[Because of the sensitivity of these discussions, and concerns that statements intended as inquiry or preliminary proposals might be interpreted otherwise, no effort is made to relate specific statements or ideas with individuals except as required for understanding. If you have questions about any portions of the meeting, we suggest that you contact a participant or Frank Dukes (804-924-2041).]
 
 

“When people of good will get together and speak from their head and heart, and share their ideas for the future, they make good things happen.”

“The two groups have proved that a coalition is stronger than the two parts acting separately; we can walk side by side to promote public health.”

“We’ve learned that you have to do something different to get something different.”

“We have the potential to become something even more powerful… literally changing the course of history.”

“We can’t change health behaviors unless we’re willing to learn about tobacco community issues.”

Welcome

 Rebecca Reeve welcomed participants to the Roundtable discussion.  She observed that the people in the room (and others not present) have accomplished a great deal in the past five years.  This meeting marks a time of transition.  Funding for the project continues through August only.  This meeting is an opportunity to see what value there may be in continuing beyond August the work that tobacco farmers and public health advocates have done to sustain tobacco farming communities and improve public health.  She stated her belief, and the premise of this project, that “When people of good will get together and speak from their head and heart, and share their ideas for the future, they make good things happen.”

 Participants were asked to respond to the following questions:

· What is different now?
· What are the possibilities?
· What would be the biggest changes that would help sustain tobacco-producing communities and improve public health?

 These questions were asked in three consecutive sessions focusing in turn on tobacco farmers, state public health advocates, and individuals working at the regional and national level.  Each of these three sessions began with uninterrupted time for that particular group to speak, and concluded with a discussion about their concerns and interests that was open to all participants.

 The meeting concluded with a brainstorming and planning session concerning needs and opportunities for the future.

The Tobacco Farmer Circle of Discussion

 The tobacco producers observed that the tobacco farmer is at a major crossroads.  Co-ops have large inventory from tobacco brought to market that did not meet the price support.  Quotas for both burley and flue-cured tobacco have been cut drastically the past few years.  Flue-cured farmers are being told that they must change their curing processes – at considerable expense, and in the face of an uncertain future - to reduce the amount of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) as soon as this season.

 Many farmers believe that the next quota holders’ vote concerning the tobacco program (scheduled for early 2001) will change its future.  If the companies do not buy the Flue-cured Coop’s inventory (which is not low -TSNA), and if there is another cut in quota in December, there will have to be a large increase in the “no-net” fee assessed to growers.  The result may well be that supporters of the program will not generate the 2/3 voting support needed to keep the program.  The history of failed coops shows circumstances similar to those that exist today.

 The burley tobacco program may be less vulnerable, since all burley quota holders (including those who may be leasing their quota and not producing any tobacco themselves) are able to vote, unlike the flue-cured program, for which only the actual producer or quota holder with an investment in the production is able to vote.  But Philip Morris has begun a pilot contracting program for burley tobacco and that program may erode support for the burley program.

 The farmers shared the sense of desperation that is now pervading tobacco growing families, where it is not unusual to hear talk of divorce or even suicide.  One grower talked about how when farmers get in a bind, other bad things start happening.  Hard times bring hard feelings.  The competition for quota – now renting for 50 cents/lb. and even higher in some areas - can set neighbor against neighbor, or create anger against the Coop.  One concern is that it will become easy to blame public health advocates and their efforts.

 There was some discussion about whether the problem with relatively high TSNAs in flue-cured tobacco lies with the manufacturing process or with the tobacco.  The growers were adamant that the problem is primarily with the curing process, and not with the manufacturing process as has been speculated.  Foreign-grown tobacco that has not been cured with propane heaters has a considerably smaller amount of nitrosamines.  It was suggested that farmers producing more than 50 acres will probably be willing to convert their barns, while those with less than 50 acres will not be able to do so.

 The farmers suggested that they had a moral obligation to remove a known carcinogen such as TSNAs when there is technology to reduce its presence.  There has been some hope that the manufacturers would help fund the retrofitting of the curing sheds needed to produce the reduced-nitrosamine tobacco, but that may well not occur.  The public health representatives observed that it has not been demonstrated that reducing TSNAs would reduce the risk associated with tobacco use, and that any claims of reduced risk needed to be based on research and made only under appropriate regulatory supervision.

