Food Policy

Specific Regulations for Running a Food Farm

As you folks are starting to discover the topic of food systems legislation is wide, deep, and complicated.  The purpose of this class is to introduce you to some of the most pertinent issues in food system policy and give you an overview of other examples around the world.

Some of the very first big legislative moves in the food sphere in the USA were to ensure food safety and work protections following revelations such as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in 1906.  A couple notable pieces are as follows:

Some Food Safety Regulations - relevant to food farming enterprises

Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Handling Practices (GHP) - not to be confused with Global Animal Partnership GAP

• These are voluntary audits that verify that fruits and vegetables are produced, packed, handled, and stored to minimize risks of microbial food safety hazards. GAP & GHP audits verify adherence to the recommendations made in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (pdf) and industry recognized food safety practices. 

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)

• The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is transforming the nation’s food safety system by shifting the focus from responding to foodborne illness to preventing it. Congress enacted FSMA in response to dramatic changes in the global food system and in our understanding of foodborne illness and its consequences, including the realization that preventable foodborne illness is both a significant public health problem and a threat to the economic well-being of the food system.

Simply put, Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) is a voluntary food safety program driven by buyers, whereas FSMA is law.  FSMA is meant to be a uniform, minimum requirement for food safety that all produce growers must adhere to. Even if a farm is FSMA compliant, chances are a buyer maintaining higher food safety standards will require farms to have a 3rd Party GAPs certification under one (or more) of the GAPs brands in order to sell to them. For instance, a grower may have one buyer that is requiring Primus GAPs and another buyer requiring USDA GAPs. Buyers strictly define their requirements, so it is best to identify your buyer and know what their standards are before undergoing a GAPs audit.

Home-Based Vendors, Farmstands, and On-Farm Sales - Indiana specific information

A “Home-Based Vendor” is an individual who: – Has made, grown, or raised a food product at their primary residence, property owned or leased by them – Is selling the food product they made, grew or raised only at a roadside stand or farmers market; poultry, rabbit and eggs may be sold from the farm. A “Roadside Stand” is: – A place, building, or structure along, or near, a road, street, lane, avenue, boulevard, or highway where a HBV sells food product(s) to the public.  

Examples of "Potentially Hazardous Foods" not allowed for sale without a certified commercial kitchen

• Use of “reduced oxygen packaging” (ROP) methods - like vacuum packing

• Canned or hermetically sealed containers of acidified or low acid foods; produce items in an oxygen sealed container

• Cut melons, raw seed sprouts

• Jerky

• Non-modified garlic-in-oil mixtures 

• Cut tomatoes and cut leafy greens – FDA says these products require Time/Temperature Control for Food Safety (TCS) which equals a potentially hazardous food

Examples of HBV products allowed under current Indiana Law - no commercial kitchen needed

• Baked goods – cakes, fruit pies, cookies, brownies, dry noodles 

• Candy and confections – caramels, chocolates, fudge, hard candy

• Whole, uncut produce

• Tree nuts and legumes

• Honey, molasses, sorghum, maple syrup

• Jams, jellies, preserves – only high acid fruit in sugar

• *Some rabbit, poultry and in-shell chicken eggs 

• Fermented produce “traditionally pickling”... when not in an oxygen sealed container

Examples of common foods that CANNOT be done as an HBV in Indiana

• Pickles, made by acidification or fermentation, cannot be sold by a HBV if the product is sold in an oxygen sealed container

• “Low acid” and “acidified foods” cannot be done by HBV- Examples: Green beans, pickled beets, salsa, etc. 

• Shell eggs not from a domestic chicken (duck, quail, turkey)

Local Case Study:  "Hawkins Law" (HB 1267):  Hawkins Family Farm, located in North Manchester, Indiana, found themselves at odds with state regulations regarding the sale of poultry. Indiana law required poultry to be slaughtered in a state-inspected facility or a facility inspected by the USDA. The Hawkins family, who raise their chickens on pasture and process them on their farm, were unable to meet these requirements due to the small scale of their operation. As a result, they faced limitations on how they could sell their chickens.

Policy Change:

In 2021, Indiana House Bill 1267 was introduced and subsequently passed. This bill amended Indiana Code 16-42-2-116, creating an exemption for small poultry farms. The key provisions of the amended law include:

• Exemption from State Inspection: Poultry raised and slaughtered on the same small farm is exempt from state inspection requirements if the farm sells fewer than 1,000 birds annually.

