Spending on farm subsidies to spike over the next three years

Posted February 2, 2016

According to new government spending projections released by the Congressional Budget Office, spending on farm subsidies will soar in the next three years. 

Subsidies in the 2014 Farm Bill will cost a lot more than initially projected, according to the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group opposed to farm subsidies. 

Although Congress eliminated direct payments to farmers a few years ago, they replaced them with two subsidy programs known as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC County) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The 2014 Farm Bill authorized both programs. The Congressional Budget Office believed this change would save taxpayers billions of dollars over the life of the Farm Bill. 

However, the Environmental Working Group’s analysis of the CBO's projections contends that government payments for the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage subsidies will cost an additional $8 billion over the next three years -- 70 percent more than originally estimated by CBO when Congress passed the Farm Bill in January 2014.

Similarly, Agriculture.com’s farm subsidy analysis finds that the government faces three high-cost years, beginning with $5.8 billion in 2016. Low commodity prices will likely increase the cost of programs that help stabilize crop revenue. Furthermore, the CBO’s latest budget forecasts that crop subsidies will cost a total of $22 billion for fiscal 2016, 2017, and 2018 -- a 9% increase from the estimate it made a year ago of $20.1 billion for those years.

The main recipients would be corn, soybean, wheat, and peanut growers. Corn, soybeans, and wheat are the three most widely planted crops in the country, grown on 225 million acres while peanuts are planted on about 1.6 to 1.7 million acres annually. Corn farmers were projected to get $10.5 billion from 2016 to 2018, soybean growers $3.5 billion, wheat growers $2.9 billion, and peanuts $1.7 billion, per agriculture.com.

The Congressional Budget Office's newest estimates for Farm Bill spending may be viewed here.

Appeals court rules against Obama's immigration plan

Posted November 11, 2015

A federal appeals court said that President Obama could not overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation, according to The New York Times article available here.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled 2 to 1 against the appeal from the Obama administration.

The ruling is the latest set back to the president’s efforts to circumvent congressional inaction on immigration, reshaping the way immigration laws are enforced.

The White House said in a statement that it strongly disagreed with the court and that the departments of Justice and Homeland Security will review the ruling to determine the "next steps" in the case, according to USA Today.

"The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws," the statement read. "This lawsuit is preventing people who have been part of our communities for years from working on the books, contributing to our economy by paying taxes on that work, and being held accountable."

The administration could ask for a re-hearing by the full 5th Circuit but the National Immigration Law Center urged an immediate Supreme Court appeal, according to CBS News.

"The most directly impacted are the 5 million U.S. citizen children whose parents would be eligible for temporary relief from deportation," Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the organization, said in a news release.

The 4.3 million undocumented immigrants deemed eligible for the program are at the mercy of the next president, making the panel's decision a major blow to Obama, who has hoped to overhaul the nation's immigration system before leaving office, according to USA Today.

"The most directly impacted are the five million U.S. citizen children whose parents would be eligible for temporary relief from deportation," said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. "We now call on the Department of Justice to seek Supreme Court review immediately, where we are more likely to obtain justice for our communities."

Sixteen states sue the EPA

Posted June 30, 2014

Sixteen states have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contesting a rule that expands the definition of bodies of water subject to federal pollution controls, according to a Reuters article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and Brownfield Ag News here.

The actions are a coordinated challenge to an EPA rule issued on May 27 that defines the jurisdiction of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over rivers, streams, lakes or marshes, which was meant to clarify the waters protected by the anti-pollution provisions of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA).

There are two lawsuits, one was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota and the other in Texas. The states joining the lawsuit are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming, according to Feedstuffs.

In the lawsuit, the states contend the new definition of "Waters of the United States" violates provisions of the CWA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the United States Constitution. Missouri attorney general Chris Koster said that without such a ruling, the law would take effect 60 days after the rule was published.   

The states assert that the EPA's rule wrongly broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who joined the suit, says the official definition by EPA “extends the agencies’ regulation far beyond what a reasonable person considers to be a waterway,” according to Brownfield Ag News,

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst says he’s pleased Missouri’s and other Attorney’s General have taken this action, ”Which is a pretty good indication of how upset people are about the rule. There is a great deal of hope out in farm country that he’ll be successful with this court case.”

Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the states have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management, according to Koster. In the lawsuit, the states argue that the burdens created by the new EPA requirements on waters and lands are harmful to the states and will negatively affect farmers, developers and landowners, according to Feedstuffs.

