The Future of Agriculture Commission released their Action Plan earlier this month (click here) that identifies priority strategies for the Governor to leverage the Farm to Plate strategic plan for the Vermont food system. Highlights include: support for institutional local purchasing, investments to realize a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program, valuing apprenticeship programs and further boosting programs like the Working Lands Enterprise Program and the Farm and Forest Viability Program. Another focus will be advancing so-called “climate smart” agriculture strategies. Rural Vermont will monitor and advocate for solutions that foster resilient, bioregional food systems; food sovereignty and farm viability; and which are inclusive of agroecological approaches rather than trends such as market based solutions, consolidation and industrialization.
Rural Vermont provided testimony (watch recording below) today with Peter Blair from CLF for the Protect Our Soils Coalition in support of H. 501 - a bill that aims to protect our soils from microplastics by regulating depackaging technology and avoiding the land application of slurries and digestates derived from this technology. Depackaging involves mechanically separating food residuals from their packaging through crushing, grinding and screening, which is much more likely to contaminate composts with micro and nano plastics than the preferred practice of source separation.
From the testimony:
"It is Rural Vermont’s goal to secure pathways for clean streams of food residuals that may be composted on farms and either land applied or sold as soil amendments to enhance soil quality with valuable composts. We do not need scientific proof that commingling, crushing, and grinding packaged and unpackaged food residuals together create a greater likelihood of composts being contaminated with micro and nano plastics. We also don’t need to wait until we experience harm to the environment through human health effects that can not be compensated anymore in the future. We urge the legislature now to address the unregulated consolidation of waste streams of food residuals that prevents their use at highest and best use, including their decentralized diversion for agricultural use and the consumption by animals."
February marks the month leading up to the so-called “crossover” deadline - by town meeting week a bill needs to be passed from one chamber over to the other in order to have a realistic chance to make it through the legislative session in time to become law. Rural Vermont advocates for more equitable cannabis markets, clean streams of food residuals free of microplastics and keeps you up to date on bans of neonicotinoids, improvements to BIPOC land access, dairy, protecting farmers from poor workmanship from utility companies and much more. Reach out to info@ruralvermont.org with your policy inquiries and if you’d like to support this work.
Speak Up For Farms!
Contact legislators from the agricultural committees with your concerns & join Rural Vermont and NOFA-VT for Small Farm Action Days!
Rural Vermont Policy Priorities
Plastic Residues in Compost
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 282, An act relating to the regulation of food depackaging facilities - Rural Vermont is in support of this bill that addresses the current unregulated expansion of the consolidation of food residual management and the increased soil contamination with microplastics.
H. 501, An act relating to physical contaminant standards for residual waste, digestate, and soil amendments - The Protect Our Soils Coalition, that RV is part of, is informing the work on this bill with expressed concerns and suggestions for improvement (read more below).
What has happened so far?
Read this recent The Guardian article on Microplastics damage Human Cells
Recording SAG hearing 1-11-22 (watch recording here) on depackaging machines and microplastics in compost. Lawmakers expressed frustration about how little the problem has been investigated while contamination has been allowed to occur.
The Protect Our Soils Coalition is working to uphold the original intent of the Universal Recycling Law and is aiming to protect our soils while preventing pollution of composted food scraps with microplastics, as well as the incarceration of recyclable materials. Watch the coalitions hearing on April 28, 2021 with Professor Deborah Neher, Professor of Plant and Soil Science at UVM here.
H. 501, introduced by Vice Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee (Rep. McCullough) would set a contamination standard.
Most recently Senator Bray, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, made a motion to introduce S.282 with the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee that would establish a moratorium on permitting depackaging facilities until the Agency of Natural Resources completed rulemaking on the same. Natasha Duarte of the Compost Association of Vermont (CAV) testified to the House Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife committee on H.501 with the recommendation of a strike all amendment - suggesting to replace the language of H.501 with S.282. Rural Vermont supports CAV’s concern that the contamination standard of H.501 leaves unclear how to test for the contamination level as there currently is no standard for that. The bill also doesn’t clarify who would be liable for any contamination and who would pay for the tests. The Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets will launch rulemaking on Soil Amendments soon, following their mandate to regulate composts from food residuals now that farmers can compost up to 2,000cy of the same per year. Tom Gilbert from Black Dirt Farm made recommendations that could advance the draft of S.282 to also include pursuing source separation more vigorously:
To be clear: Food residuals, as already currently defined, must be source separated from non-compostable materials at the point of generation and managed in a manner consistent with the priorities listed in the food residuals management hierarchy. Meaning that mixing food residuals with packaged organics does not satisfy the source separation requirement and automatically precludes the materials from being utilized by any of the higher priority options on the hierarchy, like composting for example.
Haulers in this state make an effort to ensure source separation and thus avoid hauling contaminated food
ANR must ensure that recyclable materials are being recycled and not being landfilled or incinerated as a result of depack.
Depackaging only of highly homogenous materials, until there’s a better understanding of the pollution potential from mixed loads.
Tom also emphasized the social and ecological interdependence and consequences that would occur from a continued contamination of ag soils with microplastics -pointing to the recent PFAS contamination case at Song Bird Organic Farm in Maine suggesting: “While we don’t have the full picture of potential risks associated with microplastics, we have enough insight to know it’s worth taking preventative action.” Watch the full testimony from last Friday, 2/4/22, in House Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife here. This precautionary approach suggests not to wait for further scientific information about substantial evidence of environmental and human health effects before taking steps to avoid soil contamination and to implement the Universal Recycling Laws source separation requirement as intended.
Sign the Petition by February 15th and Join the Protect Our Soils Coalitions call on the Legislature to protect and prioritize the separation of food scraps from packaging while preventing the incineration and landfilling of recyclable plastic packaging. This will create a stable market for operators, ensuring good resource stewardship and that these resources be used to build healthy soils and support local food systems. Sign here.
Webinar on UVM research on the state of microplastic pollution of compost here
Rural Vermont factsheet for farmers interested in composting food residuals here
Ongoing On-Farm Slaughter Issues
No formal bills at this time
The matter of on-farm slaughter restrictions has seen some movement in the past few weeks as Rural Vermont continues to put pressure on the relevant agencies, committees, and offices. First, we received a number of complaints from farmers and consumers as a response to our Call to Action, which also landed in the inbox of Julie Boisvert, Chief of Meat Inspection. Rural Vermont had the opportunity to share a summary of these complaints to the Senate Committee on Agriculture on January 27 where, upon hearing testimony from Rural Vermont, committee members supported the idea of writing a letter to VAAFM and/or USDA FSIS stating that the Vermont statute 6 V.S.A. § 3311a called the On-Farm Slaughter law will be enforced as written until the new restrictions can be provided in writing and point to their enabling statute, which has not been seen yet.
That same week, Senate Agriculture discussed the on-farm slaughter restrictions in a separate meeting where some committee members expressed agreement that the restrictions pose real challenges to the practicality of the law. Legislative Counsel Michael O’Grady in particular shared a “troubling” anecdote about a family farm affected by the restrictions. In this meeting, Senate Agriculture committee members also discussed the “murky” definition of what FSIS considers “involvement” or “participation” in slaughter.
Because of the dual state and federal nature of this issue, Rural Vermont also solicited the involvement of Senator Sanders and Senator Leahy’s offices. RV met with staffers from Vermont’s federal delegation in late January to discuss the issues as they pertain to the USDA FSIS, which spurred the federal delegation to then meet with FSIS leadership. In their February 3 testimony before the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture & Forestry, the federal delegation relayed that their meeting with FSIS did not yield much clarity on owner involvement in slaughter, but FSIS did reinforce their desire for a “direct correlation” between animal and owner through the slaughter process. The federal delegation did indicate that they have turned their attention to the State Audit Division of FSIS, which is the arm of FSIS that determines a state’s “equal-to” status, with the belief that their communication with VAAFM may be where the problem lies. House Agriculture Chair Carolyn Partridge (D, Windham-3) made clear the need to resolve the on-farm slaughter issue as quickly as possible.
