News

HB 4538 passed in our recent legislative session and will take effect September 1st, 2023. Many thanks from Texas beekeepers to Representative Kyle Kacal and State Senator Morgan LaMantia for their work in making this happen.

Apiary Registration Application – was Free – Registration will not be required, but if requested, a $35 fee will be assessed. Registration will be valid through the end of the fiscal year and must be renewed each September 1st. All current REGISTRATIONS WILL BE NULL AND VOID ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2023!

Intrastate Application (county to county) – was $35 – Intrastate permitting will be repealed. No longer will there be restrictions on moving bees across county lines. Beekeepers doing live removals will still be required to pay the $35 fee for the annual registration, but it will be a different form as opposed to the Removal Transportation Form.

Import/Export Application – was $100 for each state the beekeeper is bringing bees from & $75 for each state the beekeeper is shipping bees to – Beekeepers moving bees into and out of Texas will no longer have to do separate Importation and Exportation permits. One Interstate permit will replace these. This permit will be an annual fiscal year (September 1st – August 31st) operational permit with a fee of $250. Beekeepers can then come and go with bees.

Apiary Inspection (requested by beekeeper) – was $75 – increases to $100

Registration of Apiary Equipment Brands Application – $10 (no change…!)

Bee Removal Transportation Application – $35 (no change…!)

Queen Breeder Inspection – $300 (no change…!)

Apiary definition will have “six or more” struck.

Beekeeper – means a person who owns, leases, possesses, controls, or manages one or more colonies of bees for any personal or commercial use. In situations involving Ag Valuation/Exemption, the beekeeper and/or landowner can decide who should register.

The law changes the registration to “beekeeper” registration, not “apiary” registration. The focus will still have space to place apiary location(s).

Overview
The purpose of the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure (RFSI) program is to build resilience across the middle of the state’s food supply chain for food crops. For this program, “middle of the food supply chain” refers to activities and operations that occur in between post-harvesting of food crops and before food goods are being sold at a store or market, excluding the marketing of food products or services.
The RFSI program will offer two grant types, Equipment-Only and Infrastructure grants, to eligible entities to support the expanded capacity for the aggregation, processing, manufacturing, storing, transporting, wholesaling, and distribution of locally and regionally produced food products, including specialty crops, dairy, grains for human consumption, aquaculture, and other food products, excluding meat and poultry.
RFSI is intended to improve upon, provide new, and/or create more diverse, local, and regional market options for locally or regionally produced food in Texas; as well as create more economic opportunities and resiliency for communities, allowing them to retain more of the value chain dollar.
The program also aims to:
• Support development of value-added products available to consumers;
• Support proposals that provide fair prices, fair wages and new and safe job opportunities that keep profits in rural communities; and
• Increase diversity in processing options in terms of business model approaches, geography, and availability to underserved communities.
The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) will prioritize grant applications that benefit the following:
• Underutilized farmers and ranchers;
• New and beginning farmers or ranchers;
• Veteran producers;
• Processors and other middle-of-the-supply businesses owned by individuals that qualify
under Small Business Administration (SBA) defined categories*
*Additional details will be defined in the Official Request for Grant Applications document

