Washington D.C. (May 23, 2008) -The National Family Farm Coalition today criticized
Congress and the recently enacted Farm Bill for failing to address the growing global food
crisis occurring abroad and here at home. During the Farm Bill debate, there was
widespread media attention focused on the ecological, economic, and public health hazards
of our broken, industrialized food system. Renewed consumer demand for local food
provided by sustainable family farmers made NFFC hopeful that Congress would finally
reorient our farm programs away from favoring corporate agribusinesses over family
farmers. Though incremental improvements were made to help fund organic, conservation,
local food and diversity initiatives, the underlying bill continues to favor industrial
agriculture models at the expense of family farmers and rural communities.

NFFC President and Mississippi farmer Ben Burkett said, "While I am glad to see the
Farm Bill acknowledges minority farmers in a meaningful way for the first time and also
allows for more black farmers to seek justice under the Pigford case, it should not hide the
fact that the bill still represents a fundamental failure to family farmers and will not stop
the hollowing out of rural America. The bill will also continue to undermine the food
sovereignty of farmers around the world devastated by export dumping by U.S.
agribusinesses."

Though NFFC believes the Farm Bill represented a missed opportunity to redirect our food
and farm systems, NFFC does not agree with the misguided reasoning behind President
Bush's veto and his promotion of corporate globalization and free trade through the World
Trade Organization, which has devastated farmers both here and abroad. Neither do we
agree with the critiques from left- and right-wing groups urging vetoes on the basis of
subsidies for "millionaire farmers" and the dismantling of farm programs in favor of the
Bush Administration's deregulated free-trade agenda.

Commodity Title
Since the 1996 Farm Bill eliminated all government-held reserves for commodities, NFFC
has warned this was putting our food system in severe jeopardy. With the global food crisis
upon us, implementing grain reserves now is just as urgent a necessity for the United
States to have as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Without the reserve, farmers never knew
how low prices would go and had to rely on taxpayer subsidies for the past few years as
prices fell far short of their cost of production. Now, with ethanol-driven demand among
other factors pushing commodity prices higher, food processors, bakers, livestock
producers and consumers are left wondering when prices will stop rising. While NFFC
points to increased fuel and energy costs as the main factor behind food price inflation and
does not agree with the campaign to blame ethanol and higher corn prices, NFFC does not
believe ethanol is a viable long-term solution towards ensuring farmers can receive a fair
price to cover their costs of production. A Strategic Grain Reserve, combined with revived
Farmer-Owned Reserves, would offer much better stability for farmers, food processors
and consumers. George Naylor, an Iowa corn and soybean farmer, said, "While other
countries are rebuilding their food stocks or considering establishing Strategic Grain
Reserves, our Congress and the president put its head in the sand and continues to leave
America's food security in the hands of Wall Street speculators. By letting prices fluctuate
without any price floor or government reserves, the Farm Bill only heightens economic
uncertainty for both family farmers and consumers in an already precarious economy."

NFFC is extremely disappointed in Congress's decision to establish no reserves and
instead, continue a disastrous commodity policy that has failed rural America and
benefited corporate agribusinesses. A Tufts University GDAE study showed that from
1997-2005, industrial factory farms saved $35 billion, thanks to buying below-cost feed,
while farmers were forced to rely on subsidies. Smithfield and Cargill are the real winners
of our commodity policies, not farmers. The new Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE)
program being offered in the Farm Bill ties subsidies to revenue instead of prices. Though
some may see this as a better deal for farmers, the ACRE program would offer virtually no
safety net should prices become depressed for several years, as occurred after the
disastrous 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Any assumption that "high prices are here to stay
forever" ignores decades of history and the lessons of the 1980s Farm Crisis that occurred
after the 1970s export boom. It is akin to the misguided mentality that caused our current
mortgage foreclosure crisis, where the underlying assumption was "housing prices will
always increase."

