2018 NASDA Annual Meeting Policy Materials

• Committee Agendas & Affiliate Reports – pg. 2 • Policy Amendments & Action Items – pg. 44

Please bring this packet with you to all committee meetings. Additional printouts will not be distributed. All documents are available on our app. 1

2018 Annual Meeting Committee Agendas & Affiliate Reports

2 3

Plant Agriculture & Pesticide Regulation Committee Chair: Secretary Jim Reese, Oklahoma Meeting Agenda Monday, September 10 |2:45 – 3:45 PM | NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks (2:45) • Secretary Reese

Review of Affiliates Reports (2:47) • Secretary Reese and NASDA Staff o Motion to accept Affiliate Reports

EPA-OPP Speaker: Mike Goodis, Director Registration Division (2:50) • Secretary Reese and NASDA Staff o Mike Goodis remarks: EPA OPP Priorities

Policy Update and Member Discussion: FIFRA Regulatory Activities (3:20) • Secretary Reese and NASDA Staff

Consideration of Policy Amendments and Action Items (3:30) • Policy Amendments & Action Items: o Policy Amendment 2: Biotechnology Regulatory Framework (Secretary Jim Reese, OK)

Member Dialogue (3:40) • Open Discussion

Adjourn (3:45)

NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. 4 5 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PESTICIDE CONTROL OFFICIALS

The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials was formed in 1947, the same year that Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Members of AAPCO consist of the officers charged by law with the execution of the state, territorial, provincial, and federal laws in the United States, including all its territories, and in Canada.

AAPCO oversees the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG). SFIREG and its working committees provide a platform for the states and EPA to resolve challenges to successful implementation of pesticide programs and policies in the USA and territories. AAPCO supports related associations who specialize in particular aspects of the pesticide programs, by working collaboratively with them to promote consistency across different pesticide program areas at the national level.

AAPCO Mission Statement

Our mission is to represent State Pesticide Control Officials in the development, implementation, and communication of sound public policies and programs related to the sale, application, transport, and disposal of pesticides.

Objectives • Provide a national forum to identify pesticide regulatory issues, solicit input, and provide solutions through policies, position papers, and lobbying activities. • Build partnerships and promote effective communication between AAPCO and the: • U.S. Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (“NASDA”), American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (“AAPSE”), Tribal Pesticide Program Council (“TPPC”), Other Federal, State, and Local Governments; and Other organizations and stakeholders (ASPCRO, AAPSE, RISE, CTAG). • Provide technical support to AAPCO members, the U.S. Congress, EPA, NASDA, AAPSE, TPPC, other Federal, State, and local governments, and other organizations and stakeholders on pesticide regulatory issues and programs. • Support Federal and State pesticide policies and programs that protect human health and the environment, while acknowledging the important benefits of pesticide use (including consumer protection and the continued ability to secure high quality food, feed and fiber). • Disseminate timely and useful information on relevant state and national pesticide regulatory activities.

Key Activities over the Last Year

• Actively collected and provided information to better understand and address the issues arising from the use of dicamba. These efforts involved development of a weekly survey to SLA’s and weekly calls with EPA.

• Collected information and provided a webpage for dicamba related information from states at https://aapco.org/2015/07/02/dicamba/ .

• Provided comments and a framework for measuring success of the state’s pollinator protection plans to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and EPA. A final version of measures has been approved.

• Collected information and provided a webpage for pollinator related issues at https://aapco.org/2015/07/01/current-topics/ .

6 Page 2 • Re-established a summer board meeting for the AAPCO Board of Directors. The purpose of the meeting is to develop a stronger AAPCO Board and focus attention on issues arising after the Annual Meeting in March. The AAPCO Board is revising and implementing new organizational policies and procedures to further strengthen the organization for the future. AAPCO also hired a new Treasurer, Gabrielle Sather-Olson, in July 2018.

• AAPCO successful applied and received the 5 year grant funding the activities of the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG). AAPCO updated and strengthen the financial and reporting components of the grant in order to better position AAPCO to continue our long standing relationship with EPA. AAPCO also appointed Liza Fleeson Trossbach, VA, as the new Chairperson to oversee SFIREG for the next two years.

• Formulated a series of outreach opportunities to aid in communication during the change in administrations, EPA staffing and AAPCO leadership. These efforts will continue in 2019 and will foster a shared understanding of each stakeholder’s roles and responsibilities.

• Continued a 25(b) Working Committee to address issues associated with the registration of federally exempt 25(b) products and support consistency among state registration programs. The workgroup developed label guidance for state’s that register 25(b) products. The workgroup also conducted a survey of states to collect the registration requirements for each state along with the contact person for 25(b) registrations.

• Collected information and provided a webpage for 25(b) registration related issues at https://aapco.org/2015/07/02/fifra-25b-workgroup/ .

• Reconstituted the Certification and Training workgroup to provide input on the implementation if EPA’s revisions to the rule. The workgroup will be actively meeting until implementation is complete.

• Collected and provided information through an AAPCO Working Group on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Rule implementation and helped disseminate information provided from the Pesticide Education Resources Collaborative (PERC).

• Planned for AAPCO’s annual conference which was March 2018 and currently planning the AAPCO 2019 Annual Spring Meeting which will be March 4-6, 2019, Hilton Alexandria Old Town, Alexandria, VA.

• Collaborated with our standing committee, SFIREG and other associations and organizations.

• Updated the AAPCO website, www.aapco.org .

• Worked with a number of AAPCO state members on Medical and Recreational Marijuana issues which involve the use of pesticides. AAPCO collected information and provided a webpage for cannabis related issues at https://aapco.org/2015/07/01/cannabis/.

Further information regarding the above reference activities can be found on our association’s website at the https://aapco.org .

Respectfully Submitted,

Tony L. Cofer, AAPCO President

7 Affiliate Report Association of Official Seed Analysts

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

September 2018

The Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) is an organization of member laboratories dedicated to education and research including state, federal, and university laboratories from the United States and Canada. The AOSA influences and assists in the support and regulation of seed trade at state, federal international levels.

In this past year the AOSA has been very active. Our board of directors and committees met regularly throughout the year to plan events and carry out their respective duties. After a few recent years of transition and change for the AOSA, this year was no different.

Some of the activities and progress made this year include:

• There has been continued improvement of our joint website the SCST (Society of Commercial Seed Technologists). The joint site started as a source for annual meeting information and to registration. Since then information from each individual web site has been transferred to www.analyzeseeds.com. Information there includes lists of members of AOSA and of SCST, past webinars, information on publications and a list of ISO 17025, ISTA and ASL accredited labs. • Volumes one and four of the AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds have been translated in Spanish and will soon be available. • Webinars have become a very popular way to reach out and educate individual seed analysts and others around the country. Topics of past webinars include vigor testing, AOSA Rule proposals, seed sampling, variability on seed testing results and labeling according to the Federal Seed Act. • Uniformity of testing between labs has been a subject of much attention and will continue to be. The AOSA and SCST have worked together to add many new native species to the AOSA Rules, developed new methods and rules that we feel will help with uniformity, and we are studying whether some substrate and temperature options should be removed. • We are working with our counterparts in South America to increase interaction. Past AOSA President Randy Crowl traveled to Brazil two years ago and a member of one of the Brazilian seed groups was invited to speak in Raleigh. • Although our budget remains tight, we continue contribute to the Seed Technology Research Fund and to the journal Seed Technology .

8 As one can see, we are joining more and more activities with the SCST. After years of working towards consolidation of our two groups, we are now considering the formation of an umbrella group. An umbrella group would involve the main areas we have in common with SCST (training, publications, examinations for certification and proficiency training) while allowing us to continue what is unique to each organization (AOSA – regulatory work, SCST – promotion of the RST and RGT accreditations). We look forward to working together even more and making both our groups stronger. We just finished a very productive annual meeting together in Raleigh, North Carolina in June. Seventeen rule proposals were considered and approved to be added to the AOSA Rules for Testing Seeds on Oct. 1st. There was a workshop on seed moisture determination, a poster session, and the genetic certification exam.

The AOSA/SCST annual meeting next year will be in Sparks, Nevada. Our meetings are very active affairs with committee and other meetings from morning through the evenings. Consider joining us in Sparks and check analyzeseeds.com from time to time this year as we add information about this meeting.

Many AOSA member labs are located within their states department of Agriculture. Others are located on university campuses or within crop improvement associations. The support we get from the state governments, the industry, and consumers is essential for us to do our part in the support and regulation of seed trade. We want to continue to do whatever we can to make sure service testing and regulatory testing is done fairly, accurately, and in a timely manner.

Respectfully Submitted,

Association of Official Seed Analysts

Michael Stahr AOSA President Iowa State University Seed Laboratory [email protected]

David Johnston AOSA Vice-President Louisiana Department of Agriculture Seed Lab [email protected]

______Affiliate Letter National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) 4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 Re: Affiliate Letter to NASDA

The Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO) is a professional association of the structural pest control regulatory officials representing any of the 50 states, tribes and territories. ASPCRO’s goal is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of each state through the fair and effective regulation of the pest control industry which is vital in the control of pests of public health and economic significance. The Association’s activities are focus promoting a better understanding and efficiency in the administration of pesticide related laws and regulations and addressing the broad range of structural issues impacting the successful implementation of state, tribal and territorial pesticide programs. ASPCRO also works closely with affiliate organizations to address those issues of mutual concern and which impact pesticide programs nationally.

ASPCRO and the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) conducted a two U.S. EPA Fumigation Workshop

• Port Fumigation Workshop in Wilmington, Delaware at the Port of Wilmington (July 2018). The workshop focused on commodity fumigation and import/export fumigations. The workshop provided EPA staff a hands-on display of the products and types of activities that the EPA staff will be considering while going through the registration review process for fumigant products. The workshop interspersed classroom education on different types of fumigants followed by comprehensive in-the-field experiences.

• Pyrethroids Workshop in Arlington, Virginia (December 2017). The workshop focused on treatment methods, primary structural pests and application terminology, In addition, application equipment, calibration and use were discussed.

ASPCRO continues to work toward clarification on label language with consistency between labels through EPA mandated language. One challenge is the copyrighting of companies’ labels, meaning some companies own their labels, so the exact language is copyrighted. EPA is developing and supporting a Label Matching Application technology that is currently going through beta testing.

Over the past year, the ASPCRO Label Stewardship Committee has met and discussed the EPA’s Memorandum Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Location of the First Aid Statement and Clarification

10 on Definition of Label “Panel” per 40 CFR 156.68. The committee determined the need to communicate with EPA to encourage further dialogue with registrants about the placement of the First Aid statement on the pesticide labels. The consensus of the committee was that the practice of registrants placing the First Aid statements of products with toxicity categories II and III on a portion of the label other than an outside panel has not presented any cause for concern among participating states and that other label issues should be receiving greater attention. A letter was sent from ASPCRO to EPA requesting their cooperation with the industry in the placement of First Aid statements.

The Joint AAPCO/SFIREG/ASPCRO EPA Learning Exchange is a leadership team comprised of the leadership of each organization. The Exchange was created to foster communication and the sharing of information thereby optimizing the partnership between the Associations, State Lead Agencies and EPA. The Exchange meets on a regular basis. ASPCRO’s Past President, President, and Vice-President represent the Association.

