Contact: Laura Zaks

Associate Director of Communications and Development

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net, 347.563.6408

—

Contact: Jessica Manly

Communications and Digital Advocacy Director

National Young Farmers Coalition

press@youngfarmers.org, 518-643-3564 x 722

Joint Release: Fleeting Relief for Some Farmers, But ‘Bridge’ Payments Lack Long-Term Solutions

Washington, DC, December 9, 2025 – Yesterday, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced limited details of the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program, which will make $12 billion available in one-time payments predominantly for row crop farmers. The announcement comes at the conclusion of a tumultuous 2025, during which rising production costs, low crop prices, diminished market access, and unprecedented instability in federal partnership converged to push many farmers to the brink. 

“By nearly any measure, 2025 has presented American farmers with a set of unprecedented challenges. The Farmer Bridge Assistance Program provides some initial relief, but is insufficient on its own. It effectively excludes most specialty crop growers and does little to prevent the loss of farms or farmland due to acute financial hardship. Congress must act quickly to keep farmers on the land – offering loan support and cash-flow assistance, increasing market access, and investing in input-reducing conservation practices – coupled with a commitment to overhauling the safety net and building out financial resilience,” said Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

The Farmer Bridge Assistance Program will direct over 92% of payments to a handful of commodities, including corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, wheat, and soybeans. Roughly $1 billion will be reserved for other crops, including specialty crops, though a timeline for those payments is not yet available. USDA reportedly confirmed that FBA eligibility will be limited to those individuals or legal entities with an adjusted gross income below $900,000, and payments will be capped at $155,000 per recipient.

“Farmers know how to roll with the punches and navigate the unexpected, from weather impacts to pest and disease pressures and shifts in market access, whether local or international. At the same time, farmers expect a certain level of confidence in how our public agriculture systems are governed and maintained. The layered and persistent uncertainty of 2025 is pushing many farmers to the limits of what their operations can withstand. The collective government response to these conditions needs to be robust, multi-faceted, and appropriately targeted. This means that the payments announced this week must be followed by additional and expedient efforts to keep farmers on the land and to improve the farm safety net, leaving annual bailouts as cautionary historical context rather than ongoing policy,” said David Howard, Young Farmers Policy Development Director 

Producers will not be required to enroll in crop insurance to be eligible for FBA payments. While income limits and payment caps have been clarified in press reports, it is unclear whether ‘actively engaged farming’ requirements will be applied to eligible recipients. USDA will use a national loss average to calculate payments, which is unlikely to adequately account for geographic differences in the market conditions that producers face. 

The program will be rolled out on an incredibly tight timeframe – USDA has set a deadline of December 19 for farmers to ensure their 2025 acreage reporting numbers are accurate. Commodity specific payment calculations are to be completed and announced by the end of December, with checks flowing to producers by February 28, 2026. This short timeline is warranted, but may prove difficult amidst USDA staff shortages – the Farm Service Agency has lost 1,200 staff since January 2025. Under these circumstances, it is critical for USDA to ensure accurate and equitable program delivery – and to avoid the “significant improper payments” that have plagued previous assistance programs.

Looking beyond this current effort, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National Young Farmers Coalition strongly urge USDA and Congress to come together and work on additional solutions to repair and expand the farm safety net to all farmers. As Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins stated in yesterday’s announcement, “It is imperative we do what it takes to help our farmers, because if we cannot feed ourselves, we will no longer have a country”. We must ensure that across the country, people producing the food we eat have adequate certainty to plan the future of their agricultural operations and provide a reasonable quality of life for their families.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC):

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

—

The National Young Farmers Coalition (Young Farmers) is a national grassroots network of young farmers changing policy and shifting power to equitably resource the new generation of working farmers. Visit Young Farmers on the web at youngfarmers.org.

The post Joint Release: Fleeting Relief for Some Farmers, But ‘Bridge’ Payments Lack Long-Term Solutions appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) traces its earliest roots to the farm crisis of the 1980s, when cycles in the global economy and federal agricultural policy combined to push farmers losing their farms into the national spotlight. The 330,000 farm families who lost their farms between 1978 and 1992 were, unfortunately, not the last. The total number of farms has continued to steadily decrease since then, with the loss of mid-sized farms at a particularly concerning rate.

Within the past couple of years, there has been mounting evidence suggesting a tipping point for farmers and ranchers not unlike that of the 1980s. Today, high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices driven by uncertain export markets and overproduction have converged to create an economic climate in which farmers’ livelihoods are threatened. Earlier this year, hundreds of farmers – reportedly more than 500 – attended a single meeting to ask for help. Moments of farm crisis – like the one we are in now – stand out from the decades-long drumbeat of farm losses across agriculture.

While the current threat of farm loss is driven by global economies and issues far outside of farmers’ control, the fate of farm families is and will continue to be determined by the structure of US federal farm programs. Agriculture will always have disruptive events, from market disruptions and natural disasters to pandemics and pests. Yet the structure of federal policy determines the impact of those disruptions on farm families, their communities, the land, and the country. Too often federal programs have been structured to amplify the benefits of scale, while further eroding the strength of our communities.

Keeping farmers on the land is in NSAC’s DNA. For decades, NSAC has championed policies that promote markets and production systems that build farmers’ autonomy and self-determination and lessen their vulnerability to disasters. Today, federal policy can still be a vehicle to build a truly sustainable, just agricultural economy – one that sustains farm families and livelihoods, protects natural resources, and supports communities nationwide. 

This blog post offers an in-depth examination of the current state of the US farm economy, the impacts of a down farm economy, and the federal policy solutions necessary to put the US agricultural economy – and the farmers, ranchers, and communities who depend on it – on firm footing for the future.

• The Current Farm Economy
• Impacts to Individuals, Families, and Communities
• Comprehensive and Proactive Solutions
• What Comes Next

The Current Farm Economy

The US farm economy can be exceedingly complex to navigate. Nationwide, there are more than 1.9 million farms. These farms – from rural communities to urban centers and everywhere in between – are incredibly diverse in almost every way imaginable. 

The overwhelming majority of US crop production is represented by just two commodities – corn and soybeans – which were planted on roughly 175 million total acres in 2023. Broadening the scope slightly, wheat (50 million acres) and cotton (10 million acres) enter the picture. Beyond row crops, there are hundreds of thousands of specialty crop farmers in the US, growing almost every imaginable variety of fruit, nut, and vegetable. In 2023, 4.3 million acres were devoted to vegetables and just over 6 million acres in orchard production. Meanwhile, 568,972 farms – roughly 30% of all US farms – specialized in cattle or dairy production in 2022. Another 19% of US farms specialize in other livestock: hogs and pigs, poultry and eggs, sheep and goats, and beyond.

Each farmer must build their own business model – factoring in their unique scale, type of production, and market – to achieve success and longevity. Each of these factors carries with it its own risks and opportunities for growth and stability. Consequently, it’s important to note that farmers can have significantly divergent experiences within the same farm economy. Some may be particularly well positioned to navigate a challenging economy thanks to their strategy or even where they farm, while others may have an entirely different experience.

Yet all farmers – whether they are raising livestock or growing row crops, specialty crops, or even both – face similar hurdles: namely, production costs, crop prices, and market access. 

