Thursday, June 28, 2012
WineAmerica Sponsors a Taste of Michigan
This past Tuesday WineAmerica co-sponsored the third annual "Taste of Michigan" reception. The reception, hosted by the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, is an annual showcase for Michigan wine, beer, spirits and food. The reception was attended by Members of Congress, Congressional staff and various industry representatives.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Senate Supports Specialty Crops With Passage of Farm Bill
The following is a press release from the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, of which WineAmerica is a member.
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 21, 2012
Contact:
Ray Gilmer, United Fresh
Produce Assoc. 202-303-3425
Lisa Lochridge, Florida
Fruit & Vegetable Assoc. 321-214-5206
Senate Supports Specialty Crops With Passage
of Farm Bill
Bill Preserves Funding for Critical Specialty
Crop Programs
WASHINGTON, D.C – The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance (SCFBA) applauded the passage
of the Agriculture Reform, Food
and Jobs Act of 2012 in the Senate today. The 64-35 vote comes after a
two-day consideration of more than 70 amendments, pared down from the nearly
300 that were submitted. The bill addresses many of the critical priorities
outlined by the SCFBA and continues the support of specialty crops that was
established in the 2008 Farm Bill.
“We appreciate the hard work of
Majority Leader Reid, Republican Leader McConnell, Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow,
and Ranking Member Roberts for getting this challenging but vital farm bill
over the Senate finish line,” said John Keeling, National Potato Council
executive vice president and CEO and co-chair of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill
Alliance. “The policies of the Farm Bill passed by the Senate will help protect
the tens of thousands of jobs associated with the specialty crop industry and
will help create more. And it further strengthens the access of all Americans
to the specialty crops that enhance their daily lives. We look forward to ensuring that the voices
of employers, workers and families dependent on a strong specialty crop
industry are heard as the House makes progress on its Farm Bill.”
"At a time when it's
critically important for Americans to be eating more fruits and vegetables,
Senate passage of this bill is great news for consumers," said Mike
Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association and co-chair
of the Alliance. "Besides preserving jobs, it helps to ensure access to a
plentiful supply of healthful specialty crops. What's more, this bill addresses
some of the continual significant challenges specialty crop growers face in the
production and marketing of their crops in an increasingly global marketplace.
We look forward to working with the House as it takes up its version of the
bill."
“For specialty crop
producers across the country the Farm Bill represents an opportunity to create
a healthier life for Americans across the country,” said Tom Nassif, president
and CEO, Western Growers and co-chair of the Alliance. “Farm Bill funding helps
fuel innovations in farming that will help our producers grow and harvest an
abundant supply of specialty crops utilizing fewer natural resources. This is
an opportunity to help our industry in the short and long-term as well as help
secure the jobs of millions of American workers who support agriculture and reduce
the federal deficit. Now that the Senate has completed its work, we look
forward to seeing Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson move the farm bill
through the House Agriculture Committee.”
The Specialty Crop Farm
Bill Alliance is grateful to the Senate Agriculture Committee for bringing a
comprehensive bill to the floor and to the key policymakers who worked with the
Alliance to secure support for several programs of particular importance to the
fresh fruit and vegetable industry. The 1,000-plus page bill includes key
specialty crop industry priorities such as research, pest and disease
mitigation, trade, nutrition, and other programs help producers to be
competitive and meet the needs of American consumers. Highlights of the bill
include:
•
Specialty Crop Block Grants funded at $70 million per year
•
Specialty Crop Research Initiative funded at $25 million in FY13;
$30 million in FY14-15; $65 million in FY16; $50 million in FY17
•
Plant Pest and Disease Program funded at $60 million in FY13-16
and $65 million in FY17
•
Market Access Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
fully funded at 2008 Farm Bill levels
•
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program fully funded at 2008 Farm Bill
levels
•
Hunger-Free Communities Grant Program for fruit and vegetable SNAP
incentives
•
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program
•
Section 32 specialty crop purchases funded at 2008 Farm Bill
levels
•
DoD Fresh program fully funded at 2008 Farm Bill levels
The House Agriculture Committee is expected to release its version
of the bill in July.
###
The Specialty
Crop Farm Bill Alliance is a national coalition of more than 120
organizations representing growers of fruits, vegetables, dried fruit, tree
nuts, nursery plants and other products. The alliance was established to
enhance the competitiveness of specialty crop agriculture and improve the
health of Americans by broadening the scope of U.S. agricultural public policy.
