Summary of the 2013 Farm Bill

by David Lynch
Colorado Land Link Director

Having failed to pass a Farm Bill as scheduled last year, Congress is trying again. Like the last several Farm Bills, the proposed Farm Bill will generally support the large consolidated corporate agriculture system.  There are no proposals on the table for systemic changes, but there have been several potentially significant amendments on specific topics that affect sustainable farmers and local food consumers. Unfortunately the Senate passed the Farm Bill without having reached agreement on any of the following amendments. Watch to see what amendments will be brought up before the House of Representatives with their version of the Farm Bill.

1.  Amendment #1042 sponsored by Senator King seeks to support small, direct-marketing farmers by clarifying the exemption for small farmers under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

When the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) passed Congress two years ago, it included a very important provision that exempted small-scale, direct-marketing farmers from some of the burdensome new regulations.  The Tester-Hagan provision of FSMA was a vital protection for local food producers.

When FDA proposed regulations this year under FSMA, however, its interpretation of the Tester-Hagan provision undercut much of the intent.  Among other problems, FDA’s proposed regulations measure who is a small farmer based on all the food they sell, instead of based on the food they sell that is subject to FSMA.  The real intention of the Tester-Hagan provision was to judge size under FSMA based on the foods subject to FSMA, and Senator King’s Amendment clarifies that intention.  This will bring more farmers within the protections of the Tester-Hagan provision, preventing them from being driven out of business by new federal regulations.

 2.  Senator Tester has an amendment entitled “Classical Breeding Amendment #972”. The goal of this amendment is to support non-GMO seeds. More and more, corporations are control agriculture research and are focused on expanding their genetically engineered crops; every year farmers are left with fewer choices of seeds that are not genetically engineered. Farmers who want to avoid growing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) simply don’t have good alternatives.  And when farmers have no options, consumers have no options.
 
In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress directed the USDA to make classical plant and animal breeding a priority for funding, but the agency imposed hurdles in the grant-making process that have undermined this Congressional mandate. Senator Tester’s amendment will prioritize the USDA’s breeding grants for classical breeding of public cultivars and non-GMO seeds.

3. There are several amendments that are dedicated to support farmer and consumer choice. Amendment #978 would require judicial review of non-GMO crops, amendment #934 would ban GMO salmon, and both amendments #965 and #1025 would support labeling requirements at both the federal and state levels.

4.  Senator Wyden’s Industrial Hemp Amendment would support American farmer’s freedom to once again grow hemp to the extent that it is allowed under state laws. Hemp is planted in many countries, and is legal to use in the U.S. – but it is not legal to plant it in the U.S. 

The seed is known for its healthy protein and rich oil. The outer fiber from the stalk can be used for clothing, canvas and rope; the inner core fiber can be used for construction and paper production.   This crop provides excellent opportunities for farmers for a sustainable, profitable crop.

5.  The 2008 farm bill included a provision for “Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)”. Senator Johanns amendment would eliminate it.

For years, American farmers and consumers have fought to get mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for food products, so that consumers could know what country their food came from.  The large meatpackers, however, don’t like this and are trying to get COOL eliminated in the Farm Bill. COOL is already the law of the land – it should not be reversed in this Farm Bill. Consumers deserve the right to know the source of their food and U.S. farmers and ranchers should be allowed to promote their products with pride.