8 DAYS REMAIN UNTIL THE NOV. 6 ELECTION
IllInoIs FaRM buReau o p p o s e s a p r i va t e c o m p a n y ’s request for public utility status and eminent domain authority for a proposed transmission line. ....3
IllInoIs VIneyaRds and wineries continue to grow, according to a new census by the Illinois office of the National Agricultural Statistics Service. ............................5
Monday, October 29, 2012
Three sections Volume 40, No. 44
Getting out vote may be key for ag policy BY MARTIN ROSS FarmWeek
Illinois voters could play a major role in determining the timetable for and direction and impact of the next farm bill, Farm Bureau observers advised last week. During pre-election visits with Illinois Republican House members and candidates — including discussions with Colona Republican House Ag Committee member Bobby Schilling — House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) met with Illinois Farm Bureau President Philip Nelson.
For more perspectives on voting, see page 12
Periodicals: Time Valued
Boehner emphasized the tight post-election window for lame duck congressional action on key issues, leading Nelson to conclude “we’ve got a big uphill battle to get a farm bill at the rate things are going.” IFB is a member of the broad-based coalition Farm Bill Now, which has shifted its initial focus to December farm bill passage. However, return-
ing lawmakers face pressing fiscal concerns, a raft of expiring tax provisions, and possible shifts in party control for the coming session. Further, Boehner reiterated concerns about garnering the 214 votes necessary for House farm bill passage. That means a one-year 2008 farm bill extension — an idea dismissed in July — could be back on the table, Nelson warned. Should that happen, House and Senate ag committees might have to go back to the drawing board in 2013, under renewed budget pressures and, potentially, with new, uninitiated members. November election outcomes thus could have a major impact on future policy affecting Illinois farmers. “This election is going to be tight — every vote is going to count, and they’re (voters) going to decide the future with the farm bill, estate taxes, regulations, the whole gamut of issues,” Nelson stressed. American Farm Bureau Federation Deputy Executive Policy Director Dale Moore sees an admittedly “long-odds opportunity” for returning House
members to bring a farm bill to late fall passage and a HouseSenate conference agreement. Beyond existing policy priorities, lawmakers could base lame duck decisions on what a departing President Obama “is attempting to finish up” or what direction President-Elect Romney might take, he said.
As they reformulate policies or restructure their administrative team, either President Obama or an incoming President Romney could “want very much for the decks to be as clear as possible” heading into 2013, Moore told FarmWeek. On the other hand, lawmakers could seek to hand the political
ball off to the next Congress. Failing 2012 passage and facing the prospect of reverting to 1949 “permanent” farm bill law, Moore believes Congress likely would seek extension of 2008 farm programs. Reactivation of 1949 law long-term See Vote, page 4
Major media help fight GMO labeling initiative
Amid unexpected media support and wide-ranging concerns about West Coast commerce, Farm Bureau is encouraged that California voters next week will reject a GMO labeling ballot initiative. Proposition 37 would require mandatory labeling of foods with GMO ingredients. If it were approved, Illinois and other food manufacturers marketing in California would have 18 months to add that information to ingredient lists. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) ag policy specialist Dale Moore believes farm, retail, and other Prop 37 opponents have risen successfully to “the difficult challenge of explaining the science, explaining the reality (of Prop 37 passage).” In what he deemed “a somewhat surprising turn,” key California newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, have blasted the proposition. An October Times editorial called Prop 37 “sloppily written,” arguing there is “no rationale for singling
out genetic engineering” for labeling. The editorial stated “there is little if any evidence that changing a plant’s or animal’s genes through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to the people who consume it.” “There’s been a lot of hard work on the ground to provide the kind of information needed to counteract the very subjective, very unscientific notions presented to people in various (pro-Proposition 37) ads and communications efforts,” Moore told FarmWeek. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office suggests Prop 37 language “could be construed by the courts to imply that processed foods could not be labeled as ‘natural’ even if they weren’t genetically engineered.” Moore noted further concerns about proposed enforcement provisions that could encourage “citizens lawsuits” against retailers suspected of selling unlabeled
FarmWeek on the web: FarmWeekNow.com
foods with GMO content. Because the proposition would require retailers to get written statements from suppliers verifying products have no engineered ingredients, the major burden would fall on smaller, “mom-and-pop grocery stores” especially, he said. The impact of labeling nonetheless would be felt by “everyone in the food supply chain,” Moore said. California Grocers Association CEO Ronald Fong, whose group represents major regional retailers such as Safeway, Vons, and Costco, maintained Prop 37 advocates “not so much the right to know but more about the right to sue.” “As the discussion has gone on, there’s been more and more fact-based evidence that some of the science touted by proponents of Proposition 37 has been pretty selective and not necessarily supported by other scientists,” Moore said .— Martin Ross
Illinois Farm Bureau®on the web: www.ilfb.org