Food safety has been in the news a lot this year, from produce to poultry. Amid these outbreaks, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has consistently reported dwindling staffing levels at nearly all federal agencies that oversee food safety.  In late 2026, the staffing situation continues to deteriorate. 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) faces an unprecedented staffing crisis, having lost approximately 20,000 employees since January 2025. Meanwhile, USDA remains in the throes of a major reorganization, caught in court, that will likely drive even more employees out of the Department. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the USDA agency responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and eggs sold in the United States are safe, has experienced relatively small staff losses compared to other agencies. However, the loss of food safety inspectors – the professionals on the front lines of protecting US food safety – has been staggering, resulting in a more than 50% reduction in some classes of inspectors. At the federal or state levels, these inspectors are not being replaced. Without a decline in the number of inspected plants, the remaining inspectors are required to sufficiently inspect a greater number of plants in the same amount of time.

This loss of inspectors also potentially threatens the impact of previous investments in meat processing and efforts made by the Trump Administration. This blog post examines the continued loss of food inspectors and its potential impacts on farmers, processors, and consumers.

Types of Inspectors

FSIS is responsible for meat, poultry, and egg safety and labeling, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the food safety of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

FSIS employs three different types of inspectors: 

• Food Inspectors (occupational code 1863) include both slaughter inspectors and processed products inspectors. Slaughter inspection involves the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of meat, poultry, and fish. Processed products inspection includes the inspection of all processed foods containing those animals, such as lunch meat or ground beef.
• Consumer Safety Inspectors (occupational code 1862) work in meat, poultry, and egg processing plants to ensure that the plants’ Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) plans are adequate and conduct regulatory oversight in the plants to ensure compliance with consumer protection regulations such as labeling requirements. 
• Compliance Investigators (occupational code 1801) investigate alleged violations of food safety laws and regulations, sample products for pathogens, educate businesses and officials about food safety, and serve as a liaison to other agencies and law enforcement. 

In addition to these inspectors, FSIS also employs Public Health Veterinarians (occupational code 0701). Public Health Veterinarians are responsible for conducting animal disease surveillance, conducting ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of meat and poultry products that require specific veterinary expertise, supervising food inspectors to ensure compliance, and enforcing federal meat and poultry inspection procedures, including animal welfare laws. 

Collectively, these inspectors are frontline professionals who inspect and regulate the meat processing industry for our collective safety. Their expertise takes years to build, including how to work proactively with plants in a way that protects consumers and processors. 

FSIS Staffing Losses

Every category of FSIS inspectors and public health veterinarians has lost a significant staff between January 2025 and June 2026, but the most dramatic losses were amongst Food Inspectors. Since January 2025, FSIS has lost 56% of its Food Safety Inspectors (463 employees), the frontline inspectors in meat, poultry, and egg processing facilities. This is followed by the loss of 28% of Compliance Investigators (40 employees), 27% of Public Health Veterinarians (177 employees), and just 2% of Consumer Safety Inspectors (106 employees). 

Figure 1: Percentage decline in FSIS positions

Cumulatively, FSIS lost 786 employees (11%) in positions responsible for ensuring the safety of meat and animal products.

Losses by State

This loss has not been felt uniformly across the US, but has been geographically concentrated, both in percentage and absolute numbers of inspectors. 

Many states have lost a significant amount of their inspectors, with many of the greatest absolute losses in southern states. This is true both across all classes of inspectors and specifically food safety inspectors (1863s).  

 Figure 2: Top Ten States With FSIS Inspectors Lost

Figure 3: Top Ten States With Percentage of FSIS Inspectors Lost

State Meat Inspection 

Federal inspectors are not the only professionals that inspect plants across the US.  In fact, there are many state inspectors across the country that are partially funded by the federal government. 

However, there is no evidence that the ranks of state inspectors are expanding to take up the slack due to the decline of federal inspectors, in part because processing plants do not erratically shift from state to federal inspection requirements. Even if that were the case, it is unlikely that there would be adequate funding for new state inspectors. In recent years, there have only been small increases in the FSIS cost share with states in the State-Federal Cooperative Inspection Program (SFCIP), in response to state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) agencies’ input. 

Impact on meat processing expansion

The cumulative loss of food safety inspectors comes at a time of significant expansion in the number of smaller processors in the US. Since 2021, hundreds of millions of dollars from USDA have been spent to expand existing plants and increase the overall number of plants. Several states, including Oregon and Minnesota, have also made significant investments towards this goal. This has increased the number of small and very small plants under both federal and state inspection, and those that need approval to join those ranks. 

Anecdotally, many plants across the US have experienced slower-than-normal approval of inspections as a result of staffing losses, which would largely be done by the 1862 and 0701 inspectors. The broader dwindling of food safety inspectors, and of public trust in our food safety system, threatens the expansion of the small and very small meat and poultry processing system. 

Without adequate hiring of new staff,  or expansion of plants in state inspection and the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program, these plants may not be able to receive the mandated continued inspection, or receive grants of inspection to start processing that they need. Delayed grants of inspection, or rescheduled inspection days, have a much greater impact on these smaller processors, as they have fewer financial resources to sustain themselves compared to multi-plant companies that may be able to shift output from one plant to another. 

Potential solutions

With the current Administration’s focus on supporting ranchers and farmers by supporting slaughterers and processors, such as through the Rancher First initiative, it makes sense that they would also want to support continued market access through federal or state inspection for those enrolled in CIS. 

Significant rehiring of federal food safety inspectors is needed, along with continued investment in programs like the Start Up program to draw more states into MPI, and consequently, more hiring of state inspectors. 

This rehiring or state expansion would create an opportunity to ensure that the newly hired inspectors are also following many of the recommendations outlined in the 2020 Small Plant Report. This would fall in line with Administrator Ransom’s recent commitment to the expansion and protection of small processing plants. 

The post FSIS Staffing Losses Put Small Meat Processing at Risk appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Publishes “Conservation Practices for Agricultural Resilience: A Resource Guide”

Washington, DC, October 29, 2026 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released Conservation Practices for Agricultural Resilience: A Resource Guide, a new publication identifying the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practice standards that help farmers and ranchers build resilience to drought, flooding, and other extreme weather, while improving soil health, protecting water quality, decreasing greenhouse gases, and reducing input costs. 

Producers and land managers are experiencing the impacts of extreme weather and other environmental and financial stresses firsthand. NRCS conservation practice standards offer well-established tools for responding by building soil health and fertility, sequestering carbon, enhancing infiltration and water-holding capacity, supporting biodiversity, and delivering long-term ecological and economic benefits. Practices that address multiple natural resource concerns and practices that are implemented together to support and build upon one another can further enhance an operation’s resilience to severe climate impacts. 

Producers can develop conservation plans with NRCS through a collaborative process that combines and customizes practices to fit an operation’s goals, resources, and regional conditions. This guide is designed to support that process, helping producers and the partners who work with them consider the climate, ecological, and economic benefits of practices on their operations. 

“The high-impact practices in this guide have documented benefits for farms building resilience to more unpredictable weather, and they’re even more effective in combination to address whole-farm resource concerns. We are excited to share this guide, and we hope that producers and the planners and organizations supporting them will find it a valuable reference,” said Richa Patel, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

This guide covers 30 conservation practice standards, detailing the resource concerns addressed, the supporting and companion practices that increase effectiveness, and notes on considerations for implementation. A set of example scenarios showcases how practices can combine at a system-level across annual cropping, perennial systems, livestock production, and organic management. 

Learn more about the guide here or download the publication at NSAC’s publications page. 

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: NSAC Publishes “Conservation Practices for Agricultural Resilience: A Resource Guide” appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On October 1, 2026, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a final rule overhauling the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which took effect on October 16. Unfortunately, rather than improving REAP, this new rule flips the script on how the program has benefited small farmers, turning it into a program that drives farm consolidation by disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest farm businesses. 

Created in the 2002 Farm Bill, REAP offers grants and guaranteed loans for farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. Since its inception, REAP has been a popular, bipartisan program with a strong focus on smaller farmer-owned projects, including solar, more efficient grain dryers, irrigation pumps, and cooling systems. 

Following an earlier Executive Order seeking to shift federal funding support away from renewable energy, USDA stopped processing pending REAP applications on March 31, 2026. In April, USDA rescinded the program’s funding notice, telling applicants mid-process that they would have to reapply under whichever new rules were promulgated to reflect the Executive Order. This ongoing uncertainty and disruption to the program have undermined the trust between farmers, rural businesses, and USDA, and the new rules published this month do little to rectify that.  

What is in the final rule?

