Farmers who depended on programs that supplied fresh, locally grown foods to schools and food pantries are facing significant challenges after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) decided to end these initiatives. This decision has caused protests among Democratic lawmakers and concerns among farmers who had relied on these programs to support their businesses and help feed communities.
The two programs – the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program – were cut as part of a decision that also led to a $1 billion reduction in food assistance funding. The programs had been a vital way for local farmers to sell their products directly to schools, food banks, and other organizations helping low-income families.
Programs That Benefited Farmers and Communities
These local food procurement programs were celebrated because they supported both local farmers and the communities they served. Josh Harris, the executive director of the Well Fed Community Development Corp. in Little Rock, Arkansas, explained, “It’s meant to be a win-win. We get fresh, nutrient-rich food to low-income families, and it comes from local farmers, not imported from other countries.”
Harris’s organization has been distributing food to about 800 families every month, working closely with farmers in Arkansas. The food packages include fresh fruits, vegetables, and rice, along with recipes to help families improve their nutrition.
However, the USDA’s decision to end these programs has left many farmers like Harris in a difficult position. The termination of the programs also means they lose out on steady orders for their produce.
Lawmakers and Farmers React to Cuts
Lawmakers have expressed strong disapproval of the USDA’s decision to cut the programs. Thirty-one senators, including Independent Senators Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on March 24, demanding clarification about the future of these programs and questioning how farmers will be reimbursed for their losses.
In their letter, the lawmakers highlighted that these programs had supported food producers across all 50 states, four territories, and 84 tribal governments. The programs prioritized “healthy, nutritious, domestic food” and were seen as an important step toward strengthening rural economies and providing local food for schools.
USDA Responds: Focus on Other Nutrition Programs
In response to the backlash, the USDA defended its actions, stating that the $500 million in previously obligated funds for the LFPA and LFS programs would still be used to fulfill existing commitments. A USDA spokesperson emphasized that the department had other nutrition programs in place to address food insecurity and support agricultural markets.
Rollins, speaking to Fox News, dismissed the programs as “nonessential” and suggested they were part of “COVID-era” efforts to support food systems during the pandemic. However, critics argue that the programs were effective and should have been continued.
Hannah Quigley, a representative from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, explained that the termination of these programs has left many farmers and communities in a difficult situation. The $1 billion cut includes $471.5 million for LFPA and $660.1 million for food in schools and childcare settings.
Farmers Face Uncertainty
The unpredictable nature of the situation has left farmers scrambling to adjust their plans. For example, Becky Stark, a farmer in Illinois, had been planning to grow a large crop of potatoes and sweet corn for the program but now has to quickly switch to other crops, like cabbage and broccoli, as the deadline looms.
Similarly, Indiana farmer Thomas Eich expanded his potato crop this year with plans to sell it through the LFPA and LFS programs. But with the programs being cut, Eich now faces the challenge of finding alternative buyers for the additional 70,000 pounds of potatoes he expected to sell through the program.
Eich’s frustration is shared by many other farmers who feel betrayed by the government. “When the government tells you to grow food for them, they need to honor the agreements and not leave us in this tough spot,” Eich said.
Impact on Arkansas Farmers
The cuts have been especially hard on farmers like Shawn Peebles, a sweet potato and fruit grower in Arkansas. Peebles had been hoping to use the funding from the LFS program to support the creation of a sweet potato fry plant, which he planned to supply with locally grown sweet potatoes for schools. But with the program’s termination, his plans have been dashed.
Peebles, who had hoped to leverage the LFS grant to secure loans for his business, now finds himself starting over. He is looking for low-interest loans to help keep his farm running. “Ending the LFS program has killed us,” he said. “We’re dead in the water.”
Long-Term Effects on Local Food Systems
The cuts to the LFPA and LFS programs are expected to have long-term consequences for small farmers and local food systems. The programs not only provided farmers with a reliable source of income but also helped build lasting relationships between farmers and schools. Dan Gorman, the food service director for Montague Area Public Schools and North Muskegon Public Schools in Michigan, said that the programs helped local farmers connect with schools and change their businesses to meet the needs of the school market.
Without these programs, farmers and schools will have to find new ways to build these partnerships, which could take years to establish. Gorman said, “The support we got for local foods has really allowed us to start building those relationships with local farmers. Without that, we all have to reevaluate.”
Farmers Look Ahead to 2025
As farmers plan for the 2025 growing season, many are adjusting their crops to account for the loss of support from the USDA programs. Some farmers are turning to other markets, while others are focusing on crops like corn, which are less dependent on the now-defunct programs.
The cuts are a blow to farmers who were counting on these programs to stabilize their income. For now, the uncertainty surrounding the future of food procurement programs in the U.S. leaves farmers with few clear answers and many unanswered questions.
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.