• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NAIS Business Plan

Mike

Well-known member
BUSINESS PLAN GUIDES NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, April 2, 2008-USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) released a draft Business Plan to further the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). AMS encourages participants in voluntary marketing programs such as the USDA Process Verified, the Quality Systems Assessment and the Non-Hormone Treated Cattle Programs to meet the inherent animal identification requirements by using NAIS.
"The AMS Business Plan will allow for integration of the National Animal Identification System with AMS audit-based marketing programs," said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "NAIS is a voluntary partnership among producers and government. This immediately provides the producer a twofold reward for a single investment. It ensures trace back of their animals for herd health reasons and provides benefits for marketing value-added animals domestically and internationally."

Currently, all AMS partners that have approved marketing programs are actively encouraging the use of premise registration and NAIS compliant Animal Identification Numbers for these marketing program participants. Using NAIS, producers would at the same time meet the requirements for animal identification and traceability for these AMS marketing programs. Further, use of NAIS along with enrollment in these voluntary AMS marketing programs ensures that cattle are eligible for the AMS Export Verification Program for Japan with an opportunity for significant premiums for cattle producers.

NAIS would single out product derived from these cattle so that it can be labeled properly when presented for sale at U.S. grocery stores, for American consumers. This helps meet the objectives of the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program by identifying the origin of cattle upon arrival at harvest facilities. Contingent upon the publication of a Final Rule implementing COOL for meat and poultry products, AMS and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will coordinate efforts to develop a COOL "safe harbor" for NAIS participants: packers that rely upon NAIS to determine the origin of their livestock and poultry will subsequently be recognized by the Department as demonstrating compliance with the COOL program's record keeping requirements.

Additional information about NAIS is available at www.usda.gov/nais and AMS voluntary marketing programs at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/audit.htm
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Contingent upon the publication of a Final Rule implementing COOL for meat and poultry products, AMS and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will coordinate efforts to develop a COOL "safe harbor" for NAIS participants: packers that rely upon NAIS to determine the origin of their livestock and poultry will subsequently be recognized by the Department as demonstrating compliance with the COOL program's record keeping requirements.

2002 Farm bill is still alive unless you can prove me wrong!
 

Cinch

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Contingent upon the publication of a Final Rule implementing COOL for meat and poultry products, AMS and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will coordinate efforts to develop a COOL "safe harbor" for NAIS participants: packers that rely upon NAIS to determine the origin of their livestock and poultry will subsequently be recognized by the Department as demonstrating compliance with the COOL program's record keeping requirements.

2002 Farm bill is still alive unless you can prove me wrong!

I would like for someone to point out to me COOL's record keeping requirements. That is, not the RUMORED ones. The WRITTEN ones. Produce them!!!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Cinch said:
PORKER said:
Contingent upon the publication of a Final Rule implementing COOL for meat and poultry products, AMS and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will coordinate efforts to develop a COOL "safe harbor" for NAIS participants: packers that rely upon NAIS to determine the origin of their livestock and poultry will subsequently be recognized by the Department as demonstrating compliance with the COOL program's record keeping requirements.

2002 Farm bill is still alive unless you can prove me wrong!

I would like for someone to point out to me COOL's record keeping requirements. That is, not the RUMORED ones. The WRITTEN ones. Produce them!!!!!

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3103374
 

PORKER

Well-known member
In looking at the many records above that's needed to prove COOL , the easy one is to maintain the ID of a animal from birth to slaughter with a RFID bolus or a RFID button tag in the ScoringAg database. Once a bolus is in the production herd animal ,it will stay in for the animals life time and it will always read,even twenty years later.

RFID Button tags only last two to three years before the shaft wears out and the RFID button falls out. Staff at ScoringAg has relayed this important information to me and you can call them for proof. A herd with 3000 brood cows has lost over 60% of the RFID button tags since being put in 38 months ago. NAIS has not reported about this huge RFID button tag loss. They paid for the tags so the farm could try RFID. The rancher says it was a failure of tag retention as the male shaft wears out on all brands and then you lose all animal ID which was in his computer.

