The National Pork Producers Council won a numberof important victories for pork producers in 2016. “

“

NPPC’s significant successes last year:

• Fought GIPSA Rule.

• Developed Farm Fire Code.

• Laid Groundwork For FMD Vaccine Bank.

• Opposed Organic LivestockProduction Rule.

• Defended Pork. The Other White Meat Sale.

• Passed Uniform Food Labeling Bill.

• Backed Antibiotic ResistanceRecommendations.

• Convinced Dock Workers, Port Owners To Begin Early Contract Talks.

• Gained Market Access To SouthAfrica.

• Helped Develop International GuidanceOn PreventingSalmonella InPork.

• Argued AgainstWaters of theUnited States Rule.

Working with members of Congress, executive branch officials, representativesof foreign nations and other agricultureindustry groups, NPPC advanced proposalsbeneficial to the U.S. pork industry andhelped stop ones that would have beendetrimental to pork producers.

The organization – and dozens of its producer members – made hundreds ofvisits to congressional offices to educate

lawmakers and their staff on impor-tant pork industry issues. NPPC alsoattended dozens of political fund-raisers and coalition meetings; held

briefings for lawmakers on criticalmatters, including the antibiotics issue;

and generally made producers’ voicesheard on important issues affecting thepork industry through testimony, com-ments and letters.

While the U.S. pork industry will facemany legislative and regulatory chal-

lenges in the coming year, NPPC againwill work to protect the livelihoods ofAmerica’s pork producers.

U.S. Pork Industry’s 2016 Successes

Year In Review

Success is no accident. It is hard work, perseverance, learning,studying, sacrifice and most of all, love of what you are doingor learning to do.

“ “

Neil DierksNPPC CEO

John WeberNPPC President

National Office10676 Justin Drive

Urbandale, IA 50322p: (515) 278-8012f: (515) 278-8014

www.nppc.org

Washington Public Policy Center

122 C Street, N.W., Suite 875Washington, D.C. 20001

p: (202) 347-3600f: (202) 347-5265

Board of DirectorsOfficers

PresidentJohn Weber - Dysart, IA

President-ElectKen Maschhoff - Carlyle, IL

Vice PresidentJim Heimerl, Johnstown, OH

Board MembersKent Bang - Omaha, NE

Cory Bollum - Austin, MNPhil Borgic - Nokomis, IL

Jim Compart - Nicollet, MNDavid Herring - Lillington, NC

Bill Kessler - Mexico, MODale Reicks - Lawler, IA

Howard (AV) Roth - Wauzeka, WIJen Sorenson, Ankeny, IA

Kraig Westerbeek - Warsaw, NCTerry Wolters - Pipestone, MN

Chief Executive OfficerNeil Dierks - Urbandale, IA

Past PresidentsDr. Ron Prestage - Camden, SCDr. Howard Hill - Cambridge, IARandy Spronk - Edgerton, MN

RC Hunt - Wilson, NCDoug Wolf - Lancaster, WI

Sam Carney - Adair, IADon Butler - Clinton, NC

Bryan Black - Canal Winchester, OHJill Appell - Altona, IL

Joy Philippi - Bruning, NEDon Buhl - Tyler, MN

Keith Berry - Green Castle, IN

2 nppc.org •  February-March 2017

Last year was a challenging onefor the U.S. pork industry, bothin terms of making money – as is typical – and advancing itspublic-policy priorities. Gettingthings done in Washington was alittle difficult in 2016 given it was apresidential election year.

As happens every year, the NPPC staff inDes Moines and Washington, D.C., alongwith state association and producer lead-ers, spent thousands of hours working onyour behalf, working to protect your liveli-hood. That work included traveling thou-sands of miles to visit farms throughoutthe country and talking with producers,attending meetings to develop industrypositions, meeting with retailer and foodservice executives to discuss issues, lobby-ing members of Congress and executivebranch officials, participating in dozens ofpolicy meetings as part of various coali-tions and working with representatives offoreign nations and other agricultural in-dustry groups. NPPC testified before con-gressional committees four times duringthe year.

All of those efforts helped advance propos-als beneficial to the U.S. pork industry,stop ones that would have been detrimen-tal to pork producers and communicate tothe public, policymakers and the pressU.S. pork producers’ priorities.

Through those efforts and your support,

we were able to secure several victories for producers, includingon stopping the imposition ofstringent water-quality standards

in the Mississippi River Basin, onsetting up a Foot-and-Mouth Dis-

ease vaccine bank, on fighting the con-troversial Waters of the United States Ruleand on opening South Africa’s market toU.S. pork exports.

