Search the archive.

Other negotiations over crop subsidies, crop insurance and conservation programs will also occur. An expansion of the safety net for farmers of row crops and dairy producers is expected in the final bill. And there’s a good chance a final farm bill could be approved by Congress before the end of the summer.

The last five-year farm bill expired last September, so Congress approved a one-year extension. That has resulted in uncertainty and has made it difficult for farmers, conservationists and bankers to conduct long-term planning.

3. Ecological degradation in food production and the need for new sustainable paradigms in agriculture From the neolithic period, different human groups have developed agriculture, devising processes for the obtention of seeds, sowing, plantation maintenance, harvest and exchange and commercialization of food. In many cases these activities have altered the dynamic balance of ecosystems, and in the Anthropocene, the agriculture is recognized as a primary driver of global change and as the main contributor to environmental risks (Foley et al., 2011). The degradation of ecosystems (their structure, dynamic and evolution) for food production can be explained in two ways: • By the appropriation processes of natural resources and environmental services, where any intervention generates negative impacts on environment; • By disposing residues to the environment. According to González de Molina and Toledo (2014) these emanations should be analyzed by both the quality as well as the quantity of the materials of the residues, meaning if they are recyclable or not by nature or if they surpass or not the natural recycling capacity. Nevertheless, when the appropriation of nature is done disregarding the productive vocation of the ecosystems, its capacity to renovate itself and its existence is threatened. This in turn generates certain changes that end up affecting society (Toledo, 2008). For example, a reduction on crops productivity or the use of agrochemicals to attenuate the loss of soil fertility. In these cases the farmer spends a great amount of time recovering the ecosystem, generating additional negative pay offs causing the producer to overexploit its labor to balance the relation. It could be considered that nature generates penalizations to wrong decisions made by the producer, accumulating in time and space, which could lead to a collapse of the material base and even the disappearance of populations, states or civilizations, requiring sustainable interventions over the ecosystems (González de Molina and Toledo, 2014). Nonetheless, processes such as the circulation, transformation and specially consumption increase the pressure over nature. According to González de Molina and Toledo (2014) in human history the volumes of materials-products that circulate as well as the distances covered before they are consumed, have increased. Going from the non-merchant and non-monetary trade, to the trade mediated by money, private property and markets. The latter results in a vast network of trades that is intimately linked to the transformations where the old relation, direct and almost immediate between appropriation and consumption gets blurred (González de Molina and Toledo, 2014). These authors argue that at a global level and at the beginning of the XXI century, consumption constitutes a powerful factor that demands incentive and even subordinates the other metabolic processes. Examples around the world could explain the important role of consumption. For example, a global increase in the levels of meat consumption, is recognized as one of the greatest threats to tropical ecosystems and biodiversity (Machovina and Feeley, 2014). Livestock production accounts for up to 75% of all agricultural lands (Foley et al., 2011), so that a rise in the consumption of meat products increases the demand for animal feed and consequently changes the land uses with the associated negative environmental impact on ecosystems and biodiversity. Also, it is known that agri-food systems in which higher calories are consumed by humans stem from animal products that have a higher total calorie throughput (Mayer et al., 2015). Likewise, another interesting example is related to commerce between northern and southern countries. After the XX century, the consumption in northern countries and the international commerce with southern countries has been a factor that has promoted the expansion of agricultural border and has contributed to intensifying the exploitation of the soil in southern countries. This represented an increase in volumes of foods and produced agricultural raw materials, as well as in increased productivity by having higher yields per hectare (Pérez, 2006); with associated environmental costs and natural heritage exhaustion. According to Pérez (2006) the increases on productivity are very important in economic terms, but these have associated environmental implications a: i) The ecological footprint caused by the intensive introduction of energetic inputs based on non-renewable resources produce energetically deficient agriculture that is of low ecological sustainable value; and, ii) absolute increments on the use of other natural resources such as water, since the dynamic on the use of the soil has a relation of correspondence in the dynamic of the use of hydric resources for agricultural activity. The strong pressure over nature by conventional agriculture, and also the permanent demand of food by the increasing human population, implies the necessity of new paradigms for an agricultural production in the frame of productive tendency of ecosystems. In relation to this Leff proposes: The environmental crisis takes us to rethink reality, to understand its tracks of complexity and the linking of the complexity of the being and of the thinking process, of reason and passion, of sensitivity and intelligibility, so that from there, open new roads of knowledge and new existential senses for the reconstruction of the world and the reappropriation of nature (Leff, 2006). In this new perspective, the modern world crisis must be considered, especially in the rural sector, as a consequence of the transgression of the biophysical limits of the planet for food production. For Toledo et al. (2009), the way to approach the crisis is through the improvement of the reduced ways in which traditional models as well as the modern ones articulate each other and with nature. Thus, bringing about the concept of sustainable development, which allows perceiving an alternate modernity that is really the adoption of a new method of appropriation of nature. In this sense, sustainable agriculture can be understood as the management and use of agroecosystems in a way that the biological diversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and functioning capacity are maintained. So that important biological, economic and social functions at a local, national and international level can be met (today and in the future) without damaging other ecosystems (Lewandowski et al., 1999). Sustainability can be reached through agricultural practices based on the adequate and profound knowledge of ecological processes in production units and their context. Therefore, agreeing with Gliessman a greater comprehension and evaluation of the current productive processes is required to focus agricultural production toward social and economic changes that promote sustainability (Gliessman, 1998).

