The Food Citizen: Support New Spending in Farm Bill
By Jennifer Wilkins
The Ithaca Journal
March 24, 2008
Available online at:
$10 billion. That's the amount policy makers havebeen asked to cut from the new farm bill to keep it from exceeding $280 billion— and from getting a Presidential veto. The farm bill — omnibuslegislation that governs U.S. farm subsidies, international trade, biofuels,land stewardship, rural economic development, and nutrition programs like foodstamps — is overhauled by Congress every five or so years.
If your eyes haven't glazed over, you're one of anincreasing number of people who have cottoned (or corned) on to the importanceof the farm bill to rural communities, food prices, agriculture land, and topublic health.
As Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the SenateAgriculture Committee, said last July, ÒThis is not just a farm bill. It's afood bill, and Americans who eat want a stake in it.Ó If this is true, and Ibelieve it is, then food citizens need to ask themselves — and, whilethey're on recess, their representatives — exactly how the farm billsupports things they value.
Will the policy improve availability of nutrient-richfoods, such as fruits and vegetables, at prices affordable to all Americans?Will it protect natural resources, benefit rural communities, and minimizenegative public health impacts of agricultural practices? Will it support theU.S. Dietary Guidelines? Will the policy strengthen local and regional foodsystems?
Both the House and Senate versions contain new or modestlyexpand on existing programs that will, to some extent, do all these things. Butunfortunately, when pushed to decide where to trim that obligatory $10 billion,these small programs — that could benefit many — will most likelybe eliminated or squeezed.
Let's look inside the new bill.
* The House version provides $35 million (the Senateversion has $30m) in mandatory funds for the Farmers' Market AssistanceProgram. The House adds a new grant program to study ways to improve farmeraccess to competitive processing and distribution systems (Healthy Food UrbanDevelopment Program). Expanding on the idea, the Senate version sets aside $7million to provide advice and assistance to support processing and marketing oflocal produce in underserved communities (Healthy Food Enterprise DevelopmentCenter).
* Both versions expand annual funding from $15 million to$70 million (House version) and $225 million (Senate version) for a programthat purchases fruits, vegetables, and nuts to provide them free in selected elementaryand secondary schools, in all 50 states and at least 100 Indian reservations.
* The Senate bill doubles annual mandatory funding forCommunity Food Projects to $10 million. Since 1995, when CFP first appeared inthe farm bill, grants have helped communities across the country addressproblems of food access, affordability and availability.
* Language in the new bill overrides rules that restrictpublic school food service from stating geographic preference in their foodpurchases. This change would allow food service directors to specify, forexample, New York apples, potatoes, or carrots.
* The new bill calls for a slight increase in food stampfunding, makes the monthly benefit adjustable to inflation, lifts a cap on thechild care deduction, and raises household asset limits.
* Modest provisions for research on organic agricultureand support to farmers wishing to transition to organic are in both versions ofthe Farm Bill.
All of these programs address important issues, butunfortunately they are tiny in the context of the entire farm bill, which lackstruly meaningful reform. ÒAs in years past, the bulk of farm bill funding willgo to individuals and corporations who produce a select few crops, such ascorn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice,Ó says Nelson Bills, a professor ofapplied economics and management at Cornell, Òwhere production centered in theCorn Belt, the Great Plains States, and the Intermountain West.Ó
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), with Sen. Byron Dorgan(D-ND) as co-sponsor, proposed an amendment to lower subsidy caps from $500,000to $225,000 paid individual farmers, saying Òwe don't want 10 percent of thefarmers getting 60 percent of the farm bill.Ó Their bill was defeated in asenate vote.
So, lawmakers can't look here for $10 billion. Given thepotential benefit to be derived from the new spending and considering this isless than what the U.S. spends on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq each month,it hardly seems extravagant to just leave it in.
For true reform of our farm bill, we'd best start now for2013.
Jennifer Wilkins studies the connection between healthand the food and agriculture system in the Division of Nutritional Sciences atCornell University. Her e-mail address is jlw15@cornell.edu.