And no, I don't work for the CSREES, but I was invited to apply for their Community Foods Project grant to help out our up-and-coming community gardens. And we'd like to open a farmer's market. Alas, funding is tied up in the current Farm Bill.

So I don't know what I would do: vote or veto? Luckily, I am neither in Congress nor President. Of course, whichever way the Farm Bill goes, there will always be those who are never satisfied.

Of course we want more change, and we want it really soon (2009 as opposed to 2013), but maybe we just have to learn that patience is a virtue.  Claim victory where we can and keep plodding along trying to get more done.  Tortoise v. hare, etc.  You get the point.

American Farmland Trust believes it is better to secure these important gains and build on them in the future.  

The important thing to focus on in this 2008 Farm Bill is how far we've come in setting new policies that will benefit producers, consumers and our working farmland.

We've laid some historic and very important groundwork in federal agriculture and food policy. It is time to pull together and support the passage of this bill.

The Farm Bill, for the first time, includes a Livestock Title. Among other things, the title helps close a loophole that has allowed huge meatpacking companies like Smithfield, Tyson and Cargill to offer lower prices to small independent livestock producers than they do to large producers for animals of the same quality. It requires that producers be allowed to decline mandatory arbitration clauses in a livestock or poultry contract. (In the past, companies have used these clauses to prevent producers from fighting delinquent companies in court.) And while the packer ban was dropped (and I think that's an outrage, frankly), the bill does require the USDA to report how much time it spends investigating deceptive or anti-competitive practices by meatpackers. With the meat industry rapidly consolidating, knowing how much time the USDA spends looking into this stuff is an important organizing tool for sustainable ag advocates. Finally, the bill allows meat from smaller state-inspected processing facilities to be sold across state lines-- a huge win for smaller producers who can't get their animals into the giant USDA-inspected facilities. (If you're interested in this issue, here's more info: http://www.ethicurean.com/2007/10/04/getting-to-the-heart ...)

I also want to put in a plug for the organic research money in the bill, a 7-fold increase over past years. Public research dollars are critical to the goal of growing food (and raising livestock) in a way that's less dependent on petroleum-based inputs, toxic pesticides, and GMOs.

I personally doubt we can expect greater commodity reform after the election, even if a Democrat wins; these issues are largely regional rather than partisan. My vote is for the sustainable ag community to use the momentum generated from this bill to make change on the local and state levels, and then to use those patchwork victories to force major federal-level reform in the 2012 Farm Bill.  

I also agree with Mr. Dwyer.  I believe we should have a one year extension of the 2002 bill but we also must have some sort of emergency, supplemental appropriation for domestic and international food programs.

And as was noted on the Mulch blog earlier today, the increase in nutrition funding is $10 billion over 10 years.  That's great, but think of it this way:  Direct payments and crop insurance subsidies total roughly 10 billion in a single year.  Let me also say that $4 billion in conservation spending is wonderful, but does not even make up for the cuts in conservation spending that have occurred since the last farm bill passed.

And let's talk a little politics.  This farm bill is written and ready to be delivered to Congress.  Nothing I say at this point is going to change what is in the bill.  So why should elected officials get political cover from groups or individuals for a bill that stinks?

The big structural reforms not included in this bill hopefully will come up again (payment limits, packer ban, etc).  And how much political leverage will the sustainable ag community have if it is known they will sell them out for their preferred programs?  Opposing this bill today means we have a better chance of winning down the road.

And what about those elected officials who supported us on the reform issues that we lost?  A lot of groups that supported Ron Kind (and we weren't one of them) are now jumping on board in favor of this bill.  What is that? Kind is going to vote against the bill, and those organizations are going to leave him high and dry.

I know where I stand, and it's not with Saxby Chambliss and Kent Conrad.  I'll stand with those who will stand up and vote their convictions.  

Visit the Blog for Rural America: http://www.cfra.org/blog

Advocates have been fighting to include language instructing USDA to write regulations on undue preference for more than ten years.  So the fact anything is in there at all is huge.  BUT.  The original Senate livestock title included language directing USDA to write the regulations AND saying what those regulations should be- essentially, stop screwing over small livestock producers.  Due to opposition from certain Southerners (it isn't hard to guess who), the part telling USDA what the regulations should say got dropped in the final version of the bill.  

So now all we have is a line instructing USDA to write regulations, but it is entirely up to them what those are, and we all know how good USDA is about that sort of stuff.  So we're going to have to fight like hell later on.  This is a win, but far from our original hopes.

