By Cody Lyon
“Political action is the highest
responsibility of a citizen.”
Those are the words of President
John F. Kennedy, and they are as
true today as they were nearly 50
years ago. Those citizens who
engage and influence public policy
have a say in which laws are
enacted.
The federal government is involved
in a variety of issues that
affect farmers. From taxes to
trade, Congress has a direct impact
on your farm.
Today less than 3 percent of
the population is engaged
enough in policy to contact their
members of Congress. It’s this
3 percent of people who are
determining what will happen on
your farm. Unfortunately, they do
not have the knowledge about agriculture
that you do. Getting involved
is necessary to ensure that
agriculture has a bright future in
the U.S.
If you do not get involved, who
will? Who else has the expertise?
Do you want others determining
what will happen on your farm?
Members of Congress need to hear
from you as much as you need to
talk to them.
FBACT is the answer
Farm Bureau’s Agricultural Contact
Team (FBACT) program provides
a chance for every Farm Bureau
member to learn about and
influence the public policy issues
that have an impact on your farming
operation and our industry.
FBACT is a grassroots action
network that works in partnership
with the American Farm Bureau
Federation and state Farm Bureaus.
Farm Bureau always has been
known as an effective grassroots
lobbying organization. However, |
many other organizations, associations,
corporations and coalitions
are engaging their members,
employees, customers and others
in this process.
Still, not many organizations
have the capability to organize
grassroots contacts in every state
in the nation and to communicate
in a focused way with every
member of Congress. The FBACT
network truly can be one of the
most effective grassroots programs
in the country—when
Farm Bureau members engage.
Farm Bureau members who
join FBACT will be able to maximize
their time, easily engage
on the issues that most affect
their daily lives and stay connected
to their elected leaders.
There is a difference between
being noticed and having an
impact. Knowing how to have
an impact is key to implementing
Farm Bureau policy.
Cody Lyon is director of grassroots
and policy advocacy for
the American Farm Bureau
Federation. |
|
By Sen. Ben Nelson
When we talk about the Superfund, many
people think about places like New York’s Love
Canal, a chemical dumpsite that homes were
built over. Eventually, the toxic chemicals
seeped upward through the soil, causing noxious
fumes and pools of thick black sludge.
Some children complained of rashes and respiratory
problems. One 8-year-old boy who
played in a creek where deadly dioxins were
later found died of kidney failure. Kidney and
liver problems as well as increased miscarriages
and birth defects came to the attention
of government and health authorities who
found 82 chemicals, including potentially
carcinogenic substances.
In 1980, a couple of years after Love Canal
residents were moved, the federal government’s
Superfund was established to clean up
the nation’s worst toxic waste sites, which
today number more than 1,300.
Taking it to the extreme
It is a good and necessary program that has
helped clean up many contaminated sites
throughout the country, but as so often happens,
some people are taking a good thing to
an unnecessary extreme. We are seeing examples
of that today with the use of the Superfund
act to go after livestock producers.
Some environmental activists and attorneys
are trying to use the Superfund law to
sue livestock operations for the manure produced.
You read that right: there are those
who want to treat animal manure as if it
were a hazardous substance. Manure is a lot
of things, but it is not hazardous waste.
Manure is not hazardous waste
I have again co-sponsored a bill that would
clarify the Superfund law, formally known as
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and
protect livestock producers from being subject
to liability for the manure produced in their
operations.
|
The bill states that it was never the
intent of
Congress to include natural animal waste as a
hazardous substance.
Without such protection, farms and ranches
that produce large amounts of manure could
be targeted for the costs of cleanup and forced
to follow strict Superfund rules. Some pundits
have even joked that if that were to happen we
could see cows wandering around in diapers.
This legislation is supported by the American
Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers
Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, which say the issue could have a
tremendously negative impact on producers.
They point out that if opponents of animal agriculture
are successful in their efforts to bring
manure under Superfund regulations, any cattle
producer who spreads manure on a pasture or
provides it for use as a fertilizer could be subject
to EPA’s Superfund laws, originally intended to
address only hazardous and toxic industrial
chemical spills.
Agriculture already is heavily regulated
American agriculture is regulated by a wide
range of tough federal and state environmental
laws. Manure already is heavily controlled
under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act
and other federal and state regulations.
Farms have not been subject to Superfund
liability because they are not producing, storing
or dumping toxic chemicals, and I do not
believe that manure is a Superfund waste.
Fields on which manure is spread are not
Superfund sites either, and I don’t believe that
it was ever the intention of Congress to make
our farms and fields Superfund sites.
In my home state of Nebraska, cattle and
hogs outnumber people four-to-one, and animal
waste is natural and unavoidable. It has
been safely used as a fertilizer worldwide for
centuries. If normal animal manure is found
to be a hazardous substance, then virtually
every farm operation in the United States
could be exposed to expensive lawsuits and
devastating penalties under the act. Clearly,
Congress should clarify that it never intended
such an outcome.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is a member of
the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; Appropriations;
Armed Services; and Rules and
Administration
|
