Farm Bureau Policies 2022 use extreme caution if asked to share any researchand technology developed for the advancement of American agriculture. Foreign countries should be encouraged to participate in funding of re- search projects on new technology and intellectual property. Governmentsmustwork cooperatively andvigorously toensure enforcement of intellectual property laws and protection of trade- mark rights. The U.S. government should aggressively defend U.S. brandproducts in foreignmarketswhen trademarksnd intellectual property laws are violated. Foreign Aid
agricultural commodities. Efforts directed toward eliminating or unreasonably restricting their usemust be vigorously opposed. The following philosophies shouldbe recognizedby future leg- islative and administrative action: (1) Present restrictions, the seemingly endless paperwork re- quired for pesticide applications and reduced farm profits are a burden and are a discouragement to producers. Current restric- tions providemore than adequate protection; (2) Pesticide regulations regarding on-farm and forestry us- age should be promulgated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and enforced only through the county agricultural commissioner; (3) While we recognize the state’s responsibility to ensure the health and safety of its citizens, we urge the state to accept federal registration of pesticides. Any failure to accept anEPA registration of a pesticide must be based on verified evidence that its use is unsafe. California agriculture must be permitted to compete on an even basis with other agricultural state or country producers for all markets; (4) Restrictions deemednecessary byCalifornia to insure a safe food supply for consumersmust bemet by every agricultural com- modity brought into this state; (5) The timeliness of pesticide use is critical to the production and protection of agricultural commodities. Delays in pesticide applications may result in drastic losses and additional costs, to both producers and consumers and increased pesticide usage; (6) While the public welfare is the primary consideration, rea- sonable and practical environmental review is prudent and ap- propriate. Individual pesticide applicationsmust usually bemade on short notice, whichmakes impractical anything inexcess of the present 24-hour notice-of-intent period—even in sensitive areas; (7)We support reducingpesticide risks anddangerswhere they actually exist. Our technological ability todetect aminute amount of a chemical sometimes exceeds our ability todetermine the risk. Public policy should be based on the risk presented, not the fact some amount was detected. Posting warning of pesticide danger should be required only while the danger exists; (8) Appropriate penalties should be promptly and consistently appliedwhenpesticides aremisused so as to cause public or envi- ronmental injury or unsafe levels of pesticide residue inharvested crops. There should also be appropriate penalties levied against anyonemaking unjustified claims as to the injurious effect of any substance used in agriculture; (9)Theprocedure forpre-marketingclearancesof newproducts shouldbeexpeditedwhenpublichealth/safetyarenot jeopardized; (10) We urge that chemicals cleared for specialty crop ap- plication be additionally registered, with agreement of the manufacturer, for like applications on similar crops. Likewise, with agreement of the manufacturer, chemicals registered for application on edible foods be additionally registered for like applications on the same crop when grown for non-food uses and other non-food crops; (11) Availability of minor crop use pesticide programs should be ensured through the use of expanded Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4) activities, tax credits to registrants whomaintain these uses and reduced third-party registration liability; (12) Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and users of chemi- cals approved for commercial sale anduse shouldbe allowed rea- sonable time to sell or utilize their inventories when approval of a chemical is withdrawn. If reasonable time is not granted, they shouldbe compensated for losses incurred as a result of lost value in crops, and/or food and crop inventories, or unusable or unsal- able chemical inventories; (13) Pesticide containersmust be standardized for use inclosed mixing systems; (14) We encourage development and use of reusable and recy- clable containers for pesticide handling; (15) Research on integrated pest management (IPM) with em- phasis oncropquality and lower unit productioncosts, as opposed to simply keeping insect populations down, should be supported. Useful information gained should be promptly disseminated to thosewhomay be able to use it. Research should be supported by public funds when private support is impractical. An increased level of research is needed todevelop themore sophisticated tech- niques andmaterials; (16) There shouldbeno retroactive liability for propertyowners, farmers, or their agents for chemical applications made in accor- dance with laws in effect at the time of application; and (17)We support the research, development, and registration of multipleproducts and remedies for pest eradicationandmanage- ment for all commodities. (Rev. 2008) No. 252 California Pesticide Program (1) When considering the economic impacts for review of a Section 18, the Department of Pesticide Regulation should
consider economics on a regional basis instead of on a state- wide basis. (2) TheDepartment of PesticideRegulation should continue to streamline the Section 18 process when utilizing federal residue tolerance levels. (3)Whenregisteringnewproducts inCalifornia, theDepartment of Pesticide Regulation should consider residue testing data from other states in its reviewprocess. (4) Budgetary increases for the Department of Pesticide Regulationshouldnot becontemplatedunless supportedbywork- flow analysis data and consultationwith the agricultural commu- nity, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, applicators, licensees, registrants, and dealers. (02/Rev. 2022) No. 253 Pesticide Mill Assessment A fair and uniform pesticide mill assessment should ensure a viable and efficient regulatory program that falls within the scope of the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s statutes and regulations. Such a program should ensure that new crop pro- tection tools are made available to California growers as soon as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The pesticide mill assessment