Who is eligible?
• Agricultural producers or processors or groups of producers/processors
• Nonprofit organizations operating middle-of-the-supply-chain activities
• Local government entities operating middle-of-the-supply-chain activities
• Tribal government entities operating middle-of-the-supply-chain activities
• Institutions such as schools, universities, or hospitals bringing producers together to establish
Is there a cost share or match required?
Equipment-Only Grants: no match required. Infrastructure Grants:
cooperative or shared infrastructure or invest in equipment that will benefit multiple producers
• 50% of the total project cost; or
• 25% of the total project cost, for underutilized farmers or for other businesses that qualify under Small
Business Administration (SBA) defined categories*
*Additional details will be defined in the Official Request for Grant Applications document
What can I use the funding for?
RFSI will focus on funding Equipment-Only and Infrastructure Grants with activities that:
• Expand capacity for processing, aggregation and distribution of agricultural products to create more and better markets for producers;
• Support development of value-added products available to consumers;
• Modernize manufacturing, tracking, storage, and information technology systems;
• Enhance worker safety through adoption of new technologies or investment in equipment or facility improvements;
• Improve the capacity of entities to comply with federal, state, and local food safety requirements;
• Improve operations through training opportunities, including training on the use of all equipment
purchased under the grant;
• Support the purchase and installation of specialized equipment, such as processing components, sorting equipment, packing and labeling equipment, or delivery vehicles;
• Modernize or expand an existing facility (including expansion and modifications to existing buildings and/or construction of new buildings at existing facilities);
• Support construction of a new facility for middle-of-the-supply-chain activities;
• Support construction of wastewater management structures, etc.;
• Modernize processing and manufacturing equipment through upgrades, repairs, or retooling;
• Develop, customize, or install equipment that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases efficiency in water use, improves air and/or water quality, and/or meets one or more of USDA’s climate action goals;
• Increase storage space, including cold storage

More information
Visit the RFSI web page at: https://www.texasagriculture.gov/RFSI

Contact us
For questions about the RFSI program, please email FoodSystems@TexasAgriculture.gov.

The TCEQ’s Texas Environmental Excellence Awards (TEEA) Program – an annual awards program that encourages citizens, communities, businesses, and organizations to be recognized for their environmental projects will be issuing awards soon.

These awards include a variety of categories such as agriculture, innovative operations, youth, and more. The Texas Commission on  Environmental Quality would encourage any beekeepers that have implemented successful environmental projects to apply!

The deadline to apply for the current awards cycle is August 25, 2023. For questions or to learn more, please feel free to contact us at awards@tceq.texas.gov.

In 2013, American Bird Conservancy published an important work titled  “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds”  which identified the risks that neonicotinoid insecticides placed on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the ripple effects on the birds and other wildlife species in those ecosystems.  One of the most egregious findings showed that a single neonic-coated seed is enough to kill a songbird. Unfortunately, in the ten years since that publication, very little has changed at the regulatory level to protect birds and other wildlife from this dangerous class of systemic chemicals. Unfortunately, the follow-up report published last week finds very little change in the past decade.

From Section 2.4 of the report:  
North American regulators, namely EPA, the PMRA and California DPR have attempted to assess the risk of the three high-use neonics to pollinators. Despite considerable time and resources devoted to this assessment, the end result is scientifically highly questionable… One key finding is that the risk of seed treatments – typically a large proportion of total use – for pollinators at large has been completely mischaracterized by the regulators through a series of fundamental flaws in the official assessment.

The three North American regulatory bodies – the EPA, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Canadian Pest Management PMRA  teamed up to produce a coordinated pollinator assessment….As reviewed in detail, the regulatory assessments; (1) underestimated risks to wild bee species and other pollinators by relying on honey bee colony survival as a proxy for pollinator health; (2) underestimated nectar and pollen contamination levels following the use of neonic-treated seeds by assuming that the majority of crop species would have residue values at the low end of the measured spectrum; (3) ignored risks of dust from neonic treated seeds at planting, despite ample evidence that this route of exposure is highly relevant; (4) ignored exposures of bees and other pollinators to neoniccontaminated water – including, guttation fluid and puddles in or near fields sown with neonic-treated seeds – despite existing field estimates that show that these routes of exposure can completely dwarf the routes that were formally assessed; and (5) ignored risks from neonic uses on crops deemed unattractive to honey bees, despite evidence that neonic residues migrate into adjoining areas, including adjacent wildflowers that can exceed levels in the field proper (see above); (6) excluded available peer-reviewed literature from quantitative risk assessment in favor of industry studies; and (7) ignored the growing amount of field data which now links the use of neonic-treated seeds to pollinator failure on a landscape scale. The assessment completely failed, therefore, to appreciate and acknowledge the considerable and damaging effect that neonic-treated seeds are having on pollinator populations and insect prey more broadly (Mineau 2020).

