California magazine

A historic deal reached in the House of Representatives this week supports the nation’s specialty farmers and, for the first time, encourages healthier eating. Specifically, the emerging legislation brokered in the house Agricultural Committee by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Dennis Cardoza (a Merced County democrat) authorizes research subsidies for organic growers, adds more fruit and vegetables to school lunch programs, and encourages sustainable and environmentally conscientious farming. More than $1.5 billion has been earmarked for California agriculture and would flow over the next five years if the landmark legislation clears the house and senate and is signed by President Bush.

If passed, the new Farm Bill would signal a shift away from traditional support for large, industrial farmers—mainly cotton or corn growers in the South and Midwest—whom critics have blamed for polluting air and water, denigrating and isolating rural communities, and producing cheap fats and carbohydrates that have fed an obesity epidemic.

In the May/June “Food and Farming” issue of California magazine, Berkeley’s Michael Pollan and Chez Panisse’s Alice Waters both called for food reforms similar to that found in the draft legislation. Negotiated every five years, the Farm Bill has a huge influence on the nation’s farming practices and food access. While critics contend that the balance of national agriculture subsidies still favors industrial farmers, they are hailing the inclusion of specialized farmers and support for farmers’ markets and fresh food in schools as an important first step toward a healthier nation.

Read commentary by Michael Pollan

Read commentary by Alice Waters

comments

I was baffled by California magazine's, unquestioning praise of the House version of the 2007 Farm Bill that recently passed. While I agree that it is an improvement over the 2002 Farm Bill, that isn't saying much. The 2002 Farm Bill was horrible; this new House version is just bad and could be and should be much better.

Just like the 2002 Farm Bill, the current House version unnecessarily favors wealthy corporate farmers over small, family farmers just to different degrees. For example, the 2002 Farm Bill subsidized farmers making up to $2.5 million dollars annually. The current House version would subsidize farmers making up to $1 million dollars annually. An amendment proposed by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin), which was unfortunately shot down by Democrats representing conservative farm states, would have granted subsidies only to farmers making up to $250,000 annually, which could have shifted even more money away from large, wealthy, corporate farmers to small family farmers, and various conservation and nutrition programs.

As the Senate takes up the Farm Bill, let us hope that they make the tough political decision that the House was unwilling to make-- one that may alienate conservative farm states but that is right for small family farmers, the local production of food, and organic and sustainable agriculture.

Erica Martenson