I received this action alert yesterday from The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. We have until September 28 to tell the USDA to base Conservation Stewardship Program application approval on environmental outcomes, not on when a conservation practice is implemented. See below:

Since the 1930s, we've been paying farmers to produce corn, wheat, rice and cotton. What if we paid farmers for producing healthier soil, cleaner water, climate change mitigation and greater bio-diversity instead? That's the "Big Idea" behind the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Pay farmers to produce environmental outcomes that contribute to the public good.

Sustainable and organic farming advocates have an important, urgent opportunity to help shape the implementation of this working lands conservation program. The USDA has requested comments on the administrative rules that will govern implementation of the new CSP.  

The USDA is considering giving a higher rank to CSP applications proposing the adoption of new conservation practices vs. the maintenance of existing practices. Current rules give equal weight to existing and proposed conservation practices. Please tell the USDA that CSP applications should be ranked on the basis of environmental outcomes and not on the basis of when a conservation practice is implemented.  

The USDA has posed a specific question for comment:  Should the program give greater weight and therefore a higher rank and a higher likelihood of acceptance into the program to applications proposing new conservation practices? Or should existing and new practices be given equal weight?  

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other conservation programs pay farmers to adopt new conservation practices. The CSP, however, is unique among working lands conservation programs. The CSP rewards farmers who are already farming at a high stewardship threshold and provides an incentive to maintain those high stewardship standards.  

If a farmer has previously adopted advanced conservation measures and systems, the program is designed to reward that behavior and help pay for continued active management and maintenance of those systems and practices. Farmers should also be expected to and be rewarded for adopting new practices. But CSP ranking and payments should be keyed to environmental outcomes and not on when conservation activities are adopted.

CSP design and regulation should equally balance the benefits of both existing and new practices with the primary measure being the environmental benefits secured by the total conservation system regardless of the timing of adoption of various parts of the system. This is essential to making CSP a program that recognizes and rewards the multiple benefits of sustainable and organic farming systems.  

Comment letters can be as short or as long as you want. Put your comments in your own words, and raise the points most important to you. You can submit a comment from the National Sustainable Agriculture website, or you can email comments directly to the USDA at CSP2008@wdc.usda.gov.  
 
If you send your own email:  Be sure to identify the Docket Number at the top of your letter:  RE:  NRCS-IFR-09004. Address your comment letter to: Mr. Gregory Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 5237-S, Washington, DC 20250-2890. Be sure to identify yourself by providing your name and contact information. You may also mail your letter to this address if you prefer not to email it. The deadline is September 28.

Today the Cornucopia Institute issued an alert, calling to action its troops in support of organic and sustainable agriculture. Three bills have been introduced to Congress (HR 875, 759 and 1322), all designed to strengthen our country’s food safety system, but all falling short. 

Like the Organic Consumers Association, the Cornucopia institute was quick to point out that none of the bills are backhanded attempts from agriculture giants to cripple organic producers, as many have been led to believe. (Read HR 875: No Need for Alarm ... Yet.) But they do urge you to visit their website to read up on the bills, and contact your representatives to make your opinions known. As always, sample message wording and contact info for members of Congress are supplied — it will take a matter of minutes to make a big difference!

ISTOCKPHOTO/MARGITA BRAZE

The bill is designed to address inadequacies in our food safety system, but it doesn’t create controls specifically for filthy factory farms. Instead it applies the typical one-size-fits-all regulations on the entire industry, which almost always spells trouble for small producers who don’t have the extra funds to implement them. 

You can learn more about the bill, OCA’s stance, and tell your representatives that revisions are needed through this handy tool. Simply plug in your zip code and all the work is done for you! Speak out for organic farming.

Quick! If you want to secure grant funds for your farmers market, roadside stand, community-supported agriculture program, agri-tourism venture or related activity, you must apply to the USDA by April 27. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service has announced that $5 million will be available for these purposes through the Farmers Market Promotion Program. Take a look at these guidelines to see if you’re eligible.

The National Animal Identification System — what exactly will it mean for small- and medium-size farmers? By now you’ve likely heard our thoughts on the subject (in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan, and Speak Out Against NAIS), but here’s a number-crunching look at how NAIS will affect New York farmer Shannon Hayes, from yesterday’s op-ed in The New York Times.

SARE

Experienced crop farmers know that if they want to keep their soil fertile and healthy from year to year, they should enlist the help of a good cover crop. Cover crops such as rye grass or alfalfa, planted in unused plots over the non-growing season, provide a host of benefits: reduced erosion, fewer pests, increased mineral content (thanks to their deep roots), and valuable organic matter (when converted to mulch or compost). Plus, they reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers and other expensive amenities.  

Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3^rd Edition, published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, can be downloaded from their website, and includes expert advice from researchers and farmers nationwide. There are farm profiles, seed sources, and region-specific recommendations. Print copies are available here. 

For more advice on cover crops and soil health, read Build Better Garden Soil, and 8 Strategies for Better Garden Soil.

