A publication of the Pennsylvania Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union Issue 1, Fall 2013

Pennsylvania Farmers Union members Maggie Robertson (M&M Robertson Farm - Clarion Co), Heidi Secord (Josie Porter Farm - Monroe Co), Hannah Smith-Brubaker (Village Acres Farm - Juniata Co) and Rob Amsterdam (Amsterdam Produce Enterprises - Cumberland Co) and nearly 300 fellow farmers from across the nation met in Washington, DC for the National Farmers Union annual Fall Legislative Fly-In. In meeting with legislators, we discussed the Farm Bill, Renewable Fuels Standard, Country-of-Origin labeling and many other issues that impact family farms.

Pennsylvania congressional members were pleased to hear from Pennsylvania and expressed an interest in working more closely together in the future.

The Pennsylvania team used the opportunity to honor Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Dist#5) for his efforts earlier this year to forward a 5 year Farm Bill, including for his support of dairy stabilization. A select group of congressional members received the award including Senate Leader Harry Reid,

House Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Ag Committee Chair Frank Lucas, and Senate Ag Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow.

(Continued on page 2)

Presenting Rep Glenn Thompson with the Golden Triangle award

Pennsylvania Farmers Union met directly with congressional members or their staffers: Representatives Barletta (Dist#11), Brady (Dist#1), Cartwright (Dist#17), Dent (Dist#15), Fattah (Dist#2), Fitzpatrick (Dist#8), Gerlach (Dist#6), Marino (Dist#10), Meehan (Dist#7), Perry (Dist#4), Rothfus (Dist#12), Schwartz (Dist#13), and Shuster (Dist#9), as well as Senators Toomey and Casey. Where appointments were not secured, drop-by visits occurred at the offices of Representatives Doyle (Dist#14), Kelly (Dist#3), Murphy (Dist#18), and Pitts (Dist#16).

New England Farmers Union joined Pennsylvania to visit New York Senator Gillibrand’s office, to support our New York members.

Maggie Robertson, farmer and PFU secretary; Roger Noonan, farmer and New England Farmers Union president; Hannah Smith-Brubaker, farmer and PFU Executive VP; Heidi Secord, farmer and PFU member

Congress Hears from Pennsylvania Farmers SAVE THE DATE!

Annual Convention

December 7, 2013

Dixon University, Harrisburg

Business Meeting: Policy, Membership &Finance

Keynote: John Ikerd on

Family Farms: Our Promise for a Sustainable Future

Special Guest: Jerry Brunetti on

Living Soils: Essentials for Healthy Pastures & Fields

Special Guest: Tracy Coulter on

Agroforestry: Connecting our Farms, Forests &

Watersheds

Register: www.pafarmersunion.org

or 717-576-0794 pafarmersunion@gmail.com

pafarmersunion

Presenting House Leader Pelosi with the Golden Triangle award

National Youth Advisory Council members who attended legislative visits with their respective state representatives

Organizational Partnerships 3

New Member Profile 4

Legislative Commendation 4

Immigration, COOL, RFS, 5-9

Healthcare & Insurance 10

Membership Form 11

Inside...

Gold Sponsor

www.surveymonkey.com/s/PAyoungfarmers

National Young Farmers’ Coalition Survey

Hello! My name is Emily Best, apprentice at New Morning Farm in Hustontown. The National Young Farmers’ Coalition (NYFC) is a national network of young and sustainable farmers organizing for our collective success: we’re defining the issues that beginning farmers face, fighting for the policy change that we need, and bringing farmers together in person and online to learn, share and build a stronger community.

We feel that a central PA chapter of NYFC would help to highlight the specific needs and interests of our region's young and beginning farmers. The chapter would service as a complement to the great work done by Pennsylvania Farmers Union and other local groups, growing stronger the community of farmers in the state.

If you are a young farmer, will you take a few minutes to fill out a quick survey? If you know a young farmer, will you encourage them to fill it out? Personal information will not be shared with any other entity or organization, and will remain strictly confidential.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

Half the Pennsylvania team attended a briefing at the White House while the other attended a briefing with the House & Senate Agriculture Committees.

Do you have an interest in making legislative visits here in Pennsylvania? We are making plans now for a PA Fly-In. Please let us know. Contact Hannah Smith-Brubaker at 717-576-0794 or pafarmersunion@gmail.com

(Continued from page 1)

White House briefing visit with Vincent Mina, Hawaii Farmers Union president and Hannah Smith-Brubaker, Pennsylvania Farmers Union executive vice-president

Partnerships to Better Serve our Membership

Kim Miller, Board President

Pennsylvania Farmers Union has made great strides in the last year to continuously improve service to our membership. As part of our strategy, we have entered into agreements with other like-minded organizations and businesses. Whether for benefits, member outreach and support, or for community stewardship, there is no lack of activity within our organization. There are plenty of seats at the table and we welcome the support of our partners. Our efforts in these areas also demonstrate a deep commitment to our membership. I wanted to take a moment to emphasize three partnerships we are building: Stillwell Insurance Agency, the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts. Stillwell Insurance Agency Partnership:

We’ve finalized our agreement with Stillwell Insurance Agency, a multi-generation independent insurance agency offering our membership comprehensive service and competitive pricing. Stillwell sits at the ready for your concerns and insurance needs. We have found them to be extremely accessible and helpful (see page 10).

Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture Partnership:

Our partnership with PASA involves offering discounted memberships for each other’s members. Existing PASA and PFU members are eligible for a discounted membership in each other’s organizations: Individual - $35; Family Farm - $50. New members to both PASA and PFU are eligible for a discounted “joint” membership: Individual - $70; Family Farm - $100 (purchased separately: $95/$145)

PFU membership highlights for PASA members (check out pafarmersunion.org for more information):

Discounted membership Lobbying, legislative meetings, fly-

ins (and money to support participation)

Access to affordable insurances - Farmowners, Homeowners, Auto, Health, Life, Business, Workers Comp

Discounts – hotels, rental cars, dental & vision plans

Youth leadership & advocacy opportunities (coming in 2014)

PASA membership highlights for PFU members (check out pasafarming.org for more information):

Discounted membership Access to affordable farm-based

education opportunities (unsurpassed educational offerings)

Active and supportive community & culture

Nationally recognized leadership for the sustainable food system movement

Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts Partnership:

As the lead sponsor for the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts / State Conservation Commission (PACD/SCC) Joint Annual Conference, PFU is seeking to connect with conservation districts across the Commonwealth. Given our mission is to enhance the quality of life of family farmers - whom districts work with daily - the fit makes a lot of sense.

