Order Code RL32746
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops:
A Primer on Government Programs
January 26, 2005
Jean M. Rawson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops:
A Primer on Government Programs
Summary
U.S. farmers grow more than 250 types of fruit, vegetable, tree nut, flower,
ornamental nursery, and turfgrass crops in addition to the major bulk commodity
crops. Although specialty crops are ineligible for the federal commodity price and
income support programs, they are eligible for other types of U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) support, such as crop insurance, disaster assistance, and, under
certain conditions, ad hoc market loss assistance payments.
The industry also benefits generally from USDA programs to enhance marketing
opportunities; protect sellers from fraudulent practices in the marketplace; support
and stabilize markets through purchases for USDA feeding programs; promote and
facilitate exports; protect domestic production from foreign pests and diseases; and
conduct research on related horticultural and economic subjects. The Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA), the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, periodic omnibus legislation authorizing USDA programs,
and annual and supplemental appropriations acts are the primary laws that govern the
USDA programs affecting specialty crops.
Other federal agencies also play important roles. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA, in the Department of Health and Human Services) is
responsible for assuring that fresh, frozen, canned, and imported fruits, vegetables,
and nuts are safe for human consumption. The Environmental Protection Agency
sets the safe limits for pesticide residues on produce, which FDA enforces. The
Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission are
responsible for investigating instances of suspected “dumping” of foreign goods on
the U.S. market and levying antidumping taxes. The Employment and Training
Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Citizen and Immigration
Services of the Department of Homeland Security jointly administer a system for
temporarily admitting foreign workers to provide seasonal labor, provided that U.S.
workers are not available.
This report describes the federal programs of importance to the specialty crop
sector, and provides the most recent funding information available for them. It will
be updated periodically.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
USDA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Assistance for Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Crop Insurance and Noninsured Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Emergency Disaster Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Market Loss Payments and Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Protection for Sellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Marketing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Marketing Orders and Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Research and Promotion Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Grading and Quality Certification Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Farmer Direct Marketing Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
National Organic Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Market News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
New Forms of Marketing and Research Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Nutrition and Food Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Commodity Procurement for Domestic Food Assistance Programs . . 10
Assistance to Individuals and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through Child Nutrition Programs . . 11
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Commodity Procurement for Foreign Food Aid Programs . . . . . . . . . 12
Export Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Market Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Trade Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Disease and Pest Protection for U.S. Specialty Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pest and Disease Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Managing Trade-Related Pest and Disease Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Plant Pest Detection and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Methyl Bromide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Food and Drug Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Safety of Domestic and Imported Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Pesticide Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Department of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Guest Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Farmworker Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty
Crops: A Primer on Government Programs
Introduction
U.S. farmers grow more than 250 types of fruit, vegetable, tree nut, flower,
ornamental nursery, and turfgrass crops in addition to the major bulk commodity
crops.1 In 2003, specialty crop production accounted for $45.1 billion, or 42.5%, of
total U.S. crop receipts (21% of total receipts for crops and livestock).2
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traditionally has not subsidized
specialty crops as it has bulk commodities such as wheat, feed grains, soybeans,
cotton, rice, dairy, peanuts, tobacco, and others (about two dozen commodities in all,
often referred to as “program commodities”). Nonetheless, over several decades
Congress has authorized a wide range of programs — especially crop insurance and
marketing orders — intended to facilitate the growth and benefit the economic health
of the specialty crop sector. Relatedly, when Congress gave commodity program
producers planting flexibility in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127, the 1996 farm act), it included a provision prohibiting
them from planting fruit and vegetable crops on program acres. Congress renewed
this provision in the 2002 farm act (P.L. 107-171).
Government programs affecting the sector are not limited to USDA. The
Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission are the
agencies to which specialty crop growers can turn for assistance if they suspect that
foreign countries are selling their products in the United States at less than fair value
(a practice called “dumping”). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, within the
Department of Health and Human Services) is responsible for assuring the safety of
specialty crops for human consumption, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulates the safety of pesticides used on specialty crops and sets tolerances
for permissible residues (which are enforced by FDA). The Department of Labor
administers programs that help provide the workforce growers need to harvest major
specialty crops at certain times of year, regulate working conditions, and support
continuing education and employment assistance.
1In this report, the term “specialty crop” does not include sugar beets, tobacco, and minor
livestock species such as rabbits, goats, bison, llamas, etc.
2USDA, Economic Research Service. Available at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
FarmIncome/Data/cr_t3.htm].

---

CRS-2
USDA Programs
Advisory Committee
In August 2001, former USDA Secretary Ann Veneman established a Fruit and
Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee. Its purpose is to examine the full spectrum
of issues faced by the industry and to provide suggestions to the Secretary on how
USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the industry’s needs. The Committee
holds open meetings, which the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announces
in advance in the Federal Register. The 20-member body includes persons
representing grower/shippers, wholesalers, brokers, retailers, processors, foodservice
suppliers, state departments of agriculture, and one trade association. The Secretary
appoints the members, and they serve two-year terms.
Assistance for Losses
USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA), Farm Services Agency (FSA), and
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administer a number of programs to address
a variety of losses that the specialty crop sector might suffer.
Crop Insurance and Noninsured Disaster Assistance. The Risk
Management Agency administers the federal crop insurance program, which
Congress reformed most recently in P.L. 106-224 (the Agriculture Risk Protection
Act of 2000). Approved private insurance companies sell and completely service the
policies, but USDA reinsures potential losses and either fully or partially
compensates the companies for any losses incurred. About 50 specialty crops
currently are covered, but availability of coverage varies by region. Eligible
producers can receive catastrophic insurance, which is basically free except for an
administrative fee. Producers can buy up their level of coverage beyond the
catastrophic level and pay a premium that is subsidized by the federal government.
Revenue insurance, which makes indemnity payments for income lost either from
poor production or low market prices, also is available to producers of certain crops
in some areas. Such insurance provides an indemnity payment when actual revenue
falls below a target level of revenue. The 2000 farm law set the subsidy rate for
revenue insurance at the same level as for traditional crop insurance.
USDA decides which crops in which geographical areas will be covered by
which types of insurance. The decision is made on a crop-by-crop and county-by-
county basis, based on farmer demand for coverage and the level of risk associated
with the crop in the region, among other factors. The RMA frequently offers pilot
programs offering various types of coverage for new crops (particularly specialty
crops) or new geographical areas. It uses the performance of these programs to
inform its decision on whether to extend coverage permanently. Annual USDA
appropriations acts provide funding for RMA salaries and expenses to operate the
program. It receives such sums as are necessary for premium subsidy and program
losses and expenses, which makes it a mandatory program.
Producers of any commercial crops that are not insurable under the federal crop
insurance program are potentially eligible for direct payments up to $100,000 per

