In 2010, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law, initiating a shift in the US food safety landscape. FSMA spurred an array of regulations intended to reduce contamination, mitigate foodborne illness, and make it easier to halt and track foodborne illness or chemical contamination. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) engaged heavily in this rulemaking process in support of scale-appropriate regulation, guidelines for diversified farm and food operations, and further training resources to make sure that smaller food businesses, farms, and those using sustainable agriculture practices would not be disproportionately burdened by these new requirements. 

In the decade and a half since FSMA became the law of the land, the Food and Drug Administration has finalized some of the required regulations; however, many of these new regulations have been mired by delays. Some of these delays have been necessary, prompted by significant stakeholder engagement and proper timelines, a function of the participatory rulemaking process. Other delays, however, have been driven by rescinded and reproposed rules. For example, the Agricultural Water Standard was found to be overly cumbersome for many types of farm and food businesses, while not proving a meaningful reduction in foodborne illness, and was not finalized as part of the initial Produce Safety Rule. It was only recently finalized, and the plan for enforcement was initiated in 2023, with compliance dates for the smallest farms into 2027. 

With the implementation of these rules staggered over time, farmers and food businesses have found themselves in an increasingly complicated regulatory environment that often only utilizes exemption as the main way to ensure scale-appropriate regulations. This blog post examines some of FSMA’s overlapping requirements, as well as the remaining FSMA regulations that have still not been finalized. While this Government Accountability Office (GAO) report covers all of FSMA, this post covers only those portions of greatest concern to small, diversified farms and food businesses. 

Those statutory requirements contained within FSMA of greatest concern to sustainable agriculture practitioners, and focused on in this blog post, are :

• Section 103: Hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls
•  Section 105: Standards for produce safety 
• Section 204: Enhancing tracking and tracing of food and recordkeeping 

As these rules derived from this statue have come to overlay each other, and often have different exemptions depending on product, size of organization, and legal structure of the entity (non-profit, farm, packer, retail food) it has become increasingly complex to navigate, especially for those diversified, small to medium sized farms that are key in the development of more sustainable agriculture across the US. These rules have also caused and continue to cause a variety of financial burdens for farms that are smaller and more diversified. Much of this work has been done without the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) being able to showcase reduced foodborne illness attributable to the rules themselves as well.  

Until this moment, a midmortem of the rollout of the entirety of FSMA (though there have been reviews of subsets of the law) has not been conducted by a government entity, only partially by outside stakeholders. 

This recent GAO report provides an overview of what parts of FSMA are completed, partially completed, and not completed, as well as offers more general recommendations.  Most of the requirements identified in FSMA (41 out of 46) have been completed, showing clear FDA progress towards full implementation, though the report also notes many of the stakeholders felt the delay in doing so resulted in confused and unclear incentives for investments in food safety technologies. 

The report makes a variety of recommendations for FDA going forward, across all of the statutes of FSMA. 3 of the 7 recommendations are most relevant to a sustainable food safety audience:

GAO: The Commissioner of FDA should ensure that the Human Foods Program establishes milestones and timelines for updating the agency’s good agricultural practices for fruits and vegetables and publishes them as required by FSMA’s section 105. (Recommendation 5) 

• NSAC’s perspective: If the FDA is to approach reevaluating the Good Agricultural Practices, it should do so in coordination with the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), pre- and post the development, given their historic and current involvement with farmers and food safety practitioners.

The FDA Commissioner should ensure that the Human Foods Program develops a plan with milestones and timelines for establishing a product tracing system to enhance FDA’s existing foodborne outbreak response processes, and that it establishes the system as required by FSMA’s section 204. (Recommendation 6)

• NSAC’s perspective: While NSAC supports the finalization of the Food Traceability Rule, referred to here, there is still work to be done to provide adequate resources and training to small farms and food businesses. 

The Commissioner of FDA should ensure the Human Foods Program and the Center for Veterinary Medicine develop and implement a performance management process to assess the results of FDA’s rules and their contribution to the prevention of foodborne illness. This process should include setting goals to identify results to achieve, collecting information to measure performance, and using that information to assess results and inform decisions for each rule. (Recommendation 7)

• NSAC’s perspective: While some attempts have been made to track the overall impact of FSMA, further data is needed on almost all of the rules that directly connect specific interventions within rules to food safety outcomes. Any further tweaking of the rules into the future will require further documentation to showcase the potential food safety outcomes in the context of other forms of analysis, such as costs to producers.

NSAC has been deeply involved in both formal and informal processes to shape these statutes and rules, and is glad to see FDA has made progress towards the finalization of all the rules.  The development of the performance management data analysis should have come on consequentially with the rules. This GAO report is a welcome and more comprehensive addition to the different analyses of FSMA over the years. 

However, there have been mitigating factors for the food research, investigation, and enforcement section of the FDA, including a lack of funding commensurate with its responsibilities and a complete reorganization into the Human Food Program. Developing methods to analyze both the efforts already made and the remaining rules yet to be fully implemented will improve transparency for farmers and food businesses. It will bring clarity to many on how their efforts and investments have contributed to a safer food system.

It may also help create further rationale for increases in food safety training funding or more precise targeting of food safety programs. Programs such as the Food Safety Outreach Program at USDA or some of the objectives of the Cooperative Agreement Program for State Implementation at FDA provide portions of this funding and have experienced declining real funding over time. If the FDA invests further in the proposed management system, it may reveal further instances where funding for training might best be allocated and help close the gap between the goals of FSMA and the reality, in an equitable way for all farms and food businesses. 

The post GAO Reports on the Mixed Success of Food Safety Rules appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations

Washington, DC, April 16, 2026 – Yesterday, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), alongside hundreds of organizations, delivered letters calling for strong investments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Agriculture Appropriations legislation. The letters, which focused on the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP), and Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance, arrive as Congressional Appropriators are drafting spending legislation, and several weeks after the Administration released its own FY2027 budget proposal.

The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is the only regionally based, farmer driven, and outcome-oriented competitive research program that involves farmers and ranchers directly as the primary investigators in research and education projects. SARE provides grants directly to producers, which removes the financial risk of testing new ideas for making their operations more economically viable, productive, and sustainable. To meet the current demand for farmer driven research, stakeholders are requesting full funding for SARE at its authorized level of $60 million.

“Farmers and ranchers are at the center of everything SARE does, from important leadership positions at the national level, to participating in the regional grant review process, to designing and implementing projects for on-farm research. This farmer led model that SARE champions ensures that funding continues to go to America’s most innovative farmers and ranchers,” said Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist. “Despite nearly 40 years of helping farmers develop and adopt cutting edge practices and systems, SARE has yet to receive its fully authorized funding, and every year more than half of eligible farmer/rancher grants go unfunded.”

