The details of how the new programs in the 2014 Farm Bill will work fall to USDA and how and when it gets the bill implemented.  Fully cognizant of close scrutiny by Congress, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has said his department has been in implementation mode for some time, but also said he's created working groups under the direction of Deputy Secretary Krysta Harden to coordinate the effort.

The working groups will provide Harden with weekly reports on various aspects of implementation which she will pass on to Vilsack and his "convener" group, agency heads and other advisors who will then pass on proposed rules and program rewrites to the White House for the final OK.  USDA is lending experts to the White House Domestic Policy Council to ensure a full understanding of the arcane agriculture programs.

Vilsack says the heaviest lift will be the commodity title since it creates two new insurance-based options for farmers to replace direct payments as their income safety net.   It also suffers from the shortest time frame for getting the new programs up and running as several commodity programs - notably those relied on by southern producers - need to be in place within weeks in order for spring planting decisions to be made.

USDA also has to come up with how to define "actively engaged" farmers for the purpose of who qualifies for program payments and how new payment limitations will be applied.   While House and Senate conferees came to agreement on the limits, they couldn't achieve consensus on how to define an "actively engaged" farmer and kicked the rewrite to USDA.

In the crop insurance arena, where most producers enjoy up to a 60% federal buy-down of their insurance premiums, USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) is going to have to create the new Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) now available to cotton and crop farmers.

Also needed is a revamping of conservation programs as the Farm Bill not only consolidates or kills off several existing programs, but ties commodity program and crop insurance eligibility to conservation compliance.  This is particularly important in the crop insurance arena as today more than 80% of farmers buy some form of federal crop insurance.  Those producers already in compliance with federal Sodbuster and Swampbuster programs don't have to worry about doing anything more.

The new dairy margin insurance program doesn't have to be in place until September, but it's perhaps the second-most sweeping reinvention of income protection.  Shifting from a menu of dairy support programs to a margin insurance program means a complete development of a new insurance product.  Individual producer milk production bases need to be calculated, as well as broader county-wide bases.  

New permanent livestock disaster assistance will also be tough and may take longer than lawmakers want, Vilsack told Politico, a Capitol Hill newspaper.  Twenty-four Senators have called on Vilsack to expedite implementation of the new programs - the Livestock Indemnity Program and the Livestock Forage Program - due to recent disasters for which ranchers are awaiting federal assistance.  While these programs are similar to those included in the 2008 Farm Bill, Vilsack said changes made by Congress this time around mean the programs have to be reevaluated to see if new rulemakings are necessary.  Vilsack said he'll try and shortcut the process, but as far as losses from the 2012 drought or the 2013 Dakotas/Nebraska blizzard, he couldn't say how quickly checks will be going out. 

Rushing to counter what some are calling the worst drought in California history, Congress and the White House are putting together an array of assistance programs.  The President was in Fresno, CA, this week meeting with state leaders and pledging expedited assistance under existing federal programs.

Obama announced an administration-wide set of actions to help California, including $100 million in emergency livestock assistance; $15 million in targeted conservation assistance for "the most extreme and exceptional drought areas"; $5 million in emergency watershed protection; $60 million for food banks in the state, and $3 million in emergency water assistance grants for rural communities with water shortages.  USDA has already dispensed about $35 million in EQIP funding and conservation innovation grants.

California's Senators were joined by Oregon Senators this week and introduced a bill to authorize $300 million in further emergency federal assistance - needing no budget offset - and require federal and state agencies to better coordinate in responding to drought situations.  Oregon is suffering the effects of the same drought, declaring a drought emergency two months earlier than last year.

The bill would require expedited environmental reviews of water projects and movement of water to areas of greatest need, or as one media report put it, balancing the needs of California's nearly $45-billion agriculture industry with communities in danger of losing drinking water.

