With the Food, Conservation, and EnergyAct of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) set toexpire in the fall of 2012, substantial

debate already has begun on what the next farm billshould contain in the way of support to producers.

The concept of supporting American agriculturebegan more than 70 years ago, when Congress firstmade the conscious decision to ensure that our citi-zens had access to a stable, safe, abundant, andaffordable food supply.

That concept is still valid, and quite likely moreimportant than ever before when you consider theexpected growth in world population, ever increasingdemand for food, volatile and high-priced produc-tion inputs, burgeoning regulatory burdens, andworld terrorism that could easily threaten the safetyand availability of foreign food supplies if we Ameri-cans had to rely on importing the bulk of our food.

No farm bill debate has ever been easy, and the2012 farm bill debate is no exception. In fact, oneseasoned farm bill veteran told the Illinois FarmBureau's Farm Policy TaskForce that this will be thetoughest environment inwhich to pass a farm bill hehas ever seen.

Even though he was refer-ring to numerous issues whenhe made that statement,severe budget cutbacks anddealing with the large numberof newly elected Congres-sional members unfamiliarwith agricultural issuestopped the list. In the U.S.House of Representatives, 93seats changed in the last elec-tion, representing the singlegreatest upheaval since 1948.

Nearly a third of the 80new Republican memberselected have never served inany elected office prior towinning the last election.

Twenty of the 46 House Agricultural Committeemembers are new. Keep in mind that these newlyelected officials by and large do not come from agri-cultural regions and were elected with a commonplatform: to cut spending. Needless to say, it will be atall task helping these members understand agricul-ture's unique needs and issues and seeking their sup-port in the farm bill debate.

Budget shortfalls and cutbacks represent the

largest obstacle in negotiating the next farm bill. Allareas of the budget are being asked to make substan-tial cuts, including agriculture.

Even though the agriculture industry can point tothe fact that the 2008 farm bill stripped $6 billion outof crop insurance funding and the 2010 renegotiationof the insurance industry’s Standard ReinsuranceAgreement took another $5 billion, agriculture is notexempt from additional, severe budget reductions.

Maintaining a meaningful safety net for farmers inthis farm bill environment will be a challenge, albeit achallenge we all must engage in if we hope to be suc-cessful in obtaining food security for this great country.

The 2008 farm bill was historic in that it includedtwo brand-new programs in the Commodity Title:the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) pro-gram and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Pay-ments Program (SURE). ACRE was designed to bethe first revenue-based safety net provision ever con-tained in a farm bill. It was meant to provide revenueprotection to farmers if either price or production

losses occurred. Losses had to occur both

on the individual farm andat the state level for pay-ments to be made. In addi-tion, farmers had to forfeit20 percent of their directpayments and 30 percent oftheir marketing loan rate toenroll in ACRE. Numerousother built-in hurdles andprovisions kept most farm-ers from enrolling.

Illinois leads the nation inACRE participation withapproximately 17 percent ofall farms enrolling. Eventhough ACRE provided sig-nificant corn and wheat pay-ments to Illinois farmerswho signed up for it thefirst year it was available, itscontinued existence in the

next farm bill is far from assured given budget cut-backs, the complexity of the program leading torather low use by farmers, and the potential thatnewly elected officials will not fully understand theprogram or its need.

SURE was historic in that it represented the firstever "permanent" disaster program within the farm

See FARM BILL, page V-4

Page V-1 Monday, August 1, 2011 FarmWeek

BY RICH GUEBERT JR.ChairmanIllinois Farm Bureau Resolutions Committee

As the old maxim goes,something as inconse-quential as the flutter of

a butterfly’s wings can cause atyphoon halfway around theworld.

You can view the so-called“butterfly effect” as a cautionary

reminder of the consequences our daily actionsmay carry. Or maybe it’s a simple yet powerfulmetaphor for the cumulative forces that continueto shape our communities, our society, our world.

Certainly, the credo “Think globally and actlocally” is no longer merely the stuff of bumperstickers and stump speeches. A growing publicchorus reverberates throughout our social andenvironmental policy, our economic theory, andour concern for a growing world population witha mounting appetite and dwindling globalresources to satisfy it.

What we do in American agriculture can gen-erate powerful winds of change.

In a world shaken by nutritional insecurity andconsumer uncertainty, we can broadcast the mes-sage of responsible farming and food productioninto our cities and the government halls wherepolicy is written and our ability to feed the worldis can be either restrained or unleashed.