The new EPA rule would extend federal jurisdiction over tributaries that may be natural, man-altered or man-made, including canals and ditches, said the complaint filed in Texas, according to Reuters.

The rule fails to account for duration of water flow, suggesting federal agencies can assert jurisdiction over “dry ponds, ephemeral streams, intermittent channels and even ditches,” the Texas lawsuit stated.

One case is State of Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in U.S. Southern District of Texas, No. 15-cv-162. The other is North Dakota v. U.S. EPA, No. 15-59 in Federal District of North Dakota.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Rep. Kristi Noem: Congress Will Pass Farm Bill

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), member of the House Agriculture Committee, says that Congress will pass a farm bill “in the coming months” according to an article by the Argus Leader, available here.  According the article, Noem indicated that:

“My leadership team has told me that it’s going to happen, because I’ve been pretty ugly with them at different times.”  She continued, “So I’m taking them at their word that they’re going to make sure it gets scheduled and they’re going to make sure we’ve got the votes.” 

The farm bill continues to be a contentious issue in Congress over issues including the nutrition title, farm program payments, and even a catfish inspection program.  For more background on these issues past posts on this blog are available here, here, and here. 

The Senate has had success passing a farm bill, but the road to success has been far more challenging in the House.  In 2012, the House Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill, but it was never brought up for a vote in the House.  The 2012 outcome illustrates the deep divisions on certain issues, which is on only display when the House initially failed to pass a farm bill earlier this year.  Later, the House split the nutrition title from the farm bill that paved a possible path forward for getting a competing bill that could be conferenced with the Senate.  Notably, the House-passed bill would also repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent laws that have been the backstop to getting previous farm bills across the legislative finish line.  Indications have been that the House will bring up a nutrition-only bill in September, following the August recess, that would cut nutrition programs by about $40 billion.  That said, significant doubts have been expressed about the political viability of that approach.

Senators Introduce Bill to Ease Ag Sales in Cuba

Posted April 24, 2015

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and John Boozman, R-Ark., introduced a bill today that would allow banks to finance agricultural exports sent to Cuba, helping to open up Cuban markets to American farmers and ranchers, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here. National Miami Herald also published an article available here and McClatchy DC here.

“While farmers in North Dakota and all across the country dedicate their lives to feeding folks around the world, we have to make sure our producers have the opportunities they need to get their products to market,” said Heitkamp. “The biggest obstacle in that effort involves private companies and banks not being able to provide credit to export agricultural commodities to Cuba, where these crops are in high demand.”

The bill seeks to remove one of the main barriers to open agricultural trade with Cuba: the prohibition on credit sales. The Agricultural Export Expansion Act, would lift the current ban on private banks and companies from offering credit for agricultural exports to Cuba, according to McClatchy DC.

Overall, Cuba imports more than $2 billion a year in food and agricultural products. The U.S. share of that has been several hundred million dollars in recent years, but it has been trending down and totaled less than $300 million in 2014. Agricultural experts see the potential for U.S. sales to exceed $1.2 billion annually within five years, according to Miami Herald.

The U.S. farm lobby is pushing hard for a full repeal of the trade embargo, and while there is bipartisan support for such a move, it remains very controversial in Congress and experts say a full repeal is very unlikely this Congress.

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

USDA to Limit Payments to Non-Farmers, 2014 Farm Bill

Posted March 25, 2015

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a proposed rule to limit farm payments to non-farmers, consistent with requirements Congress mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill, according to the USDA press release available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here.

The proposed rule limits farm payments to individuals who may be designated as farm managers but are not actively engaged in farm management.

"We want to make sure that farm program payments are going to the farmers and farm families that they are intended to help. So we've taken the steps to do that, to the extent that the Farm Bill allows," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The Farm Bill gave USDA the authority to limit farm program payments to individuals who are not actively engaged in the management of the farming operation on non-family farms. This helps close a loophole that has been taken advantage of by some larger joint ventures and general partnerships."

"Actively engaged" is defined for managers allows individuals with little to no contributions to critical farm management decisions to receive safety net payments if they are classified as farm managers. For some operations, there were an unlimited number of managers that could receive payments, according to Farm Futures.

Under the new proposed rule, non-family joint ventures and general partnerships must document that their managers are making significant contributions to the farming operation, 500 hours of management work per year, or 25% of the critical management time necessary for the success of the farming operation.

As mandated by Congress, family farms will not be impacted. There will also be no change to existing rules for contributions to land, capital, equipment, or labor. Only non-family farm general partnerships or joint ventures comprised of more than one member will be impacted by this proposed rule, according to USDA.

