Washington Insider -- Friday

By DTN's Washington Insider

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

COOL Repeal Now Moves to Senate

Following the easy repeal (300-131) of the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) law for beef, pork and poultry in the House, the measure now moves to the Senate which so far has had no COOL bill formally introduced. However, when it does, the measure is expected to face more hurdles than existed in the House.

The House bill would repeal existing requirements for retailers of beef, pork and chicken to inform customers at the final point of sale of the country of origin of those products. The repeal would not affect existing requirements for country of origin labeling for lamb, venison, goat meat, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, farm-raised and wild fish, ginseng, pecans and macadamia nuts.

When the World Trade Organization last month again ruled against the U.S. COOL law, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., issued a cautious statement saying that members of the panel were not united in their views on COOL or on how to proceed. However, after the House vote, Roberts said repeal "remains the surest way to protect the American economy" from retaliatory tariffs. However, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., a member of the Senate Ag panel (who also serves in GOP leadership), said a repeal of the labeling requirement should not be the first response to the WTO ruling.

The lack of agreement not only among Senate Republicans, but also among GOP members of the Agriculture Committee could indicate that a resolution of the COOL issue is not as close as some had hoped. However, should Canada and Mexico impose multi-billion-dollar retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports that the WTO likely will approve, Senate Republicans may quickly find common ground.

***

Senate Democrats to Make a Major Issue of Mandated Cuts in Domestic Spending

Senate Democrats reportedly are gearing up for a battle over the appropriations process that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to employ this summer. The debate could begin as early as next week if Democrats use the upcoming consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to highlight the mandated spending cuts to domestic spending that are required under the Budget Control Act.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats won't support either the NDAA or the appropriations bills if they lock in sequestration levels required by the BCA. "Until we get an agreement that protects national security and the middle class not a single spending bill will become law," Reid said. "If any bill reaches the president, he'll veto it. He said so publicly many times. He should. It's critical for the middle class and it's the only way to be fiscally responsible."

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., recently said Democrats are prepared to vote against motions to proceed to the spending bills. In that case, McConnell would need to find 60 votes to overcome Democrats' objections. An inability to move forward with individual appropriations bills, as McConnell had planned, heightens the likelihood of continuing resolutions or omnibus spending packages or a government shutdown later this year.

***

Washington Insider: A Call for Farmland Redistribution

Mark Bittman is an outspoken food columnist for the New York Times who frequently discusses food supply chains, restaurants, grocery stores and restaurants and how they could do a better job of supplying consumers with the foods they ought to want.

More recently, Bittman this week focused on production agriculture and what sees a problem with the current ownership of farmland. His column Wednesday began, "Everyone agrees that we need more farmers." Well, not everyone.

The United States at one time had a lot more farmers than today who did almost everything by hand. Since the late 1800s, the government has worked hard to help farmers compete for more productive occupations outside agriculture, and to help those who choose to continue farming do so more productively.

Bittman says that today, there are two kinds of farms: "the kinds that will grow nourishing food for people instead of food that sickens us or yields products intended for animals or cars." A major hurdle to creating additional "nourishing food" producers, he says, is that land that is too costly. He notes that there have been efforts to make farmland more affordable, but they haven't worked. We're gaining farmers only slowly and that trend must reverse or we will be left with only corporate farms or greater food imports, he says.

His solution is to socialize farming, because, he says, "Farming is — or should be — a social enterprise as much as a business, one that benefits all of us and uses the land conscientiously and ecologically. Thus in the long run we've got to expand our vision to include some kind of land redistribution that would give those who want to work the land for our mutual benefit the ability to do so."

Bittman's column is troubling on several fronts. He is published regularly by the New York Times, which has a wide audience not only in the United States but also in countries around the world. As a result, his call for greater reliance on land redistribution may be taken more seriously than the same view that appeared in an anonymous blog on the Internet.

There are good arguments that can and are being made for the need for less government interference in agriculture and a better understanding of the future role that technology and research will provide agricultural producers. Land redistribution and Bittman's call to get "land into the hands of all who want and deserve it" will not produce the beneficial results to society that he wants and that many see already coming from generally well-organized and functioning markets.

Jane Brody, herself a well-regarded New York Times science writer, recently noted that her reviews of the pros and cons of genetically engineered crops and foods strongly suggest that the consumer debate on the issue "reflects a poor public understanding of the science." The idea that the main problems facing the U.S. food supply system are that there are too few farmers and that farms are too large may represent a misunderstanding of the economics of agriculture, 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 and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN's Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com. Subscribers of MyDTN.com should check out the U.S. Ag Policy, U.S. Farm Bill and DTN Ag News sections on their News Homepage.

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

(GH/CZ)

Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.