U.S. Farm Bills and Policy Reforms: Ideological Conflicts Over W ...

Environmental and sustainable agriculture groups’ green payments and trade-oriented groups’ simple subsidy reduction proposals were two examples of major changes to commodity policy suggested for the 2008 farm bill. Historically, such changes to farm policy have been made alongside or in addition to commodity supports rather than by directly challenging them. But in 2005–2006 there looked to be an opportunity for more radical farm bill reform.¹³

Given that farm bill discussions more often focus on farm policy tweaks than on radical reforms, the question arises as to why these reform debates even rose to the farm bill agenda in 2005–2006. In this book, I thus analyze where these reform debates came from, how they were exploited and also shaped by various interest groups, how they grew (and then faded), and what they meant for farm policy and for sustainable land use.

This question of farm bill policy reform opportunities is important because much of the current soil and water pollution, trade disputes, health concerns, and decline of rural communities has been associated with large-scale modernized agriculture and the nonpoint pollution and cheap processed food it creates, even as it promotes great efficiency and availability of food to consumers. A fundamentally “greener” and more socially concerned farm bill could preserve the benefits of modern agriculture while improving its environmental footprint, as well as the health of farm workers exposed to pesticide residues, residents who live near fertilizer- and pesticide-polluted waters, and consumers both domestically and internationally who seek healthier food options. It could give farmers more freedom to plant a greater diversity of crops and cut down on the costly chemical inputs needed for monocultures rather than encourage them to plant corn and soybeans to ensure their eligibility for government support in case of low prices or disaster. Changes to farm bill legislation that could achieve these benefits are certainly possible. Shifts have already been made to regulate point source polluters (power plants, industry) through environmental legislation. Similar changes in agricultural legislation could improve the environmental, health, and community record of agriculture on nonpoint rural lands (National Academy of Sciences, 2007).