---

CRS-3
person under USDA’s noninsured assistance program (NAP).3 The Farm Service
Agency in USDA administers this program, which has permanent authority under the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-354, as amended). Specialty
crops currently eligible for the NAP include mushrooms, flowers, ornamental nursery
crops, Christmas trees, turfgrass sod, and ginseng. An individual producer is
ineligible if his gross revenues from the qualifying crop exceed $2 million. NAP is
not subject to annual appropriations, but rather is a mandatory program that receives
such sums as necessary through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),
which has a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. For losses associated with the 2003
crop year, FSA made approximately $229 million in NAP payments. (For more
information on these programs, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster
Assistance.)
Emergency Disaster Loans. FSA administers a program that makes low-
interest emergency disaster (EM) loans to farmers in counties that have been declared
disaster areas by either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. FSA may
provide EM loans to help producers recover from production losses or physical
losses. In the case of specialty crops, destruction of established fruit trees — as well
as of buildings and equipment — qualifies as a physical loss. Eligible growers may
borrow up to 100% of the actual losses (not to exceed $500,000). The current below-
market interest rate is 3.75%.
The EM loan program is permanently authorized by Title III of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (P.L. 87-128, as amended), and receives funds
through annual appropriations acts. In recent years, however, most of the program
funding was provided through an emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in
FY2000 (P.L. 106-113).
Market Loss Payments and Other Assistance. Separately, since
FY2001, Congress has authorized three “market loss payment” programs, primarily
for apple growers: one in each of the FY2001 and FY2002 agricultural appropriations
laws (P.L. 106-387, P.L. 107-76), and one in the 2002 omnibus farm law (P.L. 107-
171). These programs provided $269 million for apple grower income assistance in
the 1999 and 2000 crop years. Potato growers also were eligible for disaster
payments under P.L. 106-387.
In addition, specialty crop growers have received assistance through ad hoc crop
loss disaster programs that have covered nearly every crop year since 1988. These
programs have provided a cumulative total of just under $20 billion to all crops (a
breakdown for specialty crops is not available).4
3The regulatory definition of an NAP-eligible crop is one for which catastrophic coverage
is not available and which is commercially produced for food or fiber as specified in the
regulations. The term also includes floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas tree crops,
turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), and industrial crops.
4See CRS Report RL31095, Emergency Funding for Agriculture: A Brief History of
Supplemental Appropriations, FY1989-2003.

---

CRS-4
Protection for Sellers. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of
1930 (PACA) and the Produce Agency Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq., and
§1622, respectively) are the primary laws exclusively serving the produce industry.
Under these acts, the Agricultural Marketing Service administers a program to
protect producers, shippers, distributors, and retailers from loss due to unfair or
fraudulent practices in the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables.
Commission merchants, dealers, and brokers handling perishable agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce must obtain a PACA license and
abide by the fair trading practices spelled out in the act. Traders who violate the act
face license suspension or revocation.
In 1984, Congress amended PACA to create a statutory trust consisting of a
buyer’s business-related assets. In the event a buyer fails to make full payment (due
to bankruptcy, for example), fruit and vegetable sellers can recover money owed to
them before trust assets are made available to general creditors. PACA also provides
an administrative dispute resolution process for settling complaints of violations
between buyers and sellers.
PACA activities are funded by fees charged for obtaining licenses and for filing
complaints.5 Approximately $8.4 million in user fee income was expected in
FY2004.
Marketing Services
AMS administers several different types of programs intended to help the
produce industry expand its markets. These programs include marketing orders and
agreements, research and promotion programs, and an array of grading, quality
certification, market news, and product standardization services for fresh and
processed produce, and several others.
Marketing Orders and Agreements. The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) authorizes AMS to facilitate and
oversee the operation of marketing orders and agreements. Producers and handlers
in a specific growing area generally initiate the administrative process leading to the
establishment of an order or an agreement. Once a two-thirds majority of the parties
in that area approves a marketing order by referendum, the order is binding on all
growers and handlers in that area. In contrast, a marketing agreement is binding only
on growers and handlers who are voluntary signatories to the agreement. Currently
there are 34 active marketing orders and agreements covering specified fruit,
vegetable, and tree nut crops (a list is available at [http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/]).
Marketing orders and agreements are managed by administrative committees
made up of local growers and handlers who are operating under them. AMS
publishes the proposed and final regulations in the Federal Register, and they are
mandatory for marketing the covered commodity. These regulations may include
5In early FY2000, in order to forestall a proposed increase in the licensing fee, Congress
made a one-time appropriation of $30.5 million for PACA activities under the Agricultural
Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224).

---

CRS-5
quality standards, quantity controls, commodity promotion, and packaging standards,
among other things. The activities of marketing orders and agreements are financed
by assessment fees (commonly called “check-off” fees) collected from handlers,
usually at time of sale. To administer the orders and assure that they operate legally
and in the public interest, AMS uses funds provided through annual USDA
appropriations acts ($14.8 million in FY2003).6
Research and Promotion Programs. Like marketing orders, research and
promotion programs are requested and funded by members of a particular specialty
crop industry. AMS currently oversees eight such programs (cultivated blueberries,
Hass avocados, honey, mangoes, mushrooms, peanuts, popcorn, potatoes, and
watermelon). National boards, appointed by the Secretary, administer them. The
boards may be composed of producers, handlers, importers, and processors,
depending on which industry members have agreed to pay assessments to support the
program. The national boards collect the assessments from domestic handlers of the
commodity, and the U.S. Customs Service collects the assessments on imports (when
importers are included in program). The funds support a variety of promotion,
market research, production research, and new product development activities, which
AMS oversees. In FY2003, $436 million in assessments was collected; of that,
approximately $26 million was from assessments paid by various fruit and vegetable
industries.7 Each industry having a research and promotion program reimburses
AMS for the costs of administrative oversight activities.8
Grading and Quality Certification Programs. AMS offers official
grading services to help producers and handlers obtain a fair return on higher quality
produce. Grading is paid for by user fees and is voluntary unless the commodity is
regulated for quality under a marketing order or agreement, subject to export
requirements, or purchased by USDA or another federal agency for distribution (e.g.,
6Marketing orders and research and promotion programs for certain fruit and vegetable crops
have come under legal challenge from producers who have questioned their constitutionality
vis-á-vis the First Amendment. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that using check-off funds
for peach and nectarine promotion under a marketing order was constitutional. In 2001,
however, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory assessments for advertising under a
mushroom check-off were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on two
more lawsuits concerning check-off programs in summer 2005. Although these involve beef
and pork rather than fruits or vegetables, the outcome arguably could affect all check-off
programs, and might ultimately cause Congress to re-examine their statutory basis. For
more information, see CRS report 95-353, Federal Farm Promotion (“Check-Off”)
Programs.
7USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for FY2005. Under a provision in the 2002 farm act,
farmers and handlers whose operations are 100% certified organic are eligible to apply for
certain exemptions from monetary assessments under a commodity marketing or promotion
order in their area that covers the same commodity, but conventionally grown. In other
words, a 100% organic tart cherry grower in Michigan is eligible for exemption from part
of the assessment he or she paid to the Michigan tart cherry marketing order. Similarly, a
grower of exclusively organic blueberries is eligible for partial exemption from the fees he
or she pays under the blueberry research and promotion order.
8Details of the individual industry programs are available at [http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/
rpb.html].