For the remainder of the calendar year, Pennsylvania Farmers Union will donate $10 of every new membership or renewal to the member’s local conservation district (if so desired by the member). While $10 may not seem like a large amount, it is a demonstration of a commitment to the important work of conservation districts.

Of course, PFU also welcomes conservation district employees and board members, particularly those whose families are farming, as members of the Farmers Union, adding to the voice of the organization.

As president of PFU and a member of the Westmoreland Conservation District board, I invite you to spread the word about this partnership opportunity.

Please contact me with any questions or comments, Kim

Farmers Union members Roy & Hope Brubaker of Village Acres Farm in Mifflintown are lifetime members of PASA and are also Outstanding Small Cooperators as identified by Juniata Conservation District

PACD Executive Director Robert Maiden, PFU Executive Vice-President Hannah Smith-Brubaker, PFU member and PACD Vice-President Glenn Seidel and PACD President Jack Tressler at the PACD/SCC Joint Annual Conference

New Member Profile: Yeehaw Farm

A warm welcome is extended to one of our newest members, the Radels of Yeehaw Farm! This 4th generation farm in Perry County is home to the Finkenbinder family including parents, Charles & Naomi Finkenbinder, Judi Finkenbinder Radel & her husband Tom Radel, brother Jim Finkenbinder, children Jake, Seth, Boo & Sarah, and once-upon-a-time intern but now full-fledged family member Laura Noell.

Description: Yeehaw Farm is a diversified farm, selling meats, vegetables, dairy, heritage grains and other value added farm products. They sell through a whole diet CSA, a meat CSA, farmer's markets, restaurants, and their small primitive farm store. Yeehaw Farm is three generations living, working and farming together. Judi, who has a crack sense of humor, offers “we have been compared to the Waltons, except we cuss! Self sufficiency and sustainability is a goal of our farm ever since we got started just because it makes sense. From hand milking our small dairy herd to milling our own lumber and grains, it's just the way we do things around this old farm. It makes for an interesting life and we love it.”

History of the farm: The farm was originally purchased by Judi’s grandfather in 1947 and involved farming with horses. For most of its early life the farm was diversified with cows, pigs and chickens. Judi reflected, “Dad, who’d had enough of milking as a child, took the approach ’let’s try starving before we milk cows’ once he took over the farm from my grandfather.” The farm then transitioned solely to a pig farm. In 1994, Judi and Tom married and took over the day-to-day management of the farm which employed conventional practices. Finances were a struggle and they decided they had to switch gears. They were spending far too much of what they brought in on chemical inputs. They then diversified again with animal species and crops. Three years ago, they introduced mob grazing which has had “huge positive effects” on the farm. They now spend no money on any commercial fertilizers for fields, have not purchased lime, and now feel their animals complement their whole system approach instead of being solely the end product, including through improved pastures. One remarkable accomplishment is that they grow everything they need on their farm for feeding their animals. The change is also bringing back beneficial wildlife, including pollinators, and it’s all benefitting the bottom line.

Why did you become a Farmers Union member? “I really want to become more involved with issues of farmers as a whole and, for my family, the access to healthcare benefits is becoming increasingly important.”

More information is available at yeehawfarm.webs.com where you will get a good taste for Judi’s sense of humor!

Legislative Commendation: Representative Matt Cartwright

At the NFU Fly-In earlier this month, PFU farmer-member Heidi Secord had an opportunity to sit down with her district representative, Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Dist#17), and his legislative assistant, Shelby Boxenbaum JD, to discuss the Farm Bill and, in particular, the Nutrition Title. At that time, the Congressman expressed full agreement with Farmers Union priorities.

So, we were pleased to hear of his vote this week against the “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act”, legislation which cuts SNAP funding by nearly $40 billion. The measure passed by a vote of 217 to 210, with PA Representatives Brady, Fattah, Meehan, Fitzpatrick, Schwartz, Doyle, and Cartwright opposing the Act. Pennsylvania’s congressional members voted along party lines.

In a statement issued by Cartwright’s office, the Congressman reports, “Today, I joined with religious and hunger prevention leaders across the country in standing up for America’s families who are struggling to put food on the table, including 28,000 here in Pennsylvania’s 17th District...Voting against draconian cuts that will take the food out of the mouths of nearly 4 million Americans next year was the right thing to do...SNAP is a vital tool to fight hunger and help unemployed Americans feed their families as they seek new employment, send their children to school, and get themselves back on their feet. More than 90% of

people on SNAP are children, the elderly, disabled, or already working, and yet they are struggling to put food on the table as SNAP benefits amount to only $1.40 per meal here in Pennsylvania...Not only is this bill harmful to the most vulnerable, it will weaken our nation’s farm and rural economies and jeopardize any chance of enactment of a new farm bill to support our nation’s farmers, ranchers, food security, conservation, rural communities,” Cartwright stated.

“I agree with Former President Reagan, who said, ‘As long as there is one person in this country who is hungry, that’s one person too many, and something must be done about it.’ As too many children and seniors go to bed hungry each night, my vote today rejecting these shameful cuts was a vote for enacting a bipartisan Farm Bill that restores essential nutrition initiatives for nearly 50 million Americans,” Rep. Cartwright said.

Good for you, Representative Cartwright. Good for you!

We would also like to commend Ms. Boxenbaum for organizing a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) share drop on the Hill through Lancaster Farm Fresh Cooperative.

Heidi Secord runs Josie Porter Farm with her husband Gary Bloss in Stroudsburg, PA

Photo: Angela Dicks

Update: 2013 Farm Bill - Groundhog Day?

Roger Johnson, National Farmers Union President

Editor’s Note: Though you will likely be reading this after the Sept 30 deadline, the relevance of this article has not changed.

The days are limited for Congress to enact a new farm bill before the Sept. 30 expiration of current programs. For those paying attention, that Sept. 30 deadline was originally Sept. 30, 2012. Congress failed to complete its task last year, passing an extension in the early hours of Jan 1. 2013. And yet here we are again, on the brink of yet another expiration of the legislation that is critical to all Americans, families and family farmers alike. Some in Washington are saying that yet another extension of the current farm bill is the only solution, given the time constraints of the congressional schedule. This is not acceptable. An extension is a cop-out. Both chambers of Congress have each passed a version of the farm bill, but now the House must move swiftly to appoint conferees and begin the formal conference process with the Senate.