Production costs

One of the most significant costs nearly all farmers face is for inputs – items produced off farm – that they deem necessary to their farm’s success. Some of the most common production costs include fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds. Determined in large part by global market conditions, fertilizer and pesticide prices are difficult, if not impossible to control with domestic policy, and recent turbulence in most global markets has only exacerbated the problem. In 2024, the cost to farmers of these combined crop inputs (chemicals, fertilizers, and seeds) rose by nearly $20 billion dollars (comparing 2024 to 2016). During that time period, pesticide production expenses jumped 42%, seed expenses jumped 26%, and fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioner expenses rose 44%. During that same time window, the amount of US acres in farms declined significantly, signalling that dramatic increases in production expenses are not being driven by expanded acreage. 

Crop prices

While production costs have risen significantly in recent years, nationwide, farmers are also facing low crop prices. Since the peak highs in 2021 and 2022, crop prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton have all fallen significantly – corn, soybeans, and wheat are all down more than 50% per bushel, while cotton is down more than 40%. On the back of these low prices, total crop cash receipts – including receipts from farm products like fruits and nuts – are forecast to decrease $6.1 billion (2.5 percent) in 2025. When focusing on some of the most prevalent row crops, we see that the combined cash receipts are even lower – corn, soybeans and wheat are forecast to fall by $6.8 billion in 2025.

Similarly, many specialty crop prices have either dropped or failed to keep pace with the rising production costs highlighted above. Cash receipts for vegetables and melons are forecast to be $520 million lower in 2025 than in 2024 and nearly $1B lower than 2023. At the same time, specialty crop producers have faced increasing production and labor costs. Specialty crop farms also have the highest labor costs as a portion of total cash expenses and are particularly affected by rising labor costs and labor shortages. 

The factors driving low prices are, of course, multifaceted. Farm policies and economic structures incentivize maximizing yield, which often result in overproduction of major US crops – corn, soybeans, wheat – creating a price glut that quickly and severely depresses prices for producers. Similarly, unstable domestic and international market access also impacts the price that farmers receive.

Market access

The US agricultural economy is heavily reliant on international markets. From livestock to grains, commodity production in the US has long exceeded domestic demand for the majority of major commodities. Because domestic demand is exceeded, the US agricultural economy relies on – and is exposed to – often volatile international markets. Sudden changes to trade rules and tariffs have made our usual buyers – like China and Argentina – nervous. Because they cannot reliably count on us, they are now buying from other countries instead. This has introduced significant uncertainty for farmers about markets and dropped crop prices – soybean sales are down 23% from the same time last year because of lower prices. While recently announced trade deals could shift this trend, legitimate uncertainties remain.

Instability of Federal Partnership

Finally, it is worth stating that 2025 has brought unprecedented instability in federal partnership. Although stability is essential for farm planning, farmers have experienced unexpected contract cuts and unpredictable, abrupt trade policy shifts. In January 2025, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) began freezing and even terminating the lawfully held contracts of farmers and farmer-serving organizations, disrupting planning for the 2025 planting season.

From commodity farmers selling into international markets to specialty growers selling at a market down the street, collectively, these freezes and terminations have been felt across all scales and types of American agriculture. Each farmer develops their own unique financing strategy, and federal programs can be an essential piece in the puzzle to demonstrate stable income for the year. But when federal contracts are frozen or terminated with little warning, it not only casts doubt on government dependability, it ultimately undercuts the ability of federal programs to serve as a stable support for farmers of all scales. The damage is much more extensive than just the loss of that specific income. Sudden loss of any source of federal support can impact a producer’s ability to work with their lenders to secure or maintain necessary lines of operating credit for the growing season.

This uncertainty has permeated federal programs throughout 2025, impacting programs that help farmers enter new domestic markets, adapt to natural disasters and add-value to their crop, and expand access to USDA programs and services. It has even jeopardized popular farmer-led programs as recently as September 2025.  Over the summer, Congress passed and the President signed a budget reconciliation bill. This bill cut billions in food assistance and funneled that savings toward commodity payments, all while programs that support the vast majority of farmers and rural communities are excluded from the bill entirely. On top of all of this, USDA has lost nearly 20,000 employees since January while simultaneously proposing a massive department-wide reorganization without any input from farmers – both of which serve to undermine USDA’s support for farmers.

Sum of the Parts

When the tide of these baseline factors turns bad, keeping farmers in business – and on the land – requires a federal response that is finely tuned to the full range of farm and farmer needs.

By nearly any measure 2025 has presented American farmers with an array of serious challenges that, collectively, threaten farm viability nationwide. In fact, a recent survey of agricultural lenders indicates that less than half of US farmers are likely to be profitable in 2026. Yet, this moment of farm financial crisis is not particularly unique, and is just one in a long line of past and future disruptions. The ongoing loss of farms and the difficulty for new farmers to enter farming demonstrate where farm safety net programs have gaps, and how these programs are built to pick winners and losers. Farms going out of business is not a necessity of these disruptions, or even a function of disruptions, but a demonstration that federal safety net programs are not universal.

Over time, intentional decisions made by policy leaders have pushed many farmers toward narrow production choices that often make it difficult to diversify or explore new markets without sacrificing stability. Simultaneously, suffocating consolidation – among but not limited to input producers and livestock processors – leaves farmers squeezed on both ends. Taken together, these dynamics prevent many farmers – whether they grow crops, livestock, or both – from creating a business that can better buffer against shocks, and leaves them highly exposed to risk. 

Ultimately, in this model of agriculture, some years can be good, yet many years are not, even with government support: between 2017 and 2022, more than 140,000 farms were shuttered. Of those, 128,000 (91%) were smaller than 1,000 acres and 82% were smaller than 500 acres. Farms over 5,000 acres were the only category that increased – by over 5% – during this period. And no matter their size, farmers themselves faced “incredible financial, legal, and emotional stress.” Unfortunately, the impacts don’t end there.

Impacts

When the agricultural economy suffers, farmers suffer – ultimately, leading farmers and ranchers out of business. When a farm goes out of business, individuals, families, and communities are impacted, first and foremost as people. Rural communities have alarming rates of mental illness, depression, and suicide. Furthermore, farmers are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, and the suicide rate has increased by 46% in rural America in the last 20 years.

The loss of farms also exacerbates land consolidation. While farm sector consolidation may carry some efficiencies in the aggregate, unchecked consolidation creates a fragile farm economy that is exceedingly expensive for taxpayers and siphons vitality from farming communities.  Data from USDA’s most recent Census of Agriculture continues to show a long-term, concerning trend of more land held by ever fewer farms. As farms go out of business, that land is often subject to development pressure, threatening to permanently remove it from agricultural production. If the land stays in production, it is often bought by a neighbor or corporate investor. Over time, this simple process leaves more and more land in the hands of fewer and fewer farmers. With fewer farms – oftentimes not owned by the farmer themself – the economic diversity and resilience of American agriculture is diminished, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks and dependent on federal payments.

Last but not least, during challenging economic times, not all farmers are impacted equally. Compared to established farmers, new and beginning farmers tend to have less capital on hand, making it more difficult to absorb and survive economic shocks like those presented in 2025. This fact threatens an entire generation of new farmers unless we act swiftly.