Want to get involved?
In addition to provoking action among public officials and staffers, Rural Vermont also wants to involve our grassroots network. Rural Vermont will be convening an on-farm slaughter stakeholder group that will meet once a month to discuss progress on the issue and strategize next steps with input from stakeholders. Our meetings will take place via Zoom on the second Wednesday of the month. If you are interested in joining our stakeholder group, please email our Legislative Intern at elena@ruralvermont.org.
Payment For Ecosystem Services
Relevant bills?
Legislation for a PES program proposal is currently being developed by the Payment for Ecosystem Services working group. Read VAAFMs interim report (Read Feb 2022 interim report here) on the PES WG progress here, including all relevant links to meeting recordings and supplemental documents. A final report is due on January 15, 2023 (see Act 47, 2021, p. 8). Speak Up and provide Public Comment during one of the PES working group meetings! Register for their next meetings, which are every other Tuesday @ noon, online here.
Attention! If you want to get involved in the PES program development - consider joining our Small Farmer Group that meets in between PES WG meetings to discuss ideas on how to engage best. Next meeting of the Small Farmer Group is February 16, 2pm (email catduffybuxton@gmail.com). Read here the most recent programmatic proposals from Vermont farmers for PES program development.
Cannabis
See THIS BLOG POST for the latest update.
Bills we’re tracking out of interest or support are:
Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies causing Animal Welfare issues
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 166 - An act relating to utility construction worksites and consumer protection
What has happened so far?
Last fall, two farms in Tunbridge Vermont experienced significant harm to their animals due to remains that (subcontractors) from utility companies have left behind
S. 166 would require rules to ensure a standard of care related to construction worksite cleanup to hold companies accountable
Senate Judiciary took testimony from the affected farmers (watch their testimony here).
Rural Vermont supports this initiative to prevent harm from poor workmanship of utility companies in the future
Good news! The Senate Judiciary committee heard a bunch more testimony (Senate Judiciary hearings on S.166 from 2/08/22) on the bill onTuesday and expressed their support of Draft 3.1 of the amended S.166 by voting the bill out of committee to the Senate Finance Committee unanimously. While voting in favor, Sen. Joe Benning criticized the short scope of the pole types that included only distribution lines and not also transmission lines in the new protections for livestock and (land-) owners from left behind hazardous materials.
Neonics, and Pesticides
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 626 - An act relating to the sale, use, or application of neonicotinoid pesticides
What has happened so far?
The House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry continued to hear testimony from beekeepers (see Charles Mraz’s very compelling testimony), agricultural technical service providers (see Heather Darby’s important testimony), industry (Syngenta, Seed Dealers, etc.), ecologists and bird experts, and the Agency of Agriculture. The bill, as written, would charge AAFM to amend the pesticides rules related to the use of neonic “treated articles” (largely seeds), and includes a complete prohibition on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides should the Secretary fail to adopt such rules by July 1, 2024. The Agency of Agriculture is asking for the Committee to let the Agricultural Innovation Board take this on, and address this in the Pesticide Rule rewrite also happening now; suggesting it needs to do VT specific studies, and more in order to determine how to move forward. Rural VT is in conversation with NOFA VT and many environmental organizations, citizen advocates, and farmers - and Graham will be testifying this coming week in House Agriculture on this bill. We will provide testimony saying the following: the Pollinator Protection Committee was convened by the Legislature many years ago and made the recommendations in this bill - we do not need more research to understand the impacts of these substances and their negative impacts on farms (and lack of effectiveness as prophylactic on farms using them in regions like ours); the Agency’s draft Pesticide Rule rewrite does not even address treated seeds; we need the legislature to set a deadline for phasing out the use of treated seeds (evidenced by the lack of follow through by VAAFM despite their authority), allowing enough time and support for the Agriculture Innovation Board, the Agency of Ag, technical service providers, and farmers to find affordable untreated seed and to develop (and train folks in) an IPM management protocol which would facilitate monitoring for pests in order to be approved for variances to apply treated seed, or alternative pest control options. We cannot continue to use these substances prophylactically, we cannot continue to use substances which threaten other farms and the environment, and we need a just transition for farmers using these seeds.
BIPOC Land Access and Opportunities
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership
What has happened so far?
Now is the time for advocates to move and pass this important bill that was introduced last year
H. 273 reconciles with wealth disparities in home and land ownership of BIPOC Vermonters that have been historically marginalized by creating a fund.
The Housing Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs heard from the coalition Seeding Power including (not exhaustive) Ashley Laporte, Every Town organizers Kenya Lazuli (NEFOC) and Mindy Blank, Steffen Gillon from the Windham County NAACP and Rep. Brian Cina of Burlington. Watch the hearing here.
The House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs considered last week to integrate the BIPOC land access fund into the working lands enterprise fund and took testimonials from AAFM staff and NOFA-VT. As crossover deadline is approaching, Rural Vermont wants to see the bill moved soon but misses any announcement of H.273 on this week's committee agenda (which could notably change any moment).
Reach out to committee members to express your support of the bill with a brief message: “I’m in support of H. 273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership - because …. (your message). Please vote in support of the bill.”
Did you know?
Between 1920 and 1997, the number of African Americans who farmed decreased by 98 percent, while white Americans who farmed declined by 66 percent OR at the time of World War I there were 1 million black farmers, and in 1992 there were 18,000
In Pigford v. Glickman 1997, thousands of black farming families won settlements against the USDA for discrimination between 1981 and 1996; with outlays over $2 billion
TIAA is a pension company originally set up for teachers and professors and people in the nonprofit world. Investment in farmland has proved troublesome for TIAA in Mississippi and elsewhere. “In Tunica County, where TIAA has acquired plantations from some of the oldest farm-owning white families in the state, black people make up 77 percent of the population but own only 6 percent of the farmland.”
Rural Vermont is part of the National Family Farm Coalition raising awareness about funds like TIAA impacts small farmers land access.
Read More in The Great Land Robbery - The shameful story of how 1 million black families have been ripped from their farms, by Vann R. Newkirk II, theatlantic.com, September 2019 Issue.
Right to Farm
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 268 - An act relating to the right to farm
What has happened so far?
While waiting for the current committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, to take action, the Senate Committee on Agriculture already did a walk through of the bill that was proposed by two of the committee members (Sen. Parent and Sen. Starr, watch recording here). Legislative Council Michael O’Grady explained early February that most if not all states in the U.S. have a right to farm law with the intent to protect farms that have been in operation from lawsuits from neighbors. Usually the farm has to meet certain conditions, like being engaged in agricultural activities or in existence for a specific amount of years prior to the neighbors property ownership. The right to farm laws don’t prevent neighbors from filing lawsuits but simply how courts respond to the lawsuit - their ruling in favor of farms in response to a nuisance claim. He further explained that VT’s current right to farm law is fairly different from those in other states by including a rebuttable presumption that a farm is in accordance with the law. S. 268 would implement a standard more similar to states like Arkansas, Michigan, Oregon, and others - without a rebuttable presumption. Legislators gauged the need to adjust Vermont's nuisance lawsuit protection by asking for how many related lawsuits have been filed in recent years - with the legislative council stating that it doesn’t seem like there have been any Vermont cases. That said - it remains unclear if legislators will prioritize the formal adjustment to secure greater protection from nuisance lawsuits for Vermont farmers.
Read more about the Proposed change in Right to Farm law would limit nuisance suits against Vermont farms in VTDigger from Feb 6 2022 here.
Forestry Related Legislation
Current Use Program Amendments to Include Forever Forests
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 697 - An act relating to eligibility of reserve forestland for enrollment in the Use Value Appraisal Program
What has happened so far?
