Comments on: For Better Or Worse, A Farm Bill Conclusion http://civileats.com/2013/01/04/for-better-or-worse-a-farm-bill-conclusion/ Promoting critical thought about sustainable agriculture and food systems Tue, 21 May 2013 21:21:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Food & agriculture — Financial Press http://civileats.com/2013/01/04/for-better-or-worse-a-farm-bill-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-19391 Food & agriculture — Financial Press Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:36:08 +0000 http://civileats.com/?p=16439#comment-19391 [...] see this as well. [...]

]]> By: Wes http://civileats.com/2013/01/04/for-better-or-worse-a-farm-bill-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-19045 Wes Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:04:40 +0000 http://civileats.com/?p=16439#comment-19045 Hi JC
Thanks for the correction – you are absolutely right. SNAP-Ed is yet another critical program that should not have been cut and yet it was for political expediency.

]]> By: JC Dwyer http://civileats.com/2013/01/04/for-better-or-worse-a-farm-bill-conclusion/comment-page-1/#comment-19036 JC Dwyer Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:56:46 +0000 http://civileats.com/?p=16439#comment-19036 “Food Stamps…the extension kept the program exactly as is.”

Not exactly true. While SNAP benefits were untouched, SNAP-Ed, a critical nutrition education program was cut by $110M in order to pay for the extension of the milk subsidies that drove the inclusion of farm bill language in the agreement.

Since Congress has already funded SNAP-Ed at full levels through March, this cut will fall on the last six months of the year alone — a 50% cut in overall funding for a program that helps people make healthy choices with their benefit.

]]>