ASPCRO’s 62nd Annual Conference will be held August 20 through August 24, 2018 in San Antonio, Texas. The agenda includes the Association’s annual meeting of the Board of Directors, 8 standing committee meetings; and sessions focusing on a wide range pesticide related topics including the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Armed Forces and pest management, resistance management and Modes of Action, two tracks on termites and other structural pests, the global economy and implications for the sale, distribution and proper use of pesticides, delusory parasitosis, fumigation updates, Rat Ice, pest control devices, and registration of 25b products, . Additional information regarding the annual meeting and other activities is available www.aspcro.org

Sincerely,

Linda Johns Irene King Linda Johns Irene King ASPCRO President ASPCRO Vice President

Rural Development and Financial Security Chair: Secretary Russell Redding, Pennsylvania Vice-Chair: Director Ben Thomas, Montana Meeting Agenda Monday, September 10 | 3:45 – 4:45 PM | 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks (3:45) • Secretary Redding

Policy Update and Review of Committee Work Plan and Affiliate Reports (3:50) • Secretary Redding and NASDA Staff o Motion to accept Affiliate Reports

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Agriculture Labor (3:55) • Lynn Jacquez, CJ Lake • Member Dialogue

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Rural Mental Health Initiatives (4:20) • Commissioner Reviczky, CT & Commissioner Brown, CO

Policy Update and Member Discussion: ERS and NIFA Relocation (4:35) • Secretary Redding and NASDA Staff

Consideration of Policy Amendments, Action Items (4:40) • Policy Amendments & Action Items: o Action Item L: Support for State Department of Agriculture and Extension Partnerships (Secretary Witte, NM) o Action Item O: USDA Realignment within the Research, Education and Economics Mission Area (Secretary Witte, NM)

Adjourn (4:45)

2018 NCWM Affiliate Report to NASDA

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) sets the standards for commercial measurement in the United States. Those standards are adopted by the states and territories, bringing national uniformity to the regulation of commerce.

NCWM is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska. Our members are government officials and industries throughout the world who have a stake in U.S. commerce. The standards adopted by NCWM are published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in NIST Handbooks 44, 130 and 133. A Board of Directors oversees operations of the corporation including standing committees, sub- committees, technical sectors and task groups who work throughout the year.

NCWM held its 103rd Annual Meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma in July 2018. The Interim Meeting will be in Charleston, South Carolina in January 2019 and the 104th Annual Meeting will be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in July 2019. Voting to amend the national standards takes place at the July Annual Meetings. A seat is reserved for the regulatory authority of each state to represent their interest in voting on those standards.

In 39 states, the authority to regulate weights and measures lies within the state Department of Agriculture. This is because agriculture was the primary industry of early America. Today, NCWM races to keep pace with technologies, addressing software systems, GPS measurements, fuel quality, hydrogen and electricity vehicle fueling, and much more. Current task groups are addressing credit card skimmers, legalized cannabis and in-motion weighing of trucks.

NCWM also administers the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) for weighing and measuring instruments to ensure that the manufacturer can meet U.S. standards in NIST Handbook 44. This program protects the U.S. from an influx of inferior and inadequate weighing and measuring instruments. Last fiscal year, NTEP processed 297 applications from manufacturers throughout the world and issued 240 Certificates of Conformance. Seven of the NTEP-authorized laboratories that conduct these evaluations are in state Departments of Agriculture, including California, Kansas, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.

NCWM’s Professional Certification Program for weights and measures officials is used in many states to demonstrate exceptional expertise in the various disciplines of their work. In some agencies, it is used to elevate pay grades. This is important for reducing turnover and maintaining competency of inspection staff. On September 1, 2018, NCWM introduced Basic Competency exams to be used by state agencies to measure progress of new inspectors and for licensing service agents. All exams are online, proctored and free of charge to our members.

In further support of professionalism, NCWM’s Associate Membership Committee supports training events around the country by paying for trainer travel expenses, meeting space, A/V rentals, etc. In

2018, this funding benefited training events in Alabama, California, Mississippi, New York, Utah, Arizona and Louisiana. Funding is based on availability.

NCWM has developed a Promotional Toolkit available on our website with tools to educate the public about the activities of weights and measures inspectors and the astounding return on investment that they bring for businesses and consumers alike. This includes a series of videos that are available on NCWM’s YouTube channel. More videos are in production.

NCWM values our affiliation with NASDA and we look forward to opportunities for collaboration. As represented in this report, NCWM does more than set standards for commercial measurement. We are also dedicated to supporting and elevating the expertise and professionalism of those who regulate commercial measurement within these Departments of Agriculture.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Don Onwiler Executive Director

National Conference on Weights and Measures 1135 M Street, Suite 110 Lincoln, NE 68508 Phone: 402-434-4880 Email: [email protected] www.ncwm.net

Staff:

Executive Director: Don Onwiler 402-434-4871 [email protected] NTEP Administrator: Jim Truex 740-919-4350 [email protected] NTEP Specialist: Darrell Flocken 614-620-6134 [email protected] Office Manager: Elisa Stritt 402-434-4872 [email protected] Project Coordinator: Tyler Reeder 402-434-4880 [email protected]

Board of Directors:

Chairman: Brett Gurney Utah Chairman-Elect: Craig VanBuren Michigan NTEP Chairman: James Cassidy City of Cambridge, MA Treasurer: Ray Johnson New Mexico Central Director: Ivan Hankins Iowa Northeast Director: Jack Walsh Town of Wellesley, MA Southern Director: Hal Prince Florida Western Director: Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado Associate Director: Chris Guay Proctor and Gamble At-Large: Julie Quinn Minnesota At Large: Rebecca Richardson Marc IV Consulting

Animal Agriculture Committee Chair: Commissioner John McMillan, Alabama Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 11 | 10:15 – 11:15 AM | NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks (10:15) • Commissioner McMillan

Review of Affiliates Report (10:17) • Commissioner McMillan and NASDA Staff o Motion to accept Affiliate Reports

State Update (10:20) • Commissioner McMillan and NASDA Staff • Secretary McClaskey, KS: Update on Cattle Trace Pilot

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Farm Bill Initiative (10:40) • Commissioner McMillan and NASDA Staff

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Livestock Transport (10:42) • Commissioner McMillan and NASDA Staff o Update on DOT/ELD Rule

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Animal Biotechnology (10:45) • Commissioner McMillan and NASDA Staff o Action Item A: Animal Biotechnology (Secretary Naig, IA)

Consideration of other Policy Amendments and Action Items (10:55) • Policy Amendment 4: Emerging Technologies (Commissioner Quarles, KY) • Action Item K: Regulation of Cell-Cultured or Tissue-Cultured Meat (Secretary Harsdorf, WI and Commissioner Steve Troxler, NC)

Member Dialogue (11:10)

Adjourn (11:15)

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY of STATE ANIMAL HEALTH OFFICIALS 4221 Mitchell Ave Saint Joseph, MO 64507 Ph: 816-671-1144 Fax: 816-671-1201 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.usaha.org

President Vice President Treasurer Secretary Scott Marshall DVM Annette B. Jones DVM Dustin Oedekoven DVM Tony Frazier DVM 235 Promenade Street 1220 N Street 411 South Fort Street 1445 Federal Drive Providence, RI 02908 Sacramento, CA 95814 Pierre, SD 57501 Montgomery, AL 36107 401-222-2781 916-900-5000 605-773-3321 334-240-7253 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

July 24, 2018

From: The National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials

To: Barbara Glenn, PhD. Chief Executive Officer, NASDA

RE: NASAHO Partner Update

Dear Dr. Glenn:

The National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials (NASAHO, or the National Assembly) is an organization comprised of the state and territorial animal health officials of the United States. Our mission is to work collectively to safeguard animal and public health as well as the food supply. We accomplish this by working with federal, state, and industry partners to develop science-based policies to address issues that affect public and animal health, public safety, and commerce. We strive to use the best available science to formulate our positions and to reach consensus among all members whenever possible.

The National Assembly is uniquely qualified to assess the impact of animal health threats in our individual states and territories, as well as how those threats will affect our nation. We are aware of available resources to mitigate threats, as well as gaps that represent vulnerabilities to those threats and our abilities to address them. We are hopeful that NASDA will consider us to be a valuable partner in addressing any animal health related issues.

Key activities for 2018:

• Creation of two working groups, one each to develop a framework for tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis regulations. The working groups determined that unlike the most recent TB and brucellosis rules proposed by USDA APHIS, each disease should have separate rules and program standards. NASAHO is committed to continue working with USDA to further develop these rules. • Creation of a working group to study how indemnity payments for animal health emergencies and program diseases are administered and to make recommendations for improving this process. This group is tasked with taking a comprehensive look at current program diseases and how indemnity is paid to producers who are affected with those diseases. The goal is to make recommendations for improvement in the process for approval of indemnity payments to increase efficiency and effectiveness of indemnity as a tool for incentive to rapidly detect, respond, and recover from economically significant emergency diseases with minimal impact. • Creation of a working group to address issues related to Seneca virus in swine. This group made specific recommendations that will help the swine industry and regulators more efficiently conduct foreign animal disease investigations to differentiate Seneca A Virus infection from more impactful foreign animal diseases that are clinically indistinguishable from this endemic and common virus. • We commented on proposed regulations and policies that we felt were significant to animal health and welfare such as: impact of Electronic Logging Devices on animal welfare for livestock haulers, USDA proposal for flat rate fee for virus elimination for avian influenza, and the impact that the proposed organics rule would have on the health and welfare of organic poultry. We also wrote a letter to all accredited veterinary colleges that encouraged introduction of regulatory veterinary medicine into the curriculum at an earlier stage so that students would have more time to consider that as a career path and provided comments on the importance of the National Scrapie Eradication Program as that program nears achievement of its goals.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Marshall DVM, RI State Veterinarian President

Marketing and International Trade Chair: Director Derek Sandison, Washington Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 11| 11:15 AM - 12:15 PM | 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks (11:15) • Director Sandison

Policy Update (11:18) • Director Sandison and NASDA Staff

Affiliate Reports and Recognition (11:23) • Motion to accept Affiliate Reports

Tri-National Accord Update (11:25) • Secretary Witte, NM, and NASDA Staff

Member Update: Cuba (11:30) • Commissioner Reviczky, CT

Discussion on Trade Policy and Consideration of Trade-Related Action Items (11:35) • Member Discussion Led by Director Sandison o Action Item C: Critical Need for Export Markets (Director Sandison, WA) o Action Item D: Reaffirming Importance of WTO & Dispute Settlement (Director Sandison, WA)

Discussion on Standards of Identity and Consideration of Policy Amendment 3 (11:45) • Member Discussion Led by Director Sandison o Policy Amendment 3: Labeling and Marketing Claims (Secretary Harsdorf, WI and Commissioner Troxler, NC) o Action Item G: Proper Enforcement of FDA Standards of Identity and Labeling for Milk (Secretary Harsdorf, WI; Commissioner Troxler, NC; Director Gould, ID)

Discussion on SNAP Processing at Farmers Markets and Consideration of Action Item I (11:55) • Member Discussion Led by Commissioner Ball o Action Item I: Availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefit Processing at Farmers Markets (Director Wenk, MI)

North American Agricultural Marketing Officials Marketing Excellence Award Presentation (12:00) • NAAMO Representative