• Labeling Requirements: Poultry sold under this exemption must be labeled "Not Inspected."

• Sales Restrictions: Sales are limited to the farm premises, farmers' markets, and the farm's website for direct-to-consumer sales.

Impact:

This law change represents a significant victory for small poultry farmers in Indiana. It allows them to operate without the financial burden of complying with large-scale processing regulations, while still providing consumers with access to locally raised poultry. The Hawkins Family Farm can now legally sell their chickens through various channels, supporting their farm's viability and contributing to the local food system.

The passage of HB 1267 highlights the growing consumer demand for local food and the importance of supporting small-scale agriculture. It also demonstrates the power of advocacy and the ability of individuals and families to influence policy changes that benefit their communities.

"Hawkins' Law" - HBV Poultry

• Up to 1000 birds – Can be sold to the end consumer at a Farmers Market, roadside stand, from the farm

• Over 1000 birds contact Meat and Poultry Division of the Indiana State Board of Animal Health (BOAH)

• 1-20,000 BOAH “limited permit” to sell to RFEs 

• All poultry produced and sold at a farmers market or roadside stand must be sold frozen

• All poultry sold on the farm must be sold refrigerated at the point of sale

"Hawkins' Law" - HBV Rabbit - rabbits that are slaughtered and processed on the farm to be sold on the farm, at a farmers market, or at a roadside stand

• Is not a “food establishment” 

• Must sell rabbits frozen at a farmers market or roadside stand

• Must sell rabbits refrigerated from the farm at the point of sale and through delivery

• Only to end consumers

LOOPHOLES!!!!

• Herd Share (Fry Farms)

• Pet Milk

• Others

VISAs & Farm Labor

The H-2A temporary agricultural program 

• allows agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature. Employment is of a seasonal nature where it is tied to a certain time of year by an event or pattern, such as a short annual growing cycle, and requires labor levels above what is necessary for ongoing operations. 

• The H-2A visa program, while intended to provide a legal pathway for foreign workers to fill agricultural labor shortages in the United States, has several features that can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation:  

1. Employer Dependence:

• Tied to a Single Employer: H-2A visa holders are tied to the specific employer who sponsors them. This creates a power imbalance where workers fear retaliation (like being fired and deported) if they speak out against unfair treatment or poor working conditions.  

• Limited Job Mobility: Workers cannot easily switch employers even if they encounter abuse or find better opportunities. This limits their bargaining power and makes them dependent on their employer for their livelihood and legal status.  

2. Isolation and Vulnerability:

• Geographic Isolation: Many H-2A jobs are in rural areas, isolating workers from support networks and resources. This can make it harder to access legal aid, healthcare, or even basic necessities.  

• Language Barriers: Many H-2A workers may not be fluent in English, making it difficult to communicate with employers, understand their rights, or seek help if needed.  

• Limited Access to Information: Workers may not be fully aware of their rights under the H-2A program or U.S. labor laws, leaving them susceptible to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and other forms of exploitation.  

3. Recruitment and Fees:

• Illegal Recruitment Fees: Workers often pay exorbitant fees to recruiters in their home countries to secure an H-2A visa. This can lead to debt bondage, where workers are forced to work long hours to repay these debts.  

• Lack of Transparency: The recruitment process can be opaque, with workers often unaware of the true terms and conditions of their employment before arriving in the U.S.

4. Weak Enforcement and Oversight:

• Limited Government Oversight: While the H-2A program has regulations to protect workers, enforcement can be weak, and violations often go unpunished.  

• Fear of Retaliation: Workers may be hesitant to report abuses due to fear of losing their job and being deported.  

5. Housing and Transportation:

• Substandard Housing: Employers are required to provide housing, but it can often be overcrowded, unsanitary, and unsafe.

• Limited Transportation: Workers may be dependent on their employer for transportation to and from work, limiting their freedom of movement and access to essential services.  

These factors create a system where H-2A workers can be subjected to various forms of exploitation, including:

• Wage theft: Paying workers less than the required wage, withholding pay, or making illegal deductions.  

• Unsafe working conditions: Exposing workers to hazardous conditions, providing inadequate safety equipment, or forcing them to work excessive hours.  

• Discrimination and harassment: Verbal, physical, or sexual abuse by employers or supervisors.  

