The National Raisin Reserve was a raisin reserve of the United States. [1] It was created after World War II by the government in order to control raisin prices. The reserve was run by the Raisin Administrative Committee. [2] It was enforced by means of a "marketing order". In 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Horne v. Department of Agriculture that the confiscation of a portion of a farmer's crops without market price compensation was unconstitutional and ended the reserve. [3]
The reserve was founded in 1949 as a means to prevent the crash of raisin prices in post-World War II America. Because there was less demand from the federal government for raisins, there was suddenly a glut of raisins on the market. As a result, prices began to go down. In 1949, Marketing Order 989 was passed which created the reserve and the Raisin Administrative Committee, which was responsible for running the reserve. Once established, the reserve functioned as a government-mandated cartel, artificially limiting the raisin supply in order to drive up prices, for the collective benefit of raisin growers. [2]
American raisins, once seized, were sent to various warehouses across California, to be stored until sold to foreign nations, fed to cattle or schoolchildren, or disposed of in any other way to get them off the market that year. [2]
The Raisin Administrative Committee was based in Fresno, California, and was overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture. The committee was made up of industry representatives, who would decide each year on the size of the reserve and what to do with the stockpiled supply. The profits from the sale of the reserved raisins (taken from growers often for no payment) were used to pay the expenses of the committee or pay farmers for their seized produce. In one recent year, $65,483,211 was seized; it was all spent, with nothing left over for farmers. [2]
Regarding the National Raisin Reserve, Daniel Sumner, director of the University of California’s Agricultural Issues Center stated "It’s a cartel. Let’s use the power of the government to operate a cartel...", "Congress had given the USDA the authority to operate reserves during the New Deal: Other reserves existed for almonds, walnuts, tart cherries and other products." [2]
In 2013, Florida Congressman Trey Radel introduced a bill that would repeal Marketing Order 989. [4] The bill was introduced but not enacted. [5]
The reserve gained prominence in 2003 when Marvin Horne challenged the legitimacy of the reserve in Horne v. Department of Agriculture . Horne's takings claim made its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the determination of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that it had no jurisdiction. [2] [6] On remand, the Ninth Circuit found that the reserve's requirements did not constitute a taking. [7] In April 2015, the case was argued again before the Supreme Court, [8] which decided in June 2015, by a majority of 5–4, [9] that the confiscation of a portion of a farmer's crops without market price compensation was unconstitutional. The Court found no reason to remand the case, stating "[t]his case, in litigation for more than a decade, has gone on long enough." [10] This ended the raisin reserve.
In addition to the National Raisin Reserve, during the New Deal other reserves existed for almonds, walnuts, tart cherries and other products. Enacted during the Great Depression, the New Deal reserves were a result of the government's attempt to keep prices viable for farmers to grow the fruit and make a suitable profit. Most of these no longer exist. [2]
The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies that processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, also called "AAA" (1933–1942), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies. The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act. The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an executive department of the United States federal government that aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production, promotes agricultural trade and production, works to assure food safety, protects natural resources, fosters rural communities and works to end hunger in the United States and internationally. It is headed by the secretary of agriculture, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who has served since February 24, 2021.
The Canadian Wheat Board was a marketing board for wheat and barley in Western Canada. Established by the Parliament of Canada on 5 July 1935, its operation was governed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act as a mandatory producer marketing system for wheat and barley in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and a small part of British Columbia. It was illegal for any farmer in areas under the CWB's jurisdiction to sell their wheat and barley through any other channel than the CWB. Although often called a monopoly, it was actually a monopsony since it was the only buyer of wheat and barley. It was a marketing agency acting on behalf of Western Canadian farmers, passing all profits from its operation back to farmers. Its market power over wheat and barley marketing was referred to as the "Single Desk".
A marketing board is an organization created by many producers to try to market their product and increase consumption and thus prices. It can also be defined as an organization set up by a government to regulate the buying and selling of a certain commodity within a specified area. They most commonly exist to help sell farm products such as milk, eggs, beef or tripe and are funded by the farmers or processors of those crops or products. Marketing boards often also receive funding from governments as an agricultural subsidy. The leadership and strategies of the marketing boards are set through votes by the farmers who are members of the board.