Comprehensive and Proactive Solutions

Clearly, farming is a challenging enterprise. Consequently, much of federal food and agriculture policy is rightly structured around supporting farmers when times are tough. The farm safety net – including federal crop insurance, commodity support programs, and disaster assistance programs – is an essential pathway for farmers to manage risk.

While the increased farm subsidies included in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill may offer some farmers short-term relief, relying solely on commodity support programs is not a durable solution to farmers’ financial challenges, in part because the current farm safety net has significant gaps in coverage and efficiency. Moreover, previous farm bill efforts, including the 2018 Farm Bill, proved that simply increasing subsidies has failed to stabilize the farm economy over the long term, leaving producers vulnerable once again. 

Yet even if ideally constructed, the farm safety net is just one aspect of building a thriving agricultural economy. Federal policy must holistically promote markets and invest in production systems that build all farmers’ autonomy and self-determination and lessen their vulnerability to disasters. Ultimately, we cannot afford to continue looking only at short-term solutions while ignoring the warning signs of longer term structural issues.

Rather, our immediate goal must be to keep farms in business now, coupled with a commitment to overhauling the safety net and building out financial resilience. While we face economic signals of farm distress similar to the 1980s, it is time for a fundamental change in how the US responds to those signals. To keep farmers on the land, it’s imperative.

Below, NSAC offers a non-exhaustive set of policy solutions as a starting point for what is needed in both the immediate and near term. Given the diversity of American agriculture, policy solutions may not apply to every farmer and rancher. For example, some may be tailored to commodity crop producers or livestock producers, whereas others are tailored toward specialty crop growers.

Collectively, these solutions prioritize keeping farms in business in the short term and building farm financial independence, self determination, and the ability to weather all nature of disruptions in the long term. These solutions – which reflect the importance of farms at all scales and of all products – prioritize farmers’ entrepreneurship, stewardship, and connection to their community while reducing dependence on taxpayer funds. We encourage Congress and USDA to utilize the full range of tools at their disposal, including government procurement, marketing, regulatory and granting programs, to increase farm viability in both the short and long terms.

The solutions are structured as follows:

• Immediate Needs
  • Farm Loans, Cash Flow Assistance, and Revenue-Based Relief
  • Rental Payments for Marginal Land
  • Enhanced Support for Input-Reducing Conservation Practices
  • Stronger, Reliable Markets for American Farmers 

• Near-Term Needs
  • Prioritize the Next Generation of Farmers
  • Comprehensive Federal Food Procurement Reform
  • Strengthen Regional Food Supply Chains
  • Build a Stronger Farm Safety Net for All

The solutions offered in this section are arranged as indicated above based on the immediacy necessary to keep farmers on the land. Immediate solutions include cash-flow and farm loan assistance, short-term contracts to retire marginal land, and stronger, more reliable markets. Near-term solutions include land access for beginning farmers, increasing market access for meat and poultry producers, comprehensive federal food procurement reform, and more.

Immediate Needs

Farm Loans, Cash Flow Assistance, and Revenue-Based Relief

USDA must provide immediate and near-term relief for all producers to ensure no farms or farmland are lost due to acute financial hardship. The structure of how this support is delivered is vital to ensure that no farms are lost, and farmland is not consolidated further into a diminishing number of larger operations. To ensure that all farms facing financial stress receive the support they need, USDA should:

• Provide loan support to any producer struggling to meet their next payment installment in order to prevent farm loan defaults. 
• Offer cash-flow assistance programs for producers specifically unable to meet payments due to interruptions or challenges in their cash-flow.
• Implement additional assistance payments with broad eligibility and payments administered directly to farmers calculated based on a farm’s revenue, rather than by crop and acreage, to ensure all farms can fairly participate in such a program.

• Ensure all funding goes to active farmers running the operation, not investors or non-operating landowners.
• Allow the use of Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct Farm Ownership loans for refinancing other debt. 
• Require preferred guaranteed lenders to obtain FSA concurrence before initiating any foreclosure or asset liquidation activities for distressed borrowers.
• Authorize future loan assistance to borrowers who previously received debt forgiveness.
• Make USDA’s Distressed Borrower Set-Aside Program permanent.
• Increase the lifetime debt forgiveness threshold from $300,000 to $600,000 to align with the Direct Farm Ownership loan limit.
• Increase the microloan limit from $50,000 to $100,000 to make this key, streamlined financial tool more useful for a greater number of farms in filling financial gaps.

Rental Payments for Marginal Land

During extended periods of crop prices below cost of production, or exceptional market turbulence, USDA should provide producers with a stable source of income in exchange for conservation value. In this challenging farm economy, this short term source of guaranteed income will afford producers the chance to explore opportunities for new markets, diversified cash crop rotations, or a strategic sale of land. USDA should: 

• Provide short term contracts offering annual rental payments to producers who place marginal land in their operation into perennial cover. 
• Offer a maximum contract length of 3-years.
• Authorize USDA to enroll up to 30 million acres nationwide.
• Offer producers optional support for making profitable changes to their farm business on expiring contracted acres:
  • Offer financial support for business planning services to aid producers in building a value-added component to their farm business.
  • Provide organic technical assistance (TA) for those seeking to transition contracted land into organic production and obtain certification.
  • Allow for construction of infrastructure to support management-intensive rotational grazing on enrolled acres when they are returned to production.
  • Include a 1-year extension of rental payments to the contract holder should they sell contracted acres to a beginning farmer or rancher at the end of the contract.

Dedicated Support for Input-Reducing Conservation Practices

Commitment to soil health-building conservation practices offers a clear pathway to reduced production costs – namely by reducing fertilizer applications – and increased profits per acre over time. USDA should target support to producers eager to adopt conservation practices that significantly reduce the total amount of fertilizer they require, leaving farm businesses far more resilient to spikes in fertilizer prices. Congress should:

• Provide a large, one-time, targeted infusion of funding to working lands conservation programs, Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), requiring that:
  • The majority of funds must be used for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) on a wide variety of farms and all facilitating practices necessary to implement such plans.
  • CNMPs should be designed to achieve a reduction to <60% of current rates or <60% of LGU recommended rates for total fertilizer applied across the farm within the life of the plan.
  • A portion of the funding is used to hire NRCS staff capable of writing CNMPs and designing facilitating practices.

Similarly structured investments could also be provided, aiding producers in reducing their reliance on additional inputs like herbicides and pesticides.

Stronger, Reliable Markets for American Farmers 

Reliable markets, whether down the road or across an ocean, are foundational to farmers’ success. This is particularly true during a period of high production and labor costs and relatively lower prices. On the heels of the abrupt cancellation of domestic market initiatives earlier this year, federal policy must play an essential role in fostering the development of new, more robust markets. USDA should:

• Enter into cooperative agreements with states to promote state purchasing and management of contracts with local supply chains to fulfill the annual needs of local, federally funded nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program, that are typically managed by USDA commodity procurement. 
• Invest additional funds in new market opportunities for small and mid-size farming operations by awarding states multi-year funding to partner with local businesses and networks to purchase locally produced specialty crops, dairy, and protein to distribute to food insecure communities.     
• Promote increased connectivity between schools and local farmers by authorizing a voluntary pathway that would allow schools the flexibility to use a portion of their school meal entitlement funding to purchase foods directly from farmers in their regions.
• Expand outreach for the Cooperative Interstate Shipment programs footprint to new states in order to expand markets for producers and processors. 