The Pollinator Stewardship Council and the American Bird Conservancy have often collaborated on legal and legislative advocacy work.  We greatly appreciate their contribution to the ever-increasing body of scientific research illustrating the catastrophic impacts of neonics.  Read the full report here. 

By Andrew Porterfield

Black queen cell virus is a serious problem for beekeepers. It infects developing queen honey bee larvae, turning other pupal cells black and ultimately killing the larval queen. The virus is capable of wiping out entire honey bee colonies and has no known deterrent beyond preventing its spread.

In 2020, when Canadian researchers were looking for viruses and other microbes spread by mosquitoes, a virus known for afflicting honey bees (Apis mellifera) was the last thing they expected to find. But they did.

As the researchers report in April in the Journal of Insect Science, for the first time, black queen cell virus (BQCV) has been discovered in North American mosquitoes. Also for the first time, researchers sequenced the virus’ genome.

Cole Baril, Christophe LeMoine, Ph.D., and Bryan Cassone, Ph.D., researchers at Brandon University in Manitoba, Canada, used a genetic sequencing method known as massively parallel next-generation sequencing to identify BQCV in a mosquito (Aedes vexans). The researchers believe that the mosquitoes indirectly acquired the virus by foraging at the same nectar sources as honey bees.

Since its discovery in 1955, BQCV has been known as one of the most common honey bee viruses. It is also one of the most poorly understood viruses affecting bees. Black queen cell virus infects queens and adult bees alike, but adults rarely show any symptoms of infections. It is part of the picornavirus order, and its genome consists of about 8,550 nucleotides of RNA. Exactly how it is transmitted from host to host is not fully understood. It may be spread by the microsporidia Nosema apis or by the Varroa mite, but it also may be transmitted by foraging expeditions of adult honey bees.

The scientists had been carrying out a genomics analysis of various mosquitoes in the Canadian prairie provinces. They identified several novel viruses and other microbial flora and were surprised to find BQCV during that search.

The Brandon researchers collected mosquitoes during 2019 and 2020 with miniature light traps. Aedes vexans mosquitoes were identified, and their RNA isolated. In 2019, 1,783 pooled mosquitos were sequenced; 2,208 were sequenced in 2020. The sequencing data was matched against BQCV sequences using the National Center for Biotech Information (NCBI) database.

The researchers also wanted to determine the evolutionary relationships within BQCVs and compared the new Canadian strain they’d found against existing viral genomes in the NCBI database. One of the sequencing reads matched a BQCV isolate from Sweden. No matches to Varroa mites or Nosema apis genomes were found, largely ruling out the potential for transmission through those organisms. However, three sequences were matched to plant chloroplasts and mapped to plants, trees and shrubs, indicating a foraging route of viral transmission.

Although mosquitoes need to feed on blood to produce eggs, flower nectar is also an important source of nutrition. Sugar deprivation is linked to reduced survival and reproduction capacity in females. However, no evidence exists showing that BQCV can replicate in mosquitoes, indicating that mosquitoes are a dead end for the viruses. But further research will be needed to determine if mosquitoes can transmit the virus to honey bees.

“To our knowledge, this is the first report of BQCV detected in mosquitoes or any other dipteran,” the authors write. “Interspecies transmission of BQCV has been hypothesized to be due to direct (parasitism, predation, and scavenging) and/or indirect (foraging at the same nectar source) interactions between honey bees and these arthropods.”

Cassone says much remains unknown. “The virus has been found in North America; however, never in mosquitoes and never has the genome sequence been characterized,” he says. “It is surprising to me that little work has been done with this virus given its potential determinantal impacts to apiculture.”

The study is also one of the first to use recently developed next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to characterize the insect and virus genome. The researchers recommended the further use of NGS but with a caveat common to sequencing: “Although it requires considerable integration of bioinformatics, many limitations of traditional approaches for pathogen identification (PCR methods and serological testing) can be overcome using NGS. In addition to its greater resolution and sensitivity, NGS does not require a priori knowledge of the nucleic acid to be sequenced or specific antibodies.”