Consideration of Other Policy Amendments and Action Items (12:05) • Action Item E: Uniform Industry Standards for Industrial Hemp (Commissioner Brown, CO; Secretary Witte, NM; Director Thomas, MT; Commissioner Adams, UT) • Action Item J: Promulgation of FDA Regulations for Filtered Milk (Secretary Harsdorf, WI)

Adjourn (12:15)

NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. 20 21 2018 CONFERENCE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE 2018 AFFILIATE REPORT

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | RICHLAND, WA The annual COSDA Conference The Communication Officers of State Departments of Agriculture (COSDA) is One of the key projects undertaken by COSDA each year is an affiliate and supporting partner of organizing an annual meeting for members, hosted each NASDA. The organization is composed year in a different state. In 2018, the conference will be held of the communications officers of each in Richland, Washington, and is being coordinated by the state’s department of agriculture. Washington State Department of Agriculture. The 2018 board currently includes the communication directors for the This annual meeting provides a rare opportunity for COSDA state departments of agriculture for members to meet face-to-face, allowing for substantive Washington, Minnesota, Tennessee, discussions on matters of current interest and workshops Louisiana, Oklahoma, Iowa and that provide professional development. Michigan. The board convenes a monthly conference call. The workshops in recent years have provided training on COSDA’s purpose is to improve crisis communication, social media development, video communication between the state production, strengthening media relations, and addressing agriculture agencies and relevant the rise of bogus news circulated on social media platforms. federal agencies. Together, we work on crafting and delivering key messages that promote the nation’s agriculture Recent activities industry, consumer protection initiatives and regulatory policies to COSDA hosted two nationwide conference calls in the past the public, media, constituents and year – one to update members regarding the Census of lawmakers. Agriculture roll-out and share key resources to promote participation in the census nationwide. A second national A secondary but equally important conference call concerned a documentary filmmaker purpose of COSDA is to provide a professional network for ag focused on animal feed issues who had contacted several communicators, offering an avenue to agencies with similar inquiries. address common issues facing those of us working as communication officers In addition, COSDA issued numerous emails in the past year for state departments of agriculture. to its members, ensuring they remained informed on a range of topics including: The organization’s priorities include:

• Convene national conference calls • Farm Bill developments. with federal partners on issue- specific topics as needed. • Trade issues such as NAFTA renegotiation talks and tariff disputes. • Keep ag communicators connected year-round through • NASDA policies and organizational news. timely e-mails to share information • Updates from the USDA and its divisions. on key topics of interest. • Other information relevant to ag communications. • Organize an annual meeting to A new president will assume leadership of the COSDA board provide members professional in October and lead the coordination of the 2019 conference. development, strengthen interstate relationships and Next year’s conference is currently scheduled to take place promote agricultural awareness. in Minnesota.

22 23 The State Agriculture Technology Officers (SATO) group was formed at the beginning 2017. The primary driver for this group coming together is to increase collaboration among state IT leaders in agriculture, enabling gains in efficiency and effectiveness.

We have similar challenges and there is no reason we can’t share solutions! When situations arise that affect some, or all of the states, we tend to address them in isolation. So we are solving those problems alone as opposed to attacking them as a consortium. This scenario tends to favor vendors in our industry in that they can financially benefit from solving the same problem, over-and-over again! While we are fortunate to have many good vendors in IT, there are also questionable ones and you may never know that unless we are sharing information better than we do today. WE want to change that!

SATO, is building a platform for collaboration and invites every state to participate. Since our inception, we have had several online interactive sessions. These events are not so much a presentation / Q&A format, but more of a discussion format. Typically, a topic of interest is raised and one state will take the lead to share experiences, solutions, best practices, etc. The group is also identifying an initiative to take on as a group to see if we can find a solution that works for multiple states and then share it. Currently there are two initiatives under consideration; the FSMA – Farm inventory (FDA requirement) and Online licensing and permitting. Lastly, we provide a platform that allows members to easily reach out to the broader audience of states or a more focused group with questions and queries.

Below is a list of the current SATO board and participating states. We would like to include any state not on the list to join, there is no cost and unlimited potential benefit for agriculture in the United States.

SATO board members are: Rich Medina (Colorado) – Chairperson Mary Winkley (California) – Vice Chair Open – Secretary

Participating states: Alabama Kentucky North Carolina Vermont Arizona Maryland North Dakota Virginia California Mississippi Oklahoma Washington Colorado Montana South Carolina West Virginia Florida Nevada South Dakota Wisconsin Iowa New Mexico Tennessee Wyoming Kansas New York Texas

You can contact Rich Medina at [email protected] for any questions, and to join the group.

24 25 Food Regulation Committee Chair: Commissioner, Richard Ball, New York Vice-Chair: Commissioner, Don Brown, Colorado Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 12 | 10:30- 11:30 AM | 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks • Commissioner Ball and NASDA Staff

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Retail Buyer Approach to Produce Safety (10:35) • Steve Strub, Wegmans • Member Dialogue

Policy Update and Review of Affiliate Reports (10:55) • Commissioner Richard and NASDA Staff o Motion to file Affiliate Reports

Update and Member Discussion: Looking Ahead in Animal Food Safety (11:05) • Dr. Steve Solomon, CVM

Update and Member Discussion: Cooperative Agreements and Activities (11:15) • NASDA Staff

Member Dialogue: Other Food Safety Issues of interest to the membership (11:25) • Commissioner Ball and NASDA Members

Consideration of Policy Amendments, Action Items (11:28) • Policy Amendments & Action Items: o Action Item H: Utilizing NCIMS for Unified Inspection and Regulatory Compliance (Secretary Witte, New Mexico)

Adjourn (11:30)

26 27 2018 NASDA Affiliate Report Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) More detailed information is available on the AAFCO website and in the June 2018 Newsletter

Prepared by Robert D. Waltz, Ph.D. AAFCO Liaison to NASDA AAFCO Feed Safety Coordinator Indiana State Chemist & Seed Commissioner

AAFCO Officers and Board members beginning January 2019 President - Robert Geiger (IN) Secretary-Treasurer - Ali Kashani (WA) President-Elect – Kristen Green (KY) Director – Erin Bubb (PA) Director – George Ferguson (NC) Director – Austin Therrell (SC) Director – Hollis Green (CO) Director – Dave Phillips (ND) Immediate Past President – Stan Cook (MO) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR –Susan Hays (New Position, first Executive Director)

Purpose and Function of AAFCO (established in 1909) Although AAFCO has no regulatory authority, the Association provides a forum for the membership and industry representation to achieve three main goals:

. Safeguarding the health of animals and humans . Ensure consumer protection . Providing a level playing field of orderly commerce for the animal feed industry.

These goals are achieved by developing and implementing uniform and equitable laws, regulations, standards, definitions and enforcement policies for regulating the manufacture, labeling, distribution and sale of animal feeds - resulting in safe, effective and useful feeds by promoting uniformity amongst member agencies.

AAFCO held its Annual Meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, July 28-August 1, 2018. The meeting was also the site of an AAFCO pre meeting on Non-Medicated Feed Labeling Workshop for regulators and industry. This AAFCO meeting was followed by the annual summer meeting of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) held August 1-3, and a separate NASDA-AAFCO-FDA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Framework Grant meeting held August 2-3. The AAFCO annual meeting was highly successful, busy, and accomplished much in the 12 separate committee meetings held. 432 attendees (a record) representing 38 voting member states and FDA, industry representatives, public participants, from 44 states total and 9 countries were in attendance.

28 Susan Hays is the newly hired and first ever EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN FEED CONTROL OFFICIALS. The Board of Directors through its strategic planning efforts identified the need for an executive director, and completed a successful search and recruitment process. Sue’s biographic summary may be found on the AAFCO website in the AAFCO June 2018 Newsletter available online: Search “AAFCO, June 2018 Newsletter” or visit https://www.aafco.org/Portals/0/SiteContent/Publications/newsletter/AAFCO_Newsletter_Vol3_ Iss1_2018_Jun.pdf?v2

Many updates of this year’s most recent activities may be found in the AAFCO Newsletter sent to all members and is available on the AAFCO website as mentioned in the above paragraph.

The 53RD ANNUAL FEED ADMINISTRATOR’S SEMINAR was well attended by AAFCO members from across the country. The meeting was held April 23–27, 2018 in the historical setting of Gettysburg, PA. The session included leadership lessons on the battlefield delivered by resident historians as well as a panel presentation update on FSMA Preventive Controls by Bob Ehart, Janell Hendren, and myself.

Through use of the AAFCO FEED BIN (a communication and organization management software), members and affiliates may access AAFCO committee business, share documents, and access electronic versions of the AAFCO Official Publication (OP), an internationally accepted document on United States feed ingredient definitions, and regulatory aids. As a companion utility to this site, the AAFCO Board has approved development of a software that works with the electronic version of the OP to assist state reviewers of animal food labels in conducting label reviews with ready access to ingredient terms and their official definitions as presented in the OP. This tool will also be made available to industry who may use the software to develop and review corporate labels for compliance with AAFCO OP terms and definitions. A training on the use of this tool will be provided at the 2019 Midyear Meeting to be held in Savannah, GA, in addition to training on Feed Bin tool. Watch on the AAFCO website for future announcements on these and other training opportunities.

NASDA AAFCO FDA Grant Framework continues to proceed well with many from AAFCO serving as chapter contributors and working closely with the FDA and NASDA team leaders. A framework product much like that produced for the Produce Safety Framework is expected in the very near future. The framework will help guide states in adoption and implementation of the FDA FSMA preventive controls for animal foods rule.

Future meetings 2019 Midyear Meeting, January 21-23, Savannah, GA 2019 Feed Administrator’s Seminar, May 7-9, Poconos, PA 2019 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Louisville, KY 2020 Midyear Meeting, January 21-23, Albuquerque, NM 2020 Annual Meeting, August 6-8, Baltimore, MD

Contact: AAFCO Liaison to NASDA: Robert Waltz, [email protected], 765-494-1578

29 Association of Food & Drug Officials (AFDO) Affiliate Report to NASDA 2018

AFDO represents federal, state and local government food and medical products regulatory officials. AFDO’s membership also includes non-voting representatives from industry, academia, and consumer groups who actively participate in AFDO committees, workgroups, and other organization efforts. During its 122-year history, AFDO has promoted uniform, science-based food and drug safety laws and regulations and is well-recognized for advocating a nationally integrated food safety system. AFDO works closely with FDA, USDA/FSIS, CDC, DHS and others to enhance federal/state/local relations.

AFDO Grants/Cooperative Agreements

1) Retail Cooperative Program Grants AFDO was awarded a FDA Cooperative Agreement to provide grant awards to state and local retail food regulatory jurisdictions, for up to 5 years. AFDO had previously been awarded this funding opportunity for 3 years and had provided sub awards to 689 jurisdictions totaling $3,000,000. During the 4th year of this agreement, AFDO awarded 317 jurisdictions with grants totaling $1,528,908. 2) Shellfish/Dairy Cooperative Programs Grants- AFDO was awarded a FDA Cooperative Agreement to provide awards of up to $675,000 per year to state shellfish and dairy safety programs. During the 3rd year of this agreement, AFDO awarded 125 state shellfish and dairy agencies with grants totaling $833,930. 3) FDA Food Code Grant Under a grant with FDA, AFDO continues to track Food Code provisions that have been adopted by state retail food programs. 4) Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance (MFRPA) as part of an Integrated Food Safety System (IFSS) Under this Cooperative Agreement, AFDO continues to support, refine, and build the Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance. In addition, AFDO provided $845,349 to state agencies for training purposes. 5) National Curriculum Framework Cooperative Agreement Under this Cooperative Agreement, AFDO supports the National Curriculum Framework by building out human and animal feed web based and Instructor led training courses through its network of Subject Matter Experts (SME’s). AFDO has completed the upgrading of 27 web based training courses available at no cost to regulatory officials.

