2011 RESOLUTIONS As Adopted by the
Voting Delegates at the
Annual Meeting of the Members March 5, 2011
I. EXPORTS,
MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE POLICIES
1.0.00 Preamble 1.0.01 The American Soybean Association (ASA)
recognizes that U.S. soybeans and soybean products must have
fair access to world markets and must be competitive on price,
quality and availability for markets.
1.0.02 Export development programs, led by Market
Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development
Program (FMD), have helped build an export market of a record
$135.5 billion forecast for 2011. Soybeans, soybean products
and soy fed animal products constitute (41%) of all U.S.
agriculture exports. Studies confirm each billion dollars in
exports generates 8,000 jobs and $1.36 billion in additional
economic activity, meaning agricultural exports create 1.1
million jobs and $184 billion in additional economic activity.
The public-private partnership among soy producers, the soy
industry and the U.S. government creates a significant and
positive boost to the U.S. economy.
1.1.00 Government Support of Market Development and Export
Sales 1.1.01 The U.S. Administration shall take into account
the impact of international exchange rates on U.S. export
competitiveness.
1.1.02 ASA encourages Congress and the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) as a support to the investment of farmer
checkoff dollars to maximize funding for market development
efforts and to respond quickly to opportunities in
international trade.
1.1.03 ASA encourages the maximization of funding for
market development efforts and to respond quickly to
opportunities in international trade through the investment of
farmer checkoff dollars to maximize use of Foreign
Agricultural Services (FAS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
1.1.04 ASA supports efforts to improve U.S.
competitiveness in global markets for soybeans including
whole, processed and high value products.
1.1.05 ASA urges Congress and the Administration to
aggressively support P.L. 480 and Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) grant programs and initiatives to expand exports of U.S.
soybeans and soybean products.
1.1.06 ASA supports provision of sufficient export
credit guarantees.
1.1.07 ASA commends the FAS of the USDA for work in
expanding markets for U.S. soybeans, whole and processed, as
well as other U.S. agricultural products. ASA recommends that
future Federal funding for foreign market development be
maintained at an annual rate commensurate to inflation rates
and increased marketing needs.
1.1.08 ASA strongly urges that USB appropriate funds to
international marketing in order to fully qualify for USDA/FAS
matching funds.
1.1.09 ASA supports all meat, poultry, dairy, and
aquaculture export programs.
1.1.10 ASA encourages the development of common
national and international standards for maximum residual
levels of animal health products in livestock trade
internationally.
1.1.11 ASA shall continue to be the U.S. soybean
growers’ International Marketing Contractor with the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
1.2.00 Quality and Grading Standards for Soybeans and
Soybean Products 1.2.01 ASA believes grain quality standards should be
international in scope. These standards affect the long-term
future of the industry and have a major role in market
efficiency, improved quality and competition among sellers.
1.2.02 ASA supports a grading and marketing system that
compensates producers for selling clean, high quality
soybeans. ASA supports beginning a process to determine if
farm program or LDP payments should include a
premium/differential for higher quality attributes such as,
but not limited to, protein and oil.
1.2.03 ASA supports the following principles as
long-term objectives in any revisions or updating of present
standards to:
Define uniform and accepted descriptive terms to facilitate trade.
Provide the information for the market to create incentives to improve the overall quality of soybeans.
Provide information for the end user to help determine end product yield and quality.
Provide information for the farmer to help select varieties of greatest value.
Require that grading factors have a definable economic value.
Remove economic incentives that promote inefficiencies and undesirable practices.
Encourage development of soybean standards that will set standard for U.S. soybeans at 1% foreign material (FM) in export and domestic markets. ASA will strive to implement grain standards to assure the best product available for our customers. To fully accomplish this task ASA must request the full cooperation of the grain traders in adhering to these quality requirements for exported soybeans to the end user.
Both public and commercial soybean breeders and producers should be represented on committees formed to develop grain quality standards for soybeans and to cooperate with other farm groups to set international standards for specialty grains.
Soybeans should be purchased on dry matter content with a 13% moisture standard.
ASA will communicate to soybean farmers the implications of anticipated or actual changes to grading standards.
1.2.04 ASA recommends that the USDA and soybean
producers strive to ensure that quality discounts are
justifiable.
1.2.05 ASA encourages a study be undertaken by the
appropriate governmental agencies, farmer leaders and industry
representatives to determine the need for additional intrinsic
testing capabilities, revised procedures, or other controls
resulting from the rapid growth in volume and number of
differentiated identity preserved marketing’s of enhanced
trait soybeans.
1.2.06 ASA encourages the development of a common
national and international standard for monitoring of
calibrations for all grain analyzing technologies.
1.2.07 ASA supports a grading and marketing system that
recognizes the intrinsic quality and value of soybeans and to
reward farmers who are capable of producing and marketing
soybeans of enhanced value to users.
1.2.08 ASA encourages strict enforcement of the
handling of any treated seed to ensure it does not get into
any commercial shipment of U.S. soybeans.
1.3.00 Trade Policy 1.3.01 ASA supports the removal of foreign barriers to
international trade in soybeans, soybean products, as well as
livestock, poultry and aquaculture products and the prevention
of the establishment by other nations of barriers to the
importation and consumption of U.S. soybeans, soybean
products, as well as livestock products.
1.3.02 ASA strongly encourages reinstatement of the
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).
1.3.03 ASA strongly opposes the imposition of
restrictions on the export of any and all agricultural
commodities including soybeans and soybean products, whether
it is for supply, national security, or foreign policy
reasons. Any embargo, sanction, or other restriction on
exports of U.S. agricultural commodities for national security
or foreign policy reasons shall require a formal determination
by the President and Congress that such action is supported
and joined by all other major world producers and exporters of
affected commodities. Any action would terminate unless the
President re-certifies this determination on an annual basis.
Contract sanctity should be guaranteed for all foreign
purchasers of U.S. agricultural commodities. ASA calls on the
President and Congress to revise legislation that exempts
sales of U.S. agricultural products from economic sanctions so
that normal commercial credit can be offered by U.S. entities.
ASA shall increase its efforts to inform U.S. soybean
producers and consumers as to the scope and the ramifications
of above said sanctions on U.S. farmers.
1.3.04 ASA favors the immediate removal of agricultural
trade and travel restrictions for Cuba and urges Cuban
eligibility for Foreign Market Development (FMD), Market
Access Programs (MAP), GSM and other credit programs.
1.3.05 ASA opposes the establishment of restrictions by
the United States on the importation of fairly traded goods
that may precipitate retaliation against the export of U.S.
soybeans, soybean based products and livestock products by
other nations or which would economically burden U.S. soybean
farmers.
1.3.06 ASA strongly supports achievement of a Level
Playing Field (LPF) trading basis for oilseeds, oilseed
products and plant-based oil and products in future
negotiations. The LPF approach is a multilateral phase-out of
all trade distorting export subsidies, including differential
export taxes, and all tariff and non-tariff barriers to
oilseeds, oilseeds product and plant-based oil and product
imports.
1.3.07 The Blair House Agreement (BHA) sets a WTO-bound
limit on subsidized oilseed production in the EU, and ASA
insists on strict enforcement of the EU’s commitments. The
U.S. has the reasonable expectation that (a) the subsidized
area planted to oilseeds will not exceed the BHA level of
about 4.9 million hectares plus the BHA-consistent area of new
EU members and (b) oilseed production on set aside for
industrial use will not exceed 1 million tons on a soybean
meal equivalent basis. As the EU implements changes in its
agricultural policies and implements new “energy crop”
payments to encourage the growing of energy crops, including
oilseeds, the U.S. Government must insist that the EU be in
compliance with its obligations. The U.S. must insist that the
EU policies, including single-form payments, energy crop
payments, and biodiesel tax incentives, do not nullify or
impair the zero-tariff binding for oilseeds the EU granted the
U.S. in previous trade negotiations.
1.3.08 ASA insists that the Federal government ensure
the countries that sign the WTO Agreement and Free Trade
Agreements adhere to their intent.
1.3.09 ASA insists the office of U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) adhere to commitments made by the
Administration to ASA preceding Senate ratification of WTO.
These commitments include promoting domestic markets for
soybean products.
1.3.10 ASA insists USDA, the U.S. Trade Representative
and any other relevant agencies should be more aggressive in
investigations and pursuing complaints against countries whose
tariff structure and/or non-tariff barriers may violate said
countries WTO and FTA obligations.
1.3.11 ASA strongly urges the U.S. Trade Representative
to initiate a WTO complaint against the EU’s discriminatory
and non-science based traceability and labeling regulations.
1.3.12 ASA supports comprehensive WTO negotiations as
the best means to increase worldwide incomes and reduce trade
barriers to soy and livestock products. ASA believes that
bilateral or regional Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations
should be focused toward those countries that represent
significant commercial markets for U.S. soybeans and products,
livestock products, and agricultural exports in general.
1.3.13 ASA strongly recommends that the WTO
negotiations encompass all sectors as a comprehensive single
undertaking. This means that all aspects of the negotiations
should be included and implemented simultaneously in order to
get the best results for U.S. agriculture. (No early harvest)
1.3.14 ASA supports substantial improvements in market
access for soybeans and soybean products, including livestock,
poultry and aquaculture products, as the top priority of the
DOHA Development Round negotiating under the WTO.
1.3.15 ASA believes that any new WTO agreement reducing
trade-distorting (i.e., “amber box”) domestic support must
reflect the extent to which market access is increased in
developing and developed countries through reductions in
tariffs and other measures.
1.3.16 ASA strongly supports maintaining the “de
minimus” exemption of product and non-product specific support
from reductions required in trade-distorting domestic
programs.
1.3.17 ASA strongly opposes any reduction commitments
or caps on “green box” domestic support policies that do not,
or only minimally, distort production or trade.
1.3.18 ASA strongly supports establishing a rules-based
system for disciplining the use of export credits and similar
government supported export financing programs.
1.3.19 ASA strongly supports defining Differential
Export taxes as export subsidies that would be subject to
discipline and elimination in a Doha Round agreement.
1.3.20 ASA strongly supports the elimination of
differential export taxes for oilseeds, oilseed products, and
plant-based oil and products.
1.3.21 ASA opposes including disciplines on food
assistance programs in the WTO negotiations.
1.3.22 ASA strongly opposes allowing countries to
self-designate as “developing countries” for the purpose of
obtaining special and differential treatment under the WTO.
ASA supports the establishment of objective criteria for
determining if a country is eligible to claim special and
differential treatment overall or for certain sectors.
1.3.23 ASA strongly opposes exempting government
supported domestic transportation and marketing subsidy
programs in developing countries from disciplines under the
WTO.
1.3.24 ASA strongly opposes including in the WTO
agreement the precautionary principle or other food safety
concerns that are not science based that could be used as a
justification for restricting market access.
1.3.25 ASA supports increasing funding of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) to a level adequate to
stabilize the economies of countries that are major markets
for U.S. soybean and soybean product exports, providing these
countries adopt the necessary fiscal policy to correct the
conditions.
1.3.26 ASA supports trade contracts that protect buyers
and sellers, but does not support unrealistic specifications
that are designed to be non-tariff trade barriers.
1.3.27 ASA supports value-added export programs that
include U.S. soybeans and soybean products in their production
or composition to meet the changing needs of the market.
1.3.28 ASA encourages that resources be utilized within
USDA to develop a permanent cadre of veterinarian and plant
pathologists to serve as trained negotiators whose sole
mission is to resolve animal and plant health sanitary/phytosanitary
trade barriers detrimental to the export of U.S. meat and
animal products, and U.S. grains and oilseeds.
1.3.29 ASA encourages the American Oilseed Coalition (AOC)
to continue the analysis and development of strategies for
trade agreements, including WTO and Free Trade agreements
determining how they impact the soybean producer and industry,
and to report findings back to state and national soybean
organizations on a timely basis.
1.3.30 ASA supports voluntary country of origin
labeling.
1.3.31 ASA strongly supports swift Congressional
passage of the pending Colombia, Panama and South Korea Free
Trade Agreements.
1.3.32 ASA strongly supports negotiation of a Free
Trade Agreement (FTA) with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
countries and other countries that may join the negotiations
in the future, which may provide new market access
opportunities for U.S. soybean, soybean products, livestock
products, and new soybean based products.
1.3.33 ASA strongly opposes any product exclusions from
Free Trade Agreements (FTA) on the grounds that they serve as
negative precedents for countries seeking to exclude soy or
livestock products.
1.3.34 ASA urges the Federal Government to take every
possible action to prevent and mitigate the impact of any and
all economically significant diseases of livestock and
poultry.
1.3.35 ASA insists Congress and the Administration work
tirelessly to ensure that any food traceability laws and/or
U.S. seed companies and shipper’s contracts not transfer
financial liability onto U.S. producers due to grain shipments
containing unapproved GMO grain traits.
1.3.36 ASA urges the soybean industry to work to ensure
that financial liability for soybean products that contain
unintended and unapproved traits in soybeans and products to
be appropriated to the responsible parties.
1.3.37 ASA continues to strongly support free trade
agreements as adopted without addendums, and supports adopting
future trade agreements without social and political
requirements being the basis for acceptance. Furthermore, ASA
supports free trade agreements that help increase soybean and
meat exports.
