Category Archives: Farm Bill 2012

Beyond the Farm Bill


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

The failure of Congress to pass a Farm Bill in 2012, and the ensuing disastrous nine-month extension that eviscerated a score of programs, illustrates how impotent this policy tool has become. Instead of addressing the urgent challenges our food system faces, the Farm Bill is a patchwork of programs that not only fail to support each other, but often contradict and undermine each other. This failure, combined with growing influence of corporate money in Washington, holds true reform at a standstill.

Without a larger discussion about overarching goals for farm and food system we want, this failure is no surprise. In fact, the Farm Bill largely ignores the deep systemic challenges plaguing our farmers and food system: wild fluctuations in agriculture prices that hurt farmers and consumers, skyrocketing land prices that keep beginning farmers off the land, the exploitation of farm and food workers, the growing market power of big corporations who overwhelm local food systems built to connect with their community, and rising income inequality that keeps healthy food out of reach for many, despite its availability.

Click here for the full post.


CFJC Response to Fiscal Cliff Deal and Farm Bill


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Community Food and Justice Coalition

While on vacation in Hawaii, President Obama signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 on Thursday. Almost unnoticed, a one-year Farm Bill extension was attached to the fiscal cliff legislation, which is far from the comprehensive extension of the 2008 Farm Bill that CFJC and partners had been tracking hourly throughout the holidays. The Farm Bill extension deal reached in the 11th hour negotiations on January 1 is a disaster for famers, eaters, and the environment. Along with many across the country, at CFJC we are extremely disappointed in Congress and the White House for the unusual process that excluded the voices of many farmers, workers and communities who will be impacted by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Our D.C. partners, and other groups fighting for an equitable and sustainable Farm Bill, were in conversations with Congressional staff to ensure critical programs to farmers and communities would be included in any Farm Bill extension. And it did look as though, while not perfect, a fair Farm Bill extension was in the works until just hours before the legislation was finally passed, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went into backroom negotiations with Vice President Joe Biden and stripped away all that had been negotiated. This demonstration of lack of transparency in the 2012 Farm Bill extension and backroom deals eschews the needs of everyday people. CFJC views policy as a critical intervention for communities to take back their food system. Mitch McConnell’s version of the Farm Bill puts profit before people and sacrifices farmers and communities for the sake of industrial agriculture.

The Farm Bill extension that passed does not make sense. For example, it continues direct subsidies despite both the Senate and the House Agriculture Committees’ earlier agreement to permanently eliminate these payments for commodity production. At the same time, it cuts disaster aid for livestock and fruit producers, who have suffered for three years from extreme heat and drought. Additionally, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- Education (SNAP-Ed) was cut by almost a third for the 2013 fiscal year; this was never part of either version of the Senate or House Agriculture Committee bills. Furthermore, the 37 critical programs, which range from Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers to Beginning Farmer Development, Rural Development, Specialty Crop, Organic and Urban Agriculture, and others, that CFJC and our partner groups fought for were also left out of the Farm Bill extension deal.

Click here for the full post.


America’s Farmers Lose in Fiscal Cliff Deal


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Center for Social Inclusion
 
By Anthony Giancatarino, Coordinator of Research & Advocacy

Congress has once again proved that making sausage is a more attractive process to watch than law-making in a gridlocked Congress.  Two days ago, Congress finally reached a partial and time-limited agreement to avert the fiscal cliff.

In the midst of the deal, they pushed thousands of family farmers over the edge, leaving many of us to question our commitment to family farmers and to improving the health of rural and urban residents.

The Farm Bill, which provides grants and loans to farmers for food and energy production, supports fresh foods in schools, and builds our local economies, expired over 3 months ago. Instead of simply renewing the Farm bill, Congress opted for a partial extension that renews nine months of subsidies that favor big agricultural corporations and ignores the needs of the small farmers who are often responsible for our vegetables, fruit and beef.

Congress failed to renew funding for critical programs like specialty crop grants, conservation or outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.  They also failed to provide disaster aid for livestock producers, and fruit and vegetable growers who are not protected by crop insurance and do not receive direct subsidies, unlike the agricultural giants, ConAgra or Monsanto.

Click here for the full post.


Congress Includes Awful 2008 Farm Bill Extension in Fiscal Cliff Deal


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

On New Year’s Eve, the Senate passed a simple extension of the 2008 Farm Bill through September 30, 2013, as part of a much bigger legislative package to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.  The House approved the Senate bill late on New Year’s Day and President Obama signed it into law on January 2.

The fiscal cliff deal was the final death knell for the 2012 Farm Bill that the full Senate passed in June and that the House Agriculture Committee passed in July.  The deal was also a very sudden death knell for the reasonable modified farm bill extension measure that NSAC worked diligently to promote over the past several months.

Approval of the simple farm bill extension also means that the new Congress that begins today will have to start the process of reauthorizing a new, full five-year farm bill from scratch.

Click here for the full post.


Fiscal Cliff Deal Cuts SNAP-Ed, Critical Nutrition Program


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Public Health Institute
 
Statement by Matthew Marsom, Vice President for Public Health Policy and Advocacy

“The last-minute political maneuvering by Congress to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff’ has undercut a critical nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education (SNAP-Ed). The Public Health Institute is extremely disappointed and concerned about the health impacts of this rushed decision on our most vulnerable population, recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

“The American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed Tuesday by the Senate and House of Representatives and sent to the president for his signature, tacked on an extension of major farm programs through fiscal 2013 in an effort to protect milk pricing. But the enormous down-to-the-wire pressure to prevent tax hikes for the middle class left little room for a substantive discussion of the fine print of the farm bill extension deal. In the process, SNAP-Ed, a federal/state partnership that supports nutrition education for persons eligible for food stamps, was slashed by one-third for 2013. Earlier versions of the Farm Bill had never included or considered cuts to SNAP-Ed, and this last minute cut was never vetted or approved by the Agriculture Committees.

“SNAP-Ed helps low-income Americans make healthy choices on a limited budget, reduces their risk of chronic disease and obesity, and optimizes the economic and nutritional value of SNAP benefits. SNAP-Ed programming has proven that investment in nutrition education can enable SNAP to effectively address the dual challenges of improving nutrition and food security among low-income populations. This funding cut to the program undermines and weakens a critical component of our nationwide efforts to promote healthy eating and prevent chronic disease just as investments to prevent obesity and promote healthy eating are beginning to show results.

“Prior to the fiscal cliff process, a reasonable farm bill package was being negotiated. Though imperfect, it reflected the input of farmers and rural America, anti-hunger advocates and the public health community. As the new Congress faces a reauthorization of the farm bill in September, political pressure and time constraints must not trump common sense and evidence: SNAP-Ed must have full funding restored and protected, ensuring that all Americans, particularly those who are most vulnerable, can make the healthiest decisions when feeding their families.”


2012 Farm Bill: Do Agriculture Leaders Have Enough Gas and Road Left to Finish the Job?


Posted by HFHP Coalition
By Gabrielle Serra

For anyone who follows what goes on (or what doesn’t) in Washington, it’s a well-known fact that significant pressure on members to act is a major ingredient for the success of any legislation, regardless of merits. Now, with the number of legislative days quickly waning for the 112th Congress, agriculture leaders are facing internal and external pressures that are driving their recent efforts to finalize a bill, which also gives more shape to the potential fates of a 2012 farm bill.

First, agriculture leaders understand the need to act. They have heard the increasingly concerned calls to action from many constituents in the food and agriculture system, and share those concerns. After the 2008 farm bill was allowed to expire on October 1, without current authority, agriculture programs are set to revert back to permanent law which includes a portfolio of outdated and impractical commodity pricing and subsidy programs. The fact that the farm bill was allowed to expire was never because any of the agriculture leaders thought this was in itself a good idea, but rather that it could lead to significant and necessary pressure on congress to act and achieve a bicameral compromise before any real consequences are realized. That time is quickly approaching. With the expired dairy provisions, consumers would start to see a spike in milk prices in the new year. This is important. While only a fraction of legislators include agriculture as a major priority for their legislative decisions, every legislator cares about the price for a gallon of milk just as they care about the prices their constituents are paying for a gallon of gas.

Whether pressure from within the agriculture community is enough to drive action is yet to be seen. Sharp disagreements remain. Most significantly, the House and Senate maintain opposing priorities for what a modern commodity title should include. The House put forward a Price Loss Coverage program that would trigger payments to farmers when market prices fall below target levels. The Senate rejected this proposal in favor of a program that would compensate growers for part of their revenue insurance deductibles. Recently, agriculture leaders, who historically enjoy one of the more consistently amicable bipartisan relationships in Congress, have each indicated their willingness to compromise to reach agreement on commodity programs.

As the week comes to a close, both sides have dug in their heels on what an acceptable compromise on the commodity title must look like. One could assume that such strong positioning is necessary to allow each side to staunchly defend their bargaining positions in order to claim major concessions from the other chamber as negotiations proceed. While this may all just be necessary gamesmanship and standard politicking, time is running short for leaders to engage in such a slow-dance for long.