FSMA and Seafood HACCP Alliances AFDO reviews and approves FSMA and Seafood HACCP courses to confirm their compliance with Alliance curriculum and training standards. AFDO attendance certificates are also provided to participants.

1) Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance Human Food (4,841 courses/66,463 participants) 2) Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance Animal Food (230 courses/6076 participants) 3) Produce Safety Alliance (1052 courses/24,976 participants) 4) Sprout Safety Alliance (21 courses/277 participants) 5) Seafood HACCP Alliance (2,674courses/41,550 participants) 6) Foreign Supplier Verification Program (248 courses/3946 participants)

30 AFDO Affiliates

1) Central Atlantic Association of Food & Drug Officials (CASA) 2) Association of Food & Drug Officials of the Southern States (AFDOSS) 3) North Central Association of Food & Drug Officials (NCAFDO) 4) Mid Continent Association of Food & Drug Officials (MCAFDO) 5) Western Association of Food & Drug Officials (WAFDO)

31 32 33 Annual Report National Association of State Meat and Food Inspection Directors (NASMFID) Overview The NASMFID is an organization for the directors and professional staff from State meat and poultry inspection programs that hold a cooperative agreement with the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) for maintaining an ‘At least Equal-to’ program. Currently, 27 States maintain such programs. Also, States that conduct more limited meat and poultry inspection, such as custom exempt only, are also invited to participate in the association. As a group, the NASMFID strives to:

• Ensure meat and poultry products produced in State establishments are safe through the use of scientifically sound regulatory policies and principles; • Promote professional working relationships between States for the sharing of information and ideas with respect to implementation of meat and poultry inspection programs; • Advocate for and provide a unified voice in discussions and policy related activities that affect State programs and their regulated clientele; and • Enhance communications with USDA FSIS and other partners for the purposes of ensuring State programs are consistent in their application of regulatory requirements and meeting program standards.

During the past year, the NASMFID has held two in-person meetings. The Annual meeting was held in October of 2017 at the United State Animal Health Association Annual meeting in San Diego, CA and a mid-year meeting was held in June of 2018 in Bloomington, MN. These meetings were opportunities for in-person networking between States and interaction with USDA FSIS on various regulatory and program related topics.

Monthly conference calls are also held in conjunction with USDA FSIS to share updates and information about new regulations or interpretations issued by USDA FSIS which States are expected to implement in their own programs.

During 2018, the NASMFID has addressed several issues with its members, including FSIS’ financial support, or lack thereof, to the State programs, regulatory reform comments, potential interstate shipment of meat from State inspected establishments, expectations and requirements for sourcing and testing of raw ground beef products, and increasingly tight requirements for meeting the Federal audit process expectations. State Funding Issues Over the past few years, many States, and in some years, the majority of States, have received funding allocations of less than 50% of the State program expenditures. State funding has been required in these States to overmatch the FSIS funding. Shortfalls were typically in the range of about 5%, which is significant on a multi-million dollar budget. In addition, notification of funds available and how much was available was coming so late in the fiscal year that States had no opportunity to plan nor react to changes in FSIS’ funding levels.

NASMFID, as well as some individual States, sent written correspondence to Secretary Perdue expressing concerns about the funding issues during the past year. NASMFID received acknowledgment of our concerns directly from Secretary Perdue in response and shortly thereafter States were contacted about funding needs and many States received significant increases in funding. In addition, FSIS has committed to working more closely with the States on these funding issues, and moved the function of funding State programs from the office of field operations to the office of the CFO, where the partnership can be better managed and States are not in direct and immediate competition with USDA FSIS districts for funding. Through these events, FSIS demonstrated a significant willingness to work with NASMFID and State programs that hasn’t been evident in past years.

34 State Program Reviews Each State program is audited annually by USDA FSIS to ensure their program meets the ‘At least Equal-To’ FSIS standard required for receiving Federal reimbursement for up to 50% of their program expenses. In FFY 2018, FSIS issued the FFY 2017 annual report on State meat and poultry program reviews: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/ebbd45b9-d4cf-49c3-a171-47638179af4b/Review-of-State- Programs.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

For FFY 2017, 27 States were reviewed. Seventeen (17) States had documentation reviews only, with 10 States having on-site, in-person reviews of establishments and program procedures. All 24 States were issued ‘At least Equal To’ status for FFY 2017, with 3 States receiving ‘At least Equal To with Provisions’ status.

Currently, FSIS is working with States to finalize results for the FFY 2018 year determinations, which are expected to be issued at the end of calendar year 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicole Neeser, DVM, MPH President, NASMFID Director, Dairy and Meat Inspection, Minnesota Department of Agriculture

35 36 37

Natural Resources & Environment Chair: Director Doug Miyamoto, Wyoming Vice-Chair: Commissioner Jai Templeton, Tennessee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 12 | 12:45 – 1:45 PM | 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting | Hartford, CT

Roll Call and Opening Remarks (12:45) • Director Miyamoto

Policy Update and Affiliate Reports (12:50) • Director Miyamoto and NASDA Staff o Motion to accept Affiliate Reports

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Endangered Species Act (12:55) • Director Miyamoto and NASDA Staff o Action Item N: ESA Modernization (Secretary Witte, NM & Director Killian, AZ)

Policy Update and Member Discussion: Nuisance Suits (1:05) • Rusty Rumley, National Agriculture Law Center • North Carolina Representative o Overview o Member Dialogue

Consideration of Policy Amendments, Action Items (1:35) • Policy Amendments & Action Items: o Policy Amendment 1: Addition of Forestry and Fire Provisions (Secretary Ward, AR) o Action Item M: Biostimulants (Secretary Reese, OK)

Member Dialogue (1:40)

Adjourn (1:45)

NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. 38 39 ASSOCIATION of AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CONTROL OFFICIALS, INC.

Fertilizer/Ag Lime Control Service, Retired Office of the Secretary University of Missouri (573) 303-6364 9106 Audrain Rd 395 [email protected] Thompson, MO 65285

Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO) Board of Directors President Lance Kunneman, Oklahoma President-Elect Nick Young, California Immediate-Past President James Bartos, Indiana Secretary Joseph Slater, Missouri Assistant Secretary Steve McMurry, Kentucky Treasurer Jamey Johnson, Arkansas Director 2016 Eddie Simons, Washington Director 2017 Patty Lucas, Florida Director 2018 Glenn Murray, Canada

On behalf of our current Board of Directors and members, we wish to thank the Chairpersons, Chiefs, Commissioners, Directors and Secretaries of Agriculture for allowing your staff to attend and participate in meetings and training opportunities for the benefit of AAPFCO and your staff members. AAPFCO recently completed a successful 2018 Summer Annual Meeting (August 1-4) in Fort Lauderdale, FL, that was held in conjunction with the Association of American Feed Control Officials’ (AAFCO) Annual Meeting. 175 people attended the AAPFCO August 2018 Meeting. Thirty States were represented by Control Officials.

Highlights from the work AAPFCO has discussed and accomplished this past year include:

 Creation of AAPFCO Online and introduction of the electronic official publication in February 2018. This is still a work in progress, but represents the future direction of our association and offers opportunities for better capturing and sharing information.  The Fertilizer Methods Forum is now officially a subcommittee of the Magruder Committee, with its own budget line item and Working Group members, which will ensure its existence and viability well into the future.  Approved funding and the hiring of a Postdoc student to review literature regarding Slow and Controlled Release fertilizers to see if an update to Rule 3 (or the “15% Rule”) is in order.  AAPFCO is involved and has representation (Mr. Eddie Simons) on the newly formed Biostimulants Working Group that will advise USDA on these products.  Supported the addition of Beneficial Substances to the title of ISO-Technical Committee 134, namely Fertilizers, Soil Conditions and Beneficial Substances. This will help assign an ISO committee to deal with international terminology, methodology labeling requirements for items

40 AAPFCO NASDA Report 2018 Page - 2 that may not specifically qualify as fertilizers or soil amendments such as stabilizers, inhibitors, humic and fulvic acids, biostimulants and others.  Creation of a new Overhead and Incidental Cost Policy.  Creation of the William L Hall award to recognize members of the Laboratory Community that have made significant achievements, which will be outlined in the next Official Publication.  Provided a Labeling Training Exercise at our Winter Annual meeting. Improper labeling can delay the registration and/or sale of fertilizer products and soil and plant amendments. There are labeling requirements that apply to all states with additional labeling requirements for some states. Industry has asked for more information and training opportunities, so AAPFCO responded with this and future training opportunities.  Collaborating with industry stakeholders on the Paperless Fertilizer Tonnage Reporting Project. The project aims to provide cost and time savings to both the state and the industry by using an industry standardized format, streamlining the reporting process and utilizing electronic communication technologies.  Continued to streamline our meeting efficiency by instituting membership voting at both Annual Meetings by Membership at the beginning of each meeting and refined our electronic voting policies to mirror our committee voting policy.  Providing forums for sharing information on important issues from other state and federal agencies, including Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, and Environmental Protection.  Utilizing our Memorandum of Understanding with the Tri-Societies: American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) to work in cooperation with the review of new products by directing the manufacturers to their membership for the potential of peer reviewed research and articles concerning the efficacy of new products.  Identified member states that have not been able to attend meetings and provided a monetary scholarship to assist in securing their participation at our Annual Meetings.

This concludes the AAPFCO 2018 report to NASDA and once again, we thank the states who allowed their employees, our members to attend and participate:

States with first time attendees: States with first time attendees:

CA, GA, NC, NM, UT and WV. AL, FL, NE, UT, WV and WI.

41 AAPFCO NASDA Report 2018 Page - 3

We cordially invite you to allow your staff to attend our future meetings and training opportunities:

 Basic Inspector Training Seminar (BITS) (September 25-27, 2018) in Harrisburg, PA.  Administrator Seminar (October 23-25, 2018) in Palm Springs, CA.  Winter Annual Meeting (February 8-16, 2019) in Albuquerque, NM.  Summer Annual Meeting (August 7-10, 2019) in Louisville, KY.  Additional information regarding these meetings and our association is posted on our website at http://www.aapfco.org/

Respectively yours,

Joseph V. Slater, Secretary

42 43

2018 Annual Meeting Policy Amendments & Action Items For consideration and action during Committee Meetings

44 45 Policy Amendments and Action Items for Member Consideration 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting

Policy Amendments

# Submitted By Section to be Amended Description Staff Lead Committee Referral Secretary Ward, Inserting language to support state forestry agencies and Alex Natural Resources & 1 8.7 Fire Management Arkansas specific fire management programs. Noffsinger Environment Secretary Reese, Inserting language for continuing evaluation of agencies’ Plant Agriculture & 2 3.0 Biotechnology Aline DeLucia Oklahoma roles on biotech regulations. Pesticide Regulation Secretary Harsdorf, Inserting language stressing the importance of clear and Wisconsin & 11.13 Labeling and Marketing & 3 consistent enforcement of standards of identity and Amanda Culp Commissioner Troxler, Marketing Claims International Trade labeling requirements. North Carolina Commissioner Quarles, 10.4 Emerging Inserting language to support the development and 4 Aline DeLucia Animal Agriculture Kentucky Technologies adoption of new agricultural technologies.