Also in 2016, we continued to communicatewith and to educate companies through-out the pork chain about the pork industry’scommitment to continuous improvementand to the ethical principles embodied inthe industry’s We Care program, which af-firm that producers do the right things ontheir farms every day.

Additionally, NPPC reached out to law-makers whose views represent the inter-ests of U.S. pork producers, supportingthem in their re-election bids. Our politi-cal action committee, PorkPAC, was verysuccessful in the 2016 elections. (See thestory on Page 3.)

Much of what we accomplished in 2016laid the groundwork for what we hope willbe many successes in 2017. And with hardwork, perseverance, sacrifice and a love forwhat you are doing – working with youranimals, giving back to your communitiesand producing the safest, most wholesomefood in the world – we will have many suc-cesses in the coming year.

~– Legendary soccer player Pele

A Successful Year For Producers

Social Media Continues To Play Important Role For NPPC

NPPC continued to utilize social media as an effective tool to quicklycommunicate information, with 2016 being a very successful socialmedia year for the organization.

“ “

The political action commit-tee of the National Pork Pro-ducers Council, PorkPAC,had a tremendous successrate in 2016, with 98 percentof the candidates to whom itcontributed winning theirNovember election.

PorkPAC disbursed nearly$427,000 over the two-yearelection cycle, supporting 26Democrat and 68 Republi-can candidates in 29 states;91 of those 94 candidateswon their races.

PorkPAC was created in1986 to educate and supportcandidates at the federallevel whose views representthe interests of pork produc-ers, processors and the U.S.pork industry. It allowsNPPC members concernedwith the future of the porkindustry to contribute toworthy candidates for con-gressional office.

PORKPAC HAS SUCCESSFUL 2016

Social Media

For more informationcall NPPC’s PorkPAC, (202) 347-3600.

NPPC’S FOLLOWERSThe organization also saw anincrease in followers on Twitter,from 6,500 to nearly 9,000.

A major accomplish for theyear was the dramatic increasein NPPC’s follower networks.NPPC’s audience grew signifi-cantly on Facebook, from17,000 to more than 55,000,through low-cost strategic advertising campaigns.

The new followers helped increase NPPC’s engagementrates and spread its messageacross new territory.

NPPC used its social medianetwork, for example, to generate opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’snew animal welfare standardsfor the National Organic Pro-gram. Using compelling and informative graphics and mes-saging, popular Facebook andTwitter posts reached more than40,000 social media users. Thecampaign helped generate2,565 comments to USDA.

ONLINE ADVERTISING

Another highlight of the year was a September “Pass the Pork”tour for 10 prominent food andlifestyle bloggers. NPPC teamedwith the National Pork Board andthe Minnesota Pork ProducersAssociation to give the bloggers a closer look at the pork industryfrom farm to plate. The influen-tial bloggers, with a com-bined reach of more than882,000 followers, earned atotal number of almost 2 mil-lion impressions from a com-bination of Facebook, Twitter,Instagram and blogs.

PASS THE PORK

In addition to social media, NPPC utilized online advertising as a way to advocate on behalf of the U.S. pork industry. It sponsored the popular “Morning Trade” newsletter from Politico, for example, to push out its message on trade, gaining 33,250 impressions and almost 800 link clicks.

FelfiesFarmer selfies,dubbed "felfies," are quick internet favorites. It’s no wonder: Who can resist industriousfarmers sharing their stories and posing with cute animals?

{

“Like” NPPC on Facebook -

www.facebook.com/nationalporkproducerscouncil

Follow on Twitter at -

https://twitter.com/NPPC

3February-March 2017  •  nppc.org

2016 U.S. Pork Industry Victories

In 2016, the National Pork Producers Council was able to secure anumber of victories for pork producers. Here are some of the wins in theAgriculture & Industry area:

4 nppc.org •  February-March 2017

“

GIPSA RULENPPC raised in congressionaltestimony and in lobbying vis-its with lawmakers concerns

about the USDA Grain Inspec-tion, Packers and StockyardsAdministration reproposingparts of a regulation related tothe buying and selling of live-stock, known as the GIPSARule, which first was proposedin 2010 to implement provi-sions included in the 2008Farm Bill.

While USDA in late December

issued an interim final rule tobroaden the scope of the Pack-ers and Stockyards Act (PSA)

of 1921 – one of threeregulations in theFarmer Fair PracticesRules – NPPC’s oppo-sition helped promptthe new Trump ad-ministration to placea hold on the regulationand others still in therulemaking process.

The interim final GIPSA ruledeems “unfair, unjustly discrim-inatory or deceptive practices”and “undue or unreasonablepreferences or advantages” per se violations (meaning inherently illegal) of the PSAeven if such actions didn’tharm competition or causecompetitive injury, prerequi-sites for winning PSA cases.