 There was also some discussion of whether public health groups might support forgiving the public loan and subsequent destruction of the tobacco currently in the flue-cured coop’s inventory.  The companies have already indicated that they will not purchase it; however, should it remain unsold, and should the coop fold, the tobacco undoubtedly would end up being sold at considerable discount.  It was suggested that the payment for - and destruction of - the non-reduced TSNA tobacco could be a challenge to the companies to “do the right thing” by removing their non-reduced TSNA inventory (estimated at over 1 billion pounds) as well.  This issue could also be used to advocate that the FDA needs to be the one regulating whether a particular tobacco is dangerous or not, and that determination should not be made by the companies.  There is a concern among public health advocates that they risk their credibility if they advocate for any program that assumes that lower TSNA in tobacco products makes a safer product.  There may be support for publicly rebuking those companies that are dictating reduced TSNA production methods in the absence of compelling science.

 Last year’s burley crop overall had lower TSNA levels, but because of poor weather it also had poor color and taste.  They are now looking at a new process that would enable low TSNA levels with better color and taste.

 Consequences of ending the tobacco program were discussed.  In the absence of the tobacco program, tobacco growing likely will shift south to areas where tobacco is not currently produced and it would be the province of fewer growers with larger-scale operations.  A 50 cent/lb. drop in price would likely result, including the price for farmers who are being promised higher prices now if they will contract directly with the companies.  The impacts on tobacco growing communities, as a result, would be great.

 These was discussion of how this future could be altered.  Could Congress prevent the tobacco program from being ended?  Could the public health and grower communities raise the issues together?  Could money be raised through a state-level excise tax to pay for the unusable inventories?

Public Health Circle of Discussion

 State public health advocates noted how their relationship with the tobacco farmers has brought them increased credibility, respect, and political leverage in their work with their legislators.  Some observed how they were shocked by how much worse the farmers’ situation had grown, far worse then ever imagined possible.  They also observed that this large drop in quota has occurred despite a relatively small decline in consumption and without FDA control.  They suggested that some legislators would be more willing to consider innovative ideas as the crisis deepens.

 There was discussion about how the public health communities are currently focussed on how to divide the dollars they are receiving from the Centers for Disease Control, and are not working together effectively for common action.  There is a sense that everyone is looking out for their own organizational interests, because those who don’t end up losing dollars.

 There was general agreement that there is a great need for better coordination at the state level, as well as a need to exchange information with federal-level organizations.  There is a need for someone to serve as a clearinghouse of information, and to facilitate dialogue between the state public health organizations as well as between public health and growers.  The federal level is important because federal legislators are not as aware of the issues as they should be, and as a result the public health organizations and growers are not as effective as they could be.  A coordinator would be additionally helpful because it would enable a more rapid response to policy issues; currently nobody is positioned to respond rapidly to policy issues.

 Legislators are concerned with tobacco communities, and there is opportunity for impacting policy through depicting the plight of the farmers on a personal level; but there needs to be someone who can conduct this public relations campaign.  It would be most helpful to have one public health advocate and one farmer in each state that could fulfill this role.

 State policy makers who are supportive have not been tapped.  Some raised the possibility of tapping the supportive legislators to champion these issues.  For example, it was very helpful when a Virginia delegate accompanied two growers to Kentucky to speak to their legislators.  A key issue is to educate policy makers about the issues.

 At the end, the question again arose of how people can direct the future rather than be victims in its path.  Because viability of the family farm is still the central focus, is there anything that can be done outside of tobacco issues to help the family farm?

Regional and National Discussion Circle

 Much has changed in five years.  Information sharing between tobacco farm and public health organizations has increased, and there are now opportunities to collaborate that were previously not available.  One public health advocate noted that he used to spend a lot of time within his organization defending this dialogue, whereas now his organization defends it when outside criticism is levied.

 Given the short session and the November election, most agreed that there is little likelihood of anything major concerning tobacco being passed in Congress.  However, there is a proposal being floated concerning FDA regulation, and public health advocates are concerned that a weakened FDA bill may go through.  The tobacco industry may try to push a preferred FDA bill, especially if they think that the House may return to Democratic control.  One farm representative noted that they do not have any problem with a bill being discussed that is favored by many health groups.

 A lot of attention of public health is being directed at how the influx of MSA funding will be spent, with emphasis on tobacco control.  New staff will be recruited and trained, programs developed, and evaluation procedures put in place.

 There is a need for national leadership for the development of a national tobacco control strategy, and farmers ought to be included in that development.  Many issues of interest to farmers have public health implications and vice versa.  The former include the tobacco program, contracting, and biotechnological uses of tobacco, and the latter include FDA authority and harm reduction.

 The strength of public health is the weight of public opinion, rather than the ability to mobilize votes or provide funding for candidates. An important tool is voter education and providing information about legislator voting records.  There are many other things that also can be done by national organizations, such as sending out candidate surveys, public attitude surveys, and conducting joint briefings at the state and national levels.

