Farm and Food Policy Reform Amendment Provides Nearly $26 Million More for Alaska than Extending Farm Bill, Analysis Shows

(Washington, D.C. – July 25, 2007) - An amendment to reform federal farm and food policies to help more farmers and to better address hunger, health and environmental challenges would increase federal farm spending by $25,923,715 in Alaska when compared with extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. That’s according to analysis conducted by a former USDA official on behalf of Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.

The full House, including Rep. Don Young (R-AK), is scheduled to debate the Farm Bill Extension Act on Thursday.  The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act will be offered by a bipartisan group of legislators to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs.

“The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will help ensure that our farm and food policies help more farmers, consumers and communities,” said Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense. “This analysis shows that voting for reform and against the status quo will be a vote to meet the needs of local farmers, the hungry, and the environment.”

The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform subsidies by replacing depression-era prices guarantees with a modern, revenue-based safety net developed by USDA, placing reasonable limits on crop subsidies, controlling the administrative costs of crop insurance, and by gradually reducing “direct” subsidy payments linked to past production.

The amendment increases nutrition spending by $5.4 billion over five years, increases conservation spending by $6 billion over five years, and makes other investments to help fruit and vegetable growers, minority farmers, and boost rural development.

To learn more about individual congressional districts, visit http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6656_Fairness%20Amendment%20District%20by%20District%20Analysis.xls