---

CRS-6
through the school lunch program or the military). Shipments of any imported
commodity whose domestic production is under a marketing order or agreement must
receive AMS grading to assure that the produce is comparable to the U.S. grade, size,
quality, and maturity requirements.
To provide grading service nationwide, AMS maintains cooperative agreements
with each state (except Oklahoma, where only federal inspectors can be graders), and
Puerto Rico. Under federal-state agreements, AMS-licensed state employees work
wherever they are needed: in fields during harvest; at land, sea, and air ports of entry;
and at packing houses, processing plants, warehouses, and federal and federal-state
terminal markets. In FY2003, AMS graded or supervised the grading of
approximately 15 billion pounds of processed fruits and vegetables and 75 billion
pounds of fresh produce.9 The agency also offers three lower-cost alternative
programs in which AMS works with fresh produce packers to train their employees
to perform increasingly higher levels of grading work.
Since 1996, AMS has offered a voluntary, fee-for-service pilot program to assist
produce packers in adopting science-based, preventive measures against food
contamination in their plants. The Qualified Through Verification program is similar
in approach to the preventive Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
system used since 1996 by USDA’s meat and poultry regulatory agency, the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria for Foods are
encouraging the fresh and processed produce industries to adopt this preventive
approach to potential food contamination throughout the marketing chain. Although
the AMS pilot program relates to the safety of fruits and vegetables from a public
health standpoint, it is not a regulatory program. The FDA has the authority under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to regulate the fresh and processed
produce industries to ensure that products are safe and accurately labeled (more on
food safety regulation below, under Department of Health and Human Services).
Since 1979, AMS has been the sole agency charged with creating and updating
consistent product specifications for commercial food items that federal departments
purchase on a regular basis. The purpose of the government-wide Food Quality
Assurance program is to make food procurement by a variety of agencies for a variety
of purposes more efficient and economical, and clarify the necessary specifications
for companies wanting to bid on government contracts. This program covers fresh,
frozen, canned, and dehydrated fruits and vegetables, as well as meats, dairy
products, beverages, and the full range of standard grocery items.
Farmer Direct Marketing Assistance. AMS’s Marketing Services Branch
offers several services and programs to facilitate the marketing of locally produced
farm commodities, including specialty crops. The agency conducts research and
carries out a variety of activities to enhance direct-to-consumer marketing, marketing
channel development, marketing information and education, post-harvest and
marketing technology adoption, and the design of wholesale markets and facilities.
9USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for FY2005.

---

CRS-7
Within this AMS mission area, Congress authorized a Farmers’ Market
Promotion program in the 2002 farm act (P.L. 107-171). The intent of the program
is to increase home consumption of fresh agricultural commodities by increasing the
number of direct producer-to-consumer sales opportunities. Cooperatives, local
governments, nonprofit organizations, public benefit corporations, economic
development corporations, and regional farmers’ market organizations are eligible
to apply for grants. Annual appropriations of such sums as necessary are authorized
through FY2007, but Congress has not appropriated any funds to date. In the interim,
AMS has supported farmers’ markets by tailoring to their needs some of the agency’s
generally available research and technical assistance under this mission area.10 (Also
see information on the WIC and Senior Farmers’ Market programs under USDA’s
Food and Nutrition Service, starting on page 9 of this report.)
In addition, the agency administers a Federal-State Marketing Improvement
program (FSMIP) that provides matching funds to state departments of agriculture
and other state agencies to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the
efficiency and performance of the marketing system. Statutory authority for FSMIP
is provided under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.
1621 et seq.). In FY2003, Congress appropriated $1.3 million for FSMIP. In
FY2004, Congress appropriated a one-time increase of $2 million for a specialty
market development program in Wisconsin, for a total FSMIP funding level of $3.3
million.
USDA’s Rural Business and Cooperative Services administers a Value-added
Producer Grant program under the authority of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act
of 2000, as amended by the 2002 farm act. Grants may be used for developing
marketing plans, and to provide working capital for marketing value-added
agricultural products, among other things. Matching funds are required. Independent
producers, farmer and rancher cooperatives, agricultural producer groups, and
majority-controlled producer-based business ventures are eligible to apply.
Mandatory CCC funds supported $28.7 million in grants in FY2003. In FY2004, $15
million in appropriated funds was available for this program. Information on grants
awarded show that specialty crop producers have been frequent beneficiaries.11
National Organic Program. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(Title 21 of P.L. 101-624, the 1990 farm act) authorized the creation of a National
Organic Program to be administered by AMS. Under the program, which became
fully operational in late 2002, producers, processors, and handlers who wish to
market their products as organic are required to follow production practices as
spelled out in detail in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR 205). AMS
accredits private and state certification agents, who conduct on-site visits to certify
that organic operations are abiding by the standards. Once certified, products from
these firms must carry the “USDA Organic” seal. It is illegal to label a product as
organic if it does not meet NOP standards and bear the USDA label.
10For examples of AMS activities in this area, see [http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/
index.htm].
11This information is available at [http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm].

