Michigan Farm Bureau’s member-led State Policy Development (PD) Committee recently completed its review of more than 500 policy recommendations submitted by 59 county Farm Bureaus and various advisory groups. Next, over 400 county Farm Bureau voting delegates at MFB’s State Annual Meeting will refine and approve the policies and positions that will guide much of the organization’s work in 2025.
MFB Vice President and District 11 Director Patrick McGuire reflected on the Committee’s efforts, noting that the policy book is “in good shape” overall.
“What stands out to me is the number of reaffirmations — essentially, the lack of changes,” he said, intending it as a compliment, not a criticism. “It tells me that our policy book aligns with where we want to be as members and as an industry.”
McGuire expressed his enthusiasm for serving as chair for the first time.
“It's awesome — it's super exciting to see members from all corners of the state come together, discuss what matters to them, and watch the Committee dissect rebuild, and craft resolutions they are proud to present to the delegate body.”
The delegate resolutions book contains all state level proposed policy amendments and national policy recommendations. Below is a sampling of notable amendments.
Carbon Credit Task Force
At last year’s State Annual Meeting, delegates requested that MFB, MSU and farmers convene a task force to set guidelines related to carbon credits. The task force met this summer and delivered more than a dozen farmer-focused recommendations, several of which are included in the proposed policies up for review.
“The Committee worked hard to integrate diverse ideas from the Carbon Credits Task Force into MFB Policy #74 Carbon Sequestration and Ecosystem Services Markets, as well as AFBF Policy #503 Climate Change,” said Tess Van Gorder, MFB conservation and regulatory affairs specialist. “Members aimed to support a variety of opportunities for farmers to participate in voluntary programs.
“Language has also been added in the AFBF Policy to support purchase of carbon and ecosystem services credits from U.S. farms and forests.”
Animal Health Emergencies
Delegates will review several additions to various policies, prompted by members’ thoughts on state and federal responses to the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks earlier this year.
The Committee proposes amending MFB Policy #27 Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, to support, “MDARD reevaluating current emergency preparedness procedures to enable more timely responses and communication towards the Michigan agricultural industry. Consideration could be given to the creation of a directory of persons familiar with industry practices to assist with emergency situations…” such as disease outbreaks and data breaches.
Existing language in MFB Policy #4 Animal Care indicates support for leading the development of animal health emergency management guidelines. An amendment proposes expanding this role to include collaboration with MFB and other agricultural groups, highlighting the importance of including county Farm Bureau members in discussions as issues arise.
Finally, AFBF Policy #307 Livestock and Poultry Health, may be amended to support housing, “Oversight and staffing for national animal health issues, especially livestock diseases, be housed within USDA and all coordination in livestock-related disease issues be led by USDA.”
Wildlife
Delegates will consider a revised version of MFB Policy #92 Wildlife, aimed at strengthening the focus on species management, partnerships with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and resources for farmers.
“While wildlife issues aren’t new, our existing policy has grown in length over the years and hasn’t been thoroughly revised from top to bottom in over a decade,” said Kent County Farm Bureau leader Kylee Zdunic-Rasch, who represents District 4 on the Committee. “After reviewing the current policy and new resolutions, we identified key principles and streamlined the policy to focus on effective wildlife management and protecting farmers' livelihoods.”
Agricultural Workforce
MFB and county Farm Bureau members continue advocating for relief from relentless increases in the H-2A Program Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), which threaten the viability of their businesses.
To address this, the Committee proposes adding to AFBF Policy #135 Agricultural Workforce. Existing language calls for elimination of the AEWR and support for legislative proposals to cap the annual increases and the addition would ask to also, “…account for regional variability with competitive labor rates. Additionally, changes in the H-2A program wage rate methodology should reflect a correlation to the state minimum wage.”
Further, delegates will consider language encouraging “The utilization of Temporary Nonimmigrant (TN) visas to enhance our agricultural workforce and the availability of year-round labor.”
New and Noteworthy
Several shorter amendments are included in various policies, and while they may have few words, could lead to a significant impact.
In MFB Policy #15 Direct Farm Marketing and Agritourism, the Committee added language for consideration to support, “Defining farm stays as an agritourism experience.”
Proposed language in MFB Policy #47 Unmanned Aircraft Systems would express opposition to the “Use of drones for investigation without a search warrant or equivalent documents.”
MFB Policy #71 Tort Liability Reform, may include language to support, “Exemption from personal property liability for any professional service provider who enter farm properties to perform duties at their own risk and in good faith.”
In AFBF Policy #146 Artificial Intelligence, a new section on education would read, “We support the development and implementation of education and training programs to help farmers understand and adopt AI technologies, with a focus on practical applications, potential concerns, and demonstrated benefits.”
Delegate Materials
Ahead of the MFB State Annual Meeting Dec. 3-4 in Grand Rapids, McGuire urged delegates to prepare thoroughly.
“If I were a delegate, I would ensure that what my county considered important is included in the delegate book, and if not, plan how to raise that question on the delegate floor,” he said.
“I’d then review the entire book, consider the diversity across our districts, and identify anything that stands out as needing correction, because if it does, we need to address it on delegate floor.”
For more information and updates leading up to the State Annual Meeting, be sure to visit the event web page.
Share Story
Article Tags