An extension is misguided Organizations calling for an extension at this time do not have the interests of family farmers, ranchers, fisherman and hungry Americans in mind. A farm bill is crucial to our nation’s food supply, rural communities, the overall health of the economy, and energy security. An extension represents a short sighted, temporary fix that ultimately provides inadequate solutions that will leave farmers, ranchers and disadvantaged families crippled by uncertainty. There is still time to pass a five-year, comprehensive bill this year, and any assertions to the contrary are disingenuous and unacceptable. Congress needs to step up to the plate and take care of its unfinished business.

An extension costs taxpayers Extending current farm programs would mean continuing the costly direct payment program. Direct payments will cost $8 to $10 billion over the next two years. Farmers receiving payments, regardless of commodity prices, is an indefensible, outdated, and ineffective policy. A new five-year farm bill would end these payments and implement a safety net that provides support in the event of natural disasters or long-term market collapse, not when economic conditions are strong.

In addition, the United States is currently paying a $147 million annual settlement to Brazil as part of a long-running trade dispute over cotton programs. The United States agreed to pay the money to Brazil in 2010 in order to prevent retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods based on a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against current cotton program payments to U.S. farmers. The pending House and Senate farm bills would bring the program into compliance with WTO rules, thereby eliminating the need for this unnecessary use of taxpayer funds. However, without a new farm bill, the United States has no choice but to keep paying the settlement or face costly consequences imposed by our competitors.

An extension leaves many underserved Not only would an extension continue unjustifiable direct

payments to farmers and foreign governments, but also it would leave important programs without funding due to their expired baselines. An extension would once again eliminate dozens of important programs that support beginning farmers and ranchers, farmers markets, organic farmers and ranchers, farmers producing homegrown renewable energy on their farms, livestock producers facing natural disasters, and many others.

An extension does not solve problems Congress is currently engaged in a philosophical debate about federal nutrition programs, namely, the farm bill’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Some members of Congress believe the program and its current level of benefits and eligibility requirements are appropriate, particularly in this challenging economic time. Others erroneously believe the program is fraught with waste, fraud and abuse and want to cut funding and benefits to vulnerable families. Regardless of where one falls on this issue, it is clear that an extension of the current farm bill is inadequate from both perspectives. Members wanting to preserve existing funding for this vital safety net program should welcome the long-term policy certainty provided by a five-year comprehensive bill, rather than leaving SNAP vulnerable to cuts year after year. And members interested in cutting funding from SNAP won’t achieve any of the so-called reforms they desire without the passage of a new five-year bill; an extension merely perpetuates the status quo. Rather than waste time on a nutrition-only bill to be brought up in the House next week that would leave between 4 and 6 million Americans ineligible for full SNAP benefits, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or pass an extension that merely kicks the can down the road, Congress must instead preserve the historic coalition between farmers and consumers in need and pass a comprehensive five-year farm bill that includes both farm and nutrition programs.

Roger Johnson is the 14th President of the National Farmers Union. Prior to his post at NFU, Johnson held the position of Agriculture Commissioner in North Dakota for 12 years. His family farms in Turtle Lake, N.D.

Plan to join us March 8-11, 2014 in Santa Fe, New Mexico for the

112th Anniversary National Farmers Union Convention

More info: nfu.org/convention

The Food Safety Modernization Act: What it Means for Small- and Mid-Size Farmers and Food Processors

Guest Writer: Alli Condra, Clinical Fellow, Food Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School

Alli attended legislative visits with Farmers Union in Washington, DC recently and we are grateful for her contribution.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in January 2011, was the largest overhaul of the nation’s food safety laws in over 70 years. The law added a number of important provisions that increase federal regulation for various players in the food system and increased the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate the food system. For example, FSMA gave FDA the authority to require food companies to recall food under certain circumstances (mandatory recall authority) and expanded FDA’s authority to include oversight of specific on-farm agricultural practices. FSMA instructed FDA to write a number of regulations, two of which were released in January. These two proposed rules may significantly affect farmers and food processors, particularly small- and mid-size producers and processors. One rule sets out standards for produce safety and creates new requirements for certain on-farm practices (which have never been regulated before); the second rule sets out measures designed to prevent food safety problems at facilities that process food.

What the Regulations Propose

The Produce Safety Rule (PSR) applies to farms that grow, harvest, and hold fresh produce that is often consumed raw. If a farm is subject to the PSR, the farm will have to comply with new requirements in the following areas: worker training and health and hygiene; agricultural water; biological soil amendments; domesticated and wild animals; and equipment, tools, and buildings.

There are a couple of exemptions from the PSR. First, if over the past three years the farm’s food sales average less than $25,000, the farm is not required to comply with the rule at all. The rationale is that these very small farms do not significantly contribute to the food supply and, therefore, do not pose a major threat to the public’s health.

Second, if the farm’s food sales average less than $500,000 and more than half of the farm’s sales are direct to consumer (or to another “qualified end-user” that is defined in the PSR), the farm falls under the “qualified exempt” category. These qualified exempt farms do not have to comply with most portions of the PSR; however, “qualified exempt” farms are still obliged to meet a few requirements. This qualified exemption may be taken away under certain circumstances; if this exemption is taken away, the farm must come into compliance with all provisions of the PSR. This second exemption comes from the Tester-Hagan Amendment, which was an important win for direct-to-consumer farm and food operations. It is critical that FDA implement the

amendment correctly to uphold the intent of the amendment; as discussed below, your voices are needed to accomplish this goal.

The Preventive Controls Rule (PCR) applies to facilities that manufacture and process food. If a facility is subject to the PCR, the facility must follow the updated current good manufacturing practices and must create a food safety plan for its operation (called the Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARP-C) plan). This HARP-C plan basically requires facilities to identify places in their manufacturing and processing activities that might pose a food safety risk, create a plan to prevent those risks, monitor the processes, fix any problems, and keep records of their manufacturing and processing activities.

