Feds vs. Raisins | Food Production and Preservation | Forums

A A A
Avatar
Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Lost password?
sp_Feed F-Food-Production
Feds vs. Raisins
Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
30 May ’14 - 6:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"They want us to pay for our own raisins that we grew," says Raisin Valley Farms owner Marvin Horne. "We have to buy them back!"

This is but one absurdity that Marvin and his wife Laura have faced during their decade-long legal battle with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Every year, the Hornes plant seeds, tie vines, harvest fruit, and place grapes in paper trays to create sun-dried raisins. And every year, the federal government prevents them from bringing their full harvest to market.

It's called an agriculture marketing order. Depression-era regulations meant to stabilize crop prices endanger the livelihoods of small farmers across the country, but the raisin marketing order is particularly egregious. An elected board of bureaucrats known as the Raisin Administrative Committee decides what the proper yield should be in any given year in order to meet a previously decided-upon price. Once they can estimate the size of the year's harvest, they force every farmer to surrender a percentage of their crop to raisin packers like Sun-Maid. The packers then place the raisins in a "reserve pool," a special holding vat for raisins that cannot be sold in the U.S. Eventually, the packers can sell the reserve pool raisins overseas at highly discounted prices set by the government or funnel them into school lunch programs for next to nothing.

The government allows them to sell one out of every two raisins.The farmers were always supposed to get a percentage of the money raised from the reserve pool raisins, but as profit margins dwindled over the years, so did the return to farmers. The tipping point came in 2003, when farmers received zero dollars in return for the 47 percent of the crop they had surrendered.

"You can't work for a whole year and then give 47 percent of what you made away and still keep that business afloat," says Laura Horne.

Frustrated and desperate, the Hornes started packing and selling their own raisins, which they believed would allow them to circumvent the marketing order. In doing so, they inadvertantly sparked a small revolution, as other independent raisin farmers saw their initial success and began to pack and sell, too. The government wasn't happy (neither was Sun-Maid).

The USDA saddled the Hornes with massive fines in addition to demanding payment for the raisins they had failed to surrender. Marvin Horne estimates his outstanding balance at close to a million dollars, a virtually insurmountable figure for a small, family-owned farm. The Hornes decided to fight back.

When the Hornes andYeah, those raisins are gonna cost you. a few other raisin farmers tried to challenge the USDA's seizure of their crop without payment as an unconstitutional taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the government balked and said that the issue should be heard in a Federal Claims court, as the case had nothing to do with the taking of property but instead was a matter of the Hornes violating farming regulations and being fined for doing so. Remarkably, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the USDA and declared that they had no jurisdiction in the case. Luckily for the Hornes, however, the Supreme Court took the case and ruled, in a 9-0 decision, that the 9th Circuit was mistaken and must consider the case on its constitutional merits. 

And now, after nearly a decade of fighting, the Hornes must wait a little longer. This saga may well end in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the next few months, or the Hornes may one day soon find themselves before the Supreme Court once again. A favorable legal outcome is far from certain, but their raisins—and our property rights—depend on it.

Avatar
earthenstead
Central Arkansas
Farm Hand
Members
Forum Posts: 853
Member Since:
6 Feb ’14
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
30 May ’14 - 6:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

At least the Supreme Court 9-0 ruling was correct, but its preposterous in the first place that they should need to take on such a costly legal battle. They grew the grapes on their land. The raisins belong to them. Its not complicated.

 

Eminent domain on raisins? How do these people look themselves in the mirror?

Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31782
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
31 May ’14 - 9:58 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I really don't know

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 698

Currently Online:
71 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

easytapper: 2149

DangerDuke: 2030

groinkick: 1667

PorkChopsMmm: 1515

Gravel Road: 1455

Newest Members:

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 11482

Posts: 58640

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 19842

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Administrators: K