Environmental regulation, meat labeling and beef advocacy provisions in the omnibus spending bill will have an effect on farmers and producers in Arkansas -- though meat companies, environmental advocates and farming organizations are split over some of the changes.
The Senate passed the bill Saturday and President Barack Obama is expected to sign it.
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson and U.S. Cattlemen's Association President Danni Beer said in a letter to House and Senate leaders that they were concerned about portions of the bill.
"We strongly object to the use of the appropriations process as a mechanism to limit the [Agriculture] secretary's authority to uphold the [country of origin labeling] law, to respond to the dire need for reform of the beef checkoff, and to address anti-competitive market concerns," said the letter.
But other organizations said agricultural additions to the spending bill were welcome.
"We were very happy to see a number of issues that have affected our producers addressed in this legislation," said Bob McCan , National Cattlemen's Beef Association president. "It is clear that Congress recognizes and agrees that the administration's regulatory zeal has gone too far and if left unchecked, it will impede the economic growth of rural America."
For the past nine years, grocery stores in the U.S. have been required to tell shoppers what country produced the meats, fruits and vegetables in their baskets under the country of origin labeling (COOL) law.
The bill requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative to report recommendations to Congress that will ensure the labeling law complies with free trade obligations, according to COOL Reform Coalition, a group of trade organizations like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and meat companies that include Tyson Foods, Cargill and Smithfield.
Canada, Mexico and several other countries have complained to the World Trade Organization that the labeling puts their products at a competitive disadvantage in America -- a practice not allowed under free trade agreements. In October, the World Trade Organization ruled in agreement with those countries, but the United States has appealed the ruling.
The coalition is concerned the countries will retaliate if the rule is found to violate the free trade agreements. Canada has threatened the United States with retaliatory trade barriers if the country chooses not to comply with the ruling, which could include beef, chicken, pork, apples, corn, furniture and alcohol, among other products.
"This action demonstrates bipartisan support for addressing the problem, but additional action is required," said the coalition in a press release. "We urge Congress to enact a contingency plan and rescind requirements of COOL that are found to violate U.S. trade obligations. This will ensure that COOL does not result in serious damage to our economy and harm our global competitiveness."
However, Chandler Goule, a senior vice president of programs for the National Farmers Union, said the law helps ordinary producers.
"We want to promote our local and regional food systems," he said. "We're not saying (a foreign) product is inferior. We just want to tell the consumer where the product came from."
"This isn't a coalition of reform -- this is a coalition of repeal," he said.
In addition to addressing labeling, the spending bill restricts an expansion of the Clean Water Act to include smaller streams and bodies of water.
The American Farm Bureau voiced opposition to the rule, saying that ponds, ditches, seasonal streams and isolated wetlands dot the nation's farmland. If the rule was finalized, it would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate much of that farmland, the organization contended.
"The EPA proposal poses a serious threat to farmers, ranchers and other landowners," said the Farm Bureau in a press release. "Under EPA's proposed new rule, waters -- even ditches -- are regulated even if they are miles from the nearest 'navigable' waters."
The EPA responded by saying the rule is clarifying existing regulations and that existing exemptions for farmers would not change.
"The bottom line is -- if you didn't need a permit before this proposed rule, you won't need one when it's finalized," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City in July.
The bill also prevents the USDA from implementing a second beef checkoff program. The Beef Checkoff is a $1 per head assessment on cattle that goes toward research and promotion for the industry.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association said the majority of beef producers are happy with the status quo, reforming the program would increase government involvement and a new checkoff wouldn't ensure a national-state partnership.
The Arkansas Cattlemen's Association signed a letter in support of the current system. Adam McClung, executive vice president of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association, said having two checkoffs would be inefficient.
"We would get another dollar, but it would make a mirrored program," he said. "It would essentially have two checkoffs running at the same time, which doesn't make sense."
However, the National Farmer's Union said the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which receives most of the funds from the checkoff, blurs the line between lobbying efforts and beef promotion. The union also said the association does not support programs popular among farmers, such as country of origin labeling.
McClung sees the issue differently.
"Our checkoff is paid for by producers and is producer controlled," he said. "I think (country of origin labeling) was a great idea, but we don't want to lose Mexico and Canada. They are two of our largest trading partners."
Business on 12/16/2014