An update of a study commis-sioned by NPPC and conductedby Informa Economics of the

with the majority of the costsrelated to PSA lawsuits broughtunder the interim final rule’selimination of the harm tocompetition requirement.

Last year, NPPC urged lawmak-ers through the fiscal 2017spending measure to prohibitUSDA from finalizing theFarmer Fair Practices Rulesand to approve stand-alonelegislation or add language tothe next Farm Bill that wouldstop the agency from issuingsimilar regulations in the future.

NPPC also made sure thatthe USDA rule implement-ing new provisions of theLivestock Mandatory PriceReporting law works forpork producers.

The organization submittedcomments on the regulationon a new negotiated formulapurchase category, whichprovides market partici-pants with more specific in-formation about buyer andseller interactions and bet-ter represents the market inwhich producers function.The rule also requires inclu-sion of late-day hog pur-chases in the following day’sreports, which better repre-sents the subsequent day’smarket conditions and in-creases the volume of bar-rows and gilts shown indaily morning and after-noon purchase reports.

MANDATORY PRICEREPORTING RULE

“NPPC also weighedin on legislation related to the onlineand electronic buyingand selling of live-stock, supporting the Clarification of

Treatment of Electronic Sales of Livestock Act of2016, which Congress approved in late September.

The measure clarifies that the Packers and

Stockyards Act requirements apply to any per-son engaged in buying and selling livestock incommerce through online, video or otherelectronic methods.

Additionally, the law specifies that fundsfor purchasing livestock may be transferredto the account of a seller by electronic fundstransfer such as ACH – an electronic networkfor financial transactions – to meet promptpayment requirements.

ONLINE, ELECTRONIC BUYING, SELLING OF LIVESTOCK

Agriculture & Industry

proposed 2010 GIPSA Rule

found it would cost today’spork industry more than

$420 millionannually

5February-March 2017  •  nppc.org

PORK. THE OTHER WHITE MEAT

NPPC last year kept pressureon the U.S. Department ofAgriculture to defend the pur-chase by the National PorkBoard from NPPC of the Pork.The Other White Meat® trade-marked assets.

NPPC financed the purchaseover 20 years, making the PorkBoard’s annual payment $3million. The purchase was ap-proved by USDA, which over-sees the federal Pork Checkoffprogram administered by thePork Board.

The Humane Society of theUnited States, a lone Iowafarmer and the Iowa Citizensfor Community Improvementin 2012 filed a lawsuit against

USDA, seeking to have thesale rescinded.

Initially, USDA defended thepurchase, and the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissedthe HSUS lawsuit for lack ofstanding. A federal appealscourt in August 2015 rein-stated the suit, sending it backto the district court. But be-fore any court proceedings onthe merits of the suit, USDAentered into settlement talkswith HSUS.

Last year, NPPC stepped in,demanding that the agricul-ture department fight the law-suit. In March, at the NationalPork Industry Forum (NPPC’sannual meeting), producerdelegates unanimous ap-proved a resolution calling onUSDA to defend the PorkBoard’s purchase of the trade-marks.

NPPC then petitioned the dis-trict court to join the case,

a motion that was granted inMay.After determiningthrough a valuation study thatthe trademarks today areworth between $113 millionand $132 million, USDA inApril again agreed to defendthe sale. (It recently filed a mo-tion, asking the district courtto dismiss the HSUS lawsuit.)

The case could be decided in 2017.

Stopping efforts by the Humane Society of theUnited States (HSUS) to im-pose animal welfare languageto them, NPPC in 2016 de-veloped a comprehensivemodel building fire code forlivestock farms, which itsubmitted to the NationalFire Protection Association.

The NFPA is a standard-setting organization, and its uniform codes and stan-dards are widely utilized bystate and local governmentsto set building and fire codes,by insurance companies asminimum standards tomaintain coverage and byinternational organizations.

HSUS in 2012 convinced the NFPA to amend its stan-dards for animal housing facilities to require firesprinkler systems in newlyconstructed and some exist-ing facilities. The revisedfire code also included ani-mal welfare standards suchas sizes for animal pens.

NPPC filed a successful appeal to the revisions,which would have coveredall barns and any other facilities where animals are kept or confined. The organization in 2013 secured

a seat on the NFPA’s Ani-mal Housing Technical

Committee, working to develop a practicalfire code for livestockoperations.

FARM FIRE CODE

SHIPPING CONTAINER WEIGHT REPORTINGAs part of the AgricultureTransportation Coalition,NPPC offered a common senseway for shippers to meet newinternational container weightrequirements, an approachlargely adopted by the U.S.Federal Maritime Commission(FMC) in late June.