There are modified requirements and exemptions from the PCR for certain facilities. First, there is a “qualified facility” exemption that scales back some of the requirements certain facilities must meet. A facility will qualify for this exemption if the facility’s annual food sales over the past three years average less than $500,000 and more than half of its sales are direct to consumer (or to another “qualified end-user” that is defined in the PCR). Facilities that qualify for this exemption must comply with the current good manufacturing practices and must create a modified food safety plan. Again, this exemption may be taken away under certain circumstances, and if it is taken away, the facility must come into compliance with all provisions of the PCR.

The second exemption applies to certain operations that are both farms and facilities. These “farm mixed-type facilities” conduct both farming activities and facility activities. Farm mixed-type facilities are subject to both the PSR and the PCR (unless they qualify for an exemption). For example, farms that harvest and pack their own produce fall squarely within the PSR; however, if a farm packs produce from another farm, it will fall under the PCR (because packing and holding produce from another farm is considered a manufacturing/processing activity). The farm mixed-type facility is a complex new entity and it is not always clear when an activity will be considered a farm activity and when it will be considered a facility activity.

FDA has created an exemption from the PCR for certain farm mixed-type facilities: if the farm mixed-type facility is a small or very small business and conducts only low-risk activities on the farm (listed in the proposed rule, such as chopping peanuts, making jam, and waxing intact fruits and vegetables), the farm

is exempt from the PCR. Additionally, CSAs, farmers markets, and roadside stands should be exempt from the PCR but FDA has failed to make that specific clarification even though it is required by FSMA.

The Main Issues of Concern

These two new proposed rules raise a number of concerns; three of those concerns are discussed below, including recommendations on how to address those concerns. Although many small- and mid-sized operations (both farms and facilities) will qualify for modified requirements under the direct-to-consumer exemption, these qualified exempt operations have the most to lose if their exemptions are withdrawn and they become subject to either rule.

First, according to the proposed rules, FDA can take away an exemption based on two circumstances. An exemption can be taken away if there is a foodborne illness outbreak directly linked to the operation. An exemption can also be taken away if there is information that suggests there is a significant risk of foodborne illness contamination in the operation. In our opinion, the types of situations that might trigger a withdrawal under the second circumstance are not very clear; FDA should be required to justify, with specific scientific information, that an exemption should be taken away due to the risk of a foodborne illness outbreak.

Second, even before FDA starts the process of taking away an exemption, FDA should give the qualified exempt operation a “warning letter” so that the operation can have the opportunity to fix the identified issues. FDA already uses warning letters to give facilities that manufacture and process food a chance to fix the problem(s) before FDA takes more serious legal action, and a similar process should be implemented under the PSR and PCR.

Third, as the rules are currently proposed, once an exemption is taken away, there is no process through which an operation can regain its exempt status. As is noted by FDA, the cost of compliance with the rules is quite high. If a farm is subject to the rule (or is required to come into compliance with the rule), the FDA estimates annual compliance for small farms will be $12,972. Farms that qualify under the Tester-Hagan Amendment will incur some compliance costs as well, although not as high as the cost of full compliance. FDA needs to ensure that farmers and facility operators are not subject to unjustified withdrawal proceedings and, if they do go through the process, FDA should establish a process that qualified exempt operations can use to regain their exempt status.

Suggested Comments to FDA

When a federal agency proposes a new regulation, it must provide the public with a copy of the proposed rule and a certain period of time within which to submit comments to the federal agency. These comments can provide support, express concern or disagreement, and/or suggest changes to the proposed rule. The federal agency will then review the comments and, in the final rule, address the comments of substance that were submitted. The federal government must

take into account the number of comments it gets on a certain topic, which means the more comments that are submitted, the better!

In a recent article on Food Safety News, Jenny Scott, senior advisor in FDA’s Office of Food Safety, said that “[FDA] really want[s] to hear about specific situations and concerns and how people would be impacted by the proposed rule.” Farmers and food processors, particularly small operations that sell directly to consumers, will be impacted by this rule and therefore should submit written comments to FDA sharing their opinions and comments about the two proposed rules. It is critical that your voices are heard in D.C.

The comments on the Produce Safety Rule and the Preventive Controls Rule are due to FDA by November 15, 2013. Although provisions overlap in the two proposed rules, comments must be submitted separately for the Produce Safety Rule and for the Preventive Controls Rule.

For more information on the proposed rules, the issues of concerns and recommendations, and how you can get involved, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s Food Safety Modernization Act website: http://sustainableagriculture.net/fsma/. NSAC has numerous resources, including email updates, and can help you write your comments to submit to FDA. Editor’s Note: Please also feel free to contact Pennsylvania Farmers Union for support.

FSMA Proposed Rule for Produce Safety, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Food & Drug Admin., http://goo.gl/MrqtZo (last visited Aug. 9, 2013). The non-exhaustive list includes “almonds, apples, apricots, aprium, asian pear, avocados, babaco, bamboo shoots, bananas, Belgian endive, blackberries, blueberries, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, carambola, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cherries, citrus (such as Clementine, grapefruit, lemons, limes, mandarin, oranges, tangerines, tangors, and uniq fruit), cucumbers, curly endive, garlic, grapes, green beans, guava, herbs (such as basil, chives, cilantro, mint, oregano, and parsley), honeydew, kiwifruit, lettuce, mangos, other melons (such as canary, crenshaw and persian), mushrooms, nectarine, onions, papaya, passion fruit, peaches, pears, peas, peppers (such as bell and hot), pineapple, plums, plumcot, radish, raspberries, red currant, scallions, snow peas, spinach, sprouts (such as alfalfa and mung bean), strawberries, summer squash (such as patty pan, yellow and zucchini), tomatoes, walnuts, watercress, and watermelon.” Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, 78 Fed. Reg. 3504, 3629 (Sub. A § 112.1(b)) (proposed Jan. 16, 2013) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 16, 112), available at http://goo.gl/DXrXKG FSMA Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Food & Drug Admin., http://goo.gl/EGXafL (last visited Aug. 9, 2013). “Small business” is defined as a business with less than 500 employees. The FDA is proposing to define “very small business” as one with average annual sales of $250k, $500k, or $1 million. FDA is seeking comment on this issue. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Food & Drug Admin., Analysis of Economic Impacts‒Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption 294-95 (2012), available at http://goo.gl/3QEW33 Cookson Beecher, Proposed Rule for Food Processors Alarms Some, Confuses Many, July 29, 2013, Food Safety News, http://goo.gl/trkOMB

Alli Condra, J.D., LL.M.