 Many public health advocates believe that they need to focus less on how to help farmers sustain their ways of life and more on how to help their communities transition to other economies.  It was mentioned that public health advocates are interested in the plight of farming overall, not just tobacco farmers, as agri-business is pushing many kinds of family farmers out of business.  The base of support for the tobacco farmer is broader than may be realized.  For example, a new senior-level American Cancer Society executive was formerly counsel to the Senate Agriculture Committee.

 There was some discussion about how many policymakers believe that agriculture should be treated no differently from other commodities.  It was noted that agricultural economics are fundamentally different from other industries, such as the auto industry, for a variety of reasons.

 One unique strength of the Southern Tobacco Communities Project is that participants come together here for a common purpose, not to pursue their individual agendas and advance their own organization’s priorities in competition with other organizations.  Because of this, the STCP has great potential to help develop a national tobacco communities agenda supported by farm and health interests.

Ideas and Plans for the Future

 A number of ideas concerning next steps were raised as part of a brainstorming process (see below for the list of ideas).  These ideas and others will be used in exploring what might be done to achieve the goals of sustaining tobacco farming communities and improving public health.  A small group of volunteers offered to help pull these ideas together.  Those volunteers include: Scott Ballin, Lynn Carol Birgmann, Jerie Jordan, Amy Barkley, Brooke Robinson, Mike Owens.
 
 
 

Issues to be Addressed

 The following issues were posed as demanding attention in the foreseeable future.  They are listed here with some questions that any future project may wish to address.

State Settlement Funding – Where is this money going?  How can information be provided to interested parties about how tobacco-farming states are using such funding?  What sort of input could people in this dialogue offer to help shape that spending for both public health and tobacco community development?

The Tobacco Program – What is at stake?  Can anything be done to inform stakeholders, including policymakers, of its importance?  Are there any options for modifications to the Program that are feasible?  What role does direct contracting with the leaf purchasers play in the future of tobacco production?

FDA Authority – What does such authority mean to farmers?  What are the prospects for legislation that would win the support of public health groups?  Of farm groups?

Biotechnology – What are the prospects for new uses of the tobacco leaf for biotechnological purposes?  How are investments in such uses being made?

Family Farming – What is being done to promote farming that can be done by families, with independence for farmers?

Community Development – What options exist for communities facing economic disruption from loss of tobacco farm income?

TSNA/Harm Reduction – What role is there for “safer” tobacco products?  How can such products be developed?  How should they be regulated?  What sorts of claims can be made under whose authority?  What role do tobacco farmers play in this arena?

Globalization of Tobacco – What is going on around the globe, and how can that information be shared?  What impact will that have on public health and farming around the world, as well as in the United States?

Ideas Suggested by Participants:
· Educate about the vote on the future of the tobacco program
· Improve coordination within states, among states, and between states and the national interests
· Develop central clearinghouse for information management
· Improve public relations and education of the media
· Continue dialogue at the state and national levels
· Develop a policy research agenda
· Expand the alliance to include other partners, such as family farm advocates and conservation groups

Implementation Ideas:
· Full-time staff at the state and national levels to accomplish the above goals, ideally to include one person with public health expertise and one person with agricultural expertise in each state
· Create “teams” who will focus on building relations with legislators, bringing farmers and public health people together, coordinating between-state action, and assisting with the transfer of information from the state to the federal level
· Obtain more statistical information/studies on conditions throughout the tobacco states of tobacco growing communities
· Formalize the public health-farmer coalition
· Identify other potential partners for economic development issues
· Develop “op-ed” articles for distribution to the media in all tobacco states, to frame the issues, educate the media and get the media involved, and send to the newly formed state Foundations established for administering the tobacco settlement monies
· Meet with the organizations such as the AARP and the National Farmer’s Union, to educate and inform them about the issues

Action Steps:
· When it is available, circulate to STCP participants the position paper currently under development concerning elimination of the current coop inventories.  Explore whether this option is feasible.

· Explore under what conditions support for FDA regulation may be engendered.

· Continue the state dialogues.  Seek ways of bringing together the tobacco farmers and public health advocates in Georgia.

· Conduct a survey of STCP participants to determine their experiences with the farmer-health dialogue and to invite suggestions about future activities.

· Attend and participate in the World Tobacco Conference (farmers as well as public health advocates).

· Develop a mission statement for the STCP, using the results of the survey as a basis.  Include a focus on “what is a healthy society” as well as “productive farmlands.”  Give attention to making the mission statement inclusive.  Circulate the mission statement by email. Initiate discussions for developing a strategy to get full-time staff for the STCP.  Explore additional resources to continue the STCP.