Near-Term Needs

Prioritize the Next Generation of Farmers

During a farm crisis, beginning farmers are often the most at risk. In these moments, the transition of the farm to the next generation can be an important tool to keep the farm in the family’s hands, and both are critical to keeping the land in agriculture. Facilitating a farm transition to a beginning farmer protects the land from development, and maintains the farm as an opportunity for a new generation of farmers to build a future and raise their children on the land. To keep existing early-career farmers on the land and to facilitate farm transitions to the next generation of farmers, USDA should:

• Provide funding for direct assistance and services at FSA to help the next generation of farmers and ranchers afford and acquire land by covering closing costs and down payments; capitalize infrastructure and site improvements; and acquire business technical assistance and farm viability training.
• Prioritize FSA projects that provide direct financial assistance to producers, involve collaborative networks or partnerships, and facilitate transition of farmland from existing to new producers.
• Waive farm management experience eligibility requirements for loan applications where the farm is being transitioned either within the extended family or to a current farm employee.
• Expand access to the Down Payment Loan Program (DPLP), especially for borrowers for whom the program will increase loan feasibility and loan approval, provide a 2-year delay in the start of DPLP repayment or repayment alignment with the new enterprise’s anticipated cash flow, and make down payment loans forgivable after 5 years for borrowers who stay in farming.
• Improve the ability of USDA to identify and address the barriers to intergenerational land transition and new farmer entry by reauthorizing the USDA Commission on Farm Transitions.
• Authorize FSA to make grants or enter into cooperative agreements to assist with heirs property issues, including the creation of Heirs Property and Fractionated Land Legal Clinics.
• Strengthen the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development program.

Comprehensive Federal Food Procurement Reform

USDA’s annual food expenditures represent an opportunity to address underlying causes of the farm crisis by creating markets that reduce production costs and support business growth and viability among groups underrepresented in the agricultural sector. Specifically, it means creating fair market opportunity for all producers, including beginning, young, veteran, and other historically underserved farmers and ranchers. USDA should:

• Open market access for more farmers and businesses to secure federal food contracts by developing criteria, and dedicating 20% of annual food spending, that consider metrics beyond least cost to reward producers who are using organic production methods and protecting our environment and businesses that purchase from underserved and socially disadvantaged producers.  
• Create a set aside within USDA food purchases to increase meat and poultry purchasing from small processors and small producers that increases over time to provide a stable market while providing recipients with healthy, nutritious protein products.

Strengthen Regional Food Supply Chains

A key element to promoting the integrity of local and regional supply chains – and thereby market opportunities for farmers – includes investing in the middle of the food supply chain, including critically underfunded infrastructure. Congress and USDA should:

• Establish state block grants to build states’ capacity to manage grant and loan programs for food supply chain infrastructure, including for aggregation and distribution, processing, and storage for specialty crops, meat and poultry, and dairy. 
• Continue investment in processing capacity. Together with changes to meat procurement policy at the federal level, this could provide stability to the domestic livestock and poultry sectors, especially independent producers who feel squeezed by a lack of competition in purchasers and processors. Providing a series of small grants, up to $500,000 per grant, to continue to fill gaps in processing capacity across the country would  support the expansion of domestic markets. 
• Promote a variety of technical assistance opportunities for producers that addresses barriers to farmers’ market access.  This includes technical assistance targeted toward food safety planning and certification, business development, and supply chain coordination.
• Build upon the success of the Dairy Business Innovation Centers by establishing regional technical assistance centers that provide business development and other forms of training and resources that fill existing regional gaps and promote growth in emerging sectors, with at least one center specifically around meat and poultry issues

Build a Stronger Farm Safety Net for All

All farmers and ranchers deserve a strong safety net that protects them in times of crisis. The design of farm safety net programs, including crop insurance and commodity support programs, promote a focus on yields and efficiency rather than resiliency. This system currently leaves out many producers altogether, particularly smaller, beginning, and diversified farmers. USDA should: 

• Improve risk management tools including Whole Farm Revenue Protection and the Non-Insured Disaster Assistance Program by streamlining applications, expanding coverage limits and options, and increasing access for small and beginning producers.
• Reform disincentives against the adoption of conservation practices that are perpetuated by federal crop insurance rules, and restructure safety net programs to support on-farm resiliency and reduce the need for ad-hoc disaster relief.
• Structure any supplemental disaster relief programs to maximize eligibility for all impacted producers, and ensure that payments reflect the true value of their losses through revenue-based assistance programs.

The post Keeping Farmers on the Land appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net 

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Applauds Final Rule to Bring Fairness to Poultry Tournament System

Washington, DC, January 14, 2025 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) applauded Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for today’s announcement of a new final rule under the Packers and Stockyards Act: Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems. 

“The latest rule is a long-anticipated and necessary step toward completion of a congressional directive from the 2008 Farm Bill to strengthen the century-old Packers and Stockyards Act,” said Billy Hackett, NSAC Policy Specialist. “The rule introduces guardrails and transparency to an otherwise opaque payment system that is commonly manipulated to unfairly benefit individual growers and punish others.”  

Specifically, the measures announced in the final rule:

• require poultry companies to provide contract broiler growers with a clear base pay rate in their contracts and prohibit any deductions from the base price, while allowing  performance bonuses to be paid above the base price;
• limit variability in grower payments to provide more financial certainty and stability; 
• ensure poultry companies comply with a “duty of fair comparison” to ensure that when growers receive different payment rates based on performance, those comparisons take into account factors including the quality of inputs provided by the company; and
• require disclosures to growers regarding the financial risks and rewards of making expensive capital improvements to their poultry operations.  

The final rule incorporated feedback from public comments submitted by stakeholders, including both industry and advocacy groups, in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking published in June 2022.

“NSAC looks forward to working with the incoming Administration to continue development and implementation of rules to protect fair trade, financial integrity, and competitive markets for meat and poultry, per the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act,” concluded Hackett.

#### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: NSAC Applauds Final Rule to Bring Fairness to Poultry Tournament System appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Welcomes Proposed “Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry Markets” Rule 

Washington, DC, June 25, 2024 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) applauded United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack for publishing another proposed rule to modernize the century-old Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act): “Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry Markets.” This is the fourth rule to implement reforms first announced in President Joe Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy in 2022. 

“This highly anticipated rule offers important clarification to longstanding USDA interpretations of competitive injury under the P&S Act, which is intended to protect livestock and poultry growers from unfair practices,” said Billy Hackett, NSAC Policy Specialist. “The proposed rule represents one more step to give producers a fair shake in unbalanced contracts with corporate integrators.”

The proposed rule offers a comprehensive definition of “unfair practices” under Section 202(a) of the P&S Act, distinguishing between unfair practices with respect to market participants and unfair practices with respect to markets. This guidance will help USDA and courts to apply consistent guidelines when assessing alleged unfair practices, addressing inconsistent applications of the law.

“The standard put forward in the proposed rule clarifies that a farmer does not need to prove unfair practices harmed competition in the marketplace as a whole – a traditional standard for antitrust law – in order to bring a case about how unfair practices negatively impacted their own operation,” continued Hackett. 

