Nonetheless, Johanns has met with Collin Peterson, the Minnesota representative expected to take over the House Agriculture Committee. In the past, Peterson supported an extension of the current Farm Bill, but he has abandoned that line of thought, which he proposed in the face of a pending WTO agreement that would remove U.S. farm supports. With the WTO talks on hold, both Peterson and Senator Tom Harkin, who will chair the Senate’s agricultural committee, agree that they can write a new five-year bill rather than extend the current legislation.

It’s not hard to figure out the key areas that Congress will debate as the Farm Bill approaches. When Mike Johanns addressed the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, he pointed out the needs of the “specialty crop” industry, which rivals the subsidized “program crops” such as cotton and soybeans. Specialty crop farmers aren’t asking for equivalent subsidies, but they do want some of the Farm Bill’s money to go towards research and investment that supports their business.

And while the upcoming Farm Bill talks were always going to include funding for ethanol production, the incoming Democrat majority has stated that this will be a priority for them. Nancy Pelosi, future Speaker of the House, sees it as a way to gain urban and rural support for Farm Bill legislation.

That’s the current state of the 2007 Farm Bill. Remember, call your representatives and senators and ask them where they stand on Farm Bill policy. Let them hear your opinions about the agricultural budget that puts food on your plate. If you want more regular updates about farm policy, subscribe to the free email newsletter from FarmPolicy.com.

Jon Tester hopes to win one of Montana’s Senate seats by telling voters that he’ll push for safety nets for family agriculture operations and financial support for farmers who diversify their crops, among other changes. His campaign promises have won him the support of the National Farmers Union’s political action committee.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind hopes voters will keep him in office in the upcoming elections, and his amendment to the Farm Bill focuses on conservation efforts. It’s not expected to pass, but he believes that the amendment will force some discussion around the topic. If it garners him some favorable pre-election press, so much the better.

Asa Hutchinson might not be Arkansas’s governor yet, but he’s acting as if the job were already his as he chats up federal authorities and urges support for Arkansas farmers. He hopes to get more funding for biofuels, which would in turn help his state’s farmers earn more money from their subsidy-heavy and low-value crops.

Finally, Bush isn’t up for re-election, alas, but Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns told the press this week that the President will present his Farm Bill strategy some time in January. Johanns kept the talk vague, suggesting that “who knows” the Oval Office might propose sweeping changes. Or not. The move helps convince farmers that there might be good changes without committing to anything in particular.

Where does your Congressional candidate stand on this important topic. Make sure you know before you punch their name on November 7.

As predicted last month, many national farm groups support extending the current Farm Bill or revising it slightly. These groups make the reasonable argument that American farm policy should reflect the global market set in motion by the World Trade Organization’s agricultural policy decisions. Since those talks broke down, farm groups say, we should extend the current Farm Bill until we know what we’ll be facing in the big, scary world. Of course, keeping the current Farm Bill favors the large-scale farmers involved in these groups.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs urges our WTO representatives to get back into talks, which derailed in part because of our insistence on market protections for American farmers. But the nonpartisan think tank calls for dramatic changes to the Farm Bill, not the wait-and-see attitude that agribusiness advocates. The committee that published the report [PDF] urged policy makers to divorce subsidies from specific crops (such as corn) and instead fund insurance and savings programs so that a wide variety of farmers can weather a range of problems. The committee also urged support for farmers who practice sustainable agriculture. In short, the Chicago Council wants farmers to focus on crop diversity instead of the monocultures that have decimated the soils and populations of rural America.

That radical shift would be fine with the specialty crop industry. The producers responsible for nuts, fruits, and vegetables want the new Farm Bill to consider their needs, which represent a big chunk of the agriculture economy.

Expect more friction between small producers and corporate farms as the Farm Bill date gets closer. Remember, unless your representatives hear from you, they’re not likely to focus on this issue.

Agriculture talks broke down at the World Trade Organization meeting in late July. Stalls, hiccups, and cancellations are normal in these meetings, but this interruption forces Congress to draft a farm policy without clear knowledge of the global market issues that American farmers will face. The Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation believes that Senators and Representatives will push for an extension to the 2002 Farm Bill until they have a better idea about the marketplace.