The House Ways and Means Committee will pick up this bill to include two new categories of tax incentives for landowners to leave forever forests in Vermont's Current Use Appraisal Program this Wednesday, February 9th at 1:15pm (see the agenda with the link for live streaming here). The bill defines the new Current Use categories as follows:
“Ecologically significant treatment areas” means lands within a parcel of managed forestland that will be managed using protective or conservation management strategies and are not required to be managed for timber, including old forests; State-significant natural communities; rare, threatened, and endangered species; riparian areas; forested wetlands; and vernal pools.
“Reserve forestland” means land that is managed for the purpose of attaining old forest values and functions in accordance with minimum acceptable standards for forest management and as approved by the Commissioner.
The findings of the bill ground the initiative in the limited eligibility and enrollment to lands that are actively managed for timber and related forest products. Points to Climate change causing significant negative ecologic and economic impacts including challenges that threaten forest health, working forests, and ecological functions. Following the goal to mitigate and adapt to Climate Change through a diversity of forest management strategies the bill now aims to include forests that exhibit old forest characteristics and that can provide unique contributions to biodiversity, improve climate resilience and adaptive capacity of Vermont’s working landscape, and serve as ecological benchmarks in Vermont's Current Use Program. The bill language acknowledges that currently only less than one percent of Vermont’s forestland show old forest characteristics with potential to grow - given the Current Use Value Appraisal program covering nearly 80 percent of Vermont’s forests through privately owned forestland.
Read more about the bill in the recent VTDigger article Bill proposes expanding Current Use program to include some wild forests from January 25, 2022 here.
Rural Vermont supports farmer activist Stephen Leslie in speaking up on behalf of soil health in the States various ambitions to measure soil health and also suggests to measure the soil health status in comparison to old growth forests, stating recently publicly:
“It is estimated that VT has lost 1/2 of its soil since the era of the 1810 Merino sheep boom. If we take as our measure the health of agricultural and forest lands nationally, VT does indeed look good. And we can recognize all the great work that has been done, especially over the last 20 years to reduce phosphorus pollution and promote soil health and sustainable working lands. But soil health nationally is not a good measure---it is in catastrophic condition. Nationally, soil loss is estimated to continue apace at 4 tons per acre per year (5 tons in IA)---that's the equivalent of a pickup truck of soil leaving every acre every year. Nationally, SOM in ag soils is 1% or less----even on the great plains, where Mollisol soils were typically 9%-12%.
My supposition is that we should not use national comparisons to determine the health of our baseline, but rather look back to what this region was like pre-European settlement.
If the heavily farmed rich alluvial clay and silt loam soils of the Champlain basin are now at 4-5%---imagine what they would have been when they were under the cover of the clayplain ancient old growth forests of white oak and pine? Forests that evolved over a period of 12,000 years in the wake of retreating glaciers (and where recent findings suggest the ancestors of the Abenaki were already present hunting mega-fauna). Though many of our soils are rocky, they were not poor and thin. Early VT settlers reported bumper yields from their cleared fields, far exceeding what they had experienced farming the already worn-out soils of southern New England. For a time prior to westward expansion, the Champlain Valley was known as the "bread basket of the Republic".
We should take the soil health of the ancient old growth forests as the baseline measure for soil health in our region (emphasis added). That means understanding the ecology of ancient old growth forests, where deep soil carbon accrued through centuries. That legacy is the carbon bank we are still farming on. If we consider how the soil health principles are exemplified in an intact old growth forest system, and then mimic those functions in our land management practices, then we have before us a tremendous opportunity to heal and regenerate our land---and to respond in a most powerful and meaningful way to the challenges of a changing climate.” (Stephen Leslie, Cedar Mountain Farm/ Cobb Hill Cheese, Hartland Vermont via email to the Vermont Soil Health Policy Network on January 21, 2022)
Forest Future Program
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H.566, An act relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program
In the past several weeks, the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture & Forestry has heard testimony from a variety of stakeholders and experts about H.566, An act relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program. H.566 will require the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund to “strengthen, promote, and protect the forest products industry in Vermont” by creating a Vermont Forest Future Action Plan in collaboration with the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation.
The bill as written seeks to encourage “sustainable economic development” and includes language pertaining to climate change mitigation and “sustainable and responsible forest management practices.” Most recently on February 1, House Agriculture & Forestry heard from two forest industry professionals, one of whom provided the committee with insight on how a similar action plan rolled out in Maine to support their timber industry in the wake of several paper mills closing in rapid succession. The witnesses expressed optimism about the potential for Vermont’s forest products industry while emphasizing the need for stakeholder groups to have a seat at the table for all those who have interests in Vermont’s forests, with Rep. Vicki Strong (R, Orleans-Caledonia) and committee Chair Carolyn Patridge (D, Windham-3) echoing that need. As of February 9, H.566 still sits in House Agriculture & Forestry.
Environmental Justice Bill
S.148 - An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont
S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont, seeks to establish solutions for the problem of unequal exposure to environmental hazards between certain groups in Vermont–as Elena Mihaly, Vice President of the Conservation Law Fund, noted in her February 3 testimony before the Vermont Senate Committee on Natural Resources, BIPOC and low income Vermonters tend to face more of those hazards and the benefits intended to remediate those hazards than white Vermonters. The passage of S.148 would put into motion five specific tools: an environmental justice mapping tool for the Agency of Natural Resources, community engagement plans, guidance on how government agencies can assess total environmental impacts, an inventory of where state funds have been invested in the past, and an environmental justice advisory council. In the first two weeks of February, Senate Natural Resources will finish editing and complete the markup phase of the bill, anticipating that it will be voted out of the committee by the end of the month.
RAP Amendment Bill Update
S. 258 - An act relating to amending the Required Agricultural Practices in order to address climate resiliency
What has happened so far?
S. 258 has been a conversation starter for legislators in response to environmental groups issuing a letter to use the upcoming RAP revision to also assess how far the rule is fit to mitigate agricultural practices in facing the changing climate. Senators from the agricultural committee heard from VAAFM about how they currently see the current RAPs as being already relevant for climate mitigation. Since then the bill has not been moved - possibly a sign that legislators look to rulemaking at this point. Rural Vermont is preparing for the revision process and discussing the RAPs internally as well as with other organizations.
Want to get involved?
Join the monthly meetings of the Vermont Soil Health Policy Network where a diversity of stakeholders shares about their work in the field and consults about policy proposals, contact caroline@ruralvermont.org. This week Abbie Corse shared insights about the Climate Action Plan and gave a passionate testimony of the need to think intersectional and link environmental programs with farm viability goals as farmers lack healthcare, childcare, retirement plans and other social benefits.
To protect farmers who organize on-farm slaughter, as well as the integrity of the VT on-farm slaughter law and the work done for over a decade through the democratic process to create it, Senator Starr (Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture) suggested on Thursday the 27th to repeal the registration requirement in Vermont law and his and the committee’s willingness to pursue writing a letter to FSIS and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture in support of VT’s on-farm slaughter law and community, asking for both entities to produce written justifications for their actions and interpretations of law, and until doing so to cease and desist their communications and enforcement thereof.
Rural VT also met with representatives of Sen. Sanders and Sen. Leahy’s offices. The representatives expressed understanding and support, and are going to reach out to FSIS to understand more about its communications to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets (given that VAAFM has not produced written communications from FSIS) and its position and report back.
Rural Vermont reported on Thursday (1/27) (watch recording here) to the Senate Agriculture Committee about our communities’ complaints about the new requirement that the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM) announced on Jan 6, 2022 via email to registrants for on-farm slaughter that: “USDA has reinforced the requirements in all states, including Vermont, that in order to qualify for the personal exemption, the owner(s) of the animal has to conduct the slaughter and/or be present if they hire an itinerant slaughterer.” Read AAFM's response to the complaints about the new restrictions here.
