Washington Insider -- Tuesday

By DTN's Washington Insider

Here's a quick monitor of Washington farm and trade policy issues from DTN's well-placed observer.

USDA Proposes New Beef Checkoff Program

USDA is moving ahead with a proposal to establish a second beef checkoff program because an industry working group that was formed three years ago to recommend changes to the current program hasn't agreed on improvements

In a Federal Register posting yesterday, USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service called for public input for developing a new industry-funded promotion and research order for beef and beef products. The new order would be established under a general 1996 commodity promotion act and run parallel to the current beef checkoff program, formally known as the Beef Promotion and Research Program.

One key change under consideration is to increase the current assessment of $1 per head of cattle sold that has been in effect since 1985. There is general agreement among beef industry leaders that the current checkoff fee is insufficient.

The internal industry politics of this issue are largely to blame for the three-year impasse, with various segments of the U.S. beef industry pulling or pushing in different policy and funding directions. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has charged that the new checkoff will accelerate politicization. NCBA President Bob McCan said USDA's efforts "do not serve the interests of producers, they only serve to politicize and polarize the industry." And, he added for good measure, "We are focused on how the beef checkoff can do more to support cattlemen and women; the administration has focused on how they can use the beef checkoff for political spoils and to increase the control of the federal government."

AMS will accept public comment on its beef checkoff proposal until Dec. 10. Whether those comments are dominated by political or economic remarks remains to be seen.

***

Heads of U.S., China Meet to Set Bilateral Relationship Agenda

President Barack Obama is in Beijing where for the past several days he has been meeting with the heads of the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations who gathered for a leaders' summit. Today and tomorrow, the president is scheduled to hold discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a meeting that U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice says presents an opportunity to identify a forward-looking agenda for the next two years of the bilateral relationship.

She said the president will seek to build a relationship with China that advances U.S. economic and security interests and solves global problems in ways that reflect American values.

While at the APEC meetings, the president took the opportunity to discuss the ongoing negotiations regarding the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement with other TTP leaders. Those talks have slowed to a crawl in recent weeks, but a successful conclusion would link 12 nations that together represent about $28 trillion in annual economic output, or around 39 percent of the world total. Tellingly, China is not included in the TTP talks, making that a possible topic in today's U.S.-China discussions.

***

Washington Insider: New GMO Potato Approved

Well, no sooner have we finished digesting the political efforts to label GMO-containing food products than the issue seems to be turning. USDA said last week that it has approved a potato designed to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in french fries and potato chips. The potato's DNA has been altered to produce less acrylamide which is suspected of causing cancer in humans. In addition, the new tuber resists bruising, which reduces crop damage.

The biotech tubers were developed by the J. R. Simplot Company, a privately held company in Boise, Idaho, which was the initial supplier of frozen french fries to McDonald's in the 1960s and is still important in that market.

The potato is being touted as part of a new wave of genetically modified crops designed to meet specific consumer needs, rather than those of producers. At least some observers suggest that because the new potato has eliminated something that is potentially dangerous, it will be easier to sell to producers.

Maybe so, but the urban press treatment of the new product over the weekend did not suggest that. The New York Times, for example, went out of its way to remind readers that "the approval comes as some consumers are questioning the safety of genetically engineered crops and demanding that the foods made from them be labeled."

In fact, the labeling debate was never that clear, and never really about safety. It involved suggestions that there might be something darkly threatening about GMOs without specifying what or where that might be. And, critics publicly hinted at even greater threats from the intentions of the companies that produce GMO seeds. Now we have a GMO aimed at removing a threat, and created by a "local" company, what will the complaint be?

Probably the same. The Times says the question now is whether the potatoes, which come in the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic varieties, will be adopted by food companies and restaurant chains. And, it cites at least one group opposed to such crops that is already pressing McDonald's to reject them.

For the Times, the negative argument seems to be based on two ideas: that requirements for GMO labels would have been passed in recent elections if big companies had not "bought" the elections and the earlier pull-backs of genetically modified potato varieties aimed at resisting the Colorado potato beetle.

Still, the Times article included a hint that the fight "this time around could be different, however, because the potato promises at least potential health benefits to consumers. And unlike Monsanto, Simplot is a long-established power in the potato business and presumably has been clearing the way for acceptance of the product from its customers." And, the potato does not contain genes from other species." Instead, the new variety includes DNA that act to silence four of the potatoes' own genes involved in the production of certain enzymes.

This does not mean that the Times is going out on any limbs in the matter. It turns to groups opposed to such crops, who say altering levels of plant enzymes might have "unexpected effects." Doug Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist at the Center for Food Safety, opines that the technique used to silence the genes, called RNA interference, was still not "well understood."

However, USDA does not agree. It found the levels of various nutrients in the potatoes to be in the normal range, except for the substances targeted by the genetic engineering. Simplot has submitted the potato for a voluntary review by the Food and Drug Administration. The article observes that when the new potatoes are fried, the levels of acrylamide are 50% to 75% lower than for comparable nonengineered potatoes. On that the Times can't seem to resist — "it is unclear how much of a benefit that is," it opines.

One advocate group quoted by the Times welcomed the approval. Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that deals with nutrition issues, said "We support clearly trying to reduce consumers' exposure to acrylamide and if this product helps do that, I think it's a benefit," he said.

The Times also notes that last year FDA issued draft guidance on how to reduce levels of acrylamide, which is also found in some baked goods, coffee and other foods and listed numerous steps that could be taken in the growing, handling and cooking of potatoes. Still, it leaves behind the note that "many food companies no doubt have already taken steps to reduce acrylamide levels and might not need the genetically engineered potatoes."

Well, yes. Certainly, the Simplot company must expect its potential customers to decide how best to control acrylamide. And, the Times needs to note that this new GMO product could change the debate away from the unsupported fear mongering that has been the mainstay of recent labeling campaigns to a straight-up economic and nutrition-based question of how to make foods more healthful, nutritious — and economical.

Especially, for a staple like potatoes, the possibility that a small number of organic food advocates could limit access to a more healthful product should be triggering a different kind of fight focused on providing health benefits for consumers who most need them, instead of undercutting a technological advance. In this fight, it seems fair to say, the Times has not distinguished itself in sorting out issues or consequences, Washington Insider believes.

---

Want to keep up with events in Washington and elsewhere throughout the day? See DTN Top Stories, our frequently updated summary of news developments of interest to producers. You can find DTN Top Stories in DTN Ag News, which is on the Main Menu on classic DTN products, on the News Menu on Farm Dayta, and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN's newest Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com.

If you have questions for DTN Washington Insider, please email edit@telventdtn.com

(GH/CZ)

Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.