The Brandon researchers collected mosquitoes during 2019 and 2020 with miniature light traps. Aedes vexans mosquitoes were identified, and their RNA isolated. In 2019, 1,783 pooled mosquitos were sequenced; 2,208 were sequenced in 2020. The sequencing data was matched against BQCV sequences using the National Center for Biotech Information (NCBI) database.

The researchers also wanted to determine the evolutionary relationships within BQCVs and compared the new Canadian strain they’d found against existing viral genomes in the NCBI database. One of the sequencing reads matched a BQCV isolate from Sweden. No matches to Varroa mites or Nosema apis genomes were found, largely ruling out the potential for transmission through those organisms. However, three sequences were matched to plant chloroplasts and mapped to plants, trees and shrubs, indicating a foraging route of viral transmission.

Although mosquitoes need to feed on blood to produce eggs, flower nectar is also an important source of nutrition. Sugar deprivation is linked to reduced survival and reproduction capacity in females. However, no evidence exists showing that BQCV can replicate in mosquitoes, indicating that mosquitoes are a dead end for the viruses. But further research will be needed to determine if mosquitoes can transmit the virus to honey bees.

“To our knowledge, this is the first report of BQCV detected in mosquitoes or any other dipteran,” the authors write. “Interspecies transmission of BQCV has been hypothesized to be due to direct (parasitism, predation, and scavenging) and/or indirect (foraging at the same nectar source) interactions between honey bees and these arthropods.”

Cassone says much remains unknown. “The virus has been found in North America; however, never in mosquitoes and never has the genome sequence been characterized,” he says. “It is surprising to me that little work has been done with this virus given its potential determinantal impacts to apiculture.”

The study is also one of the first to use recently developed next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to characterize the insect and virus genome. The researchers recommended the further use of NGS but with a caveat common to sequencing: “Although it requires considerable integration of bioinformatics, many limitations of traditional approaches for pathogen identification (PCR methods and serological testing) can be overcome using NGS. In addition to its greater resolution and sensitivity, NGS does not require a priori knowledge of the nucleic acid to be sequenced or specific antibodies.”

https://entomologytoday.org/2023/04/25/black-queen-cell-virus-honey-bees-mosquitoes/

As we get ready for our honey extraction season, we wanted to pull together a few documents about honey labeling.

1. Food Manufacturer License
From the DSHS Foods Group page in Frequently Asked Questions https://dshs.texas.gov/foods/faqs.aspx#:~:text=Beekeeper%20Honey%20Production,
“Beekeeper Honey Production Frequently Asked Questions – Added July 16, 2020
• Did anything change for beekeepers selling honey in Texas with the adoption of the updated 25 TAC 229.210-225 Subchapter N, Current GMP and GWP in Manufacturing, Packing or Holding Human Food that became effective August 2, 2017?
Yes, beekeepers that sell raw honey produced from their own bees/hives are “farms” and are exempt from licensing as food manufacturers when engaged in allowable farm activities. Examples of allowable farm activities include extracting and bottling raw honey whether for retail or wholesale. DSHS adopts the clarification provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Seventh Edition): Guidance for Industry in Question B.1.19.
• Is pasteurization of raw honey an allowable farm activity?
No, pasteurizing raw honey is a manufacturing activity that requires a license as a food manufacturer. DSHS adopts the clarification provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Seventh Edition): Guidance for Industry in Question C.4.3.
• Are there any laws that apply to beekeeper raw honey producers?
Yes, while beekeepers harvesting raw honey will not be required to license with DSHS as long as they are only engaged in allowable farm activities, harvesting operations that conduct filtering, packaging, and labeling of honey are still subject to the adulteration and misbranding provisions of Texas Health and Safety Code 431. Texas Agriculture Code, Title 6, Chapter 131, Bees and Honey, Subchapter E, Labeling and Sale of Honey gives DSHS regulatory authority over the labeling of honey. DSHS will investigate complaints of adulterated honey and mislabeled honey and take appropriate compliance action.
• Can a beekeeper blend other raw honey into raw honey from their own bees/hives?
Yes, as long as some of the raw honey is from the beekeeper’s own bees/hives, a beekeeper can blend other raw honey with the beekeeper’s honey. If you blend honey no longer considered raw, like pasteurized honey, blending is no longer an exempt farm activity and a food manufacturer license is required.
• Is allowing raw honey to dry so that it crystallizes an allowable farm activity for beekeepers?
Yes, a beekeeper drying raw honey from their bees/hives is an allowable farm activity as long as there is no additional manufacturing/processing (other than packaging and labeling). Packaging and labeling raw agricultural commodities are allowable farm activities.
• If a beekeeper whips air into their raw honey to sell as whipped honey, would this be considered manufacturing requiring the firm to license as a food manufacturer?
Yes, whipping air into raw honey is a manufacturing activity that requires a food manufacturer license.”
• Additional FDA Guidance:
Draft Guidance for Industry: Classification of Activities as Harvesting, Packing, Holding, or Manufacturing/Processing for Farms and Facilities
Exempt Farm Activity:
Packing- Filtering for safe/effective packing (e.g., filtering honey to remove hive debris)
Filtering RACs for safe/effective packing (e.g., filtering honey to remove hive debris) is a packing activity.