VAAFM publicly also announced that farmers wouldn’t be allowed to hire itinerant slaughterers (VAAFM Virtual Forum, Q&A, and presentation) and Steven Collier (General Council, VAAFM) stated in testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry this week that farmers wouldn’t be allowed to take carcasses to custom butcher shops on behalf of the owners of the carcass (watch the recording here). It is our opinion that none of this is grounded in law - and it is extremely problematic that VAAFM continues to introduce new interpretations of the law while refusing to offer written guidance to practitioners or justification for its interpretations. We can not trust that VAAFM will not enforce these restrictive interpretations on those who register for on-farm slaughter and effectively prevent farmers from continuing to organize the slaughter of animals raised on their farm themselves in coordination with itinerant slaughters. In consequence, we voiced in Senate Agriculture this past week that we cannot recommend that farmers continue to comply with the law and register with the VAAFM for on-farm slaughter.
Senator Starr (Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture) and his committee are now seeking ways to address these new restrictions that mark a swift policy shift in stark contrast to their legislative intent behind the improvements of the Vermont law for (mostly small-scale) livestock managers over the past decade. Aside from imposing political pressure on the agencies to uphold State law, Senator Starr also suggested today to repeal the registration requirement from the on-farm slaughter law in 6 V.S.A. § 3311a.
Thank Senator Starr (Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture) and support the Agricultural Committees acting in defense of the VT on-farm slaughter law, and the proposal to repeal the registration requirement for on-farm slaughter!
Use this template message and reach out to Senator Robert Starr (rstarr@leg.state.vt.us) and CC your legislators (find your legislators by Town here).
“You are our Starr! Thank you for promoting the interest of farmers, homesteaders, itinerant slaughterers and communities in the State by protecting stakeholders from the irresponsible directives of FSIS and VAAFM which are far removed from the realities of on-farm slaughter in Vermont. Farmers have been, and will continue to organize on-farm slaughter on behalf of livestock owners and to act as their agent for the successful and efficient use of Vermont's on-farm slaughter law that is so important to mitigate the devastating shortages in the meat processing industry, especially during this pandemic.
It is unrealistic and unsafe to require owners who may have no interest or experience to engage in the act of slaughtering on-farm and to force them to be present to witness the act. When have people ever been excluded from a food because they wouldn’t witness its production? Customers of on-farm slaughtered meat know that they are liable for the quality of the product because they own the animals and have consciously chosen to, and prefer to, have their livestock be slaughtered on the farm where it was raised.
To protect farmers who sell their livestock for on-farm slaughter, and the history of work and precedent supporting this law, I support:
The VT Senate and House Committees on Agriculture providing a written letter to VAAFM and FSIS stating their support for the VT law as written, requiring that FSIS and VAAFM provide written justifications for their actions and interpretations, and that VAAFM immediately halt its actions.
The repeal of the registration requirement for on-farm slaughter.
Thank you for your support!”
Next steps?
Join our stakeholder group to strategize how to move forward in this dispute! Reach out to elena@ruralvermont.org to join the OFS Stakeholder Group meeting on Wednesday, February 9 at 11:00am.
Discussion of S.188 has continued in Senate Agriculture, and Graham (Rural VT) and VT Cannabis Equity Coalition colleague Geoffrey Pizzutillo (VT Growers’ Association) provided testimony (our testimony begins 1 hour into the video) on Friday the 21st in support of particular changes to the bill. Senator Starr suggested in our introduction to Senate Agriculture on Thursday the 27th that the Committee was favorable to our proposal that all outdoor production be considered agricultural - which would be a significant improvement to legislation.
A critical next step in achieving our Coalitions’ goals is to get lawmakers and the CCB to pursue our recommendations and the CCB’s Social Equity recommendations of getting portions of the cannabis excise tax revenues committed to the Cannabis Development Fund and to historically underserved and disproportionately affected communities. The legislature and the CCB have by statute and in testimony committed to prioritizing social equity, small farmers, and bringing the legacy cannabis economy along with the regulatory process. How does the CCB and legislature plan to act on this fundamental social equity recommendation from the CCB and our Coalition given its statutory obligations and expressed prioritization for social equity? We have not seen a bill introduced addressing this. Our Coalition submitted H.414 in 2021 which is focused on social equity; it is a vehicle for social equity recommendations and it is still waiting to be taken up by the House Government Operations Committee.
We continue to also support and advocate for a number of other components of our Coalition’s platform on cannabis - in particular scale appropriate regulations supporting direct sales from cultivators to consumers of the very plants and products they have grown - as well the platform of the VT Cannabis Nurses Association / Green Mtn. Patient Alliance.
The legislature hit the ground running and we are blessed with support from our legislative intern Elena Roig (UVM) to cover the State House issues around cannabis, neonicotinoids, land access, plastic contamination, dairy, protecting farmers from poor workmanship from utility companies and much more. Despite the question about whether or not legislators will resume in person next week - which appears unlikely - hearings will continue to be streamed live on YouTube where recordings will also continue to be available. Check out this initial overview outlining bills and issues that have a good chance to be passed during this second half of the biennium. Reach out to info@ruralvermont.org with your policy inquiries and if you’d like to support this work.
Rural Vermont Policy Priorities 2022 - some have already been picked up!
Cannabis
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S.185, An act relating to miscellaneous cannabis establishment procedures
S.186, An act relating to the Medical Cannabis Registry
S.188, An act relating to regulating licensed small cannabis cultivation as farming
S.154, An act relating to cannabis excise tax revenue and the Vermont State Colleges
S.152, An act relating to the cannabis excise tax and local fees (I believe this replaced S.94)
H. 414, An act relating to cannabis social equity programs - VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, that RV is part of, supports this bill
H.502, An act relating to the cannabis wholesale gross receipts tax
What has happened so far?
We are currently focused on S.188 (recently introduced in the Senate Ag Committee) and H.414 or other coming social equity focused bills which may emerge. S.188 would classify all licensed small cultivators as “agricultural”. It would allow licensed cultivators to purchase and sell seeds and immature plants to one another and licensed wholesalers to sell such products to licensed cultivators. This bill does not support any of the recommendations our coalition has made directly, and we intend to meet and share with its sponsors ideas for amending the bill. Some of our recommendations include: all outdoor production be classified as “agricultural” (this is a core aspect of our advocacy), we do not think it’s wise to include indoor production as agricultural (as this bill would), we have questions about allowing wholesale license holders to also have the same abilities as nurseries (a separate license category). We are also trying to determine to what extent agricultural exemptions and allowances would apply - such as the direct sale of “principally produced product” - and continue to advocate for some means of direct sales allowance for cultivators. Significantly, last week the CCB voted to affirm a recommendation of its Social Equity Subcommittee that 5% of the excise tax go to the Cannabis Development Fund, and that 20% go to reinvestment in communities which have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of cannabis (our coalition has been making a similar recommendation). We are awaiting a bill reflecting this recommendation.
Plastic Residues in Compost
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 501, An act relating to physical contaminant standards for residual waste, digestate, and soil amendments - The Protect Our Soils Coalition, that RV is part of, is informing the work on this bill
What has happened so far?
The Senate Committee on Agriculture held a meeting (watch recording here) on depackaging machines and microplastics in compost (Read this recent The Guardian article on Microplastics damage Human Cells). Lawmakers expressed frustration about how little the problem has been investigated while contamination has been allowed to occur. The Protect Our Soils Coalition is working to uphold the original intent of the Universal Recycling Law and is aiming to protect our soils while preventing pollution of composted food scraps with microplastics, as well as the incarceration of recyclable materials. Senator Bray, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, wants to see a committee bill on this issue alongside H. 501, introduced by Vice Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee (Rep. McCullough) that would set a contamination standard. Learn more about the issue and listen to this hearing from April 28, 2021 with Professor Deborah Neher, Professor of Plant and Soil Science at UVM here.
Get more info!
