N
Ohio’s Country Journal May 2009 5
ewS
Court ruling may add another layer of regulation to pesticides
The U.S. Environmental Protection The ruling essentially labels pesticide ing, though the EPA is not seeking a important crop protection tools,”
Agency currently employs roughly 1,500 applicators as a point source of pollution rehearing of the matter. The AFBF petition, Stallman said. “Complications that are
people to keep a close eye on pesticide and could lead to additional needless filed jointly with the American Forest & inevitable with any permitting process
labels and regulations to ensure that the regulations on the use of crop protection Paper Association, National Cotton would impede the effective and time-
farmers who use them are not polluting tools, according to American Farm Council, Croplife and other industry peti- sensitive use of pesticides to combat dis-
the environment. In what is being called Bureau Federation. Because of the poten- tioners, asks the court to reverse, or clarify, ease and insects that can destroy crops.”
a double regulation by many in agricul- tial impacts, AFBF expressed disappoint- the January decision that vacated a 2006 A permitting program also would
ture, a recent court ruling may be adding ment that the EPA has stated it will not EPA rule exempting certain pesticide appli- impose a great burden on regulatory
another thick layer of regulations for seek a rehearing on the matter, request- cations in, near or around water from authorities because of a staggering
farmers applying pesticides. ing instead a delay of two years before Clean Water Act permit requirements. increase in the number of new
In the January case of “National the new permits for legal, label-approved EPA filed a motion asking the court to permit requests.
Cotton Council v. EPA,” the three-judge applications would be required. delay enforcement of the ruling for two “The ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court
ruling in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals “Farmers should not need a permit years to provide the agency and state would jeopardize the ability of farmers
stated pesticide applications in or near under another law when they already are authorities time to develop and implement to respond in a timely manner to pest
water, even if done according to the label following an existing law,” said Bob a permitting program. Not all members of infestations that could destroy their
directions, would require a Clean Water Stallman, AFBF president. “We are disap- the Obama administration supported crops, while at the same time swamping
Act permit for pollution discharge. The pointed that EPA has decided not to seek EPA’s decision not to seek a rehearing of government agencies administering the
judgment overthrew an existing EPA rule a legal remedy for this situation. The the court’s decision. In a recent letter, program,” said Charles F. Conner,
that pesticide applied according to label decision made by the three-judge panel Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
directions under the Federal Insecticide, in January will complicate farmers’ abili- support for a full rehearing. president. “We are disappointed that the
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) ty to farm, and raise their expenses with- “A rehearing of this decision is impor- EPA did not ask for a rehearing on this
would be exempt from obtaining a pollu- out improving the environment.” tant because the court’s earlier ruling petition, since the agency went through a
tion discharge permit under the Clean The AFBF has asked the full Sixth could result in a permitting program that long rulemaking process to arrive at the
Water Act. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the rul- complicates farmers’ effective use of exemption in 2007.”
Congressional study finds ethanol little to blame for high food prices
After a long string of erroneous food ethanol in reducing greenhouse gas emis- 2007. The food cost increase attributable to will further increase market speculation,
industry allegations that ethanol and farm- sions of the transportation sector.” ethanol is far less — between $6.1 and $9.7 affect grain and commodity markets, and
ers were to blame for higher food costs, an The National Farmers Union (NFU) and billion per year. In other words, for every actually help the ethanol industry. 
April Congressional Budget Office report American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) extra dollar consumers spent on food, they “In this new era of openness and trans-
showed that ethanol had a minimal impact were pleased with the findings. saved between about $5 and $8 in gasoline parency and calls for scientific integrity in
on rising food prices. “These results of the CBO report came cost,” said Roger Johnson, president of the Washington, I can’t imagine anyone or any
The report, “The Impact of Ethanol as no surprise to Farm Bureau,” said Bob National Farmers Union. “Another com- organization being opposed to a study on
Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse- Stallman, AFBF president. “With so parison is the farmer’s share of the retail the effects of producing and using more
Gas Emissions,” was well received by many fingers in the till between the food dollar. The retail price of Safeway corn ethanol,” said Don Butler, NPPC pres-
ethanol supporters. farmer and consumer, there are numer- brand corn flakes on March 31 was $2.99. ident. “We hope the Obama administration
“According to the CBO report, corn ous factors responsible for higher food The farmer’s share was 6 cents, just 1.9%.” and Congress provide answers to the ques-
ethanol contributes less than 1%, just ‘0.5- prices, including labor expenses, energy NCGA, AFBF, NFU and others, in tions surrounding ethanol expansion
0.8 percentage points of the 5.1% increase costs, financial speculation, increased response to the CBO report, have united in before rushing to change ethanol policy —
in food prices’ from April 2007 to April demand, weather production losses and calling for Congress to hold hearings to that’s the America way.”
2008. The report also concludes that higher the weak U.S. dollar.”  identify the real culprits in rising food While the U.S. pork industry has not
energy costs, including the price of oil and According to the Agriculture prices that have hurt consumers across the opposed the use of ethanol and the coun-
gas, have a greater impact on food prices,” Department, farmers receive less than two country. Some sectors of agriculture, how- try’s goal of producing 15 billion gallons
said Bob Dickey, National Corn Growers dimes out of every dollar spent for food in ever, are not as excited about the CBO find- of corn ethanol by 2015, it has paid a
Association president. “It is important to the United States. Eighty percent of the ings and fear that the report could add price, literally, in the form of higher feed
note the report states ‘increases in the sup- costs of food, including processing, trans- momentum to the push for increasing costs. Due mostly to those higher costs,
ply of corn from cultivating more cropland, portation, packaging, distribution and ethanol blending caps from 10% to 15%. pork producers since October 2007 have
increasing crop yields, or improving the retailing, are all added after the commodity The National Pork Producers Council lost an average of $20 on each hog mar-
technology for making ethanol from corn leaves the farm. (NPPC) wants the Obama keted; the industry has lost between $3
… would tend to lower food prices … and In addition, biofuels have saved con- Administration to bring stakeholders billion and $3.5 billion in equity over the
that ethanol’s effect on future food price sumers money in fuel costs. together to consider all possible impacts past 18 months.
inflation is uncertain … .’ In addition, the “Increased ethanol production saved of corn-ethanol expansion, including the The CBO report is available for down-
report indicates the positive contribution of consumers $48 billion at the gas pump in extent to which increasing blend limits load at www.cbo.gov.
Recover act assists Ohio farmers, producers
David Drake, acting state executive agency. More than $1.1 million in loans cial emphasis placed on beginning and millions of jobs throughout the country
director for Ohio’s Farm Service Agency were made to applicants in Ohio. socially disadvantaged applicants. The and these loans help ensure that
(FSA), announced April 13 that the “These loans were used to purchase maximum loan amount is $300,000. recipients remain financially viable
National FSA office has obligated all of items such as farm equipment, feed, In keeping with the president’s and local agribusinesses benefit from
the $173 million provided in the seed, fuel and other operating expenses, goal for the Recovery Act, this loan direct purchases.
Recovery Act for its Direct Operating and will stimulate rural economies by funding was intended for proper For specific information on direct
Farm Loan Program, which gave 2,636 providing American farmers funds to investment into the agricultural operating loans and other FSA farm
farmers — almost 50% who were begin- operate,” Drake said. sector, to benefit family farmers loan programs, visit a local FSA office
ning farmers and 10% socially disadvan- Applications are considered on a and rural economies. The Recovery or visit FSA’s Web site at
taged producers — direct loans from the first come, first served basis with spe- Act was designed to preserve or create www.fsa.usda.gov.
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44