The USDA also is concerned with assisting farmers and food producers with the sale of crops and food on both the domestic and world markets. It plays a role in overseas aid programs by providing surplus foods to developing countries. This aid can go through USAID, foreign governments, international bodies such as World Food Program, or approved nonprofits. The Agricultural Act of 1949, section 416 (b) and Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, also known as Food for Peace, provides the legal basis of such actions. The USDA is a partner of the World Cocoa Foundation.
Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Department of Agriculture's Division of Chemistry (third from the right) with his staff in 1883
The standard history is Gladys L. Baker, ed., Century of Service: The first 100 years of the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1963).[7]
Origins in the Patent Office
Early in its history, the American economy was largely agrarian. Officials in the federal government had long sought new and improved varieties of seeds, plants and animals for import into the United States. In 1829, by request of James Smithson out of a desire to further promulgate and diffuse scientific knowledge amongst the American people, the Smithsonian Institution was established, though it did not incorporate agriculture.[8] In 1837, Henry Leavitt Ellsworth became Commissioner of Patents in the Department of State. He began collecting and distributing new varieties of seeds and plants through members of the Congress and local agricultural societies. In 1839, Congress established the Agricultural Division within the Patent Office and allotted $1,000 for "the collection of agricultural statistics and other agricultural purposes."[9] Ellsworth's interest in aiding agriculture was evident in his annual reports that called for a public depository to preserve and distribute the various new seeds and plants, a clerk to collect agricultural statistics, the preparation of statewide reports about crops in different regions, and the application of chemistry to agriculture.[10]Ellsworth was called the "Father of the Department of Agriculture."[11]
In 1849, the Patent Office was transferred to the newly created Department of the Interior. In the ensuing years, agitation for a separate bureau within the department or a separate department devoted to agriculture kept recurring.[10]
On May 15, 1862, Abraham Lincoln established the independent Department of Agriculture through the Morrill Act to be headed by a commissioner without Cabinet status. Staffed by only eight employees, the department was charged with conducting research and development related to "agriculture, rural development, aquaculture and human nutrition in the most general and comprehensive sense of those terms".[12] Agriculturalist Isaac Newton was appointed to be the first commissioner.[13] Lincoln called it the "people's department", since over half of the nation, at the time, was directly or indirectly involved in agriculture or agribusiness.[14]
In 1868, the department moved into the new Department of Agriculture Building in Washington, designed by famed D.C. architect Adolf Cluss. Located on the National Mall between 12th Street and 14th SW, the department had offices for its staff and the entire width of the Mall up to B Street NW to plant and experiment with plants.[15]
In the 1880s, varied advocacy groups were lobbying for Cabinet representation. Business interests sought a Department of Commerce and Industry, and farmers tried to raise the Department of Agriculture to Cabinet rank. In 1887, the House of Representatives and Senate passed separate bills giving Cabinet status to the Department of Agriculture and Labor, but the bill was defeated in conference committee after farm interests objected to the addition of labor. Finally, in 1889 the Department of Agriculture was given cabinet-level status.[16]
By the year 1933, the department was well established in Washington and very well known in rural America. In the agricultural field the picture was different. Statisticians created a comprehensive data-gathering arm in the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates. Secretary Henry Wallace, a statistician, further strengthened the expertise by introducing sampling techniques. Professional economists ran a strong Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Most important was the agricultural experiment station system, a network of state partners in the land-grant colleges, which in turn operated a large field service in direct contact with farmers in practically every rural county. The department worked smoothly with a nationwide, well-organized pressure group, the American Farm Bureau Federation. It represented the largest commercial growers before Congress.[18]
As late as the Great Depression, farm work occupied a fourth of Americans. Indeed, many young people who moved to the cities in the prosperous 1920s returned to the family farm after the depression caused unemployment after 1929. The USDA helped ensure that food continued to be produced and distributed to those who needed it, assisted with loans for small landowners, and provided technical advice. Its Bureau of Home Economics, established in 1923, published shopping advice and recipes to stretch family budgets and make food go farther.[19]
Modern times
On August 27, 2018, the USDA announced it would be providing U.S. farmers with a farm aid package totaling $4.7billion in direct payments to American farmers. This package is meant to offset the losses farmers are expected to incur from retaliatory tariffs placed on American exports during the Trump tariffs.[20]
On 7 February 2022, the USDA announced the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a $1 billion program that will test and verify the benefits of climate-friendly agricultural practices.[21]
In October 2022, the USDA announced a $1.3 billion debt relief program for about 36,000 farmers who had fallen behind on loan payments or facing foreclosures. The provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 set aside $3.1 billion to help such farmers with high-risk operations caused by USDA-backed loans.[22]
Organization and Component Staff Level
USDA's offices and agencies are listed below, with full-time equivalent staff levels according to the estimated FY2023 appropriation, as reported in USDA's FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification.[1]
Section of Vegetable Pathology, Division of Botany (1887–90)[24]
Renamed Division of Vegetable Pathology (1890–95)[24]
Discrimination
Black farmers protested at Lafayette Park across from the White House, on September 22, 1997, against USDA.
