By Daniel Payne
CNA Staff, Aug 27, 2024 / 13:45 pm
The U.S. farm bill — a key part of American domestic policy that regulates a broad range of programs and practices ranging from agricultural research to farm subsidies to food assistance — is likely to be up for a vote next month.
As a major omnibus bill that touches countless aspects of U.S. policy, there are numerous aspects of the legislation that may be of particular interest to Catholics. The U.S. bishops and some Catholic groups, meanwhile, have expressed concern over some of its provisions.
The farm bill is updated roughly every five years, with the most recent passing in 2018. That year’s bill cost $428 billion over five years. President Joe Biden last year signed an extension of that bill, which is set to expire Sept. 30.
This year’s version of the bill has been stalled in Congress since the spring; it was voted out of the House Committee on Agriculture in May. Rep. Mark Alford, R-Missouri, said last week that he and his fellow House Republicans will push for the bill’s passage next month, though he expressed doubt that it would be voted on in the Senate in the near future.
Changes could limit future increases in SNAP
The U.S. government sets levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). The program, formerly known as “food stamps,” distributes benefits via an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card to recipients to allow them to purchase food from grocery stores.
In 2021 the Biden administration issued new rules that increased SNAP benefits significantly — by $256 billion over 10 years. That increase was due to the administration’s rollout of new nutrition standards for the TFP that resulted in about a 25% increase in benefits.
The House’s 2024 farm bill would allow increases to keep pace with inflation but end increases based on future scientific research on nutrition, which were part of Biden’s 2021 rules change. Pennsylvania Rep. Glenn Thompson calls this a “cost-neutral process” that will also take into account “food prices and composition, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance.”
The U.S. bishops in May said they were “deeply concerned” about the bill’s proposal to “[rescind] recent updates to the Thrifty Food Plan.”
The bishops argued that under the bill, the Thrifty Food Plan “would be unable to reflect any new scientific nutrition evidence,” effectively “act[ing] as a cut to future SNAP benefits for the millions of people who rely on the program for basic nutrition.”
The average monthly SNAP benefit for a family of four in fiscal year 2024 was $713. Families are eligible for the plan if their net monthly income is at or below 130% of the poverty level.
Worker and food safety
One potential change proposed in the 2024 farm bill is a provision that would restrict state regulation of pesticides, a mainstay component of U.S. farming.
The proposed change would essentially standardize pesticide labeling at the federal level. It would further restrict states from taking action against pesticide manufacturers based on label requirements that are different from those of the federal government.
Specifically, the bill would “prohibit any state … or a court” from “directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for, failing to comply with requirements with respect to labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging” approved by the federal government.
(Story continues below)
Critics have warned that the measure could weaken protections against pesticide harms.
The Natural Resources Defense Council argues that the language “could prevent the kinds of lawsuits that have compensated victims of pesticide exposure” and could “strip local power to restrict pesticide use.”
Catholic leaders have warned of the possible dangers of pesticides in recent years. In his landmark environmental encyclical Laudato Si’, Pope Francis named “insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and agrotoxins in general” as among the “pollution that affects everyone.”
In their document “For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food: A Catholic Agenda for Action — Pursuing a More Just Agricultural System,” the U.S. bishops argued that agricultural labor “involves some of the most dangerous jobs in the United States, with workers exposed to harsh working conditions, pesticides, and other chemicals.”
“We urge farmers to minimize their use of pesticides and other chemicals and, where they are used, to take strong measures to protect themselves, agricultural workers, and their families from exposure,” the bishops wrote.
Emergency food programs
A major component of the farm bill is food aid programs, which provide emergency relief and support to numerous countries around the world.
Marilyn Shapley Richardson, a senior policy and legislative specialist at Catholic Relief Services (CRS), told CNA that the Catholic relief organization works with the U.S. government on several international food assistance programs authorized by the farm bill.
“These programs offer emergency relief to people who are hungry overseas where it is market appropriate as well as development programs that help families and communities recover and start to take care of themselves again,” Richardson said.
The most well-known program is the 70-year-old Food for Peace (FFP) initiative. Also included are the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program as well as Food for Progress.
“Across the board, all the programs are getting reauthorized,” Richardson said. “Nothing is on the chopping block in a major way.”
Yet the bill proposes a change to how the Food for Peace program is funded that could hamper relief efforts, Richardson said.
Currently, about 42% of the Food for Peace budget goes to either purchasing food grown in the United States or ocean transportation. The farm bill would mandate that 50% of the budget go to those categories.
“Eight percent is a significant difference,” Richardson said. “It would fundamentally change the way FFP operates right now.”
The new outlay structure could hamper other forms of aid for millions of people, she said, and could lead to food allocation that might wreck local market conditions in stricken countries.
Bill O’Keefe, the executive vice president for mission, mobilization, and advocacy at CRS, said in June that the new policy “could potentially force excessive use of commodities and undermine efficient aid distribution.”
“Programs must adapt to local market conditions and empower participating communities toward recovery and self-reliance,” O’Keefe said.
“While we support keeping the ‘farm in the farm bill’ and recognize we benefit from the productivity of American farmers, we also aim to strengthen farmers around the world,” he said.
Richardson said CRS has “been engaging in conversation with both sides of the aisle, just trying to talk to both sides” regarding the proposed changes.
O’Keefe in June, meanwhile, said confronting global hunger is more than just a matter of food aid.
“We proudly utilize U.S. commodities in our international food assistance programs, including FFP,” he said. “However, addressing the global hunger crisis requires more than just giving out food.”
