The following statement about the failure of the U.S. House of Representatives last night (July 26th) to pass the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill can be attributed to Scott Faber, Farm and Food Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense:
"The pressure created by House reformers like Ron Kind and Jeff Flake has forced House leaders to improve the bill, including new funding for conservation and nutrition. Nevertheless, many legislators missed an opportunity to do considerably more for their farmers and the environment by voting against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment. Farmers are eager to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat and our farm policies should do more to reward — not reject — farmers when they volunteer to meet our environmental challenges."
The amendment to reform federal farm and food policies would have helped more farmers, would have better addressed hunger, health and environmental challenges would have increased federal farm spending in 348 congressional districts when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That's according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill was offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.
"The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities," said Scott Faber, Environmental Defense Farm Policy Campaign. "This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment."
The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would have reformed subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placed reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlled the administrative costs of crop insurance, and would have gradually reduced "direct" subsidy payments linked to past production.
The amendment wold have increased nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, would have increased conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and would have made other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.
To learn more about individual congressional districts, you can download an Excel spreadsheet of the analysis here.
Enviroshop is maintained by dedicated NetSys Interactive Inc. owners & employees who generously contribute their time to maintenance & editing, web design, custom programming, & website hosting for Enviroshop.