Clinical Fellow, Food Law & Policy Clinic Center for Health Law

& Policy Innovation Harvard Law School

P: 617.390.2556 acondra@law.harvard.edu

The Food Safety Modernization Act: What it Means for Small- and Mid-Size Farmers and Food Processors

Guest Writer: Alli Condra, Clinical Fellow, Food Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School

Alli attended legislative visits with Farmers Union in Washington, DC recently and we are grateful for her contribution.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in January 2011, was the largest overhaul of the nation’s food safety laws in over 70 years. The law added a number of important provisions that increase federal regulation for various players in the food system and increased the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate the food system. For example, FSMA gave FDA the authority to require food companies to recall food under certain circumstances (mandatory recall authority) and expanded FDA’s authority to include oversight of specific on-farm agricultural practices. FSMA instructed FDA to write a number of regulations, two of which were released in January. These two proposed rules may significantly affect farmers and food processors, particularly small- and mid-size producers and processors. One rule sets out standards for produce safety and creates new requirements for certain on-farm practices (which have never been regulated before); the second rule sets out measures designed to prevent food safety problems at facilities that process food.

What the Regulations Propose

The Produce Safety Rule (PSR) applies to farms that grow, harvest, and hold fresh produce that is often consumed raw. If a farm is subject to the PSR, the farm will have to comply with new requirements in the following areas: worker training and health and hygiene; agricultural water; biological soil amendments; domesticated and wild animals; and equipment, tools, and buildings.

There are a couple of exemptions from the PSR. First, if over the past three years the farm’s food sales average less than $25,000, the farm is not required to comply with the rule at all. The rationale is that these very small farms do not significantly contribute to the food supply and, therefore, do not pose a major threat to the public’s health.

Second, if the farm’s food sales average less than $500,000 and more than half of the farm’s sales are direct to consumer (or to another “qualified end-user” that is defined in the PSR), the farm falls under the “qualified exempt” category. These qualified exempt farms do not have to comply with most portions of the PSR; however, “qualified exempt” farms are still obliged to meet a few requirements. This qualified exemption may be taken away under certain circumstances; if this exemption is taken away, the farm must come into compliance with all provisions of the PSR. This second exemption comes from the Tester-Hagan Amendment, which was an important win for direct-to-consumer farm and food operations. It is critical that FDA implement the

amendment correctly to uphold the intent of the amendment; as discussed below, your voices are needed to accomplish this goal.

The Preventive Controls Rule (PCR) applies to facilities that manufacture and process food. If a facility is subject to the PCR, the facility must follow the updated current good manufacturing practices and must create a food safety plan for its operation (called the Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARP-C) plan). This HARP-C plan basically requires facilities to identify places in their manufacturing and processing activities that might pose a food safety risk, create a plan to prevent those risks, monitor the processes, fix any problems, and keep records of their manufacturing and processing activities.

There are modified requirements and exemptions from the PCR for certain facilities. First, there is a “qualified facility” exemption that scales back some of the requirements certain facilities must meet. A facility will qualify for this exemption if the facility’s annual food sales over the past three years average less than $500,000 and more than half of its sales are direct to consumer (or to another “qualified end-user” that is defined in the PCR). Facilities that qualify for this exemption must comply with the current good manufacturing practices and must create a modified food safety plan. Again, this exemption may be taken away under certain circumstances, and if it is taken away, the facility must come into compliance with all provisions of the PCR.

The second exemption applies to certain operations that are both farms and facilities. These “farm mixed-type facilities” conduct both farming activities and facility activities. Farm mixed-type facilities are subject to both the PSR and the PCR (unless they qualify for an exemption). For example, farms that harvest and pack their own produce fall squarely within the PSR; however, if a farm packs produce from another farm, it will fall under the PCR (because packing and holding produce from another farm is considered a manufacturing/processing activity). The farm mixed-type facility is a complex new entity and it is not always clear when an activity will be considered a farm activity and when it will be considered a facility activity.

FDA has created an exemption from the PCR for certain farm mixed-type facilities: if the farm mixed-type facility is a small or very small business and conducts only low-risk activities on the farm (listed in the proposed rule, such as chopping peanuts, making jam, and waxing intact fruits and vegetables), the farm

is exempt from the PCR. Additionally, CSAs, farmers markets, and roadside stands should be exempt from the PCR but FDA has failed to make that specific clarification even though it is required by FSMA.

The Main Issues of Concern

These two new proposed rules raise a number of concerns; three of those concerns are discussed below, including recommendations on how to address those concerns. Although many small- and mid-sized operations (both farms and facilities) will qualify for modified requirements under the direct-to-consumer exemption, these qualified exempt operations have the most to lose if their exemptions are withdrawn and they become subject to either rule.

First, according to the proposed rules, FDA can take away an exemption based on two circumstances. An exemption can be taken away if there is a foodborne illness outbreak directly linked to the operation. An exemption can also be taken away if there is information that suggests there is a significant risk of foodborne illness contamination in the operation. In our opinion, the types of situations that might trigger a withdrawal under the second circumstance are not very clear; FDA should be required to justify, with specific scientific information, that an exemption should be taken away due to the risk of a foodborne illness outbreak.

Second, even before FDA starts the process of taking away an exemption, FDA should give the qualified exempt operation a “warning letter” so that the operation can have the opportunity to fix the identified issues. FDA already uses warning letters to give facilities that manufacture and process food a chance to fix the problem(s) before FDA takes more serious legal action, and a similar process should be implemented under the PSR and PCR.

Third, as the rules are currently proposed, once an exemption is taken away, there is no process through which an operation can regain its exempt status. As is noted by FDA, the cost of compliance with the rules is quite high. If a farm is subject to the rule (or is required to come into compliance with the rule), the FDA estimates annual compliance for small farms will be $12,972. Farms that qualify under the Tester-Hagan Amendment will incur some compliance costs as well, although not as high as the cost of full compliance. FDA needs to ensure that farmers and facility operators are not subject to unjustified withdrawal proceedings and, if they do go through the process, FDA should establish a process that qualified exempt operations can use to regain their exempt status.