RFID boluses for all breeding animals will save money in the long run.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
PORKER said:
RFID boluses for all breeding animals will save money in the long run.

Hallelujah. I wish that producers would wise up to this truth. Up here we've went from dangle bar code tags to those stupid RFID buttons, and my retention rate is so poor on the buttons that I don't put them in until shipping time.

Plus the newer high frequency boluses have a 100% read rating with the new technology thats cheaper than the old low frequency stuff.

Rod
 

Cinch

Well-known member
Mike said:
Cinch said:
PORKER said:
Contingent upon the publication of a Final Rule implementing COOL for meat and poultry products, AMS and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will coordinate efforts to develop a COOL "safe harbor" for NAIS participants: packers that rely upon NAIS to determine the origin of their livestock and poultry will subsequently be recognized by the Department as demonstrating compliance with the COOL program's record keeping requirements.

2002 Farm bill is still alive unless you can prove me wrong!

I would like for someone to point out to me COOL's record keeping requirements. That is, not the RUMORED ones. The WRITTEN ones. Produce them!!!!!

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3103374

Those rules were written for the 2002 Farm Bill Version- they have not been implemented nor is there a likelihood they will be the final rules. Some of the changes will make these document requirments obsolete. THERE WILL BE NO RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON PRODUCERS TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF COOL. (if the Farm Bill 2007 version is passed)
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The 2007 FARM bill is dust or NOT! At this moment in Washington !

A clearly frustrated Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin told reporters Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have to broker an end to the stand-off on farm bill funding that continues to hold up the legislation. At issue is how to find the extra $10 billion dollars in farm bill spending over the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline for farm programs, a figure to which all farm bill players have agreed.

"I understand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi have again spoken about the farm bill this week," Harkin said. "Reportedly, Senator Baucus, the Chairman of the Finance Committee and Congressman Rangel, the Chairman of the Ways and Means have also met, and resolving this $10 billion funding and the tax issues are in their court, not in mine."

There are a variety of potential explanations for exactly why House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus cannot seem to reach consensus on how to proceed on the farm bill funding issue. Last week, Harkin suggested Rangel wanted more money for nutrition at the expense of the $4 billion permanent ag disaster aid program that Baucus has championed. This week, Harkin intimated that Rangel and Pelosi don't favor some or all of the tax provisions included in the Senate version of the farm bill.

"Well, as far as I know, up until now, the House Ways and Means Committee, and I am told even Speaker Pelosi, is opposed to - I guess she's backing them up - is opposed to this tax package in its entirety," Harkin said. "That's not to say a deal might not be cut where some of it's thrown overboard and some of it's kept," he added. "I mean, it's about $2.5 billion."

Harkin, for his part, told Brownfield his preference would be to see the extra $10 billion in farm bill funding come from a change in how often credit card companies report remittances to the Internal Revenue Service, which he said would alone generate $13 billion. But if a deal on the extra funding can't be reached, Harkin confirmed he and House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson have come up with a farm bill that conforms to the CBO baseline.

"Well, Peterson and I have talked a lot about it and we've gone over some things, but we've decided to put that in abeyance and try and get out bill and out $10 billion and get that done," Harkin said. "But if it doesn't happen, well, we just might do a baseline bill."

But a new farm bill that doesn't spend beyond the budget baseline may prove unpopular with many groups that are counting on additional funding. And Harkin admitted he's unsure if such a streamlined bill could pass Congress.

"Well, now that's the real question isn't it?" Harkin asked. "I don't - I don't know."

Bush says he will approve a extension of the 2002 bill
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR PUBLICATION AS RELEASED
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Media Contacts:
April Demert Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Announces Farm Bill Conferees

WASHINGTON, DC - Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson today announced the list of Representatives appointed by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives to participate in the conference committee that will negotiate the 2008 Farm Bill.

