Category: Agriculture

WTO Ruling Forces the Repeal of Popular U.S. Law

‘Twas the night before Christmas in 2002 when I received notice the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had confirmed America’s first case of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). At the time, I was an elected representative of the dairy industry in the Northwest, and random sampling found an infected slaughtered milk cow in Washington State.

More commonly known as mad-cow, BSE is a degenerative brain disease with 100% mortality rate. Although, not contagious it is transmittable through consumption of food containing ingredients from BSE-infected animals. An alarming linkage of BSE is the human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCID), a horribly devastating and fatal illness that can have an incubation period of up to 8-years after consumption of meat from an infected animal.

Although confirmed BSE cases are world-wide, the greatest epidemic was in Great Britain. Incidentally, Britain also holds the distinction of having the highest number of human victims of vCID. During the British outbreak, BSE traveled to all regions of the world. Trade agreements facilitated the global spread of the disease as animals moved across borders with little to no inspection, quarantine, or tracking regulations. In fact, the 2002 Washington State BSE cow was shipped from Canada. Regardless, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Thailand and Hong Kong immediately banned imports of all U.S. beef and many countries followed. The trade embargos ultimately caused a near 80% drop in export sales.

Domestically, citizens had little confidence in the safety of their meat purchases. The USDA assured the public the risk was minimal, and the beef industry urged American’s to clear the inventory by eating more beef. But, unlike fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and seafood meat products did not carry labels identifying the country of origin. Shoppers understood the infected animal came from Canada, yet, they had no information on the origin of shelved meat. Had meat products been readily identified by its source country consumers could have made an informed choice. Likewise, merchants could have quickly pulled the Canadian-originated products from store shelves. Actions that would have assisted in assuring the public and reducing the market impact for beef producers.

It was the 2002 Canadian mad-cow case that triggered the push for meat products to carry a country-of-origin-label (COOL) as is required for other foods. The development of the meat version of COOL was not a hurried, or imprudent process. What began in 2002 became effective in 2009 after years of analysis, public comments, reviews, challenges, and extensions. The rule went through a rigorous legislative process, as well as legal challenges, and survived the daunting review of the Administrative Procedures Act.

With 90% public support according to USDA surveys, the reported “little economic benefit to consumers,” does nothing to hamper its popularity. After all, the demand for the labeling had little to do with food costs and everything to do with the right of a consumer to know where their food originates. When fully informed, the choice is then left to the buyer, a free-market principle.

Few laws or regulations are as publicly beneficial or as broadly popular as the COOL programs. Yet, on December 18th, nearly thirteen years after the Canadian mad-cow incident, Congress passed an omnibus bill that contained the repeal of COOL for beef and pork products.

The ultimatum to end the mandatory labeling came from the World Trade Organization (WTO) after Mexico and Canada argued the program discriminated against their imported meats. The WTO found the mandatory use of COOL violated three technical barriers to trade (TBT). Also, they ruled the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, violated General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Art. X:3(a), by sending an explanatory letter to only domestic meat producers, thereby giving special/unequal treatment. In its ruling against the U.S., the WTO approved retaliatory export tariffs $1 billion (Canadian) equivalent to 100% of U.S. export sales to Canada and Mexico if mandatory labeling continued.

Key considerations regarding this issue:

  • An unelected, international tribunal effectively dictated the U.S. must reverse part of a well processed, legitimate, and popular piece of domestic legislation.
  • COOL provided for quick identification and tracking of meats, facilitating efficient recall in the event of safety concerns.
  • Consumers’ right-to-know was not a consideration in the WTO decision.
  • Congress over-acted by repealing the entire labeling program as opposed to merely the mandatory aspect of labeling muscle meat.
  • Processors can continue to label their products as U.S., but only voluntarily. A practice the consumers should demand.
  • The ruling has the precedents setting potential to impact other origin labels for fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish and seafood?
Dec 30, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Renewable Fuel Standard Mandates, or Not?