For more information, visit www.strongeragriculture.org.
WINEAMERICA APPLAUDS PASSAGE OF SENATE FARM BILL
With a vote of 64 Y – 35 N, the US Senate today passed its
version of the 2012 Farm Bill (S. 3240). Included in this bill are important
programs and funding for specialty crops, such as Specialty Crop Block Grants,
National Clean Plant Network, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, Value Added
Producer Grants and Market Access Program (MAP). WineAmerica applauds the
Senate for accomplishing the daunting task of putting together a national Farm
Bill in a bi-partisan manner; one that recognizes the important role specialty
crops play in the US agricultural community. We also recognize the outstanding
work of Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member
Pat Roberts (R-KS) whose outstanding leadership during this grueling
process ensured success.
We now turn our attention to the House where the House Agriculture
Committee plans to begin markup on its Farm Bill on July 11. WineAmerica will
continue to work, as part of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, to protect
our critical programs and funding as the process continues.
For questions about the 2012 Farm Bill or any other legislative issue, please contact WineAmerica's Director of Grassroots and Political Affairs Jennifer Montgomery at jmontgomey@wineamerica.org.
WineAmerica Opposes the National Institute of Health's Proposal to Eliminate the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
WineAmerica and other industry partners sent the following letter to Capitol Hill opposing the National Institute of Health's proposal to eliminate the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The letter was signed by WineAmerica, The Wine Institute, The Beer Institute, The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, The National Beer Wholesalers Association, The National Association of Beverage Importers and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.
The Honorable Joe Pitts
Chair
Energy and Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Health
United States House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing about the hearing you have scheduled for Thursday, June 21, 2012 regarding the National Institutes of Health: A Review of its Reforms, Priorities and Progress. We understand that Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director, will testify on behalf of NIH.
The hearing is timely, because we just learned that NIH has decided to by-pass your Subcommittee in connection with NIH’s plan to abolish the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in order to create a new addiction-focused Institute. Instead of putting the proposed merger through the statutory process detailed in the NIH Reauthorization Act of 2006, which would involve your Subcommittee’s input, NIH plans to avoid substantive review of this merger by simply including the changes in its FY14 budget.
The NIH has failed to undertake the legally required assessment of administrative, logistical and financial costs associated with the merger and has also not presented any details regarding the mission of the new addiction-focused Institute. An informal cost analysis done by Dr. Bankole Johnson, of The University of Virginia estimates merger costs approaching $1 billion. Institute collaboration, which is already underway, is more effective and cost efficient. A structural merger would result in significant funding cuts for research. Additionally, it now appears unlikely that nicotine would move to the new addiction Institute. An important consideration in the proceedings of the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) meeting, which seemed to sway the vote for the structural merger, was the promise that the new proposed institute would
address nicotine, a serious addiction issue.
We are strongly opposed to NIH’s plan. Both NIAAA and NIDA work to understand the science behind addiction and abuse, and while increased collaboration may be appropriate, a structural merger of these two agencies is ill advised, because it will lead to a research environment in which legal alcohol and illegal drugs are deemed the same when, in fact, they are very different. This, in turn, would have unwarranted policy implications. Alcohol is a legal product, and the overwhelming majority of adults who choose to drink beverage alcohol, do so responsibly. Alcohol also has documented health benefits when consumed in moderation. Linking alcohol use with illicit drug use ignores these and many other facts. Linking alcohol use
with illicit drug use also turns back the clock on advances NIAAA has worked diligently to achieve in de-stigmatizing alcoholism to increase the likelihood that individuals will seek treatment.
In addition to its work on alcohol abuse and alcoholism, NIAAA supports research on the health effects of moderate drinking as well as metabolism of alcohol, organ pathology related to alcohol consumption, drunk driving, college binge drinking, and fetal alcohol syndrome. There is a substantial risk that these important areas of research will be lost if there is only a single institute devoted exclusively to addiction research. NIAAA also addresses a wide variety of policy issues including the effectiveness of measures to prevent illegal alcohol sales to underage or intoxicated persons. These important issues are unlikely to get the attention they need if NIH implements the structural merger.
We urge you to question Dr. Collins on this ill-advised structural merger for an addiction focused Institute as well as NIH’s apparent unwillingness to follow the statutory process detailed in the NIH Reauthorization Act of 2006.