What’s more is that the commodity title isn’t the only challenge to be addressed. Agriculture leaders need a spending target on the bill from the White House and House GOP leadership in order to resolve the wide differences on cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This is not likely to be concluded any time soon. The spending target for a new farm bill, including the scope and scale of SNAP cuts, is expected to be decided at the highest levels. Agriculture leaders can’t expect a spending target until the broader fiscal cliff negotiations develop further and even then, they might still be waiting.

To date, there hasn’t even been a commitment from the White House or House leadership that a farm bill would be included as part of any agreement. Further, it is yet impossible to know whether there will even be a fiscal cliff agreement before the end of this congress that a farm bill could be attached to.

No doubt, the farm bill is not a driving priority of the fiscal cliff negotiations, but the potential savings from agriculture will continue to be attractive to negotiators to include as part of any agreement. If a fiscal cliff agreement of some sort is reached, and a new farm bill is ready that could pass both chambers, it’s increasingly likely that the farm bill would get a ride. That said, there is concern that a fiscal cliff agreement could include reductions in spending to agriculture, such as the widely popular elimination of direct payments (worth $49 billion over the next decade), with or without a new farm bill.

The potential for the White House and House leadership to include spending cuts to agriculture as part of any fiscal cliff agreement, regardless of whether a new farm bill is ready, is the second driving pressure for agriculture leaders to reach an agreement on a package. Taking savings from farm programs without also advancing a comprehensive new farm bill would compromise agriculture leaders’ ability to use part of this savings to implement a new farm program infrastructure, regardless of whether it looks like the senate or house proposals. This outcome would be extremely unpopular among the agriculture community.

With such significant differences between the House and the Senate on what a new farm bill should include, and no guarantee that there’s a future for a new farm bill this year, it’s not expected that a compromise will be reached before the last possible moment.

So now, with three weeks and counting until the next congress is gaveled in, the questions on HFHP’s mind are whether agriculture leaders have enough leverage and enough time to find a path forward for a 2012 farm bill. And then, of course, we must ask ourselves whether that would be the farm bill that our food and agriculture system needs and that our HFHP community can support.


The Long Shadow of the Farm Bill and its Impact on Public Health


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Colorado Health Foundation’s Health Relay blog
 
By Jennifer Billig, Senior Program Leader at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

In the United States, and increasingly around the world, it’s easy for consumers to find high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods, including sugar-sweetened drinks, fast foods and highly processed snack foods — they’re abundant, easily accessible and perceived as more affordable than healthier foods.

The Farm Bill renewed every five years or so, plays a significant role in shaping this food environment by influencing what foods get produced, how they are produced, who has access to them and, in some cases, how foods are marketed.

The majority of dollars in the bill primarily support the production of agricultural commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton) and food programs (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], formerly called Food Stamps) for low-income Americans.

So even though the name of the bill suggests that farmers are the primary beneficiaries, the Farm Bill has a significant impact on American eaters and, to some degree eaters around the world. Yet, the idea that food and agricultural policy should consider public health is still a novel one, as is the unavoidable link between consumers having access to healthy food and farmers having the ability to make a living growing it.

A Farm Bill that maximizes the availability of healthy foods while making it economically viable for farmers to grow them requires strong collaboration between the public health and agriculture sectors. The public health community can take an important step toward collaboration by looking beyond Farm Bill nutrition programs to gain a better understanding of how farm-support programs in the Farm Bill affect what farmers grow and, ultimately, what’s available to eaters.

Commodity programs in the Farm Bill established a pervasive cycle of public support for a handful of crops that (along with relatively high commodity prices) incentivize a smaller number of ever-larger farms. There is no comparable support for fruits and vegetables. This lack of support, combined with more mechanized production practices, means it’s much easier for farmers to earn a living growing commodity crops for livestock feed and fuel additives than by growing fruits and vegetables. In turn, the overproduction of some commodity crops, such as corn and soybeans, incentivizes food manufacturers to use these cheap ingredients in the form of high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oils — ingredients now linked to increases in caloric intake due to their ubiquity in processed foods.

Credit and adequate crop insurance are vital for American farmers to meet the growing demand for healthier food. Farmers often can’t buy seed, plant or bring a crop to market without access to credit. Additionally, with the average age of American farmers at 57, credit is needed to enable beginning farmers to obtain land, seed and equipment. Lack of access to credit can also impact farmers’ ability to scale up production to meet demand for increasingly popular programs such as Farm to School.

