In a recent New York Review of Books essay, I argued that few non-farmers – which is most of the U.S. population – know about or pay attention to the Farm Bill, the legislative vehicle for much of the nation’s agricultural and food policies. (Agriculture and food are not synonymous, but that’s for another day.) I also argued that non-farmers should pay more attention if they want to counter the long-time dominance of Big Agriculture in decisions shaping which basic commodities get produced, how, how much, by who, and with what long-term ecological and societal impacts.

Most readers of this blog know about the Farm Bill (its generic label). For the less familiar, it is a sprawling “omnibus” legislation that shapes production of agricultural commodities and contains provisions on agricultural research, farm credit, insurance, rural development, trade, conservation, and nutrition—notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.

In contrast to a century ago, when a quarter of Americans lived on the farm, most members of Congress today hail from urban and suburban areas, where most of us now live. As a result, the comparatively few legislators representing agricultural areas need the votes of colleagues who wouldn’t know a harrow from a plow. Getting those votes requires including in the Farm Bill provisions relevant to the non-farming majority. That deal starts with SNAP, which today provides food assistance to roughly 42 million Americans. The equation is simple for most Democrats – no SNAP, no Farm Bill – and rural legislators keep SNAP in the tent to get the votes needed to renew commodity programs that few urban legislators otherwise care about.

But SNAP is only part of the deal. Relatively recent additions to the Farm Bill include provisions supporting “specialty” crops – the vegetables and fruits members of the National Young Farmers Coalition tend to produce – urban agriculture, conservation, and “healthy incentives” programs to enable SNAP enrollees to purchase produce at local farmers markets. The inclusion of these programs over the past two decades reflects the growing leverage of “non-traditional” interests in agricultural and food policies.

The current version of the Farm Bill technically expired October 1, 2023, but an otherwise immobilized Congress was able to extend the law for one year. Had Congress not done so, many of the programs of interest to members of the Coalition would have expired for lack of formal authorization. No more funding for specialty crops, urban agriculture, conservation, or the Gus Schumacher Healthy Incentives Program.

But an expiration in legal authorization also hurts major producers of commodity crops like corn and soy, critical Republican constituencies. Commodity prices are in a slump, and party leaders worry that a continued impasse might weaken prospects of retaining the House, much less winning the Senate. Democrats seem to be more content with another one-year extension, pushing consideration until 2025, when they hope to have more favorable political conditions. While a simple extension seems likelier at this point, one never bets the proverbial ranch on what Congress will do, especially in an election year.

I ended my NYRB essay by observing that farming could be reframed as a progressive issue. Despite repeated conservative mantra, urban America is not the farmer’s enemy. The real foes are status quo  legislators who consistently back policies that drive farming into fewer and larger operations and who enable corporate oligopolies that hurt farmers and hollow out rural communities. Given narrow legislative majorities and a generally supportive Biden USDA, there is an opportunity to extend and expand policies aiding small and mid-size farms, promote “climate friendly” conservation programs to lessen the adverse ecological impacts of food production, and demand enforcement of antitrust laws to stem corporate concentration in food production, processing, and retail. But to get there, those of us who do not farm need to pay more attention.

Christopher Bosso is a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University, Boston. His books include Framing the Farm Bill: Interests, Ideology, and the Agricultural Act of 2014 and, more recently, Why SNAP Works: A Political History – and Defense – of the Food Stamp Program.

Take action with other farmers and advocates in our network by going to youngfarmers.org/advocate to ask your members of Congress to prioritize secure land access, funding for conservation efforts, and farmer-to-farmer support networks in the upcoming Farm Bill.