Friday, September 14, 2012

Ag Today Friday, September 14, 2012

Dairy farmers struggle to stay afloat with low milk prices [KXTV News 10/Sacramento]

California's dairy farmers are making some noise about the price the state of California set this summer for milk….Tachera was part of a group that went to Washington, D.C., this week to ask that California be included in a group of states where the federal government sets the milk price, which is currently at $18 per hundred weight….Since federal approval could take months, the farmers marched to Secretary Ross's office because she has the authority to raise milk prices now. But the protestors were refused at the door. The agency said it's aware of the farmers' challenge, but looks at a variety of factors when setting milk prices taking into account the impact on consumers, producers and processors.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=209356

Uneasy allies in the grocery aisle [New York Times]

Giant bioengineering companies like Monsanto and DuPont are spending millions of dollars to fight a California ballot initiative aimed at requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. That surprises no one, least of all the proponents of the law, which if approved by voters would become the first of its kind in the nation. But the companies behind some of the biggest organic brands in the country — Kashi, Cascadian Farm, Horizon Organic — also have joined the antilabeling effort, adding millions of dollars to defeat the initiative, known as Proposition 37….The uproar highlights the difference between large organic brands that have driven the double-digit growth of the organic market and the smaller, independent businesses and farms that most shoppers envision when they buy an organic peach or shampoo…Although certified organic products are prohibited by law from containing genetically engineered ingredients, organic companies generally favor the labeling law, contending that consumers have a right to know what is in the products they buy. What is left unsaid is that it may also be a marketing advantage for organic companies, distinguishing them from conventional food producers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/business/california-referendum-pits-organic-brands-against-corporate-parents.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Editorial: Food labeling law leaves a bad taste; No on Prop. 37 [Ventura County Star]

Proposition 37 is a good example of something that doesn't belong on the ballot. It asks voters to pass a state law about labeling foods with ingredients from genetically modified crops. Let's get real: Only a relative handful of voters are in a position to make an informed decision on such a complicated, technical subject. For that reason and more, The Star recommends voting no on Proposition 37 in the Nov. 6 election….Supporters of Proposition 37 claim it would give consumers more information about what they eat and would foster transparency and trust in the food system. We think they're mistaken on both counts. Such a law would create mistrust and confusion about the foods that Californians eat. The Star recommends a no vote on Proposition 37.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/13/editorial-food-labeling-law-leaves-a-bad-taste/?opinion=1

On-farm conservation program moves forward [Imperial Valley Press]

The Imperial Irrigation District is working on contracts that will allow all farmers to move forward with on-farm conservation programs that are mandated by the Quantification Settlement Agreement. On-farm conservation is a crucial component of the QSA, a series of agreements that make up the nation’s largest ag-to-urban water transfer….IID representatives explained how far along they are in clearing the way for tenant farmers to proceed at Thursday’s Water Conservation Advisory Board meeting at IID headquarters. They said the legal review process took longer than expected….Farmers were vocal that time is of the essence, and that they favor short and simple contracts. “We can’t wait around any longer to cover every base,” said Imperial County Farm Bureau President Mark McBroom. “We need to move forward.”

http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/ivp-onfarm-conservation-program-moves-forward-20120913,0,930213.story

Fresno Co. company recalls cantaloupes due to salmonella evidence [Fresno Bee]

A Fresno County produce company is voluntarily recalling 28,000 cartons of cantaloupes after a routine government test found evidence of salmonella contamination. Although no illnesses have been reported, the company, DFI Marketing Inc., is asking consumers to discard the fruit or return it to the store where it was purchased. This is the first recall of California cantaloupe since the industry rolled out its mandatory food safety program in May.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/09/13/2991183/fresno-county-produce-company.html

Lawyers: 'Pink slime' lawsuit an uphill climb [Associated Press]

Beef Products Inc. will face a steep climb in its "pink slime" defamation lawsuit against ABC News as the South Dakota-based meat processor works to rebuild its public image, legal experts say. BPI sued ABC News, Inc. for defamation Thursday over its coverage of a meat product that critics dub "pink slime," claiming the network damaged the company by misleading consumers into believing it is unhealthy and unsafe. The Dakota Dunes, S.D.-based meat processor must prove that the network knowingly published false information and intended to harm its business. A lawyer for BPI expressed confidence that the company would prevail. But defamation- and food-law experts said the case would be difficult to win.

http://santamariatimes.com/news/national/lawyers-pink-slime-lawsuit-an-uphill-climb/article_0784da97-1e78-5c55-804c-14d5f4d60def.html

Ag Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com. Some story links may require site registration. To be removed from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your name and e-mail address.

No comments:

Post a Comment