---

CRS-8
The 1990 Act stipulates that the cost of operating the NOP is to be covered
entirely by the fees that AMS charges for accrediting certification agents. Organic
farmers, processors, and handlers, in turn, pay fees to certification agents for their
services. To date, however, Congress has provided funds to help defray the costs for
all parties, particularly for producers and handlers. Title 10 of the 2002 farm act
authorizes USDA to use a one-time transfer of $5 million in CCC funds to establish
a certification cost-share program. AMS is to cover not more than 75% ($500
maximum) of a producer’s or handler’s costs for gaining certification. The CCC
funds are available until expended.
According to a February 2003 report by USDA’s Economic Research Service,
U.S. farmers in 2001 grew organically produced vegetables on roughly 72,000 acres,
fruits on 56,000 acres, herbs and nursery crops on 15,000 acres. Fresh produce is the
top-selling category, with lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, grapes, apples, tree nuts being
the leading organic crops. Growth in retail sales of all organic products has increased
at a rate of 20% annually or more since the 1990s.
Market News. AMS collects, analyzes, and disseminates local, regional,
national, and international market information for numerous agricultural
commodities, including fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals. Federal and state
reporters collect the data (which is provided on a voluntary basis) at wholesale
markets, farmers’ markets, shipping points, and other locations, and also by phone
and electronically. AMS disseminates the information on the Internet on a variety
of schedules, depending upon the needs of the specific commodity. The information
includes supply, prices, contractual agreements, inventories, movement, and more.
The annual appropriation for this AMS mission area is around $30 million.
New Forms of Marketing and Research Support
In August 2001, Congress passed a supplemental appropriation bill to
ameliorate a period of low net cash income in the farm sector (P.L. 107-25). Out of
a total assistance package of $5.5 billion in CCC funds, Congress directed $159.4
million specifically to help specialty crop producers. Of that amount, each state
received $500,000 as a base (Puerto Rico received $1 million). The balance ($133.4
million) was distributed to states in the form of block grants based on the ratio of the
value of each state’s specialty crop production to the total value of U.S. specialty
crop production.
In the majority of states, the respective State Department of Agriculture
administered the use of the block grants. The National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) released a review of the funding program in
February 2004. The report states that the funds supported more than 1,400 projects
nationwide (as of spring 2003), with marketing projects accounting for the greatest
use of funds, followed by education, research, pest and disease management,
production, and food safety.12
12National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Improving the Competitiveness
of Specialty Crop Agriculture: A Progress Report on State Agricultural Block Grants,
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004. In December 2004,
President Bush signed into law the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-465). Among several other provisions, the act authorizes a program of
block grants to states that is modeled after the 2001 ad hoc program. Title I of the
act authorizes an annual appropriation of $44.5 million in fiscal years 2005 through
2009 for block grants to states for specialty crop sector support activities (the 2001
program received mandatory CCC funds). The base amount per state is $100,000,
with the balance based on the ratio of the value of each state’s specialty crop
production to the total value of U.S. specialty crop production.13
Nutrition and Food Assistance Programs14
USDA directly purchases and then donates a variety of non-price-supported
commodities, including fruit, vegetable, and tree nut products, for consumption
through domestic nutrition and food assistance programs. These purchases and
donations help groups of nutritionally vulnerable recipients (such as low-income
school children, and participants at family child care homes, child care centers, Head
Start programs, and adult care centers, among others) eat a healthy diet and avoid
hunger while also helping to balance supply and demand for various commodities.
In addition, USDA provides assistance to individuals through the Food Stamp
program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program from Women, Infants, and
Children (the WIC program), and two farmers’ market programs. These programs
enable eligible persons to purchase food items (including fruit, vegetable, and tree
nut products) directly from retailers and farmers.
Another type of assistance is in the form of cash grants to organizations
operating child nutrition programs (like the School Lunch program) that is used, in
part, to purchase fruit, vegetable, and tree nut products for the meals they serve.15
12(...continued)
February 2004, Washington, D.C., available at [http://www.nasda.org/specialtycrop/].
13Other titles in P.L. 108-465 authorize activities intended to facilitate U.S. specialty crop
exports, strengthen the scientific consideration of export and import requests, and expand
research on specialty crops. Details on these provisions can be found within the sections
of this report on export promotion, disease and pest protection, and research, respectively.
14The major laws governing these programs are the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, the Food
Stamp Act, the Emergency Food Assistance Act, and Section 5 of the Agriculture and
Consumer Protection Act of 1973. Congressional jurisdiction over these laws is exercised
by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the House Education and the
Workforce Committee, and the House Agriculture Committee. It should be noted that this
report does not cover spending on fruit, vegetable, and tree nut products financed under
nutrition programs authorized by the Older Americans Act (administered by the Department
of Health and Human Services), for which no information regarding specific food types of
food purchases is available, nor does it address federally supported nutrition education
initiatives aimed at increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables.
15In this report, the term “child nutrition programs” refers to the School Lunch and Breakfast
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
Finally, USDA also supports a project to bring more fresh fruits and vegetables
(as distinct from products made from fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts) into schools.
Three USDA agencies work together to carry out this wide range of assistance.
The primary agency in charge of all the programs is the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS). AMS generally serves as the commodity purchasing agency, and the Farm
Service Agency also assists in making commodities available.
An FNS report released in May 2002 estimated that, in FY2001, close to $7
billion from all of its domestic programs supported consumption of fruits and
vegetables by children and low-income individuals and families.16 This included
funds spent on direct USDA purchases, money spent by individuals receiving
assistance, and fruit and vegetable purchases from cash grants to child nutrition
programs. This report defines support for fruit and vegetable consumption very
broadly, to include juices; fresh, frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables; and
items like “french fries.”17 In all, this $7 billion represented some 20% of all FNS
expenditures.
Commodity Procurement for Domestic Food Assistance Programs.
Through AMS and the Farm Service Agency, USDA directly purchases commodities
(including fruit, vegetable, and tree nut products) for: (1) distribution to individuals
through the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP); and (2) donation to child nutrition programs. The amount of
commodities purchased depends on, first, requirements in law as to the dollar volume
of commodities that must be purchased (“entitlement” commodities) and, second, on
USDA judgments as to the volume of non-price-supported commodities that should
be acquired as surplus removals to stabilize markets (“bonus” buys). Entitlement
commodities generally are purchased based on preferences expressed by recipient
organizations (e.g., schools, TEFAP operators). Bonus buys normally are based on
market conditions and tend to include types of fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts not
routinely seen on lists of entitlement purchases (e.g., asparagus, apricots,
blackberries, almonds).
Most funding for USDA commodity purchases is classified as “mandatory” —
that is, the level is dictated by underlying law (for example, child nutrition programs
are due a specific number of cents per meal served in federally acquired/donated
15(...continued)
programs, the Child and Adult Care Food program, and the Summer Food Service program.
16USDA. Food and Nutrition Service. Availability of Fresh Produce in Nutrition Assistance
Programs. Nutrition Assistance Report CN-02-FV. May 2002. According to the data used
for the May 2002 report, actual purchases totaled $6.7 billion, and associated administrative
and distribution costs added almost $300 million. Another report of related interest was
issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in July 2002 — Fruits and
Vegetables: Enhanced Federal Efforts to Increase Consumption Could Yield Health Benefits
for Americans. GAO-02-657.
17Tree nut purchases by child nutrition providers and individuals receiving food assistance
are not included in the dollar figures presented in this report because data are not available.

---

CRS-11
commodities, TEFAP is guaranteed a specific total dollar level each year). A lower
level of spending is “discretionary” — the amount is set by appropriations decisions
or dependent on market conditions. Funding for commodity procurement comes both
from Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, and annual appropriations directives,
and the proportional allocation is governed by annual appropriations legislation.18
According to the May 2002 FNS report, the agency purchased and directly
provided approximately $250 million in fruit and vegetable products to child
nutrition programs in FY2001. In addition, fruit and vegetable donations to TEFAP,
the CSFP, charitable institutions, and the FDPIR were valued at $314 million, $38
million, $28 million, and $17 million, respectively.19
Special rules relate to fresh fruits and vegetables to child nutrition programs.
Under provisions in the 2002 farm act, at least $50 million worth of fresh fruits and
vegetables must be provided annually through an arrangement with a Department of
Defense (DoD) procurement agency (the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia).20
The amount is drawn from the dollar value of commodities that child nutrition
programs are entitled to, and the initiative has been named the “DoD Fresh” program.
Assistance to Individuals and Families. USDA is responsible for several
food assistance programs that provide aid directly to individuals in the form of
“electronic benefit transfer” (EBT) cards or vouchers that they may use to buy food
directly. The Food Stamp program employs EBT cards to deliver help. Food stamp
benefits can be used for any type of food item, and data used for the May 2002 report
indicate that some $3.3 billion in food stamp benefits (about 20%) were spent on fruit
and vegetable products (broadly defined) in FY2001. The WIC program gives
recipients vouchers that specifically name the food items that may be bought; these
can include fruit juices, carrots, and dried peas. The May 2002 report estimated that
some $467 million (16% of benefit spending) was used for fruit and vegetable
products. Finally, under two small farmers’ market programs — for WIC recipients
and seniors — a total of about $35 million to $40 million a year in special vouchers
are used specifically for the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers’
markets.
Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through Child Nutrition Programs.
Federal cash assistance to child nutrition providers (e.g., schools, child care centers,
summer food program operators) represents an important source of federal support
for fruit and vegetable purchases. Providers use this aid to buy food items for use in
the meals they serve. Data used for the May 2002 report indicate that some $2.3
18For more information on Section 32 see CRS Report RS20235, Farm and Food Support
under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
19The May 2002 report notes that FY2001 was an “anomaly with respect to fruit and
vegetable distribution in TEFAP, with a substantial amount of bonus [produce] being made
available that year.”
20This program now operates in more than 40 states. The program works in partnership with
USDA to take advantage of DoD’s buying power, distribution system, and nationwide
network of suppliers. A major asset of the program is that it can provide fresh produce
(sometimes locally grown) in smaller, more usable quantities.

