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.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Release: NSAC Urges Reconsideration of Problematic OMB Proposed Rule

Washington, DC, July 14, 2026 – Yesterday, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) submitted detailed comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) citing major concerns with OMB’s proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance and urging the agency to rescind the rule in its entirety. NSAC warned that the proposal would inject new uncertainty and risk into an already fragile agricultural sector and undermine the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ability to fulfill its mission.

In its 20‑plus page comment letter, NSAC outlines concerns with the proposal, including, as the comment states:“new and expanded discretionary suspension and termination authority; legal and compliance concerns regarding vague and undefined terms; added burdens on funding recipients and particularly on farmers and partnership projects; politicization of grant review and funding decisions; conflicts with USDA’s own statutory authorities; and an overall lack of clarity regarding scope and applicability to USDA grantees.” 

“Each of these concerns alone is significant enough to warrant substantial revision,” said Sophia Kruszewski, NSAC Deputy Policy Director. “Taken cumulatively, they illustrate the dire need to rescind the proposed rule in its entirety and restart the rulemaking process from the beginning, taking care to ensure there are multiple meaningful opportunities to effectively solicit and integrate USDA-specific facts, legal authorities, and stakeholder input.”

NSAC’s comment emphasizes that many of USDA’s most important farm bill and rural development programs, including farmer conservation program contracts, beginning farmer training programs, local and regional food system initiatives, and critical agricultural loan programs, could be destabilized if funding agreements can be suspended or canceled at any time at the political discretion of agency leadership. 

“Since January 2025, sudden funding freezes, unanticipated grant terminations, and abrupt full program cancellations—not to mention a woefully understaffed USDA—have upended farmers’ business plans and planting decisions, delayed and prevented farmland purchases, prompted layoffs, and left farmers in the lurch awaiting reimbursements for purchases made under duly executed agreements. Agriculture will always have disruptive events, from market disruptions and natural disasters to pandemics and pests. Yet, the structure of federal policy determines the impact of those disruptions on farm families, their communities, the land, and the country. The federal government should offer more, not less, certainty and stability for farmers already confronting the compounding impacts of increasing production costs, decreasing income, rising land prices, lost markets, and evolving pest pressures,” the comment states.

###

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 Urges Reconsideration of Problematic OMB Proposed Rule appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

History

The Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP) was originally authorized with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Recognizing the importance of providing training – particularly for smaller, more economically vulnerable operations, Congress created FSOP to fund outreach, education, training, and technical assistance projects that directly assist small and mid-sized farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, and small-scale wholesalers. FSOP’s focus is to ensure that training is tailored to the diverse needs of these businesses and the production systems they use, particularly sustainable production systems, including organic and conservation practices.

Fifteen years since FSMA passed and ten years into FSOP grants, this program remains critical as FDA continues to roll out new regulations to fully implement FSMA, with mixed results. Yet, funding for FSOP has remained stagnant – and even decreased when accounting for inflation – limiting its ability to support farmers even as the complexity of the farmer food safety system increases. This blog post analyzes recent trends in the awards from this program and overall program data and proposes potential reasons for both. 

This post also analyzes some of these trends through a racial equity lens, looking at the proportion of awards made to historically Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), against other forms of higher education institutions.  Historically, FSOP and its leadership have been invested in advancing racial equity. Former director Dr. Jody Williams, the national program leader for FSOP, spearheaded the inclusion of a Collaborative Engagement Supplement component within the program RFA in 2018, which offers an additional $150,000 to recipients that collaborate with 1890s, 1994s, Insular Areas, ANNH, or HSACU in order to increase outreach to underserved farmers of color. During that year, about $1.6 million was awarded in supplements to four 1862s that partnered with 1890s, HSIs, and HSACUs. While some of this analysis was done in the year following that change, there has not been a recent investigation of this, and especially not since Dr. Jody Williams sadly moved on from this position. 

Trends over the course of the program (shown below) of declining utilization by groups other than Land Grant Universities (LGUs) raise concern. This, coupled with recent years’ changes in Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs), such as not having one (2025), has led to even worse outcomes in this analysis. With the “emeritus” awards (awards from not previously elected fiscal year (FY) 2025 applications) of FY26and a much shortened application cycle during the current year, these trends may likely continue. 