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) provisions of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), mandates an increasing blend of renewable products into our domestic fuel supply. The law amends the Clean Air Act, and allows for an initial blending of food-based ethanol (corn), beginning in 2008. In subsequent years, the blend was to transition towards satisfying the annually increasing volumes with non-food “second stage” cellulosic ethanol, referred to as RFS2. The cellulosic, or advanced biofuels, are derived from biological materials such as wood shavings, leaves, corn cobs and grasses. In addition to the blend provisions, the law requires the program to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the costly experiment has failed to meet several goals, including air quality and the defined blend requirements.

To explain, in 2008 Congress mandated the EPA to set the RFS at a 10% blend of corn ethanol. Drivers then began to see labels informing them of E10 in fuel pumps. By 2010, the law states we were to move towards the use of non-food products (the second-stage RFS2), to fill the increasing blend requirements. However, in 2010 and 2011, no cellulosic biofuel was available to fill the volume requirements. Similarly, in 2012 and 2013 the available production did not amount to 1% of the mandated levels. As a result, the EPA adjusted the blend formulas allowing for first stage corn-based ethanol to fill the void.

In 2011, the EPA approved the blend increase to E15 (15% ethanol). An increase mandated to include cellulosic renewables (non-food) as opposed to corn. Now, several years into the program, cellulosic biofuels are still not available. Nevertheless, the EPA should not continue to adjust the volumes between ethanol and biofuels. It was at the onset of the program in 2007 that the Department of Energy (DOE), assured the taxpayers cellulosic ethanol would be ready and cost competitive with gasoline by the year 2012. Again, yet another goal the program failed to meet. Incidentally, that promise accompanied an astounding $385 million federal investment in six privately owned plants.

Unfortunately, at this time technological realities and market fundamentals simply do not support large-scale production of cellulosic biofuels and the industry is not near capable of meeting the RFS2 mandates. The creation of a law does not guarantee that science and economics will cooperate. As we look at the legal requirements and limits of alternative fuels made from wood chips and corn cobs, one thing is wholly apparent. We can’t get there from here.

So then, where are we? In regards to the ethanol mandate, we are quite possibly near the end. It was a poorly drafted piece of legislation that is not sustainable without government backing. Aside from corn farmers and their lobbyist, there is little support for continuing the project. Unfortunately, and unavoidably, the same corn farmers who benefited from the program will suffer the greatest financial impact upon its demise.

Nov 30, 2015 | 6 comments | by

Beneficiary of Billion Dollar Green Fuels Program Files for Creditor Protection

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final ruling on blend volumes of renewable fuels for the calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The challenge for the EPA is the lack of advanced biofuels to meet obligated minimum levels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), mandates an increasing blend of renewable products into our domestic fuel supply. The Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) provisions require non-food based cellulosic biofuels to be increasingly introduced into commercial gasoline. Called “2nd generation”, cellulosic ethanol, unlike 1st generation corn-ethanol, is derived from wood chips, grasses, corn cobs and other biological material. The problem is the congressionally mandated product is simply nonexistent.

Industry discussions, analytical reviews, and organizational rationalizations toss out phrases such as immature technology, steep learning curve, and of course, more federal funding. The issue is complicated, yet, not complicated. Producing 1st generation ethanol is much simpler than taking a cellulosic material and transforming it into a viable fuel source suitable for commercial use. Of course, we all knew this going into the program. Unfortunately, after pouring billions of dollars into this boondoggle we have done nothing more than successfully proven cellulosic ethanol is not a practical endeavor.

Even more so, with one of only four cellulosic ethanol production plants possibly set to shut its doors, Abengoa, a Spain-based sustainable energy development company, has filed for creditor protection one day before Thanksgiving, and less than a week before the EPA is expected to release the blend levels of renewable fuels. After the U.S. taxpayers invested billions of dollars towards the building of a massive biofuel facility, not to mention the world’s largest solar farm and wind farms, the company is teetering like a giant, green energy Jenga tower.

Abengoa is an international, mega-corporation founded in 1941. Its near certain investment losses to taxpayers’ dwarfs those of the Solyndra fiasco. Aside from perks and discounts for federal land use, employment credits and special tax incentives a quick search discloses only some of the federal dollars pumped into Abengoa and yet we still have no 2nd stage biofuels to meet program goals.

  • $1.45 billion loan guarantee to Abengoa Solar, Inc. for construction and the start-up of solar energy plant in Solana, AZ — 2010
  • $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Mohave Solar, LLC. for the construction & start-up of Mohave Solar Project plant in San Bernardino County, CA. — 2011
  • $133.9 million loan guarantee for biofuel plant Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy – 2011
  • $97 million federal grant, Hugoton, KS — Department of Energy — 2011
  • $4.03 million in grants and federal contracts for 2015 alone

Beyond the amounts presented here, millions more U.S. dollars have rolled into Abengoa and its many subsidiaries. With its announcement in Spain yesterday and today being Thanksgiving, American stock values for the company have not yet reacted. The protection filing gives the company four months to find a solution before creditors can force a full bankruptcy. But, many employees of U.S.-based projects may still be unaware.

It is likely by the end of next week, Abengoa will be a household name. The failure of Abengoa, along with the failure of the Renewable Fuels Standard program, will hit jobs, stock values, the banks and the federal budget. All this, and we still have no cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates of the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Nov 30, 2015 | 5 comments | by

Tobacco: Top User of Agriculture Guest Worker (H-2A) Visa Program

With the run up to the 2016 presidential election, we have seen a growing debate on the need for border security versus the shortage of agriculture workers. Tales of apples rotting on trees and produce left in the field are offered as evidence of jobs Americans won’t do. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Foreign Labor Certification program, we have a record number of guest worker visa holders. In agriculture alone, the number of H-2A visa holders has risen nearly 35% in the past decade.

Visa Certifications

Considering the increase of H-2A visa holders, how is it those who grow our food are struggling to bring in their crops? Where are all the workers? Well, according to DOL reports, a majority are harvesting tobacco, working in landscape nurseries, and operating equipment. Annual reports show the tobacco industry is consistently the largest single sector employer of agriculture guest worker visa holders. In fact, a tobacco trade organization, the North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), touts itself as the nation’s largest user of the H-2A agricultural “guest worker” program. And, though the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports a steady decline in U.S. smokers, the industry is experiencing a growth in acres planted and yields.Visa Top 10

The resurgence comes after an initial dramatic decline in tobacco farming following the implementation of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA). That legislation ended nearly 70 years of farm subsidies and marketing quotas. Then, beginning with the following year (2005), the feds stepped in with the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP). A program that paid nearly $9.6 billion to farmers for the lost value of their marketing quotas over a ten-year period. Also, with the low costs guest workers and the benefit of federal export assistance, the industry has gained a world of new consumers through exporting. For those health conscious consumers, tobacco now qualifies for certification under the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP).

As well, according to a recent report by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in 2012, tobacco companies spent $9.6 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in the United States alone. An amount of about $26 million each day, or more than $1 million an hour. Not to mention federal funds at work to assist in identifying medicinal uses for tobacco.

It may appear the relationship between tobacco farming and the government makes no sense, but it actually makes an awful lot of cents. In 2014 alone, federal revenue from tobacco tax amounted to $15.56 billion dollars. Projections through 2020 show an anticipated $157.12 billion into government coffers (no pun intended). American tobacco farming is a windfall tax source for the federal government.

In summary, tens of thousands of agriculture guest workers are designated to work in tobacco while food products go unharvested. The government spends billions to burn food for fuel in its failed ethanol experiment. We have an unprecedented amount of illegal immigration due to a broken system. It goes to show, even a practical program, as is the H-2A visa, government involvement inevitably distorts the original intent.

Nov 18, 2015 | 3 comments | by

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups and scientific research does not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

Nov 11, 2015 | 2 comments | by

USDA and States to Spend $210 Million on Fuel Pumps

On May 29th, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced $100 million in grants offered through their Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) program. According to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the move is to make renewable fuel options more available to American consumers. The program is a 1:1 partnership with states to build fueling stations and purchase blender pumps for E15 and higher. The preliminary spending tally estimates $210 million for 5,000 pumps at 1,400 fueling stations in 21 states.

This latest money toss is yet another multi-million dollar outlay resulting from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), as mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). The mandate requires gasoline to be blended with renewable fuel sources at incremental increasing levels.

