BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>

WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.

Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.

The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.

Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.

The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.

The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.

“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”

A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.

The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”

That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.

The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.

Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.

“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”

Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.

“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”

Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.

“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.

The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.

Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.

“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”

Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.

The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.

But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.

“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”

Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.

The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.

“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”

The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.

The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.

After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.

The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.

Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.

“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.

Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.

“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”

As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.

“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625596705829.png" alt="Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Partisan gridlock in Congress has led to a stalemate on the current farm bill, which provides crop subsidies and nutrition assistance. Hays Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>WASHINGTON — The stalemate over the current farm bill may be solidifying a new era in farm politics as it joins the last three farm bills in a trend of delays and partisan division — a contrast from the legislation’s history of bipartisanship.Every five years, Congress is tasked with drafting a new federal farm bill. The omnibus law that began 90 years ago as various kinds of payments to support farmers now has an impact far beyond the farm, with programs to create wildlife habitat, address climate change and provide the nation’s largest federal nutrition program.The current farm bill process, already nearly a year behind schedule, is at an impasse as Democrats and Republicans clash over how to pay for the bill and whether to place limits on nutrition and climate programs. The previous farm bill expired in September 2023 and has been extended through the end of this September.Historically, farm bills were completed within a few months of their expiration date. Ten of the 13 farm bills since 1965 were enacted by December 31 in the year of their expirations. But three of the four farm bills since 2008 went beyond that date.The last three bills — including the 2018 bill, which is the one recent version that passed on time — each had partisan disagreements about spending.The trend represents a change in how the once-bipartisan legislation is viewed.“The last two farm bills were the anomaly,” said Jonathan Coppess, a professor of Agricultural Law and Policy at the University of Illinois who has written a history of the farm bill. “Now that it has been three in a row, I’m not sure that holds.”A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45210.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that starting in 2008, farm bills have been subject to delays, vetoes and insufficient votes to pass on the floor.The report concluded: “Over time, farm bills have tended to become more complicated and politically sensitive. As a result, the timeline for reauthorization has become less certain.”<h2>Spending debate</h2>That uncertainty is true of the current farm bill, as Republicans in the House and Senate push for spending limits that Democrats say are non-starters.“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview on the radio program&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjdcUT0r3o" target="_blank">AgriTalk</a>&nbsp;June 21.The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee approved its farm bill proposal&nbsp;<a href="https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/05/24/farm-bill-advances-from-u-s-house-panel-but-faces-a-tough-row-to-hoe/" target="_blank">largely on party lines</a>&nbsp;at the end of May, after hours of debate and complaints from Democrats that the process had not been as bipartisan as in years past.Four Democrats voted for the bill in committee, but they joined 20 other Democrats on the committee in a “dissenting views” letter expressing “genuine concern over the trajectory of the Majority’s partisan farm bill” — which they predicted would be stuck in delay and dysfunction without significant changes.The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to vote. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee have each put forward contrasting bills and expressed their frustration.<h2>‘The most frustrating time’</h2>Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie&nbsp; Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who is retiring after this term, has called the process the “most frustrating” of her career and said she would not let the Republican approach for the farm bill be her legacy.“I’ve actually been involved in six farm bills and led on three of them, and this has been the most frustrating time,” said Stabenow&nbsp;<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2024/06/26/stabenow-says-gop-farm-bill-is-not-balanced-and-wont-pass-through-the-us-senate/" target="_blank">in an interview with&nbsp;Michigan Advance</a>&nbsp;at the end of June. “Because it’s so much more partisan than usual and particularly around food assistance.”Partisan division is not uncommon in today’s Congress but is notable on the farm bill, which had historically brought together lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan support can be necessary for final passage because the size of the $1.5 trillion farm bill means it inevitably loses some votes from fiscal conservatives and others.“If you don’t have a bipartisan bill, this is not going to happen, and that is no matter who’s in charge. The margins are too close to be able to get this done without bipartisan support,” said Collin Peterson, a former Democratic House member from Minnesota and Agriculture Committee Chairman.The&nbsp;<a href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/" target="_blank">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats this year is a funding calculation that would place limits on the “Thrifty Food Plan” formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.Republicans are using the limits to offset other spending in the bill on crop subsidies. The top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, said he wants to put “more farm in the farm bill.”Peterson, who is now the head of an eponymous consulting firm, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Republicans would likely have to make changes to the nutrition title to get a bill to final passage.“It is unrealistic to think they are going to get this done without significant changes in that part of the bill,” he said.<h2>‘An uneasy alliance’ from the start</h2>The nutrition program that is at the center of the impasse was added to the legislation 50 years ago to help build a coalition of wide-ranging bipartisan support.Lawmakers added the nutrition title to the farm bill in 1973, a move that widened the vested interest in the bill in the House. Lawmakers who wanted to increase payments for cotton and wheat farmers in their districts were able to bring in support from representatives from districts whose citizens could benefit from food aid.“That was the first coalition building between the two interests,” Coppess said. “But it was pretty intense. And it was an uneasy alliance from the start.”Since then, the farm bill in many ways has become a food bill. Three-quarters of the mandatory spending in the bill falls under the nutrition title, which includes SNAP, the largest U.S. program that addresses hunger.The program, formerly called food stamps, supplements food budgets for low-income households. Anti-hunger groups have joined the outside interests pushing for the bill every five years.But with such a large funding line, the nutrition program has become a target for Republicans who want to cut it to offset other spending in the bill.“The dispute is all the pay-fors,” Peterson said. “And that has been the issue for the last three farm bills and issue on this one as well.”Peterson, who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2008 farm bill and was the top Democrat on the committee for the 2013 and 2018 bills, said partisan division on the committee is not unfamiliar at this phase of the process.The farm bills he worked on also had partisan votes in the House but eventually found support from both sides after conferencing with the Senate.“At the end of the day, every one of those bills was partisan, until we got through the conference committee, and then at that point it was bipartisan, because the Senate brought some of that to the table,” Peterson said. “So, kind of, what’s going on here went on the last three farm bills.”The most recent farm bill in 2018 was marked by contentious partisan debate centered on SNAP’s work requirements and other eligibility rules.The House Agriculture Committee’s bill that year initially failed on the House floor and later squeaked through on a 213-211 vote. Twenty Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against that bill.After reconciling with the Senate bill and the removal of some of the contentious changes to SNAP, most Democrats flipped their votes in support and the House agreed to the final conference report in a bipartisan vote of 369-47. The dissenting votes included 44 Republicans and three Democrats.<h2>A trend toward fracture</h2>The partisan division over the nutrition title creates new fault lines for the farm bill.Historically, farm bill alliances were more regional than partisan. They were built on a common ground of support for shared crops or producers: cotton in the South, corn in the Midwest and wheat in the Western Plains.“What was our biggest issue back in the four farm bills that I wrote was not Republican versus Democrat. It was usually Midwest against the Southeast or the Northeast or the Southwest from a crop standpoint,” former Senator Saxby Chambliss said in an interview.Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, was on the House Agriculture Committee from 1995 to 2002 and the Senate Agriculture Committee 2005 to 2011, which included a stint as chairman and ranking member.“There’s a different political dynamic that exists in the Senate today that did not exist when I was there,”&nbsp; Chambliss said. “How much of that bleeds into the farm bill? I don’t know the answer to that, but obviously it’s a little more acrimonious than what I ever experienced.”As partisan politics have become more entrenched in regions of the country, with the South becoming more closely aligned with the Republican Party, it has played out in farm-bill politics.“You see a staunch realignment around where the regional and the partisan are now very similar,” said Coppess.

