| Chapter 1: | Farm Bills, Interest Groups, and Policy Change |
|
|
health and environmental damage caused by overuse of these chemicals (Monsanto, 2007). Many sustainable agriculture and environmental advocates, however, question the idea that new technology is the best way to address the problems associated with previous technology. They argue that new technologies are as likely to create new problems as they are to fix previous ones. They advocate taking a more ecologically based approach that promotes less resource-intensive solutions, such as increased use of biological control or natural predators to control pests, rather than genetic engineering to design pest-resistant crops (Network of Concerned Farmers, 2006).
Of course, interest groups’ positions on farm policy are much more varied and nuanced than any “stability versus reform” dichotomy might suggest. All kinds of groups looked to promote changes to the farm bill that addressed from their perspective the economic, environmental, health, trade, and community needs, benefits, and impacts of modern agriculture and that also continued to build their own bases of support (Richert, 2007a). In order to get a better sense, then, of who was weighing in on the 2008 farm bill debates as they shifted from a WTO-influenced to a biofuels-influenced context and of how their positions interacted with one another within this shifting context to create changing opportunities for reform and stability, the following sections describe the basic policy positions of several groups of farm bill interests.
The categorization of groups that follows is by definition imperfect, as each interest group has its own individual goals, constituencies, and strategies that may or may not be in sync with other groups in its category. Many groups’ priorities span two or more categories, and alliances among groups vary—in addition to expected coalitions, some groups find themselves aligned with presumed opponents on certain issues and butting heads with more philosophically aligned groups on others. But however imperfect they may be, these categories do help organize the playing field of farm bill interest groups for analytical purposes. The descriptions that follow paint a picture of the groups and arguments surrounding the farm policy reforms suggested in 2005–2006, providing a detailed understanding of who advocated which reforms and why and