Action Items # Submitted By Title Description Staff Lead Committee Referral NASDA urges a concerted effort by federal and state agency partners and impacted stakeholders to ensure A Secretary Naig, Iowa Animal Biotechnology Aline DeLucia Animal Agriculture that animal biotechnology products are approved in a timely manner. NASDA supports the national dairy cooperatives, dairy Secretary Tebbetts, Increasing Farm Milk Prices farmers and the dairy industry to explore the connection Britt Rural Development & B Vermont and Net Farm Income between dairy farm production decisions, dairy product Aasmundstad Financial Security consumption and the price paid to dairy farmers. NASDA urges administration to pursue new free trade Director Sandison, Critical Need for Export Alex Marketing & International C agreements, preserve current market access, and ensure Washington Markets Noffsinger Trade a stable trade environment. Director Sandison, Reaffirming Importance of NASDA reaffirms its support of the World Trade Organization Alex Marketing & International D Washington WTO & Dispute Settlement and its Dispute Settlement Body. Noffsinger Trade

46 Policy Amendments and Action Items for Member Consideration 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting

# Submitted By Title Description Staff Lead Committee Referral Commissioner Brown, Colorado; Secretary NASDA supports the development of uniform industry Witte, New Mexico; Uniform Industry Standards standards, and NASDA encourages state adoption of Marketing & International E Director Thomas, Amanda Culp for Industrial Hemp uniform industry standards to avoid a patchwork of testing Trade Montana & and grading criteria throughout the states. Commissioner Adams, Utah NASDA will urge Congress and our federal partners to Commissioner Troxler, protect agricultural producers from nuisance lawsuits that Britt Natural Resources & F Nuisance Lawsuits North Carolina threaten their livelihood and the production of agriculture Aasmundstad Environment in America. Secretary Harsdorf, Wisconsin; Proper Enforcement of FDA Commissioner Troxler, NASDA believes that it is critical that the FDA enforce its Marketing & International G Standards of Identity and Amanda Culp North Carolina; existing milk labeling requirements. Trade Labeling for Milk Director Gould, Idaho (NADRO) Supporting the continued leveraging of the NCIMS for implementation of the PMO in conjunction with the Preventive Controls rule under FSMA for IMS listed dairy Leverage NCIMS for Secretary Witte, New facilities; and 2) the use of the NCIMS program in Janell H Unified Inspection and Food Regulation Mexico (NADRO) implementing a single regulatory approach for assuring Hendren Regulatory Compliance compliance with the Preventive Controls rule in IMS listed dairy facilities that also process manufacturing grade products.

Availability of NASDA encourages state SNAP agencies to require that Supplemental Nutrition state SNAP contractors provide no cost wireless Director Wenk, Assistance Program Marketing & International I equipment and service to authorized farmers markets Amanda Culp Michigan (SNAP) Benefit Processing Trade and other farm direct retailers. NASDA supports USDA’s at Farmers Markets endorsement of this approach.

Promulgation of FDA NASDA requests FDA promulgate regulations allowing the Secretary Harsdorf, Marketing & International J Regulations for Filtered use of filtered milk in the manufacturing process of Amanda Culp Wisconsin Trade Milk cheeses and dairy products. 47 Policy Amendments and Action Items for Member Consideration 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting

# Submitted By Title Description Staff Lead Committee Referral Secretary Harsdorf, NASDA believes that it is critical that USDA assert its Wisconsin & Regulation of Cell-Cultured K jurisdiction over foods produced from cell cultured or Aline DeLucia Animal Agriculture Commissioner Troxler, or Tissue-Cultured Meat tissue culture derived from livestock and poultry animals. North Carolina Support for State Secretary Witte, New NASDA supports a close relationship between state Britt Rural Development & L Department of Agriculture Mexico Extension services and State Departments of Agriculture. Aasmundstad Financial Security and Extension Partnerships NASDA supports identifying and supporting paths that Secretary Reese, Britt Natural Resources & M Biostimulants efficiently move biostimulant products into the United Oklahoma Aasmundstad Environment States’ marketplace. NASDA urges Congress and the administration to Secretary Witte, New Endangered Species Act modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while Britt Natural Resources & N Mexico & Director Modernization recognizing private property rights and impacts to Aasmundstad Environment Killian, Arizona agricultural producers and surrounding communities. NASDA supports enhanced federal funding of ERS and USDA Realignment within NIFA for research, education, extension; encourages the Secretary Witte, New the Research, Education Britt Rural Development & O administration to conduct an organizational analysis of Mexico and Economics Mission Aasmundstad Financial Security proposed relocation, and encourages consultation of state Area departments of agriculture throughout the process.

48 49 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 1 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Natural Resources & Environment [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Policy Amendments (PA) either create a new section or amend an existing section of NASDA’s Policy Statements. PAs establish general policy principles of the association and guide NASDA’s policy prioritization process and engagement.

Section Number and Title to be Amended: 8.7 Fire Management

Subject of Policy Amendment: Addition of Forestry and Fire Provisions

Submitted By: Secretary Wes Ward, Arkansas

Text of Policy Amendment: [This Amendment Adds to Current Section 8.7 Fire Management]

1 8.7 Forestry & Fire Management 2 3 (Updated September 2018) 4 5 NASDA strongly supports the efforts of state forestry agencies and continued cooperation between them and 6 state departments of agriculture. Signified by the inclusion of the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of 7 Agriculture (USDA), forestry is closely related and often intertwined with production agriculture. With nearly 8 two-thirds of U.S. forestland state and privately owned, states play an integral role in managing our nation’s 9 forests in a sustainable manner. Moreover, states provide a wide range of conservation, forest health, and fire 10 management services and assistance through the Forest Service’s State & Private Forestry programs. 11 12 Rangelands are subject and vulnerable to extremely large range fires as in the past; suppression costs are extremely 13 high and the risk to wildlife, homes, human life, wildlife habitat, and grazing lands increases with an increasing 14 population. Livestock numbers have been reduced to a fraction of what they once were and a massive buildup of 15 fuels has resulted from an extremely small percentage of the annual forage being grazed by livestock. Knowledge 16 and technology exists to cope with extreme fire seasons by using fire resistant plant species in reseeding efforts 17 following fire occurrence. Livestock grazing is the most cost-effective, natural, productive tool for reduction of 18 excess fuel and an effective tool in the reclamation of burned areas. 19 20 • NASDA strongly supports the Forest Service’s State Fire Assistance (SFA) and Volunteer Fire Assistance 21 (VFA) programs. These programs provide financial and technical assistance to state and local fire 22 departments for wildland fire prevention and suppression. While USDA can provide farmers and 23 ranchers with disaster assistance for wildland fire damage to crops, fencing, and livestock, wildland fire 24 prevention can limit the frequency and severity of fires as well as suppression and recovery costs. 25 • NASDA is a strong supporter of ending strongly opposes the budgetary practice of fire borrowing, and 26 encourages Congress to pass legislation to fund federal wildfires off-budget as many states already do, and 27 ensure the federal land management budget for restoration, recreation, road maintenance, hazardous fuels 28 reduction, and wildlife/watershed protection is fully restored if fire borrowing occurs.

50 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 1 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Natural Resources & Environment [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

29 • NASDA strongly urges the Bureau of Land Management and other land management agencies to seed more 30 fire resistant plant species such as edible browses and crested wheat grass following a fire to reduce the 31 spread of cheat grass, future suppression costs, fire size, and wildlife and private property losses; and 32 propose the use of livestock grazing as a resource management tool and deterrent to wildfire and 33 encourage flexibility in using livestock as part of the rehabilitation process after a burn.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Policy Amendment or appear in the NASDA Policy Handbook):

34 This amendment is proposed to not only recognize the importance of building strong relationships with state 35 foresters, but it’s also proposed to provide NASDA with the ability to more effectively engage on federal forestry 36 policy, specifically, the Forest Service’s state and private forestry programs. 37 38 Nine NASDA members are responsible for overseeing their state’s forestry agency: Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, 39 Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Together these nine states account 40 for $40,275,041 in spending by the Forest Service on State and Private Forestry programs. Together, the State 41 and Private Forestry Programs help the states provide landowners with financial and technical assistance for a 42 wide range of uses, including easements, timber production and plant/pest disease control. For instance, the 43 Forest Health on Cooperative Lands Program allows state forestry agencies to prevent, detect, and control 44 diseases and invasive species harmful to forests, and the Forest Stewardship Program allows states to provide 45 management plans to private landowners at a discounted rate or free of charge. Thus, whether a state forestry 46 agency falls under the purview of a state department of agriculture, state conservation or natural resources 47 agency, or a university system, it plays an important role on the overall health of forest, agricultural, and grazing 48 lands. 49 50 Moreover, farmers and ranchers are often impacted by wildland fires that destroy crops and fencing, leave 51 grazing land decimated, and sometimes kill livestock. As a result of the Rhea Fire that raged across parts of 52 western Oklahoma this April, it was estimated cattle operation loses would exceed $26 million, with 1,600 head 53 of cattle lost and 2,100 miles of fencing affected. Also, fires in Oregon this July claimed thousands of acres of the 54 wheat harvest, leading Sens. Wyden and Merkley of Oregon to ask Secretary Perdue for emergency assistance 55 for the affected farmers. 56 57 While resources for fire suppression are necessary, it’s widely accepted that proper wildland fire mitigation can 58 decrease the intensity and frequency of large wildland fires; the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire 59 Assistance programs aim to do just this. As mentioned in the policy amendment itself, these programs provide 60 grants to help state and local communities with their wildland firefighting response, capacity building, wildland 61 fire prevention, and wildland fire mitigation. While these dollars are critical for wildland fire suppression, they 62 also assist state and local governments with hazardous fuels treatments, firefighter training, and equipment 63 acquisitions. Per the Council of Western State Foresters, the SFA program in 2013 directly funded fuel 64 treatments on nearly 130,000 non-federal acres. It’s also worth noting that SFA and VFA funds are leveraged 65 dollar-for-dollar, so in 2013 119,127 acres were treated with leveraged funding.