One of the biggest changes to REAP in the final rule is a reversal of structure: previously, farmers were able to apply for grants prior to starting a project, giving them confidence they would receive federal support before investing in the new technology. Under the new rule, however, farmers must now pay the full cost of a project up front, run it for a year, and then compete for a grant with no guarantee of an award. Additionally, new eligibility rules narrow which farms are able to apply. These changes turn REAP into a program that benefits the operations that already have the most resources. Any farm or rural small business that cannot afford to front the full cost of a project and wait more than a year for a grant that is not guaranteed is shut out of the program, including beginning farmers, farms operating on thin margins, and small family farmers. 

Additionally, this new rule appears to be in conflict with REAP’s statute in multiple ways and to exceed USDA’s authority as delegated by Congress, particularly in its changes to what projects can be funded and in turning REAP into a reimbursement program for completed projects. Congress wrote the program to fund proposed projects and was unambiguous that solar and wind are eligible for REAP. The legality of this new rule, or lack thereof, is an outstanding question that may be tested.

This blog post highlights the most notable components of the new rule and the National Sustainable Agriculture’s (NSAC) recommendations for how the rule should be altered to return to a program that benefits most farmers and small rural businesses. 

Project Eligibility

• Projects must be fully built and operational for at least one year. A project must have been completed 12 – 24 months before the application period (12 – 36 months for the first application window). Applicants must provide 12 months of actual energy production or savings as part of the application. Under the old rules, farmers applied before building.
• New solar and wind requirements. Ground-mounted solar and wind systems on cropland are no longer eligible, and REAP can no longer fund retrofits of existing solar and wind systems on cropland. Solar and wind systems that cannot document commensurate historical energy usage are not eligible. Solar and wind systems consisting of any component made in a country named as a foreign adversary are not eligible, though systems installed before October 1, 2026 are exempt. 
• Must be in a rural area. Projects must be located in areas that have a population of no more than 50,000 inhabitants and are not in urbanized areas contiguous and adjacent to a city or town with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Previously, agricultural producers were eligible for projects in non-rural areas if it was tied to an agricultural production operation. 
• Project exclusions. Stand-alone battery storage or adding storage to an existing renewable energy system, EV chargers, trailer-mounted systems, and energy efficiency upgrades in new construction are ineligible. 

Applicant Eligibility

• Narrower definition of “agricultural producer.” A farm is now only considered eligible if it is a for-profit business that is wholly owned by an individual and/or their immediate family, every owner works in the day-to-day operation, and the majority owner earned at least 50% of their income from the farm in the most recent calendar year. An individual and their spouse are considered one owner. Tribal businesses wholly owned by a Tribe are eligible, with their own path to qualifying as an agricultural producer.
• Only Highest-Level Owners may apply and are limited to one application a year. The entity applying cannot have any other entity that owns or controls it, like a subsidiary. Each owner gets one application for either a renewable energy system or energy efficiency application per fiscal year and can only receive one award per fiscal year. Applicants that had pending applications before REAP processing was stopped in March 2026 may apply again, but must follow the new rules. 
• Financial tests. Applicants must have a ratio of current assets to current liabilities of at least 1:1. Applicants must have a positive cash flow in the most recent fiscal year. Applicants must have enough revenue to cover the project’s operation, maintenance, and debt for its useful life. 
• Rural small businesses must be certified by the Small Business Administration(SBA). Businesses will need an active SBA profile. 
• Individuals are ineligible. Sole proprietorships can apply, but applicants must be organized under state, tribal, or federal law. 
• Must be an existing business. Applicants must have been a profitable business for at least 12 months before the project period. They must additionally own the system and have owned or leased the site since 12 months before the project period and through the final payment.

Project Requirements

• At least 75 percent must be cost-shared.  The grant can cover no more than 25% of project costs. Previously, funds from the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for grant support up to 50%. A REAP grant and a REAP guaranteed loan together cannot exceed 75% of project costs. 
• Project periods. The project period would start at the first allowable cost incurred, can last no more than 24 months, and end no later than 30 days after installation. The project period must end 12 – 24 months before the application (12 – 26 months for the first application window).  
• Limits on energy production and storage. Total energy production is limited to 120% of annual energy consumption for 12 months before project installation. A storage system cannot exceed 100% of the size of the paired renewable energy system. 

Application Process

• Online portal. USDA states they will launch a new online application portal. Only complete applications are accepted, and applications cannot be modified after they are submitted. 
• New scoring system. After evaluating for completeness, eligibility, and risk, applications will be scored on merit. A new scoring criteria awards up to 90 points based on energy per grant dollar (0-25 points), share of energy replaced or saved (0-20 points, with 0 points awarded for anything above 109%), prior awards (15 points if never funded, 5 if no award in past 2 years), Simple Payback (0-10 points with full points for payback under 10 years), impact (5 points for three non-owner employees, 5 for being a critical community service), and environmental benefits (5 points). USDA may then offer 10 additional points set by their own priorities. Points for disadvantaged communities have been removed.
• Applications requesting $20,000 or less. These applications compete for reserved funds and are funded in rank order until the reserve runs out or scores drop below 40 points. 
• Applications above that threshold. There are no longer state competitions. The single highest-scoring application from each state is funded first, and the top two are funded if more than $100 million is available. Then the remaining applications are funded in rank order until funds run out or scores drop below 40 points. 

Reporting and Documentation

• Measured performance. Because REAP now requires a project to be fully built and operational, applications must include 12 months of measured energy production or savings and 12 months of energy data from before installation. 
• Documentation. Documentation requirements are heavier for the application process, though post-award reporting requirements are lower due to the project having already been built for at least 12 months. Documentation requirements include proof of project and site ownership/control, country of origin information for solar and wind components, certification from a licensed engineer, copies of relevant agreements (including for interconnection, power purchase, offtake, lease, financing, and maintenance), contractor records, and financial records. 

Comment Period

USDA finalized this rule without a notice-and-comment period, claiming that grant programs are exempt from that process. The rule therefore took effect October 16 without public feedback. USDA still opened a comment period and will be accepting comments until November 2, 2026, but only to inform future guidance or rulemaking. It remains vitally important that farmers and advocates weigh in on the impact of changes to this program. 

While we support efforts to reduce burden on producers who apply and protect the program from bad actors, NSAC strongly opposes the implementation of the rule, which does not follow Congress’s intent in its authorizing statute and puts REAP out of reach for most producers. NSAC supports the following:

• Let farmers apply before they build. USDA frames this change as a response to stakeholders, but it simply shifts risk away from the agency and onto the farmers themselves. USDA acknowledges that applicants will not know whether they will receive federal support when they invest in a system. REAP was so popular because it helped farmers invest in on-farm renewable energy and energy efficiency upgrades that cut their costs and made them more energy independent. But very few small farmers can front the full cost of an energy project without any guarantee of support. Unfortunately, that means this program will now leave behind the very farmers it should serve best. 
• Better support working family farms. The narrower definition of agricultural producers and the financial tests put a particular burden on small family farms. About 86% of US farms have household incomes of less than $250,000 and, on average, nearly 90% of that income comes from off-farm sources. Requiring a majority of household income to come from farming excludes the vast majority of small family farms.   The rule also caps grants at 25% of project costs, but the Inflation Reduction Act funding allows grants of up to 50%. USDA should use that flexibility for IRA funds that remain.
• Give farmers flexibility. USDA should consider the incredibly varied operations that apply for the program. Additionally, overly burdensome and expensive requirements for producers, such as component sourcing requirements and documentation on country of origin information, will make certain projects completely inaccessible for most producers. This means that, rather than blanket restrictions on solar, wind, and energy storage, USDA supports producers in choosing energy options that work best for their operations. Additionally, applicants who were mid-process when processing stopped in March should be provided a workable path forward under the rules that existed when they applied.
• Provide transparency. USDA should remain transparent about how the program is functioning, including how many applications were pending when processing stopped in March, how much IRA funding for REAP remains, and continuing to publish the results of award rounds, including who received awards. 

Comments can be submitted on the Federal Register.  

The post USDA’s New REAP Rule Puts Program Out of Reach for Most Farmers, Ranchers, and Rural Small Businesses appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) had the privilege of joining many of our members in attending the 41st Annual Farm Aid Festival, held in Virginia Beach, Virginia last month. After a year marked by market instability, a slashed federal workforce, and millions of dollars of cancelled contracts, the circumstances around the 41st Farm Aid had unfortunate parallels to the origins of the festival. We name this not to harp on the negative or point fingers on who to blame, but to express the importance of this work and to highlight that small- to mid-size family farms need collective support now more than ever. 

In addition to the well-known music festival featuring artists like Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, Dave Matthews and the like, on the days leading up to the concert, hundreds of food and agricultural professionals gather to learn from one another. Farm Aid is not just a concert, but it is also a place to build relationships, elevate farmer voices, and connect organizers and food-system practitioners. To recap the experience, this blog post shares some of our learnings, celebrates NSAC’s Virginia based NSAC members, and highlights the organizations that attended Farm Aid this year.  

Virginia Food and Farm Landscape

Agriculture is Virginia’s largest private industry, home to close to 40,000 farms, spanning over 7 million acres! The farm tours organized by Farm Aid this year were unique in that one of the tracks offered insights into the marine agriculture industry – an important part of our food system that is underrepresented in most farm bill discussions. 

Marine Tour

The Marine tour visited two sites, Tyler’s Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf Marina. 

The first stop on the Marine Tour was Tyler’s Beach, along the James River. In the mid twentieth century, there was a thriving waterman’s community, consisting primarily of Black and Native families. A number of factors contributed to the area’s sharp decline in the 1980s: the consolidation of the fishing industry, the Kepone spill in 1975, and overt and covert racism. The group heard from a local crabber, who spoke to the high upfront and maintenance costs of fishing boats and equipment, the lack of support for processing infrastructure, and the complicated (and costly) permitting, which makes it difficult for small-scale fishing operations to turn a profit. In between stops on the tour, the group had the pleasure of eating crabs caught at Tyler’s Beach, as well as local oysters harvested by another nearby water-woman. 

The second stop was Fisherman’s Wharf Marina, which spoke to the unique infrastructure and processing needs of watermen. While it is true that all types of food production and distribution require infrastructure along the supply chain to keep food items fresh, clean, and organized – live seafood poses a more urgent challenge. The Wharf offers 75 slips, with included amenities like diesel fueling, electrical equipment, fileting stations, lighting systems, and more. A part of their mission is to provide protected harbor, convenient access to the best fishing grounds on the East Coast, and hassle-free docking for off-shore fishermen, supporting small-scale fisherfolk in the area. 

Land Tour 

The Land Tour visited three farms, and only managed to get our bus stuck once. The tour visited Creekmore’s Place Farm, Coastal Cattle (and the associated business The Meat Shack), and Cullipher Farm.  

These farms range in size and products from small-scale vegetable production at Creekmore’s Place Farm, to larger-scale cattle production at Coastal Cattle, and a mixed livestock-produce and agritourism operation at Cullipher Farm. They also spanned generations, and diverse backgrounds and geographies. 

Creekmore’s Place Farm was the newest farm, and the smallest, even though the owners were following in the footsteps of family members who had been selling at the local farmers market for generations from market gardens. Their ownership and continual growth had been supported by local food grants and new farmer grants. This farm sat highest on the coastal ridges, most distant from the ocean, rivers, and potential storm surges. 

Coastal Cattle similarly had a generational story dating back to before the founding of the United States, though it also adapted over time, from operating as a large-scale row crop farm to a no antibiotic, pasture raised cattle operation. This was helped by the development of their Meat Shack, which is where they sell straight to consumers after their meat is processed at the nearest plant in North Carolina. The Meat Shack expansion has been made possible by Value Added Producer Grant (VAPG) funding. 

Cullipher Farm operates as a low input, highly diversified, largely you-pick and value added operation. It, similarly to the other farms, had a long history of familial production. It also had a history of commodity production, that of tobacco, but after World War Two a relative had helped pivot it into “truck” or direct to consumer vegetable production. Tides, and climate, were on the minds of these farmers, laying closest and lowest to the ocean and surrounding tidal rivers that can swell with strong storms. 

Virginia Based NSAC Members

Eastern Food Hub Collaborative

The Eastern Food Hub Collaborative (EFC) is a growing network of 16 local food hubs across the eastern United States. Its vision is to transform an extractive global food system by returning power to local communities, supporting local farmers, investing in environmental stewardship, and providing access to fresh, healthy, local foods for all. The EFC launched in 2019 as a member-led and governed network to support hubs and respond to market opportunities through collaborative market development, hub-to-hub trade, and peer learning. Today, the EFC is a fiscally sponsored project of Locus and is managed and facilitated by Seed Change Strategies.

The Seed Change team met Carolina Reid, Farm Aid’s Culinary Director, earlier this year in Spokane, WA, at a planning meeting for a national group of food hub network managers. Carolina was passionate about working with regional food hubs, and the local farms they source from, to provide concessions and catering for the 2026 Farm Aid Festival in Virginia Beach. Working through the EFC, Farm Aid sourced more than $50,000 of local food from a group of EFC members: Firsthand Foods, Freshlist, Working Landscapes, and 4P Foods. 

Learn more about EFC and how to support their work here. 

Foodshed Capital

Foodshed Capital is a nonprofit loan fund working to build more regenerative food systems. Recognizing the risks of farming in a changing climate, Foodshed provides flexible, affordable financing and integrated business technical assistance grounded in risk-sharing and deep relationships. Loan terms are tailored to each business, with rigorous underwriting that supports long-term viability while ensuring manageable repayment. With some of the lowest interest rates in the country and no credit scores, fees, or penalties, Foodshed takes an unconventional but effective approach: 99% of loans have been successfully repaid. Learn more about Foodshed Capital and how to support their work here. 

Virginia Association for Biological Farming (VABF)

The Virginia Association for Biological Farming is a community of farmers, gardeners, homesteaders, students, researchers, and general supporters of local and sustainable food systems in the state of Virginia. Their mission is to educate about, advocate for, and promote organic and “biological farming” and gardening. They define biological farming as an approach to food and fiber production that respects the natural ecosystem processes in order to yield top quality products, provide a viable living for the producer, and sustain long-term productivity. Learn more about VABF and how to support their work here.  

Wallace Center at Winrock

The Wallace Center at Winrock International brings together diverse people and ideas to co-create solutions that build healthy farms, fair economies, and resilient food systems. The Wallace Center partners with rural communities, businesses, and local leaders to develop market-oriented, sustainable solutions at scale that increase food production and profitability, expand market access, conserve natural resources, and build resilient livelihoods. Learn more about the Wallace Center and how to support their work here. 

NSAC Members at Farm Aid 

Young Farmers 

The National Young Farmers Coalition is a farmer-led, grassroots network shifting power and changing policy to equitably resource the new generation of working farmers. As the largest unified voice calling for farm policy that will deliver a bright future for young farmers and ranchers in the US, they are working towards a just future where farming is free of racial violence, accessible to communities, oriented towards environmental well-being, and concerned with health over profit. In support of their mission, Young Farmers just announced the Next Generation Farmer Fund, a new grant program providing $10k-$50k grants to young, regenerative farmers and ranchers across the country. The Next Generation Farmer Fund responds to the need farmers have for capital to make it through the season while also building systems that protect against the worsening systems of climate change. Applications for the fund will be open from October 28 – December 1, 2026.

At Farm Aid this year, festival attendees had the opportunity to craft and write a love letter to a young or beginning farmer, which was mailed on their behalf by Young Farmers staff. Learn more about Young Farmers and opportunities to take action here. 

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (MFAI)

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute’s policy program focuses on empowering farmers and eaters to use democratic processes to direct government resources to advance a regenerative agricultural vision.​ MFAI catalyzes grassroots and organizational power to cultivate the ecological, social, and economic resilience of food and farming systems. With strategic partners, they facilitate coalitions, convene thinkers, author papers, and organize farmer networks around policy initiatives at both federal and state levels. At Farm Aid this year, MFAI led a ‘paint with food’ activity, where folks had the opportunity to use cut up veggies and acrylic paint to create one of a kind prints. Learn more about MFAI and opportunities to support their work here. 

Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)

IATP advocates for a just transition that supports agroecology, pushing for policy reforms internationally at the United Nations and WTO, and nationally in the US farm bill and EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. In Minnesota, they are building model community-based food systems that aim to give all people access to sufficient, culturally appropriate and nutritious food, while providing small- to mid-scale farmers access to new markets. Farmers and food system workers are increasingly adopting practices that can both reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience, but action on a much wider scale is urgently needed. Learn more about IATP and opportunities to support their work here. 

FarmSTAND

FarmSTAND is the only legal advocacy organization in the US dedicated solely to taking on all industrial animal agriculture. Through lawsuits, advocacy, and more, their litigation targets the worst actors in the food system and protects the rights of those most directly harmed by Big Ag – workers, farmers, consumers, and rural communities who share our vision of an equitable food system. At Farm Aid this year, FarmSTAND hosted a ‘down the clown’ carnival style game where festival goers could knock down big ag clowns! Learn more about FarmSTAND and how you can combat consolidation here. 

The Work Continues

This year’s Farm Aid programming featured a story slam, where advocates and farmers from around the country got up on stage (with the support of Organizing Works!) to tell first hand stories about the impact of our collective work. 

One of our long-time collaborators and members, Liz Stelk, Executive Director of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance, told a story about the work Illinois farmers did to defend the Local Food Purchasing Assistance (LFPA) program after the administration froze the funding in early 2025. When they heard the news that the program had been cut, several farmers who had been participating in the program suddenly were at a loss for what to do with the materials they had purchased to meet LFPA contract demands and were concerned about what their neighbors would do to make ends meet. In response, they worked with State Representative Sonya Harper, (D-Chicago), to hold a hearing in the Agriculture Committee that she chairs, where several farmers testified on the impact LFPA had on their farm, the opportunity stable and fair contracts bring, and the immeasurable benefit the program had on their neighbors and the surrounding community at large. This hearing spanned several hours, with a fully packed room of in-person attendees with additional folks from across the state tuning in via Zoom. They demonstrated not only the direct negative impact this decision was having on farmers, but the widespread support from community members across the region. Unfortunately, the program was not reinstated, but the organizing efforts that made this possible will continue to be fruitful regardless. 

The story Liz told was both hopeful and honest – speaking to what is possible when we work together, how networks and relationships can blossom even under duress, and all that can be achieved even when we don’t always, “win” in the end. Liz’s story was a powerful reminder that the work we do has multiple simultaneous arcs. When communities come together to face a problem head on, we cannot always imagine all of the potential positive downstream impacts – but we can trust that they will come. 

Organizing Works will publish a recording of Liz’s story and the other storytellers in their new podcast later this year. 

While Farm Aid is best known for its concert and close connection with widely loved folk musicians, for NSAC, it’s also an annual space for farmers, advocates, food-system leaders, and supporters to gather and build lasting relationships, share solutions, and strengthen the collective voices needed to shape policy to build a better farm and food system. Just like every other year, we’ll continue doing the work – and look forward to the announcement of where the 42nd Farm Aid will be held. See you there?

The post Rooted in Community: NSAC Reflections From Farm Aid 2026 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Over the last several months, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made a dizzying array of announcements about the livestock and meat processing industry.  Starting in late July with the announcement of the Strengthening Processing for US Ranchers grant program through the Farm Service Agency (FSA), all the way through to September 4th, when Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and President Donald Trump announced a host of government interventions to support the Great American Beef Herd through the Rancher First Initiative. USDA has also superficially rebranded existing programs, such as the Value Added Producer Grant program, in an attempt to appear particularly supportive of the domestic beef herd. These announcements reflect a sudden push by the Administration, raising questions about the underlying motivations and the factors driving this shift in policy.

In late August 2026, the President eased tariffs on imported beef, which the Administration marketed as an attempt to lower the retail price of beef for consumers and protect the “Great American Beef Herd.” The interests of international meat processors, such as JBS, may have also been a factor in the decision. No matter the reason, negative reactions to the announcement from domestic ranchers were swift and sustained. Consequently, as the Administration tries to navigate its promises on affordability to consumers and farmers, the announcements in September and beyond were likely intended to soften the negative reactions. 

These interventions span from grant programs to regulatory reviews, and across numerous agencies within USDA. While the Rancher First Initiative and other meat processing announcements have many components, this blog post focuses on five key components: the SPUR Grant and Guaranteed Loan programs, the commitment to prioritize American beef in procurement, investments in market access for meat processors, coordination around small and very small processors, and review of regulations concerning meat processing. 

The Importance of Meat Processing Reforms  

NSAC believes in the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agricultural production, including beef production. This belief has materialized into decades of advocacy for a local, regional meat processing supply chain due to its linkages to greater market opportunities, local food sovereignty, and its creation of economic viability for multi-species or highly rotational grazing. 

Beef production under management-intensive rotational grazing can be an effective part of a larger strategy to improve soil health. Current scientific consensus is more mixed on its ability to increase Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)  in a long-term stable way. Still, most studies currently support that it mitigates other greenhouse gas emissions compared to other methods of beef production. 

An increase in local meat processing can improve the profitability and long-term viability of farmers trying to produce livestock and poultry in more sustainable ways. Shorter supply chains need local processors, which allow for a greater retention of the “food dollar” for farmers. Especially with fee-for-service packers, many farmers are able to more fully capture an overall price premium for the practices they adopt, either by marketing based on their practices or by creating value-added goods.

The ability of farmers and ranchers to reliably access these processing services at a distance and cost that works for them is key to their ability to farm how they want, including in diversification of animals raised.  Greater diversity in animals raised can also support farming that fits local landscapes and communities better and offers more consumer choice than our current system. Consumers are demanding this growth as well, especially in their meat and poultry markets. This diversity is beneficial regardless of your position in the food system as well. Large meat processors also act as monopsonies to both farmers and workers, with a very large ability to influence local labor markets and to abuse workers without options for employment. 

Funding the expansion of more small- to mid-size processors, and reforming Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) services and regulations to better work with them to achieve food safety goals creates better conditions for consumers, workers, and farmers. 

Meat Processing Context since COVID-19

Many of the programs announced during the last several months are situated within the larger context of meat processing programs that emerged with the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in 2021. Collectively, the programs initiated by ARPA have distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in subsidized loans and grants. These ARPA programs include:

• The Local Meat Capacity Grant 
• Meat and Poultry Plant Expansion Program (Phase 1-4) 
• Meat and Poultry Intermediary Lending Program 
• Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness Grant 
• FSIS Overtime and Holiday Fee Reduction Program
• Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program 

These programs – which were not cattle-specific – were created in part due to the recognition during the COVID-19 pandemic that highly efficient yet consolidated supply chains leave the US vulnerable to supply disruptions. However, the true impact of all of these programs is yet to be studied, in part due to the Trump Administration’s cutting of important follow-up studies and the lack of disclosure of program impacts. Many of the concepts of the more recently announced 2026 programs at least partially borrow from the ARPA initiatives. 

Today, several years after the COVID-19 pandemic, the US beef herd is at a historic 75-year low due to uncertain market expectations during the pandemic, natural herd life cycles, droughts, international competition, and evolving pest pressures, such as screwworm. All of these factors are, to one degree or another, partially addressed by USDA’s response to the historically low beef herd. 

Evaluating the impact of the newly announced programs detailed below is critical, but will not be straightforward. Cattle herd cycles are long – spanning 8-12 years – and the US herd sits currently in the trough, with many years of rebuilding ahead. This makes it difficult to determine whether a future herd upswing is being driven by these programs or reflects a broader, natural trend in herd expansion. The Trump Administration itself admitted this in its August 26th proclamation. 

Overall, the recently announced programs aim to increase domestic supply, though having that as the sole goal isn’t necessarily what USDA should be aiming for. For example, increasing herd sizes does not necessarily improve the economic sustainability of beef production; in fact, smaller domestic herd sizes have correlated with increases in the live cattle hundredweight price when selling in the open market. This higher price could mean higher profit and likely long-term economic sustainability. For many producers who utilize management-intensive grazing practices, total herd size or overstocking for the ecological output can be both counterproductive and potentially costly in the long term. Rather than focusing exclusively on increasing domestic supply, a better goal would be to focus on profitability, long-term viability, and sustainability of beef production in the United States. 

Below are short descriptors of the recently announced 2026 programs. Text in blue denotes details provided straight from Executive Orders, announcements, or other materials. The summaries below are up-to-date as of October 20, 2026.

SPUR Grant Program

Description:  One-time subsidy grant for processors, at $53.05/head of beef slaughtered, based on 2025 throughput numbers. Payments will be made in two 50% chunks.

Timeline: Sept 30th deadline for application (after an extension from Sep 11th). 

Eligible entities: federal, Talmadge-Aiken, or Cooperative Interstate Shipment inspected meat processing plants that specifically must slaughter beef.

More information/link(s): 

This grant program will be run through the Farm Service Agency (FSA), due to its funding through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). $500 million has been approved to be utilized for this purpose, and is one of the few times that the CCC has been used for supporting non-farm businesses in the livestock industry. 

SPUR Guaranteed Loan Program

Description: The SPUR Guaranteed Loan program will provide federal support to lenders making loans to eligible beef, and perhaps other processors, to expand the number of processors in the US. 

Timeline: TBD 

Eligible entities: Small and regional beef processor facilities ( no details on size, animals processed, etc.)

More information/link(s):

Guaranteed loan programs operate with the government as the guarantor, reducing risk for the actual lending party, generally a regional or agricultural bank in the context of USDA Guaranteed Loans, of which there are several. This allows the lender, who is sometimes required, to provide lower-than-market lending for the specified objective, in this case supporting small and very small processors. This program will potentially provide for lower-than-market-rate lending to a variety of meat processors, specifically focused on beef. 

Language: To support small and regional beef slaughter facilities, USDA is creating a SPUR Guaranteed Loan Program to help support regional processing, including establishing processor co-ops, expanding small business footprints, and increasing the variety of animal proteins being processed.

Procurement

Description: USDA will prioritize the federal procurement of local processed beef across institutions. 

Timeline: TBD

Eligible entities: TBD 

More information/link(s):

No further information has been provided on how this “encouraging” will happen – set asides are generally set in statute by Congress, though can be pursued through rulemaking as well. This administration so far has not released what it will consider to be “local” in this context,  whether there will be a size maximum, or setting a percentage goal.  It also does not explain how it will do this in conjunction with its Harvest to Hallways program, or a Local Food Purchasing Agreement-like program. 

Language: USDA will prioritize federal procurement of locally processed American beef by encouraging purchasing across federal and state institutions—including prisons, hospitals, and related facilities. By strengthening locally processed domestic sourcing requirements, USDA aims to bolster demand for American‑raised beef, support U.S. ranchers, and reinforce integrity and transparency within federal food purchasing programs.

Market Access and Small Processor Assistance

Description: Charges the USDA and Secretary Rollins with identifying possible opportunities to increase market access. 

Application window: USDA is required to identify possible opportunities by early November 2026. 

Eligible entities: State Departments of Agriculture.

More information/link(s):

In the recently announced Executive Orders and then the follow-up release of  USDA Launches Initiative to Bring More States into Meat Inspection, there have been many mentions of broadening market access for smaller processors. This announced an additional $50m to help provide for start-up costs of initiating a state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI). While the program also mentions the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program, it remains unclear why it indicates that the program can also be used to set up and enroll meat processing establishments in the CIS program. 

The provisions of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) focus on technical assistance for small and very small processors, which is necessary to support their continued viability. This has been a long-noted need, including in the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) co-authored 2020 Small Plant Report. It also already exists in some forms, including the Meat and Poultry Processing  Capacity Technical Assistance Program (MPPTA), which includes NSAC members (Niche Meat Processing Assistance Network) and partners (American Association of Meat Processors, Flower Hill Institute). Regional meat summits also provide much of this peer-to-peer education or technical assistance. Both programs are nearing completion of their previously funded money, and could utilize further funding to support their great work. 

Language: Sec. 3.  Expanding Interstate Market Access for Eligible Meat Products.  

(a)  The Secretary shall take actions consistent with applicable law to expand opportunities for interstate shipment of meat products, including by:

(i)    accelerating outreach and streamlining processes to increase State participation in the USDA’s State Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program, and the Talmadge-Aiken Cooperative Inspection Program;

(ii)   creating technical assistance and training programs for small and very small meat processors;

(iii)  establishing, or collaborating with partners to establish, an easily accessible web resource with comprehensive information regarding local meat slaughter and processing availability, including federally inspected establishments that facilitate interstate shipment;

(iv)   modernizing meat inspection to sharpen focus on core food safety, boost processing efficiency and technology, and lower costs to add value for ranchers and consumers;

(v)    removing unnecessary Food Safety Inspection Service inspection reporting requirements and overly prescriptive requirements, consistent with applicable law, that do not advance essential food safety needs; and

(vi)   establishing a coordinator position within USDA to implement these actions and serve as a conduit to ranchers and small and medium-sized processors.

(b)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report assessing current participation in the State-Federal cooperative inspection programs, identifying remaining statutory or regulatory barriers to greater interstate market access for State-inspected products, and providing recommendations for action to address any such challenges.

(c)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report identifying Federal statutory provisions, as well as trade considerations, that restrict or prohibit State-inspected or custom exempt meat products from entering interstate commerce.

Regulatory Review and Reform

Description: Charges the USDA and Secretary Rollins with identifying possible opportunities to reduce or reform regulations impacting ranchers and meat processors

Application window: USDA is required to identify possible opportunities to reduce regulations by early November 2026 

Eligible entities: NA 

More information/link(s):

Across the recent announcements (EO 14424, EO 14425) from President Trump and Secretary Rollins, there has been a consistent drumbeat regarding regulations that interfere with small and very small processors and the administrative influence of the big 4 meat processors: JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef Packing Company. 

A review of regulations that do impact small and very small processors could be impactful if USDA focuses on areas such as Overtime Fees for meat inspection that disproportionately cost smaller processors and the producers they serve. 

This change towards funding the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) is appreciated, if unlikely to compensate for the Trump Administration’s rescission of several proposed strengthening of the rules. 

Language: EO 14425 

Sec. 2.  Comprehensive Policy and Regulatory Review.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the United States Trade Representative, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall submit to the President a report that assesses all executive department and agency (agency) regulations, guidance, and other agency policies affecting ranchers and that provides recommendations for action to promote financial viability and enhanced market access for American ranchers consistent with this order.

EO 14424

Sec. 2.  Robust Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act.  (a)  The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall, consistent with the Act, and all other applicable law:

(i)    prioritize and expand investigations into potential violations of the Act by packers and other covered entities, with particular attention to unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices; undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages; and practices that restrain commerce or manipulate prices;

(ii)   increase resources, staffing, and investigative capacity within the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service, the USDA Office of General Counsel, and the USDA Office of Inspector General;

(iii)  coordinate closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ), in keeping with the September 26, 2025, memorandum of understanding between the USDA and the DOJ Antitrust Division, to refer cases for appropriate enforcement and to pursue complementary antitrust actions where appropriate; and

(iv)   within 60 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a report detailing current enforcement actions, resource needs, and a plan for heightened enforcement for the coming year.

(b)  The Secretary shall review existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise them to strengthen protections for producers and ensure effective deterrence of prohibited conduct.

Coordinator and Coordination 

Description:  Announcement of a potential value chain coordination opportunity, and of a coordinator at USDA to effectuate many of the other parts of these EOs and USDA announcements. 

Application window: NA

Eligible entities: NA

More information/link(s): The Regional Processor Continuity Effort also has no further details and does not specify what type of program it will be. If this were a technical assistance program such as outlined in the EO 14424, it would be a welcome addition as mentioned above. However, the wording of “to strengthen regional processing capacity and improve business resilience across the agricultural supply chain” could also indicate a meat processor-specific version of a regional business center, which would also be a welcome addition. 

The establishment of a coordinator position would help ensure resources reach small and very small processors appropriately, and that plants have support in implementing scale-appropriate regulation. This position would likely need to be informed by a council of small and very small processors, similar to the recommendations of the National Advisory Council on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) before it was cancelled in early 2025. 

Language: Additionally, USDA is establishing a Regional Processor Continuity Effort designed to strengthen regional processing capacity and improve business resilience across the agricultural supply chain. Through this initiative, the Department will provide timely coordination and support to help maintain operational continuity during periods of disruption. A key component of the plan involves actively connecting sellers with prospective domestic buyers, ensuring that regional processors can keep products moving, stabilize local markets, and maintain reliable access points for producers and consumers alike

EO 14424 Sec. 3 

(vi)   establishing a coordinator position within USDA to implement these actions and serve as a conduit to ranchers and small and medium-sized processors.

Analysis

The interventions listed above have not been fully detailed by this Administration, making it impossible to adequately analyze them for potential impacts. The announcements linked throughout this blog post constitute the sum total of information provided, other than in the case of the SPUR program, which has hosted a further webinar. 

Many of these programs function as direct subsidies, not just strategic investments in the sector or as an opportunity for more structural changes to regulations. These investments and regulatory changes are important to continue to change our food and agricultural systems towards more just and sustainable modes of production. 

While NSAC values the nominal recognition of domestic local processors and smaller, diversified farming and ranching operations,  most of the programs named above lack detail, fall well short of the scale needed, and shortsightedly focus only on beef.  Even if they were to be fully implemented – which is in serious doubt – they would fall short of making meaningful strides toward a more sustainable livestock sector.

The post What’s Behind USDA’s Beef and Meat Processing Push? appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“Since 2020, ad-hoc farm payments have exceeded $75 billion, and even more if including COVID-19 relief. The Harvest Fuel Relief Program, the latest supplemental assistance program announced this week by USDA, adds another $8 billion to that total. Yet today, countless farms nationwide remain in crisis: farm bankruptcies hit a six year high this spring and farmers are carrying heavier debt loads and are more pessimistic about their future. There’s zero doubt that farmers deserve swift federal action, but these one-time payments are a failing solution. To begin to break the cycle, farmers and rural communities need investments that build reliable and resilient domestic markets for American farmers and support input-reducing conservation practices. Now is the time to reimagine a farm safety that sustainably builds farmer resilience to market disruptions rather than incentivizing overproduction and contributing to the very problem it seeks to solve,” said Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

The program’s commodity specific payment rates for Title I commodities will be released in November, while specialty crop and other non-Title I commodity payments will be determined on an unspecified timeline. In the press release, USDA solicited data from non-Title I farmers – including specialty crop growers – on the impacts of high fuel costs on their operations to inform how those program payments should be calculated. The lack of specificity in next steps for specialty crop growers is particularly concerning.

NSAC will continue to advocate for the effective and equitable distribution of these funds as well as long-term solutions that build farm resilience and reduce the need for ad hoc spending programs in the future.

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Release: New USDA Payments Offer Little Hope for a Brighter Future appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

A new US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rule geared towards increasing healthy food options for families that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has generated confusion for farmers, farmers markets, and other local food stores that accept SNAP or plan to. The rule is currently set to take effect on November 4, 2026. This blog post provides an overview of the updated stocking requirements and provides examples of how farmers and other local food vendors can continue to accept SNAP under this updated rule.  

SNAP Spending Benefits Farmers 

SNAP benefits are a monthly cash benefit that supports families in purchasing staple food items. The program has evolved significantly over time from its paper food stamp origins to today, when families spend their benefits via electronic debit cards at a variety of in-person and online locations (grocery stores, farm stands, corner stores, online, etc.). For nearly three decades, USDA has implemented initiatives that encourage SNAP spending directly with farmers. While this spending is small relative to the total annual SNAP spending, these are nevertheless meaningful purchases for farmers and their communities.

2025 Highlights 

Any farmer, retailer, or farmers market must apply to accept SNAP benefits with USDA. There are two ways, called Criteria A and B, that entities can qualify as SNAP retailers. Staple grocery foods¹ comprise the majority of most farms’ or farmers markets’ sales, and these farms can qualify by Criterion B, which considers the overall value of sales. Criterion B is unaffected by the new rules. Farms, markets, or other local food stores that sell a significant amount of prepared foods, value-added items, nursery items, non-food items, or foods that are not considered staple foods¹ must qualify by Criterion A. The new rules have stricter requirements to qualify by Criterion A. 

Updated Standards 

Last year, the Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA; formerly the Food and Nutrition Service or FNS) posted a proposed rule to the Federal Register to update the staple food stocking requirements for SNAP authorized vendors. In May, FNA posted the final rule that is poised to go into effect November 4, 2026. These new stocking requirements apply to retailers authorized under Criterion A only, and do not affect entities that use Criterion B. In order to be an authorized vendor, retailers’ inventory must include: 

• Seven varieties in each of four staple food categories—dairy, grains, protein, and vegetables or fruits,
• Three units for each of the varieties, and
• One perishable item in three of the four categories. 

For example, a store could stock the following dairy product options to comply: 

• Gallon liquid dairy milk 
• Half-gallon liquid oat milk 
• Quart-size plain yogurt 
• 16 oz block of cheddar cheese 
• 2 cup bag of shredded mozzarella cheese
• 2 cup bag of plant-based cheese
• 16 oz sour cream  

The store would have to stock at least 3 units for each of these foods (for a total of 21 dairy units). This offering would fulfill one of the three perishable food category requirements. USDA offers an interactive calculator to visualize this further. 

Minimal Impact on Farmers Markets 

This new stocking requirement does not apply to any vendor that utilizes Criterion B. Most farmers markets, farmers, and specialty local food stores, such as a butcher, qualify as an authorized vendor based on Criterion B. In order to meet this requirement, more than 50% of all sales must come from the sale of staple food items. 

Below are a few examples of farmers and local food businesses and whether they would qualify as a SNAP vendor using Criterion B. 

At this time, stakeholders do not anticipate significant impact on direct marketing farm operations or farmers market settings. However, these updated standards may impact the ability of corner stores and small, non-traditional grocery outlets to maintain their authorization. 

To learn more, reference either the final rule or the latest guidance from FNA. Any questions regarding this policy should be directed to: SM.FN.RPMDHQ-WEB@usda.gov.

The post Unpacking the New SNAP Stocking Requirements  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Urban farming is often portrayed as raised wooden beds or community garden plots on overgrown vacant lots in cities around the country. The more prominent, but untold story is how urban farming provides access to land for beginning farmers or those without the means to purchase it, or how these farmers creatively manage limited resources, rebuild soil health, and develop productive businesses with minimal federal support. 

With stakeholder support, urban agriculture’s progress generated greater recognition of the need for formal and coordinated support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) – established in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill, P.L. 115-334) – has quickly grown in name recognition among urban and indoor producers, community gardens, and NSAC member networks. Funding for the Office and its programs has remained a top priority for NSAC Members since its creation. Earlier this year, NSAC touted the efforts of the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Urban Agriculture Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance cooperative agreements, a public-private partnership that utilizes community-based technical assistance providers to generate a farm to FSA pipeline. 

Since 2020, USDA has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in promoting the development of urban agriculture and innovative production. OUAIP has awarded nearly 200 grants and 146 cooperative agreements in local communities across 43 states and Puerto Rico. It has dutifully implemented the Federal Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production, delivering recommendations to previous Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and updating recommendations for current Secretary Brooke Rollins. It established 27 County Committees that focused on the unique needs of urban agriculture.

Yet as the federal government’s fiscal year comes to an end, there are an increasing number of reasons to believe that USDA is slowly undoing the progress it has made. 

Real Results for Farmers

OUAIP implements a number of initiatives, and one of the most visible is the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (UAIP) grants. Since 2020, OUAIP has awarded roughly 200 grants of more than $50 million to community-based organizations, schools, local governments, and other stakeholders to design or implement projects that: 

• Train farmers in production techniques suited for their unique environments and scale, 
• Establish incubator farms or tool sharing programs that ease barriers for land and capital access for newer or beginning farmers, 
• Develop youth or workforce development programs for aspiring farmers using indoor and hydroponic production technologies, 
• And expanding access to nutritious foods through garden networks or improved aggregation systems, 
• Or other activities that promote and increase the capacity of urban agriculture and innovative production practices. 

One NSAC member, Sprout, received a 2024 grant to expand The New Orleans Growers Tool Lending Library.  This partnership between Sprout and the New Orleans ToolBank provides affordable access to heavy-duty professional-grade tools to reduce cost barriers, encourage cooperativism, and support the viability of urban farms and community gardens. The partnership provides new and small-scale producers with access to a wide variety of agricultural and non-agricultural tools- from two-wheel tractors and no-till drills to ladders and chainsaws. Beginning, small-scale, and urban producers often have limited capital, storage, or experience with specialized tools. This program allows farmers to try out new production techniques and tools at low cost and reduce risks associated with storing costly equipment on-farm. 

One Tool Lending Library member said, 

“So far I have used the gas-powered t-post driver and a battery-operated chainsaw this year. I run a 3,000 sq ft operation. It would make no sense for me to buy, maintain, and store those tools just to use them a couple times a year. But those two tools turned full days of work into less than an hour and that is the type of efficiency I desperately need. Not to mention that they show you how to use stuff too!” 

Two Years of Radio Silence

Funding for OUAIP is limited to what can be secured through the federal annual appropriations process, meaning that stakeholders must annually advocate to Congress in order for the program to receive any funding at all. As a result, funding can fluctuate over time, even to the point where it almost went unfunded in FY2024. Thankfully, with tremendous work from stakeholders in the field and in Congress, the program has maintained relatively steady annual funding since its first appropriation, including $7 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and $5 million in FY2026. 

Unfortunately, the last time OUAIP made awards was in FY24. Congressionally mandated funding totaling $12 million has been withheld with no explanation from USDA. Investments for beginning or emerging farmers and community food systems are especially needed as farmers face limited access to USDA Service Center resources and families face higher costs of food and fewer federal benefits to offset those costs. 

Recently, two dozen Congressional members delivered a letter to USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation Undersecretary Richard Fordyce and Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Colton Buckley requesting the release of the program funds along with an explanation for the delays. 

Farmers Lose Their Seat at the Table 

This year has been particularly challenging for farmers. In addition to higher input costs and loss of local markets, there has been a significant loss of USDA employees leaving county USDA offices short-staffed. This can lead to longer wait times for program applications or less capacity for staff to provide more hands-on assistance. 

The good news: Local USDA Service Centers are equipped to be responsive to unique local conditions with regular input from farmers. Since 1935, Centers have offered opportunities for farmer leadership and oversight of local resources and program implementation, and since 2020, this includes dedicated opportunities to gather input from urban farmers. 

The bad news: farmers and technical assistance providers affiliated with the 27 Urban County Committees have been notified that FSA will not be conducting elections for open seats this year due to an expiration of the pilot program. The 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to establish urban and suburban committees to operate for no fewer than five years, but no language indicates that it must be limited to only five years. 

The lapse of elections risks further underserving farmers in the local area and seeding distrust of the agency.

California’s two urban county committees have helped to inform our urban agriculture program outreach and implementation, and have identified how FSA programs can be integrated in the LA and Bay Area urban and peri-urban farming communities. These committee voices are invaluable, and the investment in these seats shows a commitment to the growth of our agriculture economy and communities, and to American growers, shared Keely Cervantes, Policy & Organizing Manager for Community Alliance with Family Farmers. 

Solutions are in Reach 

Before the end of 2026, Congress has an opportunity to address these burgeoning issues affecting urban producers. 

The Senate Agriculture Committee and the House have indicated their ongoing bipartisan support for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production and associated Urban and Suburban County Committees. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act (H.R. 7567) and the Agricultural Act of 2026 (Senate proposal) include nearly identical policy changes for OUAIP. 

Both bills take steps to expand and improve the existing programs and initiatives, including: 

• Directing OUAIP to develop resources for the unique conservation, resource management, and business needs of urban and indoor agriculture. 
• Creating a new subgrant category within the existing urban and innovative production grants that funnels more funding directly to farmers. 
• Permanently authorizing cooperative agreements with technical assistance providers. 
• Removing the pilot status of the urban and suburban county committees. 
• Expanding the scale of food waste and composting initiatives. 

As a potential farm bill advances this year, these provisions are essential to the ongoing success of OUAIP. Additional changes, such as protecting the existing 27 named urban and suburban county committees and providing mandatory funding of $15 million annually, should be considered to safeguard previous efforts and allow sufficient funding to meet program demand. 

The post The Uncertain Future of Urban Agriculture at USDA appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: After Tense Markup, Farm Bill’s True Test Awaits on the Senate Floor 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 16, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, in response to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s reconvened markup of the Agricultural Act of 2026:

“Today’s passage is a step forward, although the work to craft a farm bill that levels the playing field for family farmers and makes bold new investments is just beginning. Farmers and ranchers are facing steep challenges – from rising costs to unstable and uncertain markets – and status quo farm policy is not a serious solution. They need and deserve a farm bill that invests new, permanent funding across all titles rather than picking winners and losers. NSAC appreciates the scattered positives in this bill – including mandatory funding for local food programs – yet remains committed to working toward a bipartisan farm bill that eliminates deep cuts to popular, oversubscribed conservation programs, levels the playing field for family farmers, and invests meaningful, permanent resources in building domestic markets for local and regional farmers.”

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s passage of the updated Agricultural Act of 2026 succeeded on a party-line vote, 12-11. Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for future updates, analysis, and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization. Find NSAC’s deep dive analysis of the original Senate ‘discussion draft’ farm bill here, and analysis of the Committee’s August 2026 markup here.

###

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: After Tense Markup, Farm Bill’s True Test Awaits on the Senate Floor appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On Thursday, August 6, 2026, the Senate Agriculture Committee convened to consider the Agricultural Act of 2026, the farm bill draft presented by Chairman John Boozman (R-AR). The wide-ranging markup covered every title of the farm bill –  from commodity programs and nutrition to research and agriculture credit – and the consideration of amendments along the way.

As the Committee debated the bill’s commodity title, Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) offered an amendment to increase transparency and accountability, enforcing so-called “actively engaged in farming” rules. A portion of the subsequent exchange between Senators Welch, Grassley (R-IA), and Chairman Boozman is excerpted below. 

Senator Welch: One of the things of concern to me is that some of the commodity programs, the support goes to people who don’t drive tractors…When I learned that 92,000 people in urban areas received about 2.6 billion dollars, that’s of concern to me because I would like the support we provide to agriculture to go to people on tractors, not in cities.

Senator Grassley: I think you and I believe that people that are actively engaged ought to be the only ones receiving farm payments….

Chairman Boozman: I would ask Senator Welch, if this is so important, why is it that dairy programs don’t have any actively engaged requirements?…

Senator Welch:  First of all, the dairy farmers are on the farm! I mean, in dairy it’s unbelievable what’s happening. Dairy farmers, they’re not only working on the farm, they’re working off the farm. The only way dairy farmers can make it is that they’re milking the cows, and then one of the partners is out there working in the city for a wage job because they can’t make it. So, you know, bottom line here is that on the accountability question, that should be a principle that we apply across the board. Whether it’s the SNAP program or it’s a support program, the intention of Congress is that the actual farmer get the money or the actual person who’s in need of nutrition gets the nutrition aid. So when it comes to this principle of accountability, I’m all in on any program.

Senator Grassley: Yes, sir. I still haven’t figured out this opposition to knowing where this money goes. And if it’s going to somebody on Wall Street that doesn’t ever see the farm, never gets dirt under their fingernails, I think it’s pretty darn simple.

These actively engaged in farming (AEF) rules, which apply to several of the largest agricultural support programs, are theoretically intended to ensure that taxpayer dollars support actual farmers in need, not passive investors and speculators. While the amendment and bill failed that day, the debate highlighted a fundamental question facing policymakers: how do we keep the “farm” in the farm safety net?

What’s the Problem?

The US operates a wide range of farm safety net programs to provide support for American farmers and ranchers in times of need. For example, commodity programs like the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program were conceived to provide financial support for farmers when low commodity prices or yields threatened farm viability. Evolving out of predecessor programs dating back to the first farm bill in 1933, the stated goal of these programs is clear: keep farmers on their land. 

Problems arise, however, when programs aimed at keeping farmers afloat during tough times instead contribute to the financial portfolios of investors and speculators. For example, through the early 2000s, many southern landowners received rice commodity program payments despite their land no longer being farmed at all. The failure to enforce robust AEF requirements has benefited the largest landowners, raised land values that squeezed active farmers off their land, and allowed absentee landlords to increase rental rates to capture these payments. In some cases, landlords simply cancelled their leases since they could make more from direct government payments than through their rental agreements. Today, there remain approximately 1.5 million acres that receive commodity payments for rice even though that particular farm no longer produces rice.

AEF requirements are a key tool to ensure that farm program payments actually go to hardworking farmers. This blog post reviews current and proposed ways of defining and enforcing AEF standards, and argues that Congress and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) must close enforcement loopholes to responsibly and effectively administer farm safety net programs that support actual farmers and ranchers, as intended.

The “Actively Engaged in Farming” Requirement

Congress first implemented AEF requirements in 1987 as part of the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act. While earlier farm bills introduced payment limits for individual program participants, USDA, Congress, and agricultural stakeholders began to recognize that payment limits alone were not enough to secure the integrity of farm payment programs. Instead, individuals had dodged payment limits by reorganizing their businesses into corporations, joint ventures, and other legal farm entities to maximize their payments from any given program. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 1987 describes the problem: “Farm reorganizations among producers receiving payments at or near the payment limit allow producers to avoid the payment limit and increase program costs… As more and more producers near or meet the limit, the number of new persons from farm reorganizations among those producers can increase correspondingly.” 

Ultimately, the GAO recommended that Congress and the USDA limit farm program payments only to individuals who are “actively engaged in the entity’s farming operation, with actively engaged defined as a significant independent contribution of capital, land or equipment and labor or management” (emphasis in original). Those first AEF requirements were adopted in 1987, and the standard has been refined several times since. 

Since AEF’s initial introduction, the GAO has published a number of reports highlighting consistent shortcomings in the application of these requirements. Reports from the early 2000s suggested a need for more stringent definitions of terms, including “significant contribution” and  “active personal management.” GAO also concluded that “USDA does not review a valid sample of farm operation plans to determine compliance and thus does not ensure that only eligible recipients receive payments.” Congress and USDA have each made several changes since AEF requirements were first introduced, changing how AEF requirements apply and how they are defined, while GAO has consistently determined those changes were falling short. 

Current AEF Requirements

Today, statute requires that payment recipients make significant contributions to: 1) land, capital, equipment, or a combination thereof, and 2) active personal labor, active personal management, or a combination thereof (7 U.S.C. §1308-1). What counts as a “significant contribution” in each category, and across business structures, is formally defined in USDA regulations (7 CFR Part 1400) and is summarized below. 

• Land, capital, and equipment contributions must be at least 50% of what is necessary for the farm operation within each respective category (e.g., at least half of the land necessary for farm operations). If the person or entity contributes across a combination of land, capital, or equipment, their combined contribution needs only to account for 30% of their share of the farming operation’s total value.
• Active personal labor contributions must be either 1000 hours per year or half of the total hours needed to run the farm. 
• Active personal management contributions must be regular and continuous and be at least 25% of the management hours required for the farm or at least 500 hours of management time. 

Each of these AEF requirements is applied slightly differently across varying types of farm entities, including individuals, Trusts, qualified pass-through entities, corporations, LLCs, and estates. 

Crucially, landowners almost always qualify as  AEF on land that they own, even if no other contributions are made. The only exception is for landowners who rent out farmland purely under flat cash rental agreements because they do not share in any of the risk of the farm operation. Flat cash rental agreements are different from sharecropping or flexible rents, where landowners and tenants share in the profits and losses based on the farm’s production. Therefore, because landlords with flat cash leases do not equitably share risk with their tenants, these landlords are not considered to be AEF unless they meet another requirement. If married, both spouses are assumed to be actively engaged if one spouse meets the requirements, and for businesses composed only of family members, the requirement to contribute land, equipment, or capital is waived for family members as long as they make a significant contribution of personal labor and/or personal management. A family member is defined as “a person to whom another member in the farming operation is related as a lineal ancestor, lineal descendant, sibling, first cousin, niece, nephew, spouse, or otherwise by marriage”.

Where the Actively Engaged Requirement Is, and Is Not, Applied

Not every farm program, even programs that make direct cash payments, has a requirement that recipients be actively engaged in farming. ARC and PLC, the largest commodity price and income support programs, both have actively engaged requirements, as do Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL), which are short-term loans to provide cash flow by using crops as collateral. Some ad hoc income-support programs such as the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program have an AEF requirement, while others, including the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) Program, crop insurance, and conservation programs, do not. 

As Senator Boozman noted in his comments during the recent farm bill markup, the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, which provides income support for dairy farmers, does not have an AEF requirement. While there is no specific reason to exclude dairy operations from this requirement – as Senator Welch notes – the structure of the DMC program and dairy operations themselves greatly reduce the likelihood of improper payments to non-farmers. The DMC program – unlike ARC and PLC – is more akin to a quasi-insurance product, requiring a premium paid by the farmer to receive program benefits. Dairy operators also log the most on-farm hours and fewer off-farm hours of any farm type, and more than 97% of US dairy farms are family-owned. Additionally, if a dairy farm ceases operation or changes what it produces, its eligibility for DMC participation would immediately be impacted. In contrast, ARC and PLC payments are administered based on a farm’s “base acres”, which in many cases were determined by that farm’s planting decisions many years prior. Therefore, current payments made to farms (and to investors) can be for a crop the farm has not grown in decades (see here for more information on base acres). 

Ultimately, requirements that payments go only to individuals who are actively engaged in farming are designed to maintain the integrity of the farm safety net. Congress created farm support programs for farmers, people on tractors and with dirt under their fingernails, not investors and speculators. Robust AEF rules would make sure that is the case.

Loopholes and Exceptions

Unfortunately, a series of loopholes means that billions of dollars meant to support farmers are improperly spent. In practice, individuals and entities self-certify their actively engaged status. Farm businesses and individuals must file forms with the FSA that identify all members of their farm business (form CCC-901) as well as a farm operating plan that describes the contributions made to land/capital/equipment and labor/management (form CCC-902I for individuals and CCC-902E for entities). Once filed, these self-certifications are reviewed by the local FSA County Committee or state office and are considered valid unless there is a major change in the farm operation, such as the addition or removal of members or changes in management. Each year, FSA staff at the local, state, and national level audit a small number of farm operations. Farms can be flagged for end of year review if they had a major restructuring or payments above a certain threshold, and they can also be manually flagged for review if staff have some reason to believe that the information is inaccurate. 

Since AEF requirements were first introduced, the GAO has continued to consistently find that they fall short of their stated goal. For instance, a 2018 GAO study found that an average of $884,495 went to each of the top 50 recipients of farm program payments in 2015, each with an average of eight members receiving individual payments – only one of whom claimed personal labor as their qualifying AEF requirement. 

FSA oversight of AEF eligibility remains a challenge for several reasons. The scope of activities that constitute active personal management remains sufficiently vague to allow for broad and subjective determinations of qualification. We discuss this in more detail below. Further, FSA methods for verifying AEF claims rely on interviews with payment recipients, which previously have been shown to result in overstatements of farming activities, rehearsed statements, and unverified claims made with help from hired consultants – which is more common for large operations. More recently, GAO found that FSA did not consistently maintain compliance enforcement efforts and many offices failed to conduct audit interviews at all. This report also found that nearly all FSA reviewed claims of active personal management qualification met the required criteria. By FSA’s own determination, this high compliance rate is due to the vague definition and subjective nature of determining what activities qualify under active personal management, and the reliance of consultants by large farming operations claiming AEF for their clients. 

Defining “Active Personal Management” Continues to be a Challenge

A 2015 USDA rule clarified the definition of significant contribution of active personal management, and limited the number of managers – individuals claiming active personal management – per non-family farm operation to three for large or complex operations. However, the rule applied the manager restriction only for non-family farms, while allowing for unlimited managers under the active personal management criteria for family farms. This distinction is critical given that over 90% of all farms are classified as family-farms. While the vast majority of family-farms are just that – actual working family partnerships growing food and crops – this loophole allows a small number of the largest corporations to exploit farm payments. 

Prior to the 2015 rule, GAO documented overuse of the “active personal management” criteria to meet AEF requirements. This 2004 GAO report found that “99% of payment recipients asserted they met eligibility requirements through active personal management.” Even following the rule revision, a more recent GAO report still found that management formed the basis of 75% of AEF qualification claims and nearly one-quarter of AEF claims were based on management alone. 

Since the 2015 USDA rule changes to AEF requirements, little has changed regarding the definitions. Rather than tightening the AEF definitions and strengthening enforcement, Congress has instead expanded the types and number of entities that may qualify for payments for each farm operation. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the number of family members who qualify for payments, while USDA published a subsequent rule that automatically qualified those members under AEF requirements if they received income from the farm. Essentially, under the 2018 rules, a broad range of family members are automatically assumed to meet AEF requirements without the need to certify contributions to the farm operation. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) of 2025 further eroded program integrity by allowing absentee investors to receive payments through S-corps and other pass-through entities. While each of those entities is still required in theory to meet the AEF requirements, it is clear the definitions – particularly regarding active personal management – and enforcement remain sufficiently vague that payments are flowing to individuals who have found loopholes in the system to qualify for payments without ever setting foot on the farm. 

The Environmental Working Group, as previously mentioned, recently published findings that over 92,000 farm program recipients live in major metropolitan areas around the country, far from the farms on which they are supposedly “actively engaged in farming.” Between 2020 and 2025, these individuals received over $2.6 billion in farm program payments. Other reporting has indicated ultrawealthy individuals are increasingly buying farmland as investments and including farm safety program payments as part of their expected return on investment, pricing new and existing farmers out of the market and further concentrating farmland in the hands of a decreasing number of individuals and corporations. 

While AEF requirements are closely intertwined with payment limit rules, AEF requirements specifically serve to ensure that payments are actually reaching hardworking farmers, and not absentee billionaire investors or speculators. Payment limits – which NSAC has previously examined in more depth and will be the subject of future NSAC blogs – promote responsible taxpayer spending and ensure funds are available for the small and midsized farms most in need of support. 

Proposed Changes to Actively Engaged Requirements

Congress has considered several proposals to amend AEF requirements over the past several years. Senator Grassley, a longtime champion of strengthening farm program integrity and closing AEF loopholes, has introduced several bills and farm bill amendments. In the OBBB debate, NSAC supported Senator Grassley’s amendment to codify in statute the definition of “significant contribution of active personal management”, and limit the number of individuals per farm operation allowed to claim the active personal management designation to one person or legal entity per farming operation.

This amendment alone was estimated to save $5 billion in improper payments made to individuals and entities not truly actively engaged in the farm operation. Senator Grassley withdrew his amendment after receiving assurances – as he vocalized in the recent August markup – from Senate Republican leadership that such a proposal would receive attention and support in future farm bill discussions. This amendment was identical to approved language in both of the House and Senate 2018 Farm Bills passed out of each respective chamber. The language, however, was stripped out of the final bill in the joint conference committee process. 

During the most recent farm bill markup in August 2026, Senator Welch joined Senator Grassley in leading the effort to strengthen the integrity of farm programs and submitted a series of amendments that addressed components of AEF requirements, payment limits, and other oversight and enforcement mechanisms. For example, among Senator Welch’s amendments were proposals to:  

• Amend the definition of “significant contribution of active personal management” and limit farming operations to one person qualifying under that AEF category (Welch 12)
• Allow any number of individuals to qualify under AEF with 1000 combined hours of active personal labor or active personal management; limit total farm program payments to $250,000 regardless of individuals eligible for payments; return Marketing Assistance Loan gains and Loan Deficiency Payments to $75,000; and remove the special treatment for peanuts allowing for double payments (Welch 13)
• Remove the qualified pass-through entity loopholes created by OBBB that allow for a nearly unlimited number of entities per farm to qualify for program payments (Welch 15) 
• Require family and non-family farms to retain records when more than three members are receiving payments or one member qualifies under AEF through active personal management, and require FSA to conduct audits of these records when ARC/PLC error rates exceed 6% (Welch 17)
• Require family and non-family operations to meet the same AEF requirements, while allowing for all individuals who qualify under personal labor requirements to qualify for payments (Welch 19)

As outlined at the top of this post, these amendments sparked a back-and-forth between Chairman Boozman, Senator Welch, and Senator Grassley, among others. While the specific amendment introduced for debate at that moment would have merely required an audit of farm payments without enacting any changes to AEF or payment limits (Welch 17, noted above), the exchange highlighted the continued challenge of strengthening AEF requirements despite their widely recognized common sense and pragmatism. NSAC will continue to advocate for stronger definitions and enforcement mechanisms related to AEF requirements to ensure that farm program payments go to hardworking farmers, and our agricultural programs keep the “farm” in farm safety net. 

The post Keeping the “Farm” in the Farm Safety Net appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.