Webinar on UVM research on the state of microplastic pollution of compost here
Rural Vermont factsheet for farmers interested in composting food residuals here
Payment For Ecosystem Services
Relevant bills?
Legislation for a PES program proposal is currently being developed by the Payment for Ecosystem Services working group. A final report is due on January 15, 2023 (see Act 47, 2021, p. 8). Speak Up and provide Public Comment during one of the PES working group meetings! Register for their next meetings, which are every other Tuesday @ noon, online here.
What has happened so far?
The House Agriculture and Forestry Committee heard a presentation by Dr. Sara Via of the University of Maryland who gave an overview on known, science-backed methods to improve carbon sequestration such as no-till and the use of cover crops. Much of this data is based on modeling, however–soil sampling to test for carbon levels is very costly, complex, and tends to be outside of a farmer’s capabilities. Notably the PES working group continues to explore how to focus their programmatic proposal on measurable outcomes that prove to improve soil health only.
Attention! If you want to get involved in the PES program development - consider joining our Small Farmer Group that meets in between PES WG meetings to discuss ideas on how to engage best. Next meeting of the Small Farmer Group is January 19, 1pm (email catduffybuxton@gmail.com)
Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies causing Animal Welfare issues
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 166 - An act relating to utility construction worksites and consumer protection
What has happened so far?
Last fall that two farms in Tunbridge Vermont experienced significant harm to their animals due to remains that (subcontractors) from utility companies have left behind. This bill would require rules to ensure a standard of care related to construction worksite cleanup to hold companies accountable for instances like this. The bill starts off in the Senate Judiciary where legislators already took testimony from the affected farmers earlier this week (watch their testimony here). We are in support of this initiative to prevent harm from poor workmanship of utility companies in the future.
Bills we’re tracking out of interest or support are:
Neonics, and Pesticides
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 626 - An act relating to the sale, use, or application of neonicotinoid pesticides
What has happened so far?
The House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry heard about EPA findings that three chemicals - clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam - were determined to likely adversely affect the majority of endangered species and critical habitats they studied, with a frequent mode of exposure being abrasion dust coming off of treated seeds. The committee will consider H.626 that finds that treated seeds violate science-based integrated pest management principles and aims to reinstate to apply pesticides only to mitigate existing pest problems rather than on the presumption of one. The bill would charge AAFM to amend the pesticides rules to uphold this standard and includes a complete prohibition on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides should the Secretary fail to adopt such rules by July 1, 2024.
BIPOC Land Access and Opportunities
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership
What has happened so far?
Advocates hope to now move and pass this important bill that was introduced last year and aims to reconcile with historical marginalization of BIPOC Vermonters by addressing wealth disparities in home and land ownership by creating a fund. A hopeful sign was the initial hearing right at the beginning of this week in the Housing Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs on Tuesday with the coalition Seeding Power including (not exhaustive) Ashley Laporte, Every Town organizers Kenya Lazuli (NEFOC) and Mindy Blank, Steffen Gillon from the Windham County NAACP and Rep. Brian Cina of Burlington. Watch the hearing here.
Climate Action Plan
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont (not exhaustive):
S. 234 - An act relating to changes to Act 250
S. 148 - Environmental Justice Bill
Note: Legislators are still soliciting recommendations derived from the Climate Action Plan for informing legislation. Rural Vermont is in contact with legislators emphasizing our recommendations to the Agriculture and Ecosystems Subcommittee of the Climate Council and offering our feedback and takeaways from the final CAP recommendations and mitigation strategies. Watch Rural Vermont's committee introduction to the House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and read more on what’s moving from CAP in this VTDigger article.
What has happened so far?
While there is a LOT of chatter in the virtual State House, the Rural Vermont perspective largely focuses on discourses in the agricultural complex of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act and intersectional issues. In the House Ag committee the week began with hearing from Jane Lazorchak, the Director of Global Warming Solutions Act (ANR)
Watch the hearing in House Ag and Forestry Committee or House Nat Resources and hear farmer and Climate Council member Abbie Corse testify about her experience in working towards the CAP.
Jane pointed to improved manure management systems as one of the main opportunities for reducing Greenhouse Gas Reduction goals in the agricultural sector. Rural Vermont emphasised during Rural Vermont's committee introduction to design policy incentives that support farmers who want to compost their manure.
CAP, p. 123 states in this regard:
“Manure from livestock contains carbon and nitrogen, which can be lost to the atmosphere primarily as methane (CH4) but also nitrous oxide (N2O), both potent greenhouse gases—25 and 298 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period, respectively. Emissions from manure management are significantly affected by storage type, duration, temperature, moisture and manure composition. Storage of manure as a liquid has four times higher emissions compared to solid storage because more methane, which is more potent, is emitted from the anaerobic conditions of liquid storage, compared to more aerobic conditions of solid storage, which emits carbon dioxide (less potent). As such, switching from liquid storage (2.01) to solid storage (0.49), especially one that composts (0.28 MTCO2e/dairy cow/year), reduces emissions from manure storage (4-7 times).”
We also support farmer advocates like Stephen Leslie from Cedar Mountain Farm in speaking up on the benefits of old growth forests (see mitigation strategy d “Implement agroforestry and silvopasture practices that integrate woody vegetation in agricultural production,” CAP p. 117). Commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreations Snyder gave his take on Agroforestry and Silvopasture in his presentation to HAG (following Rural Vermont's introduction, see link above). Along these lines, legislators of the House Natural Resources committee started discussion to establish more forever wild forests.
Jane also pointed to an increased net loss of natural or working lands, especially in agricultural and forest land and pointed to Act 250 amendments as a cross cutting solution to promote compact settlement as opposed to increased subdivision of the landscape. The Senate Natural Resource Committee is therefore working on a bill, S. 234, that would allow municipalities privileges through waivers from Act 250 requirements for towns that adopt municipal plans that designate so-called “Smart Growth” centers to attract development of town centers. Watch the SNR hearing here.
Essential for a Just Transition towards enacting any climate related policy - or policy in general - are questions of equity that start with upholding principles like creating transparency or facilitating public participation. The Environmental Justice Bill S. 148 demands policy makers to catch up on those fronts where Vermont is lacking behind. Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale presented the bill for the first time to the Senate Natural Resources Committee this morning - watch the recording here if you want to learn more.
Want to get involved?
Join the monthly meetings of the Vermont Soil Health Policy Network where a diversity of stakeholders shares about their work in the field and consults about policy proposals, contact caroline@ruralvermont.org. This week Abbie Corse shared insights about the Climate Action Plan and gave a passionate testimony of the need to think intersectional and link environmental programs with farm viability goals as farmers lack healthcare, childcare, retirement plans and other social benefits.
The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets’ Hemp Program received USDA approval on the Vermont Hemp Production Plan. The plan supports the Vermont Hemp Rules and governs registration, production, sampling and compliance for hemp cultivation for all growers of any scale beginning in 2022. There are some significant changes in Vermont’s Hemp Plan from the pilot program producer’s in the state have been operating under for a number of years.
As part of Federal requirements for hemp producers, in 2022 all individuals interested in growing hemp must obtain and submit to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets Hemp Program a criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 2018 farm bill prevents anyone with a drug-related felony from participating in legalized hemp production for 10 years after their date of conviction and that applicants for growers (only) must be fingerprinted by the FBI. For information on how to obtain a criminal history report, please go here. This requirement does not apply to processor only registrants of the Vermont Hemp Program.
Rural Vermont testified strongly against the drug-related felony ban and background check requirements for growers as part of the 2019 Hemp Rulemaking process (section 4.3). We also testified against registration and fees for hemp grown for personal use. Currently, growing small quantities of hemp for personal use is significantly more regulated than growing high THC cannabis for personal use.
Federal requirements in the 2018 Farm Bill authorizes significant shared state-federal regulatory power over hemp cultivation and production. State departments of agriculture must consult with the state’s governor and chief law enforcement officer to devise a plan that must be submitted to the Secretary of USDA.