• Retaliation: Firing or blacklisting workers who complain about their treatment.  

It's important to recognize that not all H-2A employers engage in exploitative practices, and many strive to provide fair and ethical working conditions. However, the structural vulnerabilities within the program create a heightened risk of exploitation for these essential workers who contribute significantly to the U.S. agricultural industry.  

Other "more permanent" visa programs that may be used in agriculture - mainly dairy:

• J-1 VISA

the J-1 visa is not an ideal system, for many reasons. The most important reason is that the J-1 visa is designed for learning for one year, and then going home. Just as a dairy farmer feels that their trainee employee is really understanding things, the trainee must head back to their own country.

• TN VISA

allows for Mexican workers to come into the USA. This is a good option, but is only for Mexico (or Canada). 

History of USA Commodity Market Policy

For our purposes here we will focus on the development of the US commodity market and government prices supports for commodities.  Additionally we will look at entitlement programs providing food aid to the American people.  Throughout please notice that America has an overproduction problem that leaves our ag sector vulnerable to market collapse.  We first approached this by taking acreage out of production to prevent surplus.  We then moved to direct government purchase of surplus through the food bank system and international food aid as well as indirect price supports through corn ethanol subsidies, etc. as well as the support of the massive corn syrup industry.  The US ag sector has become dangerously dependent on foreign markets to absorb overproduction as seen by the need for direct farmer payments during the Trump administration's trade war with China.

U.S. federal policies have a long history of influencing agricultural markets—the prices farmers receive for their crops, for example, and the quantities of crops they grow. The first of such policies was the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, when U.S. farmers were producing far more goods than they could profitably sell. This was a problem of agricultural surpluses: as the supply of agricultural goods exceeded demand, the prices farmers received for selling those goods dropped. To make a living on deflated prices, farmers responded by producing even more goods, feeding a vicious cycle that further increased surpluses and lowered prices. The AAA aimed to support struggling farmers by incentivizing them to produce less—leaving some of their cropland fallow (uncultivated), for example, or even plowing under planted crops. The AAA later allowed the federal government to purchase surplus meat, dairy, and grain from farmers and distribute it to the unemployed and hungry - this later became the foundation of the government-subsidized food bank model currently implemented by the TEFAP and CSFP programs. Later versions of the AAA set minimum prices for major crops, such as wheat, to prevent prices from dropping too low. These and other policies helped reduce surpluses, stabilize prices, and support farmers through difficult times.   A crucial idea here is that the US used to support agriculture by paying farmers to leave some of their ground fallow.  This not only stabilized prices but also preserved fertility by letting land lay fallow.

Supply control would continue to be used to decrease overproduction, leading to over 50,000,000 acres (200,000 km2) to be set aside during times of low commodity prices (1955–1973, 1984–1995). The practice was eventually ended by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.  Although the federal government withdrew its involvement in controlling production and stabilizing prices in 1996, many of the ideas pioneered in the AAA live on in what became known as the U.S. Farm Bill.  Beginning with the administration of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, the United States had generally moved to curb overproduction. However, in the early 1970s, under Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, farmers were encouraged to "get big or get out" and to plant "hedgerow to hedgerow". Over the course of the 20th century, farms have consolidated into larger, more capital-intensive operations and subsidy policy under Butz encouraged these large farms at the expense of small and medium-sized family farms.  As the agribusiness lobby grows to near $60 million per year, the interests of agricultural corporations remain highly represented. In recent years, farm subsidies have remained high even in times of record farm profits.  As a side note - if you would like to read about Butz's racist comments that got him kicked out of the government (and over to Purdue University) - read about that here.

The 2018 Farm Bill (next one was supposed to pass in 2023)

You cannot have a conversation about food system policy without talking about the Farm Bill.  In fact some consider it more accurate to call it the "Food Bill" because of the huge percentage dealing with consumer-side issues rather than producer-side issues.  The latest deadline for the farm bill passed unceremoniously at midnight on Sept. 30 2024, without a push from lawmakers to pass a new farm bill or an extension.

The law began 90 years ago with various payments to support farmers but now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The omnibus farm bill is behind schedule, as the bipartisan congressional coalition that has advanced farm bills for the last half century has been teetering on the edge of collapse.  Congress must approve a new federal farm bill every five years. The previous farm bill from 2018 expired a year ago. With no agreement in sight at the time, lawmakers extended the law.