51 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 2 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Section Number and Title to be Amended: 3.0 Biotechnology

Subject of Policy Amendment: Biotechnology Regulatory Framework

Submitted By: Secretary Jim Reese, Oklahoma

Text of Policy Amendment: [This Amendment Replaces Current Section 3.0 – Biotechnology]

1 3.0 Biotechnology Regulatory Framework 2 3 (Updated September 2018) 4 5 Agricultural Biotechnology plays an important role in developing options for farmers and ranchers to overcome 6 their most difficult challenges as they work to meet the growing demand for food, feed and fiber. 7 8 • NASDA supports a regulatory system for biotechnology products that protects health and the 9 environment, while delivering timely registrations. 10 • NASDA supports the continuing evaluation of agencies roles and the overall regulatory approval process 11 for viable improvements. 12 • NASDA supports international harmonization of biotechnology regulatory framework. 13 • NASDA opposes state or local initiatives that would prohibit or restrict biotechnology. 14 • NASDA supports existing USDA and FDA labeling policies. 15 • NASDA supports low-level presence of biotechnology traits in commodities or industrialized products, as 16 long as it does not pose a plant pest risk or a health and environmental safety concern. 17 18 Amendment): 19 [The following text will be deleted and replaced by the proposed amendment:] 20 21 3 -Biotechnology 22 23 (Updated February 2016) 24 25 Agricultural Biotechnology plays an important role in meeting the growing global demand for food, feed, and 26 fiber. The development and approval of products with biotech traits has given farmers and ranchers important 27 tools to utilize when making decisions which impact the sustainability of their land and operation for generations 28 to come. New biotech traits in the foods we eat are providing benefit directly to consumers. 29

52 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 2 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

30 NASDA supports the current federal framework (EPA, FDA, USDA), which regulates agricultural products 31 produced through biotechnology, and delivers timely registrations. 32 NASDA supports that technology providers should seek all appropriate approvals to assure the regulatory 33 acceptance of new biotech traits in the global marketplace. In addition, NASDA supports the establishment of an 34 international asynchronous approval regulatory framework. 35 NASDA does not support state or local initiatives and/or ordinances that would prohibit or restrict plant and/or 36 animal biotechnology. 37 As it relates to the health, safety, and nutrition of foods, NASDA supports the role and responsibility of FDA to 38 determine appropriate food labeling. 39 Any marketing label for the purpose of labeling foods containing, or not containing, genetically modified 40 organisms (GMOs) should be developed using a voluntary, federal system so as to avoid a patchwork of state-by- 41 state standards. 42 NASDA supports that low-level presence of a biotech trait should be tolerated in a seed, commodity or products 43 produced from a commodity, so long as it does not pose a plant pest risk or a health or environmental safety 44 concern.

53 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 3 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/14/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade Committee [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Section Number and Title to be Amended: 11.13 Labeling and Marketing Claims

Subject of Policy Amendment: Labeling and Marketing Claims

Submitted By: Secretary Sheila Harsdorf, Wisconsin and Commissioner Steve Troxler, North Carolina

Text of Policy Amendment (Insert Underlined Statement): [This Amendment Adds to Current Section 11.13 – Labeling and Marketing Claims]

(Updated September, 2018)

1 Food labeling required by federal law for the purpose of disclosing ingredients, allergens, and nutritional value of 2 food products should provide accurate, science-based information to consumers. Such requirements should not 3 prejudice particular agricultural commodities or practices. 4 5 Additionally, terms or claims used (print, electronic, or otherwise) to market food products should be accurate, and 6 should not mislead or misdirect consumers, or prejudice particular agricultural commodities or practices. 7 8 NASDA believes that as innovative products of the food industry continue to emerge, it is essential that standards of 9 identity and labeling requirements are clear and consistently enforced by federal regulatory agencies to maintain 10 the integrity of agricultural products and clarity in the marketplace for consumers. 11 12 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Policy Amendment 13 or appear in the NASDA Policy Handbook): 14 15 NASDA’s policy should reflect the necessity for the proper administration of federal regulatory authority to 16 protect the integrity of food products through the establishment and enforcement of clear standards of identity. 17 Products like milk, bottled water, fish and shellfish, have a clear standard of identity and NASDA’s policy should 18 reflect the respective protection of agricultural commodities through standardized identity classifications. 19 20 As food industry innovations continue to emerge, it is essential that standards of identity and labeling requirements 21 are clear and consistently enforced by federal regulatory agencies to maintain the integrity of agricultural products 22 and clarity in the marketplace for consumers. Overall, it is important that consumers are accurately informed about 23 products intended for retail and consumption through the proper administration of standards of identity (SOI) by 24 federal regulatory agencies.

54 55 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 4 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Section Number and Title to be Amended: 10.4 Emerging Technology

Subject of Policy Amendment: Emerging Technologies

Submitted By: Commissioner Ryan Quarles, Kentucky

Text of Policy Amendment: [This Amendment Replaces Current Sections 10.4 – Emerging Technology]

(Updated September, 2018)

1 Pragmatic approaches to innovation are essential to maintaining the U.S.’s status as the safest and most reliable 2 food supplier in the world. New technologies and their adoption by American farmers are key drivers in 3 maintaining American agriculture’s competitiveness in the global economy. 4 • NASDA supports regulations that foster new technologies, while preserving high regulatory standards 5 • NASDA supports all types of technologies that benefit American producers and consumers 6 • NASDA supports technologies that increase agricultural efficiency and enhances agriculture 7 sustainability 8 • NASDA supports funding for research and development of new agriculture technologies 9 • NASDA supports diversification of technology focusing on decreasing technology costs and improving 10 adoption 11 • NASDA encourages state and federal policies to recognize the privacy of agriculture producers and 12 private citizens and emphasizes that privacy concerns must be addressed in development and use of 13 new technology 14 • NASDA supports and encourages outreach and education to key impacted stakeholders and consumers 15 on new technology developments to increase understanding and acceptance of these technologies

16 (Amendment): 17 [The following text will be deleted and replaced by the proposed amendment:] 18 19 Science-based, pragmatic approaches to innovation are essential to maintaining the U.S.’s status as the safest 20 and reliable food supplier in the world. Innovation results in new and better crop and livestock genetics, more 21 efficient and effective cultivation methods and equipment, faster and clearer communication and wider and 22 more profitable commerce. 23 24 NASDA encourages the federal government foster a favorable regulatory environment for new technologies and 25 supports funding for research and development of agriculture technology.

56 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting 4 Policy Amendment Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

26 NASDA supports a science-based and calculated approach to use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 27 technology that allows producers to effectively utilize the technology within their operations. 28 NASDA encourages state and federal UAS policies to recognize the privacy of agriculture producers and private 29 citizens and emphasizes that privacy concerns must be addressed in development and use of new technology.

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting A Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Action Items (AI) highlight a specific current issue Members feel NASDA should act on or other priority issues. AIs do not establish NASDA policy and must comply with existing policy or be accompanied by a corresponding Policy Amendment.

Subject of Action Item: Animal Biotechnology

Submitted By: Secretary Mike Naig, Iowa

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA urges a concerted effort by federal and state agency partners, as well as impacted stakeholders, to 2 ensure that animal biotechnology products are approved in a timely manner. This effort should explore potential 3 changes to the U.S. government’s regulation of animal biotechnology that lead to a regulatory system that 4 preserves the high standards necessary to ensure food safety, animal health and environmental protection, 5 while facilitating positive U.S. agricultural economic development through appropriate and sensible regulatory 6 systems for animal biotechnology. 7 8 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 9 10 Background: Regulation of Animal Biotechnology 11 Animal agriculture is being transformed by rapid advances in biotechnology. Looking forward, new GE tools 12 such as gene editing offer tremendous potential to make improvements to animal health and welfare. 13 Gene editing shows strong potential to eliminate the need for dehorning dairy cattle, confer resistance to 14 viral diseases of livestock and poultry, and reduce the need for antibiotic use in livestock. Successfully bring 15 these innovations to market will enhance American agricultural economy. 16 Currently, GE animals and products derived from those animals are subject to regulation by one or more 17 federal agencies, including USDA, FDA and EPA. Agency jurisdiction may depend on the intended use of the 18 animals; the type of product derived from the animals or the genetic constructs involved, and may apply 19 premarket, post-market or both. FDA has taken the lead on Animal Biotechnology approvals given its 20 current statutory authority, which comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The 21 regulatory odyssey of GE mosquitoes —developed to combat pressing human health challenges--has taken 22 them from USDA to FDA and now to EPA where they would be regulated as pesticides. GE salmon that 23 grow more efficiently, but not larger, were approved for food use only after a twenty-year review of the 24 genetic construct as a “new animal drug” at FDA. This has created considerable confusion in the 25 development community and these confusing and overlapping jurisdictions, together with lengthy delays in 26 agency reviews, can have a chilling effect on research and development of valuable new products. 27 28 Statutory Authority: Animal Biotechnology 29 Animal Biotechnology is mainly regulated by FDA under its authority over new animal drugs, which comes from 30 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.). According to FDA’s 187 guidance: 31 “The definition of “new animal drug” in section 201(v) of the FD&C Act includes any drug intended for use in 32 animals that is not generally recognized as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed,

33 recommended, or suggested in the drug's labeling, or that is so recognized but has not been used to a material 34 extent or for a material time…A specific DNA alteration is an article that meets the definition of a new animal 35 drug at each site in the genome where the alteration (insertion, substitution or deletion) occurs. The specific 36 alteration sequence and the site at which the alteration is located can affect both the health of the animals in the 37 lineage and the level and control of expression of the altered sequence, which influences its effectiveness in that 38 lineage.11 Therefore, in general, each specific genomic alteration is considered to be a separate new animal drug 39 subject to new animal drug approval requirements.”

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting B Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Rural Development & Financial Security [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Increasing Farm Milk Prices and Net Farm Income: Impact of Farm Milk Production Decisions and Dairy Product Consumption

Submitted By: Secretary Anson Tebbetts, Vermont

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA supports the national dairy cooperatives, dairy farmers and the dairy industry to explore the connection 2 between dairy farm production decisions, dairy product consumption and the price paid to dairy farmers. NASDA 3 should monitor and review the outcome of this industry lead effort for further consideration. 4 5 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 6 7 The national dairy industry has endured 4 years of below average milk prices and cooperatives, dairy farmers 8 and the industry have begun a process to explore the impact of dairy farm production decisions on milk prices. 9 Based on USDA's 2010 Agricultural Resource Management Survey of milk producers and updated using current 10 USDA milk production per cow and production input indexes, the cost of producing milk (total costs listed) in 11 2015, 2016 and 2017 is above the Margin Protection program calculation of all milk price. Although the volume 12 of milk has not declined appreciatively in the same time period, dairy farm attrition has increased across the 13 country and has a negative impact on rural communities. The dairy cooperatives, dairy farmers and related 14 industry representative are investigating the impact of farmer production decisions and dairy product 15 consumption on milk prices. Proposals are being made to improve and or stabilize prices to dairy farmers. 16 17 USDA DATA 18 2015 2016 2017 2018 19 Operating costs $14.71 $13.51 $13.49 20 Total costs listed $23.34 $22.18 $22.27 21 ALL Milk Price (from MPP Calculation) $17.08 $16.24 $17.63 $15.88

60 61

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting C Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/8/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Critical Need for Export Markets

Submitted By: Director Sandison, Washington

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA calls on the administration to implement a trade policy strategy that advances the interests of U.S. 2 agriculture producers around the world by pursuing new free trade agreements that will provide market access for 3 U.S. farmers and ranchers--especially because other countries continue to complete trade agreements that will put 4 U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage, preserving current multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements, 5 and ensuring a stable trade policy environment that recognizes agriculture both provides an important trade surplus 6 and often bears the brunt of retaliatory actions against the U.S. 7 8 After a year of renegotiations, it is critical for the administration to swiftly conclude its modernization efforts with 9 Canada and Mexico of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to ensure continued, superior access to 10 these lucrative North American markets. Also, NASDA appreciates the administration’s swift review and 11 renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and fully supports its continued implementation. 12 13 While it’s necessary to preserve and build upon the preferential access the U.S. maintains in existing export markets, 14 it is equally important to aggressively pursue new trade agreements with trading partners to ensure America’s 15 farmers and ranchers can compete on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. Specifically, NASDA urges 16 the administration to enter into free trade agreement negotiations with countries of the Comprehensive and 17 Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) the U.S. currently does not have free trade agreements with, as well as 18 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. 19 20 Further, NASDA requests that Congress ensure the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Secretary of 21 Agriculture have the necessary resources to execute the modernization of NAFTA, the implementation of KORUS, 22 and to pursue new trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific and other regions of the world. Additionally, in the spirit of 23 Article I of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress the authority to levy duties and regulate international 24 commerce, NASDA urges Congress to fulfill its role in overseeing international trade and the authorities it has 25 delegated to the president on trade. 26 27 Finally, while NASDA understands there are legitimate issues for the administration to address—particularly with 28 intellectual property challenges with China—it is imperative these issues be addressed through comprehensive 29 negotiations and with a coalition of likeminded partners, rather than unilateral actions that put agriculture at risk 30 and alienate our closest trade and national security allies.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