This year Congress is expected to pass a piece of legislation that deeply affects the lives of all Americans and determines the strategic positioning of the United States in global agriculture for the next five years. The Farm Bill influences the food we eat, how we grow it, and the lives of the farmers who do so. Funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) only makes up a tiny sliver of the Farm Bill’s budget—about 0.2 percent in the 2014 bill—but it has profound consequences for U.S. agricultural competitiveness and global food security. The United States has historically been at the forefront of agricultural science and innovation, but our leadership is slipping: China has been outspending us 2 to 1 on agricultural research since 2013. Q1: What is the Farm Bill, and what does it have to do with agricultural research and development? A1: The first Farm Bill was dominated by farm support programs meant to ease the blow of the Great Depression. Since then it has evolved into an enormous omnibus bill that addresses a wide range of issues, spanning nutrition assistance, rural development, international food aid, and more. The legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and sparks strong opinions from diverse interest groups ranging from maritime unions to commodity associations. The 2014 Farm Bill authorized a projected $489 billion in mandatory federal spending between 2014 and 2018. Just four of the bill’s 12 titles—nutrition, crop insurance, conservation, and farm commodity support—make up 99 percent of its mandatory authorizations. Funded at over $390 billion, nutrition programming alone accounts for roughly 80 percent of the budget, with the bulk of this funding earmarked for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps. Source: USDA Economic Research Service, “Projected Spending Under the 2014 Farm Bill,” . In comparison, the portion of the bill that supports agricultural research and extension received $800 million over five years. Despite this small share, these funds determine priorities for agricultural science related to crop diseases and pests, farm animal health, natural resource management, food safety, nutrition, and countless other areas critical to U.S. agricultural and food systems. The Farm Bill is the primary source of federal funding for agricultural science. With these resources, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds the work of its three in-house research agencies—the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service—as well as its extramural research wing, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which funds research through land-grant universities, state agricultural experiment stations, and other institutions at the state and local levels. The 2014 Farm Bill also authorized $200 million to establish the nonprofit Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, which matches federal funding with private-sector donations to award grants for public-private collaborative research partnerships. Q2: What are the trends in U.S. public investment in agricultural R&D that impact our leadership position? A2: Despite a 40 percent return on investment, growth in U.S. public-sector funding for agricultural R&D slowed in the early 1980s, flatlined in the 1990s, and turned negative as of 2011. Inflation-adjusted public investments in agricultural R&D fell by 20 percent between 2008 and 2013. These trends are troubling on their own but even more so in light of the global context. As the United States steadily chipped away at agricultural research funding, rapidly growing economies—like China, India, and Brazil—did the opposite. As a result of these inverse patterns, the U.S. share of global public agricultural R&D investments fell by nearly half between 1960 and 2011, from 20 percent to 11 percent. Meanwhile, China ramped up spending almost eightfold between 1990 and 2013, overtaking the United States as the biggest investor in public agricultural R&D in 2008. U.S. federal funding for agricultural science has also deteriorated relative to other research areas. In 2012, the National Institutes of Health (one of the foremost federal biomedical research centers in the world) outspent USDA nearly 15 to 1 on research and development. There is no question that human health is a high priority for R&D dollars, but ensuring an adequate, healthy, and safe food supply plays a critical part in improving health outcomes. Q3: Why is public agricultural R&D important for U.S. agriculture? A3: American agriculture is competitive because it is productive. U.S. agricultural output grew by a staggering 268 percent from 1949 to 2007. Expanded