Allegations have been made that throughout the agency's history its personnel have discriminated against farmers of various backgrounds, denying them loans and access to other programs well into the 1990s.[25] The effect of this discrimination caused a reduction in the number of African American farmers in the United States.[26] Though African American farmers have been the most hit by discriminatory actions by the USDA, women, Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities have experienced discrimination in a variety of forms at the hands of the USDA. The majority of these discriminatory actions have occurred through the Farm Service Agency, which oversees loan and assistance programs to farmers.[27]
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling of unconstitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress enacted the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, which established the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) which provided service to private landowners and encouraged subsidies that would relieve soil from excessive farming. The SCS in its early days were hesitant, especially in Southern jurisdictions, to hire Black conservationists. Rather than reaching out to Black students in universities for interviews and job opportunities, students had to reach out for the few opportunities granted to Black conservationists.[28]
As part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the USDA formally ended racial segregation among its staff.[29] In the 1999 Pigford v. Glickman class-action lawsuit brought by African American farmers, the USDA agreed to a billion-dollar settlement due to its patterns of discrimination in the granting of loans and subsidies to black farmers.[29] In 2011, a second round of payouts, Pigford II, was appropriated by Congress for $1.25 billion, although this payout, far too late to support the many who desperately needed financial assistance during 1999 lawsuit, only comes out to around $250,000 per farmer.[30]
A March 17, 2006 letter from the GAO about the Pigford Settlement indicated that "the court noted that USDA disbanded its Office of Civil Rights in 1983, and stopped responding to claims of discrimination."[31]
Following long-standing concerns, black farmers joined a class action discrimination suit against the USDA filed in federal court in 1997.[32] An attorney called it "the most organized, largest civil rights case in the history of the country."[33] Also in 1997, black farmers from at least five states held protests in front of the USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C.[34] Protests in front of the USDA were a strategy employed in later years as the black farmers sought to keep national attention focused on the plight of the black farmers. Representatives of the National Black Farmers Association met with President Bill Clinton and other administration officials at the White House. And NBFA's president testified before the United States House Committee on Agriculture.[35]
In Pigford v. Glickman, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman approved the settlement and consent decree on April 14, 1999.[32] The settlement recognized discrimination against 22,363 black farmers, but the NBFA would later call the agreement incomplete because more than 70,000 were excluded.[36] Nevertheless, the settlement was deemed to be the largest-ever civil rights class action settlement in American history. Lawyers estimated the value of the settlement to be more than $2billion.[37] Some farmers would have their debts forgiven.[38] Judge Friedman appointed a monitor to oversee the settlement.[37] Farmers in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia were among those affected by the settlement.[39]
The NBFA's president was invited to testify before congress on this matter numerous times following the settlement, including before the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture on September 12, 2000, when he testified that many farmers had not yet received payments and others were left out of the settlement. It was later revealed that one DoJ staff "general attorney" was unlicensed while she was handling black farmers' cases.[40] NBFA called for all those cases to be reheard.[41] The Chicago Tribune reported in 2004 that the result of such longstanding USDA discrimination was that black farmers had been forced out of business at a rate three times faster than white farmers. In 1920, 1 in 7 U.S. farmers was African-American, and by 2004 the number was 1 in 100. USDA spokesman Ed Loyd, when acknowledging that the USDA loan process was unfair to minority farmers, had claimed it was hard to determine the effect on such farmers.[42]