All analysis from our review of Awards – NIFA Funding Portal

Analysis

Over the course of the program, as seen in Figure 1, LGUs received the clear majority of grants from this program. While this is not problematic for LGUs to receive funding for this program – LGUs contain many valuable food safety scientists and Extension personnel – their indirect fees and administrative costs can reduce total funding available for programmatic work in outreach and collaborative education projects. The fact that over the history of FSOP, 28% of projects have gone to farming associations, local governments, community associations, and non profits, often working in underserved communities, has been a strength of the program. These awards to these types have a strong history of adaptive education, community trust, and understanding of niche food safety education issues. 

Figure 1: Total Historical FSOP Awards 

However, there has been a worrying trend in recent years of an increase in only one type of recipient, LGUs, and shrinking award amounts for all other recipient types. In fact, in 2024, no farmer-serving nonprofit organizations received any FSOPs. In 2025, HBCUs and HSIs fared similarly. 

Figure 2: Percentage of FSOP awards per year by recipient type

Figure 3: Percentage of FSOP funding by year per recipient type

Some of this variation can be accounted for in that FSOP funds the FSMA Regional Centers every three years, but the complete lack of awards for two recipient types over two years, and increasing amounts of awards only to LGUs that FSOP might not be able to fully reach its goal of targeting smaller-scale and economically vulnerable farmers.

Going Forward

Continued analysis, such as analyzing applicant institution types, not just award recipients, will be necessary to better understand why these trends have occurred. NSAC will continue to analyze future years’ program data, push for further internal review of limiting factors for farming association organizations, and full length application windows longer than 30 business days. 

 This trend also further demonstrates a need for a higher funding authorization level for this program. Given the impacts of inflation and the potential for more project funds to be directed toward administrative costs instead of programming, the outreach and training needed to help support farmers with ongoing FSMA implementation may not reach their intended audience. 

The post The Food Safety Outreach Program’s 10th Birthday: A Review appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Since January 2025, farmers, agricultural organizations, and the communities they serve have experienced unprecedented instability in long-standing federal partnerships with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Lengthy funding freezes, unanticipated grant terminations, full program cancellations, and a woefully understaffed USDA have detrimentally disrupted the programs, services, and resources that farmers and rural communities leverage to build environmentally resilient and economically viable businesses, strengthen local and regional supply chains, and grow the next generation of farmers and ranchers. Now, proposed changes to federal rules governing grants and cooperative agreements threaten to further destabilize an already fragile agricultural sector by injecting additional uncertainty and risk into the agreements farmers and farmer-serving organizations enter into with the USDA. This post provides context and background on the issue, analyzes key concerns with the proposed rule, and offers resources for stakeholders who wish to take action.

Overview of USDA Funding Agreements and Recent Impacts

USDA funding recipients have long been subject to specific terms and conditions that govern their federally-funded projects, in part based on the Uniform Grants Guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget. This guidance includes a provision rarely – if ever – invoked allowing a signed agreement to be terminated, “to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” 2 CFR 200.340(a)(4). However, it has not been until the second Trump Administration that USDA has started relying on that provision to terminate hundreds of signed agreements, evidently in pursuit of rooting out what this Administration has termed “illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” USDA’s authority for these terminations has been challenged in the courts by both organizations and states whose funding was abruptly canceled, with early indications of a likelihood of success on the merits in at least one case. 

Even while these lawsuits unfold, USDA has taken additional steps to limit the kinds of activities that projects might undertake to expand equitable access to opportunity for all farmers, and particularly for the farmers, ranchers, and communities that have historically been – and in many cases continue to be – underserved by USDA resources. This includes the release of new General Terms and Conditions at USDA at the end of December 2025, which have generated significant stress and confusion among federal grantees due to their breadth and the vague terms they contain related to DEI, general, and civil rights compliance. Several of these new Terms and Conditions have already been challenged in court, with the plaintiff states recently receiving a preliminary injunction given the impacts of these terms on their funding and the states’ likelihood of success on the merits.

These kinds of actions are not limited to USDA; they are occurring across the federal government. This includes recent proposed updates to the SAM.gov portal, which would require federal grantees to certify compliance with Executive Orders regarding so-called “illegal DEI,” immigration, and national security. And most recently, and the primary focus of this post, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed revisions to the rules that govern federal financial assistance agreements, including agency grants, cooperative agreements, “and other agreement[s] for assistance”. 