The FMC approved the PortOperations and Safety Discus-sion Agreement, which allowssix operating port authoritieslocated on the U.S. Atlantic andGulf coasts to take the weightof a container determined at aterminal gate and report it toan ocean carrier.

The agreement gives shippersa flexible approach to meetingU.N. International Maritime

Organization (IMO) require-ments for determining con-tainer weights that took effectJuly 1. The IMO amended theSafety of Life at Sea protocolsto require that the weight of aloaded container – the Veri-fied Gross Mass (VGM) – besubmitted to shippers.

The World Shipping Counciland the Ocean Carrier Equip-ment Management Associa-tion issued a method ofcomplying with the protocolsin which an employee of a U.S.exporting company, includinga farmer or food processor,would be liable for certifyingthe weight of an ocean car-rier’s container, calculating theVGM and sending that certifi-

cation to the ocean carrier.

The Agri-cultureTransporta-tion Coali-tionproposed a“RationalMethod” tomeet the re-quirementsin which exporterswould pro-vide cargo weights to carriers,which, in turn, would add theweight of their containers todetermine the VGM and sub-mit that weight to the marineterminal prior to containersbeing loaded on ships.

Agriculture & Industry

NPPC sold to the Pork Board in 2006

The Other WhiteMeat® slogan and

pork chop logo

for approximately

$35 million

In the science and technology area, the National Pork Producers Councilin 2016 was involved in a number of issues affecting pork producers,including ones dealing with protecting pigs from diseases and rules on

organic production, food labeling and trichinae control.

“

NPPC helped secure con-gressional approval of legislation requiring foodcompanies to label productscontaining genetically mod-ified organisms (GMO) andworked to exempt porkproducts from it. The meas-ure pre-empts a patchworkof state labeling laws.

Food companies must identify products that con-tain GMO ingredients, usingone of three options:

Meat and dairy products, as well as foods that containmostly meat, from animalsthat are fed GMO feed areexempt from the labeling requirement.

NPPC was part of the Coali-tion for Safe Affordable Food,a group of 1,065 food andfarm companies and organ-izations, that backed thelabeling bill.

“

Science & Technology

NPPC Backed FMD Vaccine Bank, GMO Labeling, Swine Fever Vaccine;Fought Organic Animal Welfare Rule

6 nppc.org •  February-March 2017

USDA-developed symbol

On-package labels12

QR (Quick Response)code consumers can scan with smart phones,providing a phone num-ber or website with more information.

3Citing the seriousness of thedisease and the devastation itcould cause the U.S. livestockindustry, NPPC last year urgedcongressional lawmakers tomake dealing with an outbreakof Foot-and-Mouth Disease(FMD) a priority. The organi-zation testified on the topic before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture.

While FMD rarely infects humans and isn’t a food safetyissue, an outbreak in NorthAmerica, which currently isfree of it, could negatively affect meat exports and domestic meat sales.

To deal with any foreign ani-mal disease outbreak, the U.S.pork industry has been work-ing with the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture on a “SecurePork Supply” plan, whichwould enhance coordinationand communication among

producers and federal,state and local govern-ment officials, supportcontinuity of opera-tions for producers and accelerate diseaseresponse. Part of thatresponse would be vaccinating susceptible animals.

But, NPPC pointed out in its testimony, USDA’sAnimal and Plant Health In-spection Service (APHIS)doesn’t have enough vaccineor the ability to obtain it to adequately deal with an FMDoutbreak. It asked lawmakersto include in the next Farm Bill

– hearings on whichbegin in 2017 – languagerequesting that APHIScontract for an offshoreFMD vaccine bank thatwould provide vaccineantigen concentrate forall FMD strains currentlycirculating in the worldand for production capacity that would pro-

duce in the shortest amount of time the millions of vaccinedoses needed to respond to amedium- or largescale out-break.

U.S. law prohibits live FMDvirus from being on the U.S.

mainland, so APHIS contractswith foreign vaccine productioncompanies to produce finishedvaccine from the antigen storedat Plum Island Animal DiseaseCenter, off the coast of Long Island, N.Y. But only a limitednumber of FMD strains arecovered by the antigen storedat Plum Island, and under cur-rent production contracts,

NPPC also asked Congressto provide the authorityand mandatory fundingto address the criticalvulnerability inUSDA’s ability to protect the U.S. live-stock industry.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

2.5 milliondoses of vaccine

produced within three weeks of an outbreak

would fall short.

FMDFMD is a foreign animaldisease thatcan affect allcloven-hoofedanimals, in-cluding pigs,cattle andsheep.