‘Frustrating’ partisan stalemate: the new normal for farm bills?

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.

The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.

The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.

It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.

Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.

After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.

His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”

But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.

A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.

The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.

“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”

As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.

“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”

The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.

Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.

Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.

The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.

Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.

But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.

“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”

The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.

“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.

The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.

“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.

Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.

Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.

The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.

The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.

“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”

On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.

Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.

Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.

“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.

Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.

“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”

The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.

The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.

The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.

As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.

While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.

Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”

“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.

“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/5/1589039066122.png" alt="&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved a bill this week to renew farm and nutrition programs, the the measure faces a tough road to becoming law. File photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/allison-winter/">ALLISON WINTER</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this week, despite opposition from most Democrats that could stall further advancement of the bill.The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.The committee’s bill would increase farm “safety net” payments for some commodity crops, expand eligibility for disaster assistance and increase funding for speciality crops, organic farmers and dairy farmers.It is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. A title-by-title summary of the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf">942-page bill</a>&nbsp;can be found&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/detailed_summary_final.pdf">here</a>.Democrats Don Davis of North Carolina, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado and Eric Sorenson of Illinois&nbsp;joined all committee Republicans to vote to advance the bill.After hours of heated debate and criticism from Democrats, support from the four lawmakers across the aisle seemed to surprise House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican who was the bill’s primary sponsor.His microphone picked up his aside as the vote concluded: “That was bipartisan. I did not see that one coming.”<h2>Changes ahead</h2>But the tepid Democratic support is likely not enough to see this version of the bill through to final passage in the House.A handful of Republicans typically oppose farm bills over fiscal concerns. And even Democrats who voted for the bill in the House committee said it needs major changes before it could make it into law.The measure does not have support of Democrats in the Senate or the White House.“Everyone knows that this bill would never become law. The Senate won’t accept it and the administration won’t accept it,” Rep. David Scott of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said at the markup. “And while this bill is a giant misstep, it nevertheless begins our journey toward passing a farm bill.”As the House committee debated the bill, Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in an interview Thursday that the House proposal has no chance in the Senate.“It tears up the farm and food coalition and does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate,” Stabenow told States Newsroom.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-chief-voices-deep-concerns-over-us-house-gop-farm-bills-nutrition-cuts">said earlier this week</a>&nbsp;that the farm bill draft would damage the coalition that traditionally has united behind farm bills and “raises the real possibility of being unable to get a farm bill through the process.”The committee vote – which came eight months after the previous farm bill expired – was the first step in what is expected to continue to be a protracted dispute over food and farm policy.Many farm commodity groups have come out in support of the bill, but it faces opposition from hunger advocacy groups as well as fiscal conservatives.Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense, along with Environmental Working Group, united this week to oppose the legislation, which they characterized as a government giveaway to favored special interests.The groups, which span the ideological spectrum, contend the proposed legislation would spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a relatively small number of farmers who grow certain commodity crops.<h2>Funding dispute</h2>Historically, farm bills have brought together lawmakers across party lines, uniting on regional interests. The massive bill stitches together support for agriculture producers, energy and conservation programs on farmland and food and nutrition programs for families in need.But committee members are deeply divided over limits on nutrition and climate programs that are the funding mechanisms for the Republican bill.“This, on the policy side, is a very good bill,” Rep. Angie Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said. “But on the payment side, how do you get to your math?”The&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/24/u-s-house-panel-debates-nutrition-benefit-changes-farm-bill/">key dispute</a>&nbsp;for Democrats is a funding calculation that would place limits on the formula that calculates benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, the food aid program formerly referred to as food stamps.“One of the reasons it is so hard to negotiate the little items on this bill is because the big items and the funding mechanism are so fundamentally flawed,” Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree said.The bill would limit future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the formula that calculates benefits for SNAP. This would result in a nearly $30 billion reduction in spending over ten years, based on the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers say.“If we want a farm bill that is able to pass into law with the bipartisan levels that it requires to pass beyond this committee, it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision,” Caraveo said.Caraveo, who faces a tough re-election in a toss-up district, ultimately voted in favor of the bill.Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes offered an amendment that would have struck the changes to the program. But after more than two hours of impassioned debate on the issue Thursday night, the amendment failed on a party-line vote, 25-29.The farm bill has to remain budget neutral, so lawmakers must fit their proposals into a baseline projection of how much the government would spend over the next 10 years if the current farm bill was extended.The House Republican bill would offset increases in payments for farmers by placing limits on SNAP and a discretionary account at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The committee-passed bill would put limits on USDA’s discretionary Commodity Credit Corporation account and would remove climate-smart policy requirements for about $13 billion in conservation projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act.“Farmers agree that this is good money that has come to all of our states, and is critically important,” Pingree said. “So taking away this authority from one Agriculture secretary maybe because you don’t like one program is completely misguided. It’s not thinking into the future.”<h2>Slow Senate progress</h2>On the Senate side, Stabenow released an outline of her own&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/chairwoman-stabenow-unveils-the-rural-prosperity-and-food-security-act">proposal</a>&nbsp;for the farm bill in early May but said she is waiting for language from Republicans before they can move forward.Among other things, Stabenow’s bill would boost eligibility for nutrition programs for low-income people like SNAP. Stabenow made public a summary of the bill, but not legislative text.Arkansas Republican John Boozman, the Senate Agriculture Committee’s top Republican, said Thursday he supports the direction on the farm bill from the House Agriculture Committee but was not optimistic about swift movement in his chamber.“We’ve got a lot of headwinds,” Boozman said in an interview with&nbsp;States Newsroom&nbsp;Thursday.Boozman said he plans to release language in the coming weeks but indicated lawmakers might be headed toward another extension if they cannot make progress swiftly.“When I visit with the farm groups, I think their attitude is that rather than just doing something, if it’s not meaningful, we’re better off waiting,” Boozman told States Newsroom. “This is a five-year commitment. And, again, if we’re not going to do meaningful changes, to improve the safety of the farmers, it’s probably not worth doing.”<h2>Election issue</h2>The farm bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation. Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping legislation every five years to set mandatory funding levels and policy. The current farm bill expired at the end of September 2023 but most programs have continued through extensions.The current extension lasts until the end of September, but it is not clear if lawmakers will make that deadline – especially as attention turns to election campaigns over the summer and fall.The farm bill votes could be fuel in upcoming elections.As the House committee debated the measure Thursday, the GOP candidate in the Michigan U.S. Senate race to replace Stabenow criticized Democratic candidate and committee member Elissa Slotkin for her stance on the bill. Republican Mike Rogers took to X (formerly Twitter) to say Slotkin had not focused enough on the bill.<h2>More negotiations ahead</h2>While the House committee engaged in 13 hours of debate on the farm bill markup, both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that there would need to be more negotiations on the bill before it could become law.Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime committee member who chaired the panel from 2011 to 2015, characterized the committee vote as “the first step of a long journey.”“Now, ultimately, ultimately, we must work with each other to advance a comprehensive committee product,” Lucas said.“As we begin this process, I want to remind all my colleagues, the real struggle is not here in the Ag Committee, but on the floor of the United States House and in the conference committee. We will sort out our differences with the United States Senate.”Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Farm bill advances from U.S. House panel but faces a tough row to hoe