The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) offers programs and services that support the unique needs of agricultural production in urban, suburban, and indoor settings, ensuring business success and an ample supply of nutritious foods in their communities. OUAIP grants, cooperative agreements, and programming have reached 43 states and Puerto Rico, despite being significantly underfunded. This year, stakeholders are requesting funding at the authorized level of $25 million.

“The combined effect of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff losses and cuts to nutrition programs makes OUAIP awards and timely implementation even more essential for organizations and local stakeholders to fill the gaps left in communities. Previous awards have funded incubator farms and community garden infrastructure, as well as producer training and youth education; all of which have been difficult for producers to access in traditional USDA service centers,” commented Hannah Quigley, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

Conservation Operations and Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) funds facilitate the administration of USDA conservation programs by supporting our conservation workforce, conservation planning, and the extension of specialized technical assistance to producers. According to USDA, CTA funds supported over 4,400 full time NRCS positions in every state in the nation in 2025, as well as TA providers at third-party organizations. This year, NSAC partnered with the National Associations of Conservation Districts, as well as a long list of stakeholders, in requesting $1.05 billion for Conservation Operations.

“Producers across the country depend on the availability of on-the-ground technical assistance to implement effective conservation practices. These funds support conservation professionals providing detailed, unbiased agronomic advice to producers in every state, most often at the county level. It’s no surprise to see such strong support from organizations and producers alike for these investments at a time when producer access to TA is so dramatically reduced,” said Jesse Womack, NSAC Policy Specialist.

### 

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: Hundreds Call for Strong Investments in Farmer-Led Research, Urban Agriculture, and Conservation in FY2027 Appropriations appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: Coalition Urges Congress to Bolster Domestic Markets, Fund Local and Regional Food Procurement in Farmer Relief Package 

Washington, DC, April 15, 2026– Today, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), National Farmers Union, American Farmland Trust, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture led an agricultural coalition letter urging Congress to include funding for local and regional procurement of domestically produced agricultural products in any upcoming farmer economic relief package. 

“Reliable markets are foundational to farmers’ success – now is the moment to ensure that any agricultural economic relief package invests in stable domestic markets that will support farmers both today and well into the future,” said Mike Lavender, Policy Director for NSAC. “Congress can spur federal investments in locally-led procurement that will open market opportunities for small and mid-sized farmers – supporting their financial resilience, and solidifying their connectivity to their local communities.” 

As family farmers and ranchers continue to face severe economic pressure driven by market volatility, rising costs, trade disruptions, and extreme weather, the groups emphasized that additional assistance will be necessary. The letter argues that Congress should pair near-term relief with investments that build stronger domestic markets and create reliable demand for American-grown products. 

“Local and regional supply chains are not only a cornerstone of rural economic resilience—they are essential to national food security,” the letter states.  

The coalition pointed to bipartisan, bicameral legislation already introduced in Congress, including the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S.2338) and the Local Farmers Feeding Our Communities Act (H.R. 4782), as models for implementation. 

The groups also highlighted USDA’s previous Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for Schools programs as proof that the approach works. Those programs helped states, Tribes, and territories purchase approximately $850 million in locally grown food from over 15,000 farmers and ranchers, strengthening regional supply chains and expanding market opportunities for small and mid-sized producers. Together, these programs stimulated nearly $1.6 billion in economic activity. 

“Family farmers are squeezed by low prices, rising costs, and deep uncertainty. Investing in local and regional food procurement isn’t just good policy — it’s how we keep family farms viable and rural communities strong,” said Rob Larew, President of National Farmers Union. 

“Congress has an opportunity to deliver both immediate relief and long-term resilience by including funding for local and regional food procurement in their upcoming farmer assistance package,” said John Piotti, President and CEO of American Farmland Trust. “These investments create reliable demand for farmers and ranchers, provide nutritious food to communities across the country, keep more dollars circulating in rural communities, and help ensure that American agriculture can thrive well into the future.” 

“NASDA members are advocating for Congress to include robust funding for procurement of regionally produced food in any upcoming farmer economic relief package,” NASDA CEO Ted McKinney said. “Strategic investments in these programs directly support small and medium-sized American farmers and ranchers, strengthen local and regional supply chains and expand access to a variety of nutritious foods in communities across the country. Prioritizing procurement of local products can help deliver meaningful economic relief to U.S. farmers while advancing food security, improving nutrition outcomes and building a more resilient food system for the future.” 

Read the full letter here. 

 ###

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: Coalition Urges Congress to Bolster Domestic Markets, Fund Local and Regional Food Procurement in Farmer Relief Package appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This is the second post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. This article provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. The fourth post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

In a moment where families and farmers are facing increased costs, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) takes modest steps to invest in local food supply chains while unfortunately neglecting to address the historically deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in 2025’s budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 1). Most notably, the bill would create a permanent – albeit unfunded – program that empowers states to develop their own community nutrition programs that purchase from small and mid-size farms and beginning and veteran farmers to distribute in food insecure communities. At other times, the bill underfunds programs, significantly jeopardizing their success. 

The following analysis is divided into sections addressing local and regional market access and development, supply chain infrastructure and support, and food access:

• Market Access and Development
• Supply Chain Infrastructure and Support
• Food Access

Local Food: Market Access and Development

In 2025, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) unexpectedly terminated two programs that sought to connect producers to new markets via business technical assistance and market access. The March termination came at a time when many farmers had already purchased supplies or expanded operations in anticipation of future sales. Since then, there has been notable support in the House and Senate for a new, permanent program that would invest in reliable state and domestic markets. 

Local Farmers Feeding our Communities

The FFNSA creates a new program, the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program, which directs USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with state agencies and Tribal governments to provide them with funding to purchase and distribute local food to communities in need (Section 4306). Nestled in the nutrition title, it is clear that the program would readily provide healthy foods to food insecure communities. However, the primary focus of the program is to expand economic opportunities for small- and mid-sized farms, beginning and veteran farmers, while strengthening regional food networks. In addition to funding for direct food purchases, the new program includes:

• An emphasis on farm-fresh local products, requiring all food purchases to be minimally processed foods; 
• A requirement for at least 25% of the total annual value of products purchased under these agreements to come from small, midsize, beginning, or veteran producers; 
• Funding for administration and technical support that helps producers obtain food safety training and certification; 
• An authorization of appropriations for $200 million annually; 
• A directive that 10% of total funding be allocated first to Tribal nations, with each state then receiving 1% of funds, and all remaining funding to be allocated utilizing the Emergency Food Assistance state allocation formula. 

