A nice primer on the farm bill in a Q&A format.
--###--
original-latimesQ & AFarm bill affects more than just land and furrowsPassed every five years, the measure sets agriculture policy with consequences for the environment, international trade, food safety, rural development and school lunches.
By
Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 2, 2007
The farm bill -- which sets the nation's agricultural agenda every five years -- could be revived this week after stalling two weeks ago in the Senate.
Some background:
Question: Does the farm bill matter if you're not a farmer?Answer: The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, this year's farm bill, sets the country's agriculture policy but it also has consequences for the environment, international trade, food safety, rural development and food assistance for poor families. Lawmakers enact a new farm bill every five years. This year's bill has a price tag of $288 billion and has mushroomed to 1,600 pages. It has come under attack from an array of groups, including physicians and taxpayer advocates, as well as the White House, which has threatened to veto it.
Q: Is this farm bill more controversial than those in the past?A: Yes. Years of simmering anger about the focus of agricultural policy on a small number of crops and on its wider effect came to a head this year, especially in the Senate.
Historically, farm-state senators from the South and Midwest have funneled billions of dollars in subsidies to a few commodity crops: cotton, wheat, rice, corn and soybeans. Seven states get more than half of all farm spending.
Meantime, important agricultural states that do not concentrate on the favored crops get few benefits. California gets little in subsidy payments even though it leads the nation in agricultural output. Much of the state's farm output is in fruits, vegetables and other crops not covered by commodity subsidies.
Opponents of this year's bill say subsidies should be reexamined, especially because crop prices are at record levels.
Lawmakers from states that benefit from the traditional system argue that the nation's food supply needs a strong safety net. These lawmakers are backed by one of Washington's strongest lobbies.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete story
here