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.

The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.

The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.

The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.

Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.

That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.

Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.

The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.

USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.

The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.

The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

WASHINGTON (AP) —A Michigan dairy worker has been diagnosed with bird flu — the second human case associated with an outbreak in U.S. dairy cows.The worker had been in contact with cows presumed to be infected, experienced mild eye symptoms and has recovered, U.S. and Michigan health officials said in announcing the case Wednesday. A nasal swab from the person tested negative for the virus, but an eye swab tested positive, “indicating an eye infection," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.The risk to the public remains low, but farmworkers exposed to infected animals are at higher risk, health officials said. They said those workers should be offered protective equipment, especially for their eyes.The first case happened in late March, when a farmworker in Texas&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">was diagnosed</a>&nbsp;in what officials called the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal. That patient also reported only eye inflammation and recovered.Since 2020, a bird flu virus has been spreading among&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">more animal species</a>&nbsp;— including dogs, cats, skunks, bears and even&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/seals-bird-flu-deaths-oceans-80184a8793fbcc21fab01b1c90b0d71b">seals</a>&nbsp;and porpoises — in scores of countries. The detection&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-usda-kansas-texas-c3040bb31a9a8293717d47362f006902">in U.S. livestock</a>&nbsp;earlier this year was an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-dairy-farmers-barb-petersen-07bd5accb01441bc5d279464271d2371">unexpected twist</a>&nbsp;that sparked questions about food safety and whether it would start spreading among humans.That hasn't happened, although there's been a steady increase of reported infections in cows. As of Wednesday, the virus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">had been confirmed</a>&nbsp;in 51 dairy herds in nine states, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fifteen of the herds were in Michigan.Health officials in Michigan have declined to say how many people exposed to infected cattle have been tested or monitored. U.S. officials said they had tested 40 people since the first cow cases were discovered in late March.The CDC's Dr. Nirav Shah praised Michigan officials for actively monitoring farmworkers. He said health officials there have been sending daily text messages to workers exposed to infected cows asking about possible symptoms, and that the effort helped officials catch this infection. He said no other workers had reported symptoms.USDA is expanding financial incentives to dairy farmers whose herds have not yet been infected with the virus, Eric Deeble. a federal agriculture official, said Wednesday.The virus has been found in high levels in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-6398d2eda26eb41797ee2700cf9d036b">raw milk</a>&nbsp;of infected cows, but government officials say pasteurized products sold in grocery stores are safe because heat treatment has been confirmed to kill the virus.The new case marks the third time a person in the United States has been diagnosed with what’s known as Type A H5N1 virus. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">picked it up</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a poultry farm in Montrose County, Colorado. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered. That predated the virus’s appearance in cows.

Another farmworker diagnosed with bird flu tied to dairy cows

KANSAS CITY (AP) —A bird flu outbreak in U.S. dairy cows has grown to affect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">more than two dozen herds</a>&nbsp;in eight states, just weeks after the nation's largest egg producer found&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-mississippi-chickens-dbae49f8786dda586036c1b86b9d0997">the virus</a>&nbsp;in its chickens.

Health officials stress that the risk to the public is low and that the U.S. food supply remains safe and stable.

“At this time, there continues to be no concern that this circumstance poses a risk to consumer health, or that it affects the safety of the interstate commercial milk supply,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a statement.

Here’s what you need to know about bird flu and food:

WHICH STATES HAVE FOUND BIRD FLU IN DAIRY COWS?

As of Friday, the strain of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-avian-flu-chickens-eggs-03793b5b1cb7429ce293e8577aef0358">bird flu</a>&nbsp;that has killed millions of wild birds in recent years has been found in at least 26 dairy herds in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">eight U.S. states</a>: Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and South Dakota.

The virus, known as Type A H5N1, has been detected in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">range of mammals</a>&nbsp;over the last few years, but this is the first time it has been found in cattle, according to federal health and animal agencies. Genetic analysis of the virus does not show that it has changed to spread more easily in people, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

HOW IS BIRD FLU AFFECTING FOOD PRODUCTION?