This proposed rule would expand on and codify the anti-equity provisions and termination authority discussed above – despite active legal challenges to these authorities and the significant disruptions and harms their use has levied on farmers and farmer-serving organizations. It also includes other changes to federal grantmaking that raise significant concerns for USDA funding recipients. 

Key Concerns and Impacts

The proposed rule contains a wide range of changes to federal grantmaking, including by elevating these provisions from non-binding guidance for agencies to binding regulations. This analysis focuses on several key concerns with the rules as applied to USDA-funded projects: broad termination authority, compliance with vague and undefined terms, new burdens on grantees and partnership projects, politicization of funding decisions, and uncertain scope. 

Broad Termination Authority Destabilizes Longstanding USDA Partnerships

One of the most problematic aspects of the proposed rule for agricultural stakeholders is the expansion and codification of what the rule is calling the federal government’s “discretionary termination” authority. The expanded language would permit termination of a signed agreement at any time if the agency determines “it is in the interest of the Federal agency or pass-through entity, including if a Federal award does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination.” This is an incredibly permissive standard, and one that largely ignores Congress’ role in establishing agricultural program goals and priorities through the Farm Bill. The proposed rule does not define “national interest,” which is often used interchangeably in the rule with “public interest,” which is also undefined. The proposed rule also adds a new authority to temporarily suspend program funding “at any time” and for any reason where it determines suspension is “in the interest of the Federal agency.”

These unbounded authorities to terminate or suspend lawfully signed agreements are unquestionably one of the most destabilizing aspects of the proposed rule. Farmers, farm service providers, and countless others across the food and agricultural supply chain rely on the USDA to uphold their end of an agreement. As we have already seen over the past two years, sudden funding freezes and program terminations have upended farmers’ business plans and planting decisions, delayed and prevented farmland purchases, prompted layoffs, and left farmers in the lurch awaiting reimbursements for purchases made under duly executed agreements.

While the proposed rule seeks to encourage multi-year project funding as purportedly being more stable for grantees and efficient to administer, in reality this intention is directly undercut by the agency’s expanded ability to terminate a project at any time. USDA operates numerous multi-year funding programs, from five-year Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) projects to help farmers apply regionally-relevant conservation practices in targeted areas, to three-year Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) grants to support trainings for next-generation farmers, to multi-year research projects on cover cropping systems through the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), to grants designed to support meat processing capacity expansion, and many more. 

It can take years to get these multi-year partnership projects off the ground due to the time and effort involved in the lead up to and during the application process, and in the post-award agreement negotiation. It is unconscionable to expect USDA partners to expend that degree of effort to launch and implement a project while the agency maintains wide latitude to terminate the project at any time, and without notice or opportunity to adjust the project prior to termination. The full impact of such terminations on the partners – including foregone opportunities, sunk costs, reputational damage – and on the farmers lined up to participate, not to mention the lost community and public benefits that these projects yield, is nearly impossible to measure and impossible to fully recover under these rules.

Putting aside whether such broad termination authority is lawful, the proposed rule would do away with farmers’ and organizations’ right to appeal such a termination administratively, foreclosing the opportunity to explain the project’s alignment with the agency’s newly identified priorities or to identify a pathway to make any necessary changes to the project to support alignment. Rather than retaining the termination option as a last resort, this proposed change makes it the norm, guaranteeing uncertainty at best and chaos at worst for USDA-funded projects, particularly when projects span changing Administrations, ultimately penalizing farmers for shifts in national political leadership that are well beyond their control. Farmers and farmer-serving organizations depend on a stable business relationship with the USDA. The unfettered ability to suspend or terminate duly executed funding agreements – particularly without any obligation for USDA to seek modification first before terminating, and without any opportunity to appeal the decision – erodes confidence in USDA as a trustworthy business partner and will severely undermine the agency’s mission and vision.

Vague and Undefined Terms Raise Constitutional and Compliance Concerns

The proposed rule continues along a similar path as USDA’s General Terms and Conditions discussed above, prohibiting funding recipients from engaging in so-called “illegal DEI” and other vague or undefined terms. These prohibitions are troubling for several reasons. 