The original RFS mandated level was 10% ethanol or E-10. The next mandated level, 15% ethanol or E-15, is a blend level the EPA labels to be used only in Flex-fuel passenger vehicles, model years 2001 and newer. The label goes on to state, “Do not use in other vehicles, boats, or gasoline-powered equipment. It may cause damage and is prohibited by Federal law”. Still, the EPA wants to make even higher blend levels available, even if that means taxpayers are to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Unlike the traditional pumps where a consumer makes the fuel choice of diesel, unleaded, or octane levels, the government has decided to fund blender pumps offering a choice between ethanol or even more ethanol. Even though the overwhelming preference of consumers, environmentalist, economists, most ag sectors and automakers is E-0, an option not found on the new pumps.

Though extensive studies with science-based evidence prove the damage ethanol contributes to the environment and engines, along with the real damage to a market-based economy, federal agencies continue to dig deeper into the ethanol quagmire. Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the RFS costs outweighed its benefits and criticized the EPA’s economic analysis of the RFS as intentionally misleading. In a 2014 report to Congress, the GAO exposed the agency’s false reporting of the program’s costs stating, “EPA estimated net benefits of the mandated volumes ranging from $13 to $26 billion.” However, the EPA did not include the infrastructure costs (such as this latest $100 million) in their calculations. An expense the EPA estimates to total an astounding $90.5 billion.

 

Nov 04, 2015 | 4 comments | by

The Failure of U.S. Biofuels Program

Ending a relationship is never easy, even one with a proven history of broken promises, twisted logic, weak justifications and financial exploitation. Such is the bond between the American taxpayer and the domestic ethanol industry. In the beginning, statements of common goals sparked hopeful enthusiasm. Many eagerly supported the romantic notion of growing our way to energy independence and an American-led green-based movement towards world prosperity. But, alas, the thrill is gone, and the truth exposed. The once proud, almost pompous, biofuels sector is struggling for justification.

The affair began in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Contained within the act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions that sets forth incentives for the development of biofuels such as plant-based ethanol and biodiesel. At the time, Bush had committed to the goal of ending American’s addiction to fossil fuel. The original promise was a reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, a boon to agriculture and reduced fuel costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, ethanol has failed to live up to its promised benefits. Recent low prices at the pump have exposed its life-support dependency on the government. Although direct subsidies have expired, ethanol producers continue to benefit from other financial incentives and federal mandates. A study by the NARC Consulting Group calls the program an economic death-spiral and discloses its many flaws. Yet, industry groups rally for maintaining, even increasing, RFS percentages in the face of mounting evidence of the program’s failure. Still, in a recent rule change proposal, the EPA published a plan to amend the mandates.

The statutory requirement to blend government-supported biofuels with free-market fuels is market manipulation. If the value of ethanol and other biofuels were legitimate, forced consumption, through the RFS, would not be necessary. Congress should end this failed relationship and costly experiment. Let the free market drive innovation and job development. Below, are but a few of the adverse effects of the RFS:

  • disruptive to agriculture markets
  • increases food costs
  • rife with fraud
  • lacks self-sustainability
  • burdens Taxpayers
  • environmental damage
  • violates free-market principles
Sep 14, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Committee for Responsible Budget Highway Plan has Issues

Recently, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released a report titled, “The Road to Sustainable Highway Funding.” The committee, which includes Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, builds on many of the transportation recommendations included in the Bowles-Simpson report. It recommends passage of comprehensive tax reform while ensuring the Highway Trust Fund remains adequately funded. It includes three steps:

  • Getting the Trust Fund Up to Speed ($25 billion) by paying the “legacy costs” of pre-2015 obligations with savings elsewhere in the budget;
  • Bridging the Funding Gap ($150 billion) with a policy of raising the gas tax by 9 cents and limiting annual spending to income; and
  • Creating a Fast Lane to Tax Reform to help Congress identify alternative funding and financing.

The report is a great attempt at creating a sensible national transportation policy which is something that seems to elude Congress. Many of its suggestions are excellent. These include reducing funds for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), eliminating Davis-Bacon requirements and killing the transportation alternatives program. Keeping federal transportation funding constant is an excellent goal. Limiting future spending to income is a great idea that seems obvious everywhere but Washington, D.C. Encouraging future highway bills to make tax and spending decisions together would be great policy, although I am not sure how this occurs without the Ways and Means Committee losing power, which would never happen politically.

However, some of the bill components are troubling. First, to get the Highway Trust Fund up to speed, the plan spends $15 billion reducing and reforming agricultural subsidies and $10 billion extending the mandatory sequester. While reforming farm policy is a great idea, since paying farmers not to plant certain crops has always been one of our most curious policies, such funding should not be directed to the highway trust fund. Rather, it should pay down general fund debt. There is no real link between farming and transportation.

Second, a two-year highway bill is better than a series of extensions but does not provide the needed long-term certainty. It takes 10 years or longer to complete many highway projects. Securing sufficient funding requires a mix of public and private funding that requires complex deals. DOTs need long-term certainty, and two years is not long-term enough. The traditional six-year bills are also a little short. Ten years would be ideal.

Third, the group proposes to schedule a 9-cent increase after one year. Such an increase is reasonable but only with significant program reforms. Policy makers should also eliminate Buy America. Federal caps on financing tools including Private Activity Bonds need to be increased. And while a 9-cent increase would be a short-medium term solution, increasing fuel efficiency and the presence of electric and hybrid cars, makes the gas tax a poor long-term solution.

Finally, the report’s acceptance of the blanket spending cuts in the sequester (as a baseline) is poor policy. The sequester cut discretionary programs such as Next-Gen which is a core national priority for aviation while not touching formula programs such as streetcars which are neither a national nor a core transportation program. The sequester cuts should be examined to ensure that areas cut do not serve a vital national function.

Jun 22, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Farmers Hit Hard by the Estate “Death” Tax

On April 16, 2015, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the estate tax. The Internal Revenue Service defines the estate tax as, “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.”

Advocates for the estate tax decry the perpetuation of inequality due to inherited wealth. The estate tax, often called the “death tax” by opponents, is ineffective in reducing inequality; it does, however, excel at destroying family business, especially agricultural operations. Unlike investments and cash, real estate cannot be as easily placed into trust. Thus, American farmers and small business owners are hardest hit by the tax, while cash-rich Americans avoid it.

The shale gas revolution has created economic booms from Pennsylvania to Texas to North Dakota, but it is a mixed blessing for American farmers. The sudden influx of money to rural areas is increasing the wealth of farms in America and complicating estate tax calculations for farms.

  • Many farm estates have increased in value due to the mineral rights to the land. Farmers saw land values appreciate immediately upon signing leases with natural gas producers and land values have continued to rise. In both Texas and Pennsylvania, land values increased from 1997 to 2012, even after several years of drilling.
  • The increase in land value due to the demand for mineral leases was followed by increases in farm estate values, as many farmers invested their royalties from gas extraction back into their farms. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas estimates that three-fourths of farms’ wealth accumulation from energy payments are through increases in land values.

As the U.S. Senate begins debate over the estate tax, it is obvious the stakes are higher than ever. With farms in Pennsylvania and Texas experiencing 10 percent or greater increases in household wealth, the estate tax is a continuing threat to farm families’ ability to pass their farms to their children.

Mike Gajewsky is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Jun 15, 2015 | 1 comment | by

GMO Apples: Coming to a Store Near You in 2017

A new strain of genetically modified apples that don’t bruise or brown when cut have been approved for planting and sale in the U.S., according to the Department of Agriculture. After evaluation, the Department of Agriculture has said that the apples are “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk or to have a significant impact on the human environment.”

The apples, which will be marketed as “Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden,” could hit shelves as early as 2017. The new fruits were designed to reduce food waste and expand the sliced fruit market, and are the latest in a new crop development trend: using genetic engineering to up customer appeal, rather than farmer benefits.

NCPA research has already outlined the benefits of biotech crops for combating global hunger. By targeting genetic modifications at consumers rather than just producers, genetically modified crops can gain a larger foothold in the market ― and move closer towards widespread public acceptance.

While GMOs have a fairly large presence in U.S. markets, they continue to struggle abroad. Heavy restrictions, lengthy authorization and risk assessment processes, and split public opinion all inhibit the progress of GMOs in other nations. Perhaps making modifications that benefit consumers will soothe both public and government concerns, and encourage nations to ease restrictions on GMOs and other forms of biotechnology.

Feb 18, 2015 | 1 comment | by
Next Page »