1.3.38 ASA recognizes the need for reasonable seed
tolerance levels that allow for movement of seed within
international trade. ASA believes that such tolerances,
however, must be linked directly with accompanying tolerances
for the resulting commodity products.
1.3.39 ASA strongly opposes greenhouse gas restrictions
or any other greenhouse gas regulations that would negatively
affect the profitability of the U.S. soybean and livestock
farmer.
1.3.40 ASA opposes actions by Congress to impose
greater tariffs on Chinese products without multi-lateral
agreements. ASA believes that unilateral Chinese currency
legislation by Congress would create retaliatory actions that
would negatively affect soybean trade with China.
1.3.41 ASA urges the Administration to negotiate a
bilateral agreement with the European Union regarding U.S.
compliance with the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) that (1)
establishes an actual value for greenhouse gas emissions
savings for U.S. soy-based biodiesel that qualifies for EU tax
credits and use mandates; and (2) establishes an aggregate
approach for certifying that US. Biodiesel feedstocks were
produced in a sustainable manner that meets RED land use
requirements.
1.4.00 Assistance to Developing Nations 1.4.01 ASA urges U.S. and multilateral institutions to
consider long-term environmental consequences and benefits
when allocating funds to developing nations for projects that
could result in large-scale land clearing or deforestation.
ASA strongly opposes U.S. tax dollars being used by American
and multilateral institutions and universities to fund
competition for U.S. soybeans and soybean products.
1.4.02 ASA supports U.S. and multilateral development
assistance to developing nations aimed at raising per capita
disposable income in the developing nations provided such
assistance is based on comparative advantage and will not
increase the exports of commodities in current or projected
surplus supply.
1.4.03 ASA urges the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to continue its policy of not funding
programs that promote foreign production resulting in the
exports of soybeans and soybean products and would encourage
that this policy be extended to crops which compete with
soybeans and soybean products. ASA encourages USAID to
increase funding of programs that expand international use of
soybeans and soybean products and encourages USAID to support
ASA in developing and implementing such programs.
1.4.04 The U.S. soybean farmers recognize that
agricultural development in Least Developed Countries (LDC’s)
can help drive economic development worldwide. U.S. soybean
farmers stand ready to work with participants in the soybean
value chain targeting subsistence farmers to improve nutrition
to their community, raise themselves from poverty and develop
strong local markets providing such assistance complies with
current agricultural policy and law (Bumpers Amendment of
1986).
1.4.05 ASA supports development of nutrition and
devastating disease centers at interested land grant
institutions for the purpose of linking opportunities and
resources related to improving nutrition in populations
suffering from diseases of pandemic and epidemic proportions.
1.4.06 ASA supports the Millennium Challenge Account
for developing nations, provided that its efforts are
consistent with resolutions 1.4.01 through 1.4.03, and that
the administration use U.S. food and agricultural products to
help meet development and food security targets set for
Millennium Challenge beneficiaries.
1.4.07 ASA supports full funding for the Cochran
Program.
1.5.00Developing Countries Debt 1.5.01
ASA encourages the U.S. government to seek a solution to
developing countries debt that does not adversely impact the
U.S. soybean industry.
ASA feels the solutions for these countries should include:
Using a greater share of their oilseed production for domestic consumption.
Developing their domestic economy.
Using conservation and environmental practices that prevent the degradation of their soil resources through nutrient mining and soil erosion.
Preserving rain forests.
Funding nutrition programs including women, infant, children and/or school feeding, for their countries’ population.
1.6.00
Government Export Promotion Programs 1.6.01 Foreign Market Development Cooperator (FMD)
Program
ASA strongly supports the FMD Program. FMD is a successful
public/private partnership (PPP) which is a cooperative,
cost-share program between private industry groups that
represent farmers and ranchers and the U.S. Government. ASA
urges Congress to fund the FMD Program at a level of not less
than $50 million per year.
1.7.00 Market Access Program (MAP) 1.7.01 ASA supports continuation of MAP at current
levels, or above, which will continue to increase exports,
secure new and current markets and support the
Administration’s export goals under the National Export
Initiative. Further MAP and FMD represent some of the highest
returns on investment for soybean producers are currently
green box, and should remain a high priority in the next Farm
Bill.
1.7.02 In order to provide future stability to FMD and
MAP funding levels, ASA should encourage FAS to establish an
incentive based funding structure where by funding would be
increased as exports rise.
1.8.00 Export Credit Guarantee Programs
ASA supports continuation of export credit guarantee programs
at a minimum funding level of $4 billion and at the maximum
amount necessary to fully utilize the program maintaining the
tenor of up to three years.
Allow extension of
revolving credit lines to private entities as well as
foreign countries in order to make these programs more
flexible while reducing USDA’s risks;
Relax the
"creditworthiness" determination that must be made in
operating these programs by allowing the Secretary of
Agriculture to consider the longer-term economic
growth potential of a country, and economic policy
reforms that are being instituted unilaterally or in
conjunction with international financial institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund and World
Bank;
Implement an
infrastructure loan guarantee program that would allow
GSM guarantees to be used for specific import-related
infrastructure projects in foreign countries that
would result in increased U.S. agricultural exports to
those countries;
Allow the Secretary to permit, as appropriate,
U.S. produced agricultural commodities that may
contain less than 100% U.S. content to be covered
under the programs.
1.9.00 Food Aid and International Assistance 1.9.01 The ASA recognizes that the vast majority of the
world’s population, and its highest growth rates, are in the
developing world. Many of those people suffer from hunger and
malnutrition, as well as poverty and low levels of economic
development. Food aid plays a critical role in mitigating
these conditions; in fact, many of our best export markets
were at one time food aid recipients. The ASA and the product
we represent, soy, can play a role in strengthening food aid,
fortifying diets and achieving the complementary goals of
economic development and market growth.
1.9.02 ASA strongly supports uses of food in emergency
and development assistance. ASA opposes budgetary reductions
in developmental food aid to compensate for emergency
shortfalls. ASA supports PL480 programs and total Title II
budget at a level of $2 billion.
1.9.03 The Administration should commit to the
programming of 5.6 million metric tons of food aid per year as
the U.S. contribution to significantly reducing hunger by
2015, for an approximate total of $2.85 billion. These
resources should be principally for long-term development
programs, not devoted to short-term food emergencies.
1.9.04 ASA strongly supports all supplemental
appropriations bills that will fill in gaps in food assistance
and will address the following four points:
compensates for
shortfalls in food aid budget;
provides food for
additional emergency needs;
restores development
assistance programs that were cut to divert food to
emergencies; and
replenishes the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which is a backup reserve
to provide food for emergency needs.
1.9.05
ASA supports the continued funding for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
at no less than $300 million, the Food for Progress program at
no less than $200 million and supports seeking additional
funding from other U.S. and G-8 sources.
1.9.06 ASA urges the U.S. Government to continue
funding for global HIV/AIDS relief as well as incorporating
nutrition in its programs. ASA is committed to work through
WISHH on allocating funds and/or food through government food
procurement to include soy protein in the diets of people
affected by and/or infected with HIV/AIDS.
1.9.07 ASA is committed to developing relationships
with commercial entities in the private sector to address
HIV/AIDS and under-nutrition. WISHH will work with U.S. and
developing world-based companies to use soy as a supplement to
local foods and will reach out to both food processing
companies and manufacturing companies with HIV/AIDS programs
for their employees abroad.
1.9.08 ASA commends the Administration for its support
of biotechnology and U.S. farmers’ access to this important
tool. ASA calls on the USDA and other agencies to minimize the
threat of ill-conceived regulations that are hampering trade
with the developing countries and even blocking shipments of
food aid. Equally, the Administration should maximize the
understanding in the developing countries that biotechnology
can help address environmental challenges, augment nutrition
and improve food security.
1.9.09 ASA strongly recommends the judicious use of
soybeans or soybean products in food aid programs should not
be precluded automatically by rigid stocks-to-use ratios. A
minimum level of soybeans and soybean products should always
be available for humanitarian assistance.
1.9.10 ASA believes strongly that in-kind food aid
remains the most sustainable tool in the food aid toolbox.
Local and regional purchases can be a useful tool for
addressing global food insecurity, but they should work in
coordination with current food aid programs. In-kind donations
should remain intact and funding for local purchases should
come from the appropriate foreign assistance budget.
1.9.11 ASA adamantly opposes cash grant humanitarian
assistance that replaces in-kind food aid.
II. DOMESTIC ISSUES AND FARM POLICIES
II. DOMESTIC
ISSUES AND FARM POLICIES
2.0.00 Preamble 2.0.01 The American Soybean Association (ASA) supports
individual freedom and private initiative through the
competitive enterprise system. ASA supports achieving a
balanced federal budget and reducing the national debt through
a comprehensive approach to deficit reduction that includes
all entitlement programs and discretionary spending.
Reductions in the cost of agriculture-related programs should
not be disproportionate.
2.0.02 ASA supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) as the official governmental voice of agriculture.
2.0.03 ASA recommends that the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) farmer elected county committee system be maintained at
the county level, be comprised of elected operators/producers
and have more authority on decisions at the local level and
that county offices be structured to improve efficiency and
provide expedient delivery of services to soybean farmers.
2.0.04 ASA recommends that all food safety, feed safety
and environmental regulations concerning agriculture be
coordinated with the USDA.
2.0.05 ASA supports the important work of USDA Rural
Development to improve the quality of life and increase
economic opportunity in Rural America. ASA encourages the long
term funding of the grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs
administered by USDA Rural Development.
2.0.06 ASA believes in the need to continue maintaining
expanding, and promoting markets for identity preserved and
specialty soybeans or soybean products. ASA also supports
premium structures that reflect the additional costs of
identity preservation.
2.0.07 ASA believes input benefits and economic impact
on farmers and consumers should be considered in laws and
regulations designed to protect endangered species. We favor
exempting man-made agricultural structures from the Endangered
Species Act.
2.0.08 ASA supports safe food products for domestic and
foreign consumers. ASA understands that a safe food supply is
vital to the people of the U.S. and the world. Therefore, ASA
supports the maximum penalty under law on persons or groups
found guilty of terrorist acts that could affect the food
supply or the environment. Farmers should be held harmless
from liability due to terrorist activities on their
operations.
2.0.09 ASA supports the concept of tort reform as it
relates to claims against agricultural producers.
2.0.10 ASA urges the Census Bureau or USDA to continue
monthly reporting on U.S. soybean crush, oil and meal
extraction rates and soybean oil used in biodiesel production
as is currently reported in the Current Industrial Report.
2.0.11 ASA supports a soy or bio-based buying
preference for federal, state and local government entities.
2.0.12 ASA recommends farmer representation and
participation on all advisory, regulatory and planning boards
that affect agriculture at local, state and national levels.
2.0.13 ASA recommends that the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) be the primary administrative agency for USDA farm
programs.
2.0.14 ASA recommends increased governmental funding to
improve the antiquated information technology (IT) system of
the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
2.0.15 ASA supports an adequate legal work force for
agriculture production and processing. ASA urges Congress to
pursue and quickly implement policies that assure an adequate
workforce in all sectors of agriculture, and be implemented in
a minimally disruptive way.
2.0.16 ASA supports legislation that mandates greater
oversight of regulatory agencies by Congressional bodies.
2.1.00
Domestic Market Promotion 2.1.01 ASA recognizes the U.S. as the largest single
market for soybeans. ASA places the expansion and maintenance
of this market as a high priority.
2.1.02 ASA favors the promotion and use of registered
soybean product logos to stimulate consumer awareness, thus
encouraging expanded U.S. production, manufacturing and
employment.
2.1.03 ASA encourages the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) to work with grain and feed
handlers and other industries to use soybean oil to control
dust. ASA urges the insurance industry to consider rate
reductions for those using soybean oil dust control systems.
2.1.04 ASA favors expanded promotion and research for
new uses of soybeans and soybean products.
2.1.05 ASA opposes the inclusion of soybeans in any
national or international strategic grain reserves.
2.2.00 Competition Policy 2.2.01 ASA urges strengthening the enforcement rules of
antitrust laws and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to
protect the economic interests of America’s farmers that may
be affected by vertical integration and consolidation.
2.2.02 ASA supports the following changes to antitrust
statutes and regulations that will further protect the sellers
of commodities from anti-competitive behavior:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) should ensure that proposed cooperative and/or vertical integration arrangements, if implemented, should continue to maintain independent producers access to markets;
USDA should be more active in giving authority to review and provide recommendations to the DOJ on agribusiness mergers and acquisitions;
A high level position should be maintained within the DOJ to enforce antitrust laws in agriculture;
USDA should be
empowered to investigate mergers, consolidation or
concentration of agricultural input suppliers and
processors for antitrust or anti-competitive
activities.
2.2.03 ASA urges
Congress to review antitrust laws that may need to be brought
up to date with scientific and business developments due to
ongoing consolidations of seed and chemical companies.
2.2.04 ASA opposes mergers or acquisitions that could
create a monopoly of production, production inputs and/or
marketing of soybeans and products or otherwise reduce
competition and/or increase production costs that would lead
to lower income opportunities for soybean farmers.
2.2.05 ASA supports enabling trait providers and seed
companies to access and use the data package of a patented
biotech trait through agreements and established procedures
for the purpose of preparing to register and commercialize
generic versions of the trait after patent expiration. ASA
supports efforts by the private sector or, if necessary, the
federal government that facilitates this process.
