Washington Insider - Tuesday

By DTN's Washington Insider

Here’s a quick monitor of Washington farm and trade policy issues from DTN’s well-placed observer.

Consumer Reports, Beef Industry Split Over Ground Beef Report

The US beef industry and Consumer Reports are again engaged in a “battle” of sorts over ground beef via a new report from the consumer watch organization relative to US ground beef supplies.

Based on sampling of 300 packages – 458 pounds – of conventionally and sustainably produced ground beef from grocery, big-box, and natural food stores in 26 cities across the country, Consumer Reports said they tested those for five common types of bacteria associated with beef—Clostridium perfringens, E. coli (including O157 and six other toxin producing strains), Enterococcus, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus. According to the report, 18% of the beef samples from conventionally-raised cows contained dangerous superbugs resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics used to treat illness in humans compared with just 9% of beef from samples that were sustainably produced.

The release from the group notes they “found bacteria on all of the beef samples” that were tested, but points out that ground beef from cows raised more sustainably was “significantly less likely to have two potentially harmful bacteria (S.aureus and E.coli) than those from cows raised conventionally.”

The group recommends that “no matter what ground beef consumers buy, cooking it to 160 degrees Fahrenheit should kill harmful bacteria.”

The beef industry responded critically. “Pathogenic bacteria is rarely found in meat,” is the initial conclusion the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) said it found when it reviewed the Consumer Reports report. “The bacteria identified in the Consumer Reports testing are types that rarely cause foodborne illness. Bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, and generic E. coli are commonly found in the environment and are not considered pathogenic bacteria.”

The industry also points to data from USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the agency responsible for inspecting US beef, shows E. coli O157:H7 occurs at a rate of less than one tenth of one percent in ground beef products. Other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli have been found by USDA in just one percent of raw ground beef components so far this year.”

Once again, there is a divergent set of views over the situation with US beef and food safety between the industry and consumer-oriented groups.

It’s very interesting that the Consumer Reports recommendation to cook ground beef to 160 degrees is nothing new – USDA has long had that as a standing recommendation. “USDA recommends cooking hamburgers and ground beef mixtures such as meat loaf to 160 °F (71.1 °C) as measured with a food thermometer,” according to FSIS. In other words, Consumer Reports is merely reminding consumers to follow what are already out there relative to food safety standards relative to safe handling of ground beef. Plus, Consumer Reports at least acknowledges that bacteria were found in all samples they checked, but they do not point out the origins of those bacteria or that some of that which was found would not be toxic or of harm to humans.

It’s clear that there more than a few questions relative to the Consumer Reports’ findings on this front that will not settle this issue and will keep creating uncertainty for US consumers when they reach the meatcase and pick up supplies from the safest food supply in the world.

***

CBO: Negligible Cost Savings for Bill Limiting Pesticide Permits

The Environmental Protection Agency will not save much money by issuing fewer National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for pesticide spraying on or near waters owing to the enactment of Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2015 (S. 1500) according to an estimate released Aug. 20 by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO said the cost incurred by the EPA would be “negligible” since NPDES permits are issued mostly by states. S. 1500 would bar the EPA from requiring NPDES permits for pesticides if their use is registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or in cases where the discharge is regulated as a stormwater, municipal or industrial discharge.

S. 1500 was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Aug. 9. Sen. Mike Crapo’s, R-Idaho, bill is similar to the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 897), which the House Agriculture Committee approved March 19. The CBO said cost estimates for both bills are the same.

***

Washington Insider: Another Farm Bill Debate

A few years ago, a spate of commenters complained about the “perpetual farm bill” after a series of ad hoc disaster programs were rushed into place to deal with weather or price problems. Then, in the 2014 debate, the rush was to replace the direct payments programs that had become too embarrassing to even consider continuing because of their nearly $5 billion in “rain or shine” payments.

Now, the dust is settling following that debate and the safety net that is now restructured around insurance programs. However, all the controversies have not ended.

As you can imagine, the new programs are wrapped in so many rules and regulations that ordinary folk need not even attempt to figure out what they all mean. And, already, there is an effort underway to reopen the 2014 Act to fix some inequities in protections. This is, of course, a heavily political sentiment but it is a heavily, heavily political time, so we will need to wait and see what happens.

The current observation starts with the fact that appropriations bills are often used to make hard-to-get changes and the FY 2016 Ag appropriations bill in the House apparently includes a few. These include holding off on enforcement of a conservation compliance requirement for the 2016 crop insurance year. The provision does not suspend the provision but would defer any penalty for a year to allow producers to certify compliance, especially those who face “paperwork glitches.”

A somewhat broader change would restore the use of commodity certificates for cotton marketing loans, which would not be subject to payment limits. Current rules count marketing loan gains and LDPs that when added to payments from the PLC or ARC programs for other crops, may exceed the new payment limits. Cotton lobbyists say they have been in discussions with USDA about how such a program would work.

As growers get closer to October of 2015, USDA says it expects to have a better idea about impacts of possible changes. Since cotton producers are not eligible for either the ARC or PLC for cotton and enrollment in the cotton STAX program is low because it offers limited support in weak markets, producer argue that their safety net is weak—not only because of their low loan rate but also because of the payment limits imposed on them under the ARC or PLC for on their other crops.

The House provision addresses this problem and bipartisan support is expected in the Senate for similar changes.

Supporters expect that the current budget-conscious Congress will include at least modest opposition to the proposal from groups like the Heritage Foundation who often argue that the programs will cost “as much as and probably far more” than the direct payments program and would like them either eliminated or sharply constrained.

While reopening the farm bill runs some political risk, the 2014 bill was generally debated during a time when agriculture was relatively more prosperous than the rest of the economy, and ended it ended with a number of features critics thought were too costly, but which were included anyway.

So, even though the proposed changes affect payment limits—an approach that is dear to the heart of many program critics--they have never actually succeeded in focusing the programs on small producers the way many wanted. As a result, it seems likely that the changes now being considered will emphasize that shortcoming once again, and face similar criticisms again. Nevertheless, the proposals seem to have the momentum they need for final passage, even over budget hawk opposition, Washington Insider believes.

---

Want to keep up with events in Washington and elsewhere throughout the day? See DTN Top Stories, our frequently updated summary of news developments of interest to producers. You can find DTN Top Stories in DTN Ag News, which is on the Main Menu on classic DTN products and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN’s Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com. Subscribers of MyDTN.com should check out the U.S. Ag Policy, U.S. Farm Bill and DTN Ag News sections on their News Homepage.

If you have questions for DTN Washington Insider, please email edit@telventdtn.com

(GH/CZ)

Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.