agricultural production was due almost entirely to productivity growth, a metric for how efficiently inputs (land, labor, and other resources) are turned into outputs (crop and livestock yields), rather than an expansion of our agricultural footprint. R&D, paired with systems that bring discoveries from the laboratory to the field, is the principal driver of productivity growth. American farmers have benefited from a flood of breakthrough technologies and innovations—like high-yielding, drought-tolerant seeds and more efficient equipment—that have transformed farming as we know it. They have experienced first-hand how investments in public R&D can allow them to maintain their competitive edge both at home and abroad. Expanded output also suppresses consumer food prices, with particular benefits for low-income households, who typically spend a greater share of their income on food. U.S. annual agricultural productivity growth peaked at a rate of about 2 percent in the mid-1980s and has been slowing ever since. This is especially concerning in the face of global agriculture’s myriad new challenges: climate change, unfamiliar pests and diseases, and rising production costs, to name a few. Given such threats, U.S. agriculture will require “maintenance research” just to sustain current levels of productivity, let alone boost yields. With continued public-sector R&D divestment, slumping productivity growth is likely to persist. Stagnant productivity has negative implications beyond our domestic food supply. In the long term, losing ground on investments in agricultural R&D to other countries means losing our competitive edge to them, too. Failing to invest in the next generation of scientists would hamstring our scientific workforce well into the future, further diminishing our long-run leadership in global agricultural research. America’s competitive advantage is rooted in being on the cutting edge of scientific discovery. Q4: What are the global implications of U.S. agricultural R&D? A4: The United States has long been a leader in advancing the frontier of agricultural science. American scientists—often in partnership with international research institutions like CGIAR—tackle issues relevant to both domestic and global agriculture. Transformative techniques and innovations born of this research flow from the United States to the rest of the world. In poor countries that cannot afford to undertake their own agricultural research, these discoveries help farmers do more with less. When U.S. agricultural scientists partner internationally, it often produces dual wins for both domestic and global stakeholders. For example, in the last decade, USDA-funded scientists worked in collaboration with international researchers to address a virulent wheat stem rust, Ug99, which wrought havoc on wheat yields across Africa and Asia. Eighty percent of the global wheat supply was vulnerable to Ug99, including U.S. production, posing a potentially devastating threat to global food security (wheat accounts for 20 percent of calories consumed globally). But by using CGIAR breeding lines, scientists stopped the spread of the disease. By partnering with scientists internationally to address global challenges like wheat rust, the United States safeguards domestic agriculture against future threats, while simultaneously bolstering resilience and productivity around the world. Consumption growth coupled with dietary changes driven by increased incomes will boost demand for agricultural products from 60 percent to over 110 percent in the coming decades. Agricultural productivity growth is key to satisfying this rising demand, but it must be harnessed in a sustainable manner to safeguard the environment. However, productivity growth is not on course to meet forecasted demands and is especially lagging in developing countries, where population and consumption growth is concentrated. Increased investments in agricultural R&D and knowledge transfer systems will be essential to ensure food security in the developing world. The Farm Bill could help to chart a more food secure future by fostering international research collaboration that supports the strategic interests of both the United States and our partners. For example, Section 1402 of the Farm Bill, which covers agricultural research, extension, and education, could be enhanced by adding language that incentivizes international scientific collaboration through USDA. The Lugar Center agrees. The first point in its Principles for Public Investments in Agriculture Sciences, published this week, states “both domestic and international research need to work together on common goals.”