Why is this Happening?

1. Partisan Divides:

• SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program): This is the biggest sticking point. Republicans want stricter work requirements for SNAP benefits (formerly known as food stamps), arguing it reduces dependency. Democrats oppose this, saying it hurts the most vulnerable and doesn't address root causes of poverty.

• Conservation Programs: There's disagreement on funding levels and the focus of these programs. Some Republicans want to reduce spending, while Democrats push for stronger climate-related initiatives within conservation.

• Crop Insurance: This is generally a bipartisan area, but there are debates on subsidy levels and whether to tie them more closely to conservation practices.

2. External Pressures:

• Lobbying Efforts: Powerful interest groups, from agricultural corporations to anti-hunger advocates, are lobbying hard for their preferred outcomes, further complicating the process.

• Economic Uncertainty: Factors like inflation and potential recession make it harder to agree on spending levels and priorities within the Farm Bill.

Why This Matters:

• Impacts on Farmers: Delays create uncertainty for farmers who rely on the bill for support programs, crop insurance, and planning for the next growing season.

• Food Security: SNAP benefits are crucial for millions of Americans struggling with food insecurity. Delays or cuts could have devastating consequences.

• Environmental Concerns: Conservation programs are vital for addressing climate change and protecting natural resources. Stalemates hinder progress in these areas.

It's a complex situation with no easy solutions. Whether a new Farm Bill passes before the extension expires, or if we face another short-term extension or even a lapse in programs, remains to be seen. This highlights the challenges of governing in a divided political climate and the crucial role the Farm Bill plays in the lives of Americans and the future of agriculture.

Commodity Programs

Commodity crops are any crops that are traded (just like crude oil for example). Generally they are relatively nonperishable, storable, transportable, and undifferentiated: one corn kernel looks like any other corn kernel. But in our national discussion about food and agriculture policy, “commodity crop” refers to those that are regulated by federal programs under the commodity title of the U.S. Farm Bill. There have been 20 of them, but the major five that take the lion’s share of taxpayer money are cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans, and rice.

Declining prices for several years after the 1996 Farm Bill resulted in expensive emergency support legislation, and the 2002 Farm Bill was enacted to avoid those expenses. The most important change to commodity programs in the 2002 Farm Bill was the introduction of direct payments in lieu of payments to farmers for leaving land fallow. Direct payments compensated producers according to rates set in the bill and based on individual producer’s historic acreage and yields. In the 2008 Farm Bill, target prices and loan rates were altered, but the framework of the 2002 Farm Bill was generally preserved. Contrary to the 2008 Farm Bill’s preservation of the 2002 Farm Bill framework, the 2014 Farm Bill—the Agricultural Act of 2014—made a sweeping change by ending the era of direct payments and launching the PLC and ARC programs. These programs persist in the newest farm bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.

The PLC, ARC, and MAL programs that comprise primary, modern farm commodity support are administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Most financial transactions are handled through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a federally owned and operated corporation within the USDA. While commodity programs were originally authorized by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, these statutes are modified by the farm bills, which generally guide commodity programs for six years. If existing legislation expires, the law reverts back to the early statutes. For further text, history, analysis, and background information on past and present United States Farm Bills, please visit this United States Farm Bills page.  Excellent details on PLC, ARC, and MAL programs as well as others can be found here.

There are many problems with this system, because subsidies are inherently market-distorting.

1) Because direct payments are tied to the land and not to production, they are often bid into land values, to the benefit of landowner, who are often absentee city dwellers, not farmers. High land prices are the primary reason it is so difficult for beginning farmers to get started.

2) They incentivize farmers to grow subsidized crops to the exclusion of non-subsidized crops, such as pasture, hay, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. That is why the Midwestern landscape is dominated by corn and soybeans, making it vulnerable to soil erosion, water contamination, and the pest problems that result from lack of diversity. Because payments are tied to volume, farmers overproduce, seeking top yields by over-application of fertilizer, pesticides, and tillage.

3) Overproduction keeps prices low for commodity traders and food processors, who are their real beneficiaries. For example, subsidies result in below-production-cost prices for feed grains, which gives confinement animal farms an advantage over more environmentally sound grass-based animal production systems. Subsidies also make products derived from corn, soybeans, and wheat exceedingly cheap, leading to their overuse in our food system, in things such as corn syrup and cooking oil, which may be a contributing factor to our obesity epidemic. Cheap commodity crops are also dumped on the world market as food aid. Although famine relief sounds altruistic, in reality, unless carefully administered, it undercuts farmers in the recipient countries, fostering continued dependency on food aid.