The inclusion of the Farmers Feeding our Communities Program is an instance of Congress responding to farmers and communities nationwide, celebrating the success of the previous Local Food Purchase Assistance Program while also making pragmatic improvements, such as directing technical assistance for food safety. However, without mandatory funding, the program would not be able to provide reliable market access, limiting program effectiveness and making farmers hesitant to participate. 

Food Safety Outreach Program

Investments in food safety education and equipment or training are essential to meeting ever-evolving market and regulatory food safety requirements. Without sufficient investments, these food safety requirements can prevent many smaller-scale producers from entering new markets. The FFNSA meets the bare minimum of reauthorizing some of the programs that provide these investments – such as the Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP). FSOP, which funds education on a variety of food safety topics, includes an intentional focus on reaching underserved producer communities. However, FFNSA misses an opportunity to increase funding levels for FSOP, a crucial misstep, especially given the array of food safety regulations increasingly impacting smaller producers. It also makes the misstep of removing a community outreach and grant feedback component that may negatively impact program structure in the future (Sec. 7301).

Local Agriculture Market Program 

The farm bill has a longstanding history of supporting local market development through programs such as the Local Agriculture Market Program.  Yet, FFNSA fails to fully respond to the growing program demand and its proven track record in generating new business revenue and jobs. FFNSA offers program reforms that codify a simplified, turnkey application process, which will support essential activities such as farmers’ market manager time, marketing activities, and special purpose equipment. Unfortunately, it does not offer an increase in appropriations or mandatory funding levels. The combined effect of the changes may generate more demand than the program can support (Section 10102). 

Federal Procurement Reform 

Without a Child Nutrition Reauthorization anywhere on the horizon, the farm bill is the primary opportunity to update federal food procurement policies that respond to the needs of farmers, businesses, school nutrition stakeholders, and communities. FFNSA directs USDA to examine USDA’s food purchasing practices to understand 1) barriers for farmers and businesses to sell nontraditional, culturally relevant, or local and regional products directly to USDA, and 2) the quality of foods being purchased for USDA programs. This assessment would also make administrative, regulatory, and legislative recommendations to address barriers. This is a small but necessary step in updating long term commodity purchasing practices (Section 10106). 

Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program

Meat and poultry processing is a closely regulated industry. Yet, for decades, geographic and funding limitations have frequently prevented Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) personnel from providing food safety education before regulation. These same limitations have also made it challenging for FSIS to cost-effectively regulate smaller processors in many states. As a result, Congress created the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program (CIS) in the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) to enable products processed at state-inspected plants to be sold interstate if the state has a Meat and Poultry Inspection program equivalent to the federal inspection program.

CIS has expanded markets and opportunities and encouraged the creation of new products in the small plants it serves. Over time, however, it has become evident that the CIS program requires an expansion of scope and funding in order to serve more small and very small meat processors. The bipartisan Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA, H.R. 945) includes changes to the federal and state regulatory authorities’ cost-share model, which could alter the cost-benefit analysis for states that have their own meat and poultry inspection programs, ultimately making for more effective regulation of small and very small meat processors. Those plants will then be able to work more effectively with small and diversified farms that are an essential component of a sustainable and equitable food system. 

Unfortunately, the FFNSA declines to make any changes to the CIS program structure, instead promoting outreach about the program and requiring a report on that outreach each year (Sec 12113). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) supports more effective promotion of the CIS program, the failure to include many of the necessary structural and funding improvements means that the FFNSA misses a critical opportunity to expand markets for smaller processors, increase competition in the industry, and help bring more nutritious, locally, and often sustainably raised animal products to market. The FFNSA requires FSIS to provide more publicly available food safety resources designed for small and very small meat processors, including additional widely available validation studies, which small processors can use to support scale-appropriate food safety control techniques. (Section 12112). 

Business Technical Assistance 

Successful local market development programs have included temporary investments in value-chain coordination and business technical assistance that connect producers to scale appropriate market opportunities. These hands-on efforts can provide regionalized, specific support that strengthens local food networks. Two of USDA’s most notable initiatives to support these activities are the Regional Food Business Centers and the Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance program. Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not authorize either program. It does, however, meet the bare minimum of reauthorizing a number of longstanding rural business development programs, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Rural Business Development Grants, and Rural Cooperative Development Grants. Additional program changes to RMAP are noted in the following section. 

Local Food: Supply Chain and Infrastructure Support

USDA’s previous transformative food system initiative focused on improvements across the supply chain, with investments in infrastructure, workforce development, value-chain coordination, and business technical assistance. The FFNSA offers a few new options for infrastructure investments, but does not adequately respond to the needs of rural communities for specialized food workforce training and technical assistance for scaling businesses. Disproportionate investment along the supply chain can lead to supply without adequate markets for producers, or potentially new infrastructure for businesses without sufficient business planning to strategically scale. 

Infrastructure

The FFNSA attempts to sustain some of the meat processing expansion programs created by ARPA, for example, through a “new, mobile, and expanded meat processing and rendering grants” program (Section 6304). This section bears some but not enough resemblance to the original programs (MPPEP, Local MCap, MPIRG) that were developed, in part, based on the proposals in SLPA. 

At only $3 million in authorized appropriations funding, the FFNSA’s Section 6304 grants are insufficiently funded relative to the demand across the US. Furthermore, the bill expands eligible applicants to include land grant universities, state departments of agriculture, and other organizations with existing capacities well beyond the small and very small meat processors for whom this program was intended. Instead of limiting these grants to small and very small processors, the FFNSA only includes it as a priority that the funding goes to small and very small processors. This, combined with the lack of a ‘socially disadvantaged’ priority, means that the FFNSA-created grant program runs the risk of funneling money to processors that already have access to other financial instruments to expand capacity. This fails to meaningfully address the processing bottleneck that smaller-scale producers nationwide experience. 

The FFNSA expands upon the existing business and industry guaranteed loan program by setting aside a portion of its annual funding for a permanent food supply chain guaranteed loan that seeks to support food supply chain capacity by financing projects focused on aggregation, processing, distribution, and manufacturing. Additionally, it caps the guarantee fee institutions pay to USDA to 3%, which has been cited as a barrier for borrowers among a number of lenders. However, there is little specificity of program goals or parameters for business scale or production type. This financial product is unlikely to support emerging food enterprises or small and mid-scale enterprises participating exclusively in regional food supply chains due to the rigorous underwriting standards associated with USDA guaranteed loans (Section 6304, 6412). 

