Posted on 10/12/2016 10:24:07 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Over the summer, millions of pounds of Michigan tart cherries were dumped on the ground and left to rot, thanks to a federal board. The dumping means fewer tart cherries in stores which means higher prices for consumers. And while American farmers are forced to keep their cherries off the market, some companies end up having to import cherries from other nations.
Photos of some of the dumped cherries went viral. The images troubled many people, who wanted to know why all that fruit was wasted.
The short answer is this: It’s complicated and involves government policies.
The Cherry Industry Administrative Board is given the power by Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to control the prices of tart cherries (though not sweet cherries). It does this by restricting the amount of cherries that are processed and sold to consumers. When there’s a good crop that might drive prices down – a “surplus" in the eyes of the government — the amount of picked cherries that companies can process is limited by a numeric cap. One result is that millions of pounds of cherries rot on the ground. Another outcome is that consumers pay higher prices than they would have had the market been allowed to freely work.
One viral cherry photo was posted by Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci of Santucci Farms in Traverse City. He captioned the photo: “These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14 percent of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right.”
The Cherry Board says that the regulatory regime was set up “to assist the industry in dealing with the erratic production cycle of red tart cherries and to improve returns to the growers and processors of red tart cherries in the United States.”
The dumping and price controls are carried out through a “market order,” which must be approved by producers and the USDA. The stated goal is to “help provide stable markets for dairy products, fruits, vegetables and specialty crops.” The orders are also “tailored to the individual industry’s needs” yet “are a binding regulation for the entire industry in the specified geographical area,” according to the USDA.
After Santucci posted his opinion on social media, the Michigan Farm Bureau said it was ill-informed and left “a trail of destructive misinformation in its wake.”
A press release from the Michigan Farm Bureau said Santucci’s post was poorly informed and implied that Santucci was motivated by “politically charged interest.”
The cherry “surplus” for 2016 was expected to be 101 million pounds, “far too much for the market,” said Perry Hedin, executive director of the Cherry Board, in a press release. Because of the good harvest, the cherry marketing order required processors to keep 29 percent of the crop off the North American market.
The Cherry Board is made up of representatives of farmers and processors from seven states that are subject to the order. The representatives make industry decisions and send recommendations to the USDA, which then adopts or rejects the recommendations. In the 1990s, the marketing order was created by the USDA at the behest of the tart cherry industry. Every six years, the industry holds a referendum on continuing the marketing order; the last vote was in March 2014.
Although both farmers and processors have a say with the Cherry Board, the marketing order’s regulations only apply to processors (also called handlers) who prepare and can harvested tart cherries.
If processors cannot hold excess tart cherries in reserves or send them to alternative outlets, they can ask farmers not to deliver the cherries for processing. That leaves the farmers with cherries that spoil easily if they’re not processed. When processors won't take cherries, farmers like Santucci often end up dumping them, something the Cherry Board calls “in-orchard diversions.”
In his viral post, Santucci said that he knew people who would buy the discarded cherries if he could sell them. He also said, “Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries.”
But Hedin disputes that contention, saying farmers can donate excess cherries.
“While it may be convenient to assert that growers cannot donate the surplus cherries, that simply is not the case,” he said. “There is a process by which surplus, aka excess, tart cherries can be donated to charitable organizations. Under the procedures of the order, growers can, in fact, arrange for their excess tart cherries to be donated to such charities.”
Those cherries must be processed before they are donated, according to Hedin.
In an email to growers and processors, Hedin asked rhetorically if some people in the industry were mad because “growers have been misled by other growers into believing that the surplus tart cherries could not be donated to charitable organizations?”
According to the cherry board, Michigan harvested 236.4 million pounds of tart cherries in 2016, accounting for 69 percent of national production. Michigan's cherry growers also diverted 14 million of their tart cherries in 2016, with another 12 million being diverted nationally.
Santucci, in an interview with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the Cherry Board believes that by “limiting the domestic supply of cherries, that will act to support the price of cherries. That could happen in times where there was no international trade of cherries, but given that we have become a major importer of cherries, there is no way that they can support the price without drawing in more imports.”
Santucci added that the program makes it more difficult for U.S. farmers to compete with imported cherries. “Because of our program, we actually make it easier for (Eastern European) cherries to come into the country,” he said. “So what I want to do is either eliminate or at least suspend the program which causes us to dump some of our cherries so we can compete with them with all of our cherries — and they’re going to have to compete on price and quality with us — without one arm tied behind our back.”
Baylen Linnekin, a law professor at George Mason University who has written on the market order for Reason.com, said the Cherry Board should be eliminated.
“The cherry board — as with similar USDA creations that hurt competition, artificially raise prices for consumers, and promote food waste — needs to be eliminated forthwith. Let farmers and consumers and the free market decide how many cherries should be produced each year,” Linnekin said.
But Jeremy Nagel, the spokesman for the Michigan Farm Bureau, said the marketing order garners support from growers and processors.
