Daniel Imhoff is the co-author of The Farm Bill: A Citizen's Guide with Christina Badaracco. This op-ed was originally published November 13, 2018 in Environmental Health News.

At the end of September, the House and Senate missed their deadline to agree on a Farm Bill, leaving in limbo the $100 billion worth of programs we spend annually on food assistance and agriculture.

That delay opens the possibility for the country to change course and help avert a global meltdown with policies that could transform the "Corn Belt" into a climate cooling "Carbon Belt."

Current subsidies are supposed to even out the financial ups and downs of crop production and help farmers stay afloat in a competitive global economy.

Instead they've actually created a wasteful and polluting engine of overproduction. There's a cruel irony here. The biggest obstacle farmers face is overproduction, which drives down prices, saturates markets, and shifts the burden of recouping the cost of raising crops to taxpayers.

Most of the ever increasing harvests of corn and soybeans produced by our struggling farmers aren't even eaten directly by humans. They are fed to cattle and used for industrial food ingredients and biofuels.

A substantial amount of the overproduction is also exported. The real winners are the grain traders and meat factories and ethanol distillers and agrochemical corporations whose lobbyists write the Farm Bills and benefit from low commodity prices.

There is a waste crisis as well: 40 percent of the food produced never reaches an eater's plate. Much of it winds up in landfills.

The costs of this status quo are enormous. Agriculture is responsible for as much as 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Industrial farming operations — using copious amounts of energy for transportation and chemical production and raising tens of billions of methane-generating animals in confinement — are a big contributor to the imminent temperature spikes recently projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They gave us just a dozen years to get atmospheric carbon levels under control or face dire consequences.

Continue reading the full op-ed in Environmental Health News.

Daniel Imhoff is the co-author of The Farm Bill: A Citizen's Guide with Christina Badaracco. This op-ed was originally published December 13, 2018 in Civil Eats.

The $867 billion 2018 Farm Bill the House and Senate passed this week is a hot mess. The Washington Post editorial board described it as “a bad outcome—that could have been worse.” And they’re right. Unfortunately, we’re all going to be affected by it.

Congress passes a farm bill around every five years. It’s an encyclopedic set of rules that doles out nearly a trillion dollars every 10 years for farm subsidies and crop insurance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and on-farm conservation programs.

To be fair, the farm bill is a mirror of our political process. As such, it is a lopsided mix of some good policy and a lot of bad. I’ll get into the good (and mixed) news in more detail below, but for now let’s just say that progressives can be happy that programs to combat hunger, expand local and organic food production, train beginning farmers, and protect the land were all successfully championed this time around.

Still, the revised farm bill will ensure that citizens continue to pay for their food at least three times: 1) at the checkout stand; 2) in environmental cleanup and medical costs related to the consequences of industrial agriculture; and 3) as taxpayers who fund subsidies to a small group of commodity farmers deemed too big to fail.

Granted, many of those farmers are caught in a vicious cycle. Most live in areas where the only market and infrastructure support commodity crops, and yet those crops don’t support a resilient farm system. One-half of agricultural counties in the United States were designated as disaster areas from 2012 to 2016. Current subsidies are supposed to provide a safety net to even out the financial ups and downs of crop production and help farmers stay afloat in a competitive global economy.

Instead, over the last half century they’ve created an expensive and polluting engine of overproduction, which drives down prices, saturates markets, and shifts the burden of recouping costs to taxpayers who subsidize farmers’ insurance policies and other relief.

The 2018 Farm Bill will strengthen crop insurance subsidies that guarantee farm income even across swaths of the U.S. where soybean, corn and wheat growers will benefit from more generous terms on government loans. Small dairy farmers, who are regularly swamped by a flood of cheap milk from mega-dairies, will also gain protection.

Perhaps the biggest boon for commodity producers is the opening of eligibility loopholes. By blurring the definitions of what constitutes a “family farm,” the new bill will allow these farms to balloon in size and exponentially dip into the public trough. Current household limits for the two largest subsidy programs are set at $125,000 per year per operator and $250,000 for a married couple. (Household operations with an adjusted gross income under $900,000, and $1,800,000 for couples, are eligible.)

The revised law will now permit children and their spouses to also be seen as “actively engaged” in farming and therefore eligible for subsidies. It doesn’t end there. Nephews, nieces, cousins, and other extended family members can be daisy-chained to receive benefits as long as they can demonstrate participation in farm management even if they don’t set foot on the farm. This was justified in the name of supporting a new generation of family farmers. It seems more designed to help the big operations get bigger.

Continue reading the full op-ed in Civil Eats.

Daniel Imhoff is the co-author of The Farm Bill: A Citizen's Guide with Christina Badaracco. This op-ed was originally published December 14, 2018 on Sustainable Food Trust.

