Page 82 - Summer2018

LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM
The House Farm Bill not only made several bad changes (discussed in the main article), but it also missed the
opportunity to make several good changes that had been proposed to help sustainable and independent livestock
producers.

THE PRIME ACT
As we have discussed in multiple articles in Wise Traditions, the PRIME Act would help address a critical prob-
lem for local meat producers: lack of inspected slaughterhouses. The lack of reasonable access to a slaughterhouse
keeps some farmers from selling their meat at all. For many more, the distance they must travel to the slaughterhouse
means significantly increased costs, as well as stress on the animal and lost time on the farm―all of which means
less supply and higher prices for consumers.
Current federal law prohibits the sale of meat from “custom” slaughterhouses, which are regulated by the states
independently of USDA regulations. The PRIME Act would empower states to allow the sale within their state of
custom-slaughtered beef, pork, lamb and goat to consumers, restaurants and grocery stores under standards estab-
lished by each state.
Representative Massie proposed an amendment to add the PRIME Act to the Farm Bill, but the Rules Committee
did not allow a vote on it. Since Senator Rand Paul has a Senate version of the bill (S. 1232), we still have another
opportunity to advocate for its inclusion in the Farm Bill.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF RAW MILK
Representative Massie also filed a bill that would legalize the interstate shipment of raw milk and raw milk prod-
ucts for human consumption between states in which the sale or distribution is legal, reversing the FDA’s current
regulations that prohibit the interstate transport of raw milk for human consumption.
Some form of distribution of raw milk―whether through sales or cow shares―is legal in most of states. But
there are still many areas where access to raw milk is severely limited, and consumers would be better able to get
this nutritious food if they could buy from a producer in a neighboring state.
The Rules Committee did allow a vote on Representative Massie’s amendment H. Amdt 627 to the Farm Bill, but
it was soundly defeated, 331-79. You can see how your Rep voted at clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll201.xml. Although
Senator Rand Paul has also introduced a Senate version of the bill, it is unlikely that the Senate leadership would
allow a vote on it after such a lopsided vote in the House.

CHECKOFF REFORM
Under federal law, farmers of certain commodities (including pork, eggs, beef and milk) are required to pay a
portion of their sales into Checkoff funds. These mandatory fees are intended to be used to research and promote
demand for those products. Campaigns such as “Got Milk?” and “Pork, the other white meat” are paid for by these
taxes on farmers. Checkoff programs collect tens of millions of dollars from America's farmers and ranchers every
year.
Nothing in the Checkoffs promotes local, organic or sustainable production. To the contrary, the basic message
is that all the foods are interchangeable commodities; conventional CAFO beef, imported beef and the grass-fed beef
from the farmer in your town are all rolled into “Beef, it’s what for dinner.” Even worse, the dairy checkoff has used
its funds―some of which are paid by raw milk farmers―to do public ad campaigns and “educational programs” for
dietitians who actively oppose raw milk access.
Moreover, these funds often wind up in the pockets of industrialized agriculture trade organizations. While
they can’t use the money directly for lobbying, the funding helps them grow by underwriting their overhead, travel
costs, etc.―and then they are free to use their other funds to lobby against the interests of family farmers, such as
by opposing country-of-origin (COO) labeling.
Two bills were filed in the House and Senate to reform the Checkoff program. The best option would be to
make the Checkoffs voluntary (S.740/ HR 1752). The next best option is to reform the programs to rein in conflicts
of interest and stop anti-competitive activities that harm other commodities and consumers (S 741/ HR 1753). The
latter bill was introduced as an amendment on the House floor but withdrawn before the vote was taken. There is
a good probability that one or both of these bills will be proposed as an amendment to the Senate version of the
Farm Bill, and with enough support from the grassroots, they have a realistic chance of success.

Check out the main article for more information on how to take action to support these reforms. Your voice matters!

80 Wise Traditions SUMMER 2018