In remarks at an event at the Center for American Progress, Increasing Competition and Fairness in Food and Agricultural Markets, Secretary Vilsack summarized the intent for all P&S Act rules to-date, saying:

“We focused on modernizing our P&S Act, working with the Department of Justice to ensure that we actually put some real opportunities in the P&S Act to create a more fair and transparent market… Today, we announced a fourth rule… [which provides] an enforcement tool that will provide for greater balance in the relationship between farmer and integrator.”

USDA is seeking public comments on the proposed rule. The comment period will end 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. 

For more information, see the two-page summary and full text of the proposed rule. 

###

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: NSAC Welcomes Proposed “Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry Markets” Rule appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Senate Hearing Highlights Need for Broader View of Beginning Farmer Challenges

Washington, DC, June 5, 2024 – Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry’s Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management, and Trade held a hearing entitled, “Pathways to Farming: Helping the Next Generation of Farmers.” The almost two-hour hearing featured four witnesses who spoke to their experiences as beginning farmers and ranchers. In response to the hearing, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and National Young Farmers Coalition (Young Farmers) issued the following statements.

“We need federal farm policy that centers equity, addresses the land access crisis, and tackles the challenges of farm viability and climate change that young farmers and ranchers struggle with daily. This Farm Bill is our best opportunity to prioritize the needs of a new generation and to build safe and thriving food and farm systems. Unfortunately, while some of our recommendations were voiced in the Pathways to Farming Senate Subcommittee hearing, the focus on base acres and reference prices as the best solution to support the next generation of farmers missed the mark,” said Michelle Hughes, Co-Executive Director of Young Farmers.

“The next farm bill should serve all farmers,” said Billy Hackett, Policy Specialist at NSAC. “Yesterday’s hearing showcased perspectives indicating that generational beginning farmers face different needs compared to new farmers, who need support to enter this industry without existing relationships, institutional knowledge, or assets.”

Tessa Parks, a member of Young Farmers and the Land Stewardship Project, both NSAC members, was the only witness able to speak to the unique, heightened challenges that first-generation farmers experience. She said:

“Beginning farmers like me face significant barriers to entry into agriculture, including a farm safety net that favors larger and more established farms, barriers to accessing land and capital, climate change, and ongoing corporate consolidation in agriculture that limits our opportunities and diminishes competition in the marketplace.”

In opening remarks, Senator Tina Smith (D-MN), Chair of the subcommittee, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the full committee, mentioned the rising consolidation and price of farmland, asserting that careless increases to commodity programs would exacerbate these issues.

“A study… found a 10 percent increase to the Price Loss Coverage Program… would result in hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars going into the pockets of landlords and investors, not [active] farmers,” said Sen. Smith. “Land that is counted as base acres by the commodity program is more expensive to purchase and more costly to rent.”

Sen. Stabenow added that “the House proposal to increase these programs by 70 percent… and relax and remove payment eligibility limits for the biggest farms, will make land rents even more unaffordable for beginning farmers… Making crop insurance more affordable and accessible is a much more effective way to help farmers and it does not depend on what you planted back in the ‘80s to be able to get support. And it covers what producers are actually growing.”

“Base acre expansion is not a silver bullet or even a priority for new and beginning farmers represented by NSAC and our member organizations, who tend to be small to mid-sized and diversified, and who consistently express the need for support to facilitate access to land, capital, markets, conservation programs, and protection against worsening disasters through expanded crop insurance access,” continued Hackett. 

Notably, Sen. Smith mentioned her partnership with Young Farmers, saying “I have worked closely with [Young Farmers] on crafting the Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities Act, known as LASO. This bill would directly help beginning farmers and historically underserved farmers acquire affordable land, develop markets, and get access to capital.”

The subcommittee chair also entered NSAC’s latest report, Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net, into the congressional record as a resource detailing the many challenges that young, beginning, and small producers face to access these pivotal USDA programs, as well as the inequitable distribution of resources through farm programs.

In a similar vein, noting that “10 percent of farm operations receive 70 percent of all yearly farm payment subsidies,” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked if “closing loopholes so [that] only actively engaged farmers… receive Title I payments [could] help beginning farmers compete with larger operations.” This line of questioning was a reference to the bipartisan Farm Program Integrity Act. 

In advance of the hearing, NSAC circulated a brief comparing many provisions across the Senate and House farm bill proposals intended to support beginning farmers. The brief concludes that the farm bill proposal from Chairwoman Stabenow, which included almost all priorities uplifted by the farmers in yesterday’s hearing, does more to meet the needs of new and beginning producers than the House mark.

“With nearly a third of the country’s total agricultural land expected to change hands over the next twenty years, this farm bill comes at a time when the future of American agriculture is at a crossroads,” said Nick Rossi, Policy Specialist at NSAC. “Do we continue down the path of ‘get big or get out’, or do we pass a farm bill that addresses equitable land access, retention, and transition?” 

Parks suggested that Congress “create and improve programs to help with land and capital access for beginning farmers, invest in programs that tackle climate change and improve the resilience of our farm operations, and address the urgent need for better access to affordable health care and child care in rural areas.”

“We urge Members of Congress to really listen to the needs of the new generation of farmers  and not to be afraid of challenging the status quo. This is our opportunity to deliver the kind of changes to policies and programs that will allow beginning farmers and ranchers to build successful careers and provide for their communities,” said Vanessa Garcia Polanco, Director of Government Relations at Young Farmers.

###

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: Senate Hearing Highlights Need for Broader View of Beginning Farmer Challenges appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net 

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Applauds Final Rule on Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity under the Packers and Stockyards Act

Washington, DC, March 5, 2024 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) applauded Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for the publication of a final rule: Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act. This is the final policy from USDA to modernize the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&SA) following a public comment period to a proposed rule in 2022, a process set in-motion by President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. 

“This is an important and long-awaited step to protect the rights and agency of livestock and poultry producers,” said Billy Hackett, NSAC Policy Specialist. “The deceptive and unfair tactics of corporate integrators in recent decades – tactics that writers of the century-old P&SA could not have predicted – have led to many instances of discrimination and retaliation or otherwise imbalanced contractual relationships against producers who until now had no explicit protections or avenues for recourse.”  

The final rule addresses many ways that livestock and poultry markets unfairly exclude producers or otherwise limit their ability to obtain the full value of their animals. Notably, USDA chose to forgo protections for “market vulnerable individuals,” a novel and expansive category included in the proposed rule that may have protected growers whose ability to compete fairly was impeded in a highly concentrated marketplace on those grounds. Instead, protections are explicitly outlined for growers on the basis of protected class and cooperative formation.

“The release of today’s final rule is worthy of particular applause given the recent high-profile attempts by lawmakers to sink USDA’s efforts to strengthen the P&SA,” continued Hackett. “It’s affirming to see the federal government stand firmly on the side of our country’s farmers and ranchers to promote healthy competition in the market, and we urge members of Congress to remain steadfast at their side.” 

In full, the newest Packers and Stockyards Act final rule will: 

• Prohibit the adverse treatment of livestock producers and poultry growers based on protected class. It also prohibits discrimination against a livestock and poultry producer cooperative. 
• Prohibit retaliation against producers and growers for their engaging in certain protected activities, including lawful communications or refusals to communicate, assertion of rights, participation in associations and cooperatives, and exploring or entering into a business relationship with a competing dealer.
• Prohibit false or misleading statements or omissions of material information in contract formation, performance, and termination. 
• Prohibit regulated entities from providing false or misleading representations regarding refusal to contract.
• Supports USDA monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement of compliance with aspects of this rule through certain recordkeeping requirements. 

