The business of doing…nothing.

Here’s the thing: For months, we have been shouting — at the top of our lungs, really — the important role a farm bill plays in keeping America’s farmers farming. And, hey, we have one now. It’s an extension of the old one, but at least we have one. All’s well that ends well, right?

Wrong. Just because we now have an extended farm bill doesn’t mean this ended well.

Don’t get me wrong — the extension of the current farm bill was needed. Farming is a risky business and the provisions in the farm bill, like disaster programs and crop insurance, allow farmers to more carefully plan for the years to come.

Still, an extension was less than ideal.

In this case, the legislation extends virtually all provisions of the 2008 farm bill for the next nine months throughout the end of the current fiscal year. That means one more year of commodity programs, including ACRE and direct payments. Funding for crop insurance and nutrition programs remain unchanged. Finally, the bill does not include the new dairy gross margin/supply management program, but rather extends the Milk Income Loss Contract program.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $80 million for livestock indemnity payments, $400 million for the livestock forage disaster program, $50 million for emergency assistance for livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish, and $20 million for trees assistance. But it is important to note, however, that these programs are authorized but not funded. In order to have any funding, the Appropriations Committees would have to provide the funding. The bill also authorizes, but does not fund, any of the 37 expiring programs that lost their base.

And the extension keeps in place, and funds, direct payments, despite the fact that agriculture groups agreed to cut those out of the new farm bill. That’s an additional cost to taxpayers that they wouldn’t have had if Congress had gotten it together and passed a new farm bill.

In fact, after months of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees calling for the adopted committee bills to be voted, and months of farm organizations calling for a farm bill as well, Congress was unable and unwilling to do anything to put a new farm bill in place. And that means the new Congress will have nine months to re-introduce, mark up and take to the House and Senate floor a new farm bill. In the current political climate, that’s a heck of a lot to ask.

We would hope that a new farm bill would have many of the provisions that the previous legislation, passed by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in the summer of 2012, had. The sad truth is, however, that much will likely change.

Despite the fact that agriculture was the only industry or group to volunteer funding cuts — a cool $23 billion over the next ten years — Congress refused to act. Rather than working together to put a five-year farm bill in place, they kicked the can down road, allowing the next Congress to deal with the problem.

Unfortunately, as a new farm bill is written and marked up over the next nine months, there will be even less money to go around than there was in the summer of 2012. Allowing the new Congress to deal with the problem means much deeper cuts, riskier business for farmers, and, in the long run, a food supply that is less secure and safe.

Yes, unfortunately, this could have gone better.

Label: “Problematic on a number of levels.”

I don’t always think to myself, “Boy, Illinois got that right” when it comes to politics and policy. But, every time I think of California and their crazy propositions, that phrase crosses my mind.

I can’t imagine having to cast my vote for umpteen propositions every time I went to the polls. And, I can’t really imagine living in a state where anyone with enough petition signatures can add something to the ballot.

It’s all very ‘By the People,’ but it still seems a little…off-putting.

It’s off-putting in the same kind of way Proposition 37 is off-putting. See what I did there?

Prop 37, which would require most food sold in California and produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as such, is on the November ballot. And, until recently, it had garnered quite a bit of support.

That is until many of the state’s papers took a closer look at the proposition and urged readers to vote against it.

One the surface, it seems downright logical. After all, don’t people have the right to know if there are GMOs in their food?

The simple answer might be yes, but nothing about Prop 37 is simple.

After a closer look, Prop 37 could open the floodgates for more litigation and lawsuits, allowing lawyers to sue family farmers, food companies and grocers without any proof of harm. In other words, the law would ultimately be enforced by lawsuits filed by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food. Not only is it a messy way to work toward compliance, but it brings the cost back home to consumers and tax payers.

And that’s not the only sticking point. In addition to a potential flood of new lawsuits, Prop 37 isn’t even based in science — a point on which the LA Times leaned heavily in its editorial urging readers to vote against the proposition. In fact, the LA Times labeled the proposition “sloppily written” and “problematic on a number of levels.”

Biotechnology has been used for nearly 25 years to grow varieties of corn, soybeans and other crops so that they will more easily resist diseases and insects and require fewer pesticides (which seems like a win-win-win to me). Thousands of common foods are made with GM crops and respected scientific and medical organizations throughout the world have concluded that foods containing GM crops are safe.

Additionally, Prop 37 would require state officials to monitor the tens of thousands of food labels at grocery stores, retail outlets and farms across the state. While that might seem fair, what isn’t fair is the fact that there is no limit on how many millions of dollars would be spent on administration costs, meaning there’s no limit to how much it would cost state tax payers.

Finally, and probably most importantly when it comes to consumers, Prop 37 could mean higher prices in the grocery store. By forcing farmers and food companies to implement all the all the necessary details to bring about labeling, including new packaging, distribution and record keeping or a switch to higher-priced organics, consumers will be forced to pay more at the check out.

In fact, economic studies show this would increase food costs for an average California family by hundreds of dollars per year.