The following summary of changes is via Stephanie Smith from VAAFM. Follow the Agency of Agriculture’s Hemp Blog for updates.
THC Compliance is 0.3% and includes both THC and THC-A
The acceptable hemp tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level is when, after the application of the measurement of uncertainty, the range of total delta-9-THC concentration includes 0.3 percent or less, as measured on a dry weight basis. Total delta-9-THC includes the potential conversion of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid into THC.
Cannabis plants exceeding the acceptable hemp THC level constitute marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act and registrants/licensees must either ensure the disposal of such cannabis plants on site at the farm or hemp production facility or use a DEA-registered reverse distributor or law enforcement to dispose of non-compliant plants.
A negligent violation occurs when a cannabis plant’s total delta-9- THC concentration exceeds 1.0%.
Registrants may be able to remediate and retest a harvest lot that exceeds the acceptable hemp THC level by
Removing flowers and leaves and disposing of them appropriately, and retaining only stalk; or
Chipping the entire plant into biomass for extraction or other commercial purposes.
New registration and reporting requirements
A registration will not be issued unless a criminal history report(s), submitted within 60 days of an application submission, confirms that the key participant listed on the registration has not been convicted of a felony relating to a controlled substance within the past ten (10) years. If the applicant registrant was lawfully cultivating hemp under the 2014 Farm Bill and registered on or before December 20, 2018, and has felony conviction relating to a controlled substance that also occurred before that date, they may be a registrant of the program.
All registrants/licensees must report hemp crop acreage to the Farm Service Agency within 30 days of planting hemp and provide the location where hemp is being produced, acreage or square footage of all areas dedicated to hemp production, and the issued registration/license number.
Significant changes to sampling practices including the requirement to use sampling agents when taking samples for potency testing
Registered hemp producers are no longer able to collect samples of their own crops. Sampling must be performed by a “sampling agent”. Vermont will use USDA’s sampling agent training to establish who is eligible to be a sampling agent.
Hemp producers (registrants of the Vermont Hemp Program), employees of individuals or businesses registered to grow or process hemp, individuals residing in the same household as a hemp producer registrant, or individuals related to Vermont hemp producers are not eligible for to become sampling agents.
Sampling agents must collect floral material from the flowering tops of the plant by cutting the top five to eight inches from the “main stem” (that includes the leaves and flowers), “terminal flower” (that occurs at the end of a stem), or “central cola” (cut stem that could develop into a flower) of the top of the plant. Depending on the size of harvest lot, multiple cuttings will comprise the representative sample.
Sampling must occur no more than 30 days prior to harvest.
If the registrant/licensee fails to complete a harvest within thirty (30) days of a sample collection, a second pre-harvest sample of the remainder of the lot shall be required to be submitted for potency testing.
Sampling agents must have complete and unrestricted access to all hemp and other cannabis plants, (whether growing or harvested), all hemp production and storage areas, all land, buildings, and other structures used for the cultivation, handling, and storage of all hemp and other cannabis plants, and all locations listed in the producer license.
Laboratories that conduct pre-harvest potency testing must report their results to USDA, using the HeMP online document management system here:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/hemp/hemp-emanagement-platform.
Effective on January 1, 2023, all registrants/licensees may only use DEA-registered laboratories to conduct THC potency testing.
Please see the Code of Federal Regulation review the requirements of the Domestic Hemp Production Program,
https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/part-990.
For more information on hemp regulation in Vermont,
please contact Stephanie Smith, Stephanie.smith@vermont.gov
or Michael DiTomasso, Michael.DiTomasso@vermont.gov.
The legislative session brings the sudden arrival of a number of bills related to cannabis:
S.185, An act relating to miscellaneous cannabis establishment procedures
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.185
S.186, An act relating to the Medical Cannabis Registry
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.186
S.188, An act relating to regulating licensed small cannabis cultivation as farming
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.188
S.154, An act relating to cannabis excise tax revenue and the Vermont State Colleges
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.154
S.152, An act relating to the cannabis excise tax and local fees
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.152
H.502, An act relating to the cannabis wholesale gross receipts tax
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/H.502
This new need for advocacy and attention intersects with the ongoing Cannabis Control Board rulemaking process, as well as its ongoing meetings addressing proposals to the legislature. We continue to actively work with our coalition partners to affect the rulemaking process by attending and providing testimony at meetings of the Cannabis Control Board (CCB), as well as meeting with members of the Board and offering written testimony. We also continue to hear from members of our community - from cultivators to manufacturers to wholesalers - about their needs and concerns and ideas for an equitable economy around cannabis.
Of the current bills cited above, S.188 is one we are monitoring and intend to testify on. This bill would classify all licensed small cultivators as “agricultural”. It would allow licensed cultivators to purchase and sell seeds and immature plants to one another and licensed wholesalers to sell such products to licensed cultivators. This bill does not support any of the recommendations our coalition has made directly, and we have a number of concerns we intend to share with its sponsors as well as ideas for amending the bill to include our recommendations. Some of our recommendations and concerns include: all outdoor production be classified as “agricultural” (this is a core aspect of our advocacy), we do not think it’s wise to include indoor production as agricultural (as this bill would), we have questions about allowing wholesale license holders to also have the same abilities as nurseries (a separate license category). Senators Sears (Bennington), Pollina (Washington), Benning (Caledonia) and Thomas (Chittenden) are the sponsors of this bill - and it will need to proceed through both ag committees in order to be successful.
The current proposed Rules of the CCB can be found here - they are taking public comment for a period of time. Significantly, last week the CCB voted to affirm a recommendation of its Social Equity Subcommittee that 5% of the excise tax go to the Cannabis Development Fund, and that 20% go to reinvestment in communities which have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of cannabis. There are currently no mechanisms ensuring ongoing funding for the Cannabis Development Fund in statute - and no money for reinvestment in communities; so this recommendation will require legislative action, but we have not yet seen anything introduced. Achieving funding for these initiatives from the excise tax as well as vertically integrated dispensaries has been an important recommendation of our coalition from its inception.
We continue to be disappointed to see no direct sales retail option for producers - leaving them price-takers in a wholesale marketplace. Direct markets (the opportunity for a producer to sell their product directly to a consumer) are critical for small farmers’ and businesses’ viability. Direct markets and sales do not mean unregulated sales - scale appropriate regulations exist which ensure that farm stands and stores, home kitchens, farmers markets, and particular products like raw milk and on-farm slaughtered poultry are not required to meet the same regulatory standards as full grocery or retail operations or full kitchens or fully inspected meats. A direct sales license would have a lesser regulatory burden than full retail (only selling product “principally produced on the farm”), and could be limited or expanded in a variety of ways: from a CSA type model (pick-up or delivery), to a salespoint with particular operating hours on-site, to online ordering and pick-up. A marketplace which does not offer accessible direct markets for producers of the very product they produce is not an equitable marketplace, and continues the pattern of undervaluing these people in our economy and policy making. The CCB and legislature are considering additional licenses - now is a good time to explain to your representatives the value and need for this type of license and / or ability for cultivators.
Please be in touch with us about your ideas, concerns, and interests. This is an important time to be active with your legislators on this issue.
We are working in the Protect our Soil Coalition to uphold the values embedded in the Universal Recycling law and to hold ANR accountable for implementing the requirement to separate food residuals from other recyclables at the source of generation. Seven Days has been shedding light on the current practice of co-mingling food waste with their packaging aiming separation through an industrial process that results in micro and nano particles of plastic in the otherwise compostable material. Read more here.
