Session: The 1996 Farm Bill
17
produced as much as we’ve consumed in seven of the last 10 years.
This could have a large impact on food costs, particularly when
combined with the recent increase in the U.S. minimum wage
(affecting many traditionally low-paying jobs in the food industry).
[Concurrent Sessions - cont.]
Roughly, every 1 percent rise in food prices translates into $6
billion in consumer costs. Low income families already spend 24 per-
cent of disposable income on food, leaving no “slack” for higher costs.
Food security is based on 1) availability of a variety of foods at
reasonable cost, 2) ready access, and 3) sufficient personal income to
buy food without resorting to socially unacceptable ways of acquiring
it. If any of these factors is lacking or in jeopardy, food acquisition—
not nutrition—becomes the primary goal.
Policy changes may be setting up millions of Americans to fail.
They must be made carefully and with concern for vulnerable citizens.
General goals for ag-dependent communities include: 1) foster
some business and property ownership within the community, rather
than just bring in industries with $7-an-hour jobs; 2) maintain some
traditional sense of responsibility to the community; and 3) strengthen
the base of the family farm and promote an entrepreneurial attitude,
with value-added initiatives and different types of co-ops.
Discussions led by
Rod Clouser, University of Florida;
Chuck Hassebrook, Center
for Rural Affairs;
Mark Edelman, Iowa State University
Methods being considered include exploring new models of wider,
more community-oriented co-op ownership patterns. The Fund for
Rural America, if continued, also may provide incentives for innovative
projects and research on the sustainability of small to moderate farms.
1996 Farm Bill:
Implications for...
COMMUNITIES
Communities need to help steer the direction of technology and
local adoption, rather than wait for its impact.
USDA’s 14 or so categorical grant programs (value-added, water,
facilities, etc.) will all be lumped together into one fund. Rural Devel-
opment Agency (RDA, formerly Farmers’ Home) directors are to in-
volve diverse interests in developing state strategic plans for fund use.
The farm bill is still in transition mode; appropriations aren't clear.
DownsizingZrestructuring have left a programmatic leadership vacuum
in USDA’s rural community programs. RDA staff whose methods and
programs have focused on farmer finance in the past may not be skilled
at involving other groups in community planning and decision making.
Extension has an opportunity to work with state Rural Develop-
ment Agency staff and local groups on the state strategic plans.
State Rural Development Councils can provide a forum for a wide
range of issues, but have “shoestring” funding and may not survive.
Pressures, uncertainty and instability in revenue sources are likely
to continue. And, the new relationships between levels of government
suggest fewer safety nets for local governments (for schools, etc.).
The less sophisticated communities likely will lose out.