"The Members serving on this conference committee have a challenging job as we work to come to an agreement that will move the Farm
Bill forward," Chairman Peterson said. "I'm confident that if everyone comes to the table willing to negotiate and compromise, we
can pass a new Farm Bill that will expand important nutrition and conservation programs and provide new resources for fruit and
vegetable producers and renewable energy programs while improving the farm safety net."

The Democratic Members of Congress selected to serve on the conference committee are:
From the Agriculture Committee:
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
Congressman Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
Congressman Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Congressman Leonard Boswell of Iowa
Congressman Joe Baca of California
Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California
Congressman David Scott of Georgia

Conferees on Farm Bill provisions with jurisdiction beyond the Agriculture Committee:
Congressman George Miller of California (Education and Labor)
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy of New York (Education and Labor)
Congressman John Dingell of Michigan (Energy and Commerce)
Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey (Energy and Commerce)
Congressman Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania (Financial Services)
Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California (Financial Services)
Congressman Howard Berman of California (Foreign Affairs)
Congressman Brad Sherman of California (Foreign Affairs)
Congressman John Conyers of Michigan (Judiciary)
Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia (Judiciary)
Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia (Natural Resources)
Delegate Madeline Bordallo of Guam (Natural Resources)
Congressman Henry Waxman of California (Oversight and Government Reform)
Congressman Edolphus Towns of New York (Oversight and Government Reform)
Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee (Science and Technology)
Congressman Nick Lampson of Texas (Science and Technology)
Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez of New York (Small Business)
Congressman Heath Shuler of North Carolina (Small Business)
Congressman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota (Transportation and Infrastructure)
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia (Transportation and Infrastructure)
Congressman Charles Rangel of New York (Ways and Means)
Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota (Ways and Means)

The Republican Members of Congress selected to serve on the conference committee are:
From the Agriculture Committee:
Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
Congressman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma
Congressman Jerry Moran of Kansas
Congressman Robin Hayes of North Carolina
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado
Congressman Randy Neugebauer of Texas

Conferees on Farm Bill provisions with jurisdiction beyond the Agriculture Committee:
Congressman Todd Platts of Pennsylvania (Education and Labor)
Congressman Joe Barton of Texas (Energy and Commerce)
Congressman Spencer Bachus of Alabama (Financial Services)
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (Foreign Affairs)
Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas (Judiciary)
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers of Washington (Natural Resources)
Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio (Oversight and Government Reform)
Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas (Science and Technology)
Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio (Small Business)
Congressman Sam Graves of Missouri (Transportation and Infrastructure)
Congressman Jim McCrery of Louisiana (Ways and Means)

The Members of Congress selected from Leadership to serve on the conference committee are:
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut
Congressman Adam Putnam of Florida
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Another Extension of Farm Bill Not Out of Question
Jason Vance [email protected]
April 9, 2008


The Administration has been adamant that if Congress can not complete a new farm bill by April 18, they will request a one or two year extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. However; Ag Secretary Ed Schafer says another short-term extension is possible.

"If we are kind of just doing the last paragraph of the work we could look at another short-term extension," Schafer says. "But if we are in the same position we are today, with vast differences between the House and Senate and we're not making any progress, then I would not be able to recommend to the President to sign another short-term extension."

Although a long-term extension has not been looked on favorably by many in Congress, Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is wavering. He says if April 17 rolls around and they don't have a bill done, the existing Farm Bill should be extended for a year. However; Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, say he is not interested in "kicking the can downfield with another short-term extension."

"It's time Congress came together and gets a new farm bill," Harkin says. "We have 10 days to finish it; we need to work hard for the next week and get it done."