The House approved a measure to end the state/federal coordination it believes is worsening the state drought/water supply situation, overriding local, county, and in some cases, state water authorities in California to move water industries and areas of greatest need.  The House GOP says the bill would "restore some water deliveries" cut off because of federal regulations and activist lawsuits, secure water rights, save money and ensure a reliable water supply for state agriculture and residents.

$100 million of the $300 million authorized by the Senate bill would go to USDA to pay for programs under its emergency conservation and watershed protection authorities, and to provide aid to farmers and ranchers in designated counties.  Up to $25 million would be spent by other federal agencies on drought and wildfire mitigation.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Barbara Boxer (D, CA), joined Gov. Jerry Brown calling the House action "divisive," a measure that would roll back environmental protections and endanger local fish populations. "The goal of (the Senate) bill is to bring us together to address this crisis rather than divide us," Boxer said.

As noted in the last FSMA weekly update, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently opened a docket to obtain comments and scientific data and information that will help to implement section 204(d)(2) of the Food Safety Modernization Act. The section requires FDA to designate high-risk foods, including animal feed and pet food that additional record keeping requirements are appropriate and necessary to protect public health. FDA was required to publish the list of high-risk foods no later than one year after the date of enactment of FSMA. While FDA has missed that deadline, they intend to publish the list on the FDA website at the time FDA issues final rules to establish the additional recordkeeping requirements for high-risk foods (via the preventive control regulations).

Congress directed FDA to use specific criteria in making the risk determinations, including:

• The known safety risks of a particular food, including the history and severity of foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to the food;
• The likelihood the food has a high potential risk for microbiological or chemical contamination or would support the growth of pathogens;
• The point in the manufacturing process of the food where contamination is most likely to occur;
• The likelihood of contamination and steps taken during the manufacturing process to reduce the risk of contamination;
• The likelihood that consuming the food will result in foodborne illness; and
• The likely and known severity, including health and economic impacts, of a foodborne illness attributed to the food.

In the notice published in the "Federal Register," FDA seeks public comment and scientific data and information that will help FDA develop the process for implementing this provision. They also published a "Draft Methodological Approach to Identifying High-Risk Food" (including animal food). In the draft approach, FDA proposes to use a semi-quantitative risk ranking model (similar to one published by Anderson et al for produce) with some adjustments for the specific criteria Congress directed FDA to use. FDA would develop a comprehensive list of "food-hazard pairs" using the known or reasonably foreseeable hazards for each food. Then they would consider frequency of outbreaks and occurrence of illness; severity of illness, taking into account duration, hospitalization and mortality; likelihood of contamination; growth potential/shelf life; and manufacturing process contamination probability/intervention; consumption; and economic impact.

FDA would assign a score (from 0-9) for each food-hazard pair for each criterion. If multiple hazards are associated with a food, those scores would be cumulative. FDA would create the list of high-risk foods based upon the total scores for each food.

In the "Federal Register" notice, FDA is seeking comments on this approach and is asking for additional information on the following questions:

• Considering available data, uncertainty with the data and the intended methods, what alternative approaches should FDA consider to identify high-risk foods?
• What additional criteria should FDA consider, within the bounds of the factors listed in FSMA Section 204, to develop the list of high-risk foods? For example, should FDA consider economic impacts not related to public health, such as costs related to disruption in the food supply following a foodborne illness outbreak? If so, how should FDA determine those costs?
• What changes should FDA consider making to the scoring system to ensure the range of possibilities for foods and hazards is comprehensive and to enhance the scoring?
• What changes should FDA consider making to the approach to better evaluate risk associated with animal feed?
•  Should each criterion be weighted equally, or should different weights be assigned to each criterion? If the latter, which criteria should receive more weight and how should weights be assigned?
• What practical alternatives are there to the Reportable Food Registry categories for classifying foods?
• How should FDA consider food allergens, including major food allergens, in developing the list of high-risk foods?