2.3.00 Contract Production 2.3.01 ASA recognizes that contract production is a
factor in poultry and hogs, and that specialty and designer
soybeans will become a larger share of the soybeans we grow.
Therefore, ASA supports:
Contracts written in plain language
Farmer lien priority in the event the owner of the commodity files bankruptcy
A 72-hour walk-away provision for producers on production contracts
ASA opposes confidentiality clauses and arbitration as the only remedy in case of a dispute.
2.3.02 ASA advocates production contracts that allow
for producers’ liability to end when the first purchaser
accepts the product.
2.3.03 ASA recommends that farmers work together in
cooperative ventures to gain increased access in a vertically
integrated market environment.
2.3.04 ASA opposes the proposed livestock rules under
USDA’s GIPSA which regulates livestock and poultry contracts
and marketing practices as issued June 22, 2010.
2.4.00 Soybean Policy 2.4.01 ASA will support a soybean program that:
Provides no price floor to competitors of U.S. soybeans;
Discourages government-owned stocks;
Opposes all set-asides;
Supports a marketing loan at a level that enables soybeans to compete effectively with other major crops;
Provides income protection for U.S. soybean farmers;
Assists farmers to better manage
risk;
Allows equitable profit opportunities;
Provides planting flexibility necessary for U.S. soybean farmers to base their decisions on market signals and respond to environmental and conservation concerns. Planting flexibility should be allowed on all cropland acres, without loss of benefits, including income support payments and loan eligibility; and
Allow producers who deliver their crops to retain beneficial interest until the transaction price is agreed upon.
2.4.02 ASA opposes Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
loan origination fees. The CCC should not assess checkoff
fees on soybeans under loan unless they are forfeited to the CCC.
2.4.03ASA supports equitable treatment of soybean
producers in the development and implementation of federal
disaster and low price assistance programs.
2.4.04ASA is opposed to a uniform national LDP rate.
2.4.05ASA urges the Administration, the Federal
Reserve and Congress to determine and address the detrimental
effects of international currency exchange rates on U.S.
soybean competitiveness.
2.4.06ASA supports non-recourse marketing loans.
2.4.07 ASA supports allowing
producers who have a county disaster declaration to delete
them from their payment yield determinations.
2.4.08 ASA supports amending the restriction on
planting fruits and vegetables on program crop base acres to
allow producers to preserve base history on acres planted to
these crops while not being eligible for direct and
counter-cyclical payments, except under the current exemption
for double-cropping practices.
2.4.09 ASA supports programs that do not distort
planting decisions and which are WTO compliant.
2.4.10 ASA strongly opposes efforts to require
producers to lose beneficial interest in their commodities at
the time they receive a Loan Deficiency Payment (LDP) or
Marketing Loan Gain under the marketing loan program. ASA also
strongly opposes proposals that would discriminate against
planting soybeans by exempting crops that compete for acres
with soybeans from the required loss of beneficial interest
based on how these crops are marketed, or for any other
reason.
2.4.11 ASA strongly opposes any efforts to reopen the
2008 Farm Bill.
2.4.12 ASA supports the use of federal crop insurance
records and/or production evidence from three similar
surrounding farms as an acceptable form of proving yields for
federal farm programs.
2.5.00 Farm Program Payments 2.5.01 ASA opposes limitations which impose means
testing on Federal farm payments and loans made to U.S.
farmers. ASA opposes restricting eligibility for marketing
loan gains or LDP’s.
2.5.02 ASA supports full funding of income support
payments provided under farm legislation.
2.5.03 ASA supports fair and equitable price
determinations for LDP payments.
2.5.04 ASA supports soybeans grown for non-traditional
uses for all payments for which commodity soybeans are
eligible.
2.5.05 ASA supports individual eligibility of a
producer and spouse for equal program benefits.
2.5.06 ASA supports payment limits as written in the
2008 Farm Bill.
2.5.07 ASA supports the definition of actively engaged
in farming in effect under the 2002 Farm Bill.
2.5.08 ASA urges Congress that when considering budget
reductions in the 2012 Farm Bill that they look at the
elimination of redundant programs and at improving the
efficiency of the delivery of services.
2.6.00 USDA Budget Accounting 2.6.01 ASA favors expressing farm program costs as net
costs rather than total costs in the federal budget.
2.6.02 ASA supports Congressional review of budget
forecasting by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
2.7.00 Transportation 2.7.01 ASA supports efforts by the Soy Transportation
Coalition to address issues affecting the marketing and
transport of oilseeds, grains, and their products.
2.7.02 ASA supports directing federal infrastructure
funding toward improving commercial transportation, including
locks and dams and rural roads and bridges.
2.7.03 ASA opposes any new labeling of soy oil that
would restrict its current transportation status.
2.8.00 Water 2.8.01 ASA urges the Department of Transportation
(DOT), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other
agencies, and private industry to ensure an infrastructure
allowing U.S. soybeans to be delivered to domestic and
international markets in a timely and cost-effective manner.
2.8.02 ASA supports a comprehensive study of current
U.S. transportation infrastructure and capacity including all
inland waterways. This study should determine if the U.S. has
the ability to meet the needs of increased production for
export and commercial needs in order for the U.S. to be a more
competitive supplier of agricultural commodities.
2.8.03 ASA supports maintenance and improvements of the
U.S. waterway and navigation systems and that ASA be actively
involved with other groups to improve the Mississippi River
Waterway System.
2.8.04 ASA believes that monies deposited into the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund should be used for new
construction and major rehabilitation of navigation
infrastructure.
2.8.05 ASA urges the Department of Transportation
(DOT), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other responsible
agencies to expedite the process of rebuilding and
reconstructing flood control structures. ASA opposes proposed
Master Water Control Manuals that would cause seasonal
flooding or restricted barge traffic on the nation's
waterways. ASA opposes any diversion of river flows that would
adversely impact barge transportation.
ASA supports Missouri River master plan alternatives that keep navigation and inland drainage as top priorities.
ASA supports keeping
all river navigation systems important to
agriculture open for use.
ASA supports
maintaining full funding for all
river navigation systems.
ASA supports
legislation that defunds Missouri
River Authorized Purpose Study (MRAPS).
2.8.06 ASA urges Congress to adopt
legislation to minimize dock strikes that interrupt the flow
of soybeans and other farm commodities to our overseas
customers.
2.8.07 ASA supports the appropriation of funding for the
design and construction of Locks and Dams 20-25 on the Upper
Mississippi and the locks located at Peoria and LaGrange on
the Illinois River as authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA).
2.8.08 ASA supports the further development of West Coast
Shipping of Midwest soybeans and soy products. ASA supports
enactment of the Capital Development Plan drafted by the
Inland Waterways User Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to accelerate infrastructure improvements on U.S. river
systems, improve management of the projects, and provide
additional funding.
2.8.09 The Jones Act should be amended so as to allow the
shipment on the lowest cost vessels of U.S. agricultural
commodities from one U.S. port to another. ASA also supports
an exemption for bulk agricultural commodities from the Jones
Act.
2.8.10 ASA supports the aggressive pursuit of container
shipping of soybeans and soybean products.
2.8.11 ASA supports the free movement of goods both
domestically and internationally. ASA urges the U.S.
government to be vigilant against any undue restrictions by
foreign entities.
2.8.12 ASA urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Congress to take actions necessary to ensure that sufficient
funding is provided for dredging the Mississippi River to
maintain the maximum authorized navigable depth to ensure the
free movement of soybeans and soybean product domestically and
internationally.
2.9.00 Railroad
2.9.01 ASA supports legislative efforts to promote
increased competition in the rail industry to foster better
service and lower rates.
2.9.02 ASA supports Canada Pacific/DM&E Railroad
modernization and expansion projects in the North Central
states. In addition, ASA supports railroad modernization and
expansion from other U.S. production areas to Southeastern
states, where imported soybeans and soybean products may have
a price advantage over domestically grown soybeans because of
transportation issues.
2.9.03 ASA supports strong state and federal assistance in
maintaining low volume rail facilities in rural areas of the
country.
2.9.04 ASA encourages alternative access for farmers in
the event of railroad grade closings during and following
railroad development.
2.9.05 ASA supports reform of the Surface Transportation
Board (STB) to address competitiveness issues.
2.10.00 Highways & Roads
2.10.01 ASA opposes states or local
municipalities enacting lower weight limits on primary roads
going through their jurisdiction without providing alternative
routes.
2.10.02 ASA opposes any new labeling of soy oil that would
restrict its current transportation status.
2.11.00 Edible Oil Content Labeling
2.11.01 ASA will cooperate with all
interested parties in educating consumers about the health
benefits of soybean oil.
2.11.02 ASA supports exempting refined vegetable oil from
any domestic or international labeling requirement based on
allergenicity or hypersensitivity.
2.11.03 ASA opposes the Food and Drug Administration’s
rule that permits a label to contain an optional listing of
vegetable oils. Consumers should be provided with clear
information on the type and amount of vegetable oil that the
product contains.
2.11.04 ASA supports front of package labeling on
processed foods indicating the level of saturated fat content
on a per serving basis.
2.12.00 Soy Foods
2.12.01 ASA opposes local, state
and federal laws, tariffs and regulations that discriminate
against the use of soy oil or protein in foods.
2.12.02 ASA supports the increased use of soy protein in
foods and beverages, including foods used in federal nutrition
programs.
2.12.03 ASA encourages producers to grow high protein and
oil soybean varieties, and encourages purchasers to pay a
premium for these varieties.
2.12.04 ASA supports the reimbursable option for fortified
soymilk in the federal school lunch and breakfast programs
without the requirement of a doctor’s note.
2.12.05 ASA supports full funding of the Quality Incentive
Program (QIP) as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.
2.13.00 Crop Insurance
2.13.01 The availability of crop
insurance should not be tied to specific environmental issues
or cultural practices.
2.13.02 ASA supports Crop Insurance Program reform that
eliminates inadequacies of the current program for specific
crops and regions. Subsidies should be increased at the higher
levels of coverage to ensure that all producers can obtain
affordable coverage for 85% of their crop based on actual
historical yield. A more accurate and equitable rating system,
responsive to multiyear disasters, and recognition of producer
history must be integral components of program reform.
Understanding that crop insurance is a valuable risk
management tool, ASA supports policy that broadens the base of
risk management tools, subsidized or otherwise. ASA also
supports expanded development of revenue protection programs
to insure that all producers can manage production and price
risk at an affordable cost.
2.13.03 ASA urges the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)
to establish representative farmer advisory committees at both
the federal and state levels to provide input into the process
of evaluating and revising farming methods to be included for
coverage.
2.13.04 ASA should work towards the following changes
being made to the crop insurance program.
On land rated as high risk due to a specific peril, such as flooding, we recommend the attachment of a rider for that peril which will allow the producer to buy up additional coverage for other perils at regular rates.
FSA tract numbers should be used to determine units.
The actual loss in
crop value attributed to crop quantity and quality
discounts should be fully covered by crop insurance.
Allow a producer that
has had a Federal disaster declaration in their
county/parish to delete those yields from their APH.
2.13.05
ASA supports changing the federal crop insurance regulations
so that once a farmer has filed a claim and has provided all
necessary information pertaining to the claim, the insurance
company should have no more than 30 days to get a claim
processed and paid. After this deadline, the insurance company
should be required to pay interest on the outstanding claim
until said claim is settled. Also, while that claim is
outstanding, the insurance company cannot charge late fees or
interest to the farmer’s account for any outstanding premium
due for the crop the claim has been filed on.
2.13.06 ASA supports efforts of states or regions that
double-crop soybeans to compile the production and yield data
necessary to allow FSA and RMA to adjust final planting dates
without penalty on a sound actuarial basis.
2.13.07 ASA supports a crop insurance premium discount
for insured acres through the Risk Management Agency (RMA) for
recognized crop rotations that decrease pest incidence and
efficient nitrogen usage while increasing yield and
profitability.
2.13.08 ASA supports keeping the Federal Crop Insurance
premiums due date as November 1 of each fiscal year.
2.13.09 ASA opposes cuts to the Federal crop insurance
program that reduces agriculture baseline funding for the 2012
Farm Bill.
2.13.10 The ASA strongly urges Risk Management Agency (RMA)
and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to reinstate
Group Risk Plan (GRP) and Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP)
policies where they are no longer available.
2.13.11 ASA recognizes that the interaction between a
farmer and their crop insurance agent and the amount of
service provided by the agent to the farmer exceeds that of
other types of insurance. ASA urges the Risk Management Agency
(RMA) to consider this when considering the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA).
2.13.12 ASA requests the Risk Management Agency (RMA)
to use a fair and equitable formula based off of actual
production history (APH) when establishing a historical yield
for specialty beans/output trait soybeans. These plug yields
should be used for years in which specialty soybean history is
unavailable.
2.14.00 Equity Protection of Grain 2.14.01 ASA should work with the USDA, other
organizations and governmental agencies at the state and
federal level to develop adequate protection for farmer's
equity in the event of grain warehouse or dealer failure.
2.14.02 ASA opposes any Federal warehouse dealer
regulation that would supersede State licensing and warehouse
regulations when it offers less protection for farmers.
