Missouri Governor Bob Holden named 38 people to a task force to examine issues facing agriculture. The task force is charged with making

recommendations for improving Missouri's agriculture industry. The idea is a productive one, or at least it can be. I'm one of the 38, and I'm honored to be chosen. The 38 of us were chosen to represent farmers, agribusiness, universities, commodity organizations and the legislature.

The group is further subdivided into six subcommittees that are supposed to examine all aspects of agriculture. I'm on the subcommittee looking into food safety and security, biotechnology, and life sciences. Each subcommittee was given three goals: 1) submit recommendations to the governor on actions that need to be taken to ensure a strong, profitable and environmentally friendly industry; 2) improve working relationships among all facets of Missouri agriculture, state government and non-agricultural entities to increase awareness, understanding and unity; and 3) provide a "Missouri agriculture platform and conduit" through the Missouri Department of Agriculture to communicate the importance of agriculture.

We've held six regional meetings this past summer. The meetings were designed to provide people with an opportunity to help us identify issues and situations that will help all involved better understand critical issues and needs facing agriculture. From these meetings and from our collected expertise, we are to help develop recommendations to improve opportunity in and around agriculture. During these meetings I've listened to a large number of people from different walks of agriculture explain why this particular practice or that specific situation needs to be better funded, emphasized or given special attention. All of these people are to be commended for their input. Many were absolutely correct; some had a small corner of a larger issue; and some. . .well . . . enough said.

From my perspective, whether the subject was automation, aquaculture, biotechnology, free-range chickens, high yields, hydroponics or organic farming, all of the presenters overlooked a huge issue. The most effective "help" for agriculture isn't funding for or focus on any specific area, philosophy or practice. The "help" that is so necessary to heal agriculture today, sad to say, is protection from government, protection that pushes government out of the way so farmers, ranchers and their organizations can go about the business of producing food and fiber for the United States and the world. I don't say that offhand. And I don't say it to be flippant. From my perspective, you don't have to look far to find examples of government interference that adversely affect the marketplace and the very people government is supposed to protect. Far from helping farmers and ranchers, in these instances, government hurts them, their markets and their organizations.

The line up for just this past year shows us a vast number of government fixes that backfire. Each of these instances either takes money straight out of a farmer's pocket or prevents it from ever getting there. First there was the ill-conceived livestock Price Discrimination Law. Farmers and ranchers in this state lost and are continuing to lose millions of dollars of income because legislators ran packers out of the state of Missouri. Despite your politics or leanings, there is no arguing that after passage of the law, major packers backed out of cash livestock purchases in the state. Legislators proceeded despite repeated warnings from livestock producers and farm organizations about what would happen. Legislators just wanted to "do something."

Next on this infamous list is the issue of storm-water permits for chip mills. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care a bit about a chip mill's permit process. But Missouri's Department of Natural Resources issued a draft permit to a chip mill that imposes liability on the mill for water-quality violations created by independent contractors. In other words, if a logging crew created a water-quality mess on private property, the mill would be liable. It doesn't take much vision to see where this would lead. In one stroke of the pen, any grain elevator or any livestock purchaser could be held liable for pollutants or runoff from a seller's field. That same draft required the mill to train independent loggers and to disclose the names, addresses and locations of customers. Buyers have no legitimate control in an open market, especially to dictate practices on private property, train sellers and provide names. It's another government "fix" that will take time and money to oppose.

Then consider statutes pertaining to "safety" requirements for elevators. In July, the governor vetoed a House bill that would have exempted elevators used for nonpublic purposes from onerous state certification requirements. The certification statute definitions are broad enough to include elevators and manlifts located at grain elevators and feed mills despite the fact these conveyances are not for public use and are covered by existing and strict OSHA workplace rules. The governor's veto of the nonpublic elevator exemption will cost MFA conservatively $600,000 for modifications to manlifts and freight elevators already covered under OSHA worker safety rules.

We all know what road is paved with good intentions. And if those in charge of government really want to help agriculture, they should get out of the paving business.