Read the full text of the final rule here. 

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: NSAC Applauds Final Rule on Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity Under the Packers and Stockyards Act appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Funding for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and three other federal departments, is set to expire at midnight this Friday, March 1, absent congressional approval of a Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) appropriations bill, or an extension of current funding. Amidst final-hour congressional negotiations to fend off a government shutdown, several policy “riders” have emerged as sticking points in reaching a deal on agriculture spending in particular. A “rider” refers to a non-germane legislative provision tacked onto a must-pass appropriations bill.

The House of Representatives’ FY24 Agriculture Appropriations bill – initially unveiled almost a year ago, in early spring 2023 – includes a number of harmful policy riders on top of deep funding cuts. This post briefly examines several proposed policy riders as Congress seeks to conclude FY24 appropriations negotiations. 

Limiting Fair Competition

One such policy rider, related to the implementation of rules associated with the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&SA), would effectively prevent the USDA from promoting fair market competition for livestock and poultry growers, both now and in the future. The P&SA was passed in 1921 to combat anticompetitive practices in the livestock and poultry industries as corporate meatpackers and processors (also known as integrators) consolidated and amassed substantial power over producers. Enforcement waned over time and in 2019, almost a century later, just four companies processed 85 percent of beef, 67 percent of pork, 53 percent of chicken, and 55 percent of turkey. 

Congress directed USDA to modernize the P&SA in recognition of this unprecedented market consolidation in the 2008 Farm Bill. But for 15 years, each attempt by any Administration to act on this mandate has stalled. Members of Congress opposed to P&SA reform consistently included riders to annual appropriations bills that obstructed USDA’s ability to make progress.

In 2021, the Biden Administration announced a renewed directive for USDA to strengthen the P&SA in alignment with an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. USDA announced a final rule on promoting transparency for contract poultry growers in 2023 and is expected to soon finalize a proposed rule that protects producers from anticompetitive discriminatory and predatory practices.  

Now, some members of Congress have revived a decade-old strategy to oppose modernization of the P&SA that would promote fair market competition for livestock and poultry growers. Active riders to the FY24 appropriations bill in the House would not just undo USDA’s recent and ongoing rulemaking. They would also prevent USDA from strengthening the P&SA in the future. This would be a devastating blow to the many livestock and contract poultry growers trapped in an anticompetitive industry or in hostile arrangements with integrators.  

Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Representative Andy Harris (R-MD-01), has made the inclusion of this rider a top priority to advance the spending bill to the House floor. The National Farmers Union delivered a joint letter to the House Appropriations Committee leadership earlier this month in opposition to these riders. NSAC and a number of member and allied organizations were signatories to the letter. In addition, Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Tester (D-MT), both farmers, recently penned a letter to colleagues lauding the importance of a stronger P&SA to protect farmers and ranchers and urged members of Congress to oppose any such riders. 

Hampered Response to Emergent Agricultural Needs

Another proposed rider seeks to restrict USDA’s ability to direct Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) resources toward emergent agricultural needs. This in turn could deal significant blows, both now or in the future, to initiatives such as the Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, the Organic Market Development Grants, the Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program, and the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities.

The CCC is the mandatory funding mechanism for many federal agricultural programs.  A wholly owned corporation of the United States government, the CCC was created during the New Deal and put into its current statutory framework in 1948.  The CCC is used to fund commodity, conservation, bioenergy, and trade programs included in the periodically re-authorized federal farm bill. 

The House’s FY2024 Agriculture Appropriations bill proposed a restriction on the discretionary use of the CCC, and depending on the precise policy language, this rider could significantly hamper USDA’s ability to respond to emerging agricultural needs. Ultimately, the bottom line is that any inclusion of language that would hinder the Secretary of Agriculture’s flexibility to respond to emerging needs, such as the fracturing of supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to impact the continued delivery of programs that address acute regional and nationwide needs. 

For example, the USDA made additional funding available to the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program (LFPA) in November 2022 to maintain and improve regional agricultural supply chains. Through cooperative agreements with States, Tribal governments, and territories, LFPA strategically leverages CCC funds to create economic opportunity for local producers and underserved farmers, build local food supply chains, and address food insecurity. This additional funding offers an opportunity to build on the program’s initial success, with projected estimates of more than $1.5 billion in local economic impact. 

Recently, 153 regional LFPA implementers and stakeholders across the nation delivered a letter to Congressional leadership to express their strong opposition to any rider that restricts the Secretary’s current authority to utilize CCC funds. 

Other Threats 

Beyond these threats, the House bill also includes several riders that would block USDA from carrying out a variety of its racial equity-focused initiatives, including anything related to Executive Orders 13985, 14035, and 14091, or the creation and establishment of an Office of the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. This rider, like the others, is counter to NSAC’s mission and vision.

As Congress seeks to resolve FY24 Appropriations negotiations in the coming days, numerous riders – each of which carries their unique negative impacts – continue to be debated. NSAC believes including any of the aforementioned riders would lead to a less just and resilient food and farm system. Consequently, Congress should pass a clean FY2024 agriculture appropriations bill by keeping these and other riders out of any final deal. 

The post Riders in the Night: Harmful Provisions in the House Spending Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net 

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Celebrates Final Rule Promoting Transparency for Contract Poultry Growers

Washington, DC, November 8, 2023 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) celebrated Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for publishing the first of several expected final rules to modernize the century-old Packers and Stockyards Act: “Transparency in Poultry Growing Contracts and Tournaments.” The rulemaking process was set in motion as part of the Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy in 2021.  

“This final rule is an important first step that will shed light on the opaque and unfair poultry tournament system to protect contract poultry growers,” said Billy Hackett, NSAC Policy Specialist. “Transparency is necessary in any supply chain as a bulwark against anticompetitive or harmful manipulation and abuse of workers – in this case, growers.” 

The rule was first proposed in June 2022, followed by the customary public comment process. NSAC submitted a comment uplifting recommendations from the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform to strengthen the rule’s intended impact.

The Transparency in Poultry Growing Contracts and Tournaments Final Rule will require live poultry dealers to disclose critical information to poultry growers with whom they enter into contracts. These measures will be an important deterrent against anticompetitive practices in a highly consolidated industry, where poultry companies act as “integrators” that control the supply and quality of inputs (e.g., the quality of feed and chicks) and are known to manipulate these variables to punish growers who have spoken out against industry abuses. The final rule will take effect in February 2024.

Today, Secretary Vilsack also announced his intention to appoint a Chief Competition Officer at USDA to reinforce policy development and enforcement to advance fair competition. NSAC will continue to work with our members and allies to support and inform the ongoing PSA rulemakings, as we have for 15 years. 

#### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: NSAC Celebrates Final Rule Promoting Transparency for Contract Poultry Growers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA) is the most comprehensive meat processing bill around, with specific provisions that address competition, demand for local products, and access to value added services in the meat processing sector. It does so by addressing acute issues for processors vital to our supply chain, and by promoting training programs that bolster the resilience of these processors, the farmers they work with, and food access for their communities. Led by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Jim Baird (R-IN), this comprehensive solution to some of the greatest barriers facing independent and small-scale producers and processors has garnered strong bipartisan support, in both the House and Senate.  