The war raging in Ukraine has exacerbated food insecurity across the world — and food aid experts are looking to the 2023 farm bill for solutions.

Ukraine’s massive grain supplies typically feed 400 million people per year, but the war has “drastically cut supplies” and driven up food costs for consumers in rich and poor countries alike, according to the World Food Program (WFP).

The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary report written by the world’s top climate science experts sends a clear message:

We are facing an unprecedented climate crisis caused by human activities and hitting 1.5 degrees C of global warming is likely to happ

The stakes are high as Congress begins serious discussions to reauthorize the farm bill, which expires at the end of September 2023. Among other things, this legislation represents a major opportunity to enable private landowners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to take action to address the crises of climate change and nature loss.

Congress must have the back of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and communities who are stepping up to lead on conservation and climate change.

We’re in trouble: biodiversity loss and climate change are reshaping the world as we know it. We are losing species at an unprecedented rate, and climate change is causing a myriad of harmful effects that impact everything from Wall Street to Main Street. We need an all of government response to these challenges, and Congress has a key role to play.

Though reauthorization of the farm bill has been significantly delayed, Congress has a window of opportunity right now to further empower and support our nation’s hardworking farmers, ranchers, and private foresters — many of whom care deeply about wildlife conservation and are taking proactive steps to combat climate change — to conserve the invaluable habitats that support productive agriculture operations. This critical opportunity to improve the farm bill only comes about every five years and cannot be missed.

WASHINGTON--With a new administration and a Democratic Congress, now is the time to overhaul copyright law, advocates for reform said Wednesday--but the complex nature of the issue makes copyright legislation nearly as unrealistic as ever.

Representatives of songwriters and the recording industry faced off against open Internet advocates at the Future of Music Coalition's Policy Day here in Washington, demonstrating the entrenched divisions that remain within Democratic constituencies over copyright issues.

Scarlett Johansson called out OpenAI this week for mimicking her voice for a new chatbot, underscoring the urgency that many artists feel about regulating artificial intelligence.

But in Congress, taking on AI is starting to resemble wrestling an octopus. It’s so sprawling, it’s hard to know how to begin.

Artificial intelligence companies may have to become a lot more transparent about how they train their models, if a new bill from Rep. Adam Schiff passes in Congress. Schiff has proposed the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, which would require firms like OpenAI to list the copyrighted works they use to build generative-AI systems. The bill comes amid a growing outcry about the burgeoning industry using copyrighted materials to inform their large language models, and it’s the latest in a number of Congressional pushes to regulate the technology and protect human content creators.

“AI has the disruptive potential of changing our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day lives,” Schiff said in a statement. “We must balance the immense potential of AI with the crucial need for ethical guidelines and protections. . . . This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.”

Despite ongoing issues of gridlock in Congress — and the fact 2024 is a presidential election year — U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas remains optimistic a new farm bill will be passed and signed into law this year by President Joe Biden.

In an interview with The Oklahoman during a visit to his southwest Oklahoma City office, Lucas said he’s glad Congress approved a one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill, which carries that bill until the end of this September and bought more time to negotiate the details of what now would be a 2024 bill. But before that happens, Lucas said Congress has got to do some “basic work.”

The future of American food production is up for grabs this year.

With the nation’s farm bill expiring this September — along with a wide array of crucial programs that put food on American plates — lawmakers are on the clock to craft a farm bill that can pass the divided Congress.

The top four farm bill writers and President Joe Biden will meet Thursday to discuss the legislation amid concerns that an impasse in debt ceiling negotiations between the White House and House Republicans could slow progress on the wide-ranging policy bill for agriculture.

Uncertainty over the debt ceiling led House Armed Services Chairman Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., on Tuesday to indefinitely delay a markup of the fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill. Subcommittees had planned to mark up their sections of the bill Thursday and Friday.

President Biden invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House this afternoon to discuss the upcoming farm bill reauthorization. Invitees include Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Stabenow labeled the session as a chance to “have a broader discussion about the farm bill and all the implications for it,” and that it will show “we are working together in a bipartisan way.” She also noted it was a chance for both sides to share their priorities for the bill.

A U.S. Congressman from Nebraska is confident a new farm bill will get done this year despite sharp criticism of the Senate framework.

Republican Mike Flood tells Brownfield the legislation is picking up momentum with a likely markup in the House Ag Committee later this month.