62 63

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting D Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/6/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Reaffirming Importance of WTO & Dispute Settlement

Submitted By: Director Derek Sandison, Washington

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA reaffirms its support of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which 2 provides an important forum to address trade disputes impacting the United States and its farmers and ranchers. 3 Moreover, while recognizing the importance of the WTO’s DSB, NASDA urges action by the U.S. and other WTO 4 members to increase its effectiveness and rebuild its integrity as the preeminent way of resolving international 5 trade disputes. 6 7 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 8 9 In this year’s “President’s Trade Policy Agenda,” the administration considers the WTO’s dispute settlement 10 body a vital tool for upholding a rules based trading system when it functions according to the agreed upon 11 WTO rules. However, the administration also takes issue with several current practices of the DSB’s Appellate 12 Body (AB), including: (1) disregard for the 90-day deadline for appeals, (2) continued service by individuals who 13 are no longer AB members, (3) issuing opinions unnecessary for resolving a dispute, (4) reaching conclusions not 14 based on factual findings or undisputed facts, and (5) asserting its reports serve as precedent in future cases. 15 16 The U.S. started blocking new appointments to the seven-member AB in August, 2017 when the AB ruled to 17 allow members whose terms had expired to continue working on cases they were assigned. The U.S. argues the 18 DSB should decide if a person should continue serving on the AB upon resigning from the AB, not the AB itself. 19 The AB is currently at four members, but it will be down to three members when Shree Baboo Chekitan 20 Servansing completes his term on September 30, 2018. With only three members on the AB, some appeals cases 21 could be blocked if one of the members is recused for impartiality reasons. The AB will cease to function on 22 December 10, 2019 when Ujal Singh Bhatia and Thomas R. Graham complete their terms, leaving one member 23 out of seven. 24 25 Despite these real issues that exist at the WTO, the multilateral dispute system has largely worked in the U.S.’s 26 favor. In fact, the U.S. wins 87 percent of the cases it brings at the WTO against other countries and loses 75 27 percent of the cases other countries bring against the U.S., both of which are better than average. Additionally, 28 the U.S. files more cases with the WTO than any other country, including the EU and Canada. Thus, even though 29 the DSB currently has problems needing addressed, the U.S. launched the most cases and has the best ratio of 30 positive rulings. 31

64 32 Moreover, a functioning WTO Appellate Body is needed for U.S. agriculture to succeed. For instance, the U.S. 33 currently is awaiting a report from the DSB on a case involving China’s level of domestic support for its wheat, 34 rice, and corn producers. In a separate, ongoing case, the U.S. is challenging China’s administration of its tariff 35 rate quotas, including those for wheat, rice, and corn.

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting E Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/14/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Uniform Industry Standards for Industrial Hemp

Submitted By: Commissioner Don Brown, Colorado; Secretary Jeff Witte, New Mexico; Director Ben Thomas, Montana; Commissioner LuAnn Adams, Utah

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA supports the development of uniform industry standards including the establishment of consistent 2 procedures for states that require testing, for field sampling, sample preparation, and the testing of industrial hemp 3 for THC by the gas chromatography method. NASDA encourages state adoption of uniform industry standards to 4 avoid a patchwork of testing and grading criteria throughout the states. NASDA Members call for a working group of 5 states to identify these standards for which state departments of agriculture will administer industrial hemp 6 programs under.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

66 67

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting F Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Natural Resources & Environment [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Nuisance Lawsuits

Submitted By: Commissioner Steve Troxler, North Carolina

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA will urge Congress and our federal partners to protect agricultural producers from nuisance lawsuits that 2 threaten their livelihood and the production of agriculture in America. 3 4 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 5 6 Agricultural producers, even in states with Right to Farm laws, are being threatened by nuisance lawsuits 7 causing significant financial hardship and risking the production of agricultural commodities. In North Carolina, 8 lawsuits filed against Murphy Brown, LLC, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., have had a detrimental effect on 9 3 family farms, with more trials on the way. The juries in these nuisance suits have awarded almost 550 million 10 dollars in compensatory and punitive damages (reduced to approximately 98 million dollars due to state caps on 11 punitive damages) which has resulted in Smithfield removing hogs from these farms and suggesting that it may 12 no longer be able to do business in North Carolina if these suits continue. 13 14 These nuisance suits are threatening not only animal agriculture in North Carolina, but also pose a threat to all 15 farmers in every state across the country. NASDA should work with Congress on a national Right to Farm act 16 that would shield producers from such suits so that they can continue to produce a safe and abundant food 17 supply.

68 69

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting G Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/14/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Proper Enforcement of FDA Standards of Identity and Labeling for Milk

Submitted By: Secretary Sheila Harsdorf, Wisconsin; Commissioner Steve Troxler, North Carolina; Director Celia Gould, Idaho (on behalf of the North American Dairy Regulatory Officials)

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA believes that it is critical that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) enforce its existing milk labeling 2 requirements that provide clear and transparent information to consumers and regulatory structure to the 3 agricultural industry. It is important that consumers are accurately informed about products intended for retail and 4 consumption through the proper administration of standards of identity (SOI). As food industry innovations 5 continue to emerge, it is essential that standards of identity and labeling requirements are clear and consistently 6 enforced by FDA to maintain the integrity of the agricultural industry and clarity in the marketplace for consumers. 7 8 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 9 10 The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has explicit federal statutory authority to promulgate definitions and 11 establish standards of identity (SOI) in the interest of promoting honest and reasonable consumer access to 12 information. Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) enacted in 1938, the statute 13 provides authorization for the FDA to regulate the practicable and reasonable standards for container fill, 14 quality, and identity of food products. 15 16 As the food industry continues to evolve and develop innovative products, a consistent and modernized 17 approach by federal regulatory institutions is necessary to protect the commonwealth of consumer health and 18 dietary decision making, and the respective framework of the production and standards of the agricultural 19 industry. As part of this entrusted regulatory responsibility, the FDA is actively committed to advancing policies 20 that adequately inform consumers of the nutritional attributes and characteristics of the food consumed by the 21 American public. 22 23 As the food industry develops, a wide range of products are continuously emerging that serve as substitutes for 24 traditional dairy products. These products are often labeled in traditional terms that do not represent the actual 25 contents of the product. In order to adequately safeguard the product-based relationship of the agricultural 26 industry and consumers, it is important that NASDA supports continued federal regulatory agency efforts to 27 modernize regulations and enforce proper labeling requirements of agricultural food products in order to 28 prevent misleading information and ensure public health and nutrition. 29 30 Relevant Statutory References: 31 21 U.S.C. § 341 - Definitions and standards for food

32 Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the 33 interest of consumers, he shall promulgate regulations fixing and establishing for any food, under its 34 common or usual name so far as practicable, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a 35 reasonable standard of quality, or reasonable standards of fill of container. 36 37 21 CFR § 131 – Milk and Cream 38 Sec. 131.110 Milk. 39 (a) Description. 40 Milk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or 41 more healthy cows. Milk that is in final package form for beverage use shall have been pasteurized or 42 ultrapasteurized, and shall contain not less than 8 1/4 percent milk solids not fat and not less than 3 1/4 43 percent milkfat. Milk may have been adjusted by separating part of the milkfat therefrom, or by adding 44 thereto cream, concentrated milk, dry whole milk, skim milk, concentrated skim milk, or nonfat dry milk. 45 Milk may be homogenized. 46 47 Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), 2015 48 GG. MILK PRODUCTS: Grade “A” Milk and Milk Products include: 49 1. All milk and milk products with a standard of identity provided for in 21 CFR Part 131, 50 excluding 21 CFR 131.120 Sweetened Condensed Milk.

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting H Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Food Regulation [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Leverage NCIMS for Unified Inspection and Regulatory Compliance

Submitted By: Secretary Jeff Witte, New Mexico

Text of Action Item:

1 NADRO Respectfully requests NASDA to officially issue a letter to FDA (Gottlieb, Ostroff, Mayne, Plaisier, cc: 2 Stearn) strongly supporting 1) the continued leveraging of the NCIMS for implementation of the PMO in 3 conjunction with the Preventive Controls rule under FSMA for IMS listed dairy facilities; and 2) the use of the 4 NCIMS program in implementing a single regulatory approach for assuring compliance with the Preventive 5 Controls rule in IMS listed dairy facilities that also process manufacturing grade products. 6 7 8 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 9 10 Given the proven effectiveness of the NCIMS program in ensuring Grade-A milk product safety, NADRO would 11 like to extend its appreciation to FDA for its open commitment to a pilot program that would consolidate 12 inspection personnel for PC Rule compliance evaluations at dairy plants that process both Grade-A and 13 manufacturing grade dairy products. The NADRO membership wishes to state its full support for the pilot 14 overall and for FDA’s effort to explore potential means of conducting PC Rule inspections in a more efficient and 15 unified manner by utilizing the NCIMS program. We remain confident that an integrated NCIMS inspection 16 approach that appropriately addresses both grades of dairy manufacturing at an Interstate Milk Shippers listed 17 plant will optimize the efficiencies of both federal and state resources, eliminate regulatory redundancies, 18 ensure utilization of the necessary technical expertise during the inspection process, and minimize the burden to 19 the regulated industry while protecting public health.