2. Retail Permits, Cottage Foods, Small Honey Producers
Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 437 REGULATION OF FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RETAIL FOOD STORES, MOBILE FOOD UNITS, AND ROADSIDE FOOD VENDORS
• Small honey production operation restrictions: amount produced, uninspected kitchen label, where sold.
o Small honey production operation defined: H&SC 437.001(7)
o H&SC 437.0197-437.0199
• Cottage food production operation
o Cottage food production operation defined: H&SC 437.001(2-b)
o H&SC 437.0191-437.0193

If you need more information, please contact the DSHS PSQA Unit at 512-834-6670 or foods.regulatory@dshs.texas.gov.

Davonna Koebrick, LMSW, RS
Food Safety Officer/MFRPS Coordinator
Texas Rapid Response Team/Texas Food Safety Taskforce
Division for Consumer Protection Texas Department of State Health Services
Davonna.koebrick@dshs.texas.gov       (512) 231-5783
www.dshs.state.tx.us/foods

3.  The Texas Agricultural Code 131 identifies very specific honey label requirements.  The list below is provided by the Texas Beekeepers Association to its members as a reference, and is not a replacement or substitution for current laws or requirements by the State of Texas or any federal agency requirements for items required on a beekeeper’s honey label.  For a complete list of all current Texas beekeeping laws see Texas Agricultural Code 131

• SUB-CHAPTER E. LABELING AND SALE OF HONEY
Sec. 131.081. USE OF “HONEY” ON LABEL.A person may not label, sell, or keep, offer, or expose for sale a product identified on its label as “honey,” “liquid or extracted honey,” “strained honey,” or “pure honey” unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.
• Sec. 131.082. USE OF BEE, HIVE, OR COMB DESIGN.A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and that has on its label a picture or drawing of a bee, hive, or comb unless the product consists exclusively of pure honey.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.
• Sec. 131.083. SALE OF IMITATION HONEY.A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that resembles honey and is identified on its label as “imitation honey.”
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983. label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that consists of honey mixed with another ingredient unless:(1) the product bears a label with a list of ingredients; and (2) “honey” appears in the list of  ingredients in the same size type of print as the other ingredients.
• Sec. 131.084. SALE OF HONEY MIXTURES.

  (a) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that consists of honey mixed with another ingredient unless:

  (1) the product bears a label with a list of ingredients; and

  (2) “honey” appears in the list of ingredients in the same size type of print as the other ingredients.

  – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/AG/6/A/131/E/131.084#sthash.JiLAWhLF.dpuf

  (b) A person may not label, sell, or keep, expose, or offer for sale a product that contains honey mixed with another ingredient and contains in the product name “honey” in a larger size of type or print or in a more prominent position than the other words in the product name.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.