---

CRS-12
billion of federal cash aid to child nutrition providers was spent on fruit and
vegetable products — about 20% of their purchases.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for Schools. The 2002 farm act
established a fresh fruit and vegetable pilot project — funded with a one-time
mandatory appropriation of $6 million — to enable a limited number of schools in
several states and Indian reservations to offer free fresh fruits and vegetables to their
students.21 The 2004 law reauthorizing and revising child nutrition programs (P.L.
108-265) expanded the project to include more states/reservations, made it a
permanent part of child nutrition law, and provided mandatory funding of $9 million
a year through FY2008.22
Commodity Procurement for Foreign Food Aid Programs. USDA’s
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has the lead responsibility for programs that
provide U.S. commodities to hungry people in needy countries.
Compared with the value and volume of fruits and vegetables distributed though
domestic food assistance programs, produce accounts for only a small fraction of the
Department’s overseas food aid. Apples, dehydrated potatoes, and dehydrated
vegetables were the only produce items that included in food aid programs in the
decade from 1992 to 2002. A table compiled by CRS from USDA sources indicates
that in FY2002, the CCC purchased $510,000 of dehydrated potatoes and $48,000
of dehydrated vegetables for donation to needy countries through the Food for
Progress program. (To find this table and obtain more information on foreign food
aid programs, see CRS Report RL31927, Trends in U.S. Foreign Food Aid, FY1992-
FY2002.)
Export Promotion

The Foreign Agricultural Service administers several programs whose purpose
is to help agricultural interests create, expand, and maintain foreign markets for U.S.
exports. Many of these programs are supported by annual allocations of mandatory
funds from the CCC. Nonetheless, during the annual appropriations process,
Congress scrutinizes and on occasion acts to increase or to restrict funding for export
promotion programs.
Congress provides annual appropriations to support FAS’s administration of
export (and food aid) programs, as well as its operation of a number of other services
in support of overseas commodity sales. Among its activities, FAS (1) provides the
U.S. agricultural sector with extensive information on foreign country import
regulations and standards; production, supply, and distribution of commodities in
competitor and importing countries; and trade policies and trade agreements; and (2)
21For more information, see the USDA’s Economic Research Service evaluation of the
project: Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress.
ERS Report E-FAN 03-006. May 2003.
22It should be noted that the project established by the 2002 farm law included authority to
use funding for dried fruits and vegetables, while the expanded and extended program does
not include these products.

---

CRS-13
partners with a very broad range of outside organizations to share the costs of
promoting exports of high-value foods and food products.23
Market Development Programs. Under the Market Access Program
(MAP), FAS partners with a variety of commodity organizations and agribusinesses
to share the costs of marketing and promoting U.S. agricultural products overseas.
Supported activities include seminars for foreign importers and manufacturers on the
uses and characteristics of U.S. product ingredients, and retail product promotions,
among other things.
Congress created the MAP in 1978 (and reauthorized it most recently in the
2002 farm act). The act gradually increases the authorized annual expenditure of
mandatory CCC funds for the program from $100 million in FY2002 to $200 million
by FY2006. Although MAP funding does not require an annual appropriation,
Congress in the past has capped spending for the program at lower levels in order to
achieve budget savings. The MAP allocation for FY2004 was $125 million, of
which approximately $47 million was awarded to trade organizations, cooperatives,
and state/regional trade groups promoting U.S. fruits and vegetables in foreign
markets.
Under the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Cooperator program, USDA
shares the cost of overseas marketing and promotion activities with nonprofit U.S.
commodity and trade organizations, which for their part contribute funds (on more
than a one-for-one basis, on average) collected from their members through
assessment fees. Organizations that represent an entire industry, or are nationwide
in membership and scope, have priority for receiving government funds. The 2002
farm act provides current authority for the FMD program. In FY2004, the CCC
allocation for FMD was $34.5 million. The FMD cooperator program generally is
a source of funding for overseas promotion of U.S. bulk commodity crops and not
for fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts.
The Quality Samples Program (QSP) helps create export sales of commodities,
including fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts, by providing samples to foreign importers,
thus paving the way for new partnerships between importers and U.S. exporters. The
CCC allocation for QSP in FY2004 was $1.76 million, of which $382,000 supported
the distribution of almond, table grape, walnut, cherry, cranberry, citrus, and potato
samples to potential importers.
The 2002 farm act established the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC) program and authorized the use of $2 million in CCC funds annually
through FY2006 to operate it. TASC is targeted specifically to support exports of all
cultivated plants and their products except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice,
peanuts, sugar, and tobacco. FAS awards TASC funds on a competitive basis to
eligible public and private organizations (i.e., federal and state agencies, trade
associations, universities, cooperatives, and private companies), which use them to
conduct projects that address trade barriers. Grants may cover seminars, study tours,
23These include nonprofit trade organizations, state-regional trade groups, agricultural
cooperatives, and private companies.

---

CRS-14
field surveys, and pre-export clearance programs, among other activities. Eighteen
grants were awarded in FY2002 and 19 grants in FY2003, primarily for projects to
improve fruit exports. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
465) authorizes additional annual appropriations of $2 million through FY2009 for
this program.
FAS also administers CCC export credit guarantee programs that facilitate
foreign governments’ purchases of U.S. commodities. CCC funds guarantee the
payments due from approved foreign banks to U.S. exporters or financial institutions.
Because payment is guaranteed, financial institutions in the United States can offer
competitive credit terms to the foreign banks, which makes importing from the
United States more attractive to potential purchasers. The CCC determines which
countries and banks are eligible and at what level of debt, and also selects which
commodities and products will be eligible (depending upon market potential).
Very short-term guarantees (up to 180 days, or more than 180 days but fewer
than 360 days) under the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP); short-term
guarantees (up to three years under GSM-102); and intermediate-term guarantees (3
to 10 years under GSM-103), are available. Long-term guarantees are offered
infrequently in general for all commodities, and for perishable commodities,
effectively never. A wide variety of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, juices,
tree nuts, and nursery products are exported especially under SCGP, and to a lesser
degree under GSM-102.24 In FY2003, SCGP guarantees covered $670 million in
sales of U.S. agricultural commodities to foreign countries, and GSM-102 guarantees
covered sales of $2.5 billion.25
Trade Remedies. In the event of suspected unfair competition from foreign
imports, U.S. law makes available certain remedies that the specialty crop industry
can pursue, not within USDA, but from the Department of Commerce and the U.S.
International Trade Commission. Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1673 et seq.) provides for the levying of antidumping (AD) duties on imports sold
at less than fair value that have caused or threaten to cause material injury to a
domestic industry producing a like product. Where subsidized imports have this
injurious effect, Title VII authorizes countervailing duties (CVD) to be imposed (19
U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) The regulations for AD and CVD proceedings are set forth at
19 C.F.R. Parts 207 and 351.
U.S. specialty crop producers on occasion have petitioned the Department of
Commerce and the ITC to investigate suspected occurrences of dumping. In 2000,
the U.S. Apple Association won an antidumping petition concerning imported apple
juice concentrate from China. In 2001, however, a group of California grape growers
24High-value agricultural products as a separate category also are eligible for GSM-102 and
SCGP export credit guarantees. Canned and frozen berries, citrus, apples, plums, etc., have
appeared in this category.
25Information on all FAS programs, trade data, and reports is available at [http://www.
fas.usda.gov].

