Farm Bureau Policies 2022
No. 256 Chemical Use We believe in developing laws and regulations concerning chemical use, emphasis should be placed on: (1) Encouraging thedevelopment anduse of products for effec- tive and economic pest control strategies; (2) Development and use of chemical pest control strategies and cropping systems that minimize the use of pesticides and the build-up of pest resistance; (3) Finding the relationshipbetween the effects of chemicals on animals, bees, and their effects on humans; (4) Ensuring that only safemethods areused inchemicalmanu- facture, transportation, handling, use andwaste disposal; (5) Ensuring that theuseof treatedseeds bebasedupon thebest available peer-reviewed science; (6) Coordination between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) andCaliforniaDepartment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to establish tolerance levels for all pesticides to eliminate data gaps; (7) Continuing the education of pest control advisors and ap- plicators in the safe and effective use of pesticides; (8) Educating thepublicabout thebenefits of usingchemicals in the production, delivery and preservation of foods, and the mea- sures employed to insure workers and public safety; (9) Encouraging substantial penalties andprompt enforcement for violation of safe use of chemicals; (10) Requiring all commercial applicators of pesticides, includ- ing lawn care and landscape professionals and all public agencies to report all pesticide use to the proper agency; and (11) Encouraging timely review of registration applications by EPA and DPR, including under EPA’s Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program. Weurge that chemicals registered for applicationonedible food crops be additionally registered, with agreement of the manufac- turer, for like applications on that same cropwhen grown for non- food uses and on other non-food crops. The general public should be subject to the same restrictions and requirements to which agriculture is subject. Agriculture should be able to use the products that agencies are allowed to use. Agencies should be subject to the notification requirements that apply to agriculture. We encourage regulatory agencies to consider availability of economically effective and alternative crop protection tools prior to an agency making a delisting decision or prohibiting usage of any particular pesticide. (86/Rev. 2018) No. 257 Chemical Contaminants Landowners, producers or their lenders shall not be held liable for the cost of chemical contaminant, suchas perchlorate andper- andpolyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), cleanups causedbyactions overwhich theproducer, landowneror lenderhadnomanagement oversight or control of decision-making. We support: (1) Funding for research into the health risks and strategies for mitigating risks associated with chemical contaminants in water and food; and (2)Using thebest available science andappropriate risk assess- ment for the establishment of healthgoals or regulatory standards and recommend that the science and risk assessment used are sound and current. We oppose any legislation or administrative decision that re- leases federal, state and local governments (i.e., the Department ofDefense) and their contractors and subcontractors fromliability associatedwithpollutionofwater, land, livestock, cropsorproducts by such chemical contaminants (2020). No. 258 Laboratory Accreditation Laboratories that independently test agricultural products for pesticide residues should be accredited by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to assure uniform testing procedures. (Rev. 2009) No. 259 Bee Protection We believe that as pesticide regulations are developed, they shouldminimize pesticide hazards to all castes of bees and their developmental stages, while still providing for the necessary ap- plication of pesticides. We support thedevelopment and implementationof bestman- agement practices to protect the health and pollination activities of bees. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in cooperation with county agricultural commissioners, should continue tomaintaina statewide beedisease inspectionprogram.
Livestock Predator Control We support the continuation of the cooperative predatory ani- mal control programs withUSDA as the lead agency. We support legislation to: (1) Maintain the authority of animal damage control in the CaliforniaDepartment of Food andAgriculture (CDFA) under the Division of Animal Health and Food Safety Services; (2) Authorize local agricultural interests todevelopappropriate funding so agricultural interests can fund animal damage control; (3)Authorize the formationof local andstatecommittees for the expenditure of funds and development of policy; (4)Allowinterestedparties suchasAgriculturalCommissioners, state and local healthauthorities, wildlifemanagers, federal agen- cies and other agencies to work cooperatively to strengthen the California Cooperative Animal Damage Control Program; and (5) Include a sunset clause. We support retaining cooperative federal-state fundingof these programs. These programs are essential for public health protec- tion, to protect the interests of agriculture and to assure that the balance of nature amongmuch of our wildlife is not disrupted. We support efforts to reinstate state funding for theseprograms. In addition, we support an increase in the federal funding of the USDAWildlife Service program. Continued research on predator control and suppression is es- sential.We urge that federal funding be provided for researchon a method, suchas radio telemetry, tomake frequent checks on traps set for predators.We support research to identify themost effective predator suppression techniques. Whenever a predator is relocated it should be permanently tagged, branded or otherwise identified, and as prescribed by law for gamemanagement or depredation purposes, the distance which the animal is relocated should be sufficient to prevent re- curring damage.When a secondproblemoccurswith a particular predator it should be dispatched. The necessity for andmethods of predator animal control can- not be judged for each area by using the average conditions over the whole state. Local determinationmust bemade for each area, based on conditions existing in that area. Predators listedunder the federal andstateEndangeredSpecies Acts shouldbemanagedby thewildlifeagencies toprevent impacts to agriculture, and if necessary compensation should be consid- ered. Farmersandranchers shouldhavenon-lethal options todeter listed species fromharming or harassing their livestock. Mountain Lions andWolves USDAWildlife Services and/or California Department of Fish andWildlife personnel should be allowed to issue a depredation permit to take