In 2006 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report highly critical of the USDA in its handling of the black farmers cases.[43] NBFA continued to lobby Congress to provide relief. NBFA's John Boyd (farmer) secured congressional support for legislation that would provide $100million in funds to settle late-filer cases. In 2006 a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and later the Senate by Senator George Felix Allen.[44] In 2007 Boyd testified before the United States House Committee on the Judiciary about this legislation.[41] As the organization was making headway by gathering Congressional supporters in 2007 it was revealed that some USDA Farm Services Agency employees were engaged in activities aimed at blocking Congressional legislation that would aid the black farmers.[45]Barack Obama, then a U.S. Senator, lent his support to the black farmers' issues in 2007.[46] A bill co-sponsored by Obama passed the Senate in 2007.[47]
In early June 2008 hundreds of black farmers, denied a chance to have their cases heard in the Pigford settlement, filed a new lawsuit against USDA.[48] The Senate and House versions of the black farmers bill, reopening black farmers discrimination cases, became law in June 2008.[49] Some news reports said that the new law could affect up to 74,000 black farmers.[50] In October 2008, the GAO issued a report criticizing the USDA's handling of discrimination complaints.[51] The GAO recommended an oversight review board to examine civil rights complaints.[52]
After numerous public rallies and an intensive NBFA member lobbying effort, Congress approved and Obama signed into law in December 2010 legislation that set aside $1.15billion to resolve the outstanding black farmers' cases. NBFA's John W. Boyd Jr., attended the bill-signing ceremony at the White House.[41] As of 2013, 90,000 African-American, Hispanic, female and Native American farmers had filed claims. It was reported that some had been found fraudulent, or transparently bogus. In Maple Hill, North Carolina by 2013, the number of successful claimants was four times the number of farms with 1 out of 9 African-Americans being paid, while "claimants were not required [by the USDA] to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm." Lack of documentation is an issue complicated by the USDA practice of discarding denied applications after three years.[53]
Keepseagle v. Vilsack
In 1999, Native American farmers, discriminated in a similar fashion to black farmers, filed a class-action lawsuit against the USDA alleging loan discrimination under the ECOA and the APA. This case relied heavily on its predecessor, Pigford v. Glickman, in terms of the reasoning it set forth in the lawsuit.[27] Eventually, a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the USDA to the amount of up to $760 million, awardable through individual damages claims.[54] These claims could be used for monetary relief, debt relief, and/or tax relief. The filing period began June 29, 2011 and lasted 180 days.[55] Track A claimants would be eligible for up to $50,000, whereas Track B claimants would be eligible for up to $250,000 with a higher standard of proof.[55]
In 2000, similar to Pigford v. Glickman, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Hispanic farmers alleging that the USDA discriminated against them in terms of credit transactions and disaster benefits, in direct violation of ECOA. As per the settlement, $1.33 billion is available for compensation in awards of up to $50,000 or $250,000, while an additional $160 million is available in debt relief.[27]
In 2001, similar to Garcia v. Vilsack, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the same court alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. A Congressional response to the lawsuit resulted in the passing of the Equality for Women Farmers Act, which created a system that would allow for allegations of gender discrimination to be heard against the USDA and enable claims for damages.[27]
Environmental justice initiatives
In their 2012 environmental justice strategy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated an ongoing desire to integrate environmental justice into its core mission and operations. In 2011, Secretary of AgricultureTom Vilsack emphasized the USDA's focus on EJ in rural communities around the United States, as well as connecting with Indigenous Tribes and ensuring they understand and receive their environmental rights. USDA does fund programs with social and environmental equity goals; however, it has no staff dedicated solely to EJ.
The Executive Order also created an Interagency Working Group (IWG) consisting of 11 heads of departments and agencies.[56]
2012 Environmental Justice Strategy
On February 7, 2012, the USDA released a final Environmental Justice Strategic Plan identifying new and updated goals and performance measures beyond what USDA identified in a 1995 EJ strategy that was adopted in response to E.O. 12898.[57] Generally, USDA believes its existing technical and financial assistance programs provide solutions to environmental inequity, such as its initiatives on education, food deserts, and economic development in impacted communities.