“Among the hundreds of cherry growers in our membership, some of them support the marketing order and some of them probably don’t,” he said. “That said, the marketing order as it exists today enjoys a comfortable majority of support among the growers and processors who regularly reaffirm its existence.”
It’s not just farmers like Santucci who are unhappy about the marketing order. Bill Sherman, the CEO of Burnette Foods, said the marketing order keeps his business from expanding.
“We want to expand our business and we can’t under these conditions,” he said in an interview with the Mackinac Center. “We can’t sell the cherries produced on the farm that my mother and father bought almost 60 years ago.”
The Elk Rapids food supplier filed a federal lawsuit in 2011 against the USDA — which oversees the Cherry Board — challenging the marketing order and asking to be exempted from its regulations.
Burnette Foods has thousands of cherry pie filling cans stocked in its warehouse that can’t be sold because of the marketing order. Since the company cans its cherries instead of freezing them, the shelf life of its pie filling is only one year. Because of this, the company has to import cherries for its pie fillings, according to a report by Bridge magazine.
“If you're in Michigan and market tart cherries, you basically have no choice but to follow the board's orders even if they make no sense for you or your customers,” Linnekin said, “and even if following the board's mandates creates tons of food waste.”
“They're not seeking to eliminate the board,” Linnekin said of Burnette’s lawsuit. “Rather, Burnette simply seeks an exemption from the board's rules. So even if their lawsuit against the USDA is successful — as it should be — the cherry board would largely continue in a business-as-usual manner.”
Sherman added: “Hopefully some reasonableness will prevail and we can stop the destruction of the crop, they will recognize that imports are a serious problem, and we can all live happily ever after.”
Puzzling that they don’t treat them like government cheese and distribute them to the moochers and the unfortunate.
FDR forced a lot of this type activity during the depression. People were starving and food/animals were withheld from the market & dumped.
Managed markets are always favored by dems and commies.
Sweet cherry growers do just fine in the free market
[Puzzling that they don’t treat them like government cheese and distribute them to the moochers and the unfortunate.]
A friend passed a picture of the lunch that was served to her son at the public high school at our meeting last night. He sends her pictures every day of the c-— they feed him. 300 calories, inedible, and inexcusable.
He’s into sports and was so weak, he had to skip practice.
THIS is a campaign issue! Balanced Diet for a Strong Nation
Every Christmas for the last fourteen years have ordered the same items from Cherry Republic in Glen Arbor and they have become pretty standard fare as stocking stuffers for family members.
This summer we received a letter from them highlighting all the various liberal causes they are “pleased to be able to contribute to”. Made me angry and very sad to ask them to take me off their mailing list. Just don’t understand why companies choose to get involved in the political arena or if they get involved why they advertise their donations.
Now it looks like they have more problems. Interesting.
If you like your cherries you can keep your cherries. But what is really important is some AA loser, who is unemployable anywhere else, can keep her job in DC.
Most people, moochers or not, wouldn’t know what to do with a tart cherry if they had one. It takes skill to make a cherry pie.
(Billy Boy, Billy Boy . . .)
The Republican-controlled congress cna authorized the forced dumping of cherries, but they won’t impeach Traitorobama and his kakistocrats.
No wonder Congress is rightly referred to as Traitorcongress. May the great-great grandchildren of the members of Traitorcongress still spit on their graves.
These USDA “marketing orders” are a remnant of one of FDR’s many statist, failed, economic and social-engineering projects, which is all approved as a valid Constitutional activity of Fed.gov by the universally misrepresented “interstate commerce clause.”
Hey, you're showing our age, since we both know that's not a reference to the serial rapist!
Somewhat related:
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/15ef836
...WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2016 –
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced plans to purchase approximately 11 million pounds of cheese from private inventories to assist food banks and pantries across the nation, while reducing a cheese surplus that is at its highest level in 30 years.
The purchase, valued at $20 million, will be provided to families in need across the country through USDA nutrition assistance programs, while assisting the stalled marketplace for dairy producers whose revenues have dropped 35 percent over the past two years...
Cannot leave her mother....
The cherry farmers need Congress to force gas companies to use cherry ethanol as fuel. (I wish that was sarcasm)
Indeed. That subject was the source of the only harsh words I received from my FIL. He was lauding FDR and how he cared about the people having enough to eat, when I asked him how forcing dairy farmers to pour milk into the ditches and forcing pork farmers to slaughter and burn their hogs contributed to that. Good memories...
The tart pie cherry market has a limited demand; people only eat so much per year. Growers will deliberately leave millions of pounds on the trees in order to not crash the price.
If we all ate more cherry pie, the problem would be solved
The free market would actually take care of a surplus if the government would stay out of it. When prices drop, cherry farmers start growing something else and the market remains stable without waste and manipulation.
It’s really very simple. It’s not the way of centralized governmental control, but it’s simple and effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.