FDA is also interested in the receiving information on scientific data and methods that can be used to assess the public health impact of acute or chronic exposures to pathogens and chemical contaminants, especially for chronic exposures to chemical contaminants. They are also seeking data on representative foods in each food category or commodity group:

• A list of the pathogens and chemical contaminants likely to be found in the food;
• The percentage prevalence of contaminants in the food;
• The point in the manufacturing process where the contaminants are likely to be introduced in the food; and
• The typical steps and control measures taken in the manufacturing process to reduce the possibility of contamination with the pathogen or chemical contaminant.

As you have read through this, you have likely noticed most of these criteria are based upon human health risk or illness potential, which may not be applicable to animal food. Also to note, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine originally stated they would look at high-risk "facilities," which would not be commodity specific, but based on the facilities' history, types of products, etc.  The approach of high-risk foods doesn't work as well for animal food, as (except for pet food) high-risk animal foods are usually not related to microbial hazards. 

The American Feed Industry Association will be working with the Hazard ID/Preventive Controls Work Group to review this approach and provide comment to FDA. FDA has set a deadline for comments of April 7; however, AFIA is evaluating whether to request an extension on this comment period deadline given the load of other FSMA-related rules to review and comment on for the industry.

To keep track of FSMA updates from FDA, visit the FSMA webpage, www.fda.gov/fsma, and sign up for email updates. If you or your firm has questions or comments on this draft methodology, please contact Richard Sellers, AFIA senior vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs, at (703) 558-3569, Leah Wilkinson, AFIA director of ingredients, pet food and state affairs, at (703) 558-3560 or Henry Turlington, AFIA director of quality and manufacturing regulatory affairs at (703) 650-0146.

Application deadlines for federal programs rapidly approaching

SACRAMENTO, February 12, 2014 - As California faces one of the driest years ever recorded,the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be holding informational sessions on drought resources for farmers, ranchers and farmworkers in several locations throughout the state in the coming weeks. These sessions will provide information on a variety of state and federal government programs designed to assist farmers with water conservation, crop insurance, and other on-farm management tools. Information on farmworker assistance programs will also be available.

Upcoming application deadlines for federal programs include crop insurance programs offered by the USDA's Risk Management Agency (February 28th); non-insured crop insurance offered by the USDA's Farm Service Agency (March 1st); and water conservation enhancements offered by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (March 3rd). These programs offer a variety on-farm assistance including cover crops and tree pruning as well as market-based risk management tools.

Informational sessions will be held on the following dates/locations:

February 18, 2014 - 6p.m. to 8p.m. (Redding/Palo Cedro)
Junction Elementary School - Theater Room
9087 Deschutes Road
Palo Cedro, CA 96073

February 19, 2014 - 6p.m. to 8p.m. (Salinas)
Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
1428 Abbott Street
Salinas, CA 93901

February 20, 2014 - 6p.m. to 8p.m. (Fresno)
Fresno County Farm Bureau
1274 W. Hedges Ave
Fresno, CA 93728

February 25, 2014 - 6p.m. to 8p.m. (Ventura/Camarillo)
Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
555 Airport Way, Suite E
Camarillo, CA 93010

February 26, 2014 - 6p.m. to 8p.m. (San Diego/Escondido)
San Diego County Farm Bureau
1670 E. Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92027

Several state/federal government entities will be represented at these information sessions, including: USDA Farm Service Agency; USDA Risk Management Agency; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; USDA Rural Development; the California Employment Development Department; and other community resources.

CDFA continues to support California's drought response. The department has developed a web page as an information clearinghouse on assistance programs for farmers, ranchers and farmworkers; will continue to work with California food banks to address drought-related impacts; and is working with the University of California to develop a real-time assessment of drought impacts in farming and ranching communities.

With California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Brown declared a drought State of Emergency last month and directed state officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for water shortages. Governor Brown has spoken with President Obama about crucial federal support during the ongoing drought, and the state continues to work with federal partners to ensure a coordinated drought response. The administration has also expressed support for federal legislation introduced by Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Representatives Jim Costa, Tony Cárdenas and Sam Farr.

