Food and Ag Roundup

Obama’s Budget and Agriculture, the Yeas and the Nays

By Courtney Lowery Cowgill, 2-17-11

When the Obama Administration released its budget on Monday, it was met with both cheers and jeers in the food and agriculture community.

Here’s a quick look at some of the reaction.

First, the basics: Obama’s budget would cap direct payments at $30,000 per farm. Also, farmers earning more than $250,000 a year would no longer be eligible. (Under current law, the ceiling is $500,000). Total, direct payments get a $2.6 billion hit over 10 years and crop insurance programs will drop $1.8 billion. See this good Lost Angeles Times report.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is quoted in a piece from Phillip Brasher in the Des Moines Register saying he’s confident the “safety net” for farmers is still strong. Also, Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University economist says, “Most farmers wouldn’t notice” the payment cap.

Jeers

Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation tells the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog that cuts would make subsidies a social program “and that’s not what they are at all.” He also claims the subsidies don’t encourage commodity crops.

According to the Farm Bureau, the Obama budget just adds insult to injury considering the cuts House Republicans are proposing for the 2011 budget. This week, the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union tell Agriculture.com that they’re planning a letter to lawmakers, claiming that the cuts are unfair.

Cheers

The Environmental Working Group, the non-profit organization that largely raised the flag on farm subsidies going to the wealthy and corporations with its searchable database, hailed the Obama budget, while criticizing the House suggestions. From the organization’s press release: “It is unconscionable to propose cutting a program that puts food in hungry children’s mouths while continuing to send billions to farmers and landlords that are headed for a record profitable year,” said Craig Cox, Environmental Working Group senior vice-president and director of EWG’s Iowa office.

Meanwhile, Sallie James, writing for the libertarian Cato Institute, cheered Obama for cutting subsidies but slammed House Republicans for “punting.” James writes, “I’m under no illusions that cutting farm subsidies are the key to our ever-growing fiscal mess. But it is telling that the Republicans can find not one dime in our bloated, distorting, regressive, corrupt farm programs to cut, even as farmers’ incomes and wealth soar.”

A Little Cheer, A Little Jeer

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition called the Obama budget a “mixed bag.” In an announcement Monday, NSAC gave cheers for increasing the budget for discretionary spending on conservation but big jeers for cuts in conservation programs like the Environmentalal Quality Incentives Program the Conservation Stewardship Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program. This post from the NSAC blog gives a good overview of the cuts to those programs.

Elsewhere this week on the food and ag front:

• Time Magazine says the food movement is not the new environmental movement. It’s eclipsing the environmental movement. Snip:

  “Even as traditional environmentalism struggles, another movement is rising in its place, aligning consumers, producers, the media and even politicians. It’s the food movement, and if it continues to grow it may be able to create just the sort of political and social transformation that environmentalists have failed to achieve in recent years. That would mean not only changing the way Americans eat and the way they farm — away from industrialized, cheap calories and toward more organic, small-scale production, with plenty of fruits and vegetables — but also altering the way we work and relate to one another. To its most ardent adherents, the food movement isn’t just about reform — it’s about revolution.”

• The Christian Science Monitor reports on cities taking the food movement to new levels by bringing in “food czars” who champion and help implement food-friendly policies. Great idea, but funding is hamstringing some.

• In Denver, one of those food-friendly policies is making its way through the process. A draft of a Food-Producing Animals Ordinance (read: backyard chickens) is circulating the city, thanks to a group called Sustainable Food Denver. The ordinance would allow residents to have 8 female fowl or 2 dairy goats even without a permit. (Hat-tip to ATTRA, the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service)

• Finally, the food op-ed of the week is that of Josh Virtel, the executive director of Slow Food USA. On The Atlantic this week, Virtel writes about why although he showed great promise during the campaign, President Barack Obama is missing on food system reform. A snip:

  “What I was most struck by is that the president is not leading on this issue. He is punting. It is as though, for some reason, when it comes to food, the president has decided to outsource major initiatives, policy, and strategy to heavily consolidated corporations.”

• Another food op-ed worth a read was Mark Bittman’s New York Times column from Monday on GMO labeling.

  He starts: “If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s — genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work.”

------------

Courtney Lowery Cowgill is a writer and editor (formerly of these pages) who also runs Prairie Heritage Farm, a small farm near Conrad, Montana. She and her husband grow vegetables, turkeys and ancient and heritage grains. As a farmer and writer, she works on and follows food and agriculture issues closely and each week, rounds up the top stories on the web in this arena for New West. Have an ag story you think should be included in next week’s roundup? You can reach Courtney at courtney@newwest.net.

Correction: This post has been corrected to reflect that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.