4) By practically guaranteeing a profit—or at least making agriculture less risky, subsidies make agriculture attractive to investors, who drive up land prices, as well as the prices of agricultural inputs. Thus subsidies do not really help family farmers, who are still being squeezed between their suppliers and their buyers and who are still being driven out of business, to be replaced by industrial agriculture interests, which care little for the land or the people who work it.

5) The system is costly to taxpayers, who pay directly for the subsidies, and indirectly for cleaning up the harm done, both to the agricultural landscape, such as soil erosion and water contamination, and to our people’s health, such as in diabetes and heart disease.

These and other issues are further discussed here.  There is continuing tension with Canada over US dairy since Canadian dairies use supply management and the US still wants to export more dairy to Canada to deal with US surplus production.

Crop Insurance Subsidies

Crop insurance is purchased by agricultural producers, and subsidized by the federal government, to protect against either the loss of their crops due to natural disasters, such as hail, drought, and floods, or the loss of revenue due to declines in the prices of agricultural commodities. The two general categories of crop insurance are called crop-yield insurance and crop-revenue insurance. On average, the federal government subsidizes 62 percent of the premium. In 2019, crop insurance policies covered almost 380 million acres. Major crops are insurable in most counties where they are grown, and approximately 90% of U.S. crop acreage is insured under the federal crop insurance program. Four crops—corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat— typically account for more than 70% of total enrolled acres. For these major crops, a large share of plantings is covered by crop insurance.

The farm bill’s recent shift to crop insurance could actually exacerbate environmental problems: The government backstop encourages farmers to engage in riskier behavior (locating in floodplains, etc.) and discourages them from engaging in practices—such as planting cover crops like rye or clover, which anchor soil and nutrients during the off‐​season, and help stabilize yields through years both dry and wet that would protect them from the very losses they end up needing crop insurance to recoup. This creates a vicious cycle: increased environmental damage increases the taxpayer cost of subsidizing crop insurance (and providing other disaster relief), which leads to more environmental damage and more taxpayer money.

Conservation Programs

CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) is a land conservation program administered by FSA (USDA Farm Service Agency). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat.

CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) targets specific State or nationally significant conservation concerns, and federal funds are supplemented with non-federal funds to address those concerns. In exchange for removing environmentally sensitive land from production and establishing permanent resource conserving plant species, farmers and ranchers are paid an annual rental rate along with other federal and non-federal incentives as applicable per each CREP agreement. Participation is voluntary, and the contract period is typically 10-15 years.

While both programs focus on environmentally sensitive land, CREP is a partnership between state governments and the federal government. This partnership is in place to address a high priority conservation concerns. Land cannot be enrolled in CREP if your state does not have a CREP agreement.  More detailed information can be found here.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers and non-industrial forest managers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.

International Food Aid - A Double Edged Sword

Every year, the U.S. government purchases surplus grain from its farmers and distributes it to countries in need. International food aid alleviates hunger, at least in the short term, and can target the most vulnerable populations. Aid programs also support U.S. farmers by reducing surpluses, raising the value of their grain. In areas that receive food aid, however, farmers may see their own prices drop with influxes of donated grain.

In each situation, the pros and cons of sending food aid deserve careful consideration. In some cases, aid programs have been driven not by hunger but by industry pressure to reduce surpluses. In 2001, rice industry representatives successfully lobbied for increases in aid, arguing that “immediate increases in food aid now could mean the difference between survival and financial disaster for US rice mills.”

A better way?

A valid case can be made for subsidizing agriculture, because of its importance to society and because it is an inherently risky enterprise. However, it would make more sense to use subsidies to support agricultural conservation, rather than production; production should rightly be rewarded in the marketplace, whereas conservation is not. Conservation subsidies would pay farmers for activities that benefit society beyond their fence lines. Because conservation practices require care and attention, such subsidies would be harder for large conglomerates to exploit. They can also give a leg up to young and beginning farmers, or help start new community-based local food distribution systems, such as Farm-to-School programs or farmers’ markets.

Please take a serious look into the 50 year farm bill proposal and how it shifts thinking to the scale that we think about good farm management.

