Alaska-grown deserves state preference

Should the state help Alaska's farmers, or let them sink or swim on their own?

Sinking or swimming is not a new choice for Alaska farmers. All they want is a chance to try to make it to shore in calm waters. Instead, it seems there is always a storm brewing.

In some respects, because of problems like literal storms that can wipe out a season of hard work, farming will always be buffeted by the winds of misfortune. Those who get into the business know this and try to walk on water all the same. But there are ways federal and state governments can help without doling handouts.

The federal government uses tariffs to help protect American farmers from an influx of cheap agricultural products from other nations. By applying tariffs, American farmers are not put out of business by cheap labor and questionable agricultural practices in some other nations. While American farmers are statistically some of the most active conservationists around, plunder-and-burn agriculture is still being practiced in some countries. It’s tough to compete economically in the short term.

It’s also not easy for Alaska farmers to compete with those in the Lower 48. While the thought of tariffs between states would likely not be well received, the federal government has no compunction about treating Alaska differently when it so chooses. The new Farm Bill, still in the forging, has an Alaska and Hawaii cost-of-production provision.

Tariffs on dairy products, for instance, would mean the cost of milk would rise in Alaska, but it would be a more realistic price based on the cost of producing milk here. Still, if for no other reason than Alaska is unlikely to ever produce enough milk — or any other product — to feed its population, tariffs may be impractical.

But the state does have another tool on the books that can, and occasionally does, aid the state's agricultural industry.

Alaska Statute 36.30.332 gives preferential treatment to Alaska products when the state buys a commodity or service. Under the state’s procurement code, products that are at least 75 percent Alaska grown or made are given a 7 percent preference in pricing. That means if the price is within 7 percent of a lower-cost non-Alaska product, the Alaska product wins the contract. This should include purchases for prisons, Alaska National Guard facilities, Pioneer homes, the ferry system and any other state-supported entity. And that is potentially a lot of Alaska Grown consumption.

It’s not just dairy products and vegetables. The statute includes fish and forestry products from Alaska.

But, despite the regulation on the books, it isn't happening. There is no watchdog for, or enforcement of, the statute. The active use of this regulation ebbs and flows according to who's minding the store — literally and figuratively. How much of an emphasis on Alaska Grown is being applied depends on who is in charge.

For Alaska farmers, that can be disastrous. Planning and planting of a crop happens months before harvest. Investments in livestock are months and years in the making. Infrastructure is expensive and represents long-term investments. With commitments by the state and federal government to give preferential treatment to locally grown foods buffeted by the winds of politics, indifference and lack of knowledge, farmers cannot anticipate they will be favored over out-of-state producers from one year to the next.

There are plenty of ways the state could help its agricultural community, like funding agricultural research programs adequately. But one of the cheapest, easiest and most appropriate ways it could help tomorrow is to simply stand by the statutes on the books and give its farm commodities the 7 percent preferential treatment that has been on the books for about 10 years.

Victoria Naegele is director of Alaska Agriculture in the Classroom, an agricultural literacy effort funded by the Alaska Farm Bureau. She can be reached at akaitc@alaskafb.org. She is also a copy editor for the Frontiersman.