Despite legislatorsβ vows to get the FarmΒ Bill through the House in 2017, itβs clear at thisΒ point that itβs not going to happen. The newΒ target for the Farm Bill to get to the House floorΒ is January or February of 2018.
The public comments and behind-the-scenesΒ rumors indicate that the House AgricultureΒ Committee is likely to go with a relativelyΒ standard βbusiness as usualβ approach to theΒ bill. There may be tweaks here and there, but anyΒ major changes would most likely only happenΒ if required by budget cuts due to the tax bill.
However, the discussion is already heatingΒ up among House members outside of theΒ Agriculture Committee. In November, RepresentativeΒ Earl Blumenauer of Oregon filed H.R.Β 4425, a one hundred fifty-six page Food andΒ Farm Act that is set out as an alternative FarmΒ Bill, a complete replacement for the currentΒ approach. Itβs not going to pass in its entirety,Β but itβs providing an important focal point forΒ discussions.
Much of the discussion about BlumenauerβsΒ bill is focusing on its caps on subsidies, long aΒ contentious issue, and the support for βspecialtyΒ cropsβ (the statutory jargon for fruits and vegetables).Β But some of the lesser noticed provisionsΒ would be of greater benefit for the typesΒ of farmers that produce the nutrient-dense foodsΒ that WAPF recommends. For example, H.R.Β 4425 would create a special set-aside withinΒ the Environmental Quality Incentives ProgramΒ (EQIP) for livestock producers who use pasture-basedΒ systems, and simultaneously block anyΒ EQIP funds for feedlots. It would also create aΒ new loan program to help farmers and ranchersΒ install βconservation structures,β which wouldΒ include improving permanent pastures. And itΒ would authorize USDA to use Rural DevelopmentΒ grants and loans for meat and poultry
Another bill also provides possible amendmentsΒ for the Farm Bill: H.R. 3941/S. 1947, theΒ Local Food and Regional Market Supply Act,Β filed by senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) andΒ Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME), JeffΒ Fortenberry (R-NE), and Sean Maloney (DNY).Β This narrower, but bipartisan bill, focusesΒ heavily on funding various grant programsΒ to support local foods and organics, such asΒ increasing annual mandatory funding for theΒ Farmers Market and Local Food PromotionΒ Program and an organic certification cost-share.Β It does include one provision specifically forΒ livestock producers, authorizing Rural DevelopmentΒ and Farm Service Agency programs toΒ be used to assist farmers with maintaining andΒ increasing the production, processing, distributionΒ and marketing of value-added, niche orΒ regionally marketed meat and dairy products.
There is an important and valuable debateΒ to be had about government involvement inΒ agriculture, and there are myriad optionsβfromΒ the current approach (which everyone exceptΒ massive agribusinesses agree is counterproductive),Β to a modified version that still reliesΒ on subsidies and grants but refocuses them onΒ smaller and sustainable approaches, to the 1930sΒ approach of βprice supportsβ that addressedΒ the unique problems of agricultural highs andΒ lows, to taking the federal government out of theΒ picture completely. The latter two options arenβtΒ even under discussion in Congress at this stageΒ however, so whatever their merits, they are notΒ strong paths for activism at this moment.
There are also discrete reforms that couldΒ prove important. For example, in the previousΒ issue of Wise Traditions, I discussed the PRIMEΒ Act, which would revoke the current federalΒ prohibition on the sale of meat processed atΒ a βcustom slaughterhouseβ to in-state consumers. The bill would notΒ legalize the sale of such meat, but would leave it to each state to decideΒ whether and how to allow meat processed at custom slaughterhouses toΒ be sold to individuals and businesses within their states. If the bill canΒ gain sufficient support (as evidenced by a strong co-sponsor list), it standsΒ a chance of being added as an amendment to the Farm Bill.
WAPF will be doing email action alerts with more details and specificΒ talking points early in 2018, please watch for them! Your activism trulyΒ makes a difference.
ANIMAL ID
In the last issue of Wise Traditions, I wrote about the USDAβs publicΒ meetings in the spring and summer of this year. The current AnimalΒ Disease Traceability (ADT) program requires some form of officialΒ identification when adult cattle (over 18 months) are moved across stateΒ lines; the identification can be a traditional low-tech ID like a metal briteΒ tag. This limited, low-tech approach was put it in place after a massiveΒ grassroots campaign against the National Animal Identification SystemΒ (NAIS), which called for electronic ID and tracking of all livestock animalsΒ in every state.
When ADT was adopted, USDA indicated that there would be aΒ second phase, in which the requirements for low-tech forms of ID whenΒ cattle are moved interstate would be extended to cover younger cattle,Β those under 18 months of age. That βPhase Twoβ of ADT was supposedlyΒ the topic of these public meetings when they were first announced. But itΒ quickly became clear that USDA and its agribusiness allies had differentΒ plans, namely to try to revive significant portions of NAIS.
I attended the meeting in Texas, and worked with people in multipleΒ states to ensure that the voices of a range of livestock owners were heard.Β At the Texas meetings and others, there was strong pushback against anyΒ attempt to mandate electronic ID.
Yet, at an agribusiness conference in late September, when USDAΒ unveiled its βsummaryβ of the meetings, it claimed that there was aΒ general consensus to support moving ahead with electronic ID. Moreover,Β the USDA document handed out at theΒ September meeting included imposing this newΒ federal requirement intra-state, even if the cattleΒ never cross state lines! While not as broad orΒ all-encompassing as NAIS, this proposal wouldΒ impose significant costs, burdens and governmentΒ intrusion on small farmers who are raisingΒ cattle for their local communities.
At the agribusiness conference, USDAΒ stated that it would publish its findings andΒ recommendations in the Federal Register inΒ October. But as of December 4, when this articleΒ goes to print, it has not done so. ViewedΒ optimistically, this delay might suggest that theΒ agency is reconsidering its position based on theΒ pushback it got at the meeting and afterwards.Β The more likely explanation is simply that theΒ bureaucracy moves slowly.
USDA also has a track record of publishingΒ bad documents around the holidaysβoften theΒ day before Thanksgiving, Christmas or NewΒ Years. This tendency is shared by many governmentΒ agencies, presumably because it reducesΒ the chances of any media coverage and makesΒ it more difficult for grassroots groups that opposeΒ the agencies to get the publicβs attention.Β So please watch carefully for action alerts rightΒ at the end of the year.
The good news is that, unlike NAIS, weΒ are aware of the issue and organized early inΒ the process. We beat the program back onceΒ before, and we can do it again.
This article appeared inΒ Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation,Β Winter 2017.
π¨οΈ Print post
Leave a Reply