The Fruit Growers News

This letter is in response to your editorial on page 63 of the March 2001 issue of The Fruit Growers News. First let me start off by saying that you are right that the apple industry is at a crossroads. Should we as Michigan fruit growers send an additional $100,000 (based on present crop average and an eventual doubling of the dues) every year from our existing budget to USApple for its proposed increase? Or should we use that money to help promote our own Michigan apples? These were the major questions our board was faced with at the Feb. 13, 2001 Michigan Apple Committee (MAC) meeting.

USApple proposes using part of the increase to enhance national public relations activities. MAC has never objected to a strong national PR effort, as I will elaborate on later in this letter.

USApple wishes to also use a part of the increase to enhance its government affairs activities. I am not arguing that this is a very important endeavor, but by law the MAC cannot use its money it sends to USApple for that purpose.

USApple wants part of the increase for a stepped up crisis communications program. When a major crisis develops, it has been suggested that USApple tap its large reserve ($943,145.00 as of Jan. 31, 2001) for that purpose.

In your editorial, you said that state programs rejected the national promotional program because they “felt threatened that a new organization might put them out of business.” Nothing could be further from the truth in Michigan, as MAC offered USApple a viable alternative to the national promotional concept. When it was obvious that a national apple-advertising program calling for 15 cents per bushel would not fly, the Michigan Apple Committee proposed a one-cent per bushel national public relations program. Unlike the current dues structure at USApple, which is all voluntary, the MAC proposal would have called for a mandated program, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USApple rejected this proposal.

Your editorial was very good in pointing out all the positive things that USApple has done in the last year, but let’s talk about this. The Chinese juice dumping case, $138 million for assistance to all apple growers in the United States, saving Lorsban, slowing down the banning of OP’s and carbamates, and getting the word out about apples and their health benefits to women’s magazines. You of all people being the editor of The Fruit Growers News should not be blind to the fact that many individual fruit farmers, Farm Bureau, universities, state departments of agriculture, shipper associations, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the U.S. Minor Crop Alliance, to name a few, all had a hand in these issues. However, USApple is the only entity that you gave credit to for these accomplishments.

Your statement that we in Michigan need to work together and have discussion groups like Washington state does puzzle me. The Michigan Apple Strategic Task Force has been around for years, being formed to help address issues affecting the livelihood of Michigan apple growers. I am also chairman of this group and recently wrote a letter of support in an effort to seek $500 million in market loss assistance for apple growers. As a USApple trustee, I have encouraged USApple to work with American Farm Bureau to find a common ground in seeking these federal dollars for our growers. You told your readers that MAC staff “floated innuendoes about how poor a job USApple is doing.” Isn’t it ironic that, in the lead story of the same issue of your paper, Mark Arney, secretary/manager of MAC, was quoted on page 6 as saying “they (USApple) have done a lot of good things for our growers…” and “I support and feel that the board supports the MISSION of the U.S. Apple Association (USApple)”?

The statement that the proposed USApple increase was “A NO BRAINER” leads me to believe that your vision may be tainted or clouded. The issue of the increase was first brought to the MAC meeting on Dec. 7, 2000 in Grand Rapids. USApple President Kraig Naasz presented the increase to the MAC board and after some discussion the item was left to the next meeting for further action. This time was necessary so that board members could talk to other growers in the state. I also want to point out that the opportunity for Mr. Naasz to talk about the increase to a wider Michigan apple audience was given to him, as he was the speaker for the Monday night meeting.

The next meeting (Feb. 13, 2001) of the MAC board took place and all other topics on the agenda were quickly done so that we would have time for the USAppple increase to be discussed. The meeting room was full as you stated and all parties were given a chance to speak including yourself. The discussion lasted 2 1/2 hours before a motion was made. Yes, the shippers that were there did support the idea but didn’t want the funds to come from our budget at the expense of advertisement and promotional dollars that are needed just to get the crop sold. The board member from the largest growing area, and the area that tends to produce the most tonnage said that of the 50 some growers he had talked to that only a few wanted the increase, and the rest said NO MORE MONEY TO USApple. Let us not forget that MAC has and continues to support USApple under the current dues structure to the tune of nearly $100,000 per year.

The increase was not killed on “TRICKY PROCEDURAL MOVE,” but on a point of law that could not be brought out until a motion was made. Simply stated that this seated board cannot commit funds for the boards that are yet to come. This point of the LAW was later confirmed by the Michigan Attorney General and was again stated to you by Dan Wyant, director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture.

The letter that was sent to USApple by me stated that the votes to get the increase passed were never there in the first place.

There were questions after this if some way could be found to fund the USApple increase in other ways, and a committee was formed that night and it is presently working on exploring many avenues. “WHO MOVED THE CHEESE” is the book that you referred to in the story. The reference was that MAC was HEM and that we always went back to the same place. Who here is being HEM: the USApple group or the MAC board? We as a MAC board have found grants and other ways to fund other things after all the budget is set, yet USApple refuses to look at other ways of funding that MAC and others have suggested. It seems to come back to the same CHEESE all the time: the STATES.

Michigan is not the only state to say no as Virginia also has not approved the increase. The chairman of the Virginia Apple Association, who is also the chairman of USApple, can’t even convince his own board that sending the increase to USApple will help them. Maybe, just maybe HEM (USApple) needs to find a new piece of cheese to chew from.

The last point that is to be made is that in Michigan the voice of the individual grower counts and their voice is listened to.



