While I agree that subsidies for large-scale corporate farming need to be eliminated, programs such as the UDSA's CSREES Community Foods Projects are crucial to launching small-scale farming and production, especially in urban and suburban areas.

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.

Congress needs to pass this bill now for two reasons:

1) We've done what we can.
Folks, we have mobilized the entire sustainable ag. movement, created a pantheon of new stakeholders in Congress, gotten favorable editorials from every important newspaper in the nation, and enjoy the support of a Republican (!) president, yet this is as far as we have come. Is it disappointing? Yes. Is it improvable? Not in the short term. For those waiting for a new administration, remember that it was Senate Democrats who scuttled the final broad attempts at reform, and neither of the two Democratic presidential candidates has opined on this issue (both are also receiving big. ag money). We need to build on our successes in this round, and create the towering support that will be needed to topple the big ag. lobby in five years.

2) Hungry people need a farm bill now.
I know there's not a lot of love lost between the anti-hunger and sustainable ag camps, seeing as we abandoned you all so early in the process. For those of us in the middle, the process has been...frustrating. But the simple fact is that food banks all over the nation, including my own in South Texas, are running out of food. This is no PR gimmick. The food and gas price hikes, deteriorating food stamps benefits and disappearance of USDA commodities have gutted our shelves the same way they have gutted the pantries of the millions of Americans for whom we are the last stop before real, debilitating hunger. These people can't wait a year for the billions in aid that the farm bill represents. Yes, this may seem to be sacrificing long-term goals for short-term gain, but remember, people can't eat long-term goals.

Child Nutrition Authorization provides another real opportunity for change in 2009. I recommend we pass the farm bill, and then get back to work calling for change.

JC Dwyer
Director of Public Policy
South Texas Food Bank
Laredo, TX

Can I go back and change my vote?  I voted to start over from scratch, but after reading JC Dwyer's comments, I'm convinced he's right.

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.

I assumed JC Dwyer's male.  Hope I'm right.  If not, sorry JC.

At the end of the day, no one got everything they wanted; but we need to answer this question: Is this bill better than the alternative, extending the 2002 bill?

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.

It's clear from the comments above that your opinion on whether this bill deserves a veto is all about how much bad you are willing to take with the good.  But the truth is, nobody really knows what they're voting on yet - although the conference committee has finished its work, all of us wonks who have been so fixated on this bill over the past year and a half (or more!) have still not seen the final language.  Sure, we've got a pretty good idea what's in there, but the conference report still has not been released.  

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.  

National Family Farm Coalition has pushed for this entire farm bill the reinstatement of Grain Reserves and a Farmer Owned Reserve. Commodity prices had just started surging when we warned that with nothing in stock, we risked being one drought away from $10 corn. Well, they never did listen so our food security is still at the mercy of commodity speculators. This when China, India, Philippines, the EU are all either building up their reserves or considering establishing them. very irresponsible for Congress. The agribusiness users and food processors and folks like the bakers want to lift CRP acres as their solution to get back cheap corn/wheat. we can't grow our way out of this crisis. a little prudent planninig wouldd help.

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)

I find it interesting, Farm Bill Girl, that in your letter, no mention is made of a policy change that many people have suggested could immediately relieve some of the demand pull in grain and oilseed markets: repeal the biofuel mandates, cut the volumetric excise-tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel, and eliminate the $0.54 per gallon "secondary duty" on imported ethanol.

These are only my personal opinions.

JMG3Y- Let's be careful about these statistics. On the cost side, farmers will be making payments on that land and equipment (those assets are not truly 'theirs' until they've been paid off-- which generally they haven't been) in addition to shelling out for seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel each season. Farm subsidies are also capitalized into land values, so if farmers stopped receiving subsidies, the value of the land would fall (some say by an estimated 20%). And on a more technical note, the USDA census figures aren't adjusted for inflation, so you can't compare the 2000 data to 2007 without making that adjustment yourself. High land prices are a problem-- they're a huge barrier to beginning farmers, for example-- but let's not assume that the farmers who already have land are getting rich off of it.

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.

In the complexity that is the Farm Bill, I wish we didn't have to boil it down to a simple yes or no answer. This is one of many problems of omnibus bills -- there are often just enough good provisions that not passing it can be argued as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

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.

It seems the only time Bush does or threatens to do the right thing he is doing it for the wrong reasons. I have no doubt the Administration loves all the provisions of the farm bill that keep concentrating agricultural, land, production, processing and profits into fewer and fewer hands. The big prize however is keeping the WTO alive, Bush knows that must be done, other details can be dealt with later, but the Administration needs WTO compliance.

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.

This conversation is great example of the basic problem with omnibus bills - having to lump the good with the bad.

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

I agree with JC's assessment that big ag is using nutrition as a shield. One possible way to change this dynamic would be to deconstruct the omnibus. The food stamp program (or SNAP, as it may soon be known as) wasn't always in the Farm Bill, and separating it would definitely change the dynamics.

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.

With Tom's timely question providing us with some semblance of power, my opinion is to celebrate the  two steps forward (CFP $, organic, livestock competition, etc.) and fight the urge to take two steps back with a veto.

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

I spent the last four days on the train crossing the country. Landscape therapy, but also battleground survey. Basically what I concluded is that we're going to need a hell of a lot more cash to solve this crisis than this farm bill gives us.

Currently there is not a single USDA processing facility in the state of Wyoming. We were very excited about the provision in the Farm Bill that would have allowed us to sell beef across state lines from a state inspected plant. Then, we found out from the Director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture that it is all pretty much of an illusion, anyway. State inspected plants would only be allowed to package meat after they have first been inspected by, and passed muster with the USDA. According to the Director, there isn't a single plant in Wyoming that would be able to pass that inspection without tens of thousands of dollars of additional investment. Maybe some of them will step up to the plate. I'm not holding my breath. I hope this mess goes down in flames, and we can work on something better before 2013.

Sue Wallis