| Chapter 1: | Farm Bills, Interest Groups, and Policy Change |
|
|
conflicted with more established antihunger and nutrition groups (e.g., Food Research and Action Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) that focused on the food stamp and emergency feeding programs included in the farm bill. Because these programs rely on surplus subsidized commodities, most antihunger advocates did not share public health groups’ opposition to commodity subsidies (Food Research and Action Center, 2007; Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 2007).
Trade Groups
A focus on trade and on exports of agricultural commodities has long been part of the farm bill debates. Relevant provisions include export subsidies and credits, marketing development programs to generate demand abroad for U.S. commodities, and food aid programs such as P.L. 480. However, many of these provisions came under increased scrutiny as WTO countries sought to lower subsidies and tariffs as barriers to global trade. Specifically, countries making up the WTO argued that many of the United States’ trade provisions and commodity subsidies distort the free flow of markets and disadvantage other countries’ agricultural production (Hanrahan, 2007). Advocates of liberalized trade, who seek a lowering of barriers to trade, had hoped that WTO negotiations would eventually force reductions in these domestic commodity subsidies (World Trade Organization [WTO], 2001). These groups included not only trade associations, livestock groups, and industry, but also social justice and faith-based groups such as Oxfam America and Bread for the World, who advocated reducing commodity subsidies to allow developing countries to compete more fairly in a global agricultural market (Oxfam America, 2006).
During the 2008 farm bill debates, some of these normally philosophically divergent groups came together in unusual coalitions. One example was the Alliance for Sensible Agricultural Policies, a grouping of fairly liberal social justice and fair trade groups, such as Oxfam and Bread for the World, combined with more conservative think tanks and taxpayer groups such as the Cato Institute and National Taxpayers Union. These groups all saw U.S. agricultural subsidies as trade distorting and wanted