rate should not prohibit growers’ ac- cess to or serve to eliminate availability of existing products, or disincentivize the introduction of new products into California. The program should also have the goal of reducing costs of state regulation, including the elimination of redundant registra- tion requirements and enforcement articles. Revenues from the pesticide mill assessment should be prioritized for county agricultural commissioners. We support the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s ongoing review and reporting of its activities. (09/Rev. 2022) No. 254 Food Quality Protection Act All legislation that requires review of chemical exposure risks must incorporate the following elements: (1) Ample time for data collection, including use pattern, ap- plication rates, and other relevant exposure information; (2) Allow for minor crop uses; (3) Top priority for streamlining the Section 18 registration process so products are quickly and readily available for emer- gency use; (4) Incentives for registrants to register new products and re- duced-risk products for minor crop food and non-food uses; (5) The grower communitymust be consulted prior to the can- cellation of chemicals used in agriculture. We are opposed to the cancellation of chemicals until economical and effective alterna- tives are available; and (6) Actual use data should be used for re-registration in areas that have agricultural use reporting. Realisticuse estimates should be employedwhere actual use data are unavailable. USDAmust be an active partner in the regulation of chemicals in agriculture. USDAmust be encouraged to continueworking as anadvocate for farmers by collecting anddisseminating essential chemical use and residue information, especially for the “minor” crops, both food and non-food. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and other advanced crop protection techniques help to reduce overall chemical use. IPM programs are weakened when chemicals that target specific pests are lost. The EPA and USDA should consider the impact on IPM programs when deciding to re-register a product for agricultural use. Registrationof additionalmaterials to control a pest shouldnot be denied on the basis that another chemical is already registered for that purpose. Researchmust bepromoted that accurately identifies exposure risks to consumers of food and horticultural products. Implementation of chemical regulationsmust rely on accurate and adequate scientific data which precisely quantify both the risk exposure levels and the benefits of agricultural products. New regulations must not be implemented until all available scientific information and use data are collected and evaluated. Any statu- tory deadlines deemed unreasonablemust be changed. We support legislative solutions to ensure availability of mi- nor crop use pesticides. These solutions shall include, but not be limited to, expanded IR-4 activities, tax credits to registrants who maintain these uses, and reduced third party registration liability. (Rev. 2001) No. 255 Disposal of Toxic Chemicals We support thedevelopment of aprogramtopool small quanti- ties of abandoned or unusable agricultural chemicals in order to achieve safe, economical disposal of these chemicals. (1990)
Foreignaidprograms shouldnot requiredonor nations toassist on a “cash only” basis. Participating nations should be permitted to make all or part of their contributions as commodities and/or other commitments. (00/Rev. 2020) No. 208 Concentration in Food Processing, Distribution, Marketing and Retail Industries Concentration among food processors, distributors, marketers and retailers works to the disadvantage of agricultural producers andgrowers. Anti-trust legislationand thePackers andStockyards Act shouldbe strictly enforced to ensure fair prices for agricultural products in state, national, and international markets. We support legislation to: (1) Create an agricultural unit within the U.S. Department of Justice to address concentration in the agricultural industry; (2) Provideadditional fundingandguidance toensureadequate enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act; (3) Reduce the obstacles and develop programs to encourage vertical integration by producers; (4) Prohibit the use of slotting fees; (5) Overturn the Illinois Brick case ruling to allow farmers indi- rectly impacted by unfair marketing practices to be compensated for monopolistic practices; and (6) Prohibit packer ownership of livestock for more than 7 to 14 days prior to harvest except for cooperatives or packers who process less than five percent of the total U.S. production for that commodity. In implementing this program, USDAshouldprovide sufficient time tophase-in thesenewrequirements. (96/Rev. 2016) No. 209 Federally Inspected Meat Processing Facilities Toencouragediversity of harvest andpacking facilities, we sup- port and encourage: (1) Streamlining the permitting process for harvest and pack- ing facilities; (2)Livestockproducerstoutilizelocalharvestandpackingfacilities; (3) Legislation that provides economic and regulatory relief to harvest and packing facilities; (4) Further development and constructionof harvest andpack- ing facilities; (5) Consistent and reliable availability of USDA inspectors for existing and newharvest and packing facilities; and (6) Research that adds value andmarketability of local harvest and packing facility products. Weencourageacooperativeapproachtoproducer-packerrelation- ships inorder toensuretheviabilityof livestockproducers. (Rev.2016) No. 210 Contract Marketing The marketing of California agricultural products in advance of production through the use of marketing contracts or hedging should be encouraged. No. 211 Direct Marketing We support the concept of directmarketing, a process inwhich a producer sells directly to the consumer. Producers should be the primary sponsors and promoters of directmarketingprograms. Government should serve as a catalyst in developing direct marketing. Outdoor Advertising Local, stateandfederal governmentsshouldworkwithproducers inallowingplacementof signsoncounty, stateandfederalhighways to facilitate the directmarketing of farmcommodities. (Rev. 1986)
Predator, Pest and Pesticide
No. 251 Pesticide Management
Pesticides are important agricultural production tools. They are necessary for the production and delivery of a reliable, high- quality supply of safe, nourishing, and affordably priced food and
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 19
Powered by FlippingBook