Natural Resources and Environment Under Secretary Harris Sherman is the political appointee generally responsible for USDA's EJ strategy, with Patrick Holmes, a senior staffer to the Under Secretary, playing a coordinating role. USDA has no staff dedicated solely to EJ.[58]
EJ Initiatives in Tribal Communities
Tribal development
USDA has had a role in implementing Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign in tribal areas by increasing Bureau of Indian Education schools' participation in federal nutrition programs, by developing community gardens on tribal lands, and developing tribal food policy councils.[59]
More than $6.2 billion in Rural Development funding has been allocated for community infrastructure in Indian country and is distributed via 47 state offices that altogether cover the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska.[58] Such funding has been used for a variety of reasons:
Rural housing
single-family housing direct loans
loan guarantees loans for very-low-income homeowners
In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) published a resource guide aimed at helping USFS officials with developing and maintaining relations with different tribal governments. To that end, and in coordination with the Forest Service's 4*point American Indian/Alaska Native policy, the resource guide discusses how to:
Maintain a governmental relationship with Federally Recognized tribal governments.
Implement Forest Service programs and activities honoring Indian treaty rights, and fulfill legally mandated trust responsibilities to the extent that they are determine applicable to National Forest System lands.
Administer programs and activities to address and be sensitive to traditional Native religious beliefs and practices.
Provide research, transfer of technology, and technical assistance to Indian governments.[61]
The USFS works to maintain good governmental relationships through regular intergovernmental meetings, acknowledgement of pre*existing tribal sovereignty, and a better general understanding of tribal government, which varies from tribe to tribe. Indian treaty rights and trust responsibilities are honored through visits to tribal neighbors, discussions of mutual interest, and attempts to honor and accommodate the legal positions of Indians and the federal government. Addressing and demonstrating sensitivity to Native religious beliefs and practices includes walking through Native lands and acknowledging cultural needs when implementing USFS activities. Providing research, technology, and assistance to Indian governments is shown through collaboration of ecological studies and sharing of various environmental technologies, as well as the inclusion of traditional Native practices in contemporary operations of the USFS.[61]
The Intertribal Technical Assistance Network works to improve access of tribal governments, communities and individuals to USDA technical assistance programs.[62]
Tribal Services/Cooperatives
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provides APHIS Veterinary Services, which serve the tribal community by promoting and fostering safe animal trade and care. This includes prevention of pests and disease from herd and fisheries as well as surveys for diseases on or near Native American lands that can affect traditionally hunted wildlife.[63][full citation needed] The APHIS also provides Wildlife Services, which help with wildlife damage on Native lands. This includes emergency trainings, outreach, consultation, internship opportunities for students, and general education on damage reduction, livestock protection, and disease monitoring.[64][full citation needed]
Meanwhile, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is exploring a program to use meat from bisons raised on tribal land to supply AMS food distribution programs to tribes.[58]
Other EJ Initiatives
Technical and financial assistance
The NRCS Strike Force Initiative has identified impoverished counties in Mississippi, Georgia and Arkansas to receive increased outreach and training regarding USDA assistance programs. USDA credits this increased outreach with generating a 196 percent increase in contracts, representing more than 250,000 acres of farmland, in its Environmental Quality Incentives Program.[62] In 2001, NRCS funded and published a study, "Environmental Justice: Perceptions of Issues, Awareness and Assistance," focused on rural, Southern "Black Belt" counties and analyzing how the NRCS workforce could more effectively integrate environmental justice into impacted communities.[65]
The Farm Services Agency in 2011 devoted $100,000 of its Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program budget to improving its outreach to counties with persistent poverty.[66] USDA's Risk Management Agency has initiated education and outreach to low-income farmers regarding use of biological controls, rather than pesticides, for pest control.[58] The Rural Utilities Service administers water and wastewater loans, including SEARCH Grants that are targeted to financially distressed, small rural communities and other opportunities specifically for Alaskan Native villages.[67][68]
Mapping
USFS has established several Urban Field Stations, to research urban natural resources' structure, function, stewardship, and benefits.[69] By mapping urban tree coverage, the agency hopes to identify and prioritize EJ communities for urban forest projects.[69]
Another initiative highlighted by the agency is the Food and Nutrition Service and Economic Research Service's Food Desert Locator.[70] The Locator provides a spatial view of food deserts, defined as a low-income census tract where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. The mapped deserts can be used to direct agency resources to increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other food assistance programs.[71]
