The Local Food and Farm Act

So far this week I’ve tried to focus primarily on the “why” and the “what” of reforming this year’s Farm Bill. (You can learn more over at FoodandFarmBillofRights.com, where you can also sign a petition in favor of reforming the Farm Bill.) Today I’d like to delve a little deeper into the “how.”

Last month as a part of my effort to help move forward the cause of reforming federal farm policy I introduced a measure in Congress, H.R.2364: The Local Food and Farm Act. Joining me in this effort were some of the new freshman members who helped us secure the majority last fall – Reps. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York – as well as some of my other good friends in the Democratic caucus like Jan Schakowsky and Bobby Rush of Illinois, Tom Allen of Maine and Donald Payne of New Jersey. (You can see the whole list of co-sponsors over at Thomas.)

The primary function of this legislation is to promote the health and well being of all Americans – particularly school-age children and residents of underserved communities – while also protecting the environment and creating opportunities for local farmers and ranchers.

In order to achieve this broader goal, the Local Food and Farm Act (LFFA) creates a number of new programs and expands a number of existing ones:

Value-Added Producer Grants: LFFA increases this existing program from $28 million per year to $60 million per year to fund grants to help farmers and ranchers take advantage of marketing opportunities in value-added agriculture.


Healthy Food Enterprise Development Program: LFFA creates this new program to help enhance producers’ share of the retail product price by providing $5 million in grants for studies and $35 million in loans and loan guarantees for feasibility studies and equipment to improve farmer access to processing and distribution systems which expedite the delivery of local foods to consumers and underserved communities.


Direct to Consumer Marketing Assistance Program: LFFA increases grant funding for farmers markets from the existing $1 million to $25 million per year to help promote new market opportunities for ranchers and farmers.


WIC Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program: LFFA incrementally increases funding for this existing program from $15 million per year now to $75 million per year by 2012. This proven program helps promote good nutrition and increased market opportunities for local farmers by increasing funding to provide fresh, unprepared, locally grown fruits and vegetables to low-income women and children.


Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program: LFFA incrementally boosts funding for this program from $5 million per year now to $75 million per year by 2012. Another proven program, this provides fresh and locally grown fruits and vegetables to low-income senior citizens and increases market opportunities for local farmers.


Community Food Project Competitive Grants: LFFA grows funding for this existing program from $5 million per year currently to $60.5 million per year, helping increase food security in communities by providing grants to support projects that bring the whole food system together to create systems – including production, processing, transportation, and retail – that improve the self-reliance of community members over their food needs.


Farm to Cafeteria Program: LFFA increases funding for this existing program from $400,000 per year now to $20 million per year, helping promote child nutrition and increased market opportunities for local farmers by increasing funding for farm to school cafeteria programs, ensuring local fruits and vegetables are part of school meals.


Local Food Preferences: LFFA would ensure that the $400,000 per year currently authorized for this program is actually allocated, helping promote local food production by allowing government agencies, including schools, to use geographic preferences in their bidding and procurement programs and providing start-up grants for to help promote the purchase of local food.


School Food Preference Study: This new program created by LFFA helps promote child nutrition and ensure fair treatment for Oregon farmers by requiring a study of schools’ preferences for commodity distribution and a report on ways to increase the distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables for schools.


Food Stamp Fruit and Vegetable Incentive Program: LFFA creates this new demonstration program within the Food Stamp program to help promote child nutrition and increased market opportunities for farmers by assisting states to provide an incentive program for food stamp recipients to purchase additional fruits and vegetables.


Independent Evaluation of Commodity Purchase Process: This new program created by LFFA helps ensure fairness for Oregon farmers by requiring an independent evaluation of the Department of Agriculture’s commodity purchase process and the inclusion of perishable specialty crops.


Urban Agriculture Production Program: This new program, funded at $5 million per year by LFFA, helps improve food security and enhance urban sustainability by providing grants and technical assistance to promote agriculture in urban areas, particularly food insecure communities.


Family Farmer and Rancher Viability and Innovation Fund: LFFA creates a new demonstration program to fund a group of family-farm sized producers to develop innovative strategies (other than marketing value-added products) that enhance their viability, profitability, and competitiveness through joint efforts. This program would be funded at not less than $2 million in FY 2008, a number that would grow to no less than $10 million by FY 2010.


These new and newly expanded programs, which I think have a real chance at being enacted into law this year, provide a good start towards reforming the Farm Bill. Senators Hillary Clinton and Sherrod Brown have introduced legislation in the Senate that seeks to achieve many of the goals set out in this bill. And as we move forward through this process, I will also be working with others in the reform movement to try to make a better and fundamentally fairer farm policy.

But I would be interested in hearing back from you on this Local Food and Farm Act, too. What are your thoughts on this measure?


Comments (5)

A phenomenal list -- you more than match my request for an emphasis on farmer's markets.

I'll hopefully be blogging in other venues about this tonight (ah, where does the time go?), and trying to build some of that "groundswell" you're asking for.

Thank you for your excellent work, Congressman.

avatar

Congressman:

Most of the programs in Local Food and Farm Act sound great and are long overdue. However, I being a layman, am buffaloed by the first item on your laundry list - the Value-Added-Producer-Grants. from a quick google, it appears to be very loosely defined and open to corporate ag monkey business. Who (or what organizations) are pushing this program???

mike42

avatar

Thank you, Congressman, for your hard work in reforming the Farm Bill. I've been away this week so I have to catch up on all of your posts. But I have a suggestion that may have possibly been mentioned already.

I'd like to propose that all foods in the US that are either wholly foreign in origin or contain ingredients of foreign origin be labeled as such.
This would be done in much the same way as is presently done with consumer products; a well established practice. Foods not including any foreign ingredients, and only such foods, should be allowed to state "Made from 100% U.S. ingredients." or something similar. Stiff penalties should be included for falsely labeling a product as 100% U.S.

The primarly purpose of the proposed labeling is that it enables a consumer to quickly identify a product wholly made of US ingredients. This gives the consumer an opportunity to favor US producers if he or she so chooses, thus evening the playing field somewhat for domestic producers. As you well know, government subsidies are a great issue of debate in free trade negotiations. Consumers may freely subsidize domestic producers if they can easily be identified.

A second benefit is that consumers can exercise their own judgement when the quality of foreign ingredients comes into question. This is, of course, a current issue in the pet food market. We may well find that this extends into human foods in the near future.

The labeling requirement should be kept simple, requiring only that the label say if the product contains any ingredients of "foreign origin", but it should allow manufacturers to be more specific if they so choose. Inclusion of ingredients from a specific point of origin might convey a marketing advantage to the product that offsets any risk of consumer backlash.

Restaurants, cafeterias, etc. should be exempt at this time. Pet foods should be included.


Again, thanks for your great work in Congress.

avatar

mike42 --


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the value-added grants program would basically be for things like helping dairy farmers make and sell cheese, instead of having to sell depressed-priced milk to large processors.

avatar

DukeJ -

If that is the intent, then fine. Hopefully those grants will be tied to some line in the sand between small farmers and large corporate agribusinesses.

mike42

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address