Editorial

Was it a clarification or a new vote

3/8/01 A quick read about the Monday "clarification" might suggest that it wasn't much different from Sunday's vote. But there may be more here than meets the eye.  

Was the vote on Monday a simple clarification, or was it a whole new vote for a different regulation? 5.0 MB certainly looked bad for Ocean Spray whose representative made the motion, since they had already offered 4.8, by a motion of the same representative, at a previous meeting. Growers wondered what happened to the 200,000 barrels. The numbers debated at the subcommittee meetings were between 4.0 and 4.8., then suddenly 5.0 was proposed as a result of the handler meetings.

Was the Monday morning vote merely clarification to tidy up language or were substantive changes made? And, if it were a whole new vote, perhaps it wouldn't have passed as proposed. Is a cap of 5.0 marketable quantity (MQ) with a fresh fruit exemption underneath that cap, the same as 4.7 MQ with an (unlimited) fresh fruit exemption on top of the cap? Does the order say that above the 4.7 processed limit, growers can bring in an unlimited supply of fresh fruit? If so, that is a whole different regulation then the one voted on Sunday...not clarification as presented.

Handler representatives on the CMC say they have the knowledge and wisdom to make decisions in the cranberry growers' best interest. If this is so, even with two attorneys, the CMC director, and two USDA representatives* all present in official or semi-official capacities, how is it possible that this motion was even voted on Sunday in a form that would have to undergo a "clarification" the next day?

Because there were handler conferences that excluded Northland and went unmonitored by the USDA, prior to Sunday's meeting, there is good reason to believe that the CMC meeting in Wisconsin was merely a pro forma exercise necessary to rubber stamp a deal that had been cut in advance.

Could it be that in their fervor to put the icing on the cake that had been baked by the handlers in  discussions before the meeting, they rushed through a proposal that was seriously flawed? They didn't even attempt a compromise between the high Ocean Spray figure and the figure proposed by Northland, a majority of the growers, and the CMC's own subcommittee. Since the handlers that dominate the CMC knew the outcome of  the vote in advance, they felt free to treat grower protestations as background static --  irritating but easily ignored. 

Ocean Spray got what they wanted; and Decas, Pappas, Hiller and Cliffstar got what they wanted: cheap berries for the next year, or two, or three, to fund the expensive introduction of new products and expansion into new markets, and to cut lucrative deals with Pepsi and Coke subsidiaries Tropicana, Dole and Minute Maid. 

The question that must be answered now is: were there ethical or legal transgressions in the Committee's procedures that have lessened the possibility of a quick rebound in the price growers receive for their fruit?

*Ken Beebe is an attorney, he represents Ocean Spray as a member of the CMC, Steve Lacey is an attorney representing Cliffstar and Pappas in discussions, David Farrimond is the director of the CMC, Kathy Finn and Patricia Petrella are from the USDA.

Home