So, what’s the big deal? If you aren’t reading this blog from your couch in California, it doesn’t really matter, right?

Wrong. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if this passes in California, it could easily come to pass in other states — or even federally — at some point in time.

And, if you don’t want to take my word for it, that’s fine. Perhaps, you want to hear the facts from someone who is a little more learned when it comes to GMOs? That’s fair.

Take a look at this letter by Dr. Bruce Chassy, a professor emeritus of food science at the University of Illinois.

Dr. Chassy was asked to be a part of a Dr. Oz show discussing GMOs in food. After the show had wrapped, Dr. Chassy had a few zingers for Dr. Oz (which, let’s be honest, I love) and threw in some good old-fashioned SCIENCE to back up his claims. And, hey, I believe him. After all, he is a former professor of food science.

Ten Reasons Why Voting is AWESOME.

If you haven’t noticed (and, if you haven’t noticed, you obviously have been living under a rock), there’s a presidential election coming up.

The candidates are all over TV. They’re airing commercials proclaiming their aptitude and ability to lead the country. They’re holding debates and stumping in every city they can squeeze into their busy schedules. And, to top it off, they’re leaving the decision-making up to you.

Talk about pressure. Only, it really isn’t. You take 10 minutes out of your day on Nov. 6, head over to your local polling place, cast your ballot and you’re done.

As in, you can go home and watch TV. Or, head back to the office. Or, run to the grocery store.

I’m not saying it’s a duty you should take lightly. It’s important to make your voice heard and cast your vote. We only have to look back to the 2000 presidential election to find a race that proves the old adage of ‘every vote counts’ true.

I’m just saying the excuses you already have worked up for not voting — like, ‘I don’t have time’ — won’t hold water.

So, instead of thinking of reasons why it might be difficult to make it to the polls to vote, think of it in terms of why it’s awesome to vote:

1. It’s your job. And hey, just because Congress doesn’t seem to be doing their job, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be doing yours.
2. Your vote counts just as much as anyone else’s.
3. You get a cool ‘I Voted!’ sticker.
4. You never know – if you’re unattached, you might finally have a chance to run into that cute neighbor you’ve been eyeing. Go ahead, impress him or her with your knowledge of politics and civic duty.
5. Believe it or not, every political decision, policy or issue has or will affect you. It’s your future, why let someone else control it for you without a fight?
6. If your friends don’t vote and you do, you automatically have the right to endlessly mock them. Seriously.
7. Don’t forget — this isn’t just a presidential election. During the election on Nov. 6, you’ll also have the chance to elect members of Congress and local representatives. And, local elections like school board and city  council races really do have an impact on your daily life.
8. You don’t want to earn your paycheck just to have someone else decide how you have to spend it. It’s your money and the people you elect will decide how much of your wealth to invest in public services and taxes.
9. With the internet, it takes a fraction of a second (okay, maybe a little bit longer — but not much) to get all of the registration and voter information for your county. Coincidentally, today is the last day to register to vote here in Illinois — SO GET IT DONE!
10. Failure to vote means you’re no longer allowed any paid holidays. None. Or something like that. I’ll check into that, but in the mean time, just believe me.

So there it is. Ten reasons why voting is awesome. You know you don’t want to miss your opportunity to talk to your cute neighbor or get that awesome sticker, so make sure you vote on Nov. 6.

In all seriousness, voting gives you the right to decide who will be making the big decisions, so don’t blow it. I’m voting in this election because it’s my vote and it’s my future. Don’t forget, it’s your future, too.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

By Mike Doherty, senior economist and policy analyst, Illinois Farm Bureau.

It’s summertime and the livin’ is never easy for Illinois corn farmers — at least during this summer, when drought is decimating their crops and  ’weather scares’ are bouncing the markets around. But it’s also the season for the media to jump on the food-prices-are-rising bandwagon.

In fact, Fox Business News recently ran an article about how food prices are on the rise and how consumers can fight back. They interviewed Ed Butowsky, a managing partner at Chapwood Capital Investment Management, who said that, “Wheat and milk are both imbedded in most foods, so if prices for those commodities go up, then those costs will get passed onto the consumer…”. 

Butowsky, with his 22 years in the financial services industry and as an internationally recognized expert in the investment wealth management industry, apparently was unaware that grain prices have little impact on most food prices.

That is not to say that Butowsky was completely wrong — his comment just mislead the consumer, who wants to know the primary reason for food price increases. Butowsky could have just as easily said, “Oil, gasoline and diesel prices are imbedded in most foods and when those costs go up, as they have until the last two months, you’re going to see an increase in food prices.” He would have been more on-target.

In fact, when food prices rise, the increases are usually due to increased prices in energy, fuel, transportation, processing, packaging and fluctuations in overseas demand and the export market for many finished U.S. products, not the underlying price of wheat, corn, or soybeans.