• Sec. 131.123. LABELING OR SALE OF HONEY.(a) A person commits an offense if the person violates a provision of Subchapter E of this chapter.(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 1884, ch. 350, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983.

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced its selection of 50 projects for potential award, totaling approximately $300 million. These innovative projects will help improve access to land, capital, and markets for underserved farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access (Increasing Land Access) Program, which is funded by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, works to increase access to farm ownership opportunities, improve results for those with heirs’ property or fractionated land, increase access to markets and capital that affect the ability to access land, and improve land ownership, land succession and agricultural business planning.

“Land access, market access and capital are critical to the success of the hardworking producers who keep agriculture thriving,” said Kelly Adkins, FSA State Executive Director in Texas. “Underserved producers have not had access to the amount of specialized technical support that would increase opportunities to access and capital and benefit the launch, growth, resilience, and success of their agricultural enterprises. The Increasing Land Access Program is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to advancing equity for all, including people who have been underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by inequality, by providing the resources, tools and technical support needed to directly help local farmers and ensure we have a strong
agricultural system across the country.”

Examples of selectees for potential award in Texas include:
 Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation whose goals are (1) to increase land access for underserved landowners/producers so they can increase their opportunities to access capital and markets in agriculture which will result in viable farming/forestry operations and (2) build and deepen infrastructure in the subregion of East Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi for addressing Heirs Property among black producers.

 Kansas Black Farmers Association, Inc. has a primary goal to address capital, market, and land access concerns with the end goals of 1) connecting more underserved producers and would-be producers to technical services and to increase the number of BIPOC owned and operated agribusinesses in the identified region; 2) providing producers and would-be producers with tangible capital assistance, and resources including continuing education to build industry and market awareness, down-payment and/or credit assistance; and 3) building various forms of community partnerships such as cooperatives and equipment sharing programs and a robust and long-lasting multi-generational education and mentorship program that will continue long after year five of the project.

 H.O.P.E. for Small Farm Sustainability will conduct The Victory Farms project to address barriers affecting beginning (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) BIPOC farmers, including refugees and asylum seekers. After partaking in peer-to-peer training, participants in the program will have the opportunity to practice farming through HOPE’s apprenticeship program, which allocates a 20’ x 20’ starter plot to farmers and provides specialized, hands-on training and mentorship. Farmers will receive larger plots once they begin scaling up production. Participants will have access to this land at no cost for up to three years, during which they can gain the education, experience, income, management skills, and brand awareness they will need to qualify for FSA loans and set up profitable long-term agribusinesses.

The tentative selectees include national, regional, and local projects that cover 40 states and territories including Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA will work with the selected applicants to finalize the scope and funding levels in the coming months.

See the full list of Increasing Land Access Program selected projects.

Environmental Assessment

These projects will likely result in the purchase of land, construction of farm infrastructure and other activities that could have potential impacts on environmental resources. USDA has developed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Increasing Land Access Program to evaluate the program’s overarching environmental impacts as they relate to the National Environmental Policy Act.

The environmental assessment is available online for public review. USDA is requesting comments on the program’s potential impact on the environment. The feedback will be incorporated into the final assessment, as appropriate, prior to a decision.

USDA will consider comments received by Friday, July 14, 2023, at 5 p.m. EDT. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible.

Comments may be submitted:
 Electronically at: Land.Access@usda.gov
 By mail at: Attn: Michael Mannigan, Grants Management Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Outreach Office, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-0506

For more information, contact Michael Mannigan at Land.Access@usda.gov. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

More Information  
The Increasing Land Access Program was originally announced in August 2022 as part of a broader investment to help ensure underserved producers have the resources, tools, programs and technical support they need to succeed and is being funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Increasing Land Access Program is part of USDA’s commitment to equity across the Department and steps it has taken under Secretary Vilsack’s direction to improve equity and access, eliminate barriers to its programs for underserved individuals and communities, and build a workforce more representative of America. Earlier in the year, the USDA Equity Commission, which is comprised of independent members from diverse backgrounds, released its interim recommendations to remove barriers to inclusion and access at USDA. The program is also an important component of the Department’s and President Biden’s vision to Advance Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production; fairer markets for all producers; ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities; building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices; making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2023 — The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now accepting
nominations for county committee members for elections that will occur later this year. Additionally, USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is unveiling a new GIS tool to make it easier for producers to participate in the nomination and election processes for county committee members, who make important decisions on how federal farm programs are administered locally.
All nomination forms for the 2023 election must be postmarked or received in the local FSA office by Aug. 1, 2023.