Livestock Title
In addition to continuing with a broken subsidy system, Congress chose to ignore urgently
needed reforms for the livestock sector by failing to include the packer ban and captive
supply in the livestock title. With the announcement of Brazilian meatpacker JBS Swift's
planned takeover of National Beef, Smithfield Beef and Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding,
America's independent ranchers and farmers' livelihoods would be endangered by such a
merger. Rhonda Perry, a Missouri livestock and grain farmer, said, "We have seen severe
consolidation in our industry, so that four meatpackers now control 80% of our market.
The JBS Swift merger might be the final nail in the coffin. Packers and their monopoly
have been squeezing farmers out for decades now. We desperately needed the packer ban
to restore some fairness and true competition in agriculture."

Dairy Provisions
NFFC's Dairy Subcommittee has worked tirelessly to alert Congress to the dire state of the
dairy industry. This Farm Bill, despite an increase in milk income loss contract (MILC)
payments that are tied to a feed adjuster, does nothing to address a broken dairy pricing
system prone to manipulation and corruption. NFFC denounces the following provisions
for the dairy sector:

- Including the forward contracting program, which promises to further undermine
the Federal Order system by allowing processors to lock in more "captive supply"
of milk and lower prices for producers.

- Expanding the Dairy Assessment for imports of 7.5 cents per hundredweight (cwt)
of milk. This assessment simply funds dairy organizations like National Milk
Producers Federation that serve the interests of processors more than they do the
interests of dairy farmers. It could also be used to promote imported caseinates and
milk protein concentrates at the expense of domestic milk.

- Establishing (subject to appropriations) a Federal Milk Marketing Order Review
Commission that stacks the deck for industry to change the Federal Milk Marketing
Order. It further undermines producers and aims to redefine milk by possibly
allowing milk protein concentrates and other substitute dairy products to be
considered real "milk."

Paul Rozwadowski, a Wisconsin dairy farmer and chair of NFFC's Dairy Subcommittee,
said, "The Farm Bill threatens the survival of America's remaining 60,000 dairy farmers
with provisions only intended to help the processors and food companies who buy our raw
product. Farmers don't want more MILC payments from taxpayers. We want a fair price
reflecting our spiraling costs of production to be paid for by processors." Rozwadowski
further condemned the Farm Bill for failing to address the endemic corruption in the
industry and said, "Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times have
exposed the massive fraud and corruption on the part of Dairy Farmers of America. The
Justice Department completed a three-year antitrust investigation against DFA that has yet
to see the light of day, yet the Farm Bill does nothing to help bring much-needed justice
for dairy farmers put out of business by the machinations of our cooperatives who have
long ceased working on behalf of our family farmers."

Credit Title
Despite the Senate Agriculture Committee oversight hearing in June 2006 identifying
serious problems in the delivery of USDA farm credit programs and the Senate's Farm Bill
provisions to reinstate debt restructuring programs that have been weakened since the early
1990s, the final Farm Bill eliminated most of these provisions. On a positive note,
Congress rebuffed the efforts of the Farm Credit System to expand their lending authority
beyond farm lending. NFFC joined with more than 20 organizations in opposing this
proposal, identifying the FCS current poor record in lending to farmers - particularly
minority and beginning farmers - as evidence that an expansion into non-farm lending was
inappropriate for a government-sponsored farm credit agency.

Many farmers are on the brink of financial disaster, despite somewhat higher commodity
prices, as their costs of production escalate with little stability in the pricing system.
Furthermore the consolidation of the banking sector means that many local banks in rural
communities no longer understand nor care about their farm borrowers and are moving to
eliminate lending or to foreclose at the first sign of a troubled loan.
Bill Christison, NFFC's Credit Committee Chair and Missouri corn, soybean and cattle
farmer stated, "All over America, many farmers have suffered devastating foreclosures and
liquidations due to extensive fraud and corruption within both the Farm Service Agency
and commercial banking sectors. This Farm Bill should have been an opportunity to
address long-term credit access and servicing problems that plague farm and rural
communities. NFFC calls on the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, along with the
appropriate Finance/Banking Committees, to probe the growing problem of predatory
lending in the farm credit arena now and not to wait until the crisis is as serious as the
home mortgage crisis."