Unfortunately for people who truly care about a world centered around healthy agricultural landscapes and nourishing affordable food, this Bill looks a lot like the same old Big Ag friendly boondoggle. Commodity farmers will be set to receive more handouts – instead of fewer – to overproduce crops such as soy or corn, in monocultures that erode the soil, poison the water and air, raise animals in factory conditions and devastate biodiversity. Milk producers will be able to continue to flood markets with less risk of bankruptcy and cotton growers will rake in expanded subsidies as well.

After many decades, the US Department of Agriculture is reversing its ban on industrial hemp cultivation. Cannabis containing less than 0.3% of psychoactive THC can be grown as a commodity and rotation crop and will be eligible for federally-subsidized crop insurance. Some are predicting a rapid reintroduction of the versatile fiber and oilseed crop across North American farmscapes.

The Washington Post editorial board described the soon to be signed legislation as “a bad bill—that could have been a lot worse.” Because the US House and Senate were so far apart in their separate versions of the bill, the process moved to a compromise phase known as ‘conferencing.’ A deal was made between Republicans and Democrats – despite the fact that a newly elected Democratic majority in the House will be seated in January that could have presumably pushed for a stronger position. One can only wonder why the minority leaders bargained to finalise a bill with the current draconian House, rather than waiting a month for a more reform-minded chamber?

To preserve the status quo is the only logical presumption.

Granted, the Republicans play hard ball. The House Bill included strict work and job training requirements for certain food stamp recipients, in the name of promoting “independence”. This would have negatively affected more than a million hungry Americans for questionable budget savings. The House Bill also included riders that would have permitted the use of neonicotinoid chemicals that harm pollinators, exempted pesticides from clean water regulations and eased restrictions on logging in public lands under the guise of fuel reduction. The Democrats declared victory when these crucial elements were dropped. But whether they were ever serious expectations or just part of a shrewd negotiating strategy, is a burning question.

Continue reading the full op-ed on Sustainable Food Trust.

Josh Wise, Director of Development & Communications of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) interviews Dan Imhoff and Christina Badaracco about the 3^rd edition of their book, The Farm Bill: A Citizen's Guide. We talk about the history of the Farm Bill, how it got the way it is, and how it can be transformed to support a future of sustainable agriculture and food security. Listen now. 

The Farm Bill is one of America’s most important pieces of legislation. Costing taxpayers nearly $100 billion per year, it defines the policies that shape nutrition assistance, local and organic food, the fate of family farmers and biodiversity, and more. Yet at nearly 1,000 pages, the Farm Bill’s thick web of technical jargon and acronyms makes it difficult to comprehend for many policymakers, let alone citizens.

In The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide, author Dan Imhoff applies twenty years of experience translating the Farm Bill into plain language to today’s most pressing debates. With his co-author Christina Badaracco, he explains the basic elements of the Farm Bill, its origins and history, and the battles that will determine the direction of food policy in the coming years. The result is an accessible, graphics-rich 200 pages that break policies down into relatable concepts and offer a vision of a more democratic Farm Bill.  

The Farm Bill will empower citizens to understand and reshape the outcome of future Farm Bills. With this book, we can write new rules that put food and farming on a healthier, more sustainable, and more ethical path. 

Check out Chapters 1 and 2 "What is the Farm Bill" and "Why Does the Farm Bill Matter?" below, or download the PDF here. 

A Changing Climate Means A Changing Society. The Island Press Urban Resilience Project, Supported By The Kresge Foundation And The JPB Foundation, Is Committed To A Greener, Fairer Future.​ This Op-Ed Was Originally Published April 11, 2019 on The Health Care Blog. 

The $867 billion Farm Bill squeaked through our polarized Congress at the end of last year, though it was nearly derailed by arguments over work requirements for SNAP recipients. That debate was tabled after the USDA crafted a compromise, but it is sure to continue at the state level and in the next round of debates. While Republicans tend to favor work requirements and Democrats tend to oppose them, here’s something both sides can agree on: SNAP should help Americans eat healthy food.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly known as food stamps—provides financial resources to buy food and nutrition education to some 40 million low-income Americans. Costing taxpayers almost $80 billion per year, the program serves Americans across the spectrum of ages, ethnicities, and zip codes. Simultaneously, we reached a deficit of almost $800 billion in 2018. So how can we ensure this at-risk population of Americans can access nutritious food and better health outcomes within the confines of our current resources?

Studies have proven time and again how participation in SNAP reduces rates of poverty and food insecurity. And the program has improved substantially in recent years, with recipients now using debit-style cards to buy groceries and receiving increased benefits at thousands of farmers markets across the country.

Despite these clear benefits, SNAP dollars often don’t support healthy diets. In fact, a 2015 study determined that SNAP participants had poorer diets, with more empty calories and less fresh produce, than income-eligible non-participants. In 2017, another study found that participants have an increased risk of death due to diet-related disease than non-participants. The authors reported that the discrepancy might be partly caused by individuals who think they have high risk of poor health and/or struggle to pay medical bills are more likely to put in the effort to enroll in and redeem SNAP benefits. A recent survey of Americans across the country showed that foods purchased using SNAP benefits were higher in calories and unhealthy components, like processed meat and sweeteners, than those purchased by non-participants of the same income level.

What’s going on? As a dietitian, my previous work with low-income patients at a prominent Boston hospital opened my eyes to the numerous barriers many of them face in following a healthy diet. My role involved counseling patients ever-so-briefly on improving their diets and checking boxes on a computer screen to send them on their way to receive their nutrition assistance benefits.

Many low-income residents live far away from high-quality grocery stores and farmers’ markets, and lack a consistent or safe way to get there. They can’t afford some of the most nutritious and fresh foods, and/or lack time to prepare meals from scratch. So, they end up getting the most calories for their dollar by eating energy-dense fried fast food or frozen foods, ready to fill a hungry belly at a moment’s notice. Indeed, the SNAP allotment falls just above $2 per person per meal (for the highest earning single person). This population has a higher risk of being overweight and sick because unhealthy food is cheaper and more widely available. But the reason why diet and health are in many ways worse among recipients compared to others at a similar income level warrants further study; indeed, this is an area that researchers continue to investigate.

Moving forward, we need to ensure that SNAP helps struggling Americans eat food that is actually good for them and promotes good health, supporting family life and preparation for the working world. Here are six suggestions for future farm bills:

1. Prescribe produce. Because the majority of SNAP households have at least one member on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Improvement Program (CHIP), integrating a healthy food prescription program and more robust nutrition education for these recipients as part of Medicaid could better promote shared health outcomes. The bipartisan Food is Medicine Working Group, founded in early 2018, was instrumental in integrating language about a pilot produce prescription program into the recently-passed Farm Bill. That pilot can yield real data about the health benefits of such programs, which can then be expanded based on justifiable outcomes. Connecting health and nutrition via enrollment in federal programs provides a unique opportunity to drive progress.
2. Make shopping safe. Given that public health research has shown strong associations between community violence and food insecurity, attempts to increase food access must focus on improving safe access. Farmers’ markets and healthy corner stores receiving funding through the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) can be incentivized to open at police stations or schools, with built-in added security to allow families to use their benefits.  
3. Leverage purchasing power. Expand funding for food hubs through the Local Food Promotion Program to support centralized purchasing of healthy staples for SNAP recipients within concentrated communities of beneficiaries to lower marginal costs and increase access. Food could be distributed to community centers via a model like a community supported agriculture (CSA) or meat share.
4. Incentivize healthy eating. It’s possible to improve diets without substantially increasing costs by expanding incentives for buying healthy foods and adding disincentives for unhealthy foods. Thousands of farmers’ markets currently offer double dollars incentive programs—funded through Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives (FINI) and/or philanthropy—so expanding this beyond farmers’ markets could make a huge impact.
5. Connect growers and eaters. Better connecting SNAP recipients to urban agriculture or community gardens can address the lack of understanding among Americans about where and how food is grown while also promoting local food production. This could involve expanding the jurisdiction of the Food and Agricultural Service Learning Program (FASLP) beyond children to include adults using SNAP.
6. Teach food literacy. SNAP-Ed can be a valuable tool to teach basic nutrition to recipients, but is wholly underutilized and should focus on teaching more hands-on cooking skills to people without basic food literacy. This is critical at a time when Americans spend less time than ever preparing food. Emphasizing or incentivizing programming in teaching kitchens—perhaps in existing schools or community centers, where families can receive a meal and learn hands-on skills—may translate to improved home cooking skills.

Debates over the next Farm Bill are sure to be as contentious as the last. But policymakers across the political spectrum can agree that our tax dollars should support better health and nutrition for SNAP recipients. Implementing these solutions can improve the diets of SNAP recipients, with a longer-term benefit of boosting health and reducing healthcare costs. That will require better cooperation across programs, creativity on the part of state agencies administering these programs, and reprioritizing programs and dollars to support health outcomes.

This blog post was written by Christina Badaracco, co-author of The Farm Bill: A Citizen's Guide, and Niki Randolph for the Planetary Health Collective blog. Read the full blog post here. 

As US farmers prepare for spring planting, they must make decisions based on the challenges of increasingly extreme and unpredictable weather patterns. Reports from the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA4) show the earth’s average surface temperature has increased by approximately 1 degree Celsius from 1901 to 2016, making this period the warmest in the history of modern civilization. Scientists say this warming trajectory can only change with a drastic cut in domestic and global carbon emissions.

A multitude of factors—including food production—contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that negatively impact environmental and human health. Agricultural systems undoubtedly impact climate change, and on the other hand, climate change undoubtedly impacts agriculture. 

A closer look at this complex relationship reveals far-reaching implications, including for the resilience of our food systems and the work of nutrition professionals. 

Read the full blog post here.