3 reasons to support farm bill’s nutrition provisions

Proposed changes to the farm bill nutrition title threaten to hang up the conference committee. So, it is as important as ever for farm groups to band with their partners in the nutrition community in calling on Congress to protect the integrity of the consumer food safety net.For organizations such as ours, National Farmers Union and Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger, there is little to commend in the House version of the farm bill, which was broadly condemned by progressive ag groups, conservationists and anti-hunger advocates. [“Mazon” is the Hebrew word for “food” or “sustenance.”] For those of us who are deeply concerned about the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and would like to get a strong farm bill passed into law, our message is clear: The conference committee must adopt the Senate’s nutrition provisions and reject the House position.There are three reasons why ag groups should support upholding the integrity of the farm bill’s nutrition title: policy, process and politics.There are three reasons why ag groups should support upholding the integrity of the farm bill’s nutrition title: policy, process and politics.The bill contains changes that will cause millions of Americans in low-income households to lose their benefits, or have them significantly reduced. Many of these Americans live in rural communities and small towns, where a higher percentage of households (16%) rely on SNAP than in urban areas (13%).The second reason is that the House bill is the product of a flawed process. In contrast to the Senate bill, the House bill was a purely partisan exercise.Which brings us to the third reason that agricultural groups should reject major changes to the nutrition title: the politics of getting a unified farm bill passed in both chambers.