amountain lion or wolf after verifying a confirmed kill or where otherwise appropriate. The California Department of Fish andWildlife in cooperation with landowners shouldprepare andpublisha count ofmountain lions and wolves and their kills and manage the population with theobjectiveof ensuringhumanhealthand safety andminimizing losses to livestock operators. Feral andWild Hogs We believe a farmer or ranchermust be allowed to control crop or rangeland damage or disruption of his operation caused by a feral orwildhogwithout obtaining adepredationpermit fromany government agency. Crop Pest and Disease Control and Eradication We urge the CDFA to retain the primary responsibility for all agricultural pest and disease programs. We strongly support programs, including severe penalties and improveddetectionmethods, toprevent the illegal entryandestab- lishment of agricultural pests intoCalifornia.Whenanewpest that can cause damage to agricultural crops is discovered in the state, the pest should be eradicated. Eradication should be undertaken as swiftly as possible. Exclusion and eradication programs should also include a public information component. Adequate funding should be provided for the National Plant DiagnosticNetwork to allow for continuedhigh-quality and coor- dinatedexpert diagnostic services to growers andplant protection officials in the event of an introduction to theU.S. of an invasive or emerging plant pest, disease, or weed. Pest and disease exclusion is an integral part of our total pest and disease control programs. Effective agricultural inspection sta- tionswhichprotect the entire state are essential to the success of the program. In order tomeet the growing demands formaintaining a healthfulandsafefoodsupplyandpest-freeornamentals,weurgethe CDFAandUSDAtoenhanceborder inspectionsusingbest available technology and effectively trained personnel. This enhancement shouldinclude inspectingpassengeraswell ascommercial vehicles. We support the establishment of aprogramto compensatepro- ducers and states at a fair, local market value for costs incurred by them to quarantine, destroy, or otherwise dispose of plants, plant material or animals when such actions are subsequent to the dis- coveryof aquarantinepest, ordisease,whensuchapest, ordisease,
Exoticbeepests should remainpart of CDFA’s exoticpest detec- tionefforts andbe classifiedonpest detection listswithpermanent detection status. We recommend development of specific domestic (state and federal) quarantineprotocols, for all life stages of thehoney bee, to ensure the protection of U.S. honey bees fromdiseases, pests, and parasites that couldbe introduced into the country accompanying importation of foreign stocks. (Rev. 2016) No. 260 Karnal Bunt Karnal Bunt (KB) is a fungal disease which is known to infect wheat, triticale and durumwheat. It propagates and spreads by means of producing innumerablenumbers ofmicroscopic spores. Thespores caneasilybe transportedonair currents, inwateror soil, or on any commodity, equipment, animal, bird or other object. It is very difficult, if not virtually impossible, to sterilize any but the simplest of facilities or implements. It is absolutely impos- sible to prevent the entry of spores into a field, area or region. It is also impossible to determine that a lot of seed is completely free of KB spores. KB is already known to exist in Mexico and some parts of the United States. Normal weather and other natural activities make certain that spores are being spread to other parts of the U.S. The scient i f ic communi ty, including the Amer ican Phytopathological Society, contends that it is unlikely that the dis- ease could be eradicated from the U.S. Even if it were successfully eradicated, it couldhardlybeprevented fromre-enteringbynatural means. Fortunately, KB is nomore of an agronomic problem than other graindiseasesandposesno threat tohumanor animal health. It is also possible to minimize KB damage by the use of cultural practices, resistant varieties, seed treatments and pesticides. In the interest of maintaining U.S. grain export markets, and of fairness toall domesticwheat producers, it is imperative thatUSDA and thewheat industry cooperate in an all-out effort to gain accep- tance fordesignatingKBasanordinaryplantpest/disease.Thepres- ent zero tolerance on KB spores must be replaced with tolerances based on sound science and appropriate to each segment of the industry, for KB inwheat, wheat products andother commodities. Wheat growing areas should not be subject to quarantine-like designations. Regulations on the movement and use of grain shouldnot be basedon its area of origin, but only on the condition of the grain. The conditionof the grain shouldbe determinedwith standardized tests, applied uniformly in all parts of the U.S. A fair compensationprogramshouldbeused tocompensate the producers, seedsmen, handlers, and others in the wheat industry for the losses they have sustained as a result of official restrictions placedon their ability tomarket,move, handleanduse theirwheat, wheat products andproperty because of the discovery of KB inU.S. wheat. (1997) No. 261 Weed Free Forage and Mulch The Noxious Weed Free Forage andMulch Programunder de- velopment by state and federal agencies should address: (1) Reasonable and flexible certification requirements. Guidelines regarding certification requests, inspections and field removal of foragemust be compatiblewith the pace of forage pro- duction,marketingand the limitedresourcesof countyagricultural commissioners. The programmust maintain flexibility to work in special situations suchas drought, fire andother unique cases (i.e., Point Reyes National Seashore); (2)Ashared responsibility inweedmanagement. Agriculturists, all government agencies, landholders,managers, railroads, public utilities and the public must all address various means of weed control for the program to be an integrated approach; (3) Inspectionandcertificationcosts. Producers shouldnot have to bear burdensome fees; (4) Preferredmethodof identification shouldbe a reproducible paper certificate. The certificate should contain, at a minimum, material description, county of origin, grower information and broker information; (5) Increaseawareness ofweed spread. Educationandoutreach efforts should be directed at agriculturists, government agencies, and the public; and (6) Ameans of evaluating the success or failure of the program every three years. No. 262 Predator and Pest Programs Predator Control We support the use of traps, aircraft and othermeans to protect livestock and crops from loss and damage. We oppose all further restrictions in animal damage control. Any pest or predator eradication effort must be founded upon a sound technical basis.
20 Ag Alert January 26, 2022
Powered by FlippingBook