---

CRS-15
lost a petition concerning the suspected dumping of Mexican and Chilean table
grapes.26
Disease and Pest Protection for U.S. Specialty Crops
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the USDA
regulatory agency charged with protecting U.S. agriculture from the introduction,
establishment, and reemergence of plant pests and diseases that could harm
production or damage export markets, a role of great importance to the specialty crop
industry.27
Pest and Disease Exclusion. Until 2002, APHIS held sole responsibility
for operating the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection program (AQI), whose
primary purpose is to inspect incoming passengers and cargo at U.S. ports of entry
(borders, airports, and seaports) for prohibited plant and animal materials. APHIS
border inspection was supported for the most part by user fees collected for
inspection services, supplemented by annual appropriations that covered the costs of
new equipment, training, etc.
In 2002, in the law creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS; P.L.
107-296), Congress transferred the inspection function and more than 2,600 APHIS
inspectors to the DHS Border and Transportation Security mission area. The user
fees collected for agricultural inspection services still are deposited into a USDA
account, from which USDA annually transfers to DHS an amount covering that
agency’s costs for conducting agricultural inspections. USDA estimates its transfers
to DHS at $194 million in FY2004 and $204 million in FY2005 for AQI inspection
activities at U.S. ports of entry.
APHIS continues to administer an AQI program under which it inspects cargo
and conveyances from Hawaii and Puerto Rico to the mainland, and carries out a
number of pest and disease exclusion activities. These include (1) developing
protocols for plant materials in trade; (2) maintaining quarantine facilities and
treating regulated imported products; (3) conducting pre-clearance programs for
products being imported into the United States and certification programs for U.S.
agricultural exports; and (4) supporting scientific projects to detect and identify high-
risk plant pathogens and develop protocols for quarantine testing.28 Congress
appropriated about $27 million annually for the APHIS AQI program in FY2003 and
FY2004 (covering all U.S. agriculture).
26For information on how AD and CVD proceedings operate, and for an analysis of trade
remedy statutes and proposed changes in the context of multilateral trade agreements, see
CRS Report RL32371, Trade Remedies: A Primer; and CRS Report RL31296, Trade
Remedies and Agriculture.
27APHIS also has a significant number of responsibilities related to animal agriculture,
natural resources, potential agroterrorism, and biotechnology.
28This work is being conducted at APHIS’s new National Plant Germplasm and
Biotechnology Lab (formerly the Center for Plant Health Science and Technology) located
at the USDA/ARS Agricultural Research Center near Washington, D.C.

---

CRS-16
Many of the AQI program activities of importance to the specialty crop sector
involve operations at APHIS’s National Germplasm and Biotechnology Laboratory
located on the large USDA research campus in Beltsville, Maryland. Of particular
importance to U.S. specialty crop trade is the lab’s work on pre-export testing. A
plant disease outbreak in a particular crop in a discrete geographical area can close
the export market for that crop no matter where in the United States it may be grown.
Following outbreaks in the recent past of diseases affecting potatoes, stone fruit, and
nursery products, the APHIS lab’s certification of products from disease-free areas
permitted the reopening of overseas markets of importance to growers and processors
of these crops nationwide.
Also under the pest and disease exclusion mission area, APHIS conducts a
major program to protect the U.S. citrus industry from infestations of Mediterranean
fruit flies (Medflies). This pest is capable of causing economic devastation to the
industry from quarantine-related trade restrictions as well as from crop losses and
control costs. The success of the exclusion effort depends partly upon intercepting
the pest on incoming cargo (now DHS’s responsibility), and partly upon a program
to eradicate Medflies in an area stretching as far south as possible from the U.S.-
Mexico border (with the hope of eradicating it eventually throughout Central
America). This program involves raising billions of live, sterile fruit flies in labs and
releasing them into areas of known infestation. The sterile flies mate with the wild
population, thus gradually decreasing the latter’s reproductive success until they
disappear (a process that takes many months, as a rule).
APHIS also uses this technique preventively in certain areas of California,
Florida, and Texas to keep smaller outbreaks from reaching economic proportions
and triggering costly eradication programs. APHIS estimates that 10% of citrus
acreage in these three states currently is protected by preventive sterile fly releases.29
Wide-scale Medfly eradications in the 1980s and ‘90s cost an average $33 million
annually in market losses and treatment costs, according to APHIS.30 Congress
appropriated about $55 million annually in FY2003 and FY2004 for fruit fly
exclusion, detection, and control.
Managing Trade-Related Pest and Disease Issues. APHIS’s Trade
Issues Resolution and Management program plays a significant role in facilitating
U.S. agricultural trade, maintaining and expanding existing markets, creating new
market access, and building international support for trade agreements.
APHIS attachés, located at U.S. embassies abroad, work with host country
officials to establish and oversee foreign-based inspection programs to ensure that
products designated for export to the United States are pest-free, and that inspection
officials at U.S. ports of entry receive early warning of pest and disease problems that
may be emerging in exporting countries. Agency officials participate on USDA trade
agreement negotiation teams to solve sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues so that
29FY2005 USDA budget explanatory notes. Volume 1, p. 15-31.
30Ibid.

---

CRS-17
the agreements can move forward.31 In addition, APHIS represents the United States
in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other international bodies that set SPS
standards for trade, and is the USDA negotiator in WTO phytosanitary disputes that
concern U.S. agricultural exports and imports. In FY2003, Congress appropriated
$11.6 million for this APHIS program.
APHIS also is the agency in charge of certifying that U.S. specialty crop exports
meet other countries’ phytosanitary regulations before they are shipped. The
Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act (P.L. 108-465), enacted in late 2004, requires
APHIS to reduce the current backlog in issuing export permits, and requests an
annual report on the volume of applications received, completed, backlogged. The
2004 Act also requires the Secretary to submit to Congress, in 2005, a report on the
significant sanitary and phytosanitary issues that affect the export of U.S. specialty
crops. Relatedly, the act requires APHIS to establish a peer review process for the
scientific risk assessments on which the SPS standards that govern import and
exports are based.
Plant Pest Detection and Management. APHIS is the federal partner in
the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS), providing funding to and working
with all state and U.S. territorial governments and public universities to conduct
surveillance to detect damaging foreign pests, diseases, and weeds in the field.
Information collected through CAPS is compiled into detailed maps and other
formats, and filed in the electronic National Agricultural Pest Information System
(NAPIS) database.
The CAPS/NAPIS system is critical to early detection of significant pests, which
in turn is essential for organizing eradication efforts before pests cause major
economic damage. APHIS budget documents indicate that the agency is taking a
number of steps to increase its pest detection capabilities. Among these are hiring
additional pest survey specialists and emergency response coordinators; developing
a network among private individuals such as farmers, crop consultants, and gardeners
for reporting new or unusual infestations to CAPS; and increasing the presence of
APHIS employees in foreign countries. Having APHIS personnel stationed in
countries that export agricultural commodities to the United States helps the agency
set import policy by providing field surveillance and timely warning of changing pest
situations, and helps DHS set priorities for border inspections. Conversely, the
NAPIS database is an important resource for major foreign importers of U.S.
agricultural products. According to APHIS, more than 75 countries access the
website each month to view maps and other information to ensure that U.S.
agricultural goods destined for their countries are disease and pest free. Congress
appropriated about $24 million annually in FY2003 and 2004 for the pest detection
program.32
31SPS issues concern the health of animal (sanitary) and plant (phytosanitary) imports into
the United States. Because SPS issues can be used as nontariff barriers to trade, they are a
chronic source of disputes between countries and between importers and domestic producers
and handlers.
32FY2005 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes.

