In the picturesque northwest region of Michigan, nestled along the shores of Lake Michigan, lies Traverse City, a charming town that proudly bears the title of the “Cherry Capital of the World.” This area is celebrated for its abundant cherry production, making it the largest producer of cherries in the United States. The neighboring Leelanau Peninsula is dotted with cherry orchards, and local farmers sell their vibrant harvest through roadside stands, local stores, and markets across the country. However, not all cherries make it to consumers, and a significant portion of the crop goes unused each year.
The reason for this waste has become a source of frustration and controversy among local farmers. A program implemented by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB) mandates that a portion of the cherry crop must be left to rot. Marc Santucci, a farmer from Traverse City who operates an 80-acre cherry farm, recently took to social media to express his discontent with this policy. His Facebook post, which quickly went viral, highlighted that he and other farmers are required to dump 14% of their tart cherry crop on the ground to accommodate the import of approximately 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas. Santucci described this situation as unfair, especially given the quality of the cherries being discarded.
Tart cherries, which Santucci grows on about 30 acres of his farm, have a very short shelf life, making them particularly vulnerable to wastage under current regulations. The marketing order in question dates back to 1937, a time when the cherry industry was experiencing significant instability. The order was intended to regulate the supply of cherries to stabilize prices and protect farmers from the boom-and-bust cycles that had previously devastated the industry. However, Santucci and other smaller farmers argue that the order is now outdated and disproportionately benefits larger growers who have the resources to process their surplus cherries into products like dried cherries or cherry concentrate, which have longer shelf lives.
Santucci highlighted the limitations faced by smaller-scale farmers like himself, who lack the necessary processing equipment. Unlike larger growers, he cannot freeze or dry his excess cherries to sell them in future years or markets outside the United States. This lack of processing capability forces him to comply with the CIAB’s regulations, which require him to leave a portion of his crop to rot. He noted that while farmers receive a small payment for the cherries they are forced to dump, this compensation does little to mitigate the financial and moral frustration of seeing perfectly good food go to waste.
The CIAB’s marketing order is reviewed and voted on every five years by cherry producers. According to Perry Hedin, an official from the CIAB, the order has helped maintain stable prices for tart cherries over the past two decades, benefiting many growers, including those who initially opposed the order. Hedin explained that the program aims to provide stability in an industry known for its unpredictable yields. However, Santucci argues that the system mainly favors larger producers with processing facilities, allowing them to use their excess cherries in other ways, while smaller farmers struggle to stay competitive.
The controversy surrounding the cherry dumping practice has sparked a broader conversation about the impact of agricultural regulations on small farmers and the role of international trade in the U.S. agricultural market. Santucci has called for a reevaluation of the program, suggesting that the current system unfairly opens the U.S. market to cheaper foreign imports at the expense of local producers. He has encouraged the public to contact Congress to push for changes that would allow farmers to sell or donate their excess cherries rather than waste them.
In response to the public outcry, Paul W. Jackson, editor of Michigan Farm News, published an editorial addressing the situation. He emphasized that the marketing order was established through a democratic process involving a majority vote of tart cherry growers and is enforced by the growers themselves. Jackson and Kevin Robson, a horticulture specialist with the Michigan Farm Bureau, argued that the program benefits the industry as a whole and has historically helped stabilize cherry prices. Robson also disputed Santucci’s claim that cherries cannot be donated, noting that they can be used for research, development, or processed into products like cherry pies for charitable donations.
Despite these reassurances, the sight of thousands of pounds of cherries being left to waste has struck a chord with many people, highlighting the emotional and ethical dimensions of food waste and agricultural policy. The debate continues, with calls for reform to address the unique challenges faced by smaller farmers and to explore more sustainable and equitable solutions for managing agricultural surpluses.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Share your views in the comments below. You can also subscribe to receive more articles like this one directly to your inbox.
This article was originally published on Althealthworks.com and is republished.