GMO LABELING BILL

NPPC continued to weigh in on ways to combat antibiotic-resistantbacteria, backing recommendationsissued last year by the PresidentialAdvisory Council on CombattingAntibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

(PACCARB).

The advisory council sug-gested that federal agencies

involved in the effort to ad-dress antibiotic resistance take

a number of steps, including embrac-ing a “One Health” approach thatlooks at the resistance issue from ahuman, animal and environmentalprospective; improving coordinationand collaboration among agencies;establishing partnerships with statesand local agencies, tribes, private-sector organizations, commoditygroups, philanthropic organizationsand international bodies; providingeconomic incentives for developingand deploying new diagnostic, pre-

ventive and therapeutic tools to fightdiseases; and committing sufficient resources to addressthe resistance problem.

In a March report,PACCARB looked atfederal governmentefforts to implementa national actionplan to address an-tibiotic resistance,finding that goodprogress had beenmade, including establishing programs for requiring antibiotic stewardship in inpatient and long-term care settings; setting up a public-private partnership to supportand accelerate clinical development ofdrugs, vaccines and diagnostics; and implementing the Veterinary Feed Directive rule related to feed and wateruses of antibiotics for food animals.

CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER VACCINENPPC convinced USDA’s Ani-mal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS) to authorize, underpermit, importation of a vaccine forClassical Swine Fever (CSF) and livepestivirus, which is usedto make the vaccine.

APHIS approved ship-ment of the vaccine fordistribution and sale foremergency use in the United Statesafter findings from an environ-mental assessment of it found nonegative effects on human healthor the environment.

CSF, or hog cholera, is a highly con-tagious disease of pigs. It is endemicin much of Asia, Central and SouthAmerica and parts of Europe andAfrica. CSF was eradicated in theUnited States by 1978, but the foreignanimal disease still poses a risk to theU.S. pork industry.

NPPC voiced its strong opposi-tion to a U.S. Department ofAgriculture rule – issued late in the year – that added animalwelfare standards to the nationalorganic program. The regula-tion presents serious chal-lenges to livestock producers,said NPPC.

The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 limited its cover-age of livestock to feeding and medication practices.

The rule’s requirements on outdoor access, bedding androoting behavior, for example, are in conflict with best man-

agement practices used to pre-vent swine diseases that pose

a threat to animal andhuman health and with

other tenants of organicproduction such as en-vironmental steward-ship. (In early 2017,the regulation wasput on hold by the

Trump adminis-tration.)

In comments submitted to USDA in July, the organizationpointed out a number of problems with the Organic Livestockand Poultry Practices Rule, including:

Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule Concerns

Execution –animal handlingpractices are nota defining char-

acteristic of organic agri-culture and are notgermane to the NationalOrganic Program as author-ized by Congress.

Cost – the live-stock practiceswill be costly – ifeven practicable –

to implement for currentorganic producers and bea barrier to new produc-ers entering organic pro-duction, without makingthe resulting productsmore organic.

Perception –consumer misconceptionabout the intent

of the National Organic Pro-gram and the meaning of itslabel is not a valid rationalefor expanding the programto encompass animal welfare.

Viability – the rule presents significant chal-lenges to the maintenance and promotion ofpublic and animal health.

Complexity –animal welfareis complex anddynamic; deci-

sions about animal careshould be science basedand carefully consideredby each producer.

Science & Technology

“Organic”pertains to foodsproduced without

synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically

modified organisms orgrowth hormones.

7February-March 2017  •  nppc.org

ORGANIC LIVESTOCK REGULATION

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

NPPC Worked To Increase U.S. Pork Exports

Given the rhetoric of last year’s presidential race, advancing its tradeagenda in 2016 was difficult for the National Pork Producers Coun-cil. Still, the organization got some victories and laid the ground-

work for increasing trade under a new White House administration. Hereare some of last year’s trade successes for U.S. pork producers:

“ “

TRADE TESTIMONYAlthough the 12-nationTrans-Pacific Partnershipagreement, which was final-ized in late 2015, did not geta vote in Congress last year– and recently was aban-doned by the Trump admin-istration – NPPC continuedto extol the significant bene-fits of trade agreements tothe U.S. pork industry.

The organization in Maytestified before the HouseCommittee on Ways &Means Trade Subcommitteeon the importance of open-ing and expanding marketsto U.S. pork exports.

In its testimony to the Ways& Means subcommittee,NPPC made it clear that theUnited States cannot affordto stand idle while othercountries negotiate tradedeals that could givethem an advantage overU.S. exports.