Read the links below if you are interested in learning how COVID payments and other factors led to a surge in food prices happening directly after COVID (and have not really come down since)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/29/beef-pork-retail-prices-skyrocket/

https://www.the-daily-record.com/story/news/2021/05/12/soaring-corn-and-soybean-prices-mean-higher-costs-grocery-store/5035192001/

Implementing Agroecology at a National Scale

Agroecology, (13 principles model), is a holistic approach to agriculture that integrates ecological principles with social and economic considerations to create sustainable farming systems. It emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, local knowledge, and community participation in building resilient and equitable food systems.  

Several countries have taken steps to institutionalize agroecological principles, recognizing their potential to address challenges such as food security, climate change, and rural poverty. Here are a few case studies:

Brazil:

• National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO): Launched in 2012, PNAPO aims to promote agroecological practices through research, technical assistance, and market access support. It also encourages the participation of social movements and family farmers in policy development.

• National School Feeding Program (PNAE): This program requires that at least 30% of the food purchased for school meals come from family farms, with priority given to those using agroecological practices. This has created a significant market for agroecological products and incentivized their adoption.

Senegal:

• National Agroecology Program (PNAE): Launched in 2014, PNAE seeks to integrate agroecological principles into agricultural policies and practices. It focuses on building farmers' capacity, promoting local seed systems, and strengthening farmer organizations.

• Ten-Year Agroecological Transition Plan: This plan, launched in 2020, outlines a comprehensive strategy for scaling up agroecology in Senegal. It includes measures to improve soil health, conserve water resources, and promote agroforestry.

France:

• "Ambition Bio 2017" Plan: This plan aimed to increase the share of organic agriculture in France to 15% by 2022. It included support for agroecological practices, such as crop diversification and reduced pesticide use.

• Law for the Future of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry: This law, passed in 2014, recognizes agroecology as a key approach to sustainable agriculture. It encourages the development of local food systems and promotes research on agroecological practices.

Denmark: 

• Denmark has been a pioneer in organic agriculture and has integrated agroecological principles into its agricultural policies for decades. The government provides subsidies and support for organic farmers, invests in research on agroecological practices, and promotes organic food in public institutions. Denmark aims to have 60% of its farmland under organic management by 2030.

Austria: 

• Austria has a strong commitment to organic agriculture and agroecology. The government supports organic farmers through subsidies, training programs, and research initiatives. Austria has also implemented policies to protect biodiversity and promote sustainable land management practices.

Mali: 

• The government is promoting agroecological practices through its national agricultural investment plan. It supports farmer-managed natural regeneration, agroforestry, and other sustainable land management practices to improve soil health, enhance food security, and increase resilience to climate change.

Ethiopia: 

• Ethiopia has integrated agroecology into its national climate-resilient green economy strategy. The government is promoting sustainable intensification of agriculture, with a focus on soil health, water conservation, and biodiversity conservation.

India: 

• In addition to Andhra Pradesh's ZBNF program, other states in India are also promoting agroecology. For example, Kerala has launched a "People's Plan" campaign to promote organic farming and agroecological practices through participatory planning and community involvement. 

Bhutan: 

• Bhutan has declared its commitment to becoming 100% organic. The government is promoting organic farming practices, supporting local seed systems, and restricting the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This policy aligns with Bhutan's philosophy of Gross National Happiness, which prioritizes environmental sustainability and social well-being.

Nepal: 

• Nepal has incorporated agroecology into its national agriculture policy. The government is promoting organic farming, integrated pest management, and other agroecological practices to enhance food security, improve livelihoods, and protect the environment.

Cuba:

• Forced Transition to Agroecology: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Cuba faced a severe economic crisis that led to a shortage of agricultural inputs. This forced the country to adopt agroecological practices out of necessity, leading to innovations in organic farming and urban agriculture.

• Support for Urban Agriculture: The Cuban government actively promotes urban agriculture, providing resources and training to urban farmers. This has contributed to increased food security and resilience in cities.

Canada: 

• While Canada doesn't have a national agroecology policy, there are several provincial initiatives. For example, the province of Quebec is promoting agroecological practices through its agricultural policy framework, which includes support for organic farming, integrated pest management, and soil health. They also have programs for knowledge transfer and farmer-led research in agroecology.

