I was reading an NPR article the other day that quite literally made my jaw drop. A raisin farmer named Marvin Horne in California has made it all the way to the Supreme Court, for {brace yourself} selling his raisins to the public. Apparently, selling your raisins to the public is against the law. The Raisin Administrative Committee {that’s a real thing} decides how many California raisins will be released to the world each year and then tells farmers how much of their crop will need to be turned over and put in a raisin reserve. This becomes the law—legitimately the law.
Mr. Horne decided after a year with particularly high reserves {47%} that he was no longer operating under the Raisin Administrative Committee’s standards. He researched the laws and found a loophole. Then, he set up his own processing facility and began selling all of his raisins to the public. The RAC decided this was no bueno, and took Mr. Horne to court. Their argument is that they protect the raisin farmers by ensuring there is not a flood of raisins in the market, thereby driving the prices down and dropping the bottom out of the raisin market. The case made it all of the way to the Supreme Court before it was kicked back down into the lower courts. Right this very minute, Marvin Horne is awaiting a ruling.
So, here’s my question: Is this just a farmer “raisin” money for his family {I’m sorry, I had to make the pun, my hands were tied} or should the market be regulated to protect the delicate balance of supply and demand?
I’d love to know what YOU think,
~Mavis
cellar door says
I have read more than just this, and he didn’t sign up with anything. That’s just the law, that he can’t sell that many raisins. He was supposed to give them to the government. I think there is an insane amount of government regulation on farming, and it’s generally good intentioned, but then the laws become outdated and never change. They also seem to be highly biased towards corn and soybean farmers, and against small farmers who want to do their own thing. I hope the supreme court rules in his favor!
Jim says
I for one wish they really stopped regulating things. I live in PA where they highly regulate milk. Never will I find a coupon for dollars off of milk nor will I find it much cheaper at one store to another. But there is bargains like buy eight cereals get a gallon for free. As you already know, buying name brand cereal on pennies on the dollar is quite common, so I do get a free gallon from time to time.
MaryW says
If he’s got raisins to sell, he should be able to sell them.
Tracie says
I’m guessing he probably signed up with the RAC at some point and maybe joining it or being a member of it is kind of like a contract and he could be in violation of that contract. Maybe there are years when being an RAC member is really good for him and it’s just been bad now, I don’t know. It’s a very complicated subject and I am just responding to the blog, I haven’t read anymore. So I would say he should not sell them as “California Raisins” but should maybe find an alternate use and donate some to food pantries etc.
Jeanna says
I can’t stand monopolies that lobby and get laws passed, and try to inflate prices and control an aspect of the market. If this man has a product to sell, he should be able to sell it.
Donna Jantzer says
I heard of Mr. Homes’ journey awhile back. It seems ridiculous, but are other produce categories similarly regulated? And is an agricultural agency, like the Raisin Administrative Committee not formed by a group of farmers for their benefit, and run by them? I think we have had a similar thing with the Apple Commission here in WA, and they finally disbanded when the farmers no longer wanted it? I don’t know enough about it. But it seems that Mr. Homes should have ways to change the system by getting others in the same boat together, and getting things changed legally? It is frustrating to consumers that our food is so tightly regulated for our own good! Like we can’t buy or sell raw milk. I can see how it is frustrating for farmers as well.
Delores says
I think the less government intervention and control of our food supply, the better. He should be able to determine what to do with his raisins.
Rhonda says
Agreed! Less government is best!
WickedBadNaughty says
Really? With so many people starving all over the world even in the United States of America…and they are concerned about flooding the market with… raisins?? Seems more about monopoly and control to me. This is almost as bad as the people in Arlington, Tx who were raided by the swat team for growing OKRA. Apparently okra is a gateway veggie.
Carol says
I totally agree with you, WickedBadNaught! (Love that name!) I’m still fuming over that SWAT team mowing the gardens down in Arlington, TX….
Agriculture is such big business and I believe that at some point our personal gardens are going to be labeled as terrorist activities.
Chad says
Yea, I agree with Delores. Let the supply and demand of the market figure it out. The reasoning I get from the RAC is that they are protecting Mr. Horne from… me (the consumer)?
Christina M. says
Keep the government out of FARMING!
Betty AD says
Well,…its been going on where the govt is trying to stop farmers from selling there goods…they even come in and destroy ….all there food… Its not right…as people want to get away from all those chemicals that are placed in the soil and on products. Ive heard there was a farmer in Cal. and in one of those northern states that were selling to locals and they came in and destroyed everything…there animals and poured the milk out and got rid of all there processed meats. There meats are certified …when sold just like the govt meats/food. As for the raw milk….they buy from farmers and pasteurize it..therefore taken the nutrients out and putting in what they want. It so sad that people are starving in our own USA and all this food being thrown out.
Amanda says
This makes me want to figure out how to buy only his raisins from now on.
Melissa says
Me too!!! 🙂 I wonder if he’ll ship to North Carolina! 🙂
Lynne says
Knowing just what I read here, this sounds like something done by the legislature to enable the raisin-growing industry to keep prices at a certain level by restricting production. By overproducing and then selling the extra (at the artificially high price created by most other producers keeping to the restricted amount), Mr. Horne is looking for a nice advantage for himself over the others who kept to the limits. Of course, if the others decide that they, too, are going to ignore the production limits and the limits go by the wayside, the whole artifical market scheme created by this legislation will crumble and raisins will indeed be sold at a true “market” price. That might not be wonderful for raisin growers, but I suspect consumers will get a fairer deal. I generally like the concept of a free market and am suspiciious of things like this sort of legislation that interfere with the market. I don’t know the history of this legislation, so maybe there is some really compelling issue at stake. The risk in this situation that I see is that the market price will be too low to support farms devoting acreage to producing grapes to become raisins, and many fewer producers will stay in that business.