Stakeholders interested in commenting on the proposed definition and changes are encouraged to provide written comments here by May 26, 2015. The proposed rule is available here.

For more information on farm bills, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Leasing, Conditional Sales Agreements, and the Future of Section 179

Posted February 10, 2015

The Ohio State University’s Agricultural Law & Taxation blog published an article on Leasing, Conditional Sales Agreements, and the Future of Section 179.

The Internal Revenue Code (Code) allows an annual deduction of a portion of the cost of the property. This deduction may be a deduction for depreciation, amortization or depletion. There are two exceptions to the aforementioned rule. The first exception is the section 179 expense deduction and the other exception is the Accelerated First Year Depreciation (AFYD).

For lease payments to be deductible as a business expense, the lease agreement must be a Tax-Oriented True Lease. If there are any factors present that show that the payments are intended to be creating equity in the equipment, the agreement will be deemed to be a conditional sales agreement. The payments pursuant to a conditional sales agreement are not deductible business expenses and the equipment is not depreciable unless the purchaser is considered the owner.

The importance of this issue depends on when Congress addresses the section 179 expense deduction and AFYD. If Congress’ inaction in 2013 and 2014 is any indication, farmers may very well find themselves in the same position of not knowing whether or not to make capital expenditures in 2015. The best possible scenario would be for Congress to permanently establish section 179 at $500,000 and AFYD at 50% to provide farmers with the certainty that they need to make wise business decisions. However, this is unlikely to happen. If a lease is a viable alternative for the farmer, make sure that it is a Tax-Oriented True Lease.

For more information on Leasing, Conditional Sales Agreements, and the Future of Section 179, please visit OSU’s Ag Law and Taxation Blog here.

White House Budget Increase for Single Food Agency

Posted February 4, 2015

President Obama is seeking an increase fiscal 2016 to fund the proposed single food agency, according to a Meating Place article available here. Law 360 also published an article available here and Farm Futures here.

Lawmakers have proposed a bill that would establish a single food safety agency by uniting the oversight functions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The White House is requesting a budget increase of 9 percent to $4.9 million for the FDA to allocate more funding for the agency to implement its food safety overhaul, according to Law 360.

Vilsack explained currently there 15 agencies involved in food safety in the federal government and there "are probably 14 too many," focusing on the budget's goals of efficiency and efficacy in the food system, according to Farm Futures.

This cooperative effort would require Congressional action to provide the President with consolidation authority, which is something that hasn't been provided for more than 25 years.

The Safe Food Act of 2015 would create an independent food safety agency, rather than house it within Health and Human Services (HHS), as the White House is proposing, according to Meating Place.

“HHS is a massive organization. A new food safety agency would be lost among the other priorities of the department, and would likely not receive the recognition or resources necessary for it to be,” said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of America.  

For more information on the Safe Food Act of 2015, please visit the National Agricultural law Center’s website here.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WOTUS Interpretive Rule Withdrawn

Posted February 3, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers issued a memorandum of understanding to withdraw the Waters of the U.S. (WPYUS) Interpretive Rule, according to a Farm Futures article available here. Hoosier Ag Today also published an article available here and Ag Wired here.

In December, Congress requested that EPA and Army Corps withdraw the interpretive rule in its "Cromnibus" funding legislation.

The rule was intended to clarify normal farming activities exempt from the Clean Water Act, according to Hoosier Ag Today.

“Farmers have a lot of concerns about WOTUS,” said Maryland farmer Chip Bowling, president of NCGA. “What we need is clarity. The interpretive rule actually made things less clear. We hope that the withdrawal of the interpretive rule will allow us to get to the true matter at hand: how the Clean Water Act is administered.”

The National Milk Producers Federation was also pleased with the withdrawal, according to Ag Wired.

“Our concern with the initial proposal from last year is that it could have altered the long-standing and productive relationship between farmers and the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, in a way that would have made it harder for farmers to implement water conservation measures,” said Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s Vice President for Sustainability & Scientific Affairs. “We’re pleased the EPA and Army have recognized that this regulation could have backfired, and that they’ve taken the necessary step to withdraw it.”

Last fall, the senators wrote that the proposal also could "fundamentally change the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and farm families" in a letter, according to Farm Futures.