I wouldn’t want Fox News to get bogged down in having to dig up such technical information as ‘food prices,’ though. After all, it took me about 10 seconds to find the actual food prices increases on which Butowsky was commenting. I typed “Bureau of Labor food prices” into Google search and, at the top of the very first table that appeared, read that the price of flour, a food product made from coarse grains, has actually declined in price during the last 12 months. Ooops.

Fox News may want to consider other experts than investment portfolio managers for viewpoints on rising food prices, such as one of the dozens of top-notch economists who work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist or their Economic Research Service and who track food prices as part of their jobs.

In the end, I suppose you could say this isn’t just a commentary about jumping on the bandwagon — it also is a commentary about leaping to conclusions and about the value of asking questions of the right people.

Expert.

Here at the Illinois Farm Bureau, we’re blessed with smart employees. Lots of them.

In fact, they’re more than just smart — they’re experts in their fields.

Mike Doherty is one such expert. A senior economist here at the Illinois Farm Bureau, Doherty has been busy analyzing the changes — and now challenges — in European egg production.

Doherty says egg prices in Europe are now 67 percent higher than they were a year ago. Production is down an estimated 15 percent. And, European restaurant owners and families are driving into neighboring countries to buy their eggs.

How did this happen, you might ask? Doherty says the rising egg prices and short supply were triggered by a government mandate on how chickens are raised. What’s more, Congress is being asked to pass similar legislation here.

The possibility worries Doherty — and livestock producers here in the U.S., not only because of the potential for increased prices in a down economy, but also because of the precedent that would be set by the government – dictating to producers how their animals should be raised.

So, Doherty put his brainpower to good use (not that it isn’t always put to good use!) and penned a column for the Chicago Tribune, which they ran Sunday July 1 in their Outside Opinion Section!

Like I said – Illinois Farm Bureau experts are more than just smart. They’re, well, experts! Great job, Mike!

Blowing a Gasket

Imagine, if you will, that your child is sick. It’s not necessarily a serious illness, but it could become serious if you don’t take your child to the doctor and, perhaps, get a prescription for an antibiotic.

What do you do? It’s a no brainer, right? You take your kid to the doctor. You get the prescription. And you give your kid the antibiotics for the prescribed length of time. 

Here’s the real question: What would you do if someone who wasn’t your doctor, and didn’t know you or your kid, told you that you couldn’t give those antibiotics to your child to treat an illness? And, not just for the time being, but that you couldn’t EVER use an antibiotic to treat an illness? Would you blow a gasket? Most parents would. 

In the simplest terms, that’s exactly the situation livestock farmers in this country are facing. A new campaign backed by the Consumers Union is asking retailers to sell only meat that has been raised without antibiotics. While the campaign might hold a lot of appeal for some consumers, the truth is that there are all kinds of protections in place when it comes to food animals and antibiotics.

Farmers follow set best management practices in using antibiotics to treat illness and prevent disease. They work with their veterinarians to incorporate antibiotics in comprehensive herd health programs.

What’s more, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medicines before they can be given to sick animals. And animals that receive antibiotics are not allowed to enter the food supply until after the drug clears their systems.

Let me run that by you one more time: The FDA must approve medicines before they can be used in food animals. Any animal that receives an antibiotic must be withheld from the food supply for a specified amount of time, allowing the drug to clear the animal’s system.

To top it off, inspectors from the federal government are present at processing plants to test animals bound for the food supply to make sure that antibiotic residues aren’t present. If residues are found, the animal or the milk is turned away and farmers who sold those animals are fined.

All of this is to say that dairy, beef and hog farmers use antibiotics carefully because they know it’s the right thing to do — and because their family eats the very same dairy, beef and pork products as your family.

It begs the question, ‘What would happen if farmers couldn’t give their animals antibiotics when they need them?’

The answer is simple: Most importantly, farmers would be faced with animals that aren’t as healthy and have a lower quality of life. Unhealthy animals also would lead to lower quality meat and a tightened supply chain. In other words, the industry itself could literally blow a gasket.

Just like people, animals suffer when they’re sick. Conversely, just like people, animals are happier and more productive when they’re healthy.

Finally, just like a parent can instantly tell when his or her child is sick, farmers can instantly tell when their animals are sick. Farmers work with their animals every day, often spending as much time with them as they do their own families, so farmers can tell just by looking at an animal when it is sick or is getting sick. When that happens, farmers work with their veterinarians to evaluate the animal and come up with a treatment plan that best fits the animal and the sickness.

It all boils down to this: Farmers live on the same earth, eat the same food, drink the same water and breathe the same air as you do. They want it to be just as safe for them as it is for you.

Who knew farm boys could sing?

After a looooooooonnnnngggggg blogging hiatus, (I know, I know, I know – it’s my fault. Don’t remind me) you would think we’re all set up to deliver on a nice, lengthy post about agricultural issues, right?

Wrong.

We’re about to deliver a post alright, but not a super serious one. Instead, we’re punting. We’re handing this post over to the Peterson Farm Brothers’ “I’m Farming and I Grow It” video. If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing out.

These Kansas farm boys love agriculture, and they’re proud to show it!