With farm prices remaining low and Congress struggling to find a solution, the NY Times (Aug 30) is reporting that international trade agreements may radically curb the federal price-support available for farmers. At issue is a House farm bill proposal to continue subsidies in the form of "counter-cyclical" payments. Political insiders say the legislation is probably not in line with current WTO trade laws. This sticking point is signaling the beginnings of a major political battle between Republican leadership in the House and the Bush Administration. According to the NYT, "Free trading Republicans, particularly Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, are up against several influential farm-state Republicans in the House who want to keep the large payments. This summer Representative Larry Combest, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, criticized Ms. Veneman as giving in to treaty requirements, in what he called "unilateral disarmament." 

After two years of intense debate over the dangers of genetically modifying plants to produce sterile seeds, the USDA has finally approved the use of so-called "terminator seed." Michael Schechtman, Executive Secretary to USDA's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, made the official announcement August 1, saying the seed would available for commercial use in 2003. The terminator seed, also known as the suicide seed because it is engineered to not reproduce, was originally designed to prevent farmers from illegally re-using harvested patented seed. While farmers see it as another form of monopolization, it concerns many scientists who fear the broader effects on ecosystems as this genetic trait cross pollinates with other plants. 

Hope Shand, Research Director for RAFI (Rural Advancement Federation International said, "USDA's decision to license Terminator flies in the face of international public opinion and betrays the public trust." To learn more about the issue see "2001: A Seed Odyssey" RAFI Communiqe, January/February 2001)

While it is generally known that President Bush's veto threat derailed a recent Senate farm bill package that would have brought $1.7 Billion in emergency funding to rural ag communities, little mention has been made of his simultaneous generosity to the oil industry. In early August, just as he was leveling his veto threats, the President backed House legislation that would give $33 billion to the oil and gas industry. While this bill must still pass muster in the Senate, it portrays a stark contrast in the President's priorities and sheds political light on the Presidents disregard for the rural constituency that elected him. Since Mr. Bush took office most programs under the USDA that provide funding for rural America have been sharply cut. For more information on the cuts to rural programs see the April 14 issue of Rural UPdates.

As reform of farm policy shifts into high gear in Washington, the NY Times (Aug. 31) is reporting that "at least seven members of Congress receive thousands of dollars in farm subsidies each year, and all but two sit on the agriculture committees that are writing the new farm policy." The NY Times sites as a source recent documents obtained by the Environmental Working Group that show among the biggest recipients is Representative Marion Berry, Democrat of Arkansas, whose family enterprises received $649,750 in farm subsidies in the past five years. Even the ranking chairman on the House Agriculture committee Charles Stenholm (D-TX) received $39,298 for family farm operations in the past five years. Though the Congressional Ethics Committee has not found fault with this process, watchdog groups say it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest because a limited number of farmers receive the lion's share of payments. 

If you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe to this list, visit our
Rural Updates Subscriber Center