As plaintiff in the ongoing lawsuit against the USDA GMO labeling rules, our coalition of nonprofits and retailers took an important step in filing details with the federal court. The case challenges USDA’s decision to allow GMO labeling to be hidden behind QR codes, especially because that will restrict access for so many in rural areas of Vermont. The Center for Food Safety’s recent press release shares more information:
The National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) organized a broad coalition of over 90 organizations (including Rural VT) who sent a letter to Congress calling for sweeping reforms to the US dairy industry based on ensuring a just price to farmers, supply management, and increased competition. Alongside the letter, the NFFC released its new Milk from Family Dairies Act (MFDA), based on these principles. From here, the real work begins of pushing Congress to advance the policy debate on dairy ahead of the upcoming Farm Bill negotiations in 2022.
The Cannabis Control Board (CCB) has released two of its proposed Rules related to the Licensing and Regulation of Cannabis Establishments. Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition are reviewing them and providing comments. Sen. White has submitted a bill for introduction, S.94, which proposes to cap the local control license fee which municipalities can charge cannabis establishments, and distribute cannabis excise tax revenue that is equal to two percent of the taxable retail sales to municipalities that host a cannabis establishment. We’ll continue to share updates and encourage you to contact us, your reps, and the CCB with your suggestions!
The Vermont Climate Council has formally adopted the VT Climate Action Plan, and the Legislature’s Climate Solutions Caucus will be hosting a Virtual Town Hall on Wednesday, December 15 at 7pm to share their reactions to the Climate Action Plan, plans for the upcoming legislative session, and to hear directly from Vermonters about what climate policies they should prioritize in 2022. Rural VT will work with its allies and members to understand the Plan and its impacts on our farms and in our communities (it’s a 270 page document), and work to continue to improve how the State addresses climate change and agriculture.
In October, we shared with you information about our dispute with the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (AAFM) and USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) about whether or not CSA programs can include animal shares from on-farm slaughtered livestock like it is legal to include on-farm slaughtered poultry (more info here). Legislators intended with Act 47 (2021) to explore the legal situation for livestock and the need for further legislation. Rural Vermont engaged in that process with AAFM and the legislative council earlier this year. From our interpretation of the law, these types of CSA programs should be already legal, given that Rural Vermont advocated successfully in 2019 to allow for multiple owners in the VT statute. The CSA program would be an option for the contractual relationship between those owners about sharing those animals and carcasses. In contract law, anything that is not prohibited is allowed. In the now issued final report on the matter, the legislative council agrees with Rural Vermont and states:
“Moreover, in review of existing law under the FMIA, FSIS regulations, and FSIS guidance, Legislative Counsel agrees with Caroline Gordon that there is a reasonable interpretation that personal slaughter under an animal share agreement, although not specifically referenced, is allowed under federal and state law. FSIS guidance seemingly provides that there may be multiple owners of an animal under the personal use exemption and that the multiple owners under the personal use exemption do not need to reside at the same physical location.
One would assume that persons who do not reside together but own livestock together have some legal arrangement, formal or informal, addressing ownership of the livestock and rights in that livestock. In addition, Vermont law explicitly allows for a person or persons to own livestock subject to the personal use exemption in State law.”
Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel), Memo- Slaughter of Livestock under Animal Share Agreements, Dec 1, 2021, page 6
The report also shows that FSIS is inconsistent by opposing language around animal shares in statute but allowing for multiple owners in the past in their guidance documents. Aside from Vermont, most states allow for multiple owners, like California, Texas, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. See a list of on-farm slaughter laws across the US on the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund website here. FSIS is rendering the multiple owners' allowance ad absurdum by indicating that all owners need to take part in the slaughter of the livestock. Rural Vermont also criticized AAFM in the past for interpretations of the VT statute that render the on-farm slaughter exemption impractical and make it extremely difficult for practitioners to comply. AAFM Meat Inspection Chief Julie Boisvert stated that not farmers but customers of animals sold for on-farm slaughter have to hire an itinerant slaughterer- even though the statute does not rule out that farmers can organize on-farm slaughter themselves (watch the AAFM virtual forum from May 2021 here). From a business standpoint, it would be impossible to have customers reach out to the few busy itinerant slaughters in the state individually, creating an extreme organizational burden for the itinerant slaughter community who then would have to concert the inquiries with the farmer.
The discourse around animal shares with AAFM and legislative council revealed that our State agency is handcuffed themselves as FSIS is threatening Vermont's ‘equal-to status’ that allows AAFM to conduct and receive funding for the state's meat inspection program under an agreement with FSIS.
Take Action! Speak with VPR about what on-farm slaughter means to you, if the law currently is clear or confusing to you and if it would be meaningful to you if AAFM would support CSA’s with shares from on-farm slaughter. Email VPR reporter Howard Weiss-Tisman (hweisstisman@vpr.org) and CC: caroline@ruralvermont.org.
More info?
* Read the memo from legislative council Michael O’Grady from December 1, 2021, “Slaughter of Livestock under Animal Share Agreements” here
* Find the current interpretation of the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets presented in this virtual Q&A forum here, and in their online brochure here.
Get in touch - and join our on-farm slaughter supporter email list, email caroline@ruralvermont.org, and seek practitioners to join our core stakeholder group to consult on the issue (Subject: OFS core).
Anyone knows that plastics decompose on a very different timescale than organics - they basically don't decompose. Google says it can take anywhere between 20 to 500 years depending on size and structure. Yet our Agency of Natural Resources and Vermont's number one waste systems management company, Casella, believe that we don't have to go through the inconvenient process of separating plastics from food wastes, as mandated by the Universal Recycling Law, at the source. Instead, Casella’s new innovative solution to the mandated landfill ban is a so-called Depackaging Facility that does the hard work automatically and separates food scraps from the plastics that package them.
Watch the video above and learn in 6 minutes from Casella that the technology is so proficient that the resulting stream of food scraps may be composted, sent through biodigesters, and even land applied on farms. But what about the remaining plastic contamination, yet the hard to scope microplastic contamination? Casella is funding research at UVM to analyze the issue and associated risks for the environment, including human health (learn more here).
“Our findings are hugely important to Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law (URL) which necessitated this kind of research,... There is so much we don’t know about using food waste, particularly the impacts of plastic contamination.” said Kate Porterfield, a PhD student in College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences (CEMS).
Rural Vermont is in coalition with Poultry Farmers For Compost Foraging (PFCF), Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) to emphasize that there are decentralized pathways to compost food residuals that have been separated from their recyclable packaging materials at the source on farms in a way that does not create another resource concern but that truly enhances the soils of agricultural producers in Vermont. The coalition imposes political pressure on the Agency of Natural Resources to implement and enforce the related source separation requirement and the priority uses of food residuals as laid out in the Universal Recycling Law (more info here).
Depackaging technology conveniently alleviates generators' responsibility under the Universal Recycling Law to separate organics from other waste streams in stark contrast to the mandate and definitions in the law but upon incentive from ANR. Alongside the pressing environmental concerns resulting from plastic contaminations of soils, this mismanagement or lack of implementation of the URL directives also furthers corporate consolidation towards a monopoly on food residuals management (remember that Casella bought Grow Compost? see story here). A development that infringes upon opportunities for market development for decentralized on-farm composting facilities like Black Dirt Farm, Perfect Circle Farm, Cloud Path Farm, Sunrise Farm and others. The easy way out for generators, including institutions like grocery stores and schools, through depackaging facilities makes collaborations with decentralized actors less attractive/ less cost effective.
Contact caroline@ruralvermont.org to stay in the loop on this campaign for protecting the Universal Recycling Law.
Legislative leadership (Speaker Krowinski and Pro Tem Balint) have scheduled more community conversations in the following counties:
Washington County Conversation, Thursday, October 28th, 5:30 - 6:30. Register here.
Orange County Conversation, Tuesday, November 2th, 5:30 - 6:30. Register here.
Chittenden County Conversation, Thursday, November 4th, 5:30 - 6:30. Register here.
Orleans County Conversation, Monday, November 8th, 5:30-6:30. Register here.
Lamoille County Conversation, Wednesday, November 10th, 5:30 - 6:30. Register here.
Final conversation open to anyone across the state, Tuesday, November 16th. Register here.