Suggested Comments to FDA

When a federal agency proposes a new regulation, it must provide the public with a copy of the proposed rule and a certain period of time within which to submit comments to the federal agency. These comments can provide support, express concern or disagreement, and/or suggest changes to the proposed rule. The federal agency will then review the comments and, in the final rule, address the comments of substance that were submitted. The federal government must

take into account the number of comments it gets on a certain topic, which means the more comments that are submitted, the better!

In a recent article on Food Safety News, Jenny Scott, senior advisor in FDA’s Office of Food Safety, said that “[FDA] really want[s] to hear about specific situations and concerns and how people would be impacted by the proposed rule.” Farmers and food processors, particularly small operations that sell directly to consumers, will be impacted by this rule and therefore should submit written comments to FDA sharing their opinions and comments about the two proposed rules. It is critical that your voices are heard in D.C.

The comments on the Produce Safety Rule and the Preventive Controls Rule are due to FDA by November 15, 2013. Although provisions overlap in the two proposed rules, comments must be submitted separately for the Produce Safety Rule and for the Preventive Controls Rule.

For more information on the proposed rules, the issues of concerns and recommendations, and how you can get involved, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s Food Safety Modernization Act website: http://sustainableagriculture.net/fsma/. NSAC has numerous resources, including email updates, and can help you write your comments to submit to FDA. Editor’s Note: Please also feel free to contact Pennsylvania Farmers Union for support.

FSMA Proposed Rule for Produce Safety, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Food & Drug Admin., http://goo.gl/MrqtZo (last visited Aug. 9, 2013). The non-exhaustive list includes “almonds, apples, apricots, aprium, asian pear, avocados, babaco, bamboo shoots, bananas, Belgian endive, blackberries, blueberries, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, carambola, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cherries, citrus (such as Clementine, grapefruit, lemons, limes, mandarin, oranges, tangerines, tangors, and uniq fruit), cucumbers, curly endive, garlic, grapes, green beans, guava, herbs (such as basil, chives, cilantro, mint, oregano, and parsley), honeydew, kiwifruit, lettuce, mangos, other melons (such as canary, crenshaw and persian), mushrooms, nectarine, onions, papaya, passion fruit, peaches, pears, peas, peppers (such as bell and hot), pineapple, plums, plumcot, radish, raspberries, red currant, scallions, snow peas, spinach, sprouts (such as alfalfa and mung bean), strawberries, summer squash (such as patty pan, yellow and zucchini), tomatoes, walnuts, watercress, and watermelon.” Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, 78 Fed. Reg. 3504, 3629 (Sub. A § 112.1(b)) (proposed Jan. 16, 2013) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 16, 112), available at http://goo.gl/DXrXKG FSMA Proposed Rule for Preventive Controls, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Food & Drug Admin., http://goo.gl/EGXafL (last visited Aug. 9, 2013). “Small business” is defined as a business with less than 500 employees. The FDA is proposing to define “very small business” as one with average annual sales of $250k, $500k, or $1 million. FDA is seeking comment on this issue. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Food & Drug Admin., Analysis of Economic Impacts‒Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption 294-95 (2012), available at http://goo.gl/3QEW33 Cookson Beecher, Proposed Rule for Food Processors Alarms Some, Confuses Many, July 29, 2013, Food Safety News, http://goo.gl/trkOMB

Do you have ideas for a guest writer, a new member profile or want to commend your

district’s legislator? Please let us know!

Rob Amsterdam, PFU Board Member

This summer, I travelled to DC with the Executive Secretary of the PA Vegetable Growers Association to meet with Senate staffers regarding the Immigration Reform bill. The meetings were arranged by United Fresh and we were joined by one of their legislative

staff and a grower of pumpkins, melons and other veg with operations in IL, IN, MO and AR. Several of the meetings included representatives from the GA andNC Farm Bureaus.

We met with staff of the following Senators: Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Joe Donelly (D-IN). (At the time the meetings were arranged, these Senators were perceived by United Fresh to be uncommitted on the bill that was before the Senate.) Support for the ag worker titles was unanimous. However, support for the overall bill in its current state at the time of the meetings pretty much fell on party lines, with Democrats stating they were comfortable with the bill and could support it. Isakson and Kirk wanted to see stronger border security and containment along with so called triggers. Saxby’s staff provided the most detailed and technical concerns about the ag worker portion while professing he was not trying to “blow up the bill.” Saxby’s so-called “radioactive” issues include the stated wage rates; the stated caps on the numbers of workers per years permitted to enter in the program (they want to see market escalators that reflect demand); the Blue Card program (feeling the burden of proof is too low and will allow non-ag workers to enter the program under false pretenses); and they want to see employer liability changed. His position on the final version will be influential.

Throughout the day, in every office we visited the phones were ringing non-stop with calls on the immigration bill. Generally the calls were negative and we heard from staffers the callers were mostly voicing opposition to amnesty and opposed to “rewarding” immigrants already in the country. Interestingly, only Senator Saxby’s office indicated they were getting equal, if not more, positive calls regarding the bill.

As we now know, the bill that ultimately passed in the Senate has many changes from the bill that was before that body when we made our visit. We will now have to wait and see what happens .

Update: Immigration Bill

NFU Joins Coalition to Protect COOL

In early August, the NFU Board of Directors voted unanimously to intervene in a recently-filed Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) lawsuit seeking an injunction to vacate and halt the implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) final COOL rule.

Farmers Union is working with the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, American Sheep Industry Association and Consumer Federation of America to support USDA and COOL. Farmers and ranchers are proud of what they produce and consumers want to know the origins of their food. That’s why Farmers Union supports Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL). COOL for most meat products was included as part of the 2008 Farm Bill and has been in effect since 2009.

U.S. packers and processors, packer-dominated producer organizations and Canadian and Mexican interest groups have gone to great lengths to undermine COOL

Canada and Mexico filed suit in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) legal review process

Canada is currently working to implement a COOL system, while fighting ours, and 47 other countries had either enacted or were planning to enact COOL in 2007

The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body found that the laws that dictate U.S. COOL were in compliance with WTO guidelines, but the way in which those COOL laws were implemented was not

USDA released new rules in May that make COOL more detailed in order to comply fully with WTO’s requirements. Instead of simply stating “Product of USA,” the labels would now read “Born, raised and slaughtered in USA”

NFU, along with allies at the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the American Sheep Industry Association, intervened in the case on USDA’s behalf, and other livestock groups and consumer advocates may do so as well.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that, if granted, would have blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing and enforcing its revised Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations

The American Meat Institute and other packer-producer organizations have decided to appeal the denial of their preliminary injunction request. Look for updates soon.

