1 / 35

Role of Government in Agricultural Markets

Role of Government in Agricultural Markets. Food safety and consumer protection Trade regulation and producer protection Research and education Market efficiency. Consumer Health and Safety. Food and Drug Act 1906, 1938 1958 Delaney Clause Food Quality Protection Act

ehren
Download Presentation

Role of Government in Agricultural Markets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Role of Government in Agricultural Markets • Food safety and consumer protection • Trade regulation and producer protection • Research and education • Market efficiency

  2. Consumer Health and Safety • Food and Drug Act • 1906, 1938 • 1958 Delaney Clause • Food Quality Protection Act • 1996 replaced the Delaney Clause • Initiated HACCP • Wheeler-Lea Act 1935 • Truth in advertising • Labeling laws, 1973, 1990

  3. Labeling Claims • Trend to product differentiation • Evaluate label claims • Production claims • Organic standards established • Not all terms have standard definition • “Natural” “Nebraska Corn-Fed Beef” • USDA-AMS is establishing standards for • Naturally raised • Grass-fed • Other claims

  4. Regulations on Food Prices • Price control or freezes • Typically war time and/or rapid inflation • Retail price freeze -> farm price impact • WWI 1917-18 • WWII 1941-1946 also rationing • Korean conflict 1950-1953 • 1971-1973 inflation

  5. Economic and Social Progress • 1862 Department of Agriculture • 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act • 1887 Hatch Act, experiment station • 1914 Smith-Lever Act, extension • Currently over 10,000 agricultural researchers employed by gov’t

  6. Regulate Competition • US founded on private enterprise • Concerns about market power • 1890 Sherman Anti-trust Act • 1914 Clayton and FTC Acts set rules • 1936 Robinson-Patman Act • Price discrimination illegal unless economically justified

  7. Regulations of Monopolies • Recognized natural monopolies and dealing with monopolies • Capper-Volsted Act 1922 • Right of farmers to collectively bargain • Agricultural Marketing Act 1937 • Established marketing orders for dairy and fruit and vegetables

  8. Facilitate Trade and Service • PSA 1921 • Set standards for trade • Assured prompt payment • Changed to GIPSA in 1990s • Grades, weights, & standards • Promotion and research 1980s • Checkoff activity

  9. Data and Price Reporting • Competitive markets require equal access to information for buyers and sellers • USDA-NASS • Acreage, yield, inventory, etc • Farm number and demographics • USDA-AMS • Price reporting • Slaughter and production • State and Federal partnership • Auctions and grain prices

  10. Mandatory Price Reporting • Federal law passed congress in 1999 • Started with 7 Midwest states initiating new price reporting regulations • Industry and government found it “better” to have a single federal regulation • Slaughter cattle, hogs, lambs and wholesale beef, lamb but not wholesale pork • Currently • AMS collects, reports summary, doesn’t keep individual company prices • GIPSA can demand all records from companies to do an investigation if they have just cause

  11. Standardization and Grading • Reduces marketing costs • Improves communication • Possible to trade on description rather than inspection • Grading sorts commodities by defined quality standards • Quality grades typically optional

  12. Criteria for Grades and Standards • Based on characteristics that • Are important to users • Are easily recognizable • Can be measured and interpreted by graders to reduce variation within a grade • Have common terminology • Represent the distribution of production • Make it cost effective to operate

  13. Public or Private Grades • Use differs by industry • Cattle use USDA grades • Grading done by USDA employee • Hogs use private grading • Grading done by employee of buyer • Grain use USDA standards but grading by the buyer

  14. Examples of Grades: Beef • Quality grade uses marbling as a measure of eating experience (taste, texture, juiciness) • Yield grade is measure of retail meat yield in the carcass Quality Grades Yield Grades Prime 3-4% 1 11-12% Choice 60-65% 2 48-50% Select 30-35% 3 33-40% Standard --- 4 1-2% 5 <1%

  15. Examples of Grades: Hogs • Historically used USDA grades (US 1-2) • Moved to objective measures of the carcass • Measurement systems • Carcass weight ranges • Carcass Leanness • Backfat measure at 10th or last rib • Fat-O-Meter measure fat thickness and loin depth to estimate percent lean in the carcass • Ultrasound to estimate percent lean in carcass

  16. Examples of Grades: Grain Class: #2 Yellow Corn • BCFM (Max)1/  3.0% • Damaged Kernels (Max)2/ 5.0% • Moisture (Max)  14.5% • Test weight (Min) lbs./bu 54.01 1/ Broken corn and foreign material 2/ Includes heat damaged kernels (0.2% max)