Meat and poultry hotline
The USDA Meat and Poultry hotline is a toll-free user assistancehotline for consumers to answer inquiries about the safe storage, handling, and preparation of meat, poultry, and egg products that can be reached at: 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854).[72][73] The Hotline also responds to other issues related to the mission of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS), which is to ensure that commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.[72] The hotline operates year-round on weekdays excluding federal holidays (except Thanksgiving) from 10am to 6PM PT and is staffed by food safety specialists with backgrounds in home economics, nutrition, and food technology.[74] The hotline began on July 1, 1985, and has answered over 2 million calls to date in 2024.[74] The hotline added Spanish support in 2002, and added two hours in April 2017.[74][75] The hotline can help detect public health threats and has been attributed with increasing American's awareness of foodborne bacteria and how to avoid them.[76][77]
The USDA also offers online text support via "Ask Karen."[75]
Other
Private sector relationships
Part of the USDA's functions includes promoting the economic development of the agricultural sector. In their 2022 strategic plan, they pledged:
To maintain a competitive agricultural sector, USDA will support farmers and ranchers’ ability to start and maintain profitable businesses as well as offer financial support to producers affected by natural disasters. Furthermore, USDA’s research agencies will continue to introduce high-performance plants, animals, and integrated management options that increase the efficiency of farming practices. Lastly, USDA will also provide tools to producers so that they are well-positioned to secure a share of a growing market for agricultural products.[78][bettersourceneeded]
The USDA formalized a relationship with the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) in 2018. GFSI is a private organization where members of the Consumer Goods Forum have control over benchmarking requirements in recognition of private standards for food safety. In August 2018, USDA achieved Technical Equivalence against Version 7.1 of the GFSI Benchmarking Requirements for their Harmonized GAP Plus + certification programme,[79] where Technical Equivalence is limited to government-owned food safety certification programmes. This is misaligned with U.S. Government Policy and OMB Circular No. A-119[80] which instructs its agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards before relying uponindustry standards (private standards) or developing government standards.
Harmonized GAP Plus+ Standard (V. 3.0) was published in February 2021[81] with reference to GFSI Guidance Document Version 2020, Part III, ignoring reference to international standards and technical specifications ISO 22000 and ISO T/S 22002-3 Prerequisite Programmes for Farming. The USDA exception to OMB Circular No. A-119 might be attributed to lobbying and influence of Consumer Goods Forum members in Washington, D.C.[82] In November 2021, GFSI announced its Technical Equivalence was under strategic review explaining the assessment has raised concerns across many stakeholders.[83]
The USDA monitors American dairy production and markets, for which it has a Dairy Board and a marketing branch known as Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI).[84] Furthermore, the USDA collaborates with United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA), the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board for market information on the industry.[85]
COVID-19 relief
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress allocated funding to the USDA to address the disturbances rippling through the agricultural sector. On April 17, 2020, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program:[86]
The American food supply chain had to adapt, and it remains safe, secure, and strong, and we all know that starts with America's farmers and ranchers. This program will not only provide immediate relief for our farmers and ranchers, but it will also allow for the purchase and distribution of our agricultural abundance to help our fellow Americans in need.
This provided $16billion for farmers and ranchers, and $3billion to purchase surplus produce, dairy, and meat from farmers for distribution to charitable organizations.[87] As part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), USDA has up to an additional $873.3million available in Section 32 funding to purchase a variety of agricultural products for distribution to food banks, $850million for food bank administrative costs and USDA food purchases.[87]
↑ Danbom, David B. (1986). "The Agricultural Experiment Station and Professionalization: Scientists' Goals for Agriculture". Agricultural History. 60 (2): 246–255. JSTOR3743443.
↑ David M. Kennedy, Freedom from fear: The American people in depression and war, 1929–1945 (1999). p 203.
1 2 3 4 Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal Analysis of a USDA Discrimination Case, HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.crs/crsmthmatal0001&i=11.
↑ Helms, Douglas. "Eroding the Color Line: The Soil Conservation Service and the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Agricultural History, vol. 65, no. 2, Agricultural History Society, 1991, pp. 35–53, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3743706.
↑ Sharon LaFraniere (April 25, 2013). "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination". The New York Times. Retrieved April 26, 2013. ...claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm.