2.14.03 ASA supports grain warehouse regulations under
which producers are provided a receipt to prove ownership upon
delivery of grain, whether the grain is sold immediately or is
delivered for storage.
2.15.00 Soybean Trading 2.15.01 ASA should work closely with the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the CME Group to ensure
that the system works fairly for all traders. ASA supports the
public outcry trading system at the CME Group, but also
encourages worldwide electronic trading on commodity
exchanges.
2.15.02 ASA opposes a merger of the CFTC and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the transfer of
futures regulation to any agency other than CFTC.
2.15.03 ASA supports the CFTC in its ongoing efforts to
implement an instantaneous, verifiable audit system for
commodity futures trading.
2.15.04 ASA opposes federal regulation of margin levels
for futures contracts and on options contracts. ASA opposes
transaction fees on commodity trading which will inhibit the
trading of soybeans and soybean products.
2.15.05 ASA believes any futures or options
transactions that offset a current or anticipated cash
commodity position and reduce price or basis risk should be
considered a hedging position and not speculating. Gain or
loss from a hedging or option position should be considered by
the IRS as ordinary gain or loss for either personal or
corporate tax returns.
2.15.06 ASA strongly advocates and proposes a change in
tax law to treat call options that are tied to a cash sale the
same as a put option with gains taxed as ordinary income and
losses 100% deductible in the year they are incurred.
2.16.00 Farm Continuation 2.16.01 ASA encourages more funding and quicker
distribution of funds for beginning farmers through the FSA
Direct Loan Program, special young farmer loans, Farm Credit
Associations and other sources. The percentage of residence
allowance for beginning farmer loans should be raised from 5%
to 20%.
2.16.02 ASA supports efforts that would allow proceeds
from the sale of qualified farm assets to be treated as an
individual farmer retirement account to defer current capital
gains taxes to a future date.
2.16.03 ASA supports continuation of the estate tax
exemption of $5 million per individual with a 100% spousal
exemption, indexed to inflation with continuation of stepped
up basis, and with a maximum tax rate of 35%. Special use
valuation should include all land staying in production
agriculture for minimum of 15 years.
2.16.04 ASA favors implementation of $500,000 in
lifetime tax credits for sale of used farm equipment.
2.16.05 ASA supports maintaining the current three-year
income averaging programs for agricultural producers,
including family farm corporations.
2.16.06 ASA supports an increase in the maximum gift
tax exemption and is opposed to the application of the
Alternative Minimum Tax on Schedule F.
2.16.07 ASA urges that an individual who rents land or
equipment to a family farm corporation, partnership, Limited
Liability Corporation or any other farming entity not be
subject to self-employment tax on rental income.
2.16.08 ASA supports a change in the U.S. tax code to
allow tax deductibility for permanent conservation practices
to landowners that cash rent their land.
2.16.09 ASA opposes double taxation when dissolving
corporations.
2.16.10 ASA supports the proposed expansion of the tax
exclusion on the sale of residences to include up to $500,000
value of farm real estate.
2.16.11 ASA supports a federal tax credit for farmers’
investment in value-added agricultural ventures. ASA
encourages federal support to provide technical assistance to
commercialize value-added products as well as business
structure assistance for farmer-owned value-added companies.
ASA supports a federal tax credit for farmer’s investment in
value-added agricultural processing ventures.
2.16.12 ASA supports extending the time period allowed
for reinvestment of capital gains from 45 days to 12 months.
2.16.13 ASA supports modifications of Section 1031 of
the U.S. Tax Code to minimize non-agricultural inflation
factors on rural land values.
2.16.14 ASA supports the full deductibility of health
insurance premiums and contributions to Health Savings
Accounts (HSA’s) by the self-employed and supports equitable
treatment for self-employed people under any new health care
legislation. (IL)
2.16.15 ASA supports enactment of Federal legislation
that would help to lower the cost of Group Health Insurance
plans by allowing participation in the Group regardless of
state of residence.
2.16.16 ASA supports that real estate sold must
maintain its current tax status when sold to Government
entities or nonprofit groups or organizations, exempting
religious institutions up to 20 acres, as long as they
maintain ownership.
2.17.00 Renewable Fuels
2.17.01 ASA supports the development of educational and
information programs that provide information on energy
conservation, energy management, renewable resources,
environment, and science based to consumers.
2.17.02 ASA encourages state soybean associations and
all biodiesel stakeholders to enhance biodiesel as a renewable
fuel and energy source through communications and marketing
efforts.
2.17.03 ASA urges state associations to work with state
officials to:
Define biodiesel as a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, designated B100, and meeting the requirements of ASTM D6751.
Adopt the most current version of ASTM D6751 as the specification for biodiesel used as a blendstock with diesel fuels, as well as future biodiesel or biodiesel blend specifications approved by ASTM.
Encourage state officials to actively enforce the adopted biodiesel related fuel specification standard
Encourage the adoption and enforcement of BQ9000 for feedstock production facilities and marketers of biodiesel
2.17.04 ASA supports
and endorses the inclusion of soybeans and soybean-based
product applications and blends of such products in the
development and implementation of any potential alternative
and/or renewable fuel policy programs. ASA only supports the
ASTM designation of D6751 as the quality standard for
biodiesel.
2.17.05 ASA supports the development of state and federal
legislation that promotes biodiesel and biodiesel blends
through:
Tax incentive
Minimum renewable fuel content requirements that include biodiesel blends
Programs that promote biodiesel blends of 2%
minimum or higher
Energy security measures that reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil sources
Use of biodiesel as a fuel additive to improve the lubricity of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for on and off road applications including railroads
Federal and state grants or programs for establishing biodiesel infrastructure
2.17.06 ASA strongly supports policies that encourage
all diesel fuel and diesel-powered vehicles to use biodiesel
or a biodiesel blend.
2.17.07 ASA favors continued rebate of Federal and
State fuel taxes on fuels used in non-highway uses.
2.17.08 ASA encourages petroleum distributors to
provide biodiesel blends at all stations across the country to
enhance our nation’s energy security, improve our air quality
and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
2.17.09 ASA strongly recommends continued national
education and research in the use of soy oil and other
alternative sources of energy from renewable agricultural
products. ASA supports the Biodiesel Education Program as
authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.
2.17.10 ASA supports elimination of the 50% cap on
biodiesel usage for compliance with the Energy Policy Act
(EPACT). ASA also supports banking and trading of biodiesel
credits in the EPACT program.
2.17.11 ASA supports increased lifecycle credit for the
use of agricultural residues for the production of bio-based
methanol for the use in biodiesel production, and the use of
local, state and national funding for its promotion and
research.
2.17.12 ASA urges that the benefits of the Federal
biodiesel tax credit are captured by the end user.
2.17.13 ASA supports the use of biodiesel for
electrical generation, industrial and home heating purposes.
2.17.14 ASA supports implementation of the bio-energy
program as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill to provide CCC
payments to domestic biodiesel producers on all production to
offset feedstock costs and subsidized foreign biodiesel
imports. ASA supports bio-energy program payments to all
domestic biodiesel producers regardless of location or
ownership.
2.17.15 ASA supports Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2)
that reflect the expansion of the renewable fuels industry for
biodiesel and ethanol.
2.17.16 ASA supports labeling at the fuel pump when
biodiesel is at or above 6%, as defined by American Standard
for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the National Council on
Weights and Measures (NCWM).
2.17.17 ASA supports U.S. production of biodiesel fuel
using domestic feed stocks.
2.17.18 ASA encourages the National Biodiesel Board to
work aggressively with the Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEM’s) to have engine warranty policy cover the use of
biodiesel blends.
2.17.19 ASA recognizes the immense role that
agriculture can play in meeting our nation’s energy needs. ASA
endorses the goal of securing 25% of the U.S. energy supply
from America’s farms, forests and rangeland by the Year 2025.
The benefits to the environment, fuel security and the
economic stimulus for rural areas justify the sizable
investment in a new energy future. ASA supports the 25 x 25
initiative.
2.17.20 ASA supports the establishment of national fuel
quality testing centers.
2.17.21 ASA supports the development of technologies to
produce additional renewable energy products (including but
not limited to cellulosic ethanol, soy meal derived ethanol or
bio-butanol, and hydrogen from soybean sources).
2.17.22 ASA encourages the development and usage of
technologies addressing cold flow properties in the production
of soy biodiesel.
2.17.23 ASA supports the use of blender pumps for the
distribution of various blends of biodiesel.
2.17.24 ASA supports affordable electricity from
renewable resources and non-petroleum sources.
2.17.25 ASA recommends that the economic impacts on
production agriculture, including both crops and livestock,
must be analyzed prior to any consideration by the EPA of a
Renewable Fuel Standards2 (RFS2) waiver request.
2.17.26 ASA recognizes and supports the role
agriculture can and should play in the U.S. food and fuel
security. ASA believes the biofuels industry utilizes
co-products from agricultural production to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil as well as lower carbon emission,
enabling the U.S. to become more energy independent.
2.17.27 ASA supports the work that the National
Biodiesel Board (NBB) has done to support practices and
promote the use of sustainable feed stocks and biodiesel
production methods.
2.17.28 ASA supports that any policy involving direct
and indirect land use metrics be based on multi-disciplinary
science based and verifiable, transparent data so that
biodiesel’s impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is
accurately assessed.
2.17.29 ASA strongly supports extension of the federal
biodiesel tax credit for 2012 and beyond. ASA supports
restructuring the biodiesel tax credit from a blender’s credit
to a production credit.
2.17.30 ASA encourages the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standard
II.
2.17.31 ASA supports federal energy legislation which
includes soy biodiesel incentives and supports biodiesel as an
advanced renewable fuel.
2.18.00 Property Rights 2.18.01 ASA endorses private property rights as set
forth in the United States Constitution. ASA believes that
farmers should be adequately compensated for loss in property
value or income due to unsubstantiated land claims,
environmental regulations such as endangered species, wetlands
and other government regulations. We also support a strong
“Right to Farm” law.
2.18.02 Government agencies developing flood control
projects must ensure that any damages caused by the project to
surrounding property owners be fairly compensated.
2.18.03 ASA realizes that production data such as field
maps, soil tests, production records, and input records have
monetary value. ASA believes this information gathered by GPS,
GIS, or other precision farming practices remain the sole
property of the owner and/or operator, or their agent, based
on their respective investment. This information should not be
used, released or sold without consent.
2.18.04 ASA opposes condemnation or mandatory
restrictions that postpone or restrict the property rights of
landowners without just compensation. ASA opposes the
condemnation of land for recreation purposes such as trails,
parks, wildlife areas and wetlands, and for purposes of
economic development. ASA also supports a process that
provides reasonable advanced warning of right-of-way
encroachment.
2.18.05 ASA supports voluntary and practical programs
for buying land development rights in order to preserve the
land as green space or for farming.
2.18.06 ASA supports not holding landowners responsible
for costs associated with unlawful acts committed by others on
a landowner’s property.
2.18.07 ASA supports limiting the use of the power of
Eminent Domain. ASA opposes the use of Eminent Domain for
taking wind, mineral, water or solar rights.
2.18.08 ASA opposes use by NRCS of the wetland
determination process as a deterrent to improvements to
drainage systems, which may produce water quality and crop
production benefits.
2.18.09 ASA supports requiring all public entities to
maintain their drainage ditches at the proper designed depth.
2.18.10 ASA opposes involuntary annexation by
municipalities, and supports restrictions on the ability of
municipal governments to encroach or infringe on agricultural
land unless the farmer is fairly compensated.
2.18.11 ASA opposes the use of public money for the
development of wetlands that contribute to methyl mercury
impairments.
2.18.12 ASA supports significant stakeholder
involvement in all components of impaired waters and TMDL
process.
2.18.13 ASA supports a requirement that wetlands,
government owned lands and private conservation lands should
be used as a first choice, instead of farmland, when routing
public utilities and roadways.
2.18.14 ASA urges the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to implement consistent guidelines regarding
the interpretation and determination of a wetland designation
across county lines.
2.19.00 Financing 2.19.01 ASA supports the participation of all types of
lenders to provide businesses with loans or other financial
arrangements to add value and find new uses for agricultural
commodities.
2.19.02 ASA will support the Farm Credit Service (FCS)
as a farmer-owned and controlled financial cooperative to meet
the needs of agriculture.
2.19.03 ASA opposes any restructuring of FCS that
replaces farmer-elected members of FCS Boards with commercial
bankers or expands bank access to FCS funding.
2.19.04 ASA believes the Farm Service Agency (FSA)
should have the ability to make direct loans and loan
guarantees sufficient to meet producer requirements for
operating funds that are not met by other farm lending
institutions.
2.19.05 ASA supports adequate funding for FSA credit
programs including:
Increase of guaranteed loan limits;
Increase of the subsidy rate on guaranteed loans;
Interest assistance for guaranteed farm ownership loans
To fully fund the direct Farm Ownership Loan Program;
Extended lifetime loan eligibility for FSA credit programs;
Waiver of the 1% fee for guaranteed loans;
Interest assistance on loans for building farmer owned grain facilities.
2.19.06 ASA supports a farm
financial and production standards system.
2.19.07 ASA supports the USDA farm storage facility loan
program with this exception. ASA recommends to USDA-FSA to
establish terms of the loans to be the same regardless of the
dollar amount of the loan.