Update: Country of Origin Labeling

Do you want your voice to be

represented by Farmers Union policy?

Visit www.pafarmersunion.org today

to offer your input during the

“open comment” period of 2013 Pennsylvania

Farmers Union Policy Handbook.

Perhaps like many of you, I have struggled to embrace corn-based ethanol as an answer for our nation’s fuel demands. As a farmer myself, I’ve seen how ethanol has divided us as growers. I also was part of the base that worried we were negatively impacting the amount of food available to hungry people by promoting ethanol. After attending the NFU Fly-In and, in particular, listening to Neil Young’s perspective which is summed up by his statement, “The renewable fuels standard is probably the most important thing I’ve seen that we need to get done and it all starts and ends with humus,” I believe my position is evolving. Portions of Young’s talk are available on YouTube. While I’m still formulating my personal position, what I do appreciate now that I hadn’t is the role Big Oil has in a monopolistic fuel system that clearly doesn’t want ethanol to be a serious player. Additionally, I hadn’t quite understood the long term plan laid out with the renewable fuels standard that makes it clear that corn-based ethanol is only the first stage of the plan and, as technology catches up, it has always been the intent to move on to advanced bio-fuels. I look forward to that.

Update: Renewable Fuels Standard - “Neil Young, You Had Me at Humus!”

Hannah Smith-Brubaker, PFU Executive Vice-President

Update: The Affordable Care Act - Health Care Reform & Your Insurance

Ryan Stillwell, Stillwell Insurance Agency

Neil Young, Senator Stabenow, NFU president Roger Johnson and Senator Harry Reid

On January 1st, 2014, many provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – commonly referred to as Obamacare – will be enacted. In this article, we will focus on a few of the major changes to the Individual Health Insurance market - and hopefully provide you with some insight into how these changes will effect your insurance.

The first requirement of the ACA is that each individual must have health insurance. This is commonly known as the Individual Mandate. If a person chooses not to purchase health insurance, you will be subject to a tax penalty. The following is the current schedule of penalties for not having health insurance (the greater of the two amounts will apply):

2014: $95 or 1% of your taxable income 2015: $325 or 2% of your taxable income 2016: $695 of 2.5% of your taxable income

The enrollment period starts October 1st, 2013 and ends March 31st, 2014. If you do not have health insurance effective on January 1, 2014, you may be subject to a penalty. The deadline to apply for a plan effective for January 1st is December 15, 2013.

In addition to the Individual Mandate, there are some fundamental changes in the way Health Insurance will function. These changes include:

All individual plans are now Guaranteed Issue: You cannot be declined coverage.

There is no longer a Pre-Existing Exclusion for individuals that were not previously insured. If you have no prior insurance, your new plan under ACA rules will not exclude any health conditions based on the fact that they were previously diagnosed.

Applications are not subject to medical underwriting. The rate that you are quoted is the rate that you will be pay for the designated term of your policy.

These changes will certainly help some find affordable health insurance – but how will it effect your premium if you already have insurance? To put it mildly – this is a difficult question to answer. Health Insurance premiums for the Individual market will now be rated in a very different way than they have been over recent years.

In Pennsylvania, Rate Bands have narrowed from 6:1 to 3:1. What this means is that for a specific health plan, the most expensive rate can not be more than three times more expensive than the least expensive rate. So if you're young and healthy, you may be looking at a significant premium increase. If you're older and have had a number of health conditions, you're premium changes are more likely to be favorable.

(Continued on page 10)

According to the National Farmers Union, we can be reassured by the following:

Almost 2/3 of the post-2004 food price increase is attributable to the prices of crude oil. There is a near-perfect correlation between the price of oil and food

The EPA already has enough flexibility to adapt to market conditions

The biofuels industry supports jobs for more than 365,000 Americans

The RFS saves the average American about $1200 per year in fuel costs, about $1.09 per gallon (University of Wisconsin and Iowa State University study)

The commercialization of the next generation of biofuels rests on the policy stability afforded by the RFS

We are only 1/3 of the way through the RFS timeline, so now is not the time to make changes

Rising food prices are caused by oil, not ethanol

America’s farmers can easily meet our renewable fuel needs without sacrificing food security

The corn crop doubled between 1980 and 2009 by planting just 3% more acres

Insurance Made Simple

Cindy Stillwell, Stillwell Insurance Agency

The Robert J Stillwell agency is working with the Pennsylvania Farmers Union and its members because we share a belief in the importance of the family farm. Family farms are integral to their local communities – and to our nation as whole – because of the high quality food you grow right here in America. We are proud to serve the members of the PFU by answering your questions, helping you to understand your coverage, and by providing you with comprehensive insurance solutions.

Insurance is a complicated issue for those of us who work in the industry – and even more so for those of you who don't. Our mission is to help you understand what coverage you need, why you need it, and explain your options for minimizing the price you pay without sacrificing the coverage you need to protect you, your family, and your business.

The first step in a review of your insurance is understanding what coverage you need. This includes a wide range of coverage options, such as whether you need a Homeowners or a Farmowners policy, what limit you need on your Home and what liability limits will protect your assets. We walk you through this process by asking detailed questions, and then explaining what coverage you need, and why it's important.

The next step is a review of your current policies. What coverage do you currently have in place? Does it provide you with enough coverage? Are you over-insured? Are your assets protected from lawsuits? We'll help you to answer these questions, then provide recommendations for coverage and options for saving money. We'll give you the knowledge you need to make an educated decision.

The Robert J. Stillwell Agency is family business in its third generation, and we have been in business for more than 40 years. Our business is built on developing relationships and earning your trust through honesty and integrity. Please do not hesitate to call us at 215-643-3490.

MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES

The ANNUAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD is upon us again. This time of year, from October 15th through December 7'th is very important for you. It is generally the only time of the year you can change Medicare Advantage Plans and/or Part D (RX) plans (unless you are eligible for a Special Election Period).

Medicare Advantage Plans and Part D plans change annually. Not only can the premiums change but co-pays for your doctors, hospitals, labs, and prescriptions may change as well. Don't ignore your annual change package from your plan because that is where you will find any changes.