↑ APHIS Veterinary Services : Helping Native Americans Protect Their Livestock and Fisheries. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2012.
↑ APHIS Wildlife Services : Controlling Wildlife Damage on Native American Lands. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2012.
Baker, Gladys L. ed. Century of service: the first 100 years of the United States Department of Agriculture (US Department of Agriculture, 1963), the standard history; online.
Benedict, Murray R. (1950). "The Trend in American Agricultural Policy 1920–1949". Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft. 106 (1): 97–122. JSTOR40747300.
Benedict, Murray R. Farm policies of the United States, 1790–1950: a study of their origins and development (1966) 546pp online; also another copy
Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis (2nd ed. U of Minnesota Press, 1993) 512pp.
Cochrane, Willard W. and Mary Ellen Ryan. American Farm Policy: 1948–1973 (U of Minnesota Press, 1976).
CQ. Congress and the Nation (1965–2021), highly detailed coverage of each presidency since Truman; extensive coverage of agricultural policies. online free to borrow
Coppess, Jonathan (2018). The Fault Lines of Farm Policy: A Legislative and Political History of the Farm Bill. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN978-1-4962-0512-4.
Gardner, Bruce L. (1996). "The Federal Government in Farm Commodity Markets: Recent Reform Efforts in a Long-Term Context". Agricultural History. 70 (2): 177–195. JSTOR3744532.
Matusow, Allen J. Farm policies and politics in the Truman years (1967) online
Orden, David; Zulauf, Carl (October 2015). "Political Economy of the 2014 Farm Bill". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 97 (5): 1298–1311. doi:10.1093/ajae/aav028. hdl:10919/96941.
Phillips, Sarah T., et al. "Reflections on one hundred and fifty years of the United States Department of Agriculture." Agricultural History 87.3 (2013): 314–367. https://doi.org/10.3098/ah.2013.87.3.314
Jones, Arnita A, and Wayne D. Rasmussen. "Wayne Rasmussen and the Development of Policy History at the United States Department of Agriculture" The Public Historian 14#1 (1992), pp.11–29 online
Zobbe, Henrik. "On the foundation of agricultural policy research in the United States." (Dept. of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 02–08, Purdue University, 2002) online
Primary sources
Rasmussen, Wayne D., ed. Agriculture in the United States: a documentary history (4 vol, Random House, 1975) 3661pp. vol 4 online
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the United States Department of Agriculture agency that was formed by merging the farm loan portfolio and staff of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). The Farm Service Agency implements agricultural policy, administers credit and loan programs, and manages conservation, commodity, disaster, and farm marketing programs through a national network of offices. The Administrator of FSA reports to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation. The current administrator is Zach Ducheneaux. The FSA of each state is led by a politically appointed State Executive Director (SED).
In the United States, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income persons to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. states.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FNS is the federal agency responsible for administering the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs. The service helps to address the issue of hunger in the United States.
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is the foreign affairs agency with primary responsibility for the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) overseas programs – market development, international trade agreements and negotiations, and the collection of statistics and market information. It also administers the USDA's export credit guarantee and food aid programs and helps increase income and food availability in developing nations by mobilizing expertise for agriculturally led economic growth. The FAS mission statement reads, "Linking U.S. agriculture to the world to enhance export opportunities and global food security," and its motto is "Linking U.S. Agriculture to the World."
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture; it maintains programs in five commodity areas: cotton and tobacco; dairy; fruit and vegetable; livestock and seed; and poultry. These programs provide testing, standardization, grading and market news services for those commodities, and oversee marketing agreements and orders, administer research and promotion programs, and purchase commodities for federal food programs. The AMS enforces certain federal laws such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and the Federal Seed Act. The AMS budget is $1.2 billion. It is headquartered in the Jamie L. Whitten Building in Washington, D.C.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a wholly owned United States government corporation that was created in 1933 to "stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices". The CCC is authorized to buy, sell, lend, make payments, and engage in other activities for the purpose of increasing production, stabilizing prices, assuring adequate supplies, and facilitating the efficient marketing of agricultural commodities.