---

CRS-18
For the most part, APHIS, which has a nationwide network of regional and state
offices, serves in a consultative mode to assist state departments of agriculture in
planning and operating control and eradication programs using state and private
funds. However, when a particularly harmful disease or pest emerges suddenly, state
resources for immediate response can be quickly overwhelmed. In such emergency
situations, the Secretary has broad authority to tap CCC funds to implement federal
eradication programs. Many APHIS control and eradication programs over the years
have been financed in whole or in part using this authority. In FY2003, $411.3
million in total was transferred to APHIS for emergency programs for plant and
animal pest and disease management, on top of $318.2 million in funds appropriated
for that purpose. Among the specialty crop pest eradication programs using CCC
funds in FY2003 were citrus canker ($36 million), glassy-winged sharpshooter ($14.5
million)(a threat to wine, table, and raisin grapes), fruit flies ($18.8 million), and
emerald ash borer ($12.7 million).
Within the $318.2 million in appropriated funds for all APHIS pest management
programs in FY2003, $75.6 million was allocated to the Emerging Plant Pest (EPP)
program. Under EPP, APHIS cooperates with states to develop, implement, and fund
action plans for surveying, reporting, and controlling emerging pest threats. In its
annual budget requests, APHIS generally proposes discontinuing CCC funding for
pest problems that persist beyond the initial emergency phase, and continuing control
efforts as a federal-state cooperative effort under EPP instead.
Two APHIS mission areas described above — pest/disease exclusion, and
detection — are receiving increased emphasis by the Bush Administration as part of
its Food and Agricultural Defense Initiative, which was launched in connection with
enactment of the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
188). In FY2003, APHIS expended $14.4 million for “plant safeguarding activities”
under the Initiative.33
Research
The United States has a nationwide network of public agricultural laboratories
and academic institutions supported in full or in part by annual USDA
appropriations.
The Department’s in-house science agency, the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), employs approximately 2,000 research scientists, assisted by roughly 6,000
aides and technicians. The majority of states have one or more ARS labs, and there
are three located overseas. ARS conducts basic and applied research on the full
33In the mid-1990s APHIS undertook an all-inclusive stakeholder study to evaluate the
agency’s capacity to detect and respond to plant pest introductions, and to make
recommendations for improvements. The ensuing report, Safeguarding American Plant
Resources, was published in July 1999. APHIS gradually has been implementing certain
of these recommendations (e.g. improved federal-state communications, increased staffing,
and improved international pest risk analysis), using annual appropriations.
The 2002 Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act subsequently mandated the
hiring of additional personnel to track special plant disease agents that could potentially be
used in acts of bioterrorism.

---

CRS-19
range of subjects important to specialty crops, from production through processing
and food safety. ARS also is the designated lead agency for federal nutrition
research. Funds to support ARS research come from (1) direct federal appropriations;
(2) pass-through funds from other agencies within USDA and from other executive
branch departments (e.g., the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Agency for International Development); and (3) contributions from major trade
groups, universities, and other non-federal sources. In FY2004, ARS spent $80
million on research related to fruit; $48.5 million on vegetables; $8.6 million on tree
nuts; and $29.4 million on nursery crops and turfgrasses.
USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) is the Department’s link to the stateside components of the agricultural
research network, which include the land grant colleges of agriculture, the state
agricultural experiment stations, and the state cooperative extension services
(providing research-based information and outreach). Annual USDA block grants
that CSREES channels to these components comprise only a small portion of their
total funding (state, local, and private funds constitute the majority), but they are
important to sustaining the core, ongoing research and extension programs at the state
level. CSREES also is the administrative home of several competitive research grant
programs; traditionally the state agricultural experiment stations and extension
services are major recipients of such grants. CSREES estimates that at the state
agricultural experiment stations in FY2004, $26 million in federal funds supported
fruit research, $33.6 million supported vegetable research (including potatoes), $1.5
million supported tree nut research, and $11.3 million supported research on nursery
crops.
The 2004 Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act adds specialty crop research to
USDA’s list high priority research and extension activities, and establishes a
permanent specialty crops subcommittee under an existing board to study the
research needs of the sector and make recommendations.
USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has employees located
in nearly every state and U.S. territory to gather statistical data on local agriculture.
These data provide the basis for more than 70 periodical reports (some issued daily)
that provide real-time production and market information for the U.S. agricultural
sector and USDA program administrators. In addition to crop and weather reports
on individual commodities, titles such as Capacity of Refrigerated Warehouses, and
U.S. Wildlife Damage provide information to the specialty crop sector that would not
be available anywhere else. NASS also conducts the U.S. Census of Agriculture
every five years. This comprehensive snapshot of the farm sector is an important
source of information to Congress in formulating the periodical, omnibus farm policy
laws. NASS’s FY2004 appropriation was $129 million.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) is USDA’s economic analysis agency,
covering agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural development issues. The
agency publishes market analysis and outlook reports for most commodities
including specialty crops. It also evaluates the economic effects of various USDA
programs (e.g., the FNS Fruit and Vegetable program). ERS received a $71.4 million
appropriation in FY2004.

---

CRS-20
Methyl Bromide. Of particular concern to the specialty crop industry is
research to find alternatives to methyl bromide (MBr), a pesticidal gas widely used
in production (to fumigate soil and kill weeds, insects, and diseases before planting),
and post-harvest (to control pests in stored and exported commodities).
Methyl bromide use in agriculture is an issue because it is considered to be a
major source of bromine, which scientists worldwide have concluded contributes to
a depletion of Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone layer. The scientific concern
is that further ozone depletion could increase the incidence of skin cancer in humans
and animals, produce genetic damage in plants, and seriously disrupt marine food
chains.
For several years, Congress has provided funding for a program to assist
growers in switching from methyl bromide to alternative chemicals ($2.5 million in
FY2002). The intent was to help farmers make the transition before a January 2005
deadline (in the Clean Air Act) to end to U.S. manufacturing of Mbr.
In part due to research clearly demonstrating the difficulty of finding
comparably effective alternatives, some in Congress are seeking to amend the Clean
Air Act to change the deadline for cessation of MBr production, or to substitute a
more flexible standard. Others suggest that the United States should withdraw from
the international treaty whose provisions influenced the most recent amendments to
the Clean Air Act concerning MBr.34 In the meantime, 13 developed nations that are
signatories to the treaty agreed to postpone the deadline to January 2006.
Successful production of strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, and ornamental
nursery crops is particularly dependent on pre-planting soil fumigation with MBr,
according to USDA. A much wider range of commodities rely on MBr to control
pests in storage, and many cannot legally be exported without certification of methyl
bromide treatment to eliminate pests.
ARS is the primary federal research agency conducting research on alternatives
to MBr, and spent $18 million on such research in FY2004. The state agricultural
experiment stations also conduct research on this subject. The Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 requires USDA to elevate the priority of methyl
bromide alternative research and to reexamine the risks and benefits of extending the
phase-out deadline. The law authorizes annual appropriations of $5 million through
2009 to carry out this research.
Food and Drug Administration
Safety of Domestic and Imported Foods. The FDA is responsible for
ensuring that food for human consumption is accurately labeled and free from
adulteration, which includes pathogens, illegal pesticides and above-acceptable levels
34For greater detail on the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and the domestic issues related to it, see CRS Report RS20863, Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion and Regulation of Methyl Bromide.