  17. Examples of Grades: Grain • Class #2 Yellow soybeans • Foreign Material (Max.) 2.0% • Damaged Kernels (Max.)1/ 3.0% • Splits (Max.) 20.0% • Moisture (Max.) 14.0% • Test Weight (Min.) lbs./bu. 54.0 • 1/Includes heat damage kernels (0.5% max)

  18. Examples of Grades: Grain • Class: #2 Soft White Wheat • Protein: Ordinary • Moisture (Max): 13.5% • Dockage (Max): 0.6% • Test weight lbs/bu (Min.): 58.0 • Falling Number (Min.): 300 • Wheat of Other Classes (Max): 3.0% • Total Defects (Max):1/ 3.5% • 1/ Includes damaged kernels, foreign material, shrunken & broken kernels

  19. Mandatory v. Optional Grades • Few precedents for compulsory • Cost may increase if mandatory • Industry may already have grades • Grades may inhibit innovation • Produce to the minimum to make a grade • May not match convey value trait as well as another measure, i.e., tenderness

  20. Problems of Grades and Standards • Subjective nature of “quality” • Made for industry not consumers • Designing grades and grading methods • Accurate, fast, cheap, meaningful • Number of grades • Implementing grades

  21. Farmers and Grades • Not always used • May not trust of grades or grader • Risk – reward • Large discounts on small percentage • Small premiums on small percentage • Direct measurement possible with new technology • Percent lean • Protein percent

  22. Marketing Agencies & Grades • May add value to commodity • Role of private brands • Larger firms may develop own grades • Specification contracts with more detail may replace grades

  23. Consumers and Food Grades • Grades often confusing and offer little differentiation • Consumers often do not understand grades • Brand loyalty may replace uniform grades

  24. FARM POLICY • Historically, agriculture has been highly protected in many countries, including U.S. • Main reasons advanced for supporting domestic farmers: • Risk reduction • Shield farmers from weather and world price volatility • Food security • Ensure country’s food supply • Rural society • Stimulate rural economy • Promote rural development

  25. FARM POLICY Food and Nutrition Trade Policies to Support Farm Income Rural Development Natural Resources

  26. FARM POLICY • Evolution of U.S. farm and rural sector

  27. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 1920s: • Emphasis on “orderly marketing” • Encouraged storage and marketing throughout the year • Provided loan-storage programs • 1930s: • Forerunners of current farm programs • Favored supply control to achieve “fair” prices • Acreage controls, import and marketing quotas, soil conservation programs • 1940-52: • Large increase in U.S. farm prices and incomes • Consumers faced wartime food rationing and price controls • Farm programs established in 1933-38 continued with minor modifications

  28. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 1950s and 1960s • Great expansion in productive capacity due to science and technology • Downward pressure on prices due to enhanced productive capacity • Previous farm programs continued and worked on supply and demand policies • “Food for peace program” 1954 • Soil Bank program of 1956 • Food Stamp Act of 1964

  29. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 1970s • Prices and farm income increased due to large expansion in worldwide demand • Increased world population and incomes, and devaluation of U.S. dollar relative to other currencies • Enhanced outlook triggered a large supply response • Planted acres increased by 47 million between 1969 and 1978, took land out of Soil Bank • Increase in quantity supplied led to depressed prices and farm incomes by the end of the decade

  30. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 1980s • Compromise between two views • More market orientation: Flexible price supports, less government purchase and storage, greater reliance on direct subsidies to farmers • Government intervention to improve balance between supply and demand: Acreage controls, selective reductions in support prices, export subsidies

  31. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 1990s • FAIR Act of 1996 • “Decoupled Payments” • Removed linkage between farm income support payments and farm prices • Declining support payments over 1996-2002 period • Ended supply controls, giving farmers flexibility regarding crop choices • Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP) replaced non-recourse commodity loans • Promotion of export market development, especially for higher value-added products • More emphasis on conservation

  32. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 2000s • Emphasis on risk management with subsidized crop insurance and new insurance products • Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 • Extends market-oriented reforms of 1996 FAIR Act • Introduces Countercyclical Payments • Triggered when current prices fall below target level, but amount paid based on historical production • Three types of farm income support programs • Decoupled Payments • Countercyclical Payments • Marketing loans

  33. Evolution of U.S. farm policy • 2000s • Emphasis on risk management • Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 • Extends market-oriented reforms of 1996 FAIR Act • Introduces Countercyclical Payments • Three types of farm income support programs • Conservation programs • All programs are expanded • New working-lands conservation payments through Conservation Security Program • Rural development • New programs and increased funding for rural areas • Trade • Expanded support to promote export market development, especially for higher value-added products

  34. Farm Policy • A function of their time • Farm income and society • Current thinking and innovation • A function of government budgets • Slow to change • Often see response quickly • Devil is in the details

  35. Summary • Policy • Protection • Infrastructure • Market efficiency

More Related