In a society hungry for safe, sustainable, andstable nourishment, we can replace empty politi-cal rhetoric with fortifying debate about foodpolicy and its ramifications beyond the farm gate.

In a global community where the engines ofeconomic growth are firing and environmentalanxieties flaring, we can help shape a blueprintfor individual farm stewardship that will bothnourish and nurture the planet.

This is your opportunity. Over the next fewmonths, county Farm Bureau members will focuson issues that include the farm bill, nutrient man-agement, food safety, and farmer image. IllinoisFarm Bureau’s Resolutions Committee this fallwill distill local thought into a plan of action fordelegate debate in December.

Imagine thousands of wings fluttering simul-taneously, in Farm Bureau conference rooms andcafes and auditoriums across the Illinois country-side. That’s you: generating a buzz, a whirlwindof opinion and innovation, refreshing new cur-rents of change that will carry agriculture — andthe world — into a new era.

Wings of change

®

From the ‘Belt’to the Beltway

Producers face tough farm bill environment in D.C.

Given the likelihood of severe budgetcuts to agricultural programs, what pro-gram(s) can you simply not do without?

Should a revenue-based safety net,such as ACRE, be extended in the 2012farm bill? Should ACRE be enhancedwith higher coverage levels? Shouldcoverage be reduced and ACRE usedmore as a disaster program?

Should the concept of a permanentdisaster program be included in the nextfarm bill? Do you find value in knowingthe level of disaster support you will beoffered prior to planting a crop?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

FarmWeek Page V-2 Monday, August 1, 2011

Consumers are getting information aboutfarming and farming practices from a vari-ety of sources including the media, books,

talk shows, social networking sites, documentaries,online communities, and peers.

Despite all of the information available, con-sumers readilyadmit they don’tknow much aboutfarmers, farming,or how their foodis grown, accord-ing to researchconducted by theIllinois Farm Fam-ilies (IFF) coalitionover the past twoyears.

The coalition iscomprised of Illi-nois Beef Associa-tion, Illinois CornGrowers Associa-tion, Illinois FarmBureau, IllinoisSoybean Associa-tion and the Illi-nois Pork Produc-ers Association.

Research indi-cates today’s con-sumers are becoming more interested in the foodthey eat — what’s in it and how it’s grown. Because ofthe Internet, their access to information about foodhas increased exponentially, altering their buyinghabits at farmers’ markets, buying locally grown food,and otherwise impacting the marketplace.

When they have limited knowledge of farming,they can be easily influenced by a prominent talk

show featuring an activist view of farming. The IFF is trying to insert farmers into the conver-

sation as a source of information for Illinois con-sumers through the Farmers Opening Our Doors(FOOD) movement. IFF research found that directinteraction with farmers is the most effective method

to influenceconsumer per-ceptions.

Focus groupmembers stillrecalled visitsto farms whenthey wereschool chil-dren. Talkingwith farmers atfarmers’ mar-kets was citedas the leadingsource ofinformation.

The FOODmovementintends to createexperiences andbuild on theseexperiencesthrough socialmedia, interac-tion with farm-

ers at events, farmers’ markets, and retail marketing. Anew website, {www.watchusgrow.org} launched in May.The website includes blogs from several family farmers.

It allows consumers to ask questions, and is beingused to identify mothers interested participating infarm tours and blogging about their experience.

The goal of the FOOD movement is to build Illi-nois consumers’ confidence in and trust of Illinois

farmers and their farming practices. Do farmer coali-tions such as IFF and the U.S. Farmers and RanchersAlliance (see below left) have sufficient resources tomake a difference?

Are enough farmers willing to volunteer their timeto promote their industry? Should county FarmBureaus consider increasing dues to specifically fundconsumer communication and education efforts?

And even if efforts to build trust between farmersand consumers are successful, will they meet theexpectations of Farm Bureau members?

Farmers recently were reminded of the impactactivist organizations can have on farming practiceswhen the United Egg Producers and the HumaneSociety of the United States (HSUS) announced plansto jointly seek federal legislation to transition the eggindustry to enriched colony cage houses.

Does IFB’s current policy need to better definethe outcome farmer members want to achieve? Onecan be reminded of the old saying, “How will youknow when you get there if you don’t know whereyou are going?”

from lacon to the loopHow does Illinois’