After 66 years the Washington Apple Commission (WAC) is winding down. This throws the future of levy-supported promotion in the US into uncertainty as the Florida Department of Citrus and the California Table Grape Commission also find themselves the subject of legal battles and the EU looks at its own promotional structures.

Two weeks after a court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Washington state's apple growers to pay a levy to support the commission's promotions of their fruit, the Washington Apple Commission has announced it is laying off staff and proceeding with a wind-down plan.

According to press reports in the US, the commission is laying off 33 of its 48 staff and 15 other representatives it has contracted overseas. Those staff positions remaining will also be terminated soon.

Ironically, the court case that has brought the commission's demise was initiated by WAC itself when it sued two growers in a class action suit hoping the ruling would be an affirmation of its right to the levy. But the judge ruled that growers could not be forced to pay for promotions that benefit their competitors as its infringed constitutional protection of freedom of speech.

It is possible that some other sort of marketing organisation will be established for the state's apples as interested parties such as the US department of agriculture and other commissions have been viewing the situation since the judge's ruling.

There are implications for trade association USApple, which relies for a substantial portion of its funding from WAC. 'The Washington industry's involvement is clearly important to our activities,' said the association's president Nancy Foster. 'As they consider their options we are confident our supporters will place USApple very high on their list of priorities.' The Washington ruling is similar to one made the same week by a district judge in Florida on the rights of the Florida Department of Citrus to charge a fee for promotion. Whereas the FDOC has vowed to fight the ruling in the appeals process, WAC decided at the end of last week that it would not appeal the judge's ruling against it.

But the FDOC stressed that its case differs from that of WAC as the parties concerned seek an out-of-court agreement on a remedy before the appeals process. The remedy hearing is scheduled for April 24. 'Its is business as usual for us at the FDOC and our staff are 100 per cent focussed on the programmes that we have implemented,' the department's pr manager Eric Boomhower told the Journal.

'Each of the challenges to the commodity agencies will be considered on its own merits and the FDOC is an agency of state government which sets us apart from the others. We are as much a government agency as the department of agriculture or transport.' The six growers that have brought the case against the FDOC are now seeking to bar the department from collecting its tax.

And the California Table Grape Commission announced this week that it will appeal a decision made by a circuit court not to reconsider an earlier decision and is going to the US Supreme Court. The case centres on the commission's rights to raise funds for an advertising programme. The Californians stress, however, that their case does not call into question the very being of their commission and promotion in 40 countries this summer will continue.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission is proposing the financing of promotion of agricultural products come under the rural development budget as the fruit and vegetable regime and common agricultural policy are reformed.

This would mean that trade-related promotional programmes would no longer be eligible for EU funding and is being fought by the advisory committee on the promotion of agricultural products as well as Europe-wide trade association Freshfel.

Topics