Food policy is the area of public policy concerning how food is produced, processed, distributed, purchased, or provided. Food policies are designed to influence the operation of the food and agriculture system balanced with ensuring human health needs. This often includes decision-making around production and processing techniques, marketing, availability, utilization, and consumption of food, in the interest of meeting or furthering social objectives. Food policy can be promulgated on any level, from local to global, and by a government agency, business, or organization. Food policymakers engage in activities such as regulation of food-related industries, establishing eligibility standards for food assistance programs for the poor, ensuring safety of the food supply, food labeling, and even the qualifications of a product to be considered organic.
In different administrative and organizational forms, the Food for Peace program of the United States has provided food assistance around the world for more than 60 years. Approximately 3 billion people in 150 countries have benefited directly from U.S. food assistance. The Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance within the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the U.S. Government's largest provider of overseas food assistance. The food assistance programming is funded primarily through the Food for Peace Act. The Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance also receives International Disaster Assistance Funds through the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) that can be used in emergency settings.
USDA Rural Development(RD) is a mission area within the United States Department of Agriculture which runs programs intended to improve the economy and quality of life in rural parts of the United States.
In the United States, the farm bill is comprehensive omnibus bill that is the primary agricultural and food policy instrument of the federal government. Congress typically passes a new farm bill every five to six years.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 was a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy bill that was passed into law by the United States Congress on June 18, 2008. The bill was a continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill. It continues the United States' long history of agricultural subsidies as well as pursuing areas such as energy, conservation, nutrition, and rural development. Some specific initiatives in the bill include increases in Food Stamp benefits, increased support for the production of cellulosic ethanol, and money for the research of pests, diseases and other agricultural problems.
The agricultural policy of the United States is composed primarily of the periodically renewed federal U.S. farm bills. The Farm Bills have a rich history which initially sought to provide income and price support to US farmers and prevent them from adverse global as well as local supply and demand shocks. This implied an elaborate subsidy program which supports domestic production by either direct payments or through price support measures. The former incentivizes farmers to grow certain crops which are eligible for such payments through environmentally conscientious practices of farming. The latter protects farmers from vagaries of price fluctuations by ensuring a minimum price and fulfilling their shortfalls in revenue upon a fall in price. Lately, there are other measures through which the government encourages crop insurance and pays part of the premium for such insurance against various unanticipated outcomes in agriculture.
The National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) is a non-profit organization representing African American farmers and their families in the United States. As an association, it serves tens of thousands of members nationwide. NBFA's education and advocacy efforts have been focused on civil rights, land retention, access to public and private loans, education and agricultural training, and rural economic development for black and other small farmers.
Pigford v. Glickman (1999) was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging that it had racially discriminated against African-American farmers in its allocation of farm loans and assistance from 1981 to 1996. The lawsuit was settled on April 14, 1999, by Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. To date, almost $1 billion US dollars have been paid or credited to fewer than 20,000 farmers under the settlement's consent decree, under what is reportedly the largest civil rights settlement until that point. Due to delaying tactics by U.S. government officials, more than 70,000 farmers were treated as filing late and thus did not have their claims heard. The 2008 Farm Bill provided for additional claims to be heard. In December 2010, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for what is called "Pigford II," settlement for the second part of the case.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a program that evolved out of surplus commodity donation efforts begun by the USDA in late 1981 to dispose of surplus foods held by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This program was explicitly authorized by the Congress in 1983 when funding was provided to assist states with the costs involved in storing and distributing the commodities. The program originally was entitled the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program when authorized under the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The program was renamed to The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in 1990.
In the United States, the Special Milk Program, sometimes known as the School Milk Program, offers federal reimbursements for milk served to children in an eligible participating outlet, which includes schools, child care institutions, settlement houses, homeless shelters, or summer camps. This federal aid program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the public health regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that United States' commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. The FSIS draws its authority from the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 and the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970.
The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is a federal assistance program in the United States associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children that provides fresh, unprepared, locally grown fruits and vegetables and nutrition education to WIC participants. Women, infants and children that have been certified to receive WIC program benefits or who are on a waiting list for WIC certification are eligible to participate in the FMNP.
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 is an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015 that would provide funding for the United States Department of Agriculture and related agencies. The bill would appropriate $20.9 billion.
The 2018 farm bill or Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 is an enacted United States farm bill that reauthorized $867 billion for many expenditures approved in the prior farm bill. The bill was passed by the Senate and House on December 11 and 12, 2018, respectively. On December 20, 2018, it was signed into law by President Donald Trump.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