The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program supports business enterprise development in rural communities by offering affordable loans and relevant ancillary business technical assistance. RMAP is long overdue for program updates to increase the allowable loan sizes and relax restrictions on building renovations, a critical need in many rural spaces. The FFNSA would increase the loan limit to $75,000 and up to 50% of that loan can support costs associated with renovation, construction or other real estate improvement (Section 6422). 

Finally, the bill codifies recent LAMP program updates by allowing the purchase of necessary special purpose equipment (Section 10102).

Workforce Development

Small and very small processors – for whom jobs tend to be more cross functional than in their larger industry competitors – have struggled to recruit and maintain the highly skilled workforce they need. More funding and programs specifically created to support the unique needs of small and very small meat workforce development are important to increase growth in the sector.

Unfortunately, the FFNSA does not offer any new funding or new programs to meet the much needed investment in this sector. The bill does amend the USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to include meat processing workforce development as an area of research. The bill also authorizes the creation of new community college grants oriented towards the development of a broader highly skilled agricultural workforce. While this may include meat processing training, it does not do so explicitly (Section 7123, 7503). 

Local Food: Access

While the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Program would increase the circulation of farm-fresh foods in American communities, FFNSA does very little to otherwise support access to and affordability of nutritious foods for food insecure families. 

A number of USDA programs incentivize families to use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance benefits (SNAP) to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables in local food settings by providing matching cash benefits, generating a win for families and farmers. These programs – namely the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) – receive bipartisan support. FFNSA makes common sense reforms to include popular items such as herbs, maple syrup, and tree nuts in the eligible foods for SFMNP (Section 4201). It also updates award criteria for GusNIP grantees by allowing the Secretary to waive the match requirement for applicants from persistent poverty counties and prioritize projects that increase year-round availability for fruits and vegetables (Section 4303). While NSAC is pleased to see efforts to reduce match requirements, the new prioritization stands to weaken the existing priority for direct-marketing settings, leading to potential shifts of spending away from American farmers. Overall, FFNSA does not succeed in meeting the growing needs of food insecure communities with no additional funding to either program in addition to a failure to restore the cuts to SNAP that were initiated by H.R. 1 in 2025. 

Some changes in the FFNSA likely stand to increase local food access in vulnerable communities by increasing the connectivity between farmers and their communities (Section 10003). The bill offers a number of reforms to the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production that are responsive to the growth of a new office since its initial implementation in 2020. Those changes include: 

• Expanding the responsibilities and improving the services of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) to better support the business and conservation needs of urban and innovative producers; 
• Renewing the Federal Advisory Committee until 2031; 
• Permanently authorizing the FSA Urban County Committees; 
• Directing USDA to increase outreach and technical assistance to producers through cooperative agreements with community experts; 
• Ensuring UAIP grants have broader reach to producers by allowing for awards to farmer cooperatives and subawards to individual farmers.  

Yet, due to the no-cost nature of the bill, the proposed changes will generate increased demand without any increase or guarantee of funding. OUAIP has consistently been underfunded or forgotten in Appropriations Cycles. Therefore, these program improvements stand to be delayed without adequate funding. 

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 2 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
press@sustainableagriculture.net
Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Congressional Members Reintroduce Legislation that Creates Fairer Competition, Advances Environmental Health, and Protects Workers

Washington, DC, December 15, 2025 – Representatives Alma Adams (D-NC-12), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-18), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Jim McGovern (D-MA-2), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-7), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Cleo Fields (D-LA-4), Jill Tokuda (D-HI-2), André Carson (D-IN-7) and Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Enabling Farmer, Foodworker, Environmental, and Climate Targets through Innovative, Values-aligned, and Equitable (EFFECTIVE) Food Procurement Act in the House. The bill offers an alternative approach to making food purchasing decisions, and a better way to spend public dollars on food.

“Every year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends billions on food purchases with a concentrated few of the largest food companies in the nation. The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would instead reroute taxpayer dollars to foster strong, reliable market opportunities for countless farmers, ranchers, and processors. This promotes the viability of family-owned small and mid-sized farms and invests in the communities – from rural to urban – that they call home,” commented Hannah Quigley, Policy Specialist with NSAC.

The EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act would require USDA to weigh the benefits of environmental sustainability, social and racial equity, worker well-being, and animal welfare when evaluating and awarding federal food contracts. It would also establish a pilot food purchasing program requiring that 20% of all USDA food purchases meet the new criteria. Finally, the bill provides technical and financial assistance to businesses to help them make necessary upgrades or obtain food safety related certifications required to become a USDA approved vendor. Taken together, these changes offer opportunities for USDA to be more responsive to the needs of school and community nutrition programs, while promoting the success of small businesses.

“The bill would allow USDA to further its mission to nourish communities, protect natural resources, and increase farm profitability by using their existing spending power. The proposed changes for USDA food procurement would provide additional market opportunities for small and mid-sized farms that simultaneously promote fairer competition and responsible land stewardship,” Quigley said.

Find more details about the EFFECTIVE Food Procurement Act in the bill text.

###

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: Congressional Members Reintroduce Legislation that Creates Fairer Competition, Advances Environmental Health, and Protects Workers 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.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a guest post authored by the National Farm to School Network, which is an NSAC member.

The Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program has had an incredible reach, providing $100 million in awards to 1,275 projects since 2013. On September 10, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it was opening applications for the FY 2026 Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program. National Farm to School Network applauds USDA for this new launch, especially after two key farm to school programs were canceled in March: the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program and the $660 million Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program. LFSCC, which directly funded food purchases from local farmers, has not returned. The Patrick Leahy Program supports farm to school efforts broadly but offers little funding for local ingredients.

We would like to thank all the legislators who expressed concern and asked questions to USDA Secretary Rollins through a joint letter and through multiple hearings. We also want to thank our local and state partners who shared their stories about the impact of the recent cut and advocated for its continuation.

We are also incredibly grateful to USDA for making farm to school a priority, which was featured in the agency’s recent Small Family Farms Policy Agenda. We urge USDA to continue to find ways to bolster local procurement, school gardens, and agriculture education. Farm to school is truly a triple win for our nation’s farmers, kids, and communities.

The Good News: 

There’s ample time to submit gather and submit an application
Farm to school champions have just under three months – until December 5th – to submit applications. 

There’s up to $18 million on the table
USDA has shared it will award up to $18 million, subject to availability of funds. While this amount is less than what we hoped given the cancellation of the $10 million fiscal year (FY) 2025 cycle, if fully awarded, this would be the largest annual round of awards since the program began in 2013!