Mandatory arbitration clauses are straight evil as far as I'm concerned (and not just in the livestock industry), and I'm really glad they're gone.  But eliminating them doesn't do much to help stop consolidation and concentration in the livestock industry.

Requiring USDA to report on their investigations is great, but even better would have been the Office of Special Counsel that was included in the Senate Livestock Title, which would have actually done some damn enforcement.  That disappeared.

Also disappearing was the packer ban, captive supply reform, and a host of other measure that would have had real structural impacts on the industry.

And in this bill, the CAFO-subsidy EQIP program got increased funding to help build more manure lagoons, though the payment limit was lowered from $450K to $300K.  Oh wait a minute, language included in that provision allows the USDA secretary can waive the limit anytime they damn well feel like it.

Interstate shipment of meat is a definite win, and so is organic.  That's some damn good work there.

Visit the Blog for Rural America: http://www.cfra.org/blog

Environmental Defense Fund wants to see a good new bill enacted this year - one with significant new investment in conservation, improved conservation policies, and meaningful subsidy reform.  While we know the conference report includes some important steps in the right direction, we think Congress could -- and should -- have done better.  

First, while this bill includes $4 billion in new funding for conservation, that it's not enough to meet farmer demand. Since enactment of the 2002 farm bill, $13.5 billion in requests for conservation assistance from almost half a million farmers and ranchers have gone unfunded.  Second, we haven't seen the text of the conference report, but both House and Senate bills included conservation policy changes that would have made conservation programs more effective in delivering environmental benefits.  We expect some of those improved policies are included in the conference report, but we don't know that for sure.

As I wrote about earlier this week in Gristmill, we do know that one important policy improvement was gutted: the "Sodsaver" provision, which would have barred crop insurance and some disaster payments to farmers who plow up native grassland.  And, as Tom mentions above, the conference report includes the new $4 billion "permanent disaster" program, that will only accelerate the conversion of grassland to crop production by taking what little risk is left out of farming marginal, environmentally sensitive lands.  

So the bill is a mixed bag, and we are disappointed with a number of its provisions.  But we can't support a veto unless we know it will lead to something better, not worse.  A 1 or 2 year extension of current law could certainly lead to something worse, because that would leave us with no new funding for badly underfunded conservation programs, and no new funding for food stamps.  So if the president follows through on his promise to veto the bill we'd like to see prompt action by Congress to send the bill back with at least as much money for conservation programs, nutrition, organics, and programs to increase access to healthy foods, along with legitimate reforms of farm subsidies.  

The lack of a decent sodsaver provision in this bill is extremely distressing- $6 corn is causing much native prairie land to get the plow, and there would be much more reluctance if crop insurance wasn't available on that land.  High prices=high risk, so crop insurance is of crucial importance to farmers thinking of planting on new ground, much of which is of dubious quality.

I would also add that we're not likely to see much of a shift in the general political landscape after the fall elections (and may have a much friendlier administration), so I think it unlikely that a bill written next year would be worse than the one currently before Congress.


Visit the Blog for Rural America: http://www.cfra.org/blog

April 28, 2008

Dear Member of Congress:

All around the globe, food riots have shaken countries from Haiti to Egypt to India to Uzebekistan while rising rice prices cause grief in many Asian countries. A global food crisis threatens to impoverish millions around the world. Here at home, livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors have expressed their fears over skyrocketing commodity prices while higher food prices are eating into many family budgets. News reports nervously highlight that U.S. and world grain stocks are at all-time lows since World War II.  

For more than a decade, and particularly during Farm Bill negotiations of the past year, we have been sounding alarms over the precarious state of our food security.  The undersigned farm, consumer, environmental, religious and development groups believe it is urgent that we establish a Strategic Grain Reserve, similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and re-instate the Farmer-Owned Reserve. Under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, the United States eliminated all its government stocks, save for a very small amount in the Emerson Humanitarian Trust Reserve intended for foreign aid. We are just one drought away from possibly seeing $10/bushel corn or $20/bushel wheat with absolutely no plan in place to deal with such a calamity. The president and U.S. Congress have irresponsibly ignored this issue throughout the entire Farm Bill debate, even as other countries such as China and India build up their strategic stocks. Last October, the European Union stated they would examine establishing reserves to further buffer against price shocks. The United States cannot afford such ill-prepared planning that is putting our food system and larger economy at grave risk.