Across state government, action is being taken. The Department of General Services is leading water conservation efforts at state facilities, and the Department of Transportation is cutting water usage along California's roadways by 50 percent. Caltrans has also launched a public awareness campaign, putting a water conservation message on their more than 700 electronic highway signs.

In January, the state took action to conserve water in numerous Northern California reservoirs to meet minimum needs for operations impacting the environment and the economy. The State Water Resources Control Board announced it would work with hydropower generators and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to preserve water in California reservoirs. Recently the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Fish and Game Commission restricted fishing on some waterways due to low water flows worsened by the drought.

The state is working to protect local communities from the dangers of extreme drought. The California Department of Public Health identified and offered assistance to communities at risk of severe drinking water shortages and is working with other state and local agencies to develop solutions for vulnerable communities. CAL FIRE hired additional firefighters and is continuously adjusting staffing throughout the state to help address the increased fire threat due to drought conditions. The California Department of Food and Agriculture launched a drought website to help farmers, ranchers and farmworkers find resources and assistance programs that may be available to them during the drought.

Even as the state deals with the immediate impacts of the drought, it's also planning for the future. Recently, the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and CDFA released the California Water Action Plan, which will guide state efforts to enhance water supply reliability, restore damaged and destroyed ecosystems and improve the resilience of our infrastructure.

Governor Brown has called on all Californians to voluntarily reduce their water usage by 20 percent, and the Save Our Water campaign launched four public service announcements encouraging residents to conserve and has resources available in Spanish. Last December, the Governor formed a Drought Task Force to review expected water allocations and California's preparedness for water scarcity. In May 2013, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order to direct state water officials to expedite the review and processing of voluntary transfers of water and water rights.

For more information concerning drought resources for California farmers, ranchers and farmworkers, please visit - www.cdfa.ca.gov/drought 

• Click here for flyer   

Mike Taylor, CPCU

Vice President

InterWest Insurance Services, Inc.

100 Pringle Avenue, North Tower, Suite 550 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

(925) 977-4104 Office

(800) 464-0077 Toll Free

(925) 977-4150 Fax

(510) 206-5505 Mobile

CA Lic #0B01094

www.iwins.com<http://www.iwins.com>

mtaylor@iwins.com 

The newly reconstituted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last week acted on a 3-2 party line vote to repropose its controversial "ambush election" rulemaking, an NLRB effort to speed up union elections.  The rule is widely opposed by business because it overrides decades of workplace union election law by limiting employers' participation in the organizing process.  A previous effort died in 2011 when a federal court struck it down as the NLRB approved the measure without a quorum of voting commissioners.

The NLRB says the new rules will make it easier for employees of non-union shops to vote to form a union by allowing unions to forego the normal election petition and secret ballot process in favor of allowing unions to distribute materials electronically, with any litigation brought by an employer over worker eligibility deferred until after the union election.  

The NLRB says the new rules could take effect as early as this year if they're approved and published.  The new proposal has a 60-day comment period and the board will hold a public hearing in April.  Legal challengers are expected.

Action by EPA to ban a fluoride-based fumigant used to keep insects and rodents at bay in food processing facilities and warehouses was ended by language in the 2014 Farm Bill.  The agency has been working since 2011 to ban sulfuryl fluoride over concerns about fluoride overexposure to the public.  

Several environmental groups, including the Fluoride Action Network, which petitioned EPA in 2004 to ban the fumigant, were outraged.  The fumigant is marketed by Dow AgroSciences.

Sulfuryl fluoride is used to protect cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans and other foods and ingredients from pests, and congressional supporters of ending EPA's action said the primary reason was the agency action is unscientific.

February 11, 2014 by by Laurie Rood& filed under Health Care Reform  

Benefits Done Right