USDA is providing more technical assistance that ever
This technical assistance takes the form of a webinar and several office hours:

*Edit: The government shutdown on October 1 will likely affect USDA’s office hours—it is unclear whether they will be postponed or cancelled.

• Webinar: October 1, 2-3pm ET [register here] *cancelled due to the Oct 1 government shutdown. Please stay tuned for updates.
• Office Hours: All sessions will be held from 2:00-3:00 PM Eastern Time on:
  · October 8, 2025 (Click Here to Join)
  · October 21, 2025 (Click Here to Join)
  · November 5, 2025 (Click Here to Join)
  · November 18, 2025 (Click Here to Join)
  · December 2, 2025 (Click Here to Join)

Major Changes in the Request for Applications (RFA):

Partnerships are now required (with some exceptions)

While project partnerships were common in previous award cycles, the FY 2026 RFA now requires applicants other than State agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) to apply as a partnership. A partnership is a group of three or more entities, including a coordinating entity, that will participate in the proposed grant project. All projects must include at least one child nutrition program (CNP) as a partner.

We’re glad to see USDA affirm that strong partnerships are the foundation of successful farm to school programs. However, the new mandatory CNP partner regulation may cause some hardship for some. Projects not specific to CNPs, such as research or solving broader problems, will now have to shift. For example, work that focuses on food supply chain innovations or providing training to farmers may be constrained. In addition to producers, the CNP partnership requirement may also present difficulties for early childcare sites that do not participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) due to burdensome paperwork or regulations. If these sites want to submit a proposal, they will need to adjust their project ideas to include an official CNP partner and then secure one, even though they already feed children every day. That feels like a tall ask for two groups that are already stretched thin.

Finding partners and ensuring proposals meet these guidelines may require extra time and intentionality. Please refer to NFSN’s state partner map or connect with your own state’s farm to school network if you need assistance finding project partners.

Projects must be at least $100,000‍

Increasing the project proposal floor to $100,000 marks a truly dramatic change. Since 2013, 97% of previous grant awards representing 88% of funding have been for under $100,000. Before this, there was no project request floor and the award cap was increased from $100,000 to $500,000 just in 2022 for multi-state or multi-Tribal projects. The award cap for the Turnkey Grant track, which spanned 2021-2024, was even smaller, at $50,000. ‍

The Match: Providing a 25% match has always been a barrier to participation. As the cost of a project increases, so does the match. Page 15 of the RFA explains the formula: If the federal grant request is $100,000 (the new minimum), this means applicants will have to provide a match amount of $33,334, bringing the total project cost to $133,334. 

While creating high-award and high-impact grant projects makes sense to streamline operations at USDA, it is likely that many small-scale projects and smaller-size applicants will be excluded from this grant opportunity. Many rural schools may not want to request $100,000 for a project, even if they could afford the match. Additionally, there are less than ten states that have established and funded similar competitive farm to school grant programs at the state-level. This will leave a large gap for funds to seed farm to school programs, especially for the Southeast, Mountain Plains, Southwest, and Midwest regions.

Therefore, applicants must be more intentional about project partners for their applications this cycle. Multiple small projects can team up to form larger cohesive proposals, and applicants with greater capacity can reflect on how they are able to step up for grassroots partners through regranting or partnership.

Equity scoring criteria is removed

The FY 2025 cycle was canceled because the grant’s scoring criteria added bonus points related to equity. Therefore, it’s no surprise that this was removed from the FY 2026 cycle.

Specifically, the previous RFA added up to seven bonus points for racial equity priorities, including tribal organizations, and organizations led or staffed by people of color and serving communities of color. This scoring boost wasn’t limited to racial equity. Up to three bonus points went toward small-to mid-size producers and producer groups, child nutrition programs in rural areas, and projects that serve high proportions (40%+) of students that are eligible for free and reduced breakfast.

While NFSN recognizes that diversity, equity, and inclusion measures are explicitly not part of the Trump Administration, these bonus points helped level the playing field for many different kinds of communities that have historically faced discrimination. ‍

Removal of grant tracks

Previous cycles included multiple grant tracks: State Agency, Implementation, and Turnkey (further subdivided into Agriculture Education, Edible Garden, and Planning tracks). This RFA removes all grant tracks.

While this ‘streamlining’ may have some benefits such as giving more freedom to applicants, it also may come with some unintended consequences. With multiple tracks, it is easier for grantors to earmark certain funds for specific purposes or groups to ensure fair or strategic distribution. The Turnkey track (which allowed awards of up to $50,000) was also designed to be more plug-and-play for applicants new to farm to school or looking to engage in small projects. The elimination of the Turnkey grant track and the increased award minimum will make it harder for these applicants to apply. 

To Wrap It Up:

National Farm to School Network is thrilled at the launch of the FY 2026 Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Cycle. This funding is critical to support the growth of farm to school programs across the country. With three months to develop proposals and additional technical assistance from USDA staff, we are looking forward to seeing how the up to $18 million will get awarded. 

The key changes this round include: (1) requirement for partnerships for non-state agency and Indian Tribal Organization applicants, (2) new request minimum of $100,000, and (3) removal of equity bonus point scoring criteria, (4) removal of grant tracks.  

The new FY 2026 structure has the potential to support large-scale, ambitious projects that can transform farm to school. However, it also risks leaving out smaller initiatives that have long been the backbone of this movement. Ensuring project proposals meet the new partnership requirements and navigating partnerships thoughtfully and equitably will be key to ensuring that all communities have a chance to benefit from this funding.

Our organization has created a dashboard with visualizations and descriptions of the 1,275 grant projects awarded thus far – $100M since 2013! While there are significant changes in this grant cycle, our dashboard can help you learn more about successful projects and find out who was awarded in your area.

‍Collaborate with NFSN On Your Project:

‍NFSN is excited to work with our partners on joint proposals, ranging from a main partner to a small consulting role. If you are interested in teaming up with NFSN for a project, please email one of our staff members or email info@farmtoschool.org.

The post Guest Blog Post: The Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant FY 2026 Cycle is Open! appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Small and mid-sized meat and poultry processors play a critical role in supporting resilient regional food systems by providing livestock farmers with a wider range of processing options and by providing more local and regional animal products for consumers. On April 30, 2025 a bipartisan group led by Senator John Thune (R-SD), Senator Tina Smith (D-MN), Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and Representative Jim Baird (R-IN) reintroduced the Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA) in both chambers of Congress to help grow this sector.  SLPA  provides much needed support for small and mid-sized meat processors by providing grants, technical assistance, and workforce support to expand capacity, improve food safety, and strengthen regional food systems. 