The idea of holding grain reserves to stem hunger has been a part of many ancient civilizations. In the Old Testament, Pharoah put Joseph in charge of Egypt's grain reserves that would set aside one-fifth of production to account for seven fat years followed by seven lean years. A "constantly normal granary" operated in China for over 1,400 years. China's grain reserve is presently between 150 million and 200 million tons. During the New Deal, the United States established grain reserves as a way to protect farmers from depressed prices and to ensure soldiers and consumers had enough to eat. The idea for the government to hold "buffer stocks" as a way to stabilize commodity markets was widely popularized by Benjamin Graham, a Wall Street legend who mentored Warren Buffett. In 1977, Congress enacted the Farmer-Owned Reserve in the Farm Bill as a means of "maintaining adequate food reserves." These policy mechanisms were all dismantled by the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The global move towards free trade and trade liberalization means countries around the world have also forfeited much of their food stocks. The current price volatility roiling global food prices should come as no surprise.

Reinstating food reserves would facilitate more orderly marketing, protect consumers from price surges, and could meet energy and humanitarian needs. The possibility of short supplies seriously threatens our reputation as a reliable exporter and is one of the fundamental reasons behind current market speculation as suppliers hoard their stock and commodity traders buy and sell wildly. Currently, private corporations control U.S. grain reserves as a result of Congress's decision to privatize our excess commodity supply.

Our government should be responsible for providing a stable supply of food for their citizens in the face of unpredictable disruptions in grain production. Strategic reserves are also a much more responsible approach to addressing the rise in commodity prices that have caused much anguish from livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors. Some groups have advocated for allowing Conservation Reserve Program acres to be brought into production as a solution. We oppose this shortsighted move that would devastate ecologically sensitive land so revered by conservationists and hunters. We cannot grow our way out of this crisis.

Those clamoring for the days of cheap commodities need to remember that commodity prices collapsed after the 1996 Farm Bill, with corn falling to $1.50 / bushel and wheat under $3 / bushel. These prices were lower than what farmers received in the 1970s! As a result, thousands of farmers went out of business and billions were spent in emergency federal payments. Agribusinesses profiting from buying cheap corn and wheat have never showed much concern for the perilous plight of farmers. Now that higher prices are sparking cries for more production, the United States needs to have a long-term vision for preserving our food security and food sovereignty - much more than simply answering agribusiness's pleas for cheap commodities. A prudent reserves policy that stabilizes commodity prices would reduce controversial farm subsidy payments by ensuring prices do not collapse. Ten-dollar corn is a threat to our system, but $2 corn should be every bit as unacceptable.

A Strategic Grain Reserve is just as vital as a Strategic Petroleum reserve. It is not too late for Congress to establish policy that will benefit both consumers and farmers instead of leaving our fates to the whims and dictates of unstable, globalized markets. As a matter of national security, our government should recognize and act on its responsibility to provide a stable market for food in an era of unprecedented risk.  

Sincerely,

Agricultural Missions, Inc.
American Agriculture Movement, Inc.
American Corn Growers Association
Ashtabula County Farmers Union (Ohio)
Border Agricultural Workers Project (El Paso, TX)
California Farmers Union
Center of Concern
Community Farm Alliance (Kentucky)
Congregation of the Holy Cross; Coordinator for Peace and Justice
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Family Farm Defenders  
Farm Aid
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund
Food and Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Grassroots International
Hispanic Organizations Leadership Alliance
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
International Labor Rights Forum
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
Kansas Farmers Union
Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
        Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office
Missouri Rural Crisis Center  
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farmers Organization
National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association
Ohio Farmers Union
Organic Consumers Association
Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA)
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office
Rural Advancement Fund (NC)
Rural Coalition /Coalicion Rural
Western Organization of Resource Councils
WHY (World Hunger Year)

As the NYTimes opines today

Ending the tax subsidy should be easy.

they may be forgetting about the special interests.

The farm bill not only fails to reform the sugar program but actually increases government intervention to drive up sugar prices. This law would support sugar at nearly double the world market price and control supplies to assure that domestic growers meet 85 percent of domestic consumption. Any excess supply, which could be available for food production, would be owned by the government only to be auctioned to ethanol facilities at a huge loss. [My emphasis]

True, the loss to the Treasury would include not only the lost on sales, but reduced revenues for every gallon of ethanol sold (thanks to the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit of $0.51 per gallon, or $0.46 per gallon once national production reaches 7.5 billion gallons per year). But it is interesting, no, that subsidizing the diversion of corn that could be available for food (or feed) production is considered good, but doing the same with sugar is considered bad?