History of Independent Small-Scale Meat Processing

Many of the companies created at the advent of mass meat processing have persisted to today, even if their names and principal owners have changed over time. Despite various waves of antitrust activity over the last century, these companies continue to hold consolidated power over the industry, creating an unequal playing field that boxes out small and medium-sized entities. These large-scale processing companies may provide lower cost products for consumers through their economies of scale and vertical integration, yet they have many downsides. They often have unsafe working conditions and a structure that makes it hard to advocate against these abuses. They leave our meat and poultry processing system and supply chain brittle and slow to move with changing conditions such as climate impacts, communicable diseases, or war-related barriers, all of which our agricultural markets have faced in recent years.  

The evolving needs of our food system consequently require agile policy solutions that adapt to the challenges at hand.  Hardworking but under-resourced small to midsize processors lack the support and the financial infrastructure in their communities to expand their capacity. Building an array of financing options can enable different processors to provide more diverse services for producers as well.

Recent Actions

In recent years, and most noticeably during the supply chain disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, several agencies within the USDA – including Rural Development and the Agricultural Marketing Service – have helped direct critical funding specifically to small and very small meat processing plants. These investments have supported smaller-scale farmers who are implementing important sustainable practices like organic or highly rotational grazing, and who consequently seek a premium on their product through the sale of whole cuts, local marketing, and processing in line with their raising label or certifications.

Examples of these investments are the Meat and Poultry Programs (MP programs), such as the Inspection Readiness Grant (MPIRG), Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP) and Intermediary Lending Program (MPILP) which have helped smaller plants scale up or prepare themselves for federal inspection utilizing different sized grants and loans. Sustaining funding for these programs is vital to continuing to build a more resilient and agile food system.

NSAC was pleased to see rounds of awards from the MP programs. We also supported funding more agriculture of the middle initiatives, with significant investments to help aggregate small producers and support mid-scale producers.  Unlike these other initiatives, SLPA is specifically focused on supporting the smaller ‘mom and pop’ operations that form the cornerstone of local food economies, and local economies as a whole. The Local Meat Capacity and Indigenous Animal Processing Grant Programs, which recently held calls for proposals, will go a long way towards sustaining this goal. The high demand for these two programs, as well as MPPEP, demonstrates a clear need to continue funding programs focused on small meat processors, to better serve the demand from local and sustainable meat and poultry producers.

The history and present-day reality of consolidation in the meat processing sector – coupled with the recent successes in expanding opportunity and support for smaller-scale, independent processing through USDA’s pandemic-era programming – make it clear that the Farm Bill must sustain these investments and permanently authorize programs that build regional processing capacity.  The SLPA provides a vehicle for doing so, and enjoys broad support across the agriculture and food sectors for these reasons outlined below.

1. SLPA will address critical workforce shortages and training needs

Currently, many small meat packers across the country, from Minnesota to California are struggling to staff up. They cannot meet the demand for the highly skilled employees they need or find co-owners if they operate an employee-owned cooperative. 

To realize the full benefits of the previous taxpayer investment in meat processing capacity expansion, additional training programs are needed to create and sustain the diverse workforce these varied plants require and to help grow the next generation of leaders in the sector. 

It is clear highly trained professionals are needed to  help run these plants and provide vital services to their local communities – making sure sustainably raised livestock and poultry make it from farm to table. In addition to prioritizing worker training to address immediate workforce shortages, SLPA would also provide grants to support the development of skills necessary for workers to eventually assume cooperative or individual ownership of these plants as well. 

“[SLPA] creates an Institutional Career Training Program to work towards building a pipeline of talented individuals interested in making a career out of providing a high-quality and nutritious food source for their fellow Americans.”

– US Cattlemen’s Association president Justin Tupper

To do so, SLPA creates two meat processing training program grants that assist and train small plant operators, small plant employees, and the next generation of meat processors and butchers. It does so by supporting training programs in both institutions – such as technical colleges, nonprofits, and worker training centers – and small and very small plants. These two categories allow for flexibility in meeting the sector’s changing needs for workforce training. In each case, SLPA authorizes an annual appropriation of $10 million, a modest amount to launch the program and demonstrate its value over the life of the Farm Bill.

2. SLPA will increase regional and interstate trade and open new markets for local producers

Processors and the producers they serve not only need additional training and support for workforce development, but also easier to access, expanded markets. For producers on the borders of states that do not have appropriately sized plants where they can take their herds to sell into wholesale markets, SLPA would help expand potential markets for them. It would do so by creating incentives for states to create their own Meat and Poultry Inspection programs, or if they already do – incentivize them to join the Cooperative Interstate Shipping program.

“SLPA would also require the US Department of Agriculture to encourage state participation in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program, which would open access for interstate shipment of meat and poultry, something that isn’t always currently allowed.“

– U.S. Cattlemen’s Association president Justin Tupper 

Currently, only 29 states have state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) programs, which allow for sale and shipment within the state and which are currently cost-shared equally between the state and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  SLPA would increase the federal government’s maximum cost share from 50 percent to 65 percent. This would help states with existing MPI programs cover costs and incentivize additional states to establish MPI programs.

States that have MPI programs can also opt into the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program which allows for interstate shipment for small plants. Currently, the USDA does not actively solicit participation in the CIS program, nor does it provide the cost breakdowns or the resources available to participating states.

SLPA would require FSIS to conduct outreach to states with state inspection programs that are not part of the CIS program, and to submit a report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees each year detailing the activities and the results of the outreach conducted. 

To further expand participation in CSI, SLPA would increase the amount of total program costs that USDA will cover from 60  to 80 percent. It also would change the small plant eligibility size for participation in this program from plants with less than 25 employees to plants with less than 50 employees. Increasing the size of plants able to be inspected under the CIS program would create new markets for those plants that are on the size and processing capacity cusp and may struggle to achieve federal grant of inspection, but are interested in pursuing larger markets. For a long time, limited intrastate markets have limited the growth of non federally or CIS inspected  small and midsize meat processors, especially those that may be located close to the state border. 

In addition to creating more market opportunities for processors, SLPA will also increase the amount of state employed inspectors which will mean less inspectors on the federal budget, more money in the states’ economy, and potentially better conditions for the inspectors themselves. For example, this could reduce how far they have to drive and other factors contributing to high turnover in the sector.

3. SLPA will help small, independent processors scale up and stay viable

In various ways, the SLPA takes many of the best parts of the Meat and Poultry programs funded through the American Rescue Plan Act and sustains them at a lower level, but for a dependable amount of time. 

From all of the application cycles, it is clear there is a massive demand for these programs – and there will continue to be going into the future. Because of short timelines for the development of plans, applications, and payouts, many of these programs favored ‘shovel ready’ projects. The programs may  have been selecting for plants that already had plans for expansion, and not necessarily those plants and areas most in need of investment. Moreover,  know from similar payment structures that longer timelines and more dependable grant cycles provide longer-term stability for processors, and the farmers they serve, to feel they can make or plan to make the necessary investments to qualify for these programs.

