Friday, April 11, 2008

LBAM Update

On Thursday, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the California Department of Public Health released a study that shows there’s no conclusive link between the Light Brown Apple Moth eradication project and the 643 people that reported symptoms of illness last year when the pheromone, Checkmate, was applied in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Given the controversy that continues to swirl around the LBAM project, this finding by three state agencies that are primarily responsible for protecting public health and safety was extremely important to the future of the eradication project.

When the study was released, Secretary of Food & Agriculture AG Kawamura said, "It’s my hope today’s report will help ease the minds of those concerned about the Light Brown Apple Moth eradication program and open a positive dialogue. I understand the concern and assure Californians that the USDA and CDFA will continue to pursue the safest, most effective and environmentally friendly eradication program in our state’s history. California must lead in solving the Light Brown Apple Moth threat before it crosses borders into other states, agricultural regions and environments. I am committed to continuing an open, transparent process and will continue to encourage public dialogue and the dissemination of factual information about the eradication program. This study serves as a reminder for us to always look to credible sources for information. Unfortunately, we have all heard a significant amount of incorrect information that fills Californians with unwarranted fear, so today, I hope for a renewed openness between CDFA and our communities that will end the spreading of disinformation."

From the Ag Council’s perspective, we still have a long way to go in terms of gaining the public’s acceptance of this controversial, but extremely important eradication project. But, this is really great news!

Diesel Engine Replacement

The Council joined with 76 other agricultural organizations in submitting a written industry response to the proposal by California Air Resources Board (CARB) to require any heavy-duty vehicle with a pre-1998 engine to be replaced or retrofitted with yet-to-be developed technologies by December 31, 2010. Other equipment must meet the following schedule:

• All vehicles with engines manufactured between 1998 and 2002 must be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2011;
   
• All vehicles with 2003/04 engines must be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2012;
   
• All 2005 and newer engines must be retrofitted or replaced by 2013; and
   
• All trucks must meet 2007 emissions standards by the year 2114 and 2010 emission standards by the year 2022.

Given the age and, in many instances, the limited usage of most agricultural vehicles, CARB’s proposal obviously has enormous economic consequences. The statement submitted by the industry offers a number of alternatives relating to low mileage exemptions and financial incentives to allow agriculture to comply in an economically feasible manner. Our biggest challenge relates to the fact most agricultural vehicles have pre-1998 engines, which means they would have to be retrofitted or replaced twice within an eleven year timeframe if CARB’s schedule is adopted as proposed. Meetings have been held with the CARB staff to explain the impact of the replacement schedule on agriculture and seek an alternative schedule which would require only one replacement/retrofit within the same time period. Hopefully, we’ll see something new on this within the next couple of weeks.

Confined Animals

The first ballot measure certified for the November General Election is The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, sponsored by Californians for Humane Farms. If passed, it would prohibit the use of various methods of animal confinement such as veal crates for calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens, and gestation crates for breeding pigs. According to the sponsors, the new law would take effect in 2015 to allow time to transition to more humane and environmentally sustainable systems. They believe that the proposal could affect about 20 million farm animals in California.

Food Safety vs. the Environment

An interesting article in the University of California's California Agriculture journal (April-June 2008) finds that growers of fresh produce on the Central Coast currently face conflicting demands regarding measures to protect food safety and those to protect environmental quality. To explore the extent of conflicting pressures and identify the range of possible impacts on the environment, UC researchers conducted a survey of irrigated-row-crop growers during spring 2007.

They found that 8 percent of 181 growers surveyed had crops rejected by buyers based on the presence of practices to improve water quality and wildlife habitat on the farm. Likewise, 15 percent of the growers (managing some 30,000 acres) had removed or discontinued the use of previously adopted conservation practices, including ponds and reservoirs, irrigation reuse systems and non-crop vegetation buffers, such as grassed waterways, riparian habitat, buffer strips and trees. The results indicate that growers are experiencing a clear conflict and some are incurring economic hardships because their practices to protect the environment have resulted in the rejection of crops by buyers. In addition, some growers are being encouraged to or are actively removing conservation practices for water quality and most growers are taking action to discourage or eliminate wildlife from and adjacent to croplands. These actions could affect large areas of land on the Central Coast and, as indicated by growers, they are likely to increase over time. For full text of the peer-reviewed article, go to http://californiaagriculture.ucop.edu

Food Sheds

The American Farmland Trust has received a grant from the San Francisco Foundation to conduct a feasibility study of the potential of the City of San Francisco to feed itself well and healthily with a minimal impact on the local, regional and global environment. This would be accomplished by increasing the share of its food consumption produced by sustainable farming methods within the Bay Area itself and the immediately surrounding agricultural areas, including the 15 counties within 100 miles of the Golden Gate. The study will examine the current amount and sources of food consumed in the city; the potential of the surrounding area to supply additional high-quality, healthy food to the city; current and possible systems for encouraging the production and purchase of more local food by people and institutions; for assuring that low income consumers can afford it; and the potential conservation of natural resources and energy from greater local food consumption and production. The project is expected to begin in the summer of 2007 and take one year.