2.20.00 Industrial Uses of Soybeans
2.20.01 ASA supports incentives for the use of bio-based
products. ASA supports expanding USDA’s bio-preferred product
list and an equitable tax credit for bio-based products. ASA
encourages the USDA to actively provide the bio-based product
label in order to increase acceptance and use of soy-based
products by consumers and industry.
2.20.02 ASA urges private and government agencies to
continue to develop, promote and use products made with
soybeans, including biodiesel, fuel additives, soy soap stock
for dust control, soy ink and soy-based industrial lubricants
and all other industrial products.
2.20.03 ASA recommends that government and industry work
together to develop the controls necessary to ensure that
non-food/non-feed soybeans are kept identity-preserved and
segregated from food and feed grade soybeans.
2.20.04 ASA encourages all state entities, including
colleges and universities, to purchase bio-based products when
they are readily available, of equal or better quality and do
not cost significantly more than the traditional product.
2.21.00 Biotechnology and Nanotechnology 2.21.01 ASA strongly supports biotechnology and
nanotechnology and believes the development of
biotechnology-enhanced and nanotechnology crop varieties and
products will benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.
ASA believes biotechnology and nanotechnology are key tools
that will help us meet growing world food, health and energy
needs. ASA believes that it is critical that USDA, EPA and FDA
operate a timely, efficient, predictable, and science based
regulatory system for deregulation of new biotech traits.
2.21.02 ASA strongly supports the development and
commercialization in the U.S. marketplace of new biotech
soybean products that will enhance the profitability of U.S.
soybean farmers, make soybeans a more competitive cropping
choice for farmers, and enhance the ability of U.S. soybean
farmers to compete in both domestic and international markets.
U.S. Regulatory Clearances for Biotech Soybeans Intended for Food & Feed Use
For new biotech soybean products intended for
domestic food or feed use, ASA expects biotech and
seed companies to obtain full food, feed, and
environmental regulatory clearances from U.S.
regulatory agencies before a new biotech product is
commercialized. Until such clearances are obtained,
ASA expects biotech and seed companies to institute
the strict controls necessary to ensure that the new
biotech product is kept completely out of all
domestic and export food, feed, and planting seed
channels.
U.S. Regulatory Clearances for Biotech Soybeans Not Intended for Food & Feed Use (e.g., Industrial or Pharmaceutical Use)
For new biotech soybean products not intended for
food or feed (e.g., products with industrial or
pharmaceutical properties), ASA encourages biotech
and seed companies to comply with all relevant
regulatory requirements and ensure that such
products are kept completely out of all domestic and
export food, feed, and planting seed channels.
International Regulatory Clearances
ASA encourages biotechnology, nanotechnology and
seed companies to apply for international regulatory
clearances on a timely basis in all significant U.S.
soy export markets that have biotech approval
processes, well before the new biotech product is
commercialized in the U.S. market. International
regulatory submissions on new biotech products
should be made such that, based on previous
experience in these export markets, sufficient time
for regulatory review and approval is allowed prior
to product commercialization. A “timely basis” is
considered to be the average time period in each
individual export market the regulatory agencies
require to grant approvals, plus an appropriate
additional period of time required to provide a
“regulatory approval cushion.”
ASA will actively support the efforts of
biotechnology, nanotechnology and seed companies to
obtain regulatory clearances in significant U.S.
export markets, using both ASA policy and
international marketing resources.
In the event a biotechnology,
nanotechnology or seed company obtains U.S. regulatory
clearances but has not made submissions to allow sufficient
time for international regulatory clearances in all
significant U.S. soy export markets that have biotech approval
processes, ASA encourages the biotech and seed companies
involved to institute the strict controls necessary to ensure
that the whole soybeans and soy products produced from the new
biotech product are kept out of commodity soy export as well
as planting seed channels until the appropriate international
clearances are obtained. In such a circumstance, ASA also
supports the biotech and seed companies involved to establish
the compliance systems and documentary evidence necessary to
show that whole soybeans and soy products produced from the
new biotech product have been utilized in the U.S. market.
In the event regulatory clearances have been applied for in a
timely manner in significant export markets but clearances
have not been obtained due to a non-functioning approval
process in a country, ASA will consult with the biotech
company involved to determine the best course of action. In
making its decision on whether to support the
commercialization of the new biotech product despite the lack
of regulatory clearance in an export market, ASA will consider
the potential benefits of the new biotech product to the
profitability and competitiveness of U.S. soybean farmers, the
size of the export market in question, and the likelihood of a
functioning approval process being implemented and clearances
obtained, among other factors.
Marketplace Acceptance
ASA encourages biotechnology, nanotechnology and
seed companies bringing new soybean biotech products
to the market to implement a comprehensive
“marketplace acceptance” strategy at least one, and
preferably two-to-three years before the products
are commercialized. Such a strategy should include
outreach and education to both domestic and foreign
buyers, processors, feed millers, food companies,
livestock feeders, retailers, consumer groups, and
the media.
ASA will actively support and
participate in the efforts of biotechnology and seed companies
to obtain marketplace acceptance of new biotech products,
using both ASA policy and international marketing resources.
Intellectual Property Protection
ASA encourages biotechnology and seed companies NOT to
commercialize new soybean biotech products in countries
that have weak intellectual property protection laws
and/or enforcement unless a system is implemented to
obtain appropriate compensation of the value created by
the technology. Biotechnology and seed companies should
take appropriate steps to prevent the misappropriation
of new biotech products and technologies by or in those
countries. ASA urges that all legal remedies be pursued
to prevent the illegal planting in foreign countries of
soybean seed for which biotechnology and seed companies
have not received appropriate compensation for biotech
traits.
2.21.03 ASA supports
expansion of controlled identity preserved systems that meet
ASA’s Identity Preserved guidelines for internationally
unapproved biotech and specialty varieties while continuing to
provide customers with the products they desire and support
the development, production and promotion of biotech crops
that are acceptable to domestic and foreign consumers.
2.21.04 ASA recommends that U.S. farmers have equal
access to biotechnology-enhanced products in the world
marketplace.
2.21.05 ASA supports mandatory review and approval of
all biotechnology-enhanced crops by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and supports policy
that assures that proper marketing protocols are developed and
implemented so that germplasm or varieties approved for
specific, non-generic use do not enter the commodity soybean
market.
2.21.06 ASA believes producers should not be held
liable for damages resulting from biotechnology-enhanced
product use, when recommended practices and procedures are
followed.
2.21.07 For those customers who desire them, ASA
supports development of a voluntary certification and/or
labeling system domestically and internationally for
non-biotechnology-enhanced crops and organically grown crops
or products.
2.21.08 ASA recommends that life science companies
should develop tests that can be used to efficiently detect
the presence of a new biotechnology event before that event is
commercialized. ASA supports the development of a review
process that will result in standardized tests and methodology
for detecting biotechnology-enhanced products within the soy
food chain.
2.21.09 ASA believes that regulations governing
biotechnology-enhanced products be based on science based.
2.21.10 ASA supports the communication of the benefits
and implications of new biotechnology-enhanced soybeans as
they enter the marketplace.
2.21.11 ASA believes that identity-preserved (IP) crops
are valued-added products and should be included in federal
programs for grants, loans, export programs and incentives at
USDA and other agencies.
2.21.12 ASA supports an expedited process for approval
and acceptance of biotechnology products in the European
Union.
2.21.13 ASA supports biotechnology, commercial
fertilizer, and commercial crop protection products and
believes that any definition of “sustainable agriculture”
includes the use of these products.
2.21.14 ASA supports the statutory definition of
sustainable agriculture, as included in the 1990 Farm Bill.
Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603. Under
that law, sustainable agriculture means “an integrated system
of plant and animal production practices having a
site-specific application that will, over the long term:
Satisfy human food needs;
Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends;
Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls;
Sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and
Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.”
2.21.15 ASA supports
developing a definition of sustainable agriculture that
encompasses profitable, intensive production and encourages
consumer acceptance of biotechnology enhanced products and
satisfies food, feed, fiber, and biofuel needs.
2.21.16 ASA supports establishing a process to maintain
foreign registrations of biotech trails in countries that
require them as long as traces of a trait are identified in
export shipment.
2.21.17 ASA supports efforts to establish a
commercially viable and internationally accepted tolerance for
the presence of deregistered traits in shipments and products
in order to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. soy exports in
world markets.
2.21.18 Any qualitative
definitions of food such as wholesome or nutritious should be
based on the food’s actual composition without regard to
geographical origin, growing practices, or type of crop (e.g.
local foods, biotech traits, corn sugar, organic, etc).
2.21.19 ASA supports private sector efforts to resolve
any issues surrounding the deregulation of special use biotech
traits through consultations between the trait provider and
interested industry sectors, including farmer associations,
processors and exporters.
2.22.00 Telecommunications 2.22.01 ASA believes that broadband access to the
Internet is important to the quality of life in rural America
and to strong and competitive farming operations. Therefore,
we urge the federal, state and local governments to develop
programs that will encourage private businesses and
cooperatives to bring quality high-speed access to farms at
affordable rates.
2.22.02 ASA supports a dependable public Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) differential correction signal
available to all producers.
2.22.03 ASA encourages the continued development and
expansion of cellular networks to adequately address the needs
of rural regions of the United States.
2.23.00 Soybean Rust
2.23.01 ASA strongly urges APHIS to take all appropriate
precautions to protect domestic soybean production against the
additional spread of soybean rust. Importation of whole
soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean seed from countries with
soybean rust infestation must be subject to science-based
regulations as determined and implemented by APHIS.
2.23.02 ASA supports increased Federal funding for
soybean rust research, including the identification of rust
resistance and tolerance traits through genome mapping and
data management.
2.23.03 ASA supports the EPA to complete review and to
approve Section 18 emergency use requests for fungicides that
are effective in treating soybean rust. ASA encourages crop
protection companies and the Federal Government to facilitate
the availability of products in the event of need,
particularly those deemed effective on soybean rust.
2.23.04 ASA supports Homeland Security Presidential
Directive, HSPD-9 with a stated purpose to establish a
national policy to defend U.S. agriculture and food systems
against terrorist attacks and major disasters including the
spread of soybean rust.
2.23.05 ASA encourages Congress and USDA to support the
continuation and permanent funding for Pest Information
Platform for Extension and Education (PIPE). This national
strategy monitors and communicates the detection and latest
information regarding domestic occurrences and treatment of
soybean rust including, but not limited to the following
issues:
Scouting soybeans and other host plants
Expanding U.S. research on soybean rust, subject to strong bio-security requirements
Continuing a diagnostic and identification network
Establishing a National Center for Soybean Rust & Plant Pathogen Solutions.
Expansion to other soybean diseases and other crops
Continue funding a soybean rust sentinel system (IA)
2.23.00 Animal/Livestock
Agriculture/Aquaculture
2.23.01 ASA supports the continuation and expansion of
the livestock industry (meat, poultry and aquaculture) in the
U.S. for greater use of U.S. soybean products. ASA will work
with these industries to improve the public image on the
importance of these foods in a balanced diet.
2.23.02 ASA will show strong public support to
livestock producers throughout the zoning and permitting
process. Furthermore, ASA will publicly support livestock
producers that face challenges by individuals or organizations
with an agenda to diminish or eliminate livestock production.
2.23.03 ASA asks consideration that cost share dollars
that are available to livestock producers for upgrading
livestock facilities be made available to all livestock
producers who upgrade, replace or expand their operation to
make it an environmentally viable entity.
2.23.04 ASA encourages states to use science based
environmental review process to evaluate livestock facilities.
ASA also supports that petitioners reside within reasonable
proximity of the questioned site.
2.23.05 ASA supports Livestock Premise ID to protect
against the loss of soybean demand due to the outbreak of
exotic diseases of livestock and poultry.
2.23.06 ASA supports the efforts of the U.S. livestock,
poultry and aquaculture industries to vigorously oppose any
initiatives that would limit the use of modern and accepted
production practices.
2.23.07 ASA supports expansion of the domestic
aquaculture industry, including offshore aquaculture, to
increase food security, create jobs, and reduce the negative
trade balance in aquaculture. ASA also encourages federal
funding for research that would optimize the use of soybean
protein and oil in aquaculture feed.
2.23.08 ASA supports clear, consistent and reasonable
science based regulations and processes needed for the
livestock industry to remain profitable. ASA further
recognizes the following as science based programs:
Pork Quality Assurance Plus
(PQA+)
United Egg Producers Certified
(UEP)
Beef Quality Assurance
(BQA)
Humane Slaughter Act as regulated by the USDA and meat packing industry
Transport Quality Assurance (TQA)
And also, any other
programs that will “maximize” consumer confidence that are based
on sound, scientific analysis and economic feasibility.
2.23.09 ASA supports the recommendation of the Gulf Coast
Fishery Management Council to allow offshore fish farms in the
Gulf of Mexico.
2.23.10 ASA will work with our partners to educate
consumers that modern animal agriculture production is
science-based and provides safeguards for humane treatment of
animals.
2.23.11 ASA believes that anyone who trespasses or enters
property to release livestock or poultry or to damage property in
the attempt to halt, destroy or curtail animal production, serum
production or research should be prosecuted to the full extent of
the law.