Kristina Z says
Lynne, I suspect you are right. My husband grew up on a farm in the same town where this man farms his raisins. In the 70s, an unregulated raisin market was going gangbusters, and by the early 80s, so many folks had planted raisins on speculation that the whole market tanked, putting both the speculators and long-time raisin farming families out of business. Such price controls keep the market steady for the growers, and I’d bet that the association mentioned in this piece was not thrust upon the farmers by any government, but formed by forward-looking farmers who wished to ensure a stable marketplace. Remember, this is a perennial crop, which costs the farmers $1000s *per acre* (and several years) to plant and bring to enough maturity to bear fruit . You don’t just plant raisins one year then change your mind and plant something different the next when the market tanks. You’re in it for the long haul and if prices take a dump, you are left hanging, hoping the next year is better. Two bad years can strain even the best planners, and will put many out of business, so it’s no wonder this guy’s neighbors are upset he isn’t playing by the rules that benefit them all. I’m not familiar with this legislation either, but I suspect if there is an exemption available for this, it will be because of small tonnage produced or acreage planted, not production type (i.e. organic).
Susie in DeLand says
Just catching up on m y reading, so a little late to this convo. But Kristina Z makes a very good, well-thought out point. I know it rankles us to think of “Government Regulation”, but as she said, this may very well have been put in place by the farmers themselves to protect their interests.
Tina B says
There are people going hungry in this country for lack of food and money to purchase food, and THIS is happening? This is an outrage!
Katie C. says
I find it incredibly frustrating to hear of the government regulating every little thing. Isn’t there a great risk of a raisin shortage if raisin farmers decide they don’t want to deal with all of the regulations and decide to get out? The government sure is set up to treat us like babies that are only capable of so much. I hope that man wins in court.
Carol says
I’m sure this situation is complicated and a simple answer won’t cover everyone. But, really, there has to be a balance. Monsanto and the other Big Ag companies are allowed and encouraged to provide us with poor foods that make us sicker and have reduced our farmlands to mere growing mediums. (The soil isn’t even alive any more.) But a farmer cannot sell directly to folks who want his healthy product. Wow. What about all the Farmers’ Markets we all love? Can we foresee a day when those will be outlawed?
Keep growing your veggies, it is an outward sign of freedom!
Pat says
The law regulating the sale of raisins was almost certainly brought about because of other farmers, particularly in the mid west who were competing with large agri-business farms. Those large agri-farms were able to sell their crops at a much lower price than the small family farms. The small family farms trying to keep up and sell anything are forced to follow the price. After selling at a far lower price their profit margins a drastically cut. Because of this effect it doesn’t take long for a small family farm to fold and go into foreclosure.
The RAC was most likely meant to help keep prices high (artificially) for farmers so that they were able to maintain their margins. Either Mr. Horne grew more raisins than he was recommended to grow or their was a significant reduction in the demand for raisins. Either way Mr Horne is poised to profit handsomely from the artificially high price. Then by flooding the market with more raisin than anticipated he may cause a fall in prices which will then in turn hurt the other raisin farmers who will now make even less when they sell theirs.
I can see both sides of the fence, and as much as I don’t like government interference myself; I think that without it in this case there would be only a few very large producers. Once in control of the market those producers could then cut corners and/or offer an inferior product to the public. The Wal-Mart of raisins.
That’s my two cents
Amanda says
The thing is, if people are going out of business because they can’t sell enough of their product it’s time for them to find something else to sell. The world doesn’t want what they have or doesn’t want it at the prices they’re asking. The govt absolutely should NOT be artificially keeping businesses afloat. The business owners(and employees, etc) will all make a better profit if they’re selling something that people really want.
IF, in your scenario, those few big producers left chose to offer an inferior product that’s the perfect opportunity for smaller farmers to step up and fill the gap with something superior. Even if it’s only in their local markets. Consumers will learn where to buy the superior product, but the producers have to have the freedom to sell as much as they can/want at the best price the most people will choose to pay.
Wal-Mart gets a bad rap, but they’re successful because they offer what many many people want – good prices and decent quality on most things. If we don’t like Wal-Mart or their products and want to keep the “little guys” in business we need to support them with our money, not with govt regulation.
sheila says
Ag regulating by the government is a complicated topic. I’m by far an expert even though I come from a long line of farmers and grew up in an ag community. Yes, there are laws in place that don’t make sense and defy logic. However, as a whole they are in place to 1) protect the farmers 2) protect the food supply in quantity and quality and 3) protect the economy. We had more problems when the government wasn’t involved. Not to get political, but I’ve always had the stance that government is too big, but I know enough about ag to know it’s needed. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But I know enough to know it’s not a simple issue.
Trish says
Sounds like yet another power grab where none ought to exist. Govenment regulation should be kept at a minimum, but that’s not what’s happening. I hope Mr. Horne wins.
Kathryn says
Know your farmer seems to be a good practice here as well as in all the other attacks on small farmers. Open it up and let local markets have access to what is available. We will mostly be horribly surprised (in some areas) to discover that we cannot support ourselves locally and thus are dependent on these kinds of regulatory agencies.