This would be fine with the National Farmers Union, which seems to have decided to push for renewal, despite the concerns raised at the Listening Sessions they’ve been holding to get feedback from their members. Each summary seems to end with the quote: “Once again, we heard a strong preference for extending the 2002 Farm Bill for a year or two until the economic, political and international trade climates change and allow Congress to write a good piece of legislation.” Never mind that each summary starts with the changes that farmers would like to see. (Illinois’s summary, Ohio’s, and California’s).

Competition is high on the list of concerns. Farmers want stricter enforcement of anti-trust rules and they want support for funding direct producer-to-consumer opportunities. Even cattle ranchers want price assistance from the government in the face of a global market that no longer wants American beef. Cattle ranchers have never asked for this help before.

Disaster relief comes up often in the NFU sessions. Heavy rains and searing skies destroyed crops with an almost malicious fury this year, and farmers don’t want to rely on the capricious federal disaster relief programs.

Finally, urge your representatives to push for Farm Bill support for sustainable practices. That initiative will probably show up the most in the non-farm press, as farmers seek rewards for keeping the earth healthy. Right now, the agricultural system subsidizes farmers who damage the environment with monocultures, pesticides, and nitrogen-rich fertilizer. Those who want to use more environmentally sound practices can’t compete with federally funded polluters.

It looks likely that the 2002 Farm Bill will get an extension, but the Center for Rural America opposes a simple renewal, because the current Farm Bill helps big farms the most and small farms the least. Big farms diminish the population of an area because they require fewer workers, sending rural communities into a tailspin.

The latest salvo has been fired by the House of Representatives, who want to pass a bill that would prevent states from passing stricter pesticide laws than the federal government’s. Curiously, the bill has been put forward by Republicans. Didn’t they used to oppose big government?

As with earlier attempts to restrict local labelling privileges, this strikes me as an attempt to set up a one-stop shop for lobbyists. If every state can have more stringent laws than the national government, corporations have to spread their funding efforts more widely. With a federal cap on restrictions, they can just focus on a handful of legislators.

Want your state to protect its agriculture? Too bad…if this bill passes.

Turns out the future State Farmer’s Market is a little bit more than the collection of stalls and so-so musicians that come to my mind. The article in the Southeast Farm Press suggests that the new facility will showcase state agriculture, provide onsite lab services, and, oh right, feature a retail area where shoppers can buy produce for the week. The new facility sounds like a department at the university, which bought the land hosting the market.

Everyone who’s read Fast Food Nation knows that these processing plants push workers and safety concerns to the edge of unacceptability—and often beyond. But consumers and small purveyors can’t choose to buy meat from a quality plant in a different state unless federal inspectors have vetted the facility.

A broad coalition of organizations has put their support behind Senate bill 3519, which would allow interstate commerce for this national network of quality processors. Call your state senator’s office and let them know what you think about the legislature.

But the packed aisles can offer a glimpse of foods coming soon to a store near you. Fortunately, the New York Times did the work for you, reporting on upcoming trends spotted in the crowded halls. Pomegranate continues the surge in popularity it’s enjoyed since scientists noticed the colorful fruit’s high levels of antioxidants. Fair Trade coffees and teas are more common now. Reporter Florence Fabricant spotted wasabi peanuts and the ancient ingredient verjus, which has enjoyed a mild resurgence in popularity.

See also restaurantgirl’s write-up
New York Sun coverage

The decision makes ConAgra look like they’re brushing away an irritating gnat: The corporation won’t require the new procedure from its suppliers and at any rate the consideration for a gentler slaughter bypasses the fact that most factory-farmed chickens are forced into tiny cages, debeaked, and subjected to all manner of inhumane treatment. So rather than give a bird a death as miserable as its life, ConAgra is simply asking for vendors to consider choosing a less miserable death.

Doesn’t seem like they’re solving the right problem, does it?

As the Blog for Rural America notes, this change would be a victory for small and medium-sized farmers who want to differentiate their products from those of mainstream competitors. Grass-fed beef is leaner, but more importantly it puts animals back in line with a biological and ecological model, as opposed to corn-fed beef. Add your two cents now, and help the USDA make the right decision for once.