2.23.12 ASA adamantly opposes efforts by the Humane Society
of the U.S. (HSUS) and other animal rights organizations that
attempt to petition or legislate against science tested, modern
animal care practices.
2.23.13 ASA adamantly supports changes to current Federal
regulations that do not allow the sanitary removal, by rendering
companies, of dead livestock determined to be 30 months of age or
older.
2.23.14 ASA supports U.S. livestock, aquaculture and
poultry organizations that face challenges by individuals or
organizations such as the Humane Society of United States (HSUS)
with an agenda to diminish or eliminate animal agriculture.
2.24.00 Energy
2.24.01 ASA supports preferential energy allocation for
agricultural production and marketing during times of critical
energy shortages.
2.24.02 ASA opposes the sale, transfer or other disposal of
the federal power marketing administrations, as well as any
regulatory or legislative measures that would increase the costs
of electricity or impose other artificial cost burdens onto the
rates U.S. farmers must now pay for electrical energy.
2.24.03 ASA is opposed to the concept of an energy tax
and/or users fee when agriculture is forced to bear a
disproportionate share of these costs.
2.24.04 ASA supports legislative action to increase
domestic production of petroleum and natural gas to help stabilize
further dramatic increases in farm input supply prices.
III. RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3.0.00 Preamble
3.0.01 The American Soybean Association (ASA) is a leader
in promoting the research, education and natural resource
priorities and needs of the soybean industry.
3.0.02 ASA stresses the need to increase funding for
agricultural research and conservation efforts. ASA supports
measures to prohibit sovereign nations or global entities from
setting environmental and/or water quality standards more
stringent than federal or state regulations.
3.1.00 Research, Extension and Education Priorities
3.1.01 Rapid improvement of yields should be the top
priority of soybean research and outreach.
3.1.02 ASA should place major emphasis on research to
increase competitiveness of U.S. soybean farmers, expand
consumer use of soybean products, reduce production costs;
improve profitability of soybean production and position U.S.
soybeans and soy products as the preferred source.
3.1.03 ASA believes more research on soybean
composition should focus on the enhancement of industrial
applications (including biobased energy), health and nutrition
benefits, animal nutrition and production for both domestic
and foreign customers.
3.1.04 Production research should be directed towards
enabling U.S. farmers to be the most efficient and profitable
soybean producers in the world. Production-oriented research
should be continued in areas such as:
weed control
disease control
insect control,
nutrient management
germplasm studies,
biotechnology
nanotechnology
soil amendment, and
plant nutrient and water utilization
3.1.05 Genomic and
varietal development should emphasize soybean yield and
improving market-driven attributes of soybeans. ASA encourages
more research by public and private interests to develop best
management practices and economical crop protection products
that maximize environmental safeguards. ASA encourages
expanded efforts in market oriented education programs for
soybean producers. Efforts should be made to develop new
equipment and innovative techniques which will allow soybeans
to continue to be grown economically in an environmentally
sound, soil and water conserving manner.
3.1.06 ASA encourages the development of a standard
formula that includes uniform non-stress germination tests, as
well as stress tests.
3.1.07 ASA also supports full disclosure of all
information concerning germination, vigor and quality.
3.1.08 ASA supports full funding for the National Plant
Germplasm System of the Agricultural Research Service of USDA
and also supports full disclosure of all information
concerning germination, vigor and quality.
3.1.09 ASA demands accurate seed labeling for genetic
purity to give producers knowledge of possible biotech seed in
a non-biotech variety.
3.1.10 ASA strongly encourages all seed companies to
enter their varieties in independent university variety
trials.
3.1.11 ASA supports conventional research & development
of soybean varieties that are important to agriculture to
provide the biodiversity and a widest availability of
varieties & traits. ASA encourages private and public soybean
breeders to continue the development of conventional soybean
varieties and to make them available to soybean producers.
Conventional plant breeding and germplasm accessibility must
be maintained.
3.1.12 ASA supports the efforts of the National Council
on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) and state councils
intended to promote research funding for food and agriculture
initiatives.
3.1.13 ASA recommends increased base funding for USDA’s
research programs, Land-Grant University research programs,
Extension programs and new funding for other research
universities.
3.1.14 ASA supports the protection for the U.S. soybean
industry from both bio-terrorism and naturally occurring pests
and pathogens by providing adequate funding for the continued
efforts by the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of USDA.
3.1.15 ASA encourages soybean producers to select seed
genetics based on high quality, high yielding protein and oil
content. ASA also encourages soybean seed companies to include
estimated protein and oil content on a 13% moisture basis in
their sales literature.
3.1.16 ASA urges states to coordinate plans for new
utilization research centers through existing national
experiment station forums to reduce unnecessary duplication
and to maximize results. ASA urges that these centers
establish industry advisory panels to assist in assessing
needs, determining priorities and evaluating market
potentials.
3.1.17 ASA recommends continued labeling on all soybean
seed containers to include the number of seeds per pound.
3.1.18 ASA supports a requirement that all research
cited or used as the basis for rules and regulations be
available and completely open for independent review.
3.2.00 Research Funding
3.2.01 ASA should continue to lead in coordinating,
soliciting, prioritizing and allocating funds for soybean
utilization and production research projects. ASA supports
increased public and private research through coordinated
efforts and funding by government, commodity organizations,
universities and private industry.
3.2.02 Soybean research receives less federal
investment than other major row crops; therefore, ASA supports
strategic increases in federal investment in USDA’s
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA) formerly the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) programs
that will benefit soybean producers.
3.2.03 ASA encourages state-supported soybean research,
extension and education programs. ASA supports regional
approaches to research and education programs directed at
addressing needs and attaining goals.
3.2.04 ASA encourages state soybean organizations to
use technical advisory panels for soybean research proposal
evaluation.
3.2.05 ASA encourages USDA and state experiment station
administrators to fully staff soybean research projects.
3.2.06 ASA urges that soybean research conducted at
public institutions and funded completely or in part with
farmer check-off investments be considered as public property
and made available for the benefit of U.S. soybean farmers.
3.2.07 ASA recommends the Director of the Oilseed-Fiber
Division of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) must
remain permanently staffed by a soybean specialist.
3.2.08 ASA encourages public soybean breeders to
release new varieties on a non-exclusive basis.
3.2.09 ASA encourages any private or public entity
research groups patenting, licensing, or in any other way
financially benefiting from soybean checkoff-funded research,
to use the monetary gain to expand soybean production, market
development and new uses research.
3.2.10 Soybean Cyst Nematode (SCN) is an ongoing
problem in the soybean growing areas. ASA supports research
into new resistant varieties and genomes, producer education
and testing recommendations for SCN.
3.2.11 ASA supports working with the American Seed
Trade Association (ASTA) or individual seed companies to
develop guidelines which will allow farmers to continue to
plant and propagate soybean varieties that a seed company has
patented and no longer offers for sale.
3.2.12 ASA supports QUALISOY to continue to improve
commodity soybeans through compositional work. ASA will
coordinate and manage all legislative activities with regard
to QUALISOY.
3.2.13 ASA supports a coordinated effort of state and
national soybean organizations to set priorities and
coordinate all federally funded soybean research projects.
Among the factors to be considered in setting priorities are
acreage, disease and compositional traits.
3.2.14 ASA supports the efforts of the U.S. Legume
Crops Genomic Initiative (USLCGI). ASA commends the USLCGI
coalition for its success in securing funding for functional
genomics and bio-information research through USDA’s National
Research Institute Initiative.
3.2.15 ASA strongly supports the Department of Energy
(DOE) collaboration with USDA to sequence the soybean genome.
ASA urges these agencies to establish long-lived plant genomic
databases capable of responding to technological advances.
This will allow the soybean industry to benefit not only from
the sequencing of the soybean genome, but also from
translation of information from other sequencing projects.
3.2.16 ASA encourages Federal funding for research that
would optimize the use of soy in aquaculture feed and support
species development in aquaculture to better utilize soybean
protein.
3.2.17 ASA opposes any USDA efforts to impose
administrative charges on cooperative research agreements,
including farmer check-off funded research projects.
3.2.18 Licensing or royalty agreements should be
explored by QSSB and associations when developing research
agreements with public and/or private institutions using
farmer checkoff funds.
3.2.19 ASA supports federal funding for thorough
life-cycle analysis of soybean production and the end uses of
soybeans, including livestock and soybeans-to-biodiesel
technology.
3.2.20 ASA supports the development and transition to
high oleic soybeans.
3.2.21 ASA encourages that soybean research be expanded
as every dollar spent on research and development generates a
$10 benefit to farmers which ultimately flows to the consumer
in maintaining affordable, healthy and abundant food.
3.3.00 Conservation and Natural Resources
3.3.01 ASA strongly encourages farmers to implement
conservation plans to bring their highly erodible land into
compliance. ASA endorses the implementation of voluntary
conservation practices that reduce soil erosion and improve
water quality. Conservation plans should allow alternative
practices to achieve compliance. Public funding should be
available for land altering practices required by conservation
plans.
3.3.02 Future requirements for conservation plans
should be changed or exceptions allowed (minimum area and
width) for erosion control, grass strips, wildlife food plots
and other similar measures. ASA encourages requirements for
conservation plans that promote flexibility for soil
conservation and water quality practices.
3.3.03 ASA urges the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to recognize the full value of no-tilled,
strip-tilled, ridge-tilled, narrow row or solid-seeded
soybeans and the use of cover crops in their conservation
plan.
3.3.04 ASA supports Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
or other national conservation programs for the most fragile
and environmentally sensitive lands. ASA supports efforts to
ensure that water quality objectives remain a priority under
CRP and are reflected in rental contracts.
3.3.05 ASA encourages the Farm Service Agency to
enforce the 25% total tillable acres cap on CRP acres per
county.
3.3.06 ASA does not support the requirement to reseed
established CRP grasses when CRP is reenrolled.
3.3.07 ASA strongly opposes subjecting all Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) payments to Self-Employment Contribution
Act (SECA).
3.3.08 ASA supports allowing small, irregularly shaped
whole fields into the continuous enrollment CRP program.
3.3.09 ASA encourages the USDA to maintain the current
penalties incurred on CRP acres withdrawn early from the CRP
program.
3.3.10 ASA encourages an economic study of the affect
of CRP acres on food and feed availability for end users.
3.3.11 ASA supports research and education on soil and
water conservation in the private sector.
3.3.12 ASA supports full funding of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for both commodity and
livestock projects. States and counties should be allowed to
choose and administer all soil conservation, water
conservation and water quality programs that best meet the
needs at the local level.
3.3.13 ASA supports the NRCS as an agency within USDA
and urges them to provide adequate funding for field staff and
technical assistance. ASA urges adequate funding for the NRCS
to provide locally trained field staff and experienced
technical assistance. ASA also supports using mandatory
funding to pay for Technical Service Providers.
3.3.14 ASA believes farmers must have flexibility in
improving and maintaining drainage for production purposes.
ASA discourages regulations that limit the most beneficial use
of agricultural land.
3.3.15 ASA strongly urges NRCS to allow variances for
the implementation of conservation plans in declared disaster
counties and on small tracts of land under super-sod busting
law. ASA supports the idea that the super sod-busting
provision of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) approved
in the 1990 Farm Bill remains farmer friendly. ASA agrees with
the intent of the super sod-busting law on larger tracts of
land; however ASA strongly believes that some tolerance or
exemptions need to exist.
3.3.16 ASA recommends that all environmental mandates
must have incentives for farmer compliance rather than
penalties for non-compliance.
3.3.17 ASA supports public policies to maintain a
navigable level of water in rivers and inland waterways by
preventing the Corps of Engineers from assigning undue
importance and priority to interests such as recreation to the
detriment of power, municipal water supply, navigation and
flood control. ASA discourages additional land acquisition by
government agencies with the purpose of increasing wetlands
and recreation without consideration of the impact to inland
drainage, navigation and flood control.
3.3.18 ASA believes laws and regulations designed to
protect endangered species must be science based. ASA supports
legislation that would protect producers from unintentional
impacts to endangered species.
3.3.19 ASA strongly recommends that whole farm planning
remain a voluntary process. Farm payment or cost share payment
should not be dependent on the development of a whole farm
plan. ASA does not support establishment of national
standards.
3.3.20 ASA requests that all federal agencies review
and justify the use of river gauge data, frequency of
inundation and length of inundation to define a true
agricultural wetland. After this review and justification, an
emphasis should be placed on assigning an environmental value
to said wetlands and allow the scope of normal farming
practices to be assigned to that value.
3.3.21 ASA believes that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) should be the federal agency
responsible for making technical determinations on
agricultural lands with respect to wetlands or converted
wetlands. ASA recommends that Federal environmental
regulations for farming related activities be administered by
the NRCS.
3.3.22 ASA encourages the development of wetland
mitigation banks and further, that mitigation is limited to a
one-acre for one-acre basis.
3.3.23 ASA supports consistent wetland delineation
procedures for all states.
3.3.24 ASA urges farmer representation at the local
watershed level whenever policies and regulations are being
formulated.
3.3.25 ASA supports producer-led and managed
application of Certified Environmental Management Systems for
Agriculture (CEMSA) as a framework for producers to improve
resource management and address impacts on the environment.
ASA encourages federal and state governments, universities,
and private interests to provide support for a pilot project
that involves providing goods and services to producers in the
application of CEMSA.