The effective withdrawal date was January 29. The Waters of the U.S. proposal is still under consideration by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The final comment period closed November 14.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Washington Lawmakers Introduce "Ag-Gag" Bill

Posted January 16, 2015

A Washington legislator is fighting for an “ag-gag” law, House Bill 1104, according to a Farms article available here. Capital Press also published an article available here and Food Safety News here.

The law would make it illegal to record activity at slaughterhouses and farms without the owner’s permission and is sponsored by Reps. Joe Schmick (R-Colfax) and and J.T. Wilcox (R-Yelm).

If a person was found guilty, he or she could be sent to jail for up to a year and fined $5,000.

“I view it as a way to protect the farmer,” said state Rep. Joe Schmick, a Colfax Republican.

The bill has the same maximum penalty as Idaho’s law, because Schmick decided to file the bill after reading Idaho’s ag-gag bill.

Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana were the first states to adopt this law in the early 90s. Four more states have adopted similar measures since 2010, including Idaho, Utah, Iowa and Missouri, according to Food Safety News.

Animal-rights groups have opposed ag-gag measures in the legislative process and in federal courts, because they often use recording devices to collect evidence.

Four Californians were recently charged with violating Utah’s ag-gag law, but the court dropped the charges.

Senate Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Package, Many Agricultural Riders

Posted December 15, 2014

The U.S. Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending package to fund the federal government for the remaining fiscal period, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama stated that he would sign the bill “despite the administration’s objections to certain riders and disappointment that the bill will only fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27, 2015.”

More than $1 billion is allocated to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the Cromnibus, almost $2.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including almost $1 million for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and $147 million for the Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Food safety increased by $8 million for “advancing diagnostic capabilities using DNA technology and enhancing surveillance, detection and prevention efforts at the state and local level.”

The House passed the bill by a 219-206 margin, according to Feedstuffs.

The bill provides a total of $20.6 billion for agriculture in discretionary funding, $305 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

For a summary of the riders impacting agriculture, please visit Feedstuffs’ site here.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Congress Asked to Pass Food Labeling Safety Act

Posted December 15, 2014

Stacey Forshee, a member of Farm Bureau, asked Congress to help consumers understand the differences between food safety concerns and “marketing ploys” by passing H.R. 4432 , the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, according to a Wisconsin Ag Connection article available here. Food Navigator also published an article available here and Pal-Item here.

"As a hard-working American family who lives off the land and the products it provides, we would never allow a product we grew or raised to enter the food supply unless we knew it was safe," said Forshee. She and her husband are farmers and cattle ranchers in north central Kansas, and Forshee said that she has witnessed firsthand the “marked benefits of biotechnology crops, including higher yields over fewer tillable acres, reduced pesticide use and improved soil conservation."

Forshee praised the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “science-based approach to labeling food products for safety, health, and nutrition information,” but worries consumers will be misled, according to Pal-Item.

Labeling foods with biotechnology traits “will mislead consumers into believing such food products are materially different, create undue risk and should be avoided — all of which are scientifically false,” she said.

Since 1996, more than 17 million farmers have increased the world food supply by 110 million tons of soybeans and 195 million tons of corn. Farmers have also reduced pesticide use by 1.2 billion pounds by planting GMO crops.

 

Mandatory genetically modified (GMO) food labeling would increase the cost of food by approximately $500 a year per family, which could put even more burdens on families that already struggle with grocery bills, according to Food Navigator.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Farm Groups Urge Section 179 Restoration

Posted November 20, 2014

The National Milk Producers Federation along with 41 other agricultural organizations in are urging Congress to restore Section 179 code provision that allows small businesses and farms to write off capital purchases such as farming equipment immediately as opposed to over time, according to a Wisconsin Ag Connection article available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here and Agri-Pulse here.

The provision is one of more than 50 expired tax policies expected to be under consideration for reinstatement by the House and Senate during their post-election lame duck session. Farm groups have pushed restoration of Section 179 in a letter on November 18 to congressional leadership.

"Farming requires significant investments in machinery and equipment," said NMPF President and CEO Jim Mulhern. "By allowing farmers to immediately write off these purchases on their taxes, Section 179 gives producers an incentive to invest in their businesses while it reduced their record-keeping burden."

Previously farmers were able to take full depreciation deductible of an eligible item in the current tax year with a maximum deduction of $500,000 and a phase-out threshold of $2 million, according to Farm Futures.

Now the deduction level has fallen to $25,000 with a $200,000 phase-out for 2014 unless Congress acts on tax reform or a "tax extenders" package before the year’s end.