These are only my personal opinions.

2002 Census of Agriculture Volume 1: State Level Data

Pick a state, say Iowa to see a very interesting list of tables of aggregate data (meaning one has to be very careful of definitions!)

For example, pick tables 43 and 44 (pdf), Value of Land and Buildings: 2002 and 1997 and Value of Machinery and Equipment on Operation: 2002 and 1997. Note that in 2002 the value of land and building for an Iowa farm was $707,000 and equipment was $100,000.

According to Iowa State U estimates in 2007 IOWA LAND VALUE SURVEY (pdf), average farm land value was $3,908 in 2007, 2.1x the year 2000 values. That means the average Iowa farmer, the farm bill target, is at the very least easily over the millionaire mark and many are multi-millionaires.

These statistics are available for all states down to the county level and for most all commodities.

I raise this because I've been frustrated by the way that farm income stats have been thrown around in this Farm Bill debate in an attempt to paint commodity farmers a wealthy and powerful. The way USDA reports income statistics is misleading: farm income figures include full-time farmers but also include the incomes of "rural residence farmers" who do not consider farming to be their primary occupation. These are your doctors and lawyers who live in the country (on a "farm") and maybe own some animals. The USDA counts their off-farm salaries when it reports the average for U.S. "farm income." If you take out that category and look only at the incomes of full-time farmers, the average income (which includes subsidies) is below the average for non-farm U.S. households. That suggests that farmers aren't winning under the current system. Focusing on farmers as the problem will leave us chasing our tail while ADM, Cargill, Smithfield, and Tyson run away with the farm bill.

I've been in Washington working on this bill for two and a half years. I've pounded as much pavement for progressive farm and food issues as almost anyone else, and what I say now, I say as an individual and not as an advocate within an organization whose priorities gained some traction.

I say veto, override be damned.

We CANNOT let the idea of whether we can do better next time or not enter into the equation. It is morally wrong for me, and all of us, to support a bill that will do overall harm to farms, rural communities, and people who eat.

We are playing right into the hands of the opposition. Make no mistake, it is a trap. They have given us just enough so that we won't scream bloody murder and mobilize our people. But nothing the opposition GAVE us is worth our support of a bad bill, and what we were able to TAKE isn't enough to tip the scales. We've fallen for this trap before, thinking that maybe they'll listen to us next time. They won't, and that's why we have to keep fighting.

As I write this, I'm actually surprised that this is my conclusion. But this bill is a bad one, and it will hurt rural communities and family farmers because it doesn't include meaningful structural reform. THAT is what we have to go to the mat for, because all the piddly programs in the world - including the Community Food Projects that I worked my ass off for - won't make up for the fact that under this bill, we will have fewer farmers in 5 years than we do now and more unhealthy people with no more access to healthy, sustainably-produced foods.

Big agriculture will never give us these structural reforms because they profit too much from the status quo. So we flex some muscle now and show them that small programs cannot bribe us into complacency. Our momentum and our relationships are a hell of a lot easier to carry over for a year than five.

I don't want to look back at this bill and know that Big Ag. had more stamina and outlasted me. I've fought as hard as anyone, and I won't deny that I'm tired and I'm sick of this bill. But I can't in good conscience say that this is a bill I want to support.

True, some of the small victories in the bill are good and long overdue, like more organic research funding and some of the food security provisions, but with the increasing public support for organic food only an idiot would argue against those increases. Given the current world food crisis those provisions seem pretty weak, better than nothing but we have been accepting the lesser of two evils and better than nothing for too long.

The loss of the packer ownership ban, no mention of a farmer owned grain reserve to prevent against future food shortages and the continuation of programs that encourage fewer and larger farms and work against new beginning farmers entering agriculture tells me this bill is fatally flawed.

If legislators insist on subsidizing biofuels let them do it with Energy Department money, not Agriculture, USDA should deal with food. DOE should deal with energy.

All these years, anti-hunger advocates have thanked their lucky stars that the fate of food stamps is tied to rural farm concerns, as it has saved the program from being axed countless times.

Steph's comments remind me that these power dynamics go both ways - now big ag. is the one taking advantage of the nutrition title as a shield. They are banking on people like me and my urban legislators to argue that we should accept the deterioration of sustainable agriculture in order to bring about massive positive change for the poor.

It's rough, because at the end of the day you do have to make a yes/no decision on a bill that is guaranteed to hurt someone - that is "morally wrong" for someone. That will be the case whether we do it now, in one year, or in five years.