First, as noted above, USDA has used this as grounds to terminate agreements already, and the courts have not upheld that authority. In fact, grantees whose Increasing Land Capital and Market Access projects were canceled earlier this spring just received a preliminary injunction, with the court finding USDA’s actions “suspect” and questioning USDA’s ability to “terminate grants for the very reason that the grants further the aims Congress explicitly instructed [USDA] to pursue.” 

Second, the restriction of activities based on vague or undefined terms poses compliance challenges for grant recipients. Grant recipients are also responsible for ensuring any subawardees are complying with these vague terms, including a new responsibility for grantees to ensure subawardees are not taking any action that would “damage the reputation” of the Federal government. If such damaging action is determined by the Federal government to have happened, they can direct the grantee to terminate the subaward or decide to terminate the award in its entirety. No guidance is offered in the proposed rule explaining what kinds of activities would be considered damaging, or how a lead grantee is supposed to verify compliance, increasing uncertainty and administrative burdens for grantees, and especially those engaged in partnership projects.

New Burdens on Grantees & Partnership Projects

The rule poses additional administrative and compliance burdens on grantees, and in particular on grantees involved in projects that involve multiple partners or subawardees. In addition to the foregoing, the proposed rule would:

• Eliminate the use of fixed amount subawards, limiting an otherwise valuable tool for managing multi-partner projects, particularly those that provide micro-grants for farmers, and encourage smaller-scale producer participation, along the lines of the guaranteed minimum payment amounts for producers to to enroll in certain conservation programs.
• Grant USDA the authority to shift from advance payment to reimbursement during the grant project. For farmers and lower-resourced organizations, advance payments offer a critical way to procure the goods or services necessary to carry out the work funded under the agreement. In fact, some farm bill programs – like EQIP – have advance payment options explicitly authorized by statute. For programs where advance payments are not statutorily protected, the ability of USDA to midway switch to a reimbursement method could have significant budgetary impacts for organizations that develop (and receive USDA approval for) project budgets years in advance given their limited ability to switch payment methods partway through a planned project.
• Allow agencies to add or change agreement terms throughout the course of the project, based on an assessment of risk that does not have to be clearly articulated at the time the grant was awarded, impacting compliance obligations and organizational planning.

Countless USDA programs are statutorily designed as partnership projects, and partnerships are often encouraged and prioritized as part of grant application review processes. The uncertainty and increased compliance obligations posed by these new provisions stand to severely undermine USDA’s ability to implement these Congressionally-directed programs.

Politicization of Funding Decisions

The rule also seeks to codify some of the recent changes initiated across agencies during the DOGE funding review process and subsequent Executive Orders, which place significant authority over funding decisions not with expert career agency personnel and peer reviewers, but with political appointees. These appointees would now have the ability to pre-screen applications and remove them from consideration altogether if they fail to “advance the President’s priorities” or are determined to “promote anti-American values.” These terms are undefined, leaving grantees uncertain as to whether developing a proposal that addresses the goals outlined in the program’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is sufficient to be eligible for funding, and potentially conflicting with the program’s underlying congressionally-defined purpose and goals.

Lack of Clarity Regarding Scope

The lack of clarity regarding how these rules will apply across the many programs USDA offers exacerbates the uncertainty regarding the impacts of this proposed rule.

The proposed rule applies to federal financial assistance agreements, including agency grants, cooperative agreements, and “other agreement[s] for assistance”, leaving many questions regarding applicability across USDA’s varied program offerings. The rule differentiates between “discretionary” and “non-discretionary” awards, signaling that programs like SNAP and ARC/PLC or other direct payments are unlikely to be covered. It is equally clear that traditional competitive grants operated by agencies like the National Institute of Food and Agriculture or the Agricultural Marketing Service fall under its purview. But it offers no specificity with regard to the unique agreements that USDA enters into with farmers to carry out programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program; agricultural credit programs like Farm Ownership Loans; and other discretionary agreements. The broader the reach of these rules, the more instability it injects into an already destabilized agricultural sector, and the more damaging the impacts when USDA freely exercises its “discretionary termination” authority.

How to Take Action

Agricultural stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments to the public docket here before midnight EST on Monday, July 13. For guidance on how to approach submitting a comment, we encourage you to utilize this worksheet developed by Farm Commons. 

The post Proposed Grant Rules Increase Uncertainty, Risk for Farmers  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.