Several articles in this issue were inspired from published comments we’ve tracked down to more fully report on. Two of their backstories are detailed here. ‘Fragile consensus’ On July 11 the House Ag Committee spent 14 hours reviewing proposed Farm Bill legislation. I dropped into the live webcast at about the 22nd minute. Dairy reform took top billing then as the 46-member committee began discussing a controversial proposed amendment. (Click here to read the story that explains the fireworks that ensued and what they were all about.) Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) said the following opening comments to frame the debate over dairy policy reform:
“Dairy policy has never been an easy issue to tackle on a national level. Differences between producers and processors, between regions, even between producers of different sizes, have consistently interfered with our ability to reach consensus in national policy.
Despite a lack of unanimity among the dairy industry, I do think that the recent challenges confronting the dairy sector have led to what we are seeing now – a broad consensus for many elements of the reform package under consideration.
The package we have before us is a good faith effort among most industry participants to achieve balance among regions, operation sizes and industry sectors.”
His next words about the significance of what the committee would decide proved influential. Chairman Lucas said he believed adopting the proposed amendment would “fracture an already fragile industry consensus and delay … ability to move forward with these necessary reforms.”
The question of that moment was years in the making – would supply management in the form of the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP) be able to withstand a public, frontal assault? That challenge didn’t materialize during the Senate’s Farm Bill review. Our reporting indicates it won’t be the last one either.
Chairman Lucas urged his colleagues to allow the dairy reforms to move forward even if changes they proposed were not accepted. He then permitted several committee members to comment before the amendment was defeated 29-17.
Committee members must have heeded the advice of the chairman because only five of the 11 members who voted to remove supply management from dairy policy reform also voted not to move the Farm Bill, with dairy reform intact, out of committee for a full House vote.
If you’re a producer from any of the following states – California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, New York, Minnesota, Vermont, Virginia or Wisconsin – I think you would be most interested in the statements your representatives made.
One of the most down-to-earth speeches came from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont). You may not be proud of the position he supported, but his explanation of the realities of dairy farming and the characteristics of dairy producers is spot-on.
Click here to watch a 5-minute video clip from Rep. Peter Welch's comments during committee mark up. He describes the conservative principles of dairy farmers. Note: Progressive Dairyman does not endorse the comments or opinions portrayed in the video.
If you want to catch all of the 45-minute committee action on dairy policy, click here to watch from the 22nd minute to the 65th minute.
Click here to read a recap of the House Committee on Agriculture's mark up and vote on the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 or "Farm Bill."
‘Inflection point’
I was surprised when I first read Charlie Arnot’s comments about lean fine textured beef, or pink slime, on the web. He was quoted as saying the incident signaled “a significant paradigm shift” for the effect social media can have on food production.
Knowing Charlie to be a former journalist and now a skilled public relations specialist, I figured he wouldn’t be one to throw such heavyweight phrases around lightly.
I emailed Charlie the quote and asked if it was accurate. He clarified his actual statement but didn’t withdraw the seriousness of its intent. He said events this year “were an inflection point in issues management for agriculture.”
With continued soberness, he wrote, that he believes ag is “ill-prepared to deal with the new environment of radical transparency and unbridled social media interest.” With that confident reply, I had to know more of what he was talking about. Click here to read how he explains and defends his statement. PD
Walt Cooley
Editor
Progressive Dairyman
Several articles in this issue were inspired from published comments we’ve tracked down to more fully report on. Two of their backstories are detailed here. ‘Fragile consensus’ On July 11 the House Ag Committee spent 14 hours reviewing proposed Farm Bill legislation. I dropped into the live webcast at about the 22nd minute. Dairy reform took top billing then as the 46-member committee began discussing a controversial proposed amendment. (Click here to read the story that explains the fireworks that ensued and what they were all about.) Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) said the following opening comments to frame the debate over dairy policy reform:
“Dairy policy has never been an easy issue to tackle on a national level. Differences between producers and processors, between regions, even between producers of different sizes, have consistently interfered with our ability to reach consensus in national policy.
Despite a lack of unanimity among the dairy industry, I do think that the recent challenges confronting the dairy sector have led to what we are seeing now – a broad consensus for many elements of the reform package under consideration.
The package we have before us is a good faith effort among most industry participants to achieve balance among regions, operation sizes and industry sectors.”
His next words about the significance of what the committee would decide proved influential. Chairman Lucas said he believed adopting the proposed amendment would “fracture an already fragile industry consensus and delay … ability to move forward with these necessary reforms.”
The question of that moment was years in the making – would supply management in the form of the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP) be able to withstand a public, frontal assault? That challenge didn’t materialize during the Senate’s Farm Bill review. Our reporting indicates it won’t be the last one either.
Chairman Lucas urged his colleagues to allow the dairy reforms to move forward even if changes they proposed were not accepted. He then permitted several committee members to comment before the amendment was defeated 29-17.
Committee members must have heeded the advice of the chairman because only five of the 11 members who voted to remove supply management from dairy policy reform also voted not to move the Farm Bill, with dairy reform intact, out of committee for a full House vote.
