Â鶹°æ¿ñì­

There are two key issues that frame the difference between the Senate and the House versions of the bill. One is the deletion and rejection of any mention of “climate smart� practices in the House bill, the other is what Democrats claim a reduction of $30 billion in the nutritional assistance programs.

Republicans don’t think that climate is as serious an issue for agriculture as Democrats claim it is, and that is a serious problem that requires clarification because it impacts how investments are being prioritized and allocated to various programs.

Agriculture has an outsized role not just by reducing its own emissions, but even going carbon negative with regenerative practices that sequester carbon into the soils. Of equal importance to regenerating nature is the capacity of carbon-rich soil to hold water, at a rate of 20,000 gallons of water per acre for each 1% of organic carbon. By depleting millions of acres of farmland of organic carbon, conventional farming has disrupted the hydrologic cycles of entire bioregions, referred to as the small water cycle. The push for high productivity encourages practices that deplete the soil’s microbiome and reduce the land’s ability to naturally manage water and carbon, exacerbating climate change.

There are programs available in the conservation section of the farm bill to assist farmers to introduce regenerative soil health practices (EQIP, CSP), but these programs are underfunded and the majority of applications (over 70%) are not accepted.

The other issue: the U.S. is spending $183 billion per year on nutritional assistance programs, and the non-partisan OMB (Office of Management and Budget) has calculated that the changes in the House bill will reduce benefits for SNAP by $30 billion. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer is a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, and she argued on behalf of the Republican position in favor of the bill as submitted and against the estimate from OMB. It would be helpful to better understand her position. But in the back and forth between both parties, what was not discussed is how this money is being spent, and how regulations prevent innovations in this space.

For example, the program does not allow the sale of hot food and food intended for on-premise consumption. Yet a significant share of recipients may lack access to a kitchen, or may be a mother juggling two jobs with limited time and resources to cook food.

At this point the majority of the money goes to national retailers for often highly processed and nutrient-poor foods. Why not allow local nonprofit kitchens to expand their service and cater to SNAP and WIC recipients, amplifying local donations and offering fresh, locally sourced, nutrient-rich meals? Congress can support such innovations to develop local food systems that benefit the entire community.