In a conference call with reporters, Dorothy Coleman, vice president of tax and domestic policy with the National Association of Manufacturers, said the focus of the letters “is not on telling Congress how to do it, but asking them and strongly urging them to get it done,” according to Agri-Pulse.

If the provision is not addressed during the lame duck session, tax extenders could still be approved in 2015 and retroactively applied to 2014 purchases.

A copy of the letter signed by 42 agriculture organizations and addressed to the Senate and House leadership outlining the importance of Section 179 in a potential tax extenders package is available here.

Two identical letters addressed separately were sent to all members of the House and Senate, and more than 500 organizations, companies, and local chambers of commerce signed the letters emphasizing the importance of action during the lame duck session.

For more information on estate planning and taxation, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Bridge to Clean Energy Future Act Introduced

-->

Posted September 25, 2014

Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa have introduced a bill titled the Bridge to a Clean Energy Future Act of 2014, or H.R. 5559, according to an Ethanol Producer article by Erin Voegele available here. BioMass also published Voegele’s article here, and Domestic Fuel published an article here.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means and received 16 additional signatures from Congress members.

“I’m eager to push this across the finish line this Congress,” said Blumenauer.

“My state of Oregon is a leader in renewable energy technologies, and Dave’s state of Iowa is the second largest wind energy producer in the nation, so we understand the importance of stability and security in the clean energy sector. His help will be important in advancing this legislation. Making sure these energy sources are on an even playing field with the fossil fuel industry is essential to lowering carbon emissions, creating a cleaner environment, and creating good, non-exportable American jobs,” according to Domestic Fuel.

By creating a “tax landscape” for renewable energy, representatives are able to participate in a fair market with other energy sources that create a healthier environment and thousands of jobs.

“The Production Tax Credit has helped the still-growing U.S. wind energy industry employ 80,000 Americans, including thousands of Iowans,” said Loebsack.

The bill would extend the 30 percent investment take credit for alternative vehicle refueling property, up to $30,000, for two years, through 2015. Eligible refueling property includes fuel pumps for ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and compressed or liquefied natural gas, according to Ethanol Producer.

“For our nation to move towards energy independence and continued job growth, we need to prioritize clean energy like wind and act immediately to pass this extension of the PTC,” said Loebsack, according to Domestic Fuel.

For more information, please visit Congress’ website here.

For more information on the Renewable Energy, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WSDA Seeking to Enforce New Food Safety Law

Posted September 19, 2014

The Washington Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is trying to enforce a new federal food safety law, according to a Capital Press article by Don Jenkins available here.

Kirk Robinson, WSDA assistant director, said the department thinks farmers and food processors would prefer to be checked by federal inspectors as opposed to state.

“We have a good relationship with our farmers and processors,” Robinson said. “I think we have a good history of being a regulator and partner of our industry.”

The law is intended to prevent food-borne illnesses, which affect more than 48 million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The law will also prevent businesses from being linked to “economically devastating” public health and public relations disasters, and the law could help safety-conscious food handlers compete with other competitors.

Robinson also stated he believes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have to rely on states to oversee most of the law’s implementation. The FDA has estimated the law will cost up to $450 million a year. Congress has yet to raise money through user fees.

Several House ag committee members have said they feared the rules will be “unreasonable.” Members are also concerned farmers will be required to test water quality when they irrigate, even if crops have no history of being contaminated by waterborne bacterial diseases.

“I’m worried not only about food prices going up, but that a lot of the cost actually is going to be absorbed by the farmer,” said Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

GAO Released Crop Insurance Study

Posted September 9, 2014

The cost of the federal crop insurance program and farm sector income and wealth has grown significantly since 2003. The cost has risen from an average of $3.4 billion per year in 2003 to $8.4 billion a year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) website.

Federally subsidized crop insurance, which farmers can buy to help manage the risk inherent in farming, has become one of the most important programs in the farm safety net. Revenue policies, which protect farmers against crop revenue loss from declines in production or price, are the most popular policy type accounting for 80 percent of all premium subsidies.

The GAO was asked to investigate the cost of the crop insurance program. This report examines "(1) trends in federal crop insurance costs and farm sector income and wealth from 2003 through 2012 and (2) the potential savings to the government and impacts on farmers, if any, of reducing federal premium subsidies for revenue policies."

GAO analyzed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) crop insurance program data and farm sector income and wealth data from 2003 through 2012, reviewed economic literature and documents from stakeholders, including farm industry groups and researchers, and interviewed USDA officials.

For more information, the GAO report is available here. The highlights of the report are available here.

For more information on crop insurance programs, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.