NPPC participated as amember of the U.S. delega-tion on pertinent committeesof the U.N.’s Codex Alimen-tarius Commission,the internationalfood-safety standards-settingbody, which last yearadopted new guidelinesfor controlling non-ty-phoidal Salmonella in beefand pork and for controllingfoodborne parasites.

The guidelines focus onpractices, from primary production to processing, to prevent, reduce or elimi-nate Salmonella and food-borne parasites.

CONTROLLING SALMONELLA, PARASITESGUIDELINES

NPPC took a number of actionslast year to ensure that the na-tion’s shipping ports wouldcontinue to operate efficiently.

In January 2016, the organiza-tion joined more than 50 agri-cultural and business groupsin urging the U.S. Departmentof Transportation’s Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS)to develop key performanceindicators for shipping ports,including metrics on activitiesat shipping berths and withinmarine terminal yards.

Under the Port PerformanceStatistics Program, whichNPPC supported and whichwas included in a fiscal 2016

transportation law, BTS wasrequired to establish a workinggroup of private- and public-sector participants to developa set of metrics on port marineterminal productivity, usingthe results as an early warningsystem for determining whenports stop operating normallyand for when the federal gov-ernment needs to step in toprotect the economy.

U.S. agricultural and businessexporters suffered significanteconomic losses because of the late 2014-early 2015 workslowdowns at West Coast ports.

NPPC and other members of an ad hoc transportationcoalition also discussed withthe Federal Maritime Commis-sion efforts to prevent conges-tion and disruptions at ports, including ways to improve efficiency, logistics and mecha-nization at port facilities.

SHIPPING PORTS

International Trade

More than

80%of U.S. pork exports

are sent to their destinations by ship.

U.S. Pork Industryexported nearly

$6 billionof product last year to more than 100

countries.

8 nppc.org •  February-March 2017

SOUTH AFRICANPPC was the leading voice in urging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative(USTR) to pressure SouthAfrica to lift a de facto ban on U.S. pork. The country announced in February 2016that it would begin acceptingsome U.S. pork.

The United States now canship to South Africa a varietyof raw, frozen pork, includingbellies, hams, loins, ribs andshoulders, for unrestricted sale and other pork for furtherprocessing.

South Africa’s ban on U.S.pork ostensibly was to preventthe spread of Porcine Repro-ductive and Respiratory Syn-drome (PRRS) to SouthAfrican livestock even thoughthe risk of disease transmis-sion from U.S. pork products

was negligible. There is nodocumented scientific case of PRRS being transmitted to domestic livestock throughimported pork.

Pretoria also claimed it hadconcerns about pseudorabiesand trichinae.

NPPC urged USTR to sus-pend the trade benefits –duty-free access for productsexported to the United States– South Africa receivesthrough the African Growthand Opportunity Act.

South Africa is the thirdlargest beneficiary of AGOA,shipping more than $1.7 bil-lion in goods to the UnitedStates under the program in2014. The country also takesadvantage of the U.S. General-ized System of Preferences to

ex-portanother$1.3 billionto the UnitedStates duty-free – the fifthlargest beneficiaryglobally of that pro-gram.

The South African gov-ernment announced that itwould lift its ban on U.S. porkafter the Obama administra-tion threatened to withdrawits AGOA benefits.

NPPC and other agriculturaland business organizationsrepresenting exporters lastyear urged dock workersand port owners to begincontract renewal talks wellbefore their agreement expires.

The International Long-shore and Warehouse Union(ILWU), which representsdock workers at 29 WestCoast ports, and the PacificMaritime Association(PMA), which representsWest Coast port facilitiesowners, in late Septemberagreed to discuss a contractextension.

The PMA and ILWU signeda five-year contract in early2015 – retroactive to July 1,2014 – after protractedlabor talks and a nearlyfour-month work slowdownthat negatively affected U.S.exporters.

NPPC and 112 other tradeassociations in March 2016sent a letter to the ILWUand the PMA, urging themto begin early discussions

on a contract extension ora new contract. The cur-rent contract between

the ILWU and thePMA expires

July 1, 2019.

DOCK WORKERS, PORT OWNERS CONTRACT TALKS

VIETNAM MRLS FOR VETERINARY DRUGS

After reviewing commentsfrom NPPC and other meat in-dustry organizations, the Viet-nam Food Administration(VFA) in November publishedrevised maximum residuelimits (MRLs) for veterinarydrug imports. The U.S. De-partment of Agriculture andthe Office of the U.S. TradeRepresentative also weighed inon the issue.

Vietnam initially proposed es-tablishing zero-toleranceMRLs for 40 substances, in-cluding ractopamine in beefand pork.

