Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Under court order, Farm Service Agency must give out data on individual farms' agricultural practices

The federal Farm Service Agency has given, under court order, a detailed database of agricultural practices on individual farms to "a publisher of dairy magazines and seller of custom lists to ag marketers," reports Brownfield Network. The appellate court decision, implemented by delivery of the records this week, has potentially major implications for farmers who worry about their privacy and journalists who cover agriculture.

Multi Ag Media LLC requested the data under the Freedom of Information Act. FSA denied the request in 2005, saying its release would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," one of the exemptions in the law. A federal district judge in Washington agreed, but the appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled otherwise in a 2-1 decision in February.

The court said FSA did not have to release "personally identifying information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, things like Social Security numbers and names," Peter Shinn reports for Brownfield. "But USDA Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Ag Services Mark Keenum told Brownfield [that] which ag producer belongs to which file in the database won’t be hard to figure out," through farm identification numbers. FSA pointedly said in a press release that the records contain "data for all operations owned and operated by individual agricultural producers and closely held family-owned business entities. These files can be used to reveal details of farming operations at a specific geographical location."

Associate FSA Administrator Glen Keppy told members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, at Department of Agriculture headquarters Tuesday for their annual Washington event, "The agency is very concerned and I as a farmer am very concerned. When I go into the county or local office, I expect some confidentiality." Shinn reports Keenum told him the new policy would make farmers question the department's "assurances of confidentiality." (Read more)

No comments: