Commentary

Why you should care about the CMC amendment sub-committee

by Hal Brown, Editor
www.cranberrystressline.com

11/15/00 The Cranberry Marketing Committee (CMC) is still operating under rules promulgated thirty years ago. A  controversial cranberry marketing order was approved this year barely in time for growers to make cultivation decisions. Many growers already have wasted time and money on bogs they are now about to take out of production for the year. It is likely that there will be another marketing order next year, and for several years, until the supply/demand equation is in balance. 

With little fanfare the CMC's amendment sub-committee, established to study its governing rules and bring them up to date, was held in Warwick, Rhode Island on July 14, 2000. It proved to be a full day long working session that ended with a clear consensus among members that two or three more meetings would be needed to hammer out a revised set of the rules to present to the CMC at its next full meeting at the end of August. 

These rules are vital to you, the cranberry grower, and to the entire cranberry industry. They will dictate how marketing orders (if approved) for 2001, 2002 and beyond will be implemented. 

The amendment sub-committee is composed of representatives from the Cranberry Marketing Committee, the USDA, handlers, and growers (membership and attendees at meeting). Some of the issues they discussed in this meeting, which if they make it into the final draft for the rule changes will be taken to the entire Cranberry Marketing Committee in August are:

• ...taking poor bogs out of production and replanting a cultivar for specific benefits, and having the sales history for the renovated bogs set at the same sales history ramp-up used in British Columbia, which is 80 - 130 - 180 - 230 barrels each subsequent year. This could be the same ramp-up used for new acreage.  In this way, rather than flooding out acreage you can attempt to meet your quota while at the same time taking steps to improve your efficiencies.

• ...that the dates for various deadlines that will be incorporated into the new rules to assure that parties who disagree will reach a consensus early enough each season so growers can make decisions about their crop. It was proposed that the CMC decide whether to ask for a marketing order by March 1st each year, or default in favor of no order. 

• ...the possibility that instead of a state average used to calculate sales history for new acreage, a national average be used. The argument for this is that the same variety should have the same production potential no matter which state it's planted in.

• ...whether steps should be taken to assure that adulterated or counterfeit cranberries can't be imported from other countries. John Decas pointed out that European countries could flood the American market with cranberry blends with added aronia and lingonberry  Apparently there was an influx of these products in the mid-1990's. Ken Beebe noted that Ocean Spray provided training to the U.S. Customs Service on how to recognize these products to little avail.

• ...that under a marketing order, growers be allowed to innovate. David Mann presented a case to the sub-committee that a grower with an idea for a new product that wouldn't compete in existing markets, be able to submit the idea to the CMC for authorization of an exemption to produce and sell that product.

• ...that under a marketing order a handler be allowed to buy back a small percentage (2-4%) of his own berries rather than purchasing a competitor's fruit through the CMC.

• ...that language be incorporated into the rules to assure that in the future the CMC is more proactive. It was pointed out that the CMC should not only anticipate and interpret trends, but should take action to head off surplus problems before they get out of control.

The Cranberry Marketing Committee is the closest thing that the cranberry industry has to as national governing body. Its membership includes representatives of all handlers and one public member. While it operates under the USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture, when it does its homework and reaches a consensus the decisions that require government authorization are likely to be approved. Like the state growers' associations, it is supposed to do what is best for the entire industry. But unlike the growers' associations, it is not funded by handlers and growers. It is also a governmental body where competitive rivalries are kept in check by the CMC manager, David Farrimond, and other USDA officials out of Washington. 

While growers are working their bogs this summer, the amendment sub-committee will be busy acting on their behalf trying to devise the most equitable and efficient rules to present to the full CMC in late August. Independent growers will need to count on their elected members on the CMC to represent their interests, and Ocean Spray growers have to rely on their appointed members to represent them. Both groups hopefully recognize the need for the one public member, Ed Jesse, to provide nonpartisan representation.

With a marketing order in place, the CMC is being observed closely by USDA officials in Washington who have not, like David Farrimond, been surrounded by the conflicts between the Independents vs. Ocean Spray. With Anne Dec and Kathy Finn, two politically savvy USDA officials who don't have to deal with handlers on a day-to-day basis present, there is an unspoken understanding that self-serving arguing will be looked upon kindly. In fact, the few times that this occurred during the July 14th meeting, Dec and Finn responded with unconcealed bemusement. My sense was that the message they conveyed was to "stop bickering and get on with business." Of course, with them present,  the amendment subcommittee is able to get most statutory and other technical questions answered immediately. 

The CMC amendment sub-committee meetings are open to you. Since there wasn't much notice prior to this meeting, it is understandable that only three people not on the sub-committee attended. The next meeting will be on Friday, July 28 at one of the T.F. Green Airport hotels in Warwick, R.I.** 

Home

* All of these are initial proposals which will be discussed in subsequent sub-committee meetings, and by the full CMC, before they move through the process of becoming part of the rules.

** Most of the members are from Massachusetts, and there are inexpensive connections between Washington and Green Airport, so although travel from Wisconsin to Green is, unfortunately, expensive, overall the Rhode Island location is less costly than alternatives.