The country’s request to banractopamine was particularlyconfounding, said NPPC, giventhat it has been accepting im-ports of pork and pork prod-ucts fed ractopamine – andother veterinary drugs used in

pork production – since 2013.The feed additive improvesweight gain, feed efficiencyand carcass leanness in pigs and is widelyused in U.S. porkproduction.

Ractopamine wastested and approved bythe U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and theCodex Alimentarius Commis-sion, the U.N.’s internationalstandard-setting organization,in July 2012 endorsed thesafety of the product in live-stock production. Additionally,it is approved for use in hogsby 26 other countries, and another 75 countries allow forthe importation of pork fromhogs fed ractopamine eventhough it cannot be fed totheir domestic herds.

International Trade

The U.S. meat and poultry sectors lost an estimated

$40 millionper week

during the slowdown.The VFA’s recentrevised proposal:

Removes the other 28compounds, including the six that were of greatest concern to the United States.

Reduces to 12 the number of compoundsproposed with zero-tolerance MRL levels.

1

2

Sets the import toleranceMRL for compounds withan established Codex MRL at that level.

3

NPPC continues to work for complete access to

South Africa’s Marketof consumers numbering

more than

50 million

9February-March 2017  •  nppc.org

Victories Won On Farm Data Release, CAFO, Clean Water Act Cases

The National Pork Producers Council in 2016 continued to protect U.S.pork producers from federal regulatory overreach and from effortsby third parties to coerce the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

to impose more regulations on farms. The organization won a number ofvictories in the environment area.

10 nppc.org •  February-March 2017

“ “

FARM DATA RELEASE

NPPC scored a victory in Sep-tember when a federal appealscourt overturned a lower courtdecision to throw out a lawsuitbrought by the organization

and the American Farm Bu-reau Federation against theU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency over the agency’s re-lease to environmental groupsof personal information ontens of thousands of farmers.

In late 2015, a U.S. DistrictCourt dismissed the NPPC-Farm Bureau suit for lack ofstanding. But the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the 8th Circuit inSt. Louis reinstated it.

The case stems from the Feb-ruary 2013 release by EPA’sOffice of Water to several ac-tivist groups, which filed aFreedom of Information Act

(FOIA) request, of extensiveprivate and personal informa-tion the agency had collectedon farmers in 29 states. (EPAgathered the information de-

spite being forced in2012 to drop a proposeddata reporting rule forlarge farms because ofconcerns about the pri-vacy and biosecurity offamily farms.)

In July 2014, NPPC andthe Farm Bureau filedsuit against EPA in theU.S. District Court for

the District of Minnesota,seeking injunctive relief. Whilethe court dismissed the law-suit, it did grant the groups aprotective order to prevent re-lease of any farm informationwhile the case was on appeal.

In its unanimous ruling rein-stating the case, the 8th Circuitdetermined that EPA “abusedits discretion in deciding thatthe information at issue was notexempt from mandatory dis-closure under Exemption 6[personal privacy interests] of FOIA.” NPPC and the FarmBureau presented argumentson the merits of their lawsuit tothe court of appeals late last year.

Also in September, a U.S.District Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Humane Society of theUnited States and other activist groups against theU.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, alleging theagency would not regulateconfined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

The groups requested in2009 that EPA begin rule-making under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate air emissions from CAFOs.The U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia Circuit threw out the casebecause the plaintiffs didn’tgive EPA 180-days’ notice oftheir intent to sue, which isrequired by the CAA.

In 2006, nearly 1,900 porkproducers and other live-stock and poultry farmersentered into a series oflegally binding consentagreements with EPA, settlingwhat the agency believedwere issues with air emis-sions associated with live-stock production.

Part of the agreements was a study of emissions fromfarms. Purdue Universityconducted the study andgave the data to EPA, whichhas been reviewing it andworking to develop a toolproducers can use to esti-mate air emissions. But thatprocess was impeded by thesame activist groups thatbrought the lawsuit when theyopposed efforts by the live-stock industry to help set upa science advisory panel ofexperts in animal systems to assist with EPA’s effort.

CAFO REGULATION

Environment & Energy

ALPHABET SOUP

AGOA - African Growth andOpportunity Act.

APHIS - Animal and PlantHealth InspectionService

BTS - Bureau of TransportationStatistics

CAA - Clean Air Act CAFO - Confined Animal

Feeding OperationCSF - Classical Swine FeverEPA - Environmental Protection

AgencyFMC - Federal Maritime

Commission FMD - Foot-and-Mouth

DiseaseFOIA - Freedom of Information

Act GIPSA - Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stock-yards Administration

GMO - Genetically Modified Organisms

HSUS - Humane Society of the United States

IMO - International MaritimeOrganization

NFPA - National Fire ProtectionAssociation.