---

CRS-21
of pesticide residues, and other contaminants. The agency’s responsibility covers all
food, domestically produced and imported (excluding meat, poultry, and certain egg
products, which are under USDA’s jurisdiction).35
Under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA; 21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the FDA provides guidance to the food industry on the best
practices to assure food safety, and sets certain requirements through regulations. To
monitor adherence to guidelines and regulations, the agency is authorized to inspect
factories, warehouses, and establishments where foods are manufactured, processed,
packed or held, and vehicles transporting foods. At current levels of funding and
staffing, FDA inspects each establishment under its jurisdiction about once every five
years. FDA has limited authority to detain food products during investigations of
possible violations, and must approach the Justice Department to initiate injunctions,
seizures, or prosecutions. FDA does not have the authority to issue mandatory recalls
of suspected contaminated foods. It relies on the individual firm to issue a recall
voluntarily if FDA officials recommend it.
FDA has direct authority to review and approve food additives before
manufacturers can use them in processing, in order to assure that they meet FFDCA
standards for being safe for consumption at the intended level of use. FDA also is
responsible for enforcing EPA-set standards for permissible pesticides and pesticide
residues in or on foods through inspections and testing.
Although FDA also has responsibility for ensuring the safety of imported food,
including imported produce, traditionally the agency has inspected only 1% to 2% of
all annual food imports. Following the events of September 2001, Congress passed
a bioterrorism preparedness law that addresses import safety (among many other
issues). P.L. 107-188 contains provisions requiring foreign and domestic food
establishments to register with FDA and keep thorough records of their purchases
and sales, and requiring foreign firms exporting food to the United States to give
FDA prior notification of the exact time, location, and contents of incoming
shipments. FDA expects to achieve full implementation and enforcement of the new
policies in 2005. Congress appropriated $508 million in FY2004 for FDA’s food
safety, inspection, enforcement, and food import monitoring activities.36 Increased
information on shippers and shipment contents is intended to improve FDA’s ability
to allocate resources for inspecting food imports more efficiently, but the new
regulations generally are not expected to affect the overall percentage being
inspected.
Food safety is a critical issue for the specialty crop industry, as consumers
increasingly are recognizing the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption to
long term health and proper weight maintenance. Nonetheless, the nature of
production, handling, and preparation makes produce vulnerable to contamination
35For additional information on food safety generally, see CRS Report RL31853, Food
Safety Issues in the 108th Congress.
36Food and Drug Administration, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, Budget
Formulation and Presentation Division.

---

CRS-22
from a wide variety of sources. The fact that produce often is consumed raw
contributes to its potential as a source of foodborne illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, a sister agency to FDA
within DHHS) estimate that, in the 1990s, contaminated fresh produce (including
unpasteurized fresh fruit juice) was responsible for at least 12% of all reported cases
of food-borne illness.37 In 2003 and 2004, hundreds of people in several states
contracted hepatitis A from green onions, salmonellosis from tomatoes, and various
strains of E. coli O157 from alfalfa and clover sprouts.
FDA issued a proposed action plan to address produce contamination in mid-
June 2004 and later that month held a public meeting to discuss it. The revised plan
was published in October 2004 (see footnote 35). This effort builds upon actions
FDA took in the late 1990s under the Clinton Administration’s Initiative to Ensure
the Safety of Imported and Domestic Fruits and Vegetables. Under the earlier
initiative, FDA produced the Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in 1998. This was followed by special guidance to
prevent contamination of sprouted alfalfa seeds and other types of sprouts in 1999,
and by regulations to require preventive steps against fresh fruit juice contamination
in 2002.38 The 2004 action plan includes 40 steps that FDA and the produce industry
could take jointly in the areas of guidance and regulations; educational outreach;
response to incidents of contamination; improved communication among
components in domestic and international produce marketing chains; and promotion
of relevant, high priority research.
Pesticide Residues. In cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency, FDA determines which pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides
may be used on fruit and vegetable crops, and what chemical residue levels will pose
the least risk to human health at normal consumption rates. FDA regulations impose
the same standards on countries that export produce to the United States, and the
agency is responsible for inspecting imports for safety.
Since 1991, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has administered a
cooperative federal-state residue testing program whose intent is to collect data on
residual pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and growth regulators in over
50 different commodities, including fresh/frozen/canned fruits and vegetables, and
fruit juices, among other things. The pesticides and commodities to be tested each
year are chosen based on EPA data needs, and on information about the types and
amounts foods consumed, in particular, by infants and children. The Pesticide Data
Program (PDP) collects fresh fruit and vegetable specimens (domestic and imported)
at more than 600 sites in 10 states. The sites are close to point of final sale, so that
the data are representative of exposure in the U.S. diet. In FY2002, more than 10,000
produce samples were tested under the program.
37FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Produce Safety from Production to
Consumption: 2004 Action Plan to Minimize Foodborne Illness Associated with Fresh
Produce Consumption. October 2004. Available at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov].
3866 FR 6138 (December 19, 2001, final rule); 68 FR 16541 (April 4, 2003, compliance
guide).

---

CRS-23
Department of Labor
Guest Workers.39 Since World War I, Congress has allowed the temporary
immigration of foreign workers (generally referred to as guest workers) to perform
agricultural labor of a seasonal nature if enough U.S. workers cannot be found. This
policy has been of particular importance to produce growers in California and the
Pacific Northwest.
The Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Homeland Security, and
the Department of State are involved in administering the system generally referred
to as the H-2A program (after the name of the authorizing section in the Immigration
and Naturalization Act of 1952; (Sec.101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)). Employers must
demonstrate to DOL that sufficient domestic workers are not available and that
employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect U.S. workers who are
similarly employed. The Department of Homeland Security handles the visa
determinations, and a Department of State foreign office issues the visas.40
Farmworker Assistance Programs. DOL administers a number of
programs intended to benefit domestic agricultural workers, whose lives tend to be
characterized by poverty, frequent moving, and chronic unemployment and
underemployment. Since 1964, DOL has conducted a National Farmworker Jobs
Program to provide job training and employment assistance, in order to increase the
income and stability of farmworker families. Under the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), DOL also is responsible
for monitoring farm labor contractors and the wages, working, and housing
arrangements of migrant and seasonal laborers, among other things. DOL’s
Occupational Safety and Health Administration administers workplace and field
safety and sanitation requirements. Additionally, there are special provisions for the
education of farmworkers’ children under the No Child Left Behind Act (Department
of Education).41
39Readers particularly interested in issues related to guest workers can find much more
detailed information in the following CRS reports: RL32044, Immigration: Policy
Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs; CRS Report RL30395, Farm Labor
Shortages and Immigration Policy; and CRS Report RL32169, Immigration Legislation and
Issues in the 108th Congress.
40The Department of Labor’s Employment Law Guide for Temporary Agricultural Workers
is available at [http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/guide/taw.htm].
41See CRS Report RL31325, The Federal Migrant Education Program as Amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

---