One of the ways that SLPA supports the development of small and very small meat processors – defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as having fewer than ten or 10-500 full time equivalent employees, respectively, is by incentivizing maintenance and uptake at the state level of an already-established program: the Cooperative Interstate Shipping program (CIS). CIS allows states with their own meat and poultry inspection programs to allow state-inspected meat to ship across state borders and even internationally, helping farmers and regional processors expand their markets.. This simplifies market access by eliminating the need for additional federal inspection of plants in participating states.

CIS: An Underutilized Program

 More than a decade after its creation, only a handful of states and processors have successfully joined CIS. SLPA would help promote the expansion of CIS by:

1. Requiring the Food Safety and Inspection Service (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.
2. Increasing the share of total program costs that the USDA will cover from 60% to 80%.
3. Increasing the size of plants that are eligible to participate from plants with fewer than 25 employees to plants with fewer than 50 employees.

Together with the other aspects of the SLPA, the expansion of CIS builds more regional markets for farmers and consumers.

This blog post examines the most recent data on CIS participation, reveals just how underutilized the program currently is, and why Congressional action through the Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA) is needed to fulfill the full potential of the CIS.

A Well-Intentioned Program, Largely Sitting on the Shelf, Underfunded

The CIS program was created by Congress in 2008 to give small meat and poultry processors more market access without requiring them to obtain USDA inspection. Instead, plants operating under a state inspection system can ship across state lines if their state opts into the program and the plant is certified by FSIS.

Despite the flexibility it offers, participation in CIS remains limited, in part because FSIS does not currently promote the program. Just 163 plants nationwide are participating in the program and only 9 of the 29 eligible states (31%) currently have any plants enrolled in CIS.

Over the last several years, during the annual government funding cycle, both agencies, the President, and Congress have noted the need to increase funding for this program to prevent insolvency and strengthen the relationship between the federal government and states. In the FY24 and FY25 appropriation processes, Congress included report language that stated the importance of this program. 

Recently, USDA took some small steps to ensure the continued solvency of the program for several states, utilizing the Non-Recurring Expense Fund to help many states reach the mandatory 50% cost share. 

The Economic Potential: Thousands of Jobs, Millions in Payroll

Yet, with support from the SLPA, there is massive potential for CIS. Nationally, there are 2,133 plants with fewer than twenty employees and 2,614 plants with fewer than 50 employees, according to the 2022 County Business Patterns data from the US Census Bureau. With the larger plant size cap and the mandated outreach of the SLPA, the number of CIS plants nationally has the potential to grow more than sixteen times its current scope. 

Even among the twenty nine states currently eligible for CIS, the enrollment of plants is low and would benefit from all the additional support the SLPA offers: increased cost share, and promotion of the CIS program. Currently, among plants with fewer than 20 employees in those eligible states, only 12% participate in CIS. This limited participation is not due to a lack of need—but to administrative and structural barriers.

Small and mid-sized processors are vital to regional food security and rural economies, and support from the SLPA could help amplify their impact on rural communities. According to 2022 US Census Bureau County Business Patterns data:

• Processors with fewer than 20 employees account for 2,133 facilities, employing more than 13,500 workers, and generating $564 million in annual payroll.
• Processors with fewer than 50 employees account for 2,614 facilities, supporting more than 28,634 jobs, and generating over $1.34 billion in annual payroll.

If CIS participation were expanded, these small plants could grow their customer base across state lines, invest more in operations, and potentially create new jobs in rural communities. 

Potential for Administrative Simplification and Cost Cutting

By shifting inspectors out to state agencies, and eliminating some overhead in FSIS inspection and payroll, Meat and Poultry Inspection Program (MPI) and CIS programs often lead to lower costs for the same level of inspection, as statutorily required. More research, especially through the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or other congressionally mandated research would be useful in understanding whether there is further savings to be gained at the federal level by comparing inspection costs between CIS plants and federally inspected plants. 

While there is more research needed, the current positive economic impacts of MPI-CIS, and the greater economic potential for the program, make a compelling case for both expanding participation by modestly increasing size caps and expanding state incentives to participate in it.

Where the Gaps Are: State-by-State Participation

Nationally, twenty nine states are eligible to participate in CIS because they have established a Meat and Poultry Inspection Program (MPI) and maintain “at least equal to” FSIS regulatory standards. The eligible states are spread across the Midwest and Southeast, with a smattering of eligible states in the Northeast and the West. Of the eligible states, only nine have plants currently participating in the CIS program. 

The CIS program has been embraced most fully in a handful of Midwestern states. Ohio leads the country with 48 participating plants, followed by Wisconsin (33), Iowa (27), and Indiana (23). These four states alone account for over 80% of all CIS plants.

The majority of eligible states—including major agricultural producers like Texas, Missouri, and Minnesota—have no participation in the program. This is not for lack of processing infrastructure. For example: Texas has 165 processing plants with fewer than twenty employees and another 46 with between twenty and fifty employees, yet no Texas plants participate in CIS. 

The following map illustrates this mismatch, showing the number of small plants not enrolled in CIS—even in states eligible to do so. A darker color means more unused potential for CIS.

Why the Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA) Matters

The insufficient support and underutilization of CIS underscores the urgent need for broader reforms to support small and mid-sized processors. The Strengthening Local Processing Act (SLPA), introduced in Congress with bipartisan support, addresses several of these barriers head-on. SLPA takes several steps to support small and mid-sized processors, as it:

• Provides grant funding and technical assistance for small processors to expand capacity, meet regulatory requirements, and navigate programs like CIS.
• Invests in workforce development, helping processors recruit, train, and retain skilled workers in processing.
• Supports state-level infrastructure, including increasing minimum cost shares to MPI programs and the supplemental Cooperative Interstate Shipment, as well as the size (measured in full time equivalents) of plants that can apply to be in it

Together, these and the many other reforms included in the SLPA would not only make the CIS program more accessible but also help ensure that local processors are not left behind in a rapidly consolidating meat industry.

The post A Potential Opportunity for Small Processors and Rural Jobs appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

While global supply chains have brought year-round abundance to families at the grocery store, it has come at a cost, particularly for small and mid-sized farmers right here at home. Consolidation of food distribution and retail has forced farmers to consider higher volume sales at lower prices, which can be difficult to consider while maintaining profits for small and mid-sized operations. However, with recent federal investments and local leadership, there has been a clear and growing desire among schools and food pantries to purchase fresh, nutritious foods from those very farms in their own backyards.  

The concept of purchasing food locally with government funding is not new. However, a series of investments – beginning with the Farmers to Families Food Box Program – have spurred the development of regional food supply chains both within state borders and across state lines. This development has created stability and opened market opportunities for local businesses while bringing fresh, wholesome food to local communities. Understandably, this success has grabbed the attention of participating farmers, businesses, and food system stakeholders, in addition to the press, and most recently Congress. 