The Honorable Joe Pitts
Chair
Energy and Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Health
United States House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing about the hearing you have scheduled for Thursday, June 21, 2012 regarding the National Institutes of Health: A Review of its Reforms, Priorities and Progress. We understand that Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director, will testify on behalf of NIH.
The hearing is timely, because we just learned that NIH has decided to by-pass your Subcommittee in connection with NIH’s plan to abolish the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in order to create a new addiction-focused Institute. Instead of putting the proposed merger through the statutory process detailed in the NIH Reauthorization Act of 2006, which would involve your Subcommittee’s input, NIH plans to avoid substantive review of this merger by simply including the changes in its FY14 budget.
The NIH has failed to undertake the legally required assessment of administrative, logistical and financial costs associated with the merger and has also not presented any details regarding the mission of the new addiction-focused Institute. An informal cost analysis done by Dr. Bankole Johnson, of The University of Virginia estimates merger costs approaching $1 billion. Institute collaboration, which is already underway, is more effective and cost efficient. A structural merger would result in significant funding cuts for research. Additionally, it now appears unlikely that nicotine would move to the new addiction Institute. An important consideration in the proceedings of the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) meeting, which seemed to sway the vote for the structural merger, was the promise that the new proposed institute would
address nicotine, a serious addiction issue.
We are strongly opposed to NIH’s plan. Both NIAAA and NIDA work to understand the science behind addiction and abuse, and while increased collaboration may be appropriate, a structural merger of these two agencies is ill advised, because it will lead to a research environment in which legal alcohol and illegal drugs are deemed the same when, in fact, they are very different. This, in turn, would have unwarranted policy implications. Alcohol is a legal product, and the overwhelming majority of adults who choose to drink beverage alcohol, do so responsibly. Alcohol also has documented health benefits when consumed in moderation. Linking alcohol use with illicit drug use ignores these and many other facts. Linking alcohol use
with illicit drug use also turns back the clock on advances NIAAA has worked diligently to achieve in de-stigmatizing alcoholism to increase the likelihood that individuals will seek treatment.
In addition to its work on alcohol abuse and alcoholism, NIAAA supports research on the health effects of moderate drinking as well as metabolism of alcohol, organ pathology related to alcohol consumption, drunk driving, college binge drinking, and fetal alcohol syndrome. There is a substantial risk that these important areas of research will be lost if there is only a single institute devoted exclusively to addiction research. NIAAA also addresses a wide variety of policy issues including the effectiveness of measures to prevent illegal alcohol sales to underage or intoxicated persons. These important issues are unlikely to get the attention they need if NIH implements the structural merger.
We urge you to question Dr. Collins on this ill-advised structural merger for an addiction focused Institute as well as NIH’s apparent unwillingness to follow the statutory process detailed in the NIH Reauthorization Act of 2006.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Agricultural Export Coalition Strongly Opposes Amendment to Cut Market Access Program Funding and Limit Activity
In a letter dated June 13, 2012, 80 members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports strongly opposed an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to S. 3240 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012) to reduce annual funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) by $40 million and prohibit the use of MAP funds for certain activities.
“Reducing funding for MAP
would seriously undermine U.S. agriculture’s ability to compete in this highly
competitive international marketplace,” the organizations said in the letter to
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking
Minority Member Pat Roberts (R-KS). “It is a very efficient, cost-effective
program.”
The letter also noted that
under MAP, participants must carefully evaluate and adjust all export market
development activities every year. The participants submit plans to USDA’s
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), which reviews every promotional activity to
determine their eligibility and ability to help increase demand for U.S.
agricultural exports. This analysis, in conjunction with feedback from FAS
overseas officers, determines whether activities merit funding.
MAP “has been tremendously
successful and extremely cost-effective in helping maintain and expand U.S.
agricultural exports, protect and create American jobs, strengthen farm income
and help to offset the government-supported advantages afforded foreign competitors,”
the organizations said. “We strongly urge that MAP continue to be funded in S.
3240 at no less than $200 million annually, which is the same level as in the
current Farm Bill.”
The Coalition to Promote U.S.
Agricultural Exports is an ad hoc coalition of organizations representing
farmers and ranchers, fishermen and forest product producers, cooperatives,
small businesses, regional trade organizations, and the State Departments of
Agriculture (see attached list). The Coalition believes the U.S. must continue
to have in place policies and programs that help maintain the ability of
American agriculture to compete effectively in a global marketplace still
characterized by subsidized foreign competition. Since its formation in the
late 1980s, the Coalition's goal has been to ensure that funding is maintained
(and increased) for the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market
Development (FMD) Program administered by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS).