		Michigan Apple Committee Says the Support is Not There for USApple Increase This letter is in response to your editorial on page 63 of the March 2001 issue of The Fruit Growers News. First let me start off by saying that you are right that the apple industry is at a crossroads. Should we as Michigan fruit growers send an additional $100,000 (based on present crop average and an eventual doubling of the dues) every year from our existing budget to USApple for its proposed increase? Or should we use that money to help promote our own Michigan apples? These were the major questions our board was faced with at the Feb. 13, 2001 Michigan Apple Committee (MAC) meeting. USApple proposes using part of the increase to enhance national public relations activities. MAC has never objected to a strong national PR effort, as I will elaborate on later in this letter. USApple wishes to also use a part of the increase to enhance its government affairs activities. I am not arguing that this is a very important endeavor, but by law the MAC cannot use its money it sends to USApple for that purpose. USApple wants part of the increase for a stepped up crisis communications program. When a major crisis develops, it has been suggested that USApple tap its large reserve ($943,145.00 as of Jan. 31, 2001) for that purpose. In your editorial, you said that state programs rejected the national promotional program because they “felt threatened that a new organization might put them out of business.” Nothing could be further from the truth in Michigan, as MAC offered USApple a viable alternative to the national promotional concept. When it was obvious that a national apple-advertising program calling for 15 cents per bushel would not fly, the Michigan Apple Committee proposed a one-cent per bushel national public relations program. Unlike the current dues structure at USApple, which is all voluntary, the MAC proposal would have called for a mandated program, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USApple rejected this proposal. Your editorial was very good in pointing out all the positive things that USApple has done in the last year, but let’s talk about this. The Chinese juice dumping case, $138 million for assistance to all apple growers in the United States, saving Lorsban, slowing down the banning of OP’s and carbamates, and getting the word out about apples and their health benefits to women’s magazines. You of all people being the editor of The Fruit Growers News should not be blind to the fact that many individual fruit farmers, Farm Bureau, universities, state departments of agriculture, shipper associations, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the U.S. Minor Crop Alliance, to name a few, all had a hand in these issues. However, USApple is the only entity that you gave credit to for these accomplishments. Your statement that we in Michigan need to work together and have discussion groups like Washington state does puzzle me. The Michigan Apple Strategic Task Force has been around for years, being formed to help address issues affecting the livelihood of Michigan apple growers. I am also chairman of this group and recently wrote a letter of support in an effort to seek $500 million in market loss assistance for apple growers. As a USApple trustee, I have encouraged USApple to work with American Farm Bureau to find a common ground in seeking these federal dollars for our growers. You told your readers that MAC staff “floated innuendoes about how poor a job USApple is doing.” Isn’t it ironic that, in the lead story of the same issue of your paper, Mark Arney, secretary/manager of MAC, was quoted on page 6 as saying “they (USApple) have done a lot of good things for our growers…” and “I support and feel that the board supports the MISSION of the U.S. Apple Association (USApple)”? The statement that the proposed USApple increase was “A NO BRAINER” leads me to believe that your vision may be tainted or clouded. The issue of the increase was first brought to the MAC meeting on Dec. 7, 2000 in Grand Rapids. USApple President Kraig Naasz presented the increase to the MAC board and after some discussion the item was left to the next meeting for further action. This time was necessary so that board members could talk to other growers in the state. I also want to point out that the opportunity for Mr. Naasz to talk about the increase to a wider Michigan apple audience was given to him, as he was the speaker for the Monday night meeting. The next meeting (Feb. 13, 2001) of the MAC board took place and all other topics on the agenda were quickly done so that we would have time for the USAppple increase to be discussed. The meeting room was full as you stated and all parties were given a chance to speak including yourself. The discussion lasted 2 1/2 hours before a motion was made. Yes, the shippers that were there did support the idea but didn’t want the funds to come from our budget at the expense of advertisement and promotional dollars that are needed just to get the crop sold. The board member from the largest growing area, and the area that tends to produce the most tonnage said that of the 50 some growers he had talked to that only a few wanted the increase, and the rest said NO MORE MONEY TO USApple. Let us not forget that MAC has and continues to support USApple under the current dues structure to the tune of nearly $100,000 per year. The increase was not killed on “TRICKY PROCEDURAL MOVE,” but on a point of law that could not be brought out until a motion was made. Simply stated that this seated board cannot commit funds for the boards that are yet to come. This point of the LAW was later confirmed by the Michigan Attorney General and was again stated to you by Dan Wyant, director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture. The letter that was sent to USApple by me stated that the votes to get the increase passed were never there in the first place. There were questions after this if some way could be found to fund the USApple increase in other ways, and a committee was formed that night and it is presently working on exploring many avenues. “WHO MOVED THE CHEESE” is the book that you referred to in the story. The reference was that MAC was HEM and that we always went back to the same place. Who here is being HEM: the USApple group or the MAC board? We as a MAC board have found grants and other ways to fund other things after all the budget is set, yet USApple refuses to look at other ways of funding that MAC and others have suggested. It seems to come back to the same CHEESE all the time: the STATES. Michigan is not the only state to say no as Virginia also has not approved the increase. The chairman of the Virginia Apple Association, who is also the chairman of USApple, can’t even convince his own board that sending the increase to USApple will help them. Maybe, just maybe HEM (USApple) needs to find a new piece of cheese to chew from. The last point that is to be made is that in Michigan the voice of the individual grower counts and their voice is listened to. Tom Erwin Chairman, Michigan Apple Committee USApple Trustee

Copyright 2001 Great American Publishing The Fruit Growers News 343 South Union Street - PO Box 128 - Sparta, MI 49345 Phone 616-887-9008 - Fax 616-887-2666 - email All Rights Reserved