The Fruit Growers News

I want to commend you on the constructive and challenging editorial which appeared in your March issue (“Michigan Apple Committee needs to find the cheese”).

I expect that your article has helped to facilitate an important discussion which should be occurring now among Michigan’s apple growers. That discussion should revolve around the importance of working together with other apple-producing states to solve the biggest problems facing our industry today.
I served as chairman of U.S. Apple Association’s (USApple) Ways and Means Task Force that developed this funding proposal which asked the state and regional apple programs to increase their voluntary payments to USApple. Mark Arney was a contributing member of that task force, as were representatives from all of the major apple-producing states.

I served in a similar capacity in 1988 when all of the apple states, including Michigan, agreed to increase their payments to what was then called the International Apple Institute (IAI) from three-tenths of a cent per bushel to four cents per bushel. That increase made it possible for the IAI to take a more active role in Washington in dealing with a multitude of national and international issues, from pesticide regulation to promoting international trade. It also decreased the chance that the industry would lose hundreds of millions of dollars again because it was not adequately prepared to deal with an issue like Alar.

As apple growers know too well, the pressures on our industry have increased in recent years. But USApple has worked hard on behalf of the nation’s growers and has produced some dramatic results. It initiated and secured funding for a difficult legal case to limit the dumping of low-priced Chinese concentrate into our markets. It played a key role in securing $138 million in market loss assistance and crop damage assistance for beleaguered growers. It has developed a high level of influence with the USDA and the EPA and with Congress. It has secured funding for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional government purchases of fresh apples and processed apple products. And it has done all of this with an annual budget which is smaller than that of the Michigan Apple Committee.

When the new funding proposal was brought before our Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board in November, it was approved unanimously and enthusiastically. In December I was invited to New York to answer questions about the proposal for the New York Apple Association board. I was gratified to find that the proposal had overwhelming support there as well. I contacted Tom Erwin of the Michigan Apple Committee to ask if I could be present to answer questions about the proposal for the Michigan board members in February, but I was told that Michigan growers were already well informed about the proposal and that my presence wasn’t necessary.

I believe that Michigan growers are better informed about the proposal today, due in no small part to your editorial. I hope that the growers of Michigan will now weigh in and convince the Michigan Apple Committee to reconsider its decision. I can’t emphasize enough how important this is to thousands of growers outside of Michigan. This funding proposal, if approved, would represent the first increase in state assessments since 1989. The increase from four mils to eight mils when it becomes fully phased in over the next four years will represent an increase of approximately 4 1/2% per year since the last increase was approved. And it represents a smaller burden on growers than the one cent per bushel USDA-administered program which the Michigan Apple Committee proposed at last year’s USApple board meeting.

We are currently in a very critical period for the U.S. apple industry. We are about to enter into historic discussions about government assistance to growers. These include: the 2002 farm bill, the regulatory effects of the FQPA, labor reform legislation, the potential of directing millions of dollars of government funds to promoting consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, and the possible entry of fresh apples from China into the American market. These are issues which cannot be adequately addressed on a state-by-state basis. We need a united voice for our industry in our nation’s capital in order to be effective. And we need Michigan to be part of that united voice.

I sincerely hope that the new Michigan board will approve the USApple proposal when it meets again this year and join its fellow apple states in working to improve the economic condition of our industry.



		Michigan Should Get on Board to Help Unite Apple Industry I want to commend you on the constructive and challenging editorial which appeared in your March issue (“Michigan Apple Committee needs to find the cheese”). I expect that your article has helped to facilitate an important discussion which should be occurring now among Michigan’s apple growers. That discussion should revolve around the importance of working together with other apple-producing states to solve the biggest problems facing our industry today. I served as chairman of U.S. Apple Association’s (USApple) Ways and Means Task Force that developed this funding proposal which asked the state and regional apple programs to increase their voluntary payments to USApple. Mark Arney was a contributing member of that task force, as were representatives from all of the major apple-producing states. I served in a similar capacity in 1988 when all of the apple states, including Michigan, agreed to increase their payments to what was then called the International Apple Institute (IAI) from three-tenths of a cent per bushel to four cents per bushel. That increase made it possible for the IAI to take a more active role in Washington in dealing with a multitude of national and international issues, from pesticide regulation to promoting international trade. It also decreased the chance that the industry would lose hundreds of millions of dollars again because it was not adequately prepared to deal with an issue like Alar. As apple growers know too well, the pressures on our industry have increased in recent years. But USApple has worked hard on behalf of the nation’s growers and has produced some dramatic results. It initiated and secured funding for a difficult legal case to limit the dumping of low-priced Chinese concentrate into our markets. It played a key role in securing $138 million in market loss assistance and crop damage assistance for beleaguered growers. It has developed a high level of influence with the USDA and the EPA and with Congress. It has secured funding for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional government purchases of fresh apples and processed apple products. And it has done all of this with an annual budget which is smaller than that of the Michigan Apple Committee. When the new funding proposal was brought before our Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board in November, it was approved unanimously and enthusiastically. In December I was invited to New York to answer questions about the proposal for the New York Apple Association board. I was gratified to find that the proposal had overwhelming support there as well. I contacted Tom Erwin of the Michigan Apple Committee to ask if I could be present to answer questions about the proposal for the Michigan board members in February, but I was told that Michigan growers were already well informed about the proposal and that my presence wasn’t necessary. I believe that Michigan growers are better informed about the proposal today, due in no small part to your editorial. I hope that the growers of Michigan will now weigh in and convince the Michigan Apple Committee to reconsider its decision. I can’t emphasize enough how important this is to thousands of growers outside of Michigan. This funding proposal, if approved, would represent the first increase in state assessments since 1989. The increase from four mils to eight mils when it becomes fully phased in over the next four years will represent an increase of approximately 4 1/2% per year since the last increase was approved. And it represents a smaller burden on growers than the one cent per bushel USDA-administered program which the Michigan Apple Committee proposed at last year’s USApple board meeting. We are currently in a very critical period for the U.S. apple industry. We are about to enter into historic discussions about government assistance to growers. These include: the 2002 farm bill, the regulatory effects of the FQPA, labor reform legislation, the potential of directing millions of dollars of government funds to promoting consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, and the possible entry of fresh apples from China into the American market. These are issues which cannot be adequately addressed on a state-by-state basis. We need a united voice for our industry in our nation’s capital in order to be effective. And we need Michigan to be part of that united voice. I sincerely hope that the new Michigan board will approve the USApple proposal when it meets again this year and join its fellow apple states in working to improve the economic condition of our industry. John Rice Rice Fruit Company Gardners, Pennsylvania

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