Different bills, similar outcomes

In July 2025, two bipartisan bills introduced in the Senate and the House outline pathways to codify immensely popular and successful local food programs. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Jim Justice (R-WV) introduced the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (S. 2338), and Representative Robert Bresnahan (R-PA-8), along with 10 of his colleagues, introduced the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act (H.R. 4782) the following week. 

Each bill directs the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enter into cooperative agreements with state agencies, Tribal governments, and US territories, to provide them with funding to purchase and distribute local food to communities in need. While each program would funnel wholesome foods into food-insecure communities, the primary focus of each is to expand economic opportunities for small- and mid-sized farms, beginning and veteran farmers, while strengthening regional food networks. 

The critical element of each of these bills’ potential successes is the cooperative agreement model. By empowering local and state entities to make the purchasing decisions:

• Farmers of all sizes can readily participate.
• Food dollars remain in the state, reaching areas often underrepresented in federal funding. 
• Families receive fresh food that directly reflects their preferences and needs. 

The two bills largely accomplish the same goal with slight variations in implementation directives. These differences are described below. 

The Strengthening Local Food Security Act 

The Senate bill would make non-competitive awards to States, Tribes, or territories based on need within the state, with Tribes first receiving 10% of total program funding. The eligible government agencies would be required to submit plans to USDA detailing partners responsible for implementation and the ways in which the program would grow the local food system while promoting food security. Agencies would be required to purchase all foods from local sources and at least 51% of foods from the target producers, which are defined as small and mid-size producers, beginning farmers or ranchers, veteran farmers and ranchers, and other underserved producers. These foods can be distributed to either food assistance programs or in school settings. In order to effectively administer programs, agencies could use up to 25% for program administration and technical assistance to producers, which includes supporting food safety compliance among producers. At least half of federal funding is made available to the agency before implementation, and the remainder at the midpoint of the agreement. 

The Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act

Identical to the Senate bill, the House bill would make non-competitive awards to States, Tribes, or territories based on need within the state, with Tribes first receiving 10% of total program funding. Agencies would be required to purchase only local, unprocessed, or minimally processed foods with at least 25% of those foods from small and mid-size producers, beginning farmers or ranchers, and veteran farmers and ranchers. These foods would be distributed to local food organizations to improve access to healthy and nutritious foods in communities. In the House bill, agencies would also have access to no more than 25% of their funding for program administration and technical assistance to producers, which includes supporting food safety compliance among producers, and to grow the local agricultural value chain. If program elements are not specified, it would be up to the discretion of USDA on implementation. 

If either of these bills is included in a future Farm Bill, differences between them would need to be addressed by Agriculture Committee leadership.

Locally Tested and Approved

For more than 25 years, USDA has directed numerous pilot projects, created statutorily-directed local food programs, and explored ways to strengthen market channels between farms and kitchen tables. Each of them has had various forms of success, but none that could be assessed at a national scale.  

One of USDA’s latest initiatives, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program, utilized a cooperative agreement model, providing funding directly to states, Tribes, and territories to purchase local food for nutrition and food assistance programs. While the cooperative agreement model is not a new approach, to date, most federal nutrition programs provide foods to communities via USDA’s commodity procurement and distribution network. 

By instead supporting localities and stakeholders on the ground to manage all food purchases, states and local communities have achieved undeniable success and significant economic impact: 

• By December 2024, localities had purchased more than $400 million in new direct food purchases, which generated $747 million in economic activity. 
• Local program design meant significantly fewer barriers for participation, compared to food purchases being made by USDA. Nearly 10,000 unique farmers – big and small- were able to participate. Localities purchased a wide variety of locally produced foods, such as fresh produce, meat, dairy, eggs, fish, and more.
• Many participating farmers were small, mid-size, or beginning farmers, and purchases allowed them to scale their operations, which led to hiring new employees and on-farm investments, such as cold storage, high tunnels, and other infrastructure. 

Hamid Pezeshkian, the owner and operator of Flametree Farms in Vista, CA, shared “Thanks to reliable local purchasing agreements, we’ve been able to reinvest into improving our irrigation system, and planting a few new fruit trees; we’ve also been able to get the entire orchard covered with fresh native mulch which should help in organically improving the soil fertility and fruit quality this season.”

Sharifa Tomlinson, the owner of Arrowrock Farm in Ohio, explained the magnitude of their ability to scale, “The reason why Ohio CAN is a great source for us and for us financially is one, we can sell a lot of chickens at one time which brings us in a little bit more financial support and a stream of revenue. Because of CAN, I was able to grow my operation. We started off with raising 30 meat chickens a year…and this year we’re up to 400 at any given time.”

Securing the future of local food systems

The local food programs laid out in the Strengthening Local Food Security Act and the Local Farmers Feeding our Communities Act would create new, reliable markets for farmers while better connecting them with consumers and families in their communities. These investments will catalyze and strengthen a burgeoning local food sector that can expand beyond federal nutrition programs. 

But in order to succeed, Congress must adequately invest in local food economies, and not just commodity markets. Congressional members need to hear how local foods are important to your business, health, and community well-being. 

The post Congress Wants Local Food Back on the Menu appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This post was written by Nourish Colorado, an NSAC member. This is part three of a five part series. See part one, Budget Reconciliation: An Unwanted Outcome for Coloradans, and part two, Impacts of Budget Reconciliation and Coloradans’ Health.

“Welcome” is an odd word to use to begin this post, given the profoundly and universally negative information we’re here to convey. Thank you for being here with us and reading along! This series elevates the many damaging impacts of the recently passed budget reconciliation bill, referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”. The more we can share accurate information about what is going on, the more effective we will collectively be in changing these policies! Our third blog post in this series focuses on some of the ways this new law hurts farmers and farming communities. (If you haven’t yet, catch up on our first and second posts in the series.)   

At a high-level, this bill: 

• Will increase subsidies for large commodity growers; 
• Includes little to no supports for small, diversified, and local agriculture; 
• Makes drastic cuts to programs like SNAP and SNAP-Ed that connect more households to growers and help keep dollars local; and
• Ultimately delays the passage of a comprehensive, forward-looking, bipartisan farm bill.  