NPPC - National Pork Producers Council

PACCARB - Presidential Advisory Councilon Combatting Antibiotic-ResistantBacteria

PRRS - Porcine Reproductiveand Respiratory Syndrome

PSA - Packers & Stockyards Act TMDL - Total Maximum

Daily LoadUSTR - U.S. Trade

Representative VFA - Vietnam Food

Administration USDA - U.S. Department of

AgricultureVGM - Verified Gross MassQR - Quick Response code

win!Quick reference guide to goverment speak:

win!

11February-March 2017  •  nppc.org

CLEAN WATER RULE

In a big victory for agriculture,a federal court in Decemberdismissed a lawsuit by envi-ronmental activists that wouldhave forced the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency toimpose stringent nutrientstandards on farmers in theMississippi River Basin. NPPCintervened in the case.

Environmental groups peti-tioned EPA to impose regula-tions on the amount ofnitrogen and phosphorous thatcould be in waters in the basin.The Clean Water Act assignsresponsibility for such pollu-tion control to the states. EPA

promulgated a regulation setting Total Maximum DailyLoads (TMDLs) for the Chesapeake Bay and its 64,000-square-mile watershed, regu-lating mostly farm andagricultural storm waterrunoff. NPPC, the AmericanFarm Bureau Federation andother agricultural groups andbusiness organizations chal-lenged the regulation in fed-eral court, but it was upheld.

EPA declined the environmen-talists’ request for a similarregulation for the MississippiRiver Basin, and the environ-mental groups sued the agency.

The U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Louisianadisagreed with the groups’ arguments and granted EPA’smotion to dismiss the case.NPPC organized and led a

Environment & Energy

win!

The Mississippi River Basindrains nearly

2 millionsquare miles in 31 states

WATERS OF THE U.S. RULEwin!In its ongoing fight over theWaters of the United States(WOTUS) rule, NPPC anddozens of other agriculturalorganizations, businesses andmunicipalities in 2016 pre-sented to a federal court theirarguments for throwing outthe regulation, which wouldgive the government broad ju-risdiction over land and water.

WOTUS, which took effect inAugust 2015, was proposed bythe U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to clarifythe agencies’ authority overvarious waters. That jurisdic-tion – based on several U.S.Supreme Court decisions –had included “navigable” waters and waters with a sig-nificant hydrologic connectionto navigable waters. But the

regulation broadened that toinclude, among other water bodies, upstream waters andintermittent and ephemeralstreams such as the kind farm-ers use for drainage and irriga-tion. It also covered landsadjacent to such waters.

In early November, NPPC andthe other groups argued beforethe U.S. Court of Appeals forthe 6th Circuit in Cincinnatithat: EPA and the Corps of Engineers promulgated theWOTUS rule without followingfederal rulemaking procedures;the regulation is arbitrary andcapricious or contrary to law;and the agencies exceededtheir authority under theClean Water Act and the U.S.Constitution.

In their brief to the court, theorganizations also said the

agencies failed to reopen thepublic comment period aftermaking fundamental changesto the proposed rule and with-held until after the commentperiod closed the scientific re-port on which the rule rested.The agencies also refused toconduct required economicand environmental analyses,engaged in a propaganda cam-paign to promote the rule andrebuke its critics and illegallylobbied against congressionalefforts to stop implementationof the rule.

The appeals court recentlygranted a motion from NPPCand the other agricultural or-ganizations, businesses andmunicipalities to hold inabeyance its decision on theWOTUS lawsuit until the U.S.Supreme Court rules on a

jurisdictionalissue related tothe case. Thehigh court willdecide whetherauthority restswith the fed-eral district orappellatecourts to hearthe lawsuit overthe regulation.

The 6th Circuitin October 2015issued a stay onimplementa-tion of the reg-ulation until disposition ofnumerous lawsuits, which thecourt subsequently consoli-dated under its jurisdiction.NPPC and the other groupshave argued the suits shouldbe heard by district courts.

coalition of 44 state and national agricultural groupsthat intervened in the litiga-tion to defend EPA’s denial of the rulemaking petition and to prevent a backroom,sweetheart “sue-and-settle”agreement between the Obamaadministration and environ-mentalists such as the kindthat led to the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs regulation.

INSIDE

FEBR

UARY

-MAR

CH 2

017

2016 Successes . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2NPPC Social Media. . . . . . . . . . 3PorkPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Agriculture & Industry . . . . . 4-5Science & Technology . . . . . 6-7International Trade . . . . . . . . 8-9Environment & Energy . . 10-11