On a Cranberry Marketing Order

Don't assume that volume regulation is a done deal. This is an election year and the Secretary is not going to step on a landmine with an unpopular regulation. It should be noted that USDA does not like supply management through regulation, and they do not like dumping food.

by Linda Rinta

3/28/00 On Thursday the marketing committee reconvenes to decide our fate with regards to dumping fruit. As small family farmers, many of us feel powerless in the decision making. As well, the marketing order seems complicated and confusing. There are some things we can weed out to help with our personal decision making because we are not without a voice in this matter. It is so important to realize that a recommendation from the Marketing Committee is just that, a recommendation. USDA Secretary Dan Glickman will make the final decision in 90 days after listening to comments from impacted farmers. The intent of a volume regulation is to provide supply management assistance to an agriculture commodity when there is a consensus of support for it throughout the whole industry. He will not make the decision to invoke a volume regulation if it is met with great resistance and particularly if it has a (bias) negative impact on small family farms.

The volume regulation proposed by Ocean Spray in February would have destroyed most small family farms. It would have increased the collective sales history by including all new acreage at that state's average. In Wisconsin that figure is around 200b/a. That would have increased the total "quota" by about 1 mil. barrel. In order to offset that increase, the "dump" figure would have to be greater by at least the same amount. The quick and dirty of it is that those who did not plant significant acreage during the last two years would be subsidizing those who did. In fact, in order to "break-even" you would have had to planted the same percentage that was dumped, and have a fairly high state average.

Twenty percent, the figure that we all heard bantered around, would have devastated most small farms and would probably have no significant price increase to off-set it. I am afraid that I don't have the ability to do out the math for a more exact impact analysis. I freely admit that. Ocean Spray certainly does have the resources at hand to have conducted such an analysis by farm size. In the interest of the industry, that information would be very useful to us.

What can be done? Someone on the Stressline suggested that the first 5,000 barrels of everyone's production should be exempt. Another idea is exempt volume regulation by farm size, or to regulate acreage without a sales history for example. There are probably other ideas out there. This administration (Dan Glickman in particular) has made a commitment to review all ag policy and regulations for its impacts to small farms and remove the bias that has favored large operations at the expense of small farms. There is a ground swell of support for those who may resist the regulation because of its impact on small farms.

As it stands right now, the Marketing Order does not have the flexibility to incorporate those changes but it could. It is up to us to insist on that. Just as it is up to us to insist on domestic promotion and a strategic plan to manage the surplus by all parties.

The Marketing Committee decision will be made by the juice makers plus one public member. We must ask ourselves if those votes represent the best interest of our FARMS, which may be different than the interests of our handlers. Watch the proceedings of the Marketing Committee, and then, be an advocate for your farm during the 90 day comment period.

Don't assume that volume regulation is a done deal. This is an election year and the Secretary is not going to step on a landmine with an unpopular regulation. It should be noted that USDA does not like supply management through regulation, and they do not like dumping food.

Home