ISTOCKPHOTO/ROYCE DEGRIE

The USDA has proposed a rule to require all farms and ranches where animals are raised to be registered in a federal database under the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for existing disease control programs. The draft rule covers programs for cattle, sheep, goats and swine. It also sets the stage for the entire NAIS program to be mandated for everyone, including anyone who owns even one livestock animal (for example, a single chicken or a horse). Learn more about the legislation in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan.

It’s critical that the USDA and Congress hear from the hundreds of thousands of people who will be adversely affected by the NAIS program. This includes not only animal owners, but also consumers who care about local and sustainable foods, taxpayers who object to wasteful government programs and advocates for a safer food system.

STEP 1: Submit comments to USDA online or by mail. The comments must be received by the USDA by March 16, 2009. 

Submit comments on the federal regulations website (click on the yellow balloon under “add comments”). 

Or mail two copies of your comments to the USDA at the address below. Clearly state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096. (See the sample comments at the end of this post.)

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 

STEP 2: Send a copy of your comments to your representative and senators. 

You can find who represents you and their contact information at www.congress.org. 

BACKGROUND

The USDA has been working for over five years to force NAIS onto American animal owners. NAIS is designed to identify and track each and every individual livestock and poultry animal owned by family farmers, hobby farmers, homesteaders and pet owners across the country.

The USDA claims that NAIS is a disease tracking program, but has refused to provide any support for its claims. In reality, NAIS will:

• Replace states’ existing, well-functioning disease response and brand inspection programs with an untested, expensive and unreliable system
• Impose high costs and government surveillance on every farmer and animal owner for no significant benefits, and will likely force many small producers out of business 

NAIS does nothing to improve food safety for consumers or prevent animal diseases. This program is a one-size-fits-all program developed by and for big Agribusiness. NAIS will increase consolidation of our food supply in the hands of a few large companies and put the brakes on the growing movement toward local food systems with its high costs. 

Despite promises to the contrary, the USDA’s new proposed rule would make portions of the system mandatory for thousands of people in every state. Anyone who participates in federal disease control program for cattle, sheep, goats or swine will have their premises registered. The NAIS Premises Identification Number (PIN) will become the only form of premises identification acceptable for USDA animal health purposes, with no opt-out provision. 

The proposed rule would also limit official Animal Identification Numbers to the NAIS-compliant 840-numbering system, laying the groundwork for future regulations that would limit the types of tags that can be used. 

The proposed rule is not final yet. You can help stop NAIS by visiting the Federal Registry and making a comment. Visit their website and click on the yellow balloon under “add comments.” And don’t forget to send a copy of your comments to your elected officials, letting them know how you feel about NAIS. 

The grassroots movement has already successfully stalled the USDA’s plans for NAIS, which originally called for the entire program — premises registration, animal identification and tracking — to be mandatory by January 2009. The proposed rule is an opportunity to get thousands of objections in the formal record, and have an even greater impact. It is imperative that people speak up to protect our right to farm and our food supply! 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Go to www.FarmAndRanchFreddom.org or contact Judith McGeary, (512) 243-9404 or Judith@FarmAndRanchFreedom.org.

Read more about NAIS and how it will affect small scale and sustainable farms in The Truth About the Animal ID Plan. 

SAMPLE COMMENTS 

Date: ____________________ 

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS
Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 

Re: Docket No. APHIS–2007–0096

I urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule to implement portions of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096.

I am a _____________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________

[State who you are — for instance, are you a farmer, consumer, or horse owner — and why this issue matters to you.] 

The proposed rule mandates the NAIS Premises Identification Number (PIN) as the sole means of identifying properties for USDA animal health purposes. The proposed rule also mandates the use of the NAIS numbering system (i.e. the “840 numbering system”) for ear tags using official animal identification numbers. Tags using other numbering systems would be required to be linked to a NAIS PIN.

The draft rule is seriously flawed for multiple reasons:

1.  Does not substantiate the alleged benefits to animal health: The USDA makes general claims about the benefits of identifying locations where animals are kept, but the agency does not address the ability of existing programs to meet this purpose, nor how the proposed rule would improve the capability to identify locations.
2. Ignores the costs and burdens: The proposed rule would substantially increase costs for livestock owners and taxpayers. Costs include the development and maintenance of a massive database; purchase of 840-numbered tags by animal owners; changes by state agencies to make existing programs consistent with the rule; and increased federal government intrusion into the lives and daily activities of farmers and other animal owners.
3. Violates individuals’ religious beliefs: Amish, Mennonite and some other individuals have religious objections to the universal numbering system under NAIS.
4. Creates disincentives for people to seek veterinary care for their animals and participate in existing disease control programs: The proposed rule lists four animal disease programs —tuberculosis , brucellosis, scrapie and Johne’s — and will also impact others. These programs include provisions for veterinary care through vaccinations and testing. Animal owners who object to NAIS may avoid participating in these programs, thereby increasing health risks to the public and farm operations.
5. Adds to the confusion: This rule is the latest in a series of ambiguous and often contradictory documents that the USDA has issued on NAIS. This has created enormous confusion over the intent of the USDA and problems for both animal owners and state agencies.

