While a change in the majority in the House of Representatives along with a new speaker has put a different face on the 112th Congress, the impact it might ultimately have for agriculutre could emerge from subtler factors. Scott Shearer, vice president of the Bockorny Group, a leading bipartisan government affairs consulting firm in Washington, D.C., described the last general election as historic with its huge turnover of legislators: 96 freshmen representatives were sworn into the House and 16 to the Senate. But just because many of the new legislators are Republicans from agricultural states, agribusiness shouldn't be looking for automatic guarantees or favorable legislation to come its way. For one thing, redistricting in many states has resulted in representation of agriculutral regions by lawmakers with no direct connection to farming, ranching and food animal production. There are 23 new members on the House Ag Committee, and 60 percent of the current committee did not serve on it during the 2008 Farm Bill discussion.
As he addressed attendees at the February meeting of the Agriculture Business Council of Kansas City, Shearer implied agriculture could find itself on the backburner as Congress focuses on righting the economy and prioritizes foreign policy, health care, trade and oversight/government regulations ahead of ag issues. This latter concern, however, might be a bright spot for agriculture. With more Republicans in the House, he indicated there could be aggressive hearings on how regulations are hurting the economy and causing job losses. Shearer mentioned EPA's Lisa Jackson might want to get a permanent place on the Hill, since she could be spending a lot of time there answering questions.
Uppermost on the minds of the lawmakers involved in the 2012 Farm Bill is the regular list of aggie issues: input costs, commodities (acreage, yields, prices), dairy, crop insurance, CRP, as well as livestock issues of export competition, animal welfare, food safety and anitbiotics. As for anitbiotics, he noted, the issue has been around for ten years and won't be going away soon. But with the turnover in Congress bringing in more representatives who are unfamiliar with animal agriculture but are weighing in on the issue of whether anitbiotics should be given to food animals as preventative health care could be a problem for the industry.
Proponents of antibiotic use in food animals argue the meds prevent animal disease that could be transported to humans as food-borne diseases. When antibiotics are routinely given to food animals they generally are healthier overall, and because of that they grow larger faster.Opponents fear the anitbiotics given to food animals are done so only to promote faster growth (and earlier entry to the market at higher weights, which translates to higher prices). When the meat is consumed by humans, says the anti-antibiotic crowd, their systems can build up resistance to antibiotics which may be called on at some time to combat a disease the person has contracted. So far, the science has come down in favor of food animal producers who use antibiotics to keep their animals healthy. But public sentiment has been roused by anti-agriculture forces who argue that the distant, faint potential of developing resistance to life saving, healing antibiotics is more dangerous than the probability of coming down with a food borne disease carried by a sick animal that went untreated by antibiotics.
Under the weight of the negative press about agricultural practices and the proliferation of anti-agriculture ballot inititatives sponsored by animal rights and so-called consumer advocates, agribusiness has taken an image beating in the last couple of years. But the farmers are fighting back, finally, with campaigns organized by agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and groups like the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance which has organized more than 20 separate ag associations to show how farmers have been practicing responsible land stewardship, conservation and animal care long before "sustainability" became a regular but misinterpreted term in the lexicon of the environmental movement. For more information go to: www.usfraonline.org
.
As he addressed attendees at the February meeting of the Agriculture Business Council of Kansas City, Shearer implied agriculture could find itself on the backburner as Congress focuses on righting the economy and prioritizes foreign policy, health care, trade and oversight/government regulations ahead of ag issues. This latter concern, however, might be a bright spot for agriculture. With more Republicans in the House, he indicated there could be aggressive hearings on how regulations are hurting the economy and causing job losses. Shearer mentioned EPA's Lisa Jackson might want to get a permanent place on the Hill, since she could be spending a lot of time there answering questions.
Uppermost on the minds of the lawmakers involved in the 2012 Farm Bill is the regular list of aggie issues: input costs, commodities (acreage, yields, prices), dairy, crop insurance, CRP, as well as livestock issues of export competition, animal welfare, food safety and anitbiotics. As for anitbiotics, he noted, the issue has been around for ten years and won't be going away soon. But with the turnover in Congress bringing in more representatives who are unfamiliar with animal agriculture but are weighing in on the issue of whether anitbiotics should be given to food animals as preventative health care could be a problem for the industry.
Proponents of antibiotic use in food animals argue the meds prevent animal disease that could be transported to humans as food-borne diseases. When antibiotics are routinely given to food animals they generally are healthier overall, and because of that they grow larger faster.Opponents fear the anitbiotics given to food animals are done so only to promote faster growth (and earlier entry to the market at higher weights, which translates to higher prices). When the meat is consumed by humans, says the anti-antibiotic crowd, their systems can build up resistance to antibiotics which may be called on at some time to combat a disease the person has contracted. So far, the science has come down in favor of food animal producers who use antibiotics to keep their animals healthy. But public sentiment has been roused by anti-agriculture forces who argue that the distant, faint potential of developing resistance to life saving, healing antibiotics is more dangerous than the probability of coming down with a food borne disease carried by a sick animal that went untreated by antibiotics.
Under the weight of the negative press about agricultural practices and the proliferation of anti-agriculture ballot inititatives sponsored by animal rights and so-called consumer advocates, agribusiness has taken an image beating in the last couple of years. But the farmers are fighting back, finally, with campaigns organized by agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and groups like the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance which has organized more than 20 separate ag associations to show how farmers have been practicing responsible land stewardship, conservation and animal care long before "sustainability" became a regular but misinterpreted term in the lexicon of the environmental movement. For more information go to: www.usfraonline.org
.
RSS Feed