Positive Provisions in the Farm Bill
NFFC acknowledges some of the positive aspects and incremental gains of the Farm Bill,
even if the underlying bill overall continues with flawed policies.

- First Ever Livestock Title: The Farm Bill finally contains a livestock title that
will provide some much needed protections for independent ranchers and farmers
raising livestock under contract. Though many provisions were watered down from
the Senate version, there were some key reforms, including: preventing mandatory
arbitration clauses for livestock/poultry contracts; allowing a three-day period to
cancel contracts; and requiring contracts to disclose the requirement of large capital
investments. Though Congress did not include an Office of Special Counsel within
USDA to deal with enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), the
Farm Bill does require USDA to report annually on its investigations into
violations of the PSA and directs USDA to define "undue pricing preferences" so
that unjust pricing practices do not unfairly discriminate against small and
independent livestock producers.

- Diversity Initiative: The Farm Bill gives significant recognition to the importance
of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers. There are specific targets for
minority and socially disadvantaged farmer participation in conservation, farm
credit, Value Added Producer Grants, and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Programs. Minority Outreach and Education (Section 2501) authorized in the
1990 farm bill receives for the first time mandatory funding at $75 million over 4
years. This competitive grant program to community based organizations and
educational institutions helps minority and socially disadvantaged farmers access
USDA programs through effective outreach programs. Additionally, there is
language halting foreclosure on minority farms that may have resulted from
discrimination and allowing for more qualifying black farmers to file for the
Pigford settlement if they were unable to the first time.

- Country-of-Origin Labeling and Interstate Meat Shipment: The Farm Bill
includes language to implement long-awaited COOL requirements for produce,
beef, pork, chicken, lamb and goat that will go into effect in September 2008.
COOL was included in the 2002 Farm Bill, but food industry, USDA and
meatpackers' opposition have delayed its implementation. There are also
provisions allowing for the interstate shipment of state-inspected beef that meets
federal inspection standards. Both of these policies represent victories for
consumers and farmers aiming to rebuild local food systems.

- Community Food Projects and Geographic Preferences: The Farm Bill
provides $5 million in mandatory annual funding for innovative Community Food
Projects for matching grants to community groups building sustainable local food
systems addressing hunger, nutrition, and meeting food security goals. There is
new statutory language clearly stating that preference can be given to local
purchasing of agriculture products for schools serving meals that receive federal
assistance, resolving a conflict in USDA's interpretation of the 2002 farm bill.

- GMO Oversight: New mandates to strengthen USDA oversight of GMO crops
will help prevent the disaster that occurred when an unauthorized GM rice strain
entered the U.S. rice crop and caused massive losses to export markets. The new
regulatory framework will reduce the potential for future GMO contamination
events at field trial test sites.

- Conservation Funding: While NFFC applauds the $1.1 billion mandatory
increase for the newly renamed Conservation Security Program (now the
Conservation Stewardship Program) that allows for the enrollment of 115 million
acres by 2017, we remain extremely disappointed that Congress chose to increase
funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by $2.4 billion.
Currently, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can receive up to $450,000
in EQIP funding and represent a taxpayer handout to help factory farms deal with
their hazardous waste. Though the Farm Bill now limits EQIP funding to $300,000,
this is still an outrageous giveaway to factory farm interests and unfairly denies
funding for family farmers.

- Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program: The Farm Bill
provides $75 million over 4 years in mandatory money for competitive grants to
groups providing technical assistance and other services to beginning farmers and
ranchers. This program was created in the 2002 Farm Bill but was never funded.

- Permanent Disaster Program: The new $3.8 billion permanent disaster relief
fund is important to ensure timely funding for natural disasters. NFFC still has
concerns minority, socially disadvantaged, limited resource and organic farmers
will have access to the funds.

- Local Food Initiatives: NFFC applauds the $33 million in mandatory funds for the
Farmers Market Promotion Program, $56 million for the Seniors Farmers Market
Nutrition Program, and $1.2 billion to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program that will enable 3 million children across the country to have access to
healthier food options.