If you’re a producer from any of the following states – California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, New York, Minnesota, Vermont, Virginia or Wisconsin – I think you would be most interested in the statements your representatives made.
One of the most down-to-earth speeches came from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont). You may not be proud of the position he supported, but his explanation of the realities of dairy farming and the characteristics of dairy producers is spot-on.
Click here to watch a 5-minute video clip from Rep. Peter Welch's comments during committee mark up. He describes the conservative principles of dairy farmers. Note: Progressive Dairyman does not endorse the comments or opinions portrayed in the video.
If you want to catch all of the 45-minute committee action on dairy policy, click here to watch from the 22nd minute to the 65th minute.
Click here to read a recap of the House Committee on Agriculture's mark up and vote on the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 or "Farm Bill."
‘Inflection point’
I was surprised when I first read Charlie Arnot’s comments about lean fine textured beef, or pink slime, on the web. He was quoted as saying the incident signaled “a significant paradigm shift” for the effect social media can have on food production.
Knowing Charlie to be a former journalist and now a skilled public relations specialist, I figured he wouldn’t be one to throw such heavyweight phrases around lightly.
I emailed Charlie the quote and asked if it was accurate. He clarified his actual statement but didn’t withdraw the seriousness of its intent. He said events this year “were an inflection point in issues management for agriculture.”
With continued soberness, he wrote, that he believes ag is “ill-prepared to deal with the new environment of radical transparency and unbridled social media interest.” With that confident reply, I had to know more of what he was talking about. Click here to read how he explains and defends his statement. PD
Walt Cooley
Editor
Progressive Dairyman
Several articles in this issue were inspired from published comments we’ve tracked down to more fully report on. Two of their backstories are detailed here. ‘Fragile consensus’ On July 11 the House Ag Committee spent 14 hours reviewing proposed Farm Bill legislation. I dropped into the live webcast at about the 22nd minute. Dairy reform took top billing then as the 46-member committee began discussing a controversial proposed amendment. (Click here to read the story that explains the fireworks that ensued and what they were all about.) Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) said the following opening comments to frame the debate over dairy policy reform:
“Dairy policy has never been an easy issue to tackle on a national level. Differences between producers and processors, between regions, even between producers of different sizes, have consistently interfered with our ability to reach consensus in national policy.
Despite a lack of unanimity among the dairy industry, I do think that the recent challenges confronting the dairy sector have led to what we are seeing now – a broad consensus for many elements of the reform package under consideration.
The package we have before us is a good faith effort among most industry participants to achieve balance among regions, operation sizes and industry sectors.”
His next words about the significance of what the committee would decide proved influential. Chairman Lucas said he believed adopting the proposed amendment would “fracture an already fragile industry consensus and delay … ability to move forward with these necessary reforms.”
The question of that moment was years in the making – would supply management in the form of the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP) be able to withstand a public, frontal assault? That challenge didn’t materialize during the Senate’s Farm Bill review. Our reporting indicates it won’t be the last one either.
Chairman Lucas urged his colleagues to allow the dairy reforms to move forward even if changes they proposed were not accepted. He then permitted several committee members to comment before the amendment was defeated 29-17.
Committee members must have heeded the advice of the chairman because only five of the 11 members who voted to remove supply management from dairy policy reform also voted not to move the Farm Bill, with dairy reform intact, out of committee for a full House vote.
If you’re a producer from any of the following states – California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, New York, Minnesota, Vermont, Virginia or Wisconsin – I think you would be most interested in the statements your representatives made.
One of the most down-to-earth speeches came from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont). You may not be proud of the position he supported, but his explanation of the realities of dairy farming and the characteristics of dairy producers is spot-on.
Click here to watch a 5-minute video clip from Rep. Peter Welch's comments during committee mark up. He describes the conservative principles of dairy farmers. Note: Progressive Dairyman does not endorse the comments or opinions portrayed in the video.
If you want to catch all of the 45-minute committee action on dairy policy, click here to watch from the 22nd minute to the 65th minute.
Click here to read a recap of the House Committee on Agriculture's mark up and vote on the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 or "Farm Bill."
‘Inflection point’
I was surprised when I first read Charlie Arnot’s comments about lean fine textured beef, or pink slime, on the web. He was quoted as saying the incident signaled “a significant paradigm shift” for the effect social media can have on food production.
Knowing Charlie to be a former journalist and now a skilled public relations specialist, I figured he wouldn’t be one to throw such heavyweight phrases around lightly.
I emailed Charlie the quote and asked if it was accurate. He clarified his actual statement but didn’t withdraw the seriousness of its intent. He said events this year “were an inflection point in issues management for agriculture.”
With continued soberness, he wrote, that he believes ag is “ill-prepared to deal with the new environment of radical transparency and unbridled social media interest.” With that confident reply, I had to know more of what he was talking about. Click here to read how he explains and defends his statement. PD
Walt Cooley
Editor
Progressive Dairyman