SLPA authorizes a Processing Resilience Grant Program (PRGP), which would give the Agricultural Marketing Service the ability to continue to invest in currently existing or proposed federally inspected, state inspected, and exempt small and very small plants. This investment could include expanding infrastructure to increase harvest and processing capacity, developing food safety plans, and purchasing new equipment, for example, hide pullers that make it easier for small plants to make use of coproducts such as leather or by products like offal. To target funding to those plants most in need of this support this section limits grants to a maximum size of $500,000 and has a $20 million annual appropriations authorization. 

 “Strengthening and rebuilding local and regional food systems is an important step in ensuring a robust and resilient food system of the future.  Vibrant local processing adds to consumer choices, competition, economic development as well as opportunities for farmers especially small and disadvantaged farmers.  It is an important step in our response to the shortcomings in our food supply that the pandemic highlighted.”

– Greg Gunthorp, American Grassfed Association Board Member, farmer, processor, sustainable food system advocate extraordinaire 

4. SLPA will support a vibrant and competitive livestock and poultry industry

For too long, smaller processing and slaughtering operations have not been provided the resources, financing options, and markets they need to exist. Market consolidation has allowed large meat packers to become overwhelming price makers through alternative marketing agreements, contracts, market power in auction settings, and a variety of other techniques. Over time, proportionally, this lack of competition in the sector has pushed down farmer share of livestock and poultry sales, along with a variety of other factors such as retaliation and antitrust policy. 

By responsibly investing in small to mid sized and independent processing operations, we can create markets where meat processors thrive and farmers and consumers can benefit from more companies in competition both over their product and their dollar. 

“More local processing capacity means more money in the pockets of farmers and ranchers,” said NFU President Rob Larew, adding that “Building out more and better processing access for ranchers helps them circumvent the processing monopolies while also providing homegrown products to their communities.“

5. SLPA has broad support across industry, party, and place in our food system

Whether they raise cattle, poultry, or other animals such as bison, producers critically feel the need for more slaughtering options and to expand their different product streams. For processors that participate in a certification program, such as organic or pastured, this need is particularly acute. To maintain market certifications, producers must work with processors that comply with the relevant certification standards. These processors are incredibly rare and finding one within a reasonable travel distance from the producer is a consistent challenge. Processors hear this demand but, without many of the solutions the SLPA proposes, lack scale-appropriate financial products to be able to expand meaningfully to serve these niche and local markets. 

Farmers, ranchers, processors, local and national organizations all support SLPA, and are working to make sure it is part of the 2023 farm bill. 

“The Strengthening Local Processing Act offers necessary resources that small-scale USDA facilities like ours have been advocating for. The appropriate allocation of these resources, as proposed in the Strengthening Local Processing Act, will allow establishments like ours to continue to survive and thrive during these immensely challenging times,” Nichole Sargent, Owner, Southpaw Packing Company, INC. (DBA Windham Butcher Shop), based in Windham, Maine.

“We look forward to working with Senators Brown and Thune and Representatives Baird and Pingree to advance this legislation through Congress.” 

 – US Cattlemen’s Association president Justin Tupper

“The benefit that the Strengthening Local Processing Act will bring to small processors across the country will ensure that the meat industry will be stronger, better connected, and more informed. With regulatory and training assistance, we look forward to seeing this bill pass to help our world’s meat supply.” 

– Abbey Davidson, American Association of Meat Processors

“NFU is proud to support this bill and will work with our partners to pass it.” 

–NFU President Rob Larew

State and national farm organizations, ranging from the Ohio Farm Bureau to National Farmers Union endorse this bill.  NSAC looks forward to working with Congress and our partners to make sure these critical programs for farmers, ranchers, and the processors that work with them have the support they need to feed our local communities. For more information about the SLPA and to take action to support its inclusion in the 2023 Farm Bill, visit our website.

The post Strengthening Local Processing Act – Critical Reasons for Support in the Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Laura Zaks, NSAC, lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net, 347-563-6408

Patty Lovera, CFFE, pattylovera20@gmail.com, 202-744-0525

Dee Laninga, Farm Action, dlaninga@farmaction.us, 202-450-0094

Ross Hettervig, National Farmers Union, press@nfudc.org

Aaron Johnson, RAFI-USA, aaron@rafiusa.org, 984-214-2420

Michael Nelson, WORC, mnelson@worc.org 202-547-7040

Steve Etka, Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform, steveetka@gmail.com, 703-519-7772

Release: 102 Groups Urge Congress to Choose Farmers over Big Meat in Ag Appropriations Bill

The letter calls out an appropriations policy rider as an “unacceptable attack” on the USDA’s ability to ensure fair competition for farmers.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 13, 2023 — 102 farmer, rancher, consumer, labor, farmworker, and faith organizations sent a letter urging the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations to remove a policy rider from its FY24 Agriculture Appropriations bill when it is considered during Wednesday’s markup. The rider would prevent USDA from writing, preparing, or publishing proposed rules to strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act, a landmark law intended to protect farmers and ranchers from abusive and anti-competitive behavior.

“It is wrong for members of Congress to use the cover of an appropriations bill to quietly deny the country’s poultry and livestock producers from a deserved fair shake,” said Billy Hackett, Policy Specialist for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC).  “The ongoing, public process to promote transparency and competition in the marketplace by modernizing the Packers and Stockyards Act is aligned with core American values and must continue.”

The proposed rules are particularly crucial now, the letter states, “because of the highly concentrated and vertically integrated nature of the livestock and poultry industries.” Such concentration gives “dominant meatpacking corporations considerable market power and [enables] their use of unfair contracting provisions and retaliatory practices that are abusive and harmful to family farmers.”

The letter provides examples of the harmful and anticompetitive behavior the rules would prevent: “Whether it be a contract poultry grower whose contract is abruptly terminated when they resist taking on overwhelming debt for corporate-mandated facility upgrades, a cattle producer who loses money year after year because the only packer in their market can manipulate the price of beef, or a livestock producer who experiences retaliation after they speak up against a corporation’s unfair practices, farmers and ranchers are being driven out of business and off their land across this nation.”

The groups conclude by calling on members of the Committee to “stand with American farmers and ranchers” by rejecting the rider, which they describe as “an unacceptable attack on the ability of the Department of Agriculture to do its job: protecting American farmers and ranchers and ensuring fair and competitive markets.”

Led by the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, Farm Action, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, National Farmers Union, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils, the letter lists 102 signing organizations.

###

The Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR) is a national alliance of organizations working to provide a voice for farmers and ranchers involved in contract agriculture, as well as the communities in which they live.

The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment is a coalition of state and national organizations working to change policies that promote consolidation in animal agriculture.

Farm Action is a farmer-led organization fighting corporate monopolies in agriculture. We envision a fair, sustainable, and healthy food system that empowers farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to feed their neighbors.

National Farmers Union advocates on behalf of more than 220,000 American farm families and their communities. We envision a world in which farm families and their communities are respected, valued, and enjoy economic prosperity and social justice.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities.

The Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI-USA) challenges the root causes of unjust food systems, supporting and advocating for economically, racially, and ecologically just farm communities.

The Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) is a network of nine grassroots organizations in seven Western states with 19,935 members, many of them ranchers and farmers committed to common-sense reform in agriculture, oil and gas development, coal mine reclamation, and rural economic development. Headquartered in Billings, Mont., WORC also has an office in Washington, D.C.

The post Release: 102 Groups Urge Congress to Choose Farmers over Big Meat in Ag Appropriations Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.