WineAmerica is a member of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports.
Monday, June 11, 2012
WineAmerica's Cary Greene to Speak at the Seventh Annual ShipComplaint Users Conference
WineAmerica's Cary Greene will be a featured speaker on two panels at the Seventh Annual ShipCompliant User's Conference. The Conference, to be held June 14 at the Napa Valley Marriott, is the wine industry's premier direct sales conference. For more information please visit the conference website at:
http://www.shipcompliant.com/events/2012/Users-Conference/Default_pre-event.aspx
http://www.shipcompliant.com/events/2012/Users-Conference/Default_pre-event.aspx
WineAmerica Opposes Missouri Bill Modifying the Definition of a Franchise: Bill Would Artificially Protect Wine Wholesalers
The following letter was sent to the Governor of Missouri on Friday, June 8, 2012.
Re: S. 837 – Modifying the definition of franchise under Missouri franchise law
Dear Governor Nixon:
WineAmerica, the National Association of American Wineries, on behalf of our
member wineries in Missouri and across the nation, encourage you to veto S. 837, a
bill that artificially protects wine wholesalers against competition at the expense of
Missouri’s 116 wineries.
As passed by the Missouri legislature, S. 837 would deny wineries an essential free
market right—to negotiate contracts affecting the sale of their products. Under this
draconian bill, Missouri wineries would be able to terminate their distributors under
only the narrowest of circumstances, with potentially crippling termination costs, and
under the threat of long, expensive litigation.
Over the five years between 2005 and 2010, the Missouri wine industry has doubled in
size, with an economic impact that has nearly tripled. See Stonebridge Research, The
Economic Impact of Wine and Grapes in Missouri 2010 (Oct. 2010). The unnecessary
and anticompetitive S. 837 would harm a shining example of dynamic, rural economic
development in Missouri, and the thousands of well-paying, rural jobs this rapidly
growing industry has created.
Missouri wines are a truly American gem. There’s nothing else in the world like them.
As local wineries continue to grow and flourish—improving their reputation
throughout the country and around the world—it is incumbent upon the Missouri
legislature to find ways to improve the state’s distribution laws. Tightening so-called
“franchise” protections would be a significant step backward, creating a barrier to
market entry for wineries with no commensurate benefit to the state.
Missouri is a leader of the Midwestern wine industry. Its distribution laws should
further encourage the development of local wineries and promote the interstate sale of
locally produced wine. The state should not impose new obstacles, such as those
proposed by S. 837, that would derail the efficient sale and distribution of wine.
We urge you to veto this harmful proposal.
Re: S. 837 – Modifying the definition of franchise under Missouri franchise law
Dear Governor Nixon:
WineAmerica, the National Association of American Wineries, on behalf of our
member wineries in Missouri and across the nation, encourage you to veto S. 837, a
bill that artificially protects wine wholesalers against competition at the expense of
Missouri’s 116 wineries.
As passed by the Missouri legislature, S. 837 would deny wineries an essential free
market right—to negotiate contracts affecting the sale of their products. Under this
draconian bill, Missouri wineries would be able to terminate their distributors under
only the narrowest of circumstances, with potentially crippling termination costs, and
under the threat of long, expensive litigation.
Over the five years between 2005 and 2010, the Missouri wine industry has doubled in
size, with an economic impact that has nearly tripled. See Stonebridge Research, The
Economic Impact of Wine and Grapes in Missouri 2010 (Oct. 2010). The unnecessary
and anticompetitive S. 837 would harm a shining example of dynamic, rural economic
development in Missouri, and the thousands of well-paying, rural jobs this rapidly
growing industry has created.
Missouri wines are a truly American gem. There’s nothing else in the world like them.
As local wineries continue to grow and flourish—improving their reputation
throughout the country and around the world—it is incumbent upon the Missouri
legislature to find ways to improve the state’s distribution laws. Tightening so-called
“franchise” protections would be a significant step backward, creating a barrier to
market entry for wineries with no commensurate benefit to the state.
Missouri is a leader of the Midwestern wine industry. Its distribution laws should
further encourage the development of local wineries and promote the interstate sale of
locally produced wine. The state should not impose new obstacles, such as those
proposed by S. 837, that would derail the efficient sale and distribution of wine.
We urge you to veto this harmful proposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)