The sultana is a "white", oval seedless grape variety also called the sultanina, Thompson Seedless, Lady de Coverly (England), and oval-fruited Kishmish. It is also known as İzmir üzümü in Turkey since this variety has been extensively grown in the region around İzmir. It is assumed to originate from Asia Minor, which later became part of the Ottoman Empire.
An Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) is a marketing board established by state governments in India to ensure farmers are safeguarded from exploitation by large retailers, as well as ensuring the farm to retail price spread does not reach excessively high levels. APMCs are regulated by states through their adoption of a Agriculture Produce Marketing Regulation (APMR) Act.
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum fat content standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the sale of avocados that did not contain at least 8% oil by weight. Florida, a major avocado producer, employed, for wholesale marketing purposes, a federal standard unrelated to oil content. Most Florida avocados that were marketable at home failed to meet the California standard, because they were a different variety from those sold in California, with a lower fat content. Accordingly, Florida avocado growers brought this suit, arguing (unsuccessfully) that the California law (1) was preempted by federal law, (2) violated equal protection, and (3) unduly burdened and interfered with their right to engage in interstate commerce. The case is widely used in law school casebooks on constitutional law and federal jurisdiction as illustrative of preemption issues.
Nina Totenberg is an American legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR) focusing primarily on the activities and politics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Her reports air regularly on NPR's news magazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition. From 1992 to 2013, she was also a panelist on the syndicated TV political commentary show Inside Washington.
An agricultural cooperative, also known as a farmers' co-op, is a producer cooperative in which farmers pool their resources in certain areas of activities.
The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 regulates meatpacking, livestock dealers, market agencies, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices, giving undue preferences, apportioning supply, manipulating prices, or creating a monopoly. It was enacted following the release in 1919 of the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the meatpacking industry.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 provides authority for federal marketing orders, and also reaffirmed the marketing agreements provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933.
In the United States, the farm bill is comprehensive omnibus bill that is the primary agricultural and food policy instrument of the federal government. Congress typically passes a new farm bill every five to six years.
The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was enacted to protect farmers from retaliation by handlers because the farmers are members of a cooperative. The act permits farmers to file complaints with USDA, which can then institute court proceedings, if they believe their rights under the law have been violated. Several bills have been introduced in recent years on behalf of producers to give them more bargaining power under the Act, which, some producers contend, lacks adequate enforcement authorities.
Marketing orders and agreements in United States agricultural policy allow producers to promote orderly marketing through collectively influencing the supply, demand, or price of a particular commodity. Research and promotion can be financed with pooled funds.
The United States Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 was an omnibus farm bill. The S. 275 legislation was passed by the 95th U.S. Congressional session and signed into law by the 39th President of the United States Jimmy Carter on September 29, 1977.
The Essential Commodities Act (ECA) is an act of the Parliament of India that was established to ensure the delivery of certain commodities or products, the supply of which, if obstructed due to hoarding or black marketing, would affect the normal life of the people. This includes foodstuff, drugs, fuel etc. This act was modified by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 as part of the 2020 Indian farm reforms.
The Farmer Assurance Provision refers to Section 735 of US H.R. 933, a bill that was passed by the Senate on March 20, 2013, and then signed into law as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013. The provisions of this law remained in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013. The Farmer Assurance Provision was discontinued in Sec. 101 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. The bill is commonly referred to as the "Monsanto Protection Act" by its critics.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 is an act of Congress that authorizes nutrition and agriculture programs in the United States for the years of 2014–2018. The bill authorizes $956 billion in spending over the next ten years.
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ; 576 U.S. 351 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose out of a dispute involving the National Raisin Reserve, when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market. In Horne I the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for violation of the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause. In Horne II the Court held that the National Raisin Reserve was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause.
The 2018 farm bill or Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 is an enacted United States farm bill that reauthorized $867 billion for many expenditures approved in the prior farm bill. The bill was passed by the Senate and House on December 11 and 12, 2018, respectively. On December 20, 2018, it was signed into law by President Donald Trump.
