590
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Editorial

Can the US farm bill also be a food bill?

Approximately every 5 years the Congress of the United States goes through the challenging process of setting national policy for agriculture that determines funding priorities and programs for the following 5 years. Called the Farm Bill, the first one was passed in 1933 with a goal of helping farmers during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl by paying subsidies to not plant certain crops in order to raise prices. Since then, the Farm Bill has grown immensely to include programs such as soil conservation, crop insurance, forest and wetland protection, nutrition and food assistance, and most recently climate change.

Passing the Farm Bill is never an easy process. With so many powerful interests in agriculture, the political process is highly contentious. The current level of partisanship and polarization in the US does not help! Both our food and our farms have suffered. Be it subsidies and crop insurance that is tilted strongly to large farms that put priority on profits over people and environment, or food assistance programs that channel low-quality agricultural commodity surpluses to people in need rather than using food grown fairly and sustainably, a new bill is needed that equitably balances production and consumption.

In a recent issue of the newsletter of the Union of Concerned Scientists-UCS (Wadsworth Citation2023) the focus of such a combined Bill is outlined. To build a food system that is healthy, sustainable, and fair, UCS is calling for a Bill that puts people first with the following elements:

Prioritizes nutritious fruits and vegetables, not commodity crops that don’t actually feed people

Rather than rely on industrial-scale monocultures of crops like corn and soybeans that pollute our water, degrade the soil, incentivize the production of unhealthy processed foods, and concentrate power in the food system, the goal becomes healthy food, soil, and people in a system that eliminates unfair competition and protects workers from being exploited.

Promotes fair competition, particularly for Black farmers who have been locked out of opportunities given to White farmers

Redressing injustices suffered by minority farmers through inclusion rather than exclusion, as well as moratoria on mergers and strengthening antitrust laws, will make agriculture fairer by curbing corporate excesses and increasing opportunities for small and minority family farms.

Protects the 20 million food and farm workers who feed the US

The people who plant, harvest, process, transport, sell, and serve our food should be able to earn a living wage, choose to organize or join a union if they want, work in a safe and abuse-free environment, and have access to health care, housing, and citizenship.

Helps combat climate change and makes farms more resilient

Industrialized agriculture can no longer continue to contribute to the climate crisis through its contribution to global GHG emissions. To do this, farmers must be encouraged to shift to practices that build healthy soils that hold water, resist erosion, and keep carbon in the ground. Money must be redirected to research that treats agriculture, climate, and the environment as interconnected pieces of a whole. The trend of reducing federal funding for public research must be reversed, and instead, be devoted to expanding the adoption of science-based practices that keep farmland productive in the face of extreme weather.

To achieve these goals, the question becomes if any bipartisan agreements can be reached for making the Farm Bill a Food and Farm Bill? Can agreement be reached on cutbacks, redirection, and even authorization of new funds? The UCS is working with supporters from around the country to keep such issues in the debates in Congress. The result has the potential for transformative change that gives more farmers the chance to pursue what they love, and our food system to be more resilient, fair, and sustainable.

Reference

  • Wadsworth, B. 2023. A food fight with high stakes. Catalyst 23 (Spring):16–19. Union of Concerned Scientists. Washington, D.C.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.