Agriculture officials in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.avma.org/news/states-begin-restrict-cattle-imports-those-influenza-cases">at least 17 states</a>&nbsp;have restricted imports of dairy cattle from states where the virus has been detected, but, so far, government agencies say it’s had little effect on commercial milk production. Officials believe cows likely have been infected by exposure to wild birds, but said cow-to-cow spread&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/usda-fda-cdc-share-update-hpai-detections-dairy-cattle">“cannot be ruled out."</a>

Farmers are testing cows that show symptoms of infection, including sharply reduced milk supply and lethargy. Animals that show signs or test positive for illness are being separated from other animals on the farms. The animals appear to recover within two weeks.

U.S. egg producers are watching the situation closely after bird flu was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-avian-flu-chickens-eggs-03793b5b1cb7429ce293e8577aef0358">detected in chickens in Texas and Michigan.</a>&nbsp;Millions of birds have been killed, but the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/egg-guidance-regulation-and-other-information/questions-and-answers-regarding-safety-eggs-during-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-outbreaks">FDA said</a>&nbsp;the risk of affected eggs getting into the retail market or causing infections in humans is low because of federal inspections and other safeguards.

Scientists say there’s no evidence to suggest that people can contract the virus by consuming food that’s been pasteurized, or heat-treated — or properly cooked.

“It’s not a food safety concern,” said Lee-Ann Jaykus, an emeritus food microbiologist and virologist at North Carolina State University.

Two people in U.S. have been infected with bird flu to date.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">A Texas dairy worker</a>&nbsp;who was in close contact with an infected cow recently developed a mild eye infection and has recovered. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">caught it</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a Colorado poultry farm. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered.

IS GROCERY STORE MILK SAFE FROM BIRD FLU?

Yes, according to food safety experts and government officials.

U.S. producers are barred from selling milk from sick cows and must divert and destroy it. In addition, milk sold across state lines is required to be pasteurized, or heat-treated using a process that kills bacteria and viruses, including influenza.

“We firmly believe that pasteurization provides a safe milk supply,” Tracey Forfa, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine told a webinar audience this week.

The FDA and the CDC are less certain about unpasteurized, or raw, milk sold in many states, saying there’s limited information about the possible transmission of the H5N1 virus in such products.

So far, no herds linked to raw milk providers have reported cows infected with bird flu, but the agencies recommend that the industry not make or sell raw milk or raw milk cheese products made with milk from cows that show symptoms — or are exposed to infected cows.

U.S. health officials have long warned against the risk of foodborne illness tied to raw milk, which the CDC said caused more than&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.">200 outbreaks</a>&nbsp;that sickened more than 2,600 people between 1998 and 2018.

Still, raw milk proponents like Mark McAfee, owner of Raw Farm USA in Fresno, Calif., said the outbreak of H5N1 in commercial cows appears to have spurred higher sales of the products, despite federal warnings.

CAN YOU CATCH BIRD FLU FROM EGGS OR MEAT?

Only dairy cows, not beef cattle, have been infected or shown signs of illness to date, agriculture officials said.

The largest egg producer in the U.S. temporarily halted operations on April 2 after finding bird flu in its chickens. Cal-Maine Foods culled about 1.6 million laying hens and another 337,000 pullets, or young hens, after the detection.

The company said there was no risk to eggs in the market and that no eggs had been recalled.

Eggs that are handled properly and cooked thoroughly are safe to eat, said Barbara Kowalcyk, director of the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Security at George Washington University.

“A lot of people like runny eggs. Personally, if I eat an egg, it’s very well cooked,” she said.

Still, Kowalcyk and others cautioned that the situation could change.

“This is an emerging issue and clearly this pathogen is evolving and there’s a lot that we don’t know,” she said. “I do think that everybody is trying to figure it out as quickly as possible.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/11/1636037846131.jpeg" alt="Photo USDA" />
 <figcaption>Photo USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) —A bird flu outbreak in U.S. dairy cows has grown to affect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">more than two dozen herds</a>&nbsp;in eight states, just weeks after the nation's largest egg producer found&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-mississippi-chickens-dbae49f8786dda586036c1b86b9d0997">the virus</a>&nbsp;in its chickens.Health officials stress that the risk to the public is low and that the U.S. food supply remains safe and stable.“At this time, there continues to be no concern that this circumstance poses a risk to consumer health, or that it affects the safety of the interstate commercial milk supply,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a statement.Here’s what you need to know about bird flu and food:WHICH STATES HAVE FOUND BIRD FLU IN DAIRY COWS?As of Friday, the strain of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-avian-flu-chickens-eggs-03793b5b1cb7429ce293e8577aef0358">bird flu</a>&nbsp;that has killed millions of wild birds in recent years has been found in at least 26 dairy herds in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock">eight U.S. states</a>: Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and South Dakota.The virus, known as Type A H5N1, has been detected in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/disease-outbreaks-hong-kong-health-bird-flu-animals-75e5d058e0fda23b5359f66cafb74cdf">range of mammals</a>&nbsp;over the last few years, but this is the first time it has been found in cattle, according to federal health and animal agencies. Genetic analysis of the virus does not show that it has changed to spread more easily in people, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.HOW IS BIRD FLU AFFECTING FOOD PRODUCTION?Agriculture officials in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.avma.org/news/states-begin-restrict-cattle-imports-those-influenza-cases">at least 17 states</a>&nbsp;have restricted imports of dairy cattle from states where the virus has been detected, but, so far, government agencies say it’s had little effect on commercial milk production. Officials believe cows likely have been infected by exposure to wild birds, but said cow-to-cow spread&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/usda-fda-cdc-share-update-hpai-detections-dairy-cattle">“cannot be ruled out."</a>Farmers are testing cows that show symptoms of infection, including sharply reduced milk supply and lethargy. Animals that show signs or test positive for illness are being separated from other animals on the farms. The animals appear to recover within two weeks.U.S. egg producers are watching the situation closely after bird flu was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-avian-flu-chickens-eggs-03793b5b1cb7429ce293e8577aef0358">detected in chickens in Texas and Michigan.</a>&nbsp;Millions of birds have been killed, but the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/egg-guidance-regulation-and-other-information/questions-and-answers-regarding-safety-eggs-during-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza-outbreaks">FDA said</a>&nbsp;the risk of affected eggs getting into the retail market or causing infections in humans is low because of federal inspections and other safeguards.DOES PASTEURIZATION KILL BIRD FLU?Scientists say there’s no evidence to suggest that people can contract the virus by consuming food that’s been pasteurized, or heat-treated — or properly cooked.“It’s not a food safety concern,” said Lee-Ann Jaykus, an emeritus food microbiologist and virologist at North Carolina State University.Two people in U.S. have been infected with bird flu to date.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bird-flu-texas-cows-355f1e288e72df8b81b0e2efd8b3ae2f">A Texas dairy worker</a>&nbsp;who was in close contact with an infected cow recently developed a mild eye infection and has recovered. In 2022, a prison inmate in a work program&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-environment-colorado-b98906e0a1899bb1f92da30a7b1dbe28">caught it</a>&nbsp;while killing infected birds at a Colorado poultry farm. His only symptom was fatigue, and he recovered.IS GROCERY STORE MILK SAFE FROM BIRD FLU?Yes, according to food safety experts and government officials.U.S. producers are barred from selling milk from sick cows and must divert and destroy it. In addition, milk sold across state lines is required to be pasteurized, or heat-treated using a process that kills bacteria and viruses, including influenza.“We firmly believe that pasteurization provides a safe milk supply,” Tracey Forfa, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine told a webinar audience this week.IS RAW MILK SAFE FROM BIRD FLU?The FDA and the CDC are less certain about unpasteurized, or raw, milk sold in many states, saying there’s limited information about the possible transmission of the H5N1 virus in such products.So far, no herds linked to raw milk providers have reported cows infected with bird flu, but the agencies recommend that the industry not make or sell raw milk or raw milk cheese products made with milk from cows that show symptoms — or are exposed to infected cows.U.S. health officials have long warned against the risk of foodborne illness tied to raw milk, which the CDC said caused more than&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.">200 outbreaks</a>&nbsp;that sickened more than 2,600 people between 1998 and 2018.Still, raw milk proponents like Mark McAfee, owner of Raw Farm USA in Fresno, Calif., said the outbreak of H5N1 in commercial cows appears to have spurred higher sales of the products, despite federal warnings.CAN YOU CATCH BIRD FLU FROM EGGS OR MEAT?Only dairy cows, not beef cattle, have been infected or shown signs of illness to date, agriculture officials said.The largest egg producer in the U.S. temporarily halted operations on April 2 after finding bird flu in its chickens. Cal-Maine Foods culled about 1.6 million laying hens and another 337,000 pullets, or young hens, after the detection.The company said there was no risk to eggs in the market and that no eggs had been recalled.Eggs that are handled properly and cooked thoroughly are safe to eat, said Barbara Kowalcyk, director of the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Security at George Washington University.“A lot of people like runny eggs. Personally, if I eat an egg, it’s very well cooked,” she said.Still, Kowalcyk and others cautioned that the situation could change.“This is an emerging issue and clearly this pathogen is evolving and there’s a lot that we don’t know,” she said. “I do think that everybody is trying to figure it out as quickly as possible.”___

Bird flu is spreading to more farm animals. Are milk and eggs safe?

By RUDI KELLER,&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

The annual markets outlook from the Food &amp; Agricultural Policy Research Institute anticipates declining farm income, higher costs for producers

U.S. farm income is falling from record highs as low commodity prices, trade headwinds and higher costs squeeze profits, according to a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fapri.missouri.edu/publications/2024-us-agricultural-market-outlook/?utm_campaign=485145_FAPRI%20Baseline%20Report%20%28March%202024%29&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Child%20account%20for%20The%20Curators%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Missouri&amp;dm_i=7JGU,AEC9,4NFRO6,1HPH8,1">new report from the University of Missouri</a>.

The 2024&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-Baseline-Outlook.pdf">U.S. Agricultural Market Outlook</a>&nbsp;report released Tuesday by the Food &amp; Agricultural Policy Research Institute, also known as FAPRI, is a 10-year projection of the agriculture economy. It examines production trends and pricing for commodity and specialty crops and livestock and discusses issues like interest rates, consumer prices and biofuel production that impact on farming as a whole.

For producers, the news isn’t especially welcome.

“We got lower commodity prices kind of across the board, except for cattle,” said Pat Westhoff, the agricultural economics professor who serves as the institute’s director.

The annual report is eagerly anticipated in the agriculture industry and its findings have extra significance this year as Congress tries to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4467907-farm-bill-tensions-conservation-fire-food-aid/">pass a farm bill</a>&nbsp;renewing producer support and food distribution programs.

Net farm income nationally is expected to be about $118.2 billion this year, down from a record of about $162 billion in 2022.

Westhoff said he briefed Congressional staff on the report Tuesday and the reaction was a classic glass half-empty, glass half-full split. Some saw the large decline in farm income as a problem, while others noted that income is expected to remain above the average from 2015 to 2019.

“People were using the same numbers and making the opposite arguments,” Westhoff said.

Missouri is second only to Texas in the number of farms, with 87,887 farms that sold $14.7 billion in agricultural products in 2022, up from $10.5 billion in 2017 according to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_001_001.pdf">the Census of Agriculture</a>. Missouri farms also received nearly $1 billion in government payments or other income.

With farm production expenses of $10.7 billion, Missouri farms had net cash income of $5 billion.

The 5,596 largest Missouri farms, with sales of $500,000 or more, sold more than $11.6 billion of products in 2022. The 67,400 Missouri farms with sales of less than $50,000 sold&nbsp;$685 million agricultural products.

Prices for grain and oil crops have fallen dramatically in the past year. Missouri farmers were receiving $14.90 a bushel for soybeans in January 2023, and $6.94 a bushel for corn. According to the monthly agricultural prices report from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the price received for soybeans in January was $12.90 a bushel and for corn it was $4.79.

The issues facing farmers nationally, Westhoff said, are true in Missouri, where corn, soybeans and wheat are the major cash crops.&nbsp;

The FAPRI report projects the decline in commodity grain prices will slow, but continue.

Missouri farmers get a slightly better price than the national average for corn and soybeans because of proximity to large rivers and industries such as ethanol and biodiesel that buy commodities locally, Westhoff said.

“Where you have crushing facilities for soybeans matters tremendously,” Westhoff said. “Where you have ethanol plants matters as well.”

Missouri produced 264.9 million bushels of soybeans in 2023. A decline of $2 per bushel means the farmers producing those beans received more than $500 million less than they did for the same commodity the previous year.

The sharp decline in market prices for soybeans hasn’t been accompanied by a similar decline in prices for fertilizer, fuel and other supplies, said Casey Wasser, chief operating officer of Missouri Soybeans, the industry lobbying association.

“The input prices have not come down at all with the other prices,” Wasser said. “So that’s where that net farm income is going to hit producers pretty tight.”

Missouri has the nation’s sixth largest cattle herd. It also is home to the sixth largest number of hogs, and its farmers sold the seventh largest number of chickens for meat consumption and had the nation’s 12th largest flock of laying hens.

But Missouri is losing farmers – and farmland – faster than the national average.

The number of farms declined 7.8% since the 2017 farm census while nationally the number fell 6.9%. Nationally, 2.2% of farmland was converted to other uses between the surveys, while in Missouri the acreage in farming declined 2.7%.

The smallest producers are being squeezed the tightest, said Tim Gibbons of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. In a telephone interview after he spent a day lobbying in Washington for changes in national farm programs, Gibbons said the issues facing farmers go well beyond commodity prices and interest rates.

Control of agriculture continues to be concentrated in large corporations, he said. Farm programs are designed to support cheap commodities and large producers, he said.

“What I’m hearing on the Hill is a joke relative to the situation that is farming in Missouri and in the United States right now,” Gibbons said.

Corporate-backed buyers are&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/01/boom-or-bubble-high-missouri-farmland-prices-encourage-investors-concern-farmers/">outbidding local residents</a>&nbsp;for farmland and the concentration in meatpacking means producers become dependent on contracts that can be canceled when profits narrow. The decision by Tyson Foods to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/11/tyson-to-close-perry-pork-plant-in-june/">close a plant in Perry, Iowa</a>, that employs 1,300 people will have a ripple effect on the farmers who raise hogs under contract, Gibbons said.

Missouri has lost more than 1,000 cattle producers a year over the past 25 years, a trend that accelerated to about 2,000 per year in the past five years, according to the farm census. The number of farms producing hogs has declined from 12,133 in 1992 to 2,184 in 2022.

“The policies that have been in recent past farm bills have been written by and for these multinational corporations and lobbyists that lobby for them,” Gibbons said. “We need a very different vision and a farm bill.”

The only area where prices are increasing in the past year are for cattle. That’s because the national herd is at its&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/19/droughts-complicated-by-climate-change-result-in-us-beef-herd-hitting-historic-low/">lowest number since the 1960s</a>, in large part due to pastureland drying up because of droughts starting in 2020.

“It’s causing liquidation and we’re not seeing rebuilding right now,” Gibbons said. “That connects with interest rates as well.”

Higher interest rates in the United States, which increase costs for farmers as they borrow to finance annual operations or add land and equipment, put farmers at a disadvantage internationally by making the dollar worth more in exchange, Westhoff said.

One indicator of the impact is that the U.S. has become a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/the-us-agricultural-trade-deficit-could-reach-record-highs-for-2023-is-there-cause-for-concern/">net importer of food and agricultural products</a>, reversing decades of a surplus in the balance of farm trade.

“We are importing lots of value-added products that might otherwise be produced here and of course that has spillover effects,” Westhoff said.

The FAPRI report section on government aid to farmers notes that the cost of the two main programs intended to shore up prices –&nbsp; agricultural risk coverage, or ARC, and price loss coverage, or PLC fell below $1 billion because of recent high commodity prices.&nbsp;

At the same time, crop insurance payments in 2023 totaled $9.3 billion.

“We need to figure out a system of farmer-owned grain reserves and price floors and price ceilings to stop the volatility of the market, and keep that price floor at the cost of production,” Gibbons said.

Missouri Soybean is pushing for changes in federal farm support programs to reset the protected prices at a higher level, Wasser said. Prices on beans could fall another $2 per bushel and Missouri farmers wouldn’t qualify for payments to make up any of the difference, he said.

“We’re still not even close to a safety net, with inputs and $11 beans it’s tough for any farmer no matter what your size or your leverage to be making any profit on that,” Wasser said..

FAPRI’s job is to provide information, not advise on policy decisions, Westhoff said.

The difficulty of getting changes to the programs is cost, he said.

Some “would like to do some changes that would improve the safety net from the perspective of producers but those changes all cost money,” he said. “And unless you’re going to reduce that spending or reduce spending on conservation programs, there’s not any obvious way to put those pieces together.”

The decline in commodity prices should ease inflation in food costs and even reverse some recent increases, such as for eggs and pork, Westhoff said. Food purchased for consumption at home should not increase any faster than inflation generally, the report indicates.

But consumers shouldn’t expect everything in the supermarket to get cheaper, he said.