You can also fill out an online survey to share what your community needs and your recommendations on how VT should spend the ARPA funds here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf5jgOMdwDpuDGcdKbSCnJ5yTpyyY2ebN9SJriWMY8z2X1VyQ/viewform
Sign up for email updates on this process here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScad6wzCAqPJO-rfiSDAo2HuwXbtj35fAlGJVwEP454kw14Yw/viewform
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 23, 2021
Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition Releases Sweeping Recommendations to Cannabis Control Board: Will There be a Place for Equity, Small Farmers, and Small Local Businesses?
Montpelier, VT — The Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition has recently submitted its sweeping recommendations to the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) for its public rulemaking process, and in support of a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound.
Collectively, the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition represents tens of thousands of Vermonters, including local communities and individuals most impacted by cannabis prohibition, and it is the Coalition’s sincere hope that the CCB integrates its vision, principles, and proposals into its own work, process, and recommendations to the legislature. The Coalition likewise expresses hope that the CCB take a different posture than the most of the Vermont legislature, and invite in and prioritize the voices of Black, Brown and poor communities, individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of cannabis, as well as small businesses, legacy growers and cultivators, patients, nurses, caregivers, and small farmers.
The Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition shares a vision for a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound. We envision a Vermont cannabis market where Black, Brown and poor folks are assured an equitable opportunity for success within every aspect of this industry. This vision for a racially just economy is grounded in an understanding of our true national history and the impacts of systemic racism; the history of criminalization and disproportionate, violent, enforcement of prohibition in communities of color and poor communities; and, the necessity for mechanisms of repair being established by members of those communities most impacted. In this decentralized economy, scale- appropriate regulations facilitate and prioritize small businesses, outdoor cultivation, and distributed access to the wealth generated by this industry to community members throughout the State. Cannabis is grown, packaged, and distributed in ways which protect and improve soil health, water quality and account is taken for climate change mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and human health.
The CCB was handed a rushed and impractical timeline by the legislature - through ACT 164 (2020) and ACT 62 (2021) - for developing rules and regulations for every aspect of the legal cannabis marketplace, and to reform the state medical cannabis program. The Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition would like to call attention to the inadequacy of this timeline within which the CCB has been asked to complete its rule making process, and the inadequacy of the associated timeline by which the legislature must act on the CCB’s recommendations. In conversations with members of the CCB, with consultants hired by the CCB, and with legislators, the Coalition's concerns about this timeline have repeatedly been reflected and shared by these other actors.. The CCB is doing its best within the limitations set by the legislature - however, it is very clear that the rulemaking process and regulatory considerations would be afforded more thorough public input, and more comprehensive research if more time were available - and thereby move us further in the direction of our collectively desired equitable outcomes.
“Though we will still need action from the legislature to address foundational issues of inequity in existing statute outside of the rulemaking process, the CCB public rulemaking process is a significant opportunity to affect change and grow our collective movement for an equitable, accessible, affordable, and scale appropriate cannabis economy in VT. Our coalition’s recommendations with respect to racial and social equity programs and funding, a scale appropriate and affordable licensing structure (including producer to consumer direct sales), and more have the potential to affect a greater distribution of wealth and access in the coming market.”
– Graham Unangst-Rufenacht / Rural VT
The conception of an entirely new market is a unique opportunity for Vermonters to generate wealth, especially for local people of color, economically disadvantaged, and those most harmed by prohibition, and Vermont must get it right at the start. The recommendations from the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition lead with racial equity and market access and construct a viable craft-centric marketplace ready for federal legalization and bringing redress to those harmed by cannabis prohibition.”
– Geoffrey Pizzuillo / Vermont Growers Association
Members of the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition include the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, Justice for All, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT), Rural Vermont, and the Vermont Growers Association (VGA). We have received significant support from Vermonters in our advocacy demanding the inclusion of structures ensuring the racial justice and agricultural and economic equity that a viable adult-use and medical cannabis marketplace needs.
With the rulemaking process moving forward at an unreasonable pace, member organizations of the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition and their constituents are calling on the CCB and legislators to work to integrate their recommendations which truly promote racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound legal cannabis industry in VT.
Link to recommendations: https://www.vtcec.org/s/20211006-vcec-ccb-recs.pdf
###
About the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition: We are a local coalition representing communities across Vermont that came together to support a cannabis economy that is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound for all Vermonters.
Press Conference 10/25/21:
From VT Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Forest Economy-
The Pre-Application for Supply Chain and Market Level Infrastructure Grants opened for reading and reviewing on October 8, 2021. Submittals to this Pre-Application opens on October 22, 2021, and are due on December 6, 2021. These Pre-Applications will be reviewed by the Working Lands Enterprise Board in December, and applicants will be notified in January of denial or invitation to submit Full Applications.
Supply Chain project activities under these grants will demonstrate how the market or product the applicant is developing or expanding, will positively impact multiple businesses within its own supply chain, for projects ranging from $25,000 - $75,000.
Market Level Infrastructure project activities under these grants will illustrate how the market or product the applicant is developing or expanding will positively impact multiple businesses and/or create a new market. Only low-grade wood, forest products and/or value-added agriculture product sectors are eligible, for projects ranging from $75,000-$250,000.
The Working Lands Enterprise Board is also currently accepting applications for other grant opportunities, to help Vermont businesses with everything from infrastructure, marketing, meat processing, professional development projects and more.
The following are the funding opportunities currently open:
Standard Business Grants for projects ranging from $10,000 - $25,000
Meat Slaughter and Processing Grants for projects ranging from $50,000 - $100,000
Producer Association Grants for projects ranging from $10,000 - $20,000
NOTE: The $50K baseline for Meat Slaughter and Processing Grants appears a steep entry barrier for small initiatives given the required 1:1 match. Rural Vermont reached out to AAFM regarding this matter and the Agency clarified that small scale infrastructure investments in meat slaughter and processing, e.g. custom slaughter facilities, can apply through the Standard Business Grant, starting at $10K and can also apply for a waiver of the match making requirement with AAFM.
Applications for the above three grants are due by 11:59pm, on November 1st, 2021.
Applications will also reviewed in December of 2021 by the Working Lands Enterprise Board. Project decisions will be communicated in late January 2022.
Please visit https://workinglands.vermont.gov/ to find out more.
For questions please contact:
Lynn Ellen Schimoler (she/her) LynnEllen.Schimoler@vermont.gov
Working Lands Enterprise Initiative
Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
94 Harvest Lane, Williston Vermont 05495 | https://workinglands.vermont.gov/
During the 2021 legislative session, Rural Vermont and allies demanded that legislators from the House and Senate Natural Resource committees clarify their legislative intent behind the Universal Recycling Law with the Agency of Natural Resources (read the letter here). In a legislative hearing, on April 28 (watch recording here), ANR had stated that the organics management hierarchy would be a menu of options and like the source separation requirement - which mandates that food residuals need to be separated from trash and recycling at the source of generation - would not be enforceable. This is in stark contrast to the letter of the Universal Recycling law. Now lip service has to be followed by action and ANR has to be held accountable for implementing the law!
UPDATE: From October 4th - 14th, the public comment portal for the Cannabis Control Board’s rulemaking process did not accept comments and did not let people know their comments were not received - this includes Rural Vermont’s own comments submitted as a member of the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition. PLEASE MAKE THE TIME TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE FIRST TIME NOW, OR RESUBMIT COMMENTS YOU ALREADY SUBMITTED. Rural VT and its allies in the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have submitted our public comments in support of a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound. Please let the CCB know that you support our recommendations, and provide them with your feedback and personal concerns, ideas, and experiences.
Rural VT and its allies in the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have submitted our public comments to the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) for its rulemaking process, and in support of a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound. Please let the CCB know that you support our recommendations, and provide them with your feedback and personal concerns, ideas, and experiences through the public comment portal.