activities, and not for legislative or
lobbying purposes. |
|
| Missouri Farm Bureau
should encourage greater participation by producers in check-off
referendum and merchandising council elections. It is important to
have accurate producer lists with current contact information for
use in merchandising council elections and referendums. |
|
| Regulatory Reform |
|
| We believe farmers and
ranchers are being negatively impacted by the growing regulatory
burden at the state and national level. We believe members of the
Missouri General Assembly and the U.S. Congress should do more to
reduce this regulatory burden. Furthermore, we support the creation
of a task force or other means that measure the cumulative impact of
regulations affecting production agriculture and believe this
measurement should be completed prior to the implementation of any
regulation impacting agriculture. |
|
| Right-to-Farm |
|
| Missouri Farm Bureau will
make it a priority to protect and enhance the ability of farmers and
ranchers to continue agricultural production in the State of
Missouri. Missouri Farm Bureau will also make it a priority to
ensure the regulation of agriculture is limited to the state and
federal government. |
|
| We support responsible
actions designed to permit and protect the privilege and the rights
of farmers to produce without undue or unreasonable restrictions,
regulations or harassment from the public or private sectors. We
support actions to ensure that farmers be protected from undue
liability and nuisance suits when carrying out normal production
practices. |
|
| We support efforts to give
agricultural producers increased protections against false and
defamatory statements that tend to damage or endanger a producer's
livelihood, product or property. |
|
| We favor real estate
brokers and agents include on the sellers disclosure statement form
this statement: "Proximity to farming: This notice is to inform
you that the real property you are considering for purchase may lie
in close proximity to a farm. The operation of a farm involves usual
and customary agricultural practices which are protected." |
|
| Sale of Mortgaged
Agricultural Products |
|
| We support the current
system of prior notification whereby lienholders are required to
notify potential buyers of their secured interest in order to
protect such interest. We support efforts by private industry to
provide a more unified listing of farm liens in order to make prior
notification of potential buyers more practical and cost effective. |
|
| User Fees |
|
| We believe that user fees
should only be used to fund expenses for the program under which
they were collected. |
|
| We oppose reallocating
revenue from user fees or increasing user fees to create new
programs or fund existing programs not directly related to the
program for which the fee was established. |
|
| Value-Added Agriculture |
|
| We believe state
government has an important role to play in developing value-added
marketing and processing of agricultural products in Missouri. |
|
| We support the
establishment of an agricultural innovation center in Missouri which
could serve as a central distribution point for information as well
as state and federal funds for individuals interested in pursuing
value-added agricultural opportunities. We believe the agricultural
community would be best served if the agricultural innovation center
was established at the state's land grant institution. |
|
| We commend and support
private and public efforts to develop and promote alternative uses
for agricultural products, such as corn-based starch products,
ethanol blended fuels, soy diesel fuel, soy ink and beef tallow for
hay preservation and energy use. |
|
|
We
support the development of methods to recycle plant nutrients via
processing manure into fertilizer and encourage the use of tax
credits and other incentives to promote this industry.
|
|
| We strongly encourage the
use of bio-based products at all levels of government and we
recommend that a bio-based products preferential purchase program be
adopted by the state of Missouri. |
|
| We support measures that
will encourage agricultural cooperatives to enhance the
profitability of its farmer members by becoming more involved in
value-added processing. |
|
| We further support: |
|
| 1. providing additional
financial incentives to assist new generation cooperatives with
start-up costs, including plant construction and processing
equipment costs; and |
|
| 2. retaining state funds
appropriated for eligible value-added agricultural operations that
are not allocated in a fiscal year for use by such operations in
subsequent years. |
|
| We support the state tax
credit program for farmers who invest in new generation cooperatives
and processing facilities. |
|
| We support increasing
funding for the Missouri Agriculture and Small Business Development
Authority for investor tax credits. |
|
| We commend the Missouri
Farm Bureau Board of Directors for purchasing the tax credits from
farmers at 100 percent of face value. |
|
| We support providing state
tax credits for expansion of livestock operations. |
|
| Weed Control |
|
| We believe the current
state Weed Control Law should be amended to provide for the
detection, isolation and eradication of infestations of new or
potentially dangerous noxious weeds on both private and public land. |
|
| We support the formation
of county weed boards as deemed necessary by county courts. |
|
| We believe that public
agencies should undertake efforts to prevent the infestation of new
or potentially dangerous noxious weeds on public land. |
|
| We believe that Kudzu
should be declared a dangerous and noxious weed and be eradicated
from public and private lands. |
|