Mexico: 

• Beyond the traditional Milpa system, Mexico has government programs like "Sembrando Vida" (Sowing Life) that promote agroforestry and sustainable agricultural practices in rural communities. This program provides economic support to farmers who adopt agroecological techniques, helping to improve livelihoods and environmental conservation.

Switzerland: 

• Switzerland has a long history of supporting sustainable agriculture. The government provides financial incentives for farmers to adopt agroecological practices, such as reducing pesticide use, promoting biodiversity, and improving animal welfare. They also have strong regulations on GMOs and promote organic agriculture.

Netherlands: 

• The Netherlands is facing challenges with intensive agriculture and its environmental impact. In response, the government is promoting a transition to circular agriculture, which incorporates agroecological principles such as reducing waste, closing nutrient cycles, and promoting biodiversity.

Uganda: 

• Uganda has integrated agroecology into its national climate change policy. The government is promoting climate-smart agriculture, with a focus on agroecological practices that enhance resilience to climate change and improve food security. 

United States:

While the US federal government has been slower to embrace agroecology compared to some other countries, there's growing momentum at the state and local levels, and increasing influence on federal programs. Here are some key examples:

1. State-Level Policies:

• California: California has been a leader in sustainable agriculture. Its Healthy Soils Initiative provides financial incentives to farmers who implement practices that improve soil health, such as cover cropping, composting, and no-till farming. These practices align with agroecological principles of enhancing soil fertility and biodiversity.

• Vermont: Vermont has a strong commitment to local food systems and agroecology. The state has invested in farm-to-school programs, which connect local farms with schools to provide fresh, healthy food to students while supporting local farmers. This strengthens local food systems and promotes agroecological practices.

• Maine: Maine has a Food Sovereignty law that supports local food production and community-based food systems. This law empowers communities to make decisions about their food systems, promoting agroecological approaches that prioritize local knowledge and participation.

• Iowa's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture: This state-funded center conducts research and education on sustainable agriculture practices, including agroecology. It has played a key role in promoting practices like cover cropping and integrated pest management in Iowa.

• Maryland's Bay-Wise Program: This program encourages homeowners to adopt environmentally friendly landscaping practices, including reducing pesticide use, conserving water, and planting native species. While focused on residential landscapes, it reflects a broader shift towards ecological thinking in land management.

2. Federal Programs with Agroecological Influence:

• USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program: SARE funds research and education projects that promote sustainable agriculture practices, including agroecology. This program has supported numerous projects on cover cropping, integrated pest management, and other agroecological approaches.

• National Organic Program (NOP): While organic agriculture is not synonymous with agroecology, it shares many principles. The NOP establishes standards for organic production and certification, which can encourage farmers to adopt agroecological practices.

• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): The CSP provides financial and technical assistance to farmers who implement conservation practices on their land. Many of these practices, such as cover cropping and crop rotation, align with agroecological principles.

• EQIP Organic Initiative: Within the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), there's a specific initiative to help producers transition to organic production. This provides financial assistance for practices like cover cropping, crop rotations, and integrated pest management, all core tenets of agroecology.

• USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Health Initiative: This initiative provides technical and financial assistance to farmers for implementing soil health management systems. This includes practices like no-till farming, cover cropping, and diverse crop rotations, which align with agroecological principles of building soil fertility and biodiversity.

3. Emerging Policy Initiatives:

• The Green New Deal: While not yet implemented, the Green New Deal framework has brought attention to the role of agriculture in addressing climate change. It calls for supporting farmers in transitioning to sustainable practices, including agroecology, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to climate change.

• Food and Farm Act: This proposed legislation aims to reform US food and agriculture policy to support family farms, promote sustainable agriculture, and address food insecurity. It includes provisions that align with agroecological principles, such as increasing support for research on agroecological practices and promoting local food systems.

• Farm Bill Language on Soil Health: The 2018 Farm Bill included language recognizing the importance of soil health and directing the USDA to prioritize soil health in its programs. This reflects a growing understanding of the role of healthy soils in sustainable agriculture and aligns with agroecological principles.

• USDA Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Initiative: This initiative aims to support farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in implementing climate-smart practices. While not exclusively focused on agroecology, it encourages practices like cover cropping, agroforestry, and rotational grazing, which have strong agroecological foundations.

