Defending the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was the top priority of attendees at a convening yesterday of 63 sustainable agriculture and food access organizations in Washington, D.C. The meeting was to prepare members of the Good Food for All coalition to lobby Congress on shoring up programs that support nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and disadvantaged farmers in the 2018 farm bill.
The gathering came just as the first details about the House Agriculture Committee’s version of the farm bill, which has been kept under tight seal, are being made public. Last week, many members of Congress and anti-hunger advocates were enraged to learn that committee chairman Mike Conaway wants to impose stricter work requirements on some 8 million SNAP recipients. At the same time, President Trump’s proposed budget would reduce funding for SNAP. He has suggested other modifications to the program as well, including the controversial “Harvest Box” proposal.
Alex Ashbrook, director of special projects at the Food Research and Action Center, noted in a presentation that the president’s budget is usually “dead on arrival.” But she said what it “did highlight is that SNAP has a target on its back.” Many presenters discussed the importance of SNAP funds to both rural and urban communities, and the program’s success at lifting families out of poverty. More than 40 million Americans are enrolled in SNAP, and nutrition programs represent more than three-quarters of farm bill spending.
Other presenters contextualized the fight around SNAP and appropriate nutrition within a broader discussion of economic inequality. “The real problem that we have is a war on people who are experiencing poverty,” said Pamela Hess, executive director of the Arcadia Center, in her presentation.
Many of the member groups of Good Food for All represent and are led by people who have experienced or are experiencing poor food access. In urban areas, that poor food access can look like a neighborhood with an abundance of unhealthy food options but no grocery stores within walking distance. Hess noted that a contributing factor to that issue is the economic incentives for the production and retail of unhealthy foods. “There is a profound profit motive behind treating disease,” she argued. “There is not a profound profit motive for keeping people healthy.”
Violet King, farm manager at Dreaming Out Loud, touched on the impact gentrification and development can have on communities struggling with low food access. “Healthy food comes to our cities as they change,” she said, tearing up. “But what about before that?” She said in her presentation that governments should include more residents and farmers in conversations about how to address food access issues. “How could we have conversations and advocate for growers without actually having them in the room?”
Supporting marginalized farmers was also a priority on the group’s agenda. Farmers the USDA dubs “socially disadvantaged” — namely farmers of color and/or women farmers — have long faced discrimination that has prevented them from achieving the same farming success as their white, male counterparts. Lloyd Wright, a board member of the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Policy Research Center at Alcorn University, emphasized the role that the distributed nature of USDA power and decision making has played in that exclusion. “Some people think local control is good,” he said. But when communities are virtually all white and control the financial resources, historically, “it’s not for minorities.”
Wright highlighted the need for the coming farm bill to fund USDA programs that deal with the issues of heir’s property and estate planning — common obstacles to black farming families. She also said there should be better recruitment of farmers who have been historically excluded from USDA programs, as well as expanded agricultural education programs for youth of color who express an interest in farming.
Also attending was Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine. She touched on the hot debates surrounding SNAP, but said, “We haven’t given up on this farm bill.” She expressed confidence that some of the early proposals, such as imposing stricter work requirements, wouldn’t make it into the final version of the bill.