According to Harkin progress is being made on non-controversial items in the Farm Bill but the two things that are holding it up is detailing the source of the $10 billion that has been agreed upon and the disagreement between the House and Senate on a tax package. He says Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Ways and Mean Chairman Charles Rangle, D-N.Y., have met this week and at this point the ball is in their court.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Farm Bill Banter
Time to put this farm bill out of its misery
By Larry Dreiling

Travis Coates had to do it with Old Yeller when the rabid wolf bit his dog.

It's time Congress "rose to manhood" and put this dog called the 2007, or 2008, farm bill debate out back and put a bullet to it.

Just end it now. Save farm country the pain of watching this debate go on any further.

Let's just have an extension of the current bill and have it over with until a new president and Congress takes office next year.

As it is now, the farm bill would spend a little under $11 billion more than the budget baseline allows, ensuring a presidential veto. That's already $855 million more than prior iterations of the legislation.

Add-ons abound on this old dog, including nearly $10 billion in new funding for nutrition programs and $4 billion for conservation programs. Cutting the acreage cap on the Conservation Reserve Program would cover any offsets.

A reduction in CRP from 39.2 million acres to 32 million acres, you say? Frankly, that dog won't hunt. It won't hunt to producers, certainly. And it sure won't hunt to big city folks who've only now had an altar call to the concept that the carbon sinking attributes of CRP is one of the best ways to reduce global warming.

Throw in reductions in crop insurance funding and you've got a dog that's got some serious symptoms.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner (himself a former House aggie who worked with then chair Pat Roberts to craft the 1996 farm bill) to be brave enough to share in the blame for this mess their side of the Hill has found itself.

Blame the White House, too, for insisting on further cuts in farm spending when the Bush administration knows full well that 2002 saw lower producer payments because that hash of a bill, in essence, denied those counter-cyclical payments to producers whose crops failed due to drought.

In my visits with members of Congress and their staffs over the years, I've noticed a fatigue factor that settles in with two-term presidents.

Even Republicans like Rep. Jerry Moran, R-KS, knew that crafting a new farm bill in this environment would be slow and painful.

As time went by, Moran had this dog in his sights way back last November upon introducing legislation to extend the current farm bill for a full year.

"It is unacceptable that we are nearing the end of the year without a farm bill to take home to our farmers and ranchers," Moran said last November. "Our producers face the uncertainty of making next year's crop decisions without knowing what type of safety net will be available in the coming year.

"Securing future financing is exceptionally difficult without certainty of farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers are already burdened with many responsibilities. They should not have to worry about whether Congress can complete a farm bill. I would have expected the Senate Democratic leadership to understand the policy and political implications of their unwillingness to act."

Maybe this is a little too late for an "attaboy," but Moran's got it right here, and I'd add a few in the House to the list of those lacking in understanding about this piddling about in trying to move a farm bill forward.

Let's just call it a session, Congress, for this farm bill. Take Old Yeller out back; do what you have to do and bury him.

Then go home. Sure, since nothing was really accomplished, you can blame each other. Blame the White House. Whatever.

Just come back in January with a new bunch of people on the Hill and a new president and a new attitude toward working for the betterment of rural America.

Then give us a farm bill to which we can all say, "This dog'll hunt!"

Larry Dreiling can be reached by phone at 785-628-1117 or by e-mail at [email protected]
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Who IS telling the Truth??????????????????????

Farm bill action needed now
By Seymour Klierly

Last week I compared the actions of some of the major farm bill players to actions normally displayed by teenagers. At the time it may have been a stretch, but since then I am more convinced of its accuracy. Seven days have passed since my last submission and still no word from the agriculture leadership that a bill is any closer to being completed. In fact, the only news reported this week highlighted the intense bickering taking place behind closed doors.