Before granting credit, lenders want to know that farmers have adequate crop insurance to manage the inherent risk of crop failure due to increasingly unpredictable weather in the form of floods, drought and pests. Through the Farm Bill, the United States government provides billions of dollars in crop insurance subsidies to both insurers and farmers, but a 2007 USDA study found that 80 percent of total policy premiums (and federal subsidies) support just four commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton. Conversely, insurance for growers of fruits and vegetables, and diversified farms growing multiple crops plus livestock is inadequate — especially for smaller producers.

The Farm Bill also funds agricultural research, to determine future trends for what American farmers will produce and how they will produce it. Today’s agriculture reflects several decades of research focused primarily on large-scale, chemically intensive production of commodities, meat and poultry. Comparatively, support for fruits, vegetables and sustainable meat production without antibiotics has been miniscule.

Finally, in a summer of record-breaking drought, we cannot overlook the importance of Farm Bill conservation programs. These programs help farmers protect the environment by, for example, planting perennial crops that improve soil and require less water or creating buffers between fields and streams to protect water from pesticide runoff. We need to develop a food system that will be resilient in the face of global climate change. So far, the 2012 Farm Bill is shaping up to be more of the same: overwhelming support for a handful of commodity crops that primarily benefit agribusiness while nutrition, conservation, fruits and vegetables and socially disadvantaged farmer programs are slated for deep cuts.

Amid this scenario, there is little discussion on Capitol Hill about public health or the impact of proposed policies on American eaters. Stronger engagement from the public health and health care communities in concert with farmers is essential if we are to build food and agriculture policy accountable to everyone it impacts.


What’s in the Farm Bill? Join us for a Coalition Web Forum


Posted by HFHP Coalition

Tuesday July 10 ~ 10 am – 11:30 am PDT/1 pm – 2:30 pm EDT

The Senate completed work on the Farm Bill Thursday June 21, approving final passage by a bipartisan vote of 64 to 35 after three days of debate on more than 70 amendments.  Now attention turns to the imminent release of the House language.

Join us on Tuesday July 10 for a Coalition web forum featuring analysis of the bill from a variety of perspectives and stakeholders, including a panel of experts from communities as well as the nation’s capital. Learn what the Senate’s bill means to communities across the nation and hear from stakeholders on what they will expect to see in the House bill.

Click here to register.


Comprehensive Farm Bill Update


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from AGree

The clock is ticking toward expiration of the provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill), which will occur on September 30, 2012. The legislative process to enact a new farm bill is underway, but it is not clear if that process will be completed by the time the existing farm bill expires. Stephanie Mercier, former chief economist for the Senate Agriculture Committee, has prepared this brief update which contains background on the budget process, details about the Senate and House versions of the bill, and prospects for completing the 2012 farm bill.

Farm Bill Background Brief by Stephanie Mercier


Legislative Update


Posted by HFHP Coalition

By Gabrielle Serra

Senate Farm Bill

The Senate completed work on the Farm Bill (S. 3240) today, approving final passage by a vote of 64 to 35, after three days of debate on more than 70 amendments.

There were several amendments of interest, including support for rural development and beginning farmers, changes to crop insurance to address soil and wetland conservation compliance as well as subsidy limits for high-income producers, and support for organic agriculture to name a few. The Senate also successfully rejected several harmful amendments to the structure and funding levels of the nutrition programs, which sends a strong bi-partisan message to the House that further cuts than were agreed to during the failed Super Committee process are unacceptable.

Click here for a complete listing of amendments and their respective roll call votes.

House Farm Bill

The House Agriculture Committee announced its mark-up will be on Wednesday July 11. The draft mark is expected to be released the week of July 2.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 – 10:00 a.m.
1300 Longworth House Office Building
Committee on Agriculture–Business Meeting
RE: To consider the 2012 Farm Bill

Click here to stream live audio and video of the mark-up.

House Agriculture Appropriations

The House will consider the FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill under an open rule beginning on Tuesday, June 26 and likely extending through Thursday of next week. It would not be surprising for hundreds of amendments to be offered, with numerous harmful amendments to make severe funding cuts and significant policy changes to core farm, nutrition, and conservation programs. With the uncertain future of the farm bill in the House this year, we expect there to be numerous harmful amendments that may reemerge during the forthcoming farm bill debates as well. Today, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing passage because of the deep levels of cuts to discretionary funding and threatening a veto. Stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.