|
Additional Comments on the Handler Marketing Pool Tool By Doanne Andresen 7/24/01 -- The misuse of the Handler Marketing Pool has been discussed at length by the amendment subcommittee. I am on this subcommittee. I, along with Linda Rinta, have expressed concern that a Handler Marketing Pool with a guaranteed low price, may actually cause the price to stay low. The challenge was to design a Handler Marketing Pool to help independent handlers that did not have a negative impact on grower prices. At our last meeting, the committee had not found a solution. Since our last meeting, Ed Jesse, Jack Crooks, and Kathy Finn have drafted a model that will be discussed at the next meeting. Then the Cranberry Marketing Committee will decide at their August Meeting in Oregon what the amendment will say. In this model, the price of the pool berries are guaranteed to be available at last year's prices. As John Swendrowski has pointed out in his article, this is a negative incentive on price to the grower. If there is a large surplus of berries guaranteed to be available at last year's price, why would anyone pay more to a grower for this year's berries? Of course, logic says why would growers agree to use the Cranberry Marketing Order to guarantee low prices? Why would growers store surplus berries to be sold next year at low prices? I can't answer these questions. The Cranberry Marketing Committee speaks for growers. Maybe they can.
|