In a scathing article published in Roll Call, a daily newspaper with circulation in Washington D.C., several unnamed sources criticized Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin for being detached from farm bill negotiations. The article claims that the chairman was not part of the discussions that lead to a funding framework for negotiations to begin. Instead, the article claims Senator Kent Conrad has been acting as the "de facto chairman."
It takes a lot of nerve to try to manage a committee of which you are not the chair. On the other hand, such efforts to sidestep a chairman aren't unheard of and rarely involve just one member. In this case, I would imagine Senator Conrad is working with a larger group of members who also feel that Chairman Harkin isn't getting the job done. If an orchestrated effort to run an "end around" the chairman is indeed successful, what position does that leave the chairman in for future issues? The article goes on to quote Chairman Harkin admitting that he's stood aside from the debate to let others work it out. So, is this a case of a chairman being overthrown or simply abdicating his seat? I'm not certain.
Such teenage tendencies are not limited to the Senate. House Ag Chairman Collin Peterson is also airing his dirty laundry in the press. He's calling for public meetings to discuss the tax measures included in the package being negotiated between the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Peterson apparently feels frustrated by the fact that there are so many committee chairmen involved in the farm bill process. I guess he doesn't understand why folks won't just let him write the bill on his own and agree to whatever he decides.
No matter what rumors surface about what is going on behind these closed doors, there are still a few facts that remain. First, the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to appoint conferees. Official conference meetings cannot take place until this happens and official conference meetings provide the only venue to settle some of the longstanding disputes. Second, the farm bill expires on April 18 and no one in the leadership has been talking about what happens if that deadline isn't met. Reverting to the permanent farm law of the '30s and '40s will have disastrous implications, not only on producers but also on consumers.

It's time for the elected officials who are charged with the leadership of the agriculture and taxing committees to take action. There is no time left to continue the childish posturing that has been the standard operating procedure exercised by the chairmen. Furthermore, if the elected party leaders of both chambers can't rein in their members, then maybe their members should start questioning their effectiveness. I know I am.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Whatever happened to the Farm Bill?

By Stu Ellis

April 13, 2008 at 5:30 am Out of sight, out of mind. And when nothing has been said for so long about it, the Farm Bill has become a foggy memory that causes you to think back and wonder if it was ever renewed. It has been more than six months since the 2002 Farm Bill expired, and the Congress still has not replaced it with a more up to date farm policy.

The debate on a 2007 Farm Bill began early in 2005, and now, three years later the debate continues, although it has been at a low level for the past few months. But suddenly Wednesday night the heat was turned up. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally named members to a Conference Committee, and they quickly scheduled a Thursday morning meeting with their Senate counterparts. What was the urgency to meet? The Congress was only a week away from having to once again extend the 2002 Farm Bill for another month to avoid forcing the USDA to revert to a parity price support program that was averted a month ago by just a few hours. The next deadline for action is April 18.
The primary stalemate, not between political parties, but between the House and Senate, has been funding for the Farm Bill. The House wanted more money for a variety of programs and proposed a tax increase to pay for them. The Senate wanted more money for a permanent disaster program and more conservation projects, but funding sources were cloudy. When the chairmen of the House and Senate committees that approve tax issues got involved the entire process came to a halt. One inside observer indicated they were at each others’ throats.

But to make sure the tax writers were involved, Speaker Pelosi appointed some of them to the Conference Committee on the Farm Bill. Then came a surprise bigger than the House and Senate farm policy dispute. The Speaker continued appointing Members of the House who were not on the Agriculture Committee. The Farm Bill is designed to address farm policy, but the newly appointed Conference Committee is composed of 14 members of the House Agriculture Committee and 35 other members of the House who are on a variety of other committees, such as Education, Judiciary, Government Oversight, and many others.
Those nearly three dozen Congressmen will quickly have to come up to speed on three years of debate, and the delicate negotiations that have been occurring in the past several weeks to finance the new Farm Bill. Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said an additional $10 billion over ten years has been found in the budget to finance his priorities, and $9 billion in the Senate Farm Bill proposal has been re-prioritized to help reach a compromise. Among those changes are nearly $8 billion removed from crop insurance and commodity programs, to help fund an additional $9.5 billion for nutrition.