But as long as more than 60% of the bill in question is geared towards the poor, and the bill positively affects the lives of 35 million people, I'm going to be in favor of it. Yes, even if at the end of the day sustainable ag gets screwed.

That sounds harsh, but this "either/or" decision was basically made for me the moment the national anti-hunger players decided not to oppose big ag. I was hoping that the sustainable ag community plus bit players like my food bank would have enough momentum to change the conversation, but it turned out changing the conversation wasn't enough - you need the raw power, too.  

As a result, this farm bill has convinced me that the trick going forward will be to re-unite the anti-hunger and sustainable ag. camps under the currently nebulous banner of food justice, and turn the "either/or" question into a "both." Remember, at its inception CFSC was very much about having it both ways, and that crystal cracked only with the rise of the emergency food network / A2H and the notion that hunger is about wasted calories, not political power.

By convincing the more powerful of the two camps (A2H & FRAC, to be blunt) that they have enough grassroots support to safely take a more progressive stance on sustainable agriculture, we can build the coalition that can bring big ag. down. Sadly, it's just not going to happen this time.

On a positive note, I think we're off to a great start. We did get all those editorials, and all those legislators to sit up and listen. We did change the conversation. Now the trick is to build on that conversation with each other, harness the anti-hunger juggernaut and guide it towards food justice, not just hunger relief.

It will be tough (after all, the same relationships between big ag and gov't exist between big ag and food banks), and I don't know whether we should start at the top or go food bank by food bank, but I think this is the right way to proceed.

jc

In a nutshell, making a semi-educated guess based on authorizations in recent years, this farm bill likely authorizes close to $100 billion annually for the programs and agencies supported by the law.  Of that total, about 80% are mandatory authorizations, of which commodity payments and food stamps make up the biggest share.  If we add up authorizations listed by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, only about 2% of annual authorizations go to sustainable agriculture programs, and more than half of that amount goes to loan and credit programs.  This framework of budgetary authorizations and allocations essentially maintains American agri-business as we know it.

But it's not all about money.  The Sustainable Agricultural Coalition list includes many provisions of the new law that support small farming and sustainable agriculture.  One example is legislation that permits the interstate shipment of state-inspected meat.  This provision will allow state-inspected small meat processing plants with strong food safety practices to ship product across state lines.  Currently only federally-inspected processors can do so, a major obstacle to building local and regional supply chains.  Another significant provision creates contract reforms between livestock companies and contract growers, correcting a range of unfair practices imposed by companies on growers.  In the aggregate these new provisions support sustainable agriculture and the development of local food systems.

Finally it is important to point out one new provision of this legislation, the Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development initiative, funded at $3 million.  This initiative will support the development of enterprises to increase access to fresh, healthy food in underserved urban areas.  It is important to note that $3 million is just three one-thousandths of one percent of authorizations in this farm bill, even though 80% of Americans live in metropolitan areas, the majority in underserved areas.  In Oakland, California, for example, 69% of the population lives in areas underserved by supermarkets.  Hopefully the initial $3 million investment eventually will grow to a level in proportion to the need.

On balance the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 does make some important improvements in sustainable agriculture policy.  These improvements are at the extreme margin of a massive piece of legislation that essentially keeps American agri-business intact.  But they are in the legislation nonetheless and they represent the efforts of many advocates who have spent years if not lifetimes fighting to get them into the law.  At the end of the day unfortunately, it really doesn't matter if the President vetoes the bill.  If he signs the legislation, these improvements will go into law.  If he doesn't, the struggle will continue.  Either way, mainstream industrial agriculture will keep on trucking.

Hank Herrera

I'm sure there are many other ways that the power dynamics of the Farm Bill could shift. We should seriously consider what these might be, analyze the consequences, and chart a course that could make it happen. There doesn't seem to be much long-term planning or strategy in my corner of the farm and food world at least...we should do something about that.

As I look out my window and see the delicious and diverse rows of spinach, peas, carrots, onions, beets, bok choy, and lettuce, the relatively small organic plot is an idyllic island surrounded by acres of newly planted GMO corn, wheat, and soybeans. Yesterday, a plane swooped over my farm repeatedly spraying my neighbor's wheat acres around me with a fungicide to protect the wheat from Fusarium Head Blight.  Unlucky for me, the wind was blowing in just the wrong direction that there is a high chance that fungicide also drifted over my five acres.

It then rained...and rained. :)

Thank you to all those that have kept up the good fight in the farm bill. Here's hoping the wind blows in the right direction for us all.

Deb