The proposed rule is a significant step towards implementing the entire NAIS program. Thus, the agency should address the fundamental question of whether it should be implementing NAIS at all. In addition to the problems with the draft rule listed above, there are many additional objections to the entire NAIS program:

1. USDA’s assertions that NAIS will provide benefits for animal health are not supported, and actually contradict basic scientific principles.
2. High costs for animal owners and taxpayers: These costs include: (1) the development, maintenance, and update of massive databases; (2) the costs of tags, most of which will contain microchips; (3) the labor burdens for tagging every animal; (4) the paperwork burdens of reporting routine movements; and (5) the costs of enforcement on millions of individuals. 
3. Impracticality: The databases to register the properties, identify each animal, and record billions of “events” will dwarf any system currently in existence.
4. Waste of money: The USDA has already spent over $130 million on NAIS implementation, but has yet to develop a workable plan for the program.
5. Diverts resources from more critical needs such as disease testing, disease prevention through vaccination and improved animal husbandry practices, and disease detection in currently uninspected livestock imports.
6. Damage to food safety efforts: NAIS will not prevent foodborne illnesses, such as E. coli or salmonella contamination, because the tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Food safety is better served by focusing on programs such as increased testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow), improved oversight of slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, and increased inspections of imported foods. Programs such as NAIS that burden small, sustainable farmers will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems
7. Discourages involvement in farming or animal husbandry: Because of costs and government intrusion, some people will choose not to stay in farming or go into farming. This will result in less competition, greater reliance in foreign imports and poor quality at higher prices.

I urge the USDA to withdraw the proposed rule to implement portions of the National Animal Identification System, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096.

Sincerely,

Name: ___________________________________
Address: _________________________________
City, State Zip: _____________________________

Additional Comments:

A familiar scene: You’re standing at the refrigerated case in the supermarket, staring at a carton of eggs and trying your best to remember if it was “free range” or “cage free” that most benefitted the birds and produced the healthiest eggs. Good news: Sustainable Table has created a handy wallet-size reference card to eliminate the confusion surrounding the multitude of meat label claims we’re faced with these days. Just print and fold the card, and be sure to have it with you when grocery shopping to help you decipher the true meaning behind claims like natural, hormone-free, artisan, grass-fed and many more. 

Not sure what the label “biodynamic” means, if anything? Just whip out your glossary card and decide for sure if it truly is a premium product that’s worth that premium price tag.  

Happy shopping!

DON BAYLEY/ISTOCKPHOTO

In the ongoing war between neighboring organic and conventional farms over the issue of pesticide drift, one organic herb operation has won a key battle. 

Jacobs Farm in Santa Cruz, Calif. was failing to meet the guidelines for organic certification of their edible herbs, thanks to the organophosphate pesticides that had drifted over from neighboring vegetable farms. The presence of the chemicals prevented them from selling parts of their harvest. 

What makes this case notable is that not only was Jacobs Farm granted $1 million in damages, but a new precedent was set. The neighboring farms weren’t egregiously careless with the application of the pesticides — the chemicals were evaporating into the air and then drifting over to Jacobs Farm. Currently, there is no formal regulation of evaporative drift, as there is for contamination arising from aerial spraying. 

On September 29, a Santa Cruz County jury ruled that the pesticides’ supplier was negligent, and had deprived Jacobs Farm of the right to use and enjoy the land (which they were leasing from a state park). 

An appeal has been filed by the pesticides’ supplier. Read the full news release from Environment News Service here.

Everyone has their own opinion of the new farm bill, also known as the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. But most of us will concede that while outrageous subsidy payments to the largest of producers once again evaded cuts, drawing further indignation from the World Trade Organization (and prompting threats of trade sanctions against us), the legislation contained some heartening support for many environmental and conservation initiatives. 

Was that all just a ploy to divert our attention from the subsidies and get the bill passed? That may be the case — the Environmental Working Group reported recently that Congress is now planning to introduce a bill that will cut millions in funding for these conservation-related programs, on a state-by-state basis. Click here to see whose slice of the pie is shrinking, and by how much.

Secretary Ed Schafer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that farmers will not be released from their Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts without penalty, due to favorable crop and weather forecasts, upward pricing trends in grain markets, and other factors. The USDA has been under pressure to allow farmers to opt-out of the CRP program without penalty in response to losses caused by recent flooding in the Midwest. 

According to Schafer, the amount of land enrolled in the program is already on its way to being reduced, thanks to a provision in the 2008 farm bill that lowers the cap on the total number of acres allowed in the program. More than 2 million acres must be removed, and over a million acres are protected in contracts set to expire on September 30. Another 3 million acres will be up for grabs in 2009, and over 4 million acres in 2010.  Re-enrollment is unlikely with the soaring demand for corn.

Read more about CRP here and here.

According to Melissa Breyer in The New York Times magazine, in the Northeast alone, nearly 20,000 farms are run by women. Here are a few inspiring tales of women who respect real food, and the land from which it comes.