Some major philosophical differences remain between Congressmen, committees, and the House and Senate, and will have to be sorted out by Friday or time will come for another extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. If that has to be done, Senator Harkin will be pushing hard for at least a 12 month extension, hoping the Democratic party will gain the White House and increased Congressional spending will not get as many veto threats that have come from the Bush administration.
In the meantime, school lunches will be served for another week, and planting progress will be made in some parts of the country, but the denizens of Capitol Hill will be even more hard pressed to agree on farm policy, which is not out of sight and out of mind.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
A one-year extension of the current farm bill is likely, though House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D) of Minnesota has said he may push for letting the bill lapse. The antiquated 1938 and 1949 laws would then be in effect, providing heavy leverage to force Congress to quickly pass a new bill.

A few critics, meanwhile, say the priority shouldn't just be getting a new bill passed, but getting a good one, and that far more reforms are needed.

If nothing else, the struggle with the bill this past year has given many Americans a chance to recognize the reach and importance of legislation that affects far more than just farmers, says Daniel Imhoff, author of "Food Fight: The Citizen's Guide to a Food and Farm Bill." He'd rather see Congress go back to the drawing board – reconsidering the massive payments to large corporate farmers, or federal subsidies for the most environmentally damaging and least healthy foods – than pass the bill currently before them.

"This is a year for farm bill literacy," says Mr. Imhoff. "You have to get beyond these policies that are stale and stagnant… We need a 21st-century farm bill in the worst way."
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Our position: It's outrageous to give farm subsidies while food prices are skyrocketing
April 16, 2008
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: Crop prices for U.S. farmers are soaring. Farm income and land values are climbing. Agricultural exports are booming.

Meanwhile, U.S. House and Senate negotiators are trying to finish legislation this week that would keep pumping billions of taxpayer dollars a year into subsidies for farmers, whether they need help or not.

What's wrong with this picture?

The spike in food prices worldwide has provoked riots in poor countries and created more hardship for U.S. families also struggling with high gas prices. A number of factors account for the run-up, including the increasing demand for biofuels, rising oil prices, development in China and India, and droughts or floods in key agricultural areas. World Bank President Robert Zoellick has predicted that high food prices will persist "for years to come."




Yet the farm bills that the House and Senate are trying to combine would sentence U.S. taxpayers to another five years of bankrolling a wasteful and inequitable system of government handouts. That system sends the bulk of its subsidies to large commercial farming operations while it leaves out two-thirds of farmers. Such payments cost taxpayers $164 billion between 1995 and 2005.

Changes to the system in both bills likely would raise the payout in future years. Both measures also would add billions to the federal budget deficit, because they use accounting gimmicks to cover part of their cost.

In addition, both would sweeten the federal program that props up prices for the U.S. sugar industry. That program has underwritten decades of environmental damage to Florida's Everglades from sugar farming and raised food prices for U.S. consumers.

And because many other countries view U.S. farm subsidies as an illegal trading practice, both bills would continue to impede efforts to open foreign markets to U.S. products.

The House and Senate added modest initiatives in their bills to benefit fruit and vegetable growers in Florida and other states. Those initiatives are not enough to redeem either measure.

Both bills also would increase funding for emergency food assistance and food stamps, which are more important than ever given the surge in food prices. These funding hikes, however, need not depend on prolonging or increasing wasteful and unfair farm subsidies. In fact, if the subsidies were pared back, there would be more dollars available for hunger programs, both at home and abroad.

It's probably too late this season to pass a farm bill with the kind of reforms that are fundamental to a fair and fiscally responsible agricultural policy. If so, Congress should approve a one-year extension of the current flawed system, and take another look next year at bipartisan proposals that would fix it


Time running out for US farm bill
Christian Science Monitor, MA - 20 hours ago
As deadline looms, lawmakers make a last-ditch effort to resolve funding and policy disputes.
 

Latest posts

Top