Farm Bill Catch-Up

Budget reconciliation, as a reminder, barely passed out of the Senate and House, with all Democrats in both chambers voting against it. The bill pays for tax breaks and commodity subsidies by cutting SNAP.  In so doing, it has bypassed, perhaps for years, the opportunity for the government to draft a bipartisan farm bill that reflects the many needs of rural and urban communities across the country. For many decades, the “Farm Bill Coalition” of Democrats and Republicans have worked together to draft and adopt a farm bill every five years or so that supports agriculture big and small, conservation, rural issues, and nutrition assistance. The farm bill, like all major legislative policies, requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass, meaning it must be bipartisan in nature. Legislators have long worked together to make sure many priorities are included so that the government can keep on functioning for the American people. In contrast, the budget reconciliation bill needed only 51% to pass, making it highly partisan with the majority party (Republicans) able to push through legislation without needing bipartisan support.

With the inclusion of so many farm bill provisions in budget reconciliation and the complete abandonment of bipartisan policy-making, this process means we may not see a complete, new farm bill until we have a new Congress. The 2018 Farm Bill has already been extended twice. These kinds of delays in changing or improving government programs hurt ALL sizes and shapes of agriculture and clearly will result in increased food insecurity. In the absence of a new farm bill, and to sustain most farm bill programs in any capacity, Congress must now pass an extension (again!) of the current bill before the end of the year.  

How Cutting Nutrition Assistance Hurts Farm Communities

Much has been written about the economic impact of SNAP – every dollar of SNAP generates between $1.50-$1.80 in economic activity.  This is critical – food dollars benefit farmers, and the more food dollars one has, the more benefits farmers reap. The House Agriculture Committee released an analysis of budget reconciliation that summarizes the impacts that cutting SNAP will have on farm country.They point out how 25 cents on every dollar spent on food (whether SNAP or otherwise) goes to a farmer, and for every dollar cut from a person’s SNAP benefits, food purchases will decrease. Cuts have a compounding effect on SNAP food purchases, leading the House Ag Committee to estimate that this new law will eliminate $30 billion in farm revenue due to SNAP cuts alone.  

To better understand the compounding effects here in Colorado, let’s dive deeper. The loss of food dollars through SNAP alone will decrease farm sales, and in Colorado, SNAP is the foundation of two SNAP incentive programs – Double Up Food Bucks and the USDA pilot program Colorado SNAP Produce Bonus, which has over a 99% redemption rate. Collectively, these produce incentives for SNAP shoppers are available at over 150 locations and over 250 farmers accept payments from one or the other of these incentives. Farmers markets, and retailers that gain critical income from SNAP and SNAP incentives will lose customers from decreases in SNAP participation. Compounding this loss is the elimination of SNAP-Education, which has for over 10 years connected limited-income households with their local food system by supporting programs like Double Up, offering shopping tours at farmers markets, and integrating local and seasonal produce into cooking classes. The farm bill is the only mechanism to not only sustain sufficient SNAP benefits, but also to restore SNAP-Ed and secure the future of high-ROI SNAP incentive programs.  Laurel Smith, owner of Here & Now Farm in Wellington, CO, sums up this damage to farmers such as herself: 

“Like many people, I became a farmer because I wanted to feed people—not just middle- or high-income people, but everyone who wants to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. One way I can make sure this is possible is to accept SNAP payments. And since I run a pilot program called Colorado SNAP Produce Bonus, SNAP shoppers can get up to $60/month in additional produce from my farm for free—a healthy food incentive. But all this is in jeopardy since the passage of the budget reconciliation bill. I am furious that almost 300,000 Coloradans might lose some or all of their SNAP in years ahead. Farmers like me will see that revenue stream shrink and we’ll lose some of our favorite customers. Economists have shown that when someone shops with SNAP, it has a significant impact on our local economies. Why would we take that? These are programs that we dreamed up as a society. We asked our legislators for them, and we designed them into existence. For generations, we made changes to these types of programs through the Farm Bill instead of rushing bad ideas through budget committees. A proper farm bill is where we’ll be able to decide to keep Colorado SNAP Produce Bonus going past 2027. Many farmers I know are unhappy with our representatives who voted this appalling bill through, and we’ll be fighting for ways to rebuild a robust SNAP program for the communities we live in and love.”

A Multitude of Attacks on Farm and Food Systems 

The budget reconciliation bill, referred to by the University of Illinois’ farmdoc policy analysts as the “Reconciliation Farm Bill”, wreaks much more havoc for farmers big and small than simply decreasing revenue through SNAP. Analysts opened farmdoc’s recent blog, The Reconciliation Farm Bill: The Top Five Most Problematic Changes to Farm Policy, thusly: “Were it not for the protective cover of the budget reconciliation process and its fundamental warping of the deliberative process as designed in the Constitution, it is extremely unlikely that these five changes would have become law.”  

In its comprehensive overview of impacts on farms and farm systems, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) calls attention to the significant expansion of farm subsidy programs, all benefiting large commodity growers and corporations, and paid for by cuts to SNAP. NSAC elevates how the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the increases in subsidies through the nation’s largest loss, in addition to risk coverage payout programs for commodity crops (which do not include fruit and vegetable crops), will cost over $54 billion over the next 10 years. Given that only 27% of farm acres are enrolled in these programs and only 31% of farms are even eligible given their base acreage, these massive subsidies will not benefit most of America’s farmers. In moves that seem determined to widen the divide between large, commodity growers and smaller farmers, the bill does not expand access to crop insurance for most small to mid-sized, multi-crop, or direct marketing farms. 

The bill is a confusing mixed bag for on-farm conservation support as well. The major problem is that conservation programs need to be authorized and strengthened through an actual farm bill. Refer back to NSAC’s What’s Really Inside the Final Budget Reconciliation Bill: A Breakdown of Food and Agriculture Provisions for an extensive review of how the bill does not extend the authorization of the $2 billion Conservation Reserve Program (it needs a farm bill!!) but it does rescind unobligated Inflation Reduction Act funds that were an unprecedented investment from the Biden Administration, including from the Conservation Stewardship Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and Regional Conservation Partnership Program.  The bill also does not increase funding for programs such as the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program and the Organic Research and Extension Initiative. These are just a few examples of the types of programs that rely on a bipartisan farm bill for continuity and impact that will not experience support since the budget reconciliation seemingly picked and chose some agricultural provisions to support, and others to ignore.  

Bottom line, this process bypasses the decades-old Farm Bill Coalition and provides few opportunities for local efforts that support regional food systems and connections between nutrition assistance and farming communities.  Stick with us next week to read more about the unfortunate ways that cuts to SNAP hurt not just SNAP recipients, but impact many food assistance programs, leading to concerns for food security.

The post Cross Post: Impacts of Budget Reconciliation and Colorado Farms: Hurt for Farmers and Farm Communities, and the Need for a New Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.