USDA delays Canadian quarantine inspections until June 1
USDA delays Canadian quarantine inspections until June 1
WASHINGTON -- New quarantine inspections and fees for U.S.-bound fruits and vegetables transported by truck and rail from Canada are being delayed until June 1 while U.S. and Canadian officials work out details of the controversial plan.
U.S. officials, who have been in talks with Canadian officials, needed more time to conclude these discussions for trucks and rail shipments, said Melissa O'Dell, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service.
The new user fees went into effect March 1 for shipments by air and sea because there were no feasible cost alternatives, she said.
The Canadian Truck Alliance praised the latest delay, hoping the plan would not double the fees charged by trucks entering the United States, as laid out in USDA's August 2006 rule.
"I'm pleased that the U.S. has taken this step. I think it validates what CTA and many other business groups in Canada and the United States have been saying for some time - that the plan to introduce this program on the Canada-U.S. border was conceived without adequate consultation and needs to be re-thought," said David Bradley, head of the Canadian trucking group.
U.S. officials decided to extend quarantine procedures to Canadian shipments to prevent plant and animal pests from affecting the U.S. producers and charge fees that will help cover the new inspection costs.
Removing pest and disease inspectors from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and returning them to the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be part of the EAT Health America Act, which will be introduced this month by U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA).
The bill, a wish list for specialty crop growers, reflects growing concerns about the adequacy of pest inspections since the 1,800 agricultural inspectors were transferred from APHIS to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.
A recent General Accounting Office investigation found that more than 50 percent of the Customs inspectors surveyed said they were doing fewer inspections and 60 percent responded they were doing fewer interceptions.
A new report says that specialty crop producers are likely to take a $3 billion hit if the U.S. government lifts 10-year-old planting restrictions for USDA- subsidized farmers.
USDA officials have proposed removing planting restrictions on traditional program crops to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling.
But a new report by Informa Economics Inc. analyzed the effect of removing planting restrictions and estimated that it would come at a high price for specialty-crop growers.
"It is clear that a larger supply without a corresponding increase in demand will lead to dramatically lower prices - and a direct reduction in revenues of existing specialty crop producers," John Keeling, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Potato Council, and co-chair of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, said in a statement.
The biggest jump in acreage would occur in California, as more than 230,000 acres -- mainly from cotton and rice -- are likely to shift to specialty crops, the report said.
Along with potatoes, crops that could increase 10 percent or more in acreage are peas, pears, sweet corn, apples, onions, cabbage, snap beans, berries, cherries, pumpkins, asparagus, cucumbers and squash.
"The planting flexibility policy has critical implications for existing fruit and vegetable producers, and the entire specialty crop industry," said Mr. Keeling. "The entry of new acres of specialty-crop production on program acres receiving a federal payment will undermine the supply demand balance for specialty crops where growers receive no support and are unable to store their products for extended time periods," he said.
A recent report by the California Polytechnic State University estimated that crop prices would drop by $1.3 billion during the first year but adjust during subsequent years.
Specialty crops represent a $50 billion industry, so it must be put in perspective, said Jay Noel, director of the California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
But it won't take much for major changes to have an impact on these businesses, he added.
U.S. officials, who have been in talks with Canadian officials, needed more time to conclude these discussions for trucks and rail shipments, said Melissa O'Dell, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service.
The new user fees went into effect March 1 for shipments by air and sea because there were no feasible cost alternatives, she said.
The Canadian Truck Alliance praised the latest delay, hoping the plan would not double the fees charged by trucks entering the United States, as laid out in USDA's August 2006 rule.
"I'm pleased that the U.S. has taken this step. I think it validates what CTA and many other business groups in Canada and the United States have been saying for some time - that the plan to introduce this program on the Canada-U.S. border was conceived without adequate consultation and needs to be re-thought," said David Bradley, head of the Canadian trucking group.
U.S. officials decided to extend quarantine procedures to Canadian shipments to prevent plant and animal pests from affecting the U.S. producers and charge fees that will help cover the new inspection costs.
Removing pest and disease inspectors from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and returning them to the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be part of the EAT Health America Act, which will be introduced this month by U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA).
The bill, a wish list for specialty crop growers, reflects growing concerns about the adequacy of pest inspections since the 1,800 agricultural inspectors were transferred from APHIS to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.
A recent General Accounting Office investigation found that more than 50 percent of the Customs inspectors surveyed said they were doing fewer inspections and 60 percent responded they were doing fewer interceptions.
A new report says that specialty crop producers are likely to take a $3 billion hit if the U.S. government lifts 10-year-old planting restrictions for USDA- subsidized farmers.
USDA officials have proposed removing planting restrictions on traditional program crops to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling.
But a new report by Informa Economics Inc. analyzed the effect of removing planting restrictions and estimated that it would come at a high price for specialty-crop growers.
"It is clear that a larger supply without a corresponding increase in demand will lead to dramatically lower prices - and a direct reduction in revenues of existing specialty crop producers," John Keeling, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Potato Council, and co-chair of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, said in a statement.
The biggest jump in acreage would occur in California, as more than 230,000 acres -- mainly from cotton and rice -- are likely to shift to specialty crops, the report said.
Along with potatoes, crops that could increase 10 percent or more in acreage are peas, pears, sweet corn, apples, onions, cabbage, snap beans, berries, cherries, pumpkins, asparagus, cucumbers and squash.
"The planting flexibility policy has critical implications for existing fruit and vegetable producers, and the entire specialty crop industry," said Mr. Keeling. "The entry of new acres of specialty-crop production on program acres receiving a federal payment will undermine the supply demand balance for specialty crops where growers receive no support and are unable to store their products for extended time periods," he said.
A recent report by the California Polytechnic State University estimated that crop prices would drop by $1.3 billion during the first year but adjust during subsequent years.
Specialty crops represent a $50 billion industry, so it must be put in perspective, said Jay Noel, director of the California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
But it won't take much for major changes to have an impact on these businesses, he added.