“Producers serving on FSA county committees play a critical role in the day-to-day operations of the agency, and they serve as the eyes and ears for the producers who elected them,” said FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux. “In order for county committees to be both effective and equitable in their decision-making at the local level, they must reflect the full diversity of American agriculture. I am excited that we have another opportunity through this year’s nominations and elections cycle to make our committees more inclusive, and in turn, better equipped to best serve all our customers. I encourage you to consider serving the farmers, ranchers and producers in your community on your local FSA county committee, and I thank you in advance for your public service.”

Elections will occur in certain Local Administrative Areas (LAA) for members. LAAs are elective areas for FSA committees in a single county or multi-county jurisdiction and they may include LAAs that are focused on an urban or suburban area.
Customers can locate their LAA through a new GIS locator tool available at fsa.usda.gov/elections.
“Based on feedback from stakeholders, including the USDA Equity Commission, we are unveiling this new tool to make it easier for producers to effectively participate in the process,” Ducheneaux added.

Agricultural producers may be nominated for candidacy for the county committee if they:

• Participate or cooperate in a USDA program; and
• Reside in the LAA that is up for election this year.

1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250

Contact:
FPAC.BC.Press@usda.gov
Farm Service Agency

A cooperating producer is someone who has provided information about their farming or ranching operation to FSA, even if they have not applied or received program benefits. Individuals may nominate themselves or others and qualifying organizations may also nominate candidates. USDA encourages minority producers, women and beginning farmers or ranchers to nominate, vote and hold office.

Nationwide, more than 7,700 dedicated members of the agricultural community serve on FSA county committees. The committees are made up of three to 11 members who serve three-year terms. Committee members are vital to how FSA carries out disaster programs, as well as conservation, commodity and price support programs, county office employment and other agricultural issues.

Urban and Suburban County Committees
The 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to form urban county committees as well as make other advancements related to urban agriculture, including the establishment of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production. FSA established county committees specifically focused on urban agriculture. The urban county committees will work to encourage and promote urban, indoor and other emerging agricultural production practices. Additionally, the new county committees may address areas such as food access, community engagement, support of local activities to promote and encourage community compost and food waste reduction.

Urban committee members are nominated and elected to serve by local urban producers in the same jurisdiction. Urban county committee members will provide outreach to ensure urban producers understand USDA programs and serve as the voice of other urban producers and assist in program implementation that support the needs of the growing urban community.
The 17 county committees for urban agriculture are located in:

• Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Chicago, Illinois
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Detroit, Michigan
• Dallas, Texas
• Grand Rapids, Michigan
• Los Angeles, California
• Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• New York, New York
• Oakland, California
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Phoenix, Arizona
• Portland, Oregon
• Richmond, Virginia
• St. Louis, Missouri

Learn more at farmers.gov/urban.

More Information
Producers should contact their local FSA office today to register and find out how to get involved in their county’s election, including if their LAA is up for election this year. To be considered, a producer must be registered and sign an FSA-669A nomination form. Urban farmers should use an FSA-669-A-3 for urban county committees. These forms and other information about FSA county committee elections are available at fsa.usda.gov/elections.

Election ballots will be mailed to eligible voters beginning Nov. 6, 2023.
To learn more about FSA programs, producers can contact their local USDA Service Center. Producers can also prepare maps for acreage reporting as well as manage farm loans and view other farm records data and customer information by logging into their farmers.gov account. If you don’t have an account, sign up today.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris
administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America and committing to equity across the department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.