The Robert J Stillwell Agency works with the Pennsylvania Farmers Union and is familiar with most of the plans offered. If you have any questions we can help you with or you would like to look at options, please do not hesitate to call our office and ask for Pam Scott (1-800-642-3490 x19). We have several $0 planned premiums plans that can save you money.

Finally – there are subsidies and tax credits available that are dependent on a few factors, including your Household Income, and the number of Family Members. These factors help determine the amount of subsidy you may be eligible to receive. The subsidies can be applied directly to your monthly premiums, or used as a tax credit when you file your tax returns.

In short, the changes in how individual health insurance premiums are rated will likely effect everyone differently. The Robert J. Stillwell Agency is available to help members of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union. Whether you would like to enroll in a new Health Plan or have questions about your current policy – please do not hesitate to call us at 215-643-3490.

(Continued from page 9)

Property & Casualty Farmowners

Auto & Homeowners

Umbrella Liability

Rental Properties

Business Insurance

Accident & Health Individual Health

Life Insurance

Medicare Supplements

Group Health

Disability

Robert J Stillwell Agency specializes in the following insurance services:

By the Numbers: Uninsured Pennsylvanians who are eligible for coverage through the Marketplace:

1,242,350 (12%) are uninsured and eligible

928,243 (75%) have a full-time worker in the family

491,258 (40%) are 18-35 years old

864,180 (70%) are White, 201,028 (16%) are African American, 114,374 (9%) are Latino/Hispanic, 33,494 (3%) are Asian American or Pacific Islander

707,872 (57%) are male

1,141,720 (92%) of Pennsylvania’s uninsured and eligible population may qualify for either tax credits to purchase coverage in the Marketplace or for Medicaid if Pennsylvania takes advantage of the new opportunity to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Pennsylvania Farmers Union Membership Invitation If you care about family farms, because you are a farmer yourself or you just plain care about your local farmer…

Or, if you are willing to share your knowledge and passion on the legislative front and make sure family farms have a fighting chance, not only to survive but to thrive…

Or, if you are interested in bringing affordable healthcare to Pennsylvania’s farmers in advance of the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act…

JOIN OR RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN THE PENNSYLVANIA FARMERS UNION AND YOUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD! Farmers Union continues to be the nation’s premier farm organization dedicated to family farm agriculture, cooperative businesses, and rural communities. By becoming a part of the Farmers Union family, you can expect a powerful and respected voice representing you on critical issues.

Grassroots Policy & Education:

Farmers Union policy is written and approved by our members. The issues that are important to YOU can be debated and become policy.

Receive updates on food and farm legislation, as well as briefs about agricultural news from around the United States.

Accept your invitation to the PFU annual convention. Come together with other farmers that are facing similar challenges and opportunities. Meet in a social atmosphere to share ideas and solutions to common problems.

Advocacy:

Access to the Farmers Union legislative team in Pennsylvania and Washington, DC

Access to travel funds to participate in semi-annual legislative fly-ins; travel to Washington, D.C., to meet with members of Congress and their staff.

Someone working on your behalf to secure affordable healthcare benefits for farmers in advance of the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act, as well as other farm- relevant insurance benefits:

Property & Casualty Accident & Health - Farmowners - Individual Health - Auto - Life Insurance - Homeowners - Medicare Supplements - Umbrella Liability - Group Health - Rental Properties - Disability - Business Insurance

Business & Family:

Myriad benefits such as discounts at Office Depot, Constant Contact, Wyndham Hotels…

Visit www.pafarmersunion.org for more information.

Name: Address:

Email: Phone: Website:

Are you currently farming? If so, please tell us a bit about your farm:

Membership Type One Year Two Years Five Years

Individual Membership $50 $90 $200

Family Farm Membership $75 $135 $300

Business Membership $100 Please donate $10 to my local conservation district in

my name (does not require an additional donation).

Total: Friend of the Family Farmer $20

Additional Donation $

Card Number: CVV Code: Exp. Date: Billing Zip: Cardholder Name: Signature:

Payment by Check to the Pennsylvania Farmers Union or by Credit Card: Visa MasterCard Discover American Express

Please pay by check or credit card by returning this form to PA Farmers Union, PO Box 62024, Harrisburg, PA 17106, call 717-576-0794 to pay by credit card over the phone, or join at www.pafarmersunion.org today!

SAVE THE DATE - Annual Convention

December 7 • Dixon University, Harrisburg

Keynote: John Ikerd on

Family Farms: Our Promise for a Sustainable Future

Special Guest: Jerry Brunetti on

Living Soils: Essentials for Healthy Pastures & Fields

Special Guest: Tracy Coulter on

Agroforestry: Connecting our Farms, Forests & Watersheds

Register: www.pafarmersunion.org 717-576-0794 or

pafarmersunion@gmail.com

Tickets (members) - $20 ind / $35 family

Tickets (nonmembers) - $35 per person

Special Event Offer: Membership & Ticket - $55 ($70 value)

Congratulations Kelsey Schlegel!

Kelsey is the recipient of a National Farmers Union Stanley Moore scholarship of $1,000. Kelsey plans to attend Messiah College for Biology / Pre-

Med. Her long-term goals are to become a naturopathic doctor and to continue to help her

parents on their Dalmatia, PA fruit farm.

K. Schlegel Fruit Farm is a 3rd generation, family owned and operated farm, located in the

beautiful Susquehanna River Valley.

National Farmers Union - Annie’s Project

Women’s Conference Risk management insights for your family farm operation

Women’s leadership development, inspiration, networking

Cooperatives: understanding the business of teamwork

January 11-15, 2014 Holiday Inn Conference Center

Clearwater Beach, Florida

Registration opens September 30, 2013 Tentative agenda available Sept. 20 at nfu.org

Depending on interest, there will be a Mid-Atlantic &

New England contingent ridesharing option (please call the PFU

office if you are interested in going– we cannot cover attendance

but hope to cover transportation costs).

PO Box 62024 Harrisburg PA 17106 www.pafarmersunion.org

MEMBERSHIP EXPIRATION DATE REMINDER:

Your annual membership expiration date is printed above your mailing address. You can renew your membership

any time at www.pafarmersunion.org, by using the form in this newsletter or by calling 717-576-0794