72 73

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting I Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/14/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade Committee [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefit Processing at Farmers Markets

Submitted By: Director Gordon Wenk, Michigan

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA encourages state SNAP agencies to require that state SNAP contractors provide no cost wireless 2 equipment and service to authorized farmers markets and other farm direct retailers. NASDA supports USDA’s 3 endorsement of this approach. 4 5 NASDA also encourages Square, Inc. and other transaction processing companies to prioritize the offering of 6 SNAP processing services to farmers and markets. 7 8 Further, NASDA encourages USDA to engage with state agencies, federal benefit processors, and other 9 stakeholders to find solutions for processing all forms of federal benefits (SNAP, eWIC, FINI, etc.) on a single 10 piece of equipment.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

74 75

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting J Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Marketing & International Trade [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Promulgation of FDA Regulations for Filtered Milk

Submitted By: Secretary Sheila Harsdorf, Wisconsin

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA requests the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promulgate regulations allowing the use of filtered milk in 2 the manufacturing process of cheeses. This action will actively promote U.S. dairy industry innovation and bring U.S. 3 regulations in line with our international competitors. 4 5 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 6 7 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promulgated requirements for specific standardized cheese and 8 related products pursuant to 21 CFR Part 133. Specifically, in 21 CFR Part 133 Subpart B, the descriptions of 9 various cheeses list permissible dairy ingredients that generally include the 21 CFR Part 133.3 definitions for 10 “milk” and “non-fat milk.” The use of filtered forms of milk, acquired through mechanical filtration of milk or 11 nonfat milk, is common outside of the U.S. but is not allowed for U.S. processors within the current FDA 12 definitions. As provided in current FDA regulations, only use of the defined forms of milk and nonfat milk as 13 basic dairy ingredients are allowed. The regulations do not specifically define or permit the use of filtered milk or 14 nonfat milk as basic dairy ingredients in cheeses. 15 16 In dairy processing, various innovative filtration techniques can be used to concentrate the desirable milk 17 proteins, including casein and whey proteins. Various semipermeable membranes are utilized to mostly retain 18 the proteins while lactose, minerals, and water molecules pass through the membranes and are handled 19 separately. Filtration processes, such as ultrafiltration or microfiltration, increase efficiency in the manufacture 20 of cheese, and decrease storage and transportation costs, as the volume of milk is decreased. The use of milk 21 filtration to produce an ingredient used for cheese making retains the basic nature and essential characteristics 22 of the cheese. The current regulations are confusing and complex for industry as some filtration techniques 23 were allowed as long as they were performed at the cheese plant, but the same technique might not be allowed 24 if milk was filtered off-site. 25 26 These FDA regulations have not been updated in decades and are in need of modernization to account for new 27 production technologies to promote industry efficiency and competition. Although the FDA has engaged in rule 28 making and has recently issued guidance on this matter, the enforcement discretion regarding the use of filtered 29 milk in the production of cheeses needs to be codified in order to provide industry with regulatory certainty and 30 to encourage investment in this technology. 31 32 Relevant Statutory References:

33 21 CFR 133.3 – Definitions 34 (a) Milk means the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of 35 one or more healthy cows, which may be clarified and may be adjusted by separating part of the fat 36 therefrom; concentrated milk, reconstituted milk, and dry whole milk. Water, in a sufficient quantity to 37 reconstitute concentrated and dry forms, may be added. 38 (b) Nonfat milk means skim milk, concentrated skim milk, reconstituted skim milk, and nonfat dry milk. Water, in 39 a sufficient quantity to reconstitute concentrated and dry forms, may be added.

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting K Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Animal Agriculture [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Regulation of Cell-Cultured or Tissue-Cultured Meat

Submitted By: Secretary Sheila Harsdorf, Wisconsin and Commissioner Steve Troxler, North Carolina

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA believes that it is critical that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), as the appropriate federal 2 agency, assert its jurisdiction over foods produced from cell cultured or tissue culture derived from livestock and 3 poultry animals. NASDA urges USDA to review regulations and enforce proper standards of identity and labeling 4 requirements for meat products and meat substitutes that provide clear and transparent information to consumers 5 and the regulatory structure of the agricultural industry. 6 7 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 8 9 USDA has explicit statutory authority, in the interest of protecting the public, to ensure the safety and proper 10 labeling of meat and poultry under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act 11 (PPIA). 12 13 As the food industry develops creative solutions, products are emerging that serve as substitutes for traditional 14 meat products. These products have the potential to be labeled in traditional terms that do not represent the actual 15 contents of the product. In the case of meat products, “cultured meat” has recently emerged as a proposed 16 alternative. This product is based on recent laboratory developments using cultured cells to artificially produce 17 animal muscle tissue. It is important that NASDA continues to engage with the USDA to promulgate clear definitions 18 and labeling requirements for products derived from non-traditional agricultural technologies. 19 20 As the food industry continues to evolve and develop new products, a consistent and modernized approach by 21 federal regulatory institutions is necessary to protect the commonwealth of consumer health and the respective 22 framework of the production standards of the agricultural industry. As part of this entrusted regulatory 23 responsibility, the USDA should advance policies that adequately inform consumers of the nutritional attributes and 24 characteristics of the food consumed by the American public. 25 26 Relevant Statutory References: 27 21 USC § 607 – Definitions of Standards of Identity 28 (c) Labeling: type styles and sizes; definitions and standards of identity or composition; standards of fill of 29 container; consistency of Federal and Federal-State standards. 30 The Secretary, whenever he determines such action is necessary for the protection of the public, may 31 prescribe: (1) the styles and sizes of type to be used with respect to material required to be incorporated 32 in labeling to avoid false or misleading labeling in marketing and labeling any articles or animals subject 33 to this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter; (2) definitions and standards of identity or 34 composition for articles subject to this subchapter and standards of fill of container for such articles not 35 inconsistent with any such standards established under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 36 U.S.C. 301 et seq.], and there shall be consultation between the Secretary and the Secretary of Health

37 and Human Services prior to the issuance of such standards under either Act relating to articles subject 38 to this chapter to avoid inconsistency in such standards and possible impairment of the coordinated 39 effective administration of these Acts. 40 41 21 USC § 601 - Definitions 42 (j) the term "meat food product" means any product capable of use as human food which is made wholly or in 43 part from any meat or other portion of the carcass of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, excepting products 44 which contain meat or other portions of such carcasses only in a relatively small proportion or historically have 45 not been considered by consumers as products of the meat food industry, and which are exempted from 46 definition as a meat food product by the Secretary under such conditions as he may prescribe to assure that the 47 meat or other portions of such carcasses contained in such product are not adulterated and that such products 48 are not represented as meat food products. This term as applied to food products of equines shall have a 49 meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. 50 51 (k) The term ‘‘capable of use as human food’’ shall apply to any carcass, or part or product of a carcass, of any 52 animal, unless it is denatured or otherwise identified as required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary to 53 deter its use as human food, or it is naturally inedible by humans. 54 55 7 USC § 182 – Definitions 56 (3) The term "meat food products" means all products and byproducts of the slaughtering and meat-packing 57 industry-if edible; 58 59 9 CFR § 301.2 - Definitions. 60 Meat. (1) The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the 61 tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions 62 of bone (in bone-in product such as T-bone or porterhouse steak), skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which 63 normally accompany the muscle tissue and that are not separated from it in the process of dressing. As applied 64 to products of equines, this term has a comparable meaning. (i) Meat does not include the muscle found in the 65 lips, snout, or ears. (ii) Meat may not include significant portions of bone, including hard bone and related 66 components, such as bone marrow, or any amount of brain, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, or dorsal root 67 ganglia (DRG). 68 69 Meat byproduct. Any part capable of use as human food, other than meat, which has been derived from one or 70 more cattle, sheep, swine, or goats. This term, as applied to products of equines, shall have a meaning 71 comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. 72 73 Meat food product. Any article capable of use as human food which is made wholly or in part from any meat or 74 other portion of the carcass of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, except those exempted from definition as a 75 meat food product by the Administrator in specific cases or by the regulations in part 317 of this subchapter, 76 upon a determination that they contain meat or other portions of such carcasses only in a relatively small

77 proportion or historically have not been considered by consumers as products of the meat food industry, and 78 provided that they comply with any requirements that are imposed in such cases or regulations as conditions of 79 such exemptions to assure that the meat or other portions of such carcasses contained in such articles are not 80 adulterated and that such articles are not represented as meat food products. This term, as applied to food 81 products of equines, shall have a meaning comparable to that provided in this paragraph with respect to cattle, 82 sheep, swine, and goats. 83 84 Capable of use as human food. This term applies to any carcass, or part or product of a carcass, of any livestock, 85 unless it is denatured or otherwise identified as required by the applicable provisions of §§314.3, 314.10, 86 325.11, and 325.13 of this subchapter to deter its use as a human food, or it is naturally inedible by humans; 87 e.g., hoofs or horns in their natural state.

80 81

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting L Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/20/18 Committee: Rural Development & Financial Security [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Support for State Department of Agriculture and Extension Partnerships

Submitted By: Secretary Jeff Witte, New Mexico

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA supports a close relationship between state Extension services and State Departments of Agriculture. 2 Extension plays a crucial role supporting farmers and ranchers’ profitability and advancement. Further, the 3 partnership between Extension and State Departments of Agriculture is a critical piece for linking urban and 4 rural communities. Funding is needed at the local, state and federal level to support extension programming and 5 continue the strong partnership.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

82 83

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting M Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Natural Resources & Environment [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Biostimulants

Submitted By: Secretary Jim Reese, Oklahoma

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA supports identifying and supporting paths that efficiently move biostimulant products into the United 2 States’ marketplace. 3 4 State, federal partners, and industry must continue to work together to explore existing and potential paths that 5 allow biostimulants to be sold in the United States, create any additional regulatory structures needed to cover 6 materials not currently included under the existing framework, harmonize state and federal regulations, and 7 support biostimulants’ market growth internationally. This process should also inform consumers about the 8 products’ efficacy and allow these technologies to grow and develop into the future.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

84 85

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting N Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Natural Resources & Environment [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: Endangered Species Act Modernization

Submitted By: Secretary Jeff Witte, New Mexico and Director Mark Killian, Arizona

Text of Action Item:

1 NASDA urges Congress and the administration to modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while recognizing 2 private property rights and impacts to agricultural producers and surrounding communities. Specifically, NASDA 3 supports efforts that increase state involvement and recognize the state role and partnership in species 4 conservation and voluntary incentive-based agreements with stakeholders. Efforts must also improve clarity and 5 consistency of how the ESA is administered, while enhancing transparency and public input.

Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item):

86 87

2018 NASDA Annual Meeting O Action Item Form To be completed by NASDA Staff: Date Submitted: 8/21/18 Committee: Rural Development & Financial Security [ ] Adopted by NASDA [ ] Adopted with Amendment by NASDA [ ] Not Adopted by NASDA Additional Notes:

Subject of Action Item: USDA Realignment within the Research, Education and Economics Mission Area

Submitted By: Secretary Jeff Witte, New Mexico

Text of Action Item:

1 With the proposed USDA realignment of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the potential change in locations 2 of ERS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), NASDA strongly supports: 3 4 • Enhanced federal funding as necessary to strengthen and support the research, education and extension 5 work of both agencies, regardless of their location. 6 • NASDA encourages the administration to conduct an organizational analysis and to share data and 7 information that explains the proposal. 8 • Further, NASDA encourages the administration to work with states and stakeholders throughout any 9 proposed realignment process. 10 11 In summary, NASDA will work with USDA to provide further clarity and information. 12 13 Background & Rationale (Note: Information in this section will not be included in the final text of the Action Item): 14 15 The ERS and NIFA are crucial venues for delivering the science and analysis that the agricultural community 16 depends on. High quality talent and state of the art facilities are necessary for the success of ERS and NIFA’s 17 mission. NASDA looks forward to learning more about the Secretary’s vision and reviewing an organizational 18 analysis. 19 20 On August 9, 2018, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced further reorganization of the U.S. 21 Department of Agriculture (USDA), intended to improve customer service, strengthen offices and programs, and 22 save taxpayer dollars. The Economic Research Service (ERS), currently under USDA’s Research, Education, and 23 Economics mission area, will realign once again with the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) under the Office of 24 the Secretary. Additionally, most employees of ERS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 25 will be relocated outside of the National Capital Region. The movement of the employees outside of 26 Washington, DC is expected to be completed by the end of 2019.

88 89 Thank you to our national and local partners for making the 2018 NASDA Annual Meeting a success!

Connecticut Food Policy Council

FARM FLAVOR MEDIA

Logos are in no particular order. See app for details on these dedicated partners. Last updated 8/20/2018.