4. Local Level Action:

• Urban Agriculture Ordinances: Many cities are adopting ordinances that support urban agriculture, including community gardens, rooftop farms, and urban farms. These initiatives promote local food production, build community resilience, and often incorporate agroecological principles.

• Food Policy Councils: Food policy councils are emerging in many communities to bring together stakeholders from across the food system to address food-related issues. These councils often advocate for policies that support agroecology and local food systems.

These examples demonstrate that while the US has not fully embraced agroecology at the national level, there is growing interest and action at the state, local, and even federal program levels. The increasing awareness of the environmental, social, and economic benefits of agroecology is creating momentum for policy changes that support its wider adoption.

Farm Bill

While the 2023 Farm Bill didn't explicitly mention "agroecology," it did incorporate several principles that align with agroecological approaches. Here are a few examples:

• Increased focus on soil health: The bill significantly increased funding for conservation programs that promote soil health practices, such as cover cropping, no-till farming, and crop rotation. These practices are key elements of agroecology, as they improve soil fertility, water retention, and biodiversity.

• Support for organic agriculture: The bill expanded support for organic agriculture, including increased funding for organic research, certification, and market development. Organic agriculture is a prime example of agroecology in practice, as it relies on ecological principles to manage pests, diseases, and nutrients.

• Emphasis on local and regional food systems: The bill included provisions to strengthen local and regional food systems, such as increased funding for farmers markets, food hubs, and farm-to-school programs. Agroecology emphasizes the importance of local food systems for building resilience, reducing transportation costs, and supporting local economies.

• Investments in climate-smart agriculture: The bill made significant investments in climate-smart agriculture practices, such as agroforestry, conservation tillage, and nutrient management. These practices are essential for mitigating climate change and adapting to its impacts, which are key goals of agroecology.

Specific Examples:

• The Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA): While not included in the final bill, this marker bill proposed the creation of a "Long-Term Agroecological Research Network" to study how agroecosystems function and to promote sustainable agriculture practices.

• Increased funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): CSP provides financial assistance to farmers who implement conservation practices on their land, many of which align with agroecological principles.

• Expanding the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to farmers for implementing conservation practices, including many that are central to agroecology.

Overall, while the 2023 Farm Bill didn't fully embrace agroecology as a framework, it did include several provisions that support agroecological principles. This reflects a growing recognition of the importance of these principles for building a more sustainable and resilient food system.

It's important to note that advocacy groups continue to push for stronger integration of agroecological principles in future farm bills. They argue that a greater emphasis on agroecology is needed to address the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity.

Challenges and Opportunities:

While these case studies demonstrate the potential of agroecology to transform food systems, there are also challenges to its widespread adoption. These include:

• Lack of awareness and understanding: Many farmers and policymakers are not familiar with agroecological principles and practices.

• Limited access to resources and support: Farmers may need technical assistance, financial support, and access to markets to successfully transition to agroecology.

• Policy and institutional barriers: Existing agricultural policies and institutions may favor conventional agriculture, creating obstacles for agroecological approaches.

Despite these challenges, there are also significant opportunities to advance agroecology. These include:

• Growing consumer demand for sustainable and healthy food: This creates a market for agroecological products and incentivizes their production.

• Increasing recognition of the environmental and social benefits of agroecology: This is leading to greater support for agroecological policies and programs.

• The potential of agroecology to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation: This is making agroecology an increasingly important part of global efforts to address climate change.

By learning from successful case studies and addressing the challenges to its adoption, countries can harness the potential of agroecology to create more sustainable, resilient, and equitable food systems.

Figures

Peruse these figures, we will talk about them in class

Other links for your Reference...

Recent US Policy Directions

• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/11/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-address-putins-price-hike-make-food-more-affordable-and-lower-costs-for-farmers/#:~:text=Today%2C%20President%20Biden%20is%20announcing,can%20afford%20to%20maximize%20yields.

• https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/05/26/biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-strengthen-food

Hopeful Developments for Policy in Sustainable Ag

• National Sustainable Ag Coalition

• Young Farmers Coalition

• Hoosier Young Farmers Coalition

• Union of Concerned Scientists

• Hoosier Environmental Council

• Socially Responsible Agriculture Project

• Indiana Small Farms Conference

• Food Policy Networks Project

• Sustainable Iowa Land Trust

• Citizens Climate Lobby

• Sunrise Movement

• Agroecology Research Action Collective

• National Family Farm Coalition

• La Via Campesina