Visiting with Collin Peterson, former House Ag Committee Chair, you've been through all the battles trying to get the job done and make meaningful improvements to foreign policy and do it within the parameters of the budget. Taking a look at what came through, in this particular work in the House Ag Committee, what's your take? How did the committee do?

Well, first of all, the farm part of the bill was excellent. I thought, you know, we had asked for some improvements in crop insurance and so forth, they were included in the bill. So I think the title one title 11 title, who were excellent, you know, they, they, they did a good job of listening to everybody. The Southerners got what they needed, which I think helped them get these votes from Bishop and gave us you know, so that was a very well done. The other thing was positive is that the fight a partisan fight was not over policy in the in the farm area, it was over pay fors. So the whole partisanship came down for how they were going to pay for this. And, you know, and it gets back to the old roots stamp fight that we've had the last few farm bills. So none of that caused any additional partisan division that wasn't there already. So I think that was good, you know, because they could have got off on payment limitations, and all this other kind of stuff that normally divides us. Didn't happen. So that was very positive. And the fact that we got four Democrats voted for the bill gives us a place to start to try to build a bipartisan coalition that can get this bill through the floor of the house. There are a lot of Republicans that are going to vote against this on the floor. But we're going to need, you know, 20-30 Democrats, at least, to get this bill passed. And this gives us a place to start. So there's a lot of work to do. All the turkey food plan and food stamps are a big challenge about how to how to get how to get savings to pay for this. Way, you know, I don't know exactly how to do that. But there's some talk about having director of scoring out of the budget committee, that might get us where we need to be, but we got probably three months before this bill would come to the floor. So we've got some time to work on that. And we're going to talk to some people that are smarter than I am in terms of how we can do budget stuff. And I think the way it's currently constituted with the turkey food plan, you'll not get enough Democrats with that in there to pass the bill. But maybe there's a way that he's going to be fine tuned. And there's other ways to come out and not so quickly after our over the next three months, so. So we'll be involved in that the Midwest Council on agriculture will be involved in that trying to be positive and feel weakened to help. We're having a policy meeting on June 11, and Moorhead as part of the chamber thing that's going on. So we've got a bunch of economists coming in, and we'll do our part to try to be a positive force and all of that.

News that Congressional ag leaders may soon consider farm bill proposals elicited varying responses from across the ag world. On Wednesday Senate Agriculture Committee leader Debbie Stabenow, D- Mich., and House Committee Leader Glenn “GT” Thompson announced they would soon bring new legislation to their respective committees. While a new bill this year is far from certain, most agree that any sign of progress is a good thing.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Stabenow’s “Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act” a comprehensive and thoughtful proposal. He praised it for advancing food and nutrition security, promoting sustainable agriculture production and conservation practices, expanding opportunities for new farmers and strengthening the farm safety net. He also believes proposed investments in the bioeconomy will bring more good paying jobs to rural America.

Much has been made about how the U.S. House’s draft of the Farm Bill—that massive omnibus legislation that governs our food system—stands little chance of advancing. Whether the potential cuts to food assistance, or its lack of attention to climate change, the 900 page-plus bill moving through the House is being slammed by Democrats in the Senate and House alike.

Posturing from both sides aside, Democrats and Republicans should work across differences and pass a Farm Bill before electoral campaigns in the fall put legislative activities on hiatus.

Former House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson sees a path forward for the farm provisions of the bill. “The way the debate happened did not put anybody into any corners that they couldn’t get out of,” said Peterson. “Most of the divisiveness was over how to pay for this; it was over food stamps; it was over the sideboards on conservation; it was over the CCC. Those are things I think can be worked out.” It will likely be September before this bill advances to the House floor. Peterson, who now leads the Midwest Council on Agriculture, says more work will happen ahead of that vote. “The fact that we got four Democrats that voted for the bill gives us a place to start to build a bipartisan coalition that can get this bill through the floor of the House. There are a lot of Republicans that are going to vote against this on the floor so we’re going to need 20, 30 Democrats at least to get this bill passed.”

The director of the Gardner Agriculture Policy Program at the University of Illinois says he’s slightly more optimistic about Congress passing a new farm bill.

Jonathan Coppess tells Brownfield…