Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 25, 1990 TAG: 9004250522
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But by Tuesday evening, the Roanoke Democrat and the interest groups had reached a compromise on an issue that involves the way a new federal law will treat biological farming methods, as opposed to those dependent on chemicals.
Olin alarmed environmentalists in his role on a House agriculture subcommittee that is drafting language for the new farm bill. Part of the subcommittee's responsibility is the portion of the farm bill that governs and authorizes money for agricultural research - $1 billion yearly under the current law.
At issue was a section of the bill that authorizes $40 million yearly for research into methods of "sustainable agriculture" - a method of farming that emphasizes preservation of soil and soil quality.
As part of the research into sustainable farming, environmental and consumer groups have sought a farm bill that would encourage more study of biological ways to improve soil quality and control farm pests.
The legal definition of sustainable agriculture originally proposed for the new law included a reference to the use of biological farming methods. Environmental groups discovered last week that Olin - allied with Reps. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Pat Roberts, R-Kan. - had successfully led an effort to strip the reference to biological methods.
Peggy Miller, a lobbyist for the Consumer Federation of America, said Tuesday that she couldn't find out what Olin's motives were. Without the reference to biological methods, she said, the fear is that the secretary of agriculture would be free to ignore requests to fund research into biological methods and pour all the government's research dollars into methods that depend on farm chemicals.
Olin said the original language in the bill was ambiguous and gave the impression that the government was going to require farmers to quit using agricultural chemicals, said Ellen Layman, an aide to Olin. The tone of the language was a little too far toward the organic, she said.
People are much more conscious now about the problems posed by farm chemicals and most feel improvements could be made in their use, Layman said. But farmers in Virginia are concerned the federal government may order them not to use chemicals or burden them with heavy paper work about their chemical use, she said.
Tuesday afternoon, faced with the concerns of groups such as the federation and the Sierra Club, the subcommittee modified the definition of sustainable agriculture to reinstate a reference to biological methods, Layman said.
The definition agreed to Tuesday defines sustainable agriculture, in part, as a method of farming that will "make most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls . . .."
The new farm bill will replace a five-year bill that was enacted in late 1985. The House Agriculture Committee is expected to begin work on reporting the bill to Congress next Wednesday.
by CNB