3.3.26 ASA supports the Missouri River master plan
alternatives that keep navigation and inland drainage on the
lower Missouri as top priorities.
3.3.27 ASA supports full funding and implementation of
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Payments should
reward producers for good stewardship and conservation
practices. Compensation for conservation practices should not
be limited by the size of the producer’s operation.
Consideration should be given to practical conservation
farming practices based on soil type and climate conditions.
3.3.28 ASA believes that information a producer
provides to the USDA for participation in the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) should remain confidential.
Furthermore, farmers who voluntarily submit information to the
USDA in order to participate in the CSP should be held
harmless for that disclosure.
3.3.29 ASA supports a blind scientific based process
for all of the white papers that review issues related to the
Gulf of Mexico hypoxia that were produced by the U.S. EPA
Region 4 office in Atlanta.
3.3.30 ASA supports a requirement of using aerial
photos from the 1980 to 1990 timeframe for making wetland
determinations.
3.3.31 ASA supports refocusing Federal conservation
programs back to those that promote the sustainability of soil
fertility and productivity, in order to control erosion and
maintain soil organic matter levels.
3.3.32 ASA supports holding regulatory agency personnel
to the same level of accountability for misrepresenting permit
requirements as holders have for meeting permit requirements.
3.3.33 Land dedicated to wildlife habitat should be
subject to property taxes.
3.3.34 ASA supports water quality trading involving
agricultural processors and farmers, only if, farmers have
control over the process; and, only if, the practices to be
implanted have been determined through research to actually
offset the water quality impairments being considered.
3.3.35 ASA supports policy that requires any
information used by USDA, EPA or other agencies to form
agriculture nutrient, pesticide and/or climate change
regulations to meet the following requirements:
a)The
person providing the information to provide an express
and identifiable reference to the sources used as the
basis for the recommendation.
b)The
sources used as the basis for the recommendation shall
be public information and shall include the underlying
data and methodology in a format sufficient to allow the
general public to evaluate the statistical inferences
and to duplicate the methodology used to create the
source information.
3.3.36 ASA supports land owners having exclusive rights
to regulate hunting on private land that are in any government
funded program.
3.3.37 ASA supports FCIC and RMA to re-review the
actuarial rating process and rates for center pivot irrigating
practices on all crops on a state by state basis.
3.3.38 ASA discourages disproportionate compensation
from Government conservation programs that potentially remove
valuable agricultural land from production.
3.4.00 Crop Production Inputs
3.4.01 ASA supports and encourages reasonable efforts to
improve crop protection product safety, handling and
education. ASA feels farm and commodity organizations should
take leadership on those environmental and food safety issues
that affect producers. ASA supports the efforts of farm
organizations to obtain objective scientific research that
quantifies the economic impacts of agricultural input
restrictions. ASA encourages the inclusion of agricultural
organizations by government, consumer and environmental groups
in designing practical solutions to environmental issues.
ASA supports the use of safe, environmentally friendly
containers for agricultural inputs. ASA supports policies that
require Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) in generation of data
for crop protection products. ASA believes that agricultural
leaders and environmental advocates need to work together in
developing environmental policies and common goals, creating
an atmosphere of cooperation.
3.4.02 ASA recommends that EPA use scientifically valid
data and research in making decisions governing crop
production inputs and that EPA and other regulatory bodies
must consider economic impact statements and risk/benefit
analysis before proposing any restriction on inputs or new
technology.
3.4.03 ASA supports the expedited approval process for
new environmentally friendly crop protection products.
3.4.04 ASA believes that the EPA should grant producers
emergency use permits in emergency situations for products
already approved by the EPA for other crops.
3.4.05 ASA supports voluntary record keeping for
general use crop protection product application and believes
that such a practice provides evidence of responsible land and
water use.
3.4.06 Local governing bodies should be prohibited from
imposing requirements more stringent than federal requirements
on the sale or use of federally registered crop protection
products or biotech products. ASA encourages state soybean
associations to take an active role in states' development of
environmental policy.
3.4.07 ASA favors an international harmonized crop
protection product code that conforms to U.S. standards as
economic agreements are made with other countries.
3.4.08 ASA endorses the use of voluntary integrated
pest management programs and best management practices
consistent with sound ecological and economical principles.
3.4.09 ASA supports the complete and detailed labeling
of all crop protection products and does not condone the
misuse of crop protection products. ASA recommends that
farmers not be liable for environmental damages resulting from
input use where recommended label rates and application
procedures are followed.
3.4.10 ASA recommends that all imported food products
meet USDA crop protection product residue or other food safety
standards.
3.4.11 ASA recommends Worker Protection Standard Act (WPSA)
be reasonably and rationally implemented.
3.4.12 ASA supports the preservation of crop protection
uses to maximize the list of pest management tools available
to the grower for best management practices. ASA supports the
use of the “data call in” provisions for the tolerance.
3.4.13 ASA recognizes that crop protection products are
a significant part of the soybean farmers input costs, and
that under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
U.S. markets are open to Canadian grain imports. ASA in the
full spirit of NAFTA judges that all Canadian crop protection
products that have an equivalent U.S. EPA registered product
be given automatic reciprocal EPA registration.
3.4.14 ASA believes the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) already gives adequate consideration to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) when registering pesticides and additional
requirements are not needed.
3.4.15 ASA believes that “common detection” should be
redefined in the Pesticide Management Plan based on some level
of a scientifically established Health Risk Limit.
3.4.16 ASA supports full disclosure of all information
concerning traits, germination, vigor and quality.
3.4.17 ASA requests the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to discontinue any further implementation of
“chemical specific” or “chemical class specific” use of buffer
restrictions on pesticide labeling until the agency
establishes protocols to evaluate “drift reduction technology”
(DRT) and incorporates DRT language into pesticide labeling.
3.4.18 ASA opposes the elimination of atrazine and
atrazine products as a method of weed control in general
farming practices.
3.5.00 Water Quality & Usage
3.5.01 ASA recommends that Natural Resources and
Conservation Service (NRCS) be the responsible agency for
coordinating groundwater and surface water programs.
3.5.02 ASA supports the use of scientific based
research in developing national water quality standards and
educational programs to safeguard groundwater and surface
water resources. State and local agricultural agencies should
plan and assist in implementing programs and policies based on
geographical and geological differences.
3.5.03 ASA recommends that research should be conducted
that addresses the source, movement and acceptable levels of
crop protection products in surface and groundwater regardless
of whether the source is agricultural or non-agricultural.
Based upon scientific research, any environmental
recommendations or regulations must take into consideration a
cost-benefit analysis to the consumer, producer and positive
balance of U.S. trade.
3.5.04 ASA recommends the continuation of research and
education programs that would enhance the environmentally
sound and economically viable storage and use of agricultural
by products and animal manure nutrients.
3.5.05 Cropland erosion and fresh water quality are
matters of national concern that call for reevaluation and
increased funding of Federal cost-sharing practices such as
terracing, strip cropping, grassed waterways, field borders,
cover crops and other traditional soil and water management
practices. ASA supports voluntary programs and encourages the
adoption of Best Management Practices and believes there must
be adequate government compensation for such cost sharing
practices.
3.5.06 ASA supports water quality standards that are
ecologically and economically attainable. ASA supports just
compensation to the producer when standards are imposed or
required other than agronomically optimal management systems.
3.5.07 ASA supports the development and funding of
rural drinking water projects.
3.5.08 ASA supports agriculture’s right to use ground
water and surface water for production purposes and considers
it a priority use.
3.5.09 ASA believes there is a need for research to
determine the net effect of phosphorus bound by sediment on
surface water quality.
3.5.10 ASA supports voluntary science based programs
and policies directed on a farm-by-farm basis toward ongoing
in-field evaluation of nutrient management methods which allow
producers to continually improve their nutrient management
practices. ASA supports and believes in:
central
coordination of networks of in-field evaluation to
improve nutrient management decisions
infrastructure
for conservation efforts in watersheds and
sub-watersheds
cooperative
conservation efforts among public and private
organizations and individuals that achieve a
positive environmental impact and meets demands for
production
research findings
and citations of data accessible to producers must
be the foundation for developing and expanding
nutrient management programs.
3.5.11 ASA believes
all rules and regulations impacting production agriculture
should be based on current scientific based research. Linkages
and citations of data must be a guiding force in developing
environmental programs and policy. Quality assurance
provisions must be available for review in order to judge data
integrity and utility.
3.5.12 ASA opposes the use and promotion of
Point-Non-Point Source Water Quality Pollution credit trading.
3.5.13 ASA supports the requirements that point-point
source water quality pollution trading be automatically
available to any new point source permit holders that have
lower discharge concentrations than existing point sources.
3.5.14 ASA opposes labeling of animal manure as a
hazardous waste.
3.5.15 ASA supports requiring environmental groups to
be required to bring forth their views and opinions on TMDL/Feed
Lot regulations at public hearing as stakeholders as livestock
producers are required to do.
3.5.16 ASA supports requiring that a “cause and effect”
linkage to water quality be established through field or farm
scale research, before federal or state watershed monitoring
and demonstration programs are funded.
3.5.17 ASA opposes removing the word “navigable” from
the Federal Clean Water Act or redefining it to include all
U.S. waters which would then greatly expand the jurisdictional
authority of the federal government to the detriment of
farmers and others.
3.5.18 ASA believes that landowners or farmers should
not be held responsible for negative water quality or public
health consequences resulting from the establishment of
wetlands or wildlife habitat.
3.5.19 ASA supports the proper implementation of the
agricultural exemption to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
including the continuation of the normal farming practice
exemption.
3.5.20 ASA supports water quality initiatives that are
based on science based. ASA encourages the participating
agencies in the Mississippi River Water Shed Nutrient
Management Task Force project to continue to fund research and
monitoring on the causes of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and
their sources, and to submit its research to science based
review.
3.5.21 ASA supports a Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action
Plan that is consistent with the scientific studies in the
Science Advisory Board Reports; taking into account the
strength of the sources and linkages between Nitrogen and
Phosphorous discharges into the Gulf.
3.5.22 ASA believes the Clean Water Act does not
authorize EPA’s extension of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
requirements to agricultural lands. ASA should continue to
monitor the development of, and modification of; TMDL
standards to ensure that any mandated TMDL requirements would
be scientifically sound and economically practical for farmers
to implement or farmers are provided compensation for such
implementation. The EPA must be able to cite the specific
scientific basec research that proves that the impairment
threshold is justified.
3.5.23 ASA believes an Agricultural Ecosystem is a
legitimate ecosystem and should be preserved and recognized in
establishing water quality standards. TMDL discharge standards
appropriate for other types of ecosystems should not be
imposed on Agricultural Ecosystems.
3.5.24 ASA supports a requirement for consideration of
background loading in all TMDL studies, plans, and
legislation.
3.5.25 ASA believes that agriculture should not be held
responsible for pollution caused by natural conditions when
dealing with TMDL legislation, and that all natural loadings
be separately identified and properly considered in the TMDL
process, and that natural loadings consider climate and
ecosystem dynamics.
3.5.26 ASA believes there is a need for research that
ensures that climatic effects on flow and sediment loads are
properly factored into TMDL studies.
3.5.27 ASA supports a policy requiring that BMP’s (Best
Management Practices) which are promoted or required in
Conservation and Water Quality programs have input from
agricultural professionals, including farm operators and
managers.
3.5.28 ASA encourages EPA to work with producers to
develop voluntary incentive-based programs that would assist
producers in meeting any future water quality objectives.
3.5.29 ASA opposes the establishment, by any unit of
government, water quality impairment taxes or fees.
3.5.30 ASA supports a requirement that TMDL allocations
be updated when new science indicates the existing allocations
are incorrect.
3.5.31 ASA recommends that the Clean Water Act be
amended to exempt producers from litigation/liability and not
require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit when producers can certify that the pesticides have
been used in a manner that complies with the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
3.5.32 ASA opposes any additional permitting process
for crop protection product applications and urges EPA to
craft any new regulations in a way that is not onerous to
farmers. ASA opposes the EPA requirements for NPDES Permits
for pesticide applications in crop production.
3.6.00 Air Quality
3.6.01 ASA encourages EPA to work with producers to
develop voluntary, incentive-based programs that would assist
producers in meeting any current and future air quality
standards. ASA favors air quality standards for agriculture
which are ecologically and economically attainable, and that
are supported by science-based and research. ASA further
believes air quality standards for agriculture should be
addressed and promulgated at the federal level.
3.6.02 ASA is opposed to any local, state or federal
legislation or EPA actions to regulate particulate matter or
odor from agriculture operations or rural environments.
3.6.03 ASA as an entity that will be significantly
impacted, ASA should be engaged in federal legislative
regulatory efforts to address Climate Change.
3.6.04 ASA believes that agriculture should not be
subject to greenhouse gas emission caps established in Climate
Change legislation or regulation.
3.6.05 ASA does not support regulation of greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act.
3.6.06 ASA supports farmers being able to enroll the
same tract of land for multiple incentive based payments
addressing carbon sequestration, water quality, air quality
and any other future environmental credits of benefit to the
society as a whole.
3.6.07 ASA supports carbon sequestration research and
related efforts to maximize the ancillary benefits of
conservation practices that store carbon and other nutrients
in soil.