“For the most part, the share of those commodity prices that affect consumer food prices is pretty small,” Westhoff said. “Therefore even a significant decline in the farm level price doesn’t translate to any decline, or not a very big decline, in grocery store prices.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1614189270972.jpeg" alt="Photo USDA" />
 <figcaption>Photo USDA</figcaption>
 </figure>By RUDI KELLER,&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a><h2>The annual markets outlook from the Food &amp; Agricultural Policy Research Institute anticipates declining farm income, higher costs for producers</h2>U.S. farm income is falling from record highs as low commodity prices, trade headwinds and higher costs squeeze profits, according to a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fapri.missouri.edu/publications/2024-us-agricultural-market-outlook/?utm_campaign=485145_FAPRI%20Baseline%20Report%20%28March%202024%29&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Child%20account%20for%20The%20Curators%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Missouri&amp;dm_i=7JGU,AEC9,4NFRO6,1HPH8,1">new report from the University of Missouri</a>.The 2024&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-Baseline-Outlook.pdf">U.S. Agricultural Market Outlook</a>&nbsp;report released Tuesday by the Food &amp; Agricultural Policy Research Institute, also known as FAPRI, is a 10-year projection of the agriculture economy. It examines production trends and pricing for commodity and specialty crops and livestock and discusses issues like interest rates, consumer prices and biofuel production that impact on farming as a whole.For producers, the news isn’t especially welcome.“We got lower commodity prices kind of across the board, except for cattle,” said Pat Westhoff, the agricultural economics professor who serves as the institute’s director.The annual report is eagerly anticipated in the agriculture industry and its findings have extra significance this year as Congress tries to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4467907-farm-bill-tensions-conservation-fire-food-aid/">pass a farm bill</a>&nbsp;renewing producer support and food distribution programs.Net farm income nationally is expected to be about $118.2 billion this year, down from a record of about $162 billion in 2022.Westhoff said he briefed Congressional staff on the report Tuesday and the reaction was a classic glass half-empty, glass half-full split. Some saw the large decline in farm income as a problem, while others noted that income is expected to remain above the average from 2015 to 2019.“People were using the same numbers and making the opposite arguments,” Westhoff said.Missouri is second only to Texas in the number of farms, with 87,887 farms that sold $14.7 billion in agricultural products in 2022, up from $10.5 billion in 2017 according to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_001_001.pdf">the Census of Agriculture</a>. Missouri farms also received nearly $1 billion in government payments or other income.With farm production expenses of $10.7 billion, Missouri farms had net cash income of $5 billion.The 5,596 largest Missouri farms, with sales of $500,000 or more, sold more than $11.6 billion of products in 2022. The 67,400 Missouri farms with sales of less than $50,000 sold&nbsp;$685 million agricultural products.Prices for grain and oil crops have fallen dramatically in the past year. Missouri farmers were receiving $14.90 a bushel for soybeans in January 2023, and $6.94 a bushel for corn. According to the monthly agricultural prices report from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the price received for soybeans in January was $12.90 a bushel and for corn it was $4.79.The issues facing farmers nationally, Westhoff said, are true in Missouri, where corn, soybeans and wheat are the major cash crops.&nbsp;The FAPRI report projects the decline in commodity grain prices will slow, but continue.Missouri farmers get a slightly better price than the national average for corn and soybeans because of proximity to large rivers and industries such as ethanol and biodiesel that buy commodities locally, Westhoff said.“Where you have crushing facilities for soybeans matters tremendously,” Westhoff said. “Where you have ethanol plants matters as well.”Missouri produced 264.9 million bushels of soybeans in 2023. A decline of $2 per bushel means the farmers producing those beans received more than $500 million less than they did for the same commodity the previous year.The sharp decline in market prices for soybeans hasn’t been accompanied by a similar decline in prices for fertilizer, fuel and other supplies, said Casey Wasser, chief operating officer of Missouri Soybeans, the industry lobbying association.“The input prices have not come down at all with the other prices,” Wasser said. “So that’s where that net farm income is going to hit producers pretty tight.”Missouri has the nation’s sixth largest cattle herd. It also is home to the sixth largest number of hogs, and its farmers sold the seventh largest number of chickens for meat consumption and had the nation’s 12th largest flock of laying hens.But Missouri is losing farmers – and farmland – faster than the national average.The number of farms declined 7.8% since the 2017 farm census while nationally the number fell 6.9%. Nationally, 2.2% of farmland was converted to other uses between the surveys, while in Missouri the acreage in farming declined 2.7%.The smallest producers are being squeezed the tightest, said Tim Gibbons of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. In a telephone interview after he spent a day lobbying in Washington for changes in national farm programs, Gibbons said the issues facing farmers go well beyond commodity prices and interest rates.Control of agriculture continues to be concentrated in large corporations, he said. Farm programs are designed to support cheap commodities and large producers, he said.“What I’m hearing on the Hill is a joke relative to the situation that is farming in Missouri and in the United States right now,” Gibbons said.Corporate-backed buyers are&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/01/boom-or-bubble-high-missouri-farmland-prices-encourage-investors-concern-farmers/">outbidding local residents</a>&nbsp;for farmland and the concentration in meatpacking means producers become dependent on contracts that can be canceled when profits narrow. The decision by Tyson Foods to&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/11/tyson-to-close-perry-pork-plant-in-june/">close a plant in Perry, Iowa</a>, that employs 1,300 people will have a ripple effect on the farmers who raise hogs under contract, Gibbons said.Missouri has lost more than 1,000 cattle producers a year over the past 25 years, a trend that accelerated to about 2,000 per year in the past five years, according to the farm census. The number of farms producing hogs has declined from 12,133 in 1992 to 2,184 in 2022.“The policies that have been in recent past farm bills have been written by and for these multinational corporations and lobbyists that lobby for them,” Gibbons said. “We need a very different vision and a farm bill.”The only area where prices are increasing in the past year are for cattle. That’s because the national herd is at its&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/03/19/droughts-complicated-by-climate-change-result-in-us-beef-herd-hitting-historic-low/">lowest number since the 1960s</a>, in large part due to pastureland drying up because of droughts starting in 2020.Short supplies are pushing prices up.“It’s causing liquidation and we’re not seeing rebuilding right now,” Gibbons said. “That connects with interest rates as well.”Higher interest rates in the United States, which increase costs for farmers as they borrow to finance annual operations or add land and equipment, put farmers at a disadvantage internationally by making the dollar worth more in exchange, Westhoff said.One indicator of the impact is that the U.S. has become a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/the-us-agricultural-trade-deficit-could-reach-record-highs-for-2023-is-there-cause-for-concern/">net importer of food and agricultural products</a>, reversing decades of a surplus in the balance of farm trade.“We are importing lots of value-added products that might otherwise be produced here and of course that has spillover effects,” Westhoff said.The FAPRI report section on government aid to farmers notes that the cost of the two main programs intended to shore up prices –&nbsp; agricultural risk coverage, or ARC, and price loss coverage, or PLC fell below $1 billion because of recent high commodity prices.&nbsp;At the same time, crop insurance payments in 2023 totaled $9.3 billion.“We need to figure out a system of farmer-owned grain reserves and price floors and price ceilings to stop the volatility of the market, and keep that price floor at the cost of production,” Gibbons said.Missouri Soybean is pushing for changes in federal farm support programs to reset the protected prices at a higher level, Wasser said. Prices on beans could fall another $2 per bushel and Missouri farmers wouldn’t qualify for payments to make up any of the difference, he said.“We’re still not even close to a safety net, with inputs and $11 beans it’s tough for any farmer no matter what your size or your leverage to be making any profit on that,” Wasser said..FAPRI’s job is to provide information, not advise on policy decisions, Westhoff said.The difficulty of getting changes to the programs is cost, he said.Some “would like to do some changes that would improve the safety net from the perspective of producers but those changes all cost money,” he said. “And unless you’re going to reduce that spending or reduce spending on conservation programs, there’s not any obvious way to put those pieces together.”The decline in commodity prices should ease inflation in food costs and even reverse some recent increases, such as for eggs and pork, Westhoff said. Food purchased for consumption at home should not increase any faster than inflation generally, the report indicates.But consumers shouldn’t expect everything in the supermarket to get cheaper, he said.“For the most part, the share of those commodity prices that affect consumer food prices is pretty small,” Westhoff said. “Therefore even a significant decline in the farm level price doesn’t translate to any decline, or not a very big decline, in grocery store prices.”

University  report warns falling prices could squeeze farmers

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Drivers in eight Midwestern states will be able to fuel up with a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ethanol-e15-gasoline-midwest-epa-40550ba65a308617fdc490dcf9e57ad9">higher blend of ethanol</a>&nbsp;throughout the year under a final rule announced Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The biofuels industry and farming groups, with support of Midwest governors, sought the end of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-business-smog-environment-4a877e9afc2837609c4a0aee72a042bc">summertime ban</a>&nbsp;on sales of gasoline blended with 15% ethanol for years. The higher blend has been prohibited because of concerns it could worsen smog during warm weather.

The move reflects the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-debt-ceiling-iowa-ethanol-fb4c486ef4ee2aab944946a187a8c128">importance of ethanol to agriculture</a>. The fuel additive consumes roughly 40% of the nation's corn crop, so higher sales of ethanol could mean greater profits for corn farmers.

The rule, which takes effect in April 2025, will apply in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Those states grow the bulk of the U.S. corn crop and are home to much of the nation's ethanol production.

The EPA said it delayed implementation of the new rule because of concerns there wasn't enough supply to meet demand this summer. Ethanol producers welcomed the change but criticized the EPA for that delay.

“While we are pleased to see EPA has finally approved year-round E15 in these eight states, we are extremely disappointed by the agency’s needless decision to delay implementation until 2025,” the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, said in a statement. “It’s helpful to finally have some certainty about 2025 and beyond, but what happens this summer?”

Most gasoline sold across the country is blended with 10% ethanol, though 15% blends are becoming increasingly common, especially in the Midwest. E15 summer sales still will not be allowed in most of the country during summer, though agricultural groups are pushing for a nationwide policy change.

The biofuels industry and politicians of both parties have portrayed ethanol as a product that helps farmers, reduces prices at the pump and lessens greenhouse gas releases because the fuel burns more cleanly than straight gasoline. However, environmentalists and others have said increased ethanol production can increase carbon releases because it results in more corn production, leading to increased use of fertilizer and greater releases of nitrate. Synthetic and natural fertilizers also are a leading source of water pollution.

The EPA has approved sales of E15 for cars and trucks manufactured after 2000. Grow Energy, another bioenergy trade association, estimates the higher blend will cost consumers 15 cents a gallon less than 10% ethanol.

Petroleum refiners have opposed the Midwest-specific rules, saying a special blend in one region would increase costs and could lead to tighter fuel supplies.

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, said a national standard was needed.

“We are concerned this piecemeal approach could weaken the resiliency of the region’s fuel supply chain," Will Hupman, a vice president at the group said in a statement. "We continue to call on Congress to pass the bipartisan Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which would bring much needed consistency to the marketplace by allowing for the year-round sale of E15 nationwide, preserving access to E10 and eliminating the need for regional or state-specific waiver petitions.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1639069226448.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Drivers in eight Midwestern states will be able to fuel up with a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ethanol-e15-gasoline-midwest-epa-40550ba65a308617fdc490dcf9e57ad9">higher blend of ethanol</a>&nbsp;throughout the year under a final rule announced Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.The biofuels industry and farming groups, with support of Midwest governors, sought the end of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-business-smog-environment-4a877e9afc2837609c4a0aee72a042bc">summertime ban</a>&nbsp;on sales of gasoline blended with 15% ethanol for years. The higher blend has been prohibited because of concerns it could worsen smog during warm weather.The move reflects the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-debt-ceiling-iowa-ethanol-fb4c486ef4ee2aab944946a187a8c128">importance of ethanol to agriculture</a>. The fuel additive consumes roughly 40% of the nation's corn crop, so higher sales of ethanol could mean greater profits for corn farmers.The rule, which takes effect in April 2025, will apply in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Those states grow the bulk of the U.S. corn crop and are home to much of the nation's ethanol production.The EPA said it delayed implementation of the new rule because of concerns there wasn't enough supply to meet demand this summer. Ethanol producers welcomed the change but criticized the EPA for that delay.“While we are pleased to see EPA has finally approved year-round E15 in these eight states, we are extremely disappointed by the agency’s needless decision to delay implementation until 2025,” the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, said in a statement. “It’s helpful to finally have some certainty about 2025 and beyond, but what happens this summer?”Most gasoline sold across the country is blended with 10% ethanol, though 15% blends are becoming increasingly common, especially in the Midwest. E15 summer sales still will not be allowed in most of the country during summer, though agricultural groups are pushing for a nationwide policy change.The biofuels industry and politicians of both parties have portrayed ethanol as a product that helps farmers, reduces prices at the pump and lessens greenhouse gas releases because the fuel burns more cleanly than straight gasoline. However, environmentalists and others have said increased ethanol production can increase carbon releases because it results in more corn production, leading to increased use of fertilizer and greater releases of nitrate. Synthetic and natural fertilizers also are a leading source of water pollution.The EPA has approved sales of E15 for cars and trucks manufactured after 2000. Grow Energy, another bioenergy trade association, estimates the higher blend will cost consumers 15 cents a gallon less than 10% ethanol.Petroleum refiners have opposed the Midwest-specific rules, saying a special blend in one region would increase costs and could lead to tighter fuel supplies.The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, said a national standard was needed.“We are concerned this piecemeal approach could weaken the resiliency of the region’s fuel supply chain," Will Hupman, a vice president at the group said in a statement. "We continue to call on Congress to pass the bipartisan Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which would bring much needed consistency to the marketplace by allowing for the year-round sale of E15 nationwide, preserving access to E10 and eliminating the need for regional or state-specific waiver petitions.”