|
OpEd What if, Mr. Decas?by John SwendrowskiWhat if the industry would have invoked a marketing order in 1997,1998, 1999; and today supply and demand were in balance? Based on a review of historical numbers we would have needed to reduce deliveries by about 20% each year in order to have a reasonable carry out in August. Exactly how do you think we would have administered the volume regulation in 97-99? Would only Ocean Spray and Northland growers have destroyed fruit? Is it not logical to assume that some equitable order would have forced all growers to equally destroy fruit? Would we have heard the same arguments against an order from you in 97-99 because you could sell all of your growers fruit? Seems to me that I remember you had to alter your grower contracts in order to sell all their fruit. It certainly appears that an industry oversupply becomes a problem for you along with everyone else unless of course you can reduce the grower price and "sell" it all. I just cannot remember anyone chasing Northland growers for new contracts in 1998 at $80 a bbl. or even $42 a bbl. in 1999. Why in the world would they be asking Northland growers to sign with them today at "market" price? Is it because it is easier to build market demand for cranberry products if "market " is below the grower cost of production? I find it interesting that in reviewing CMC historical data from 1962 when the marketing order was first established that Attorney Blair Perry representing Decas Cranberry Company filed a brief objecting to the establishment of a marketing order in part because 1) it would favor the operation of a large cooperative 2) it would curtail the operation of the small handler. The USDA settled this matter in 1962. Why are we still talking about this in 2001? You make several references to an "orderly market" in your OpEd. Exactly what is an orderly market ? Is it a market that guarantees a handler fruit at below grower cost so they can fill orders? Or is it a market that sells all the fruit possible at a price that provides the average grower with a fair return? It seems to me as I read the Act and the Marketing Order, that "orderly market" is used in reference to growers not handlers. I cannot find the part of the Act that says any marketing order must guarantee every handler access to all the fruit he wants at the price he wants to pay. The "orderly market" language is there to protect the consumer from paying an artificially high price for fruit. I do not think an order that will return cost of production will be considered illegal. In support of the above if you look at the Federal Register for the final position of the USDA in regards to the 2000 volume regulation you will find the following: "The purpose of the volume regulation is to benefit growers by stabilizing the marketplace. If handlers must purchase cranberries from other handlers and inventories are reduced the volume regulation is working." (emphasis added) Last year in the Federal Register the USDA responded to your complaint about "two handlers are responsible" with the following statement "the cranberry surplus is an industry problem since large inventories depress overall grower prices. The volume regulation features are designed to help all growers in the industry by stabilizing grower returns." I will continue to support the 4.0 proposal because:
I am an advocate of an
exemption for foreign sales above historical foreign sales in order to
encourage new markets.... and I will gladly discuss selling you fruit
at market prices (no more, no less) based upon my grower price in 2001,
plus handling. |