3.6.08 ASA opposes any federal legislation and/or
regulation which attempts to adopt air quality control
standards of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
3.6.09 ASA is opposed to the federal government signing
or endorsing any global warming treaty or implementing parts
of the treaty by Executive Order that would have a negative
effect on agriculture.
3.6.10 ASA strongly opposes any effort by EPA or
judicial ruling to regulate dust whether from crop or
livestock production as a pollutant.
3.6.11 ASA opposes any state or federal legislation or
regulatory agency rules to regulate dust, greenhouse gas
emissions or odor from agriculture operations.
3.7.00 Intellectual Property Rights
3.7.01 ASA recognizes the need for research and
development to improve the profitability of soybeans for the
grower and to create added value traits to address end user
needs, and supports intellectual property rights of the
developers of new traits, domestically and internationally.
3.7.02 ASA supports the Plant Variety Protection Act.
ASA believes this protection is important to encourage
investment in research that will keep soybeans as a profitable
crop and maintain soybeans as a premium source of oil and
protein.
3.7.03 Strong and uniform international intellectual
property protection for new soybean technologies is critical
to maintain the growth and development of the soybean
industry. ASA will continue to work with the U.S. government,
the U.S. seed industry and international organizations to
ensure consistent global application of the intellectual
property rights for new soybean technologies.
3.7.04 ASA supports the adoption and use of
biotechnology-derived products in farming operations. ASA
discourages producer contracts concerning patented genetic
material that may transgress on private property rights
without reasonable belief of patent infringement.
3.7.05 ASA supports keeping the soybean genome and
protenome research information in the public sector as much as
possible.
3.7.06 ASA encourages genetic intellectual property
rights to be issued and controlled in the public sector when
they are developed by public or soybean checkoff funds.
3.7.07 ASA encourages broad integration of technologies
with varying seed sources.
3.7.08 ASA encourages the seed production companies to
continue offering “genetic technology” post patent.
3.8.00 Education Funding
3.8.01 ASA believes that agricultural education is an
important foundation for the future of agriculture and that
there is need for a comprehensive school curriculum that will
accurately inform and educate K-12 students about the
importance of agriculture. ASA particularly supports the
efforts and expansion of 4-H, FFA and the national
Ag-in-the-Classroom program and believes that it is important
that all groups representing agriculture must be involved. We
also believe that the corporations and companies that are our
suppliers and which resell or process commodities also have a
vital interest in a favorable public perception of
agriculture.
3.8.02 ASA endorses the long range goal for
agricultural education and urges ASA members to provide active
support for its projects an activities on local, state and
national levels that will help create new programs in
communities not yet served by agricultural education and FFA
and ensure the quality and high performance of current
programs providing personal, academic and career education in
agriculture.
3.8.03 ASA supports more government, corporate and
private education that increases public awareness of the
stewardship, economics and risks involved in soybean
production.
3.8.04 ASA strongly urges more effort by our land grant
university system and all other public and private
organizations and entities to increase responsible and
accurate educational programs as a way to offset consumer
concerns regarding biotechnology, food safety, renewable
fuels, crop protection products and animal agriculture.
3.8.05 ASA should work at creating educational
materials and opportunities to educate youth on the basics of
lobbying for agriculture.
3.8.06 ASA should work with USB to create educational
materials and opportunities to educate youth and elected
officials on the food chain and life cycle of soybeans.
3.8.07 ASA supports development of education programs
that will promote, enhance and encourage science education
with special emphasis in K-6.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL AFFAIRS
4.0.00
Preamble 4.0.01 ASA is a national, not-for-profit, grassroots
membership organization that develops and advocates policies
to increase the profitability of U.S. soybean farmer members,
and the entire soybean industry. ASA further believes that
control must remain with its farmer members.
4.1.00 Membership Statement
4.1.01 Membership is the core of the American Soybean
Association. ASA is made up of affiliated state soybean
associations. These state associations provide the leadership,
grassroots support, and guidance to make ASA successful. In
doing this, ASA’s membership generates farmer involvement and
investment in ASA, strengthens ASA’s policy influence and
builds future leadership for the organization, demonstrated by
the following statements:
Development of membership is vital for the ASA, state associations and the entire soybean industry
Members are the foundation of the association
Members provide financial support to the association
Members support programs and policy which make the association effective in its efforts to build opportunities for soybean farm profits
Members determine the future of the association through policy resolutions and the election of volunteer leaders
Members'policy efforts compliment and
enhance the soybean checkoff that funds market
development, export promotion, research and
education programs.
The focus of
the membership program is to meet the needs of the members.
The Association should seek direct input from the members, and
should communicate directly with them. ASA places the
membership program as one of its top priorities and believes
it is vital both to ASA and the state associations to maintain
and increase current membership and strive to be a strong
membership organization.
4.1.02 Membership is a state-oriented program developed
cooperatively with the national association; therefore, ASA
and affiliated state associations should adopt and
aggressively pursue membership goals and develop programs,
funding, organize volunteers and staff to meet those goals.
4.1.03 ASA Voting Delegates support the following
membership goals:
As of September 30, 2011,
achieve a membership goal for a total of 22,303
members.
The ASA membership program should offer basic membership services and programs for which farmers are willing to pay, focus at the local and state level with national support, provide a communications umbrella for membership programs of the national and affiliated states, and significantly differentiate between the services, programs and benefits for members versus
non-members.
4.1.04
ASA urges the ASA Membership Committee and staff to aid all
states to meet their membership goal.
4.2.00 State Membership
4.2.01 Delegates urge state soybean associations to have
active membership committees. Each state shall plan and
conduct membership acquisition, retention, and involvement
programs and further establish that membership be a high
priority.
4.3.00 Soybean
Promotion, and Research Checkoff
4.3.01 ASA supports continuation of the national soybean
checkoff and encourages soybean farmers to support
continuation of the national checkoff program. ASA believes
that the national soybean checkoff is an important tool to
help soybean farmers develop new uses, conduct production
research and expand domestic and foreign markets.
4.3.02 ASA supports the original intent of the Soybean
Promotion and Research Checkoff (SPARC).
4.3.03 ASA supports commodity and livestock checkoff
programs.
4.3.04 ASA supports the continuation of a Political
Action Committee (PAC) to support issues and individual
candidates supportive of ASA policies.
4.3.05 ASA, as the cooperator with USDA-FAS, fully
supports USSEC as the international marketing contractor for
ASA and USB.
4.3.06 ASA believes it should maintain a shared
leadership role with USB in implementing international market
development efforts.
4.3.07 ASA supports ASA and state soybean associations
in contracting with USB & QSSB’s and earning a reasonable
management fee. ASA and state associations shall have no
restrictions on the use of this fee.
4.3.08 ASA supports policy that would ensure that USB,
USSEC, QUALISOY & QSSB’S use ASA and state associations as
primary contractors and coordinates for the use in policy of
any non-restricted dollars that USB, USSEC, QUALISOY & QSSB’s
may generate.
4.3.09 ASA supports USB’s efforts to educate the
general public about the positive aspects of production
agriculture with particular emphasis on soybeans and allied
commodities.
4.3.10 It is recommended that ASA and USB implement the
coordination committee as allowable in the SPARC orders.
4.3.11 ASA supports commodity checkoffs and that any
and all funds may not be used for any government deficit or
general funds needs.
4.4.00 Industry Support and Cooperation
4.4.01 ASA and affiliates appreciate the support they are
receiving from their current agribusiness partners and
encourage other agricultural allied industries to consider
providing financial and in-kind investments in ASA programs.
4.4.02 Leadership skills are more and more valuable as
the industry further expands into global markets. ASA greatly
appreciates all corporate and checkoff funded programs that
develop leadership and relationships and reach new people in
the industry.
4.5.00 Public Affairs
4.5.01 One of the primary member services of ASA should be
to provide and implement an effective governmental relations
program. To be a more effective Washington, D.C. voice for
U.S. soybean farmers, ASA should continue to build coalitions
and develop congressional contacts, as well as be sensitive to
both national and/or state concerns as they are addressed by
national policy.
4.6.00 General Farm Organizations
4.6.01 Realizing the importance of a united front in the
policy area and the need to develop a positive public image of
farmers and agriculture, ASA leadership should maintain a
continuing dialogue and work with the general farm
organizations, commodity groups, urban interests, and others
to achieve our policies and objectives.
4.6.02 ASA urges that the ASA and USB Executive
Committees meet at least twice annually to develop common
goals and evaluate programs to benefit the U.S. soybean
producer.
4.6.03 ASA supports efforts by commodity and rural
interest groups to reach out to non-ag groups to build
positive relationships and improve communication.
4.6.04 ASA supports the United States Farmers and
Ranchers Alliance and Common Ground programs being developed
at the National level.
4.7.00 Farm Safety
4.7.01 ASA encourages farm families to develop, maintain,
and implement an aggressive farm safety education program to
help protect our current and future generations and to
cooperate with other farm organizations to promote farm
safety.
4.8.00 Financial Responsibilities
4.8.01 The ASA Voting Delegate body directs the ASA
Executive Committee to examine the annual resolutions and
formulate a priority list that takes into account available
monetary and human resources. The draft copy shall be
submitted to the ASA Board for review, and amendment if
necessary, and adoption in a timely manner.
4.9.00 American Soybean Association & State Affiliates
Viability
4.9.01 The ability of soybean associations to successfully
impact the issues of importance to soybean farmers is largely
determined by the financial strength of these organizations.
As such, maintaining financially viable state and national
soybean associations is paramount. ASA and the state
affiliates should pursue innovative fundraising strategies
aimed at keeping national and state soybean associations
financially strong.
4.9.02 Continued support and work should be maintained to
ensure the viability and strength of ASA as the national
soybean policy organization with state affiliates and
individual farmer members.
4.9.03 Continue to use the name American Soybean
Association (ASA) for the national soybean organization for
domestic and international policy and American Soybean
Association-International Marketing (ASA-IM) and World
Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) for market
development.
5.0.00 AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION – 2010 General Resolutions
5.1.00 The Delegates of this annual meeting wish to
give special recognition to the following recruiters and
states for extraordinary membership achievement in the 2010
Membership Campaign and to also recognize the top three
national recruiters.
RECRUITERS
Level 1: ROBERT NELSEN - MINNESOTA
Level 2: KEVIN HOYER –
WISCONSIN
Level 3: TOMMY HINES –
VIRGINIA
ASA further commends all states for participating in the 2010
Membership Campaign and applaud those who met their 2010
membership goal (in green).
Alabama Indiana Louisiana Mississippi North Dakota South Dakota
Wisconsin
Illinois Kentucky
Minnesota North Carolina
South Carolina Virginia
5.2.00 ASA
also wishes to recognize the cooperation of the City of Tampa,
Florida as the hostcity for the 2011 COMMODITY CLASSIC®
and gratefully acknowledges all organizations and individuals
that made generous contributions of time, money and
hospitality.
5.2.01 ASA looks forward to strengthening its
relationship with NCGA, NAWG and NSP through their Commodity
Classic partnership.
5.2.02 ASA commends the 2011 COMMODITY CLASSIC®
committee members from ASA co-chair Charles Cannatella, Jeff
Sollars and Bob Worth for a job well done.
5.3.00 ASA commends:
State agricultural experiment stations for their aggressive support of soybean research important to the future of U.S. soybean farmers,
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for invaluable assistance in:
Development, maintenance and expansion of markets for U.S. soybeans and soy products through the Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS);
Providing resources for development of a comprehensive environmental education and management program through Natural Resources Conservation (NRCS);
Promotion of biodiesel use through
increased use of biodiesel fuel in
select government fleets
All Federal, State and private entities to continue efforts to monitor, identify, control and combat Asian soybean rust,
All the volunteers leaders who have become involved in soy promotion,
The U.S. farm and trade organizations who have worked cooperatively with ASA to achieve our mutual goals for farm policies, issues, research and promotion,
The United Soybean Board (USB) and QSSB’s for their efforts in investing U.S. soybean farmers' checkoff dollars,
The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) for its ongoing efforts in developing and promoting
biodiesel as an end-use for
soybean oil,
The State Associations for promoting soy-based biodiesel in their states.
The efforts of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB), North American Agricultural Journalists (NAAJ) and American Agricultural Editors Association (AAEA) for their continued support of American Agriculture.
The efforts of World Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) program and staff for their excellent work with undernourished world populations and request that ASA continue to coordinate and operate WISHH programs.
The USSEC for its international
marketing of U.S. soybeans and soybean products.
ASA applauds USB in
selecting USSEC to be the primary contractor for
international marketing. ASA fully supports USSEC in
implementing the New Model #2 and the reorganization of
the board structure. ASA is committed to work as a
partner with USSEC and USB to promote U.S. soybeans
and soybean products worldwide.
5.4.00 The ASA delegate body commends the domestic and
international employees and all affiliated states of the
American Soybean Association for a job well done during the
year 2010.
5.5.00 ASA recommends that the appointees to all
federal commodity checkoff boards be active producers of their
commodity.
5.6.00 ASA encourages all soybean farmers to
voluntarily be a member of ASA so they better understand how
policy and active farmer involvement compliments their
checkoff funded successful marketing, research and education
efforts for U.S. soybean farmer profitability.
5.6.01 ASA strongly encourages USDA to select the first
nominees from QSSB’s to USB.