Center for Rural Affairs’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sodsaver

  I second Britt's comments on Sodsaver, and would add that it was something that I didn't follow very closely during the bill.  Which was a mistake.  It also didn't get much media coverage.

  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

  On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  About that livestock title...

  These are important wins.  And I assume you're referring to the "undue preference" language at the beginning.  Let me tell you a little bit about that.

  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

  On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's Veto Time

  I say veto.  I have a lot of thoughts on the topic, and I may break them down into several posts. I respect and understand that there are differing opinions and priorities, and there are big wins in this farm bill that will do real good.  But they're not enough for me to support this bill.  Structural reform is our biggest priority, by far.  The fact that those fights are the toughest fights should say something- they're the fights that matter most.  

  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

  On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thank You

  A competition title is of critical importance to the future of sustainable agriculture in this country. This is an issue the Center for Rural Affairs has long worked on and cared deeply about. In fact, Center staff member John Crabtree testified in Washington on these issues a week ago. Additionally, it is the topic of the letter Jim Knopik wrote to Senator Nelson a few days ago.

  Thanks for bringing this issue to larger attention Tom.

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

  On How to stop the agribiz giants from impeding the growth of local food. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses