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.

As the old saying goes, one bad apple can rot the whole bunch. In 2026, a more appropriate twist is that a bad batch of lettuce can lead to entire harvests being lost, not to mention the public health impacts. The recent Cyclospora outbreak, produced by a confluence of international and domestic policy and business decisions, has drastically impacted much of the US domestic produce market. From July 18 to August 8, US sales of iceberg lettuce fell 25.4%, and prepacked salads dipped 34.2%. Rather than impacting lettuce alone, the sales of a variety of vegetables and specialty crops have also dropped.

A driving factor in the significant drop in produce sales can be attributed to the murky nature of this specific recall. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the government agency responsible for produce food safety – initially named Taylor Farms in its recall request, but then retracted this statement. This back and forth is due, in part, to the complicated nature of traceback and attribution science. Yet amidst the backdrop of significant staff shortages at FDA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), it is entirely fair to question the extent to which government decisions have played a role in the Cyclospora outbreak.

As consumers dart through grocery store aisles, they rarely have the time or the information needed to consider complex international food safety protocols, administrative and funding changes, changing climatic conditions, and convoluted supply chains that shape food safety.

 All of these factors have led to the conditions that produced this most recent outbreak. 

Thankfully, the policy solutions necessary to foster strong food safety in the US aren’t secret: we need to reinvest in the nation’s capacity to prevent and recall contaminated food in the broader food system, while also supporting a higher proportion of diversified farms that sell into local markets.  All of this will systemically help reduce the spread of pathogens of human concern.

This blog post explores the root causes of the current food safety outbreak and the corrective actions that can be taken across farm scales to reduce the future likelihood of food safety outbreaks, such as Cyclospora. 

Food Safety Funding Context

In the last few years, much of the already understaffed federal food safety system has been hit with further punches. These punches have impacted a produce and meat food safety apparatus that was already dangerously embattled. For years, FDA has fallen short of its goals for international food safety inspections, and it has failed to fully leverage its food safety partnership with Mexico’s regulatory authorities, leading to the increased likelihood of harmful outbreaks. 

For years, domestic produce associations have often called for greater parity between international and domestic inspection. Some members of the industry have occasionally claimed that international produce growers and food manufacturers may be able to outcompete on price due to having lower regulatory need for food safety investment, and greater assistance by their governments. 

In the U.S., while some local food safety funding does exist, such as the Local Food Safety Collaborative hosted at the National Farmers Union or the Food Safety Outreach Program, it is a relatively small amount and moreover has also remained flat in recent years. 

Cyclospora and Climate

Amidst the backdrop of an undermined food safety apparatus, changing environmental conditions can allow new outbreaks to occur.

Cyclospora is a protozoan parasite, often spread through feces from humans. It reproduces better in hotter temperatures and in longer warm seasons. Decisions decades in the making, such as the location, or absence, of human sewage facilities, along with the effects of a warming climate, may have contributed to the conditions that facilitate the wider spread of Cyclospora. 

However, there are opportunities to reduce risk at multiple scales, some of which can mitigate the effects of climate change and help address threats it poses. 

Local and Diversified Food Safety – Lower Risk 

A food safety hazard is any biological, chemical, or physical agent that has the potential to cause illness, injury, or adverse health effects when the food is consumed, as defined in Food Safety Modernization Act-derived policy and enforced by the FDA. Especially with biological agents that reproduce given favorable conditions, there is really no such thing as a zero-risk food safety system. Rather, there is only a system in which risks have been appropriately mitigated to feasible levels. Therefore, food safety is the reduction of hazards to the extent possible through risk assessments conducted at the farm, facility, and industry levels. 

It has become accepted among scholars in the field that a zero-risk approach is not attainable. A zero-risk approach often produces undesired outcomes and can contradict other desired outcomes within a food system, such as mitigation of food waste and loss. 

While the definition of risk is not based on a rule, and hence law, in the same way as hazard, it is commonly understood and applied by nonbinding guidance that FDA has produced. There, risk is described as “the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm”. So, due to the shorter, lower consumer-to-producer nature and shorter geographic distance, they have inherent traceability characteristics that reduce risk. Specifically, the shortened supply chain allows for fewer sites of contamination, and their smaller volumes reduce the latter part of the definition of risk. 

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and its many member groups have historically advocated for the food safety apparatus to reflect the safety benefits of local food systems, based on evidence to this point, even before the formation of the Food Safety Modernization Act. 

Harm at Scale 

Larger dynamics in the agricultural industry, including but not limited to access to crop insurance and credit, as well as automation that favor large specialty crop producers, have been contributing factors toward an industry that is highly concentrated. As an example, Taylor Farms – the business that was initially linked to the 2026 Cyclospora outbreak – supplies between 11% and 40% of various individual produce categories in the US. While there is little evidence to suggest there are major differences in the application of food safety practices across the scale of farms, this means that any hazard that makes it through different risk assessments and control point interventions reaches a much larger consumer base, and hence has a higher overall risk.  

Funding and Policy Solutions

While we do not know the true source of the recent Cyclospora contamination at this moment, there are a variety of proven ways to reduce risk, including by supporting local food systems. Investing in education across scales, as well as restoring the ability to track potential spreads of pathogens, remain some of NSAC’s key priorities under this Administration. 

Local Food Safety Education – Practical Produce Safety for Farmers 

The key to supporting inherently lower-risk local food systems is to help ensure that the other side of the equation is addressed: the probability of occurrence of harm. Small and diversified farmers need food safety knowledge that utilizes best practices in adult education, recognizes structural differences in their farms, and showcases conservation co-management practices. 

Some of these efforts can be supported through continued funding for the Food Safety Outreach Program in future appropriation cycles. This funding can also be best deployed when the program operates on a consistent basis, not under a rushed 30-day application window as happened this year.  Other interventions may require funding from other sources, such as supporting a new curriculum – the Practical Produce Safety for Farmers curricula, which will be released in the coming year.

Federal and Scientific Investments

While supporting local food systems is a key component of supporting food safety in the US, restoration of previous food safety monitoring capacity is a large part of it as well. The following actions below should be taken to enhance food safety monitoring and oversight:

• Congressional oversight of the FDA to ensure it meets its international obligations
• Increased surveillance testing funding, and funding to coordinate across the 30 agencies covering food safety in the US
• Increased funding for the state FDA-State Produce Safety Implementation Cooperative Agreement Program, specifically Objective 3 Education and Assistance
  • This program ensures states have the capacity to provide education to local farms as well

Moving food safety forward for consumers, farmers, and other stakeholders will require investment across scales and industries, but specifically because of capital constraints for smaller operators, it must include adequate and dedicated federal funding for smaller operators. 

The post Cyclospora, Climate, and Solutions to Strengthen Food Safety appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: NSAC Welcomes Attention on Local Processors and Farmer Protection, Concrete Action Needed

Washington, DC, Tuesday, September 8th, 2026 – On Friday, September 4, the Trump Administration released two Executive Orders (EOs): the Promoting Fair Competition in Livestock Markets and Expanding Market Access for American Producers and Supporting America’s Ranchers. The announcement follows the unveiling of the Strengthening Processing for US Ranchers grants and loans within the Ranchers First Initiative. 

The new EOs outline a host of potential interventions in the cattle and meat production and processing markets across three federal agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The potential interventions that may benefit small and diversified meat and poultry farmers and ranchers with proper implementation are: Robust Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and Expanding Interstate Markets for Eligible Meat Products.

“Increasing small and very small meat processors’ access to broader markets and resources by investing in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) Program, field-based technical assistance, and a coordinating position at USDA-FSIS are potential steps in the right direction. As always, program implementation is where the rubber meets the road. USDA should prioritize input from field-based stakeholders as they implement these EOs and understand that for many farmers, their processing issues don’t end with cattle. Continued investment and technical resources are more important than deregulation to solve the issue of meat industry consolidation,” said Connor Kippe, Food Systems Integrity Policy Specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC).

“Robust investment in the Packers and Stockyards Administration is critical to protecting farmers and ranchers. While the EO signals the potential for stronger Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) enforcement, this announcement stands in direct conflict with prior actions this Administration has taken to weaken PSA enforcement, including planned rescissions of several PSA rules promulgated during the previous Administration. Until USDA takes substantive steps to address the anti-competitive landscape currently harming farmers and ranchers, these announcements will continue to ring hollow,” said Duncan Orlander, NSAC Fair Competition Policy Specialist.

NSAC looks forward to continued engagement with this Administration on how best to continue to support small and very small processors, and the farmers and consumers they serve.

###

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: NSAC Welcomes Attention on Local Processors and Farmer Protection, Concrete Action Needed appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This post was originally published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), an NSAC member, and was authored by Nora Shields-Cutler, IATP’s Program Associate for Community Food Systems. The original post is available on IATP’s website.  

While the initiative announcement makes some encouraging promises, the amount of funding doesn’t come close to the $1 billion of local school food funding canceled in 2025.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced its “Harvest to Hallways” initiative this week, outlining approximately $125 million in investments and support for school nutrition. While we’re encouraged to see public investment in school meals, these investments don’t come close to covering the $1 billion that states lost when the administration canceled the Local Food for Schools (LFS) funding last year. The administration canceled these LFS funds under the grounds that they “no longer effectuate[d] the goals of the agency” — this reversal in policy decisions creates confusion and sows reasonable doubt in the stated goals of this new initiative. These new investments also do not address the more comprehensive support required to support schools in purchasing, preparing, and serving local food.

The announcement lists six main priorities: expanding local procurement, investing in school kitchens, bringing more local food to schools, accelerating healthier meals, and investing in school meal nutrition research. While all these topline goals seem like great priorities, unpacking the planned activities paints a different picture. 

Growing local procurement

Harvest to Hallways will address “expanding local procurement” through branding and education to schools. While federal guidance and support of local purchasing is critical, this information alone does not address the structural barriers schools face to significantly expand their local purchases. Congress implementing a local purchasing option for USDA entitlement dollars is a tangible action advocates have called for to allow schools to use their existing federal commodity funding to purchase local, minimally processed foods. 

Investing in school kitchens

The next priority mentioned is school kitchens, with a new $50 million investment in kitchen equipment, adding to a previously announced amount of $20 million. This is a much-needed investment but doesn’t begin to address the scope of the problem. In California alone, a 2020 study found that over $5 billion would be required to ensure public school kitchens were prepared for scratch cooking. This problem is national in scope: 72% of respondents to a national survey stated shortages in equipment as a moderate to significant barrier in implementing more scratch cooking. As the Center for Science in the Public Interest identified, we need further research to understand what it will take to address this challenge, and sustained funding to make progress on infrastructure needs.

Supporting Farm to School grants

USDA’s announcement includes an additional $25 million in Patrick Leahy Farm to School grants to support bringing more local foods to schools. The Patrick Leahy Farm to School grant program has funded important work over the years, with a larger scope than food purchasing — the grant has offered support for planning, development, and implementation of Farm to School initiatives. However, recent changes have made the grant less accessible. These changes include introducing a new minimum award amount of $100,000 — when 97% of previous awards were less than this amount (1,241 of 1,342 awards) — and requiring many types of applicants, including schools, to apply as part of a partnership. See other changes highlighted here. 

The program also continues to require grantees to provide a 25% match. All these factors mean that smaller districts and strained budgets are being asked to do significant amounts of legwork and provide more match dollars before they can even apply for funding. This $25 million also represents a tiny fraction of the $1 billion of federal Local Food for Schools funding that was canceled in 2025, which could have been used directly to purchase foods from local farmers.  

Researching school meal nutrition

The final listed priorities include accelerating healthier meals and investing $30 million in school meal nutrition research. The plan encourages adoption of a pledge for healthier school meals. Many of the items included in the pledge are easy to get behind as ideas and much harder for schools to implement in practice. For example, many of the listed items under “improving smart snacks” require cold storage (i.e., eggs, cheese, fruits and vegetables), additional processing, or can’t be served at all in many schools (i.e., nuts). Schools are still working to implement the 2024 rule and are concerned about additional possible changes to the meal pattern. Without communication about a new proposed USDA rule based on the dietary guidelines, this soundbite merely throws more unhelpful information at overburdened school staff. It is unclear what impact lunch improvement research might have on schools’ ability to prepare and serve meals that align with new guidelines or how it might reduce costs. Tips and tricks are unlikely to address the biggest issue school districts are facing: the costs of food and labor. Increasing reimbursement for school meals and federally implementing free meals for all students would be two steps that could begin to address some of these issues. 

All in all, the Harvest to Hallways initiative has positive components. Infrastructure support and additional funding for the Patrick Leahy Farm to School program are great investments in our school food landscape. The infrastructure support is a start in addressing the third major concern of school districts: equipment. But the scale of this investment does not match the tremendous need and types of investment needed. A set of common-sense changes found in Chef Ann Foundation’s roadmap for healthier school meals would address the range of needs more comprehensively, including increasing school reimbursement and staff wages. We would like to see deep investment from Congress and the administration to address the funding needed to cover the costs of food, staffing, and infrastructure to serve all kids nutritious, locally sourced meals. 

The post Guest Post: USDA’s new “Harvest to Hallways” school food initiative falls short of needed investments appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Every summer, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) gathers to plan for the year ahead. NSAC summer meetings serve as an opportunity for coalition members to connect, exchange ideas and information, and strategize collectively on shared policy priorities. Summer meetings rotate locations yearly to reflect the geographical diversity of NSAC’s member organizations, also allowing NSAC members to observe how different local food systems operate and better understand how the policies NSAC advocates for impact farmers on the ground. In recent years, the Coalition has gathered in Vermont, Minnesota, and Colorado. This year’s Summer Meeting was held at the Stonebreaker Barn situated on Markham Hill in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Arkansas is an important agricultural state and home to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Senator John Boozman (R-AR). 

Margo Hale, ATTRA Program Director and Armed to Farm Director at the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), who is based in the area, gave the group a warm welcome to Northwest Arkansas and shared an overview of the state’s agricultural landscape. Agriculture is Arkansas’s largest industry, contributing more than $20 billion annually to the state economy. Arkansas is the nation’s leading rice-producing state. The scale of Arkansas agriculture exists alongside profound need, as nearly 30 percent of adult Arkansans are food insecure. The state also led the nation in farm-bankruptcy filings in 2025, underscoring why resilient local food systems and effective farm policy are essential. The state’s agricultural reach goes far beyond the local food system. Arkansas is home to major companies whose operations shape food supply chains worldwide, such as Walmart, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt, and Riceland Foods. At the same time, Hale emphasized the importance of strengthening local and regional food systems so that Arkansas farmers and communities can share more fully in the value created by the state’s agricultural resources. 

Farm Bill Markup

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s strong Arkansas ties were particularly visible at this Summer Meeting due to a historic first: the Senate farm bill markup overlapped with our meeting. Before the Summer Meeting, NSAC found that the farm bill discussion draft circulated ahead of markup fell well short of adequately addressing issues from the farm safety net and conservation funding to domestic markets. 

The Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill markup overlapping with the Summer Meeting presented some unique challenges and opportunities. Juggling the planned agenda with emergent markup needs was tricky; however, it provided the opportunity to organize and mobilize in person, something that is rare for any national coalition. 

NSAC’s policy team stayed plugged into the latest from Washington, DC, keeping up to date with the latest intel and working with Congressional offices to encourage the adoption of amendments that would push the coalition’s shared priorities forward. This was exciting for many NSAC members to witness in real time, since much of this tends to happen behind the curtain in DC. This real time dynamic also gave the Coalition an enhanced opportunity to mobilize constituents and stakeholders in favor of these changes, strengthening the requests NSAC’s policy team was making of Senators’ staff to do better. 

For the latest on the Senate’s farm bill markup and what may come next, see NSAC’s blog.

Food Systems in Action

Outside of the Senate farm bill markup, NSAC staff and members got an up-close look at Northwest Arkansas’s vibrant local food system by touring the Market Center of the Ozarks, the Center for Arkansas Farms and Food, and Ozark Natural Foods Coop. 

The first stop was the Market Center of the Ozarks, a comprehensive 45,000-square-foot state-of-the-art multi-purpose facility in Springdale, Arkansas. The impressive $31 million structure officially opened in May of 2025 as part of the Northwest Arkansas Food Systems initiative launched by the Walton Family Foundation in 2020 to bolster regional agriculture. The Market Center serves as a nonprofit food-business and farm-support center that gives regional farmers and food entrepreneurs access to the facilities and expertise they need to grow, from aggregation, washing, cold storage, packaging, and distribution for fresh produce to commercial kitchen and processing space for value-added food products. 

Housed with the Market Center, the tour visited the Spring Creek Food Hub, a nonprofit that helps build a stronger regional food economy by working with Northwest Arkansas farmers to bring their products to local customers and organizations, from schools and restaurants to grocery stores and community groups, while offering practical support that helps farms grow, coordinate distribution, and reach new markets. Food hubs are a critical part of local food system infrastructure and resiliency that are often overlooked and undervalued. Offering farmers a steady stream of income, a place to store or process their produce, and connections to grocery stores and wholesale buyers, increases a region’s capacity to feed itself. 

The Arkansas Food Innovation Center is also housed within the Market Center, supporting local food entrepreneurs with a range of services, including a shared-use commercial kitchen, food processing and bottling capabilities, and educational workshops. They offer technical support, business development assistance, and resources to help food entrepreneurs scale their businesses. These three entities are co-located, creating an integrated food-system hub where farmers and food entrepreneurs can access the infrastructure, technical expertise, processing capabilities, and market connections they need, all under one roof, to strengthen the regional food economy and increase the capacity and resiliency of Northwest Arkansas’s local food system.

The tour continued at the Center for Arkansas Farms and Food (CAFF), a University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture program. Based in Fayetteville, CAFF combines hands-on training, farm and business education, and peer networks to help new and experienced farmers build sustainable, thriving operations. NSAC toured its half-acre intensive market garden and five-acre tractor-scale production model for an up-close look at how farmers can get started, sharpen their skills, and level up their businesses.

Another tour highlight was the Ozark Natural Foods Coop, a Fayetteville favorite that has been nourishing Northwest Arkansas since 1971. More than a place to pick up fresh, thoughtfully sourced food, the co-op supports local farmers, growers, producers, and artisans, and brings neighbors together around a shared love of good food. After learning the ins and outs, NSAC members had a chance to support the coop and stock up on delicious snacks, local coffee, and much more.  

“It was a pleasure to host NSAC members in Arkansas and share both the beauty of my home state and the impact of its agricultural industry. The meeting provided an opportunity for sustainable agriculture and food system leaders from across the country to experience the breadth and diversity of Arkansas agriculture, from nationally recognized rice, poultry, corn, and cattle production to innovative local food system initiatives, including a farmer training program and food hub in Northwest Arkansas.

Having Arkansas Senator John Boozman lead the Senate Farm Bill markup on the final day of the meeting further highlighted the state’s significant role in shaping federal agricultural policy. The connections forged and partnerships strengthened throughout the week will continue to benefit NCAT’s work serving farmers and ranchers nationwide,” shared Margo Hale of the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT).

Building Connections  

Summer Meeting is an excellent time to connect with our members and celebrate the efforts we have made all year to campaign for federal policy reforms that serve farmers across the country. As part of that celebration, this meeting included many moments of joy, such as morning walks on nearby trails, an early yoga session, dedicated time for structured rest, Happy Hour, and an Ecstatic Dance circle at the edge of the woods as the sun set over the hotel property. These activities provided a chance to deepen relationships as colleagues and comrades in the work that we love, and to connect with the sacred land that informs so much of what we do as food systems advocates. To add even more sparkle to our gathering, on the eve of the farm bill markup, a group of members and NSAC staff caught Kesha’s “Freedom Tour” concert at the nearby Walton Amphitheatre in Rogers, Arkansas. It was a glorious night of glitter, good vibes, and grooves. 

“As a first-time attendee at the summer meeting, it was energizing to connect with fellow NSAC members around the key challenges and opportunities facing our network and to use our time together to develop timely strategies for change. Gathering in person offered a valuable opportunity to strengthen the fabric of our community while renewing the energy and sense of purpose behind our movement—especially as we prepare for the many shifts that election season will bring,” said Lauren Hirtle, Policy Director at the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA).

Our Hearts Are Full

After three days of thoughtful collaboration, productive conversations, shared strategizing, and Ozark hospitality, we left Arkansas with full hearts and renewed energy. NSAC extends our appreciation to our members who traveled to join us in Arkansas and to our entire membership, whose enduring commitment continually strengthens the sustainable agriculture movement. 

NSAC is grateful to NWA Food Systems, a local initiative of the Walton Family Foundation, for sponsoring this year’s farm tours. NWA Food Systems is a network of partners working to get more local food on local tables in Northwest Arkansas.

Thank you to our farm tour hosts, the caring staff at the Stonebreaker Hotel, and, of course, our stellar meeting planners, Carena Miles, NSAC Operations Manager, and Lee Ford, NSAC Program Associate, for their logistical support and careful attention to detail.

The post Ozark Food Systems and Farm Bill Strategy: NSAC’s Summer Meeting Recap appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On Thursday, August 6, the Senate Agriculture Committee convened to consider the Agricultural Act of 2026, the Senate’s version of a new farm bill. The early August Committee meeting (known as a “markup”) was the Senate Agriculture Committee’s first farm bill markup since June 2018.

The journey to a new farm bill is never straightforward and always unique, yet the path to a new farm bill – beginning in 2023 – has shattered all precedent. Opportunities to authorize a new, full farm bill during the 118th Congress – in 2023 and 2024 – came and went in both the House and Senate. When the November 2024 election delivered a governing “trifecta” for the Republican Party, they turned to the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill that updated some parts of the farm bill, while leaving most out. This reconciliation bill, commonly referred to as H.R. 1,  took the unprecedented step of cutting nearly $200 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in order to fund another part of the farm bill, effectively breaking the decades-old bipartisan farm bill coalition.

Despite this fracturing, in the spring of 2026, the House Agriculture Committee approved the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and the full House of Representatives followed suit shortly thereafter. Then in late June 2026, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) released a farm bill ‘discussion draft’. This discussion draft was subsequently modified before markup in early August 2026 with more than 80 new pages of text, including changes to nearly every title of the farm bill, from conservation, nutrition, research, local and regional food programs, and much more. Perhaps most noteworthy, Senate Republicans included a one-year SNAP cost-shift delay in the modified bill, falling short of Democrats’ ask for a two-year delay. Overall, many of these changes brought the Senate’s farm bill into closer alignment with the House-passed Food, Farm, and National Security Act and became the base bill for consideration during the Senate Agriculture Committee markup.

Summarizing the Markup

The Agricultural Act of 2026 markup kicked off shortly after 9:30 am EDT on Thursday, August 6, and concluded around 1:30 pm that same day. The markup centered on the debate of more than 14 amendments in addition to a separate ‘en bloc’ amendment that itself included 34 amendments.

Of note, when the Senate Agriculture Committee has full attendance of its members, Republicans outnumber Democrats 12-11. For this markup in particular, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was absent due to ongoing health issues, bringing the Committee to an even 11-11. However, Senate Agriculture Committee rules allow for absent Senators to vote on amendments by proxy vote. While Senators can also vote by proxy on the overall bill, a proxy vote cannot be the deciding vote, meaning that with Sen. McConnell’s absence the bill would be unable to advance out of committee if the final vote fell along party lines. 

In total, over 200 amendments were filed to the Agricultural Act. 48 amendments received a vote of some sort – some of which were roll call votes and others that were included in the en bloc amendment. Of the 48 amendments that received a vote, 34 were approved in unison as a part of the bipartisan negotiated ‘en bloc’ amendment. Of the remaining 14 amendments, only 1 – establishing mandatory country of origin labeling – was successfully adopted. Each of the remaining 13 amendments failed on a party-line vote. See the full list of amendments that were considered here. 

Below is a list of amendment votes directly related to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)’s priorities that were taken during the Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup:

• Senator Michael Bennet’s (D-CO) amendment #6 to eliminate a funding decrease contained in the base bill for the two most popular working lands conservation programs, the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.
• Sen. Ben Ray Lujan’s (D-NM) amendment #5 to require USDA to use the specialty crop emergency payment framework for all future ad hoc farm payments to specialty crop producers and provide $5 billion in ad hoc payments to specialty crop producers. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.
• Sen. Lujan’s amendment #8 to provide $200 million in mandatory funding for the Strengthening Local Food Security Program for FY2027 and FY2028. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote as part of the en bloc amendment.
• Sen. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) amendment #2 to provide transparency and guardrails on USDA disaster assistance block grants. NSAC supported. The amendment was offered and withdrawn without a vote.
• Sen. Schiff’s amendment #3 to codify two regional food system programs at USDA: the Regional Food Systems Infrastructure (RFSI) program and a new version of regional business technical assistance hubs. NSAC supported. The amendment was offered and withdrawn without a vote.
• Sen. Tina Smith’s (D-MN) amendment #3 to establish Tribal self-governance authority for the inspection of Tribal meat processing facilities. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.
• Sen. Smith’s amendment #4 to expand and make permanent the demonstration program for self-determination within the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation (FDIPR) food box program. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.
• Sen. Smith’s amendment #10 to require that all obligated Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants be reinstated. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.
• Sen. John Thune’s (R-SD) amendment #1 to reinstate mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef that is compliant with World Trade Organization rules. NSAC supported. Approved by roll call vote, 17-6.
• Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D-GA) amendment #1 to permanently authorize Scholarships for Students at 1890s Institutions, expand scholarship eligibility, and rename the scholarship. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote as a part of the en bloc amendment.
• Sen. Warnock’s amendment #10 to increase funding for Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions. NSAC supported. Approved by voice vote as a part of the en bloc amendment.
• Sen. Warnock’s amendment #11 to expand eligibility and address administrative issues related to the Heirs Property Relending Program. Approved by voice vote as a part of the en bloc amendment.
• Sen. Peter Welch’s (D-VT) amendment #17 to apply actively engaged-in-farming requirements to family and nonfamily farming operations. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (12) opposed – all Democrats (11) in favor.

While nearly 50 amendments were considered, many critical improvements to the bill – from restored conservation funding to leveling the playing field for family farmers – were rejected. Moreover, dozens of NSAC-supported amendments that would have materially improved the bill were not considered at all. 

At the conclusion of amendment consideration, the Chairman moved to a roll call vote on the overall bill. Given the aforementioned absence of Sen. McConnell, in addition to the absence of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), the final vote on the bill failed along party lines, all Republicans (10) in support – all Democrats (11) opposed. However, immediately following this failed vote, Chairman Boozman moved the Committee to recess rather than report the vote, thereby allowing the Committee to reconvene at a later date – perhaps in September 2026 – to revisit the bill.

Passage? Where to From Here …

The shadow of H.R. 1 looms large over not only the ongoing farm bill debate, but the future of federal agriculture policy. The unprecedented act of cutting nearly $200 billion from one part of the farm bill and using those cuts in part to fund another part of the farm bill severed the decades-old bipartisan farm bill coalition. Given this inescapable context, is a new farm bill possible by the end of 2026?

Chairman John Boozman has signaled publicly that he plans to reconvene the Senate Agriculture Committee in mid-September 2026 to reconsider the bill. In order to achieve a different outcome in September, Chairman Boozman will need either Sen. McConnell to return to Washington, or he will need to strike a bipartisan deal on SNAP with Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). At the time of publishing this post, both of these pathways remain possible but far from guaranteed.

However, while it’s possible to advance a new farm bill through the Senate Agriculture Committee on a party-line vote, a farm bill has to be bipartisan in order to pass the Senate floor because a farm bill requires 60 votes for approval in the Senate. Given the Senate’s current 53-47 Republican majority, only a bipartisan SNAP deal will create a viable pathway for a new farm bill by the end of 2026.

The post The Senate Farm Bill Markup: What Happened and What’s Next appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: Senate Farm Bill Takes A Step Forward, Significant Work Remains

Washington, DC, August 6, 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 markup of the Agricultural Act of 2026:

“The path to a durable farm bill for all farmers and families has always been through a robust, bipartisan process – today’s markup reinforces that. A bipartisan amendment successfully secured meaningful funding for market opportunities for local farmers, an incredibly positive step forward. Yet the inability to find bipartisan solutions to address deep cuts to popular, oversubscribed conservation programs and the SNAP program will continue to weigh this bill down until real solutions are found. NSAC thanks Senators for their diligent work to make some progress today – and encourages continued bipartisan conversation toward a bill that levels the playing field for family farmers, expands opportunity through conservation and research programs, and supports the long-term viability of local and regional supply chains.”

The final passage of the updated Agricultural Act of 2026 failed on a party line vote, 10-11, although the Committee can return to the bill in September. Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for future updates, analysis, and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization. Find our deep dive analysis of the original Senate ‘discussion draft’ farm bill from June 2026 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: Senate Farm Bill Takes A Step Forward, Significant Work Remains appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: Revised Senate Farm Bill Proposal Still Falls Flat for Most Farmers

Washington, DC, August 2, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, in response to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman’s (R-AR) revised farm bill proposal. The committee will mark up the updated version of the Agricultural Act of 2026 on the morning of Thursday, August 6.

The latest Senate farm bill proposal comes up short on delivering the stability and level playing field that are so badly needed. American farmers and ranchers face a fundamentally destabilized agriculture landscape, and this farm bill would compound uncertainty by making deep cuts to conservation programs, withholding investments that would fuel domestic markets for local farmers, and leaving out critical farm safety net reforms. While we were heartened to see several modest, bipartisan policy improvements to the Senate’s initial discussion draft, the overall bill is still lacking. Without significant changes, it won’t meet most farmers’ needs. We can and must do better. NSAC urges the Committee to aim high toward a bold and truly bipartisan process that can deliver lasting opportunity and autonomy for farmers and the communities they call home.

The updated Agricultural Act of 2026 adds more than 80 pages of text to the initial discussion draft, which includes changes to nearly every title of the farm bill, from conservation, nutrition, research, local and regional food programs, and much more. Many of these changes bring the Senate’s bill into closer alignment with the House-passed Food, Farm, and National Security Act. Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for future analysis and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization. Find our deep dive analysis of the original Senate ‘discussion draft’ farm bill from June 2026 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: Revised Senate Farm Bill Proposal Still Falls Flat for Most Farmers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: Farmers Advance Sustainable Agriculture Priorities During NSAC Lobby Day

Washington, DC, July 21, 2026 – Today, nearly 40 farmers, ranchers, and agriculture stakeholders participated in a National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) Lobby Day.  Farmers from 12 states – California, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin – and a wide array of production types and farm sizes met virtually with policymakers to share firsthand accounts of how they are leveraging federal programs to build thriving farm businesses and feed their communities. The farmer visits come as Congress weighs a new farm bill, emergency farm assistance, and fiscal year (FY) 2027 agriculture appropriations.

“With all of the turmoil around the Farm Bill, last year’s contract freezes, and FSA/NRCS staff cuts here in Maine, I was glad to be able to have a conversation with the Senator’s staff and know we were being heard,” said Bill Pluecker of Begin Again Farm in Warren, Maine. “We know that DC is sending more money to shore up commodities while smaller farmers deal with increasing costs on our own. I felt reassured to know that the Senator’s staff was willing to hear our stories, take them back to Capitol Hill, and do their best to send support our way,” Pluecker added.

“I want to believe that elected officials still consider their constituents’ experiences when making policy decisions, so I appreciate any opportunity to share my experiences as a small, beginning pig farmer. Senator Fetterman needs to know that there are pig farmers in Pennsylvania that support animal welfare standards and oppose the Save Our Bacon Act,” said Noah Erwin, the owner and operator of Dahps Farm in Perry County, PA. 

Participants emphasized the need for a farm bill that meets the moment by making long overdue, robust investments in farmers and their communities. Farmers are calling for renewed domestic market access through new investments in local and regional food procurement, an improved farm safety net that expands access to risk management tools for farms of all shapes and sizes, and investments that build resilience into farm businesses – from improving access to on-farm conservation programs and expanding public investment in agriculture research. If Congress is unable to approve a new, bipartisan farm bill this year, it is essential to build these critical long-term farm investments into the emergency farm assistance package. 

“The farmers in the meetings I attended said it loud and clear: they deserve better. Each of them is navigating a unique set of issues that constantly threaten their livelihoods. I am inspired by their resilience and by their commitment to advocacy not only for themselves but for every small, diversified, beginning, and BIPOC farmer around the country who has been systematically excluded from federal programs. Today, I hope that the Senate heard them,” said Tyler Edwards, NSAC Grassroots Coordinator. 

“We believe our country is unified in its belief that farmers are vital to our collective well-being. Helping to amplify their lived experiences to larger audiences, including elected officials, is so important to remind everyone of the need to support their work. We need policy that is firmly grounded in farmers’ lived experiences. Thank you to NSAC for bridging our farm community and political leadership,” said Jennifer New, Communications and Policy Manager at Marbleseed, an NSAC member organization. 

NSAC has been a leader in agricultural policy for more than 35 years and has been instrumental in helping to develop some of our nation’s most successful agricultural programs for conserving natural resources, advancing the next generation of farmers, supporting agricultural research, and creating sustainable market connections. 

NSAC is grateful to all of the farmers and advocates for taking time out of their busy lives to join this Lobby Day, as well as the Senators and Hill staff who took the time to listen, engage, and discuss the policy priorities that matter most to farmers and rural communities.

###

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: Farmers Advance Sustainable Agriculture Priorities During NSAC Lobby Day appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Applauds the Introduction of the Fair Seeds for Farmers Act

Washington, DC, July 15, 2026 – Yesterday, Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Greg Casar (D-TX) introduced the Fair Seeds for Farmers Act. Over the past few decades, the continued consolidation of the seed industry has driven up costs for those who grow food and those who buy it at the grocery store. The future of sustainable and organic agriculture and local, affordable, healthy food systems across the country – along with farmers’ ability to meet the challenges of climate change and food security – depends on reigning in corporate control of seeds.

“The hyperconsolidation and commodification of seeds have eroded farmers’ resilience and diminished the agrobiodiversity of crops cultivated in the US at an alarming rate. Farmers play an important role in seed development by nurturing adaptable seed varieties that can help create a more resilient and affordable food system – yet commodification has recently hindered farmers’ ability to participate in this essential first component of farming,” commented Nick Rossi, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

“The Fair Seeds for Farmers Act takes an important step in curtailing corporate abuse of US Patent Law and reaffirms farmers’ and researchers’ ability to breed, experiment, propagate, and save seeds without fear of retaliation from large seed companies,” added Rossi.

Specifically, the Fair Seeds for Farmers Act would:

• Limit the patentability of seeds to the Plant Variety Protection Act and the Plant Patent Act. This applies to all pending and future patents, but existing patents are unaffected.
• Prevent corporate seed companies from limiting researchers or farmers from breeding, experimenting, propagating or saving seeds – including through burdensome contracts.
• Defines certain breeding specific terms under federal law to ensure the integrity of IP claims for seeds and plants.

Read more about the Fair Seeds for Farmers Act 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 Release: NSAC Applauds the Introduction of the Fair Seeds for Farmers Act appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.