Dear Editor,

On Jan. 8, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue presented President Trump with Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. This report focused on rural America in general.

To the extent that agriculture was mentioned, the Task Force put forth five main objectives. The first being e-connectivity. U.S. population is estimated to grow to 400 million by 2050.

“To supply this number of people with food, American farms need reliable, real-time internet connectivity to oversee operations in the fields, manage finances, and respond to international market conditions,” the report said. “To match world food demand, innovative technologies such as precision agriculture can insure American farms reach the necessary levels of productivity. Such methods require every part of the farm be connected to the World Wide Web, not just the farmhouse.”

What about traditional, family farms? Are they necessary? Is not “overproduction” the constant excuse for low farm prices?

The Task Force report said that “Precision Agriculture Technologies ... could mean the difference between success and failure.” It seems like “over production” and rock-bottom farm prices are the real goal.

The second ag-related objective is to insure access to lawful agricultural work force, with the goal to implement policy and regulatory change to improve the H-2A visa program to facilitate more H-2A work visas. The Task Force does not value the incredible farm raised talent of both young farmers and older farmers who have been and are being forced off the farm because of low prices.

The third main Task Force objective is to expand technological innovation especially biotechnology. “On the biotechnology front, better coordination of the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration, regulations on genetic modifications of crop, and livestock, is needed to reduce barriers to commercialization of safe, beneficial, and improved genetically engineered entities.”

Certainly the rails are well greased, with a large revolving door, between the regulatory agencies and biotech firms. The goal of the Task Force is to “increase public acceptance of biotech products” both domestically and world-wide.

Of course, no mention is made of consumer choice, or labeling, on the domestic front. Considerable space is devoted to the advancement of biotechnology. This does not bode well for skeptics and those who want a choice in the food they eat.

The fourth major ag objective is to expand export markets. This claim, that exports will boost farm income, is at least 45 years old, and the results on farm income have not been all that positive.

The fifth major ag objective is to increase access to capital. What good is that without a fair price and the ability to pay back loans?

In summary, the Task Force report does not mention farm price or consumer choice, but does promote policies which will likely accelerate the loss of family farms and the consolidation of the control of our food supply.

Gerald Carlin

Meshoppen, Penn.

Milk prices to farmers deplorable

After consultation with government and industry personnel, it’s very clear that milk prices paid to dairy farmers in 2018 still will not be pretty. The price in Federal Order No. 1 could average between $16.40 per cwt. and $16.60 per cwt. for this year. This is deplorable, and this time, something must be done.

What happens to dairy farmers in Federal Order No. 1 will also happen all across the United States. These prices should not be happening, and action must be taken to soften this blow to all dairy farmers, and I don’t mean tinkering with the ill-fated Margin Insurance Program.

Does anyone remember the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act that was introduced by the late Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-Penn.)? Many politicians and dairy farmers turned their heads away from this proposal. If it had been passed, the chances are that the present mess that dairy farmers are facing could have been avoided.

At a listening session conducted by Pennsylvania Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Penn.) and several other U.S. Congressmen, no one less than Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.) admitted that he worked with the National Milk Producers Assoc. in developing the Margin Insurance Program, and Congressman Peterson admitted that program failed.

If anyone can remember, I wrote several editorials predicting the Margin Insurance Program would turn out to be a failure, and it did.

Maybe it’s time for Congressman Peterson and other elected officials to listen to some other people besides always depending on National Milk and IDFA.

Pro-Ag and other people are proposing temporary solutions to the dairy farmers’ crisis until either Congress or the USDA can come up with a feasible pricing system that would allow dairy farmers an opportunity to cover their cost of production.

Certainly Congress has the ability and responsibility to either peg the Class I price to a level of at least $20 per cwt. or, more feasible, place a floor price under all milk used for manufacturing dairy products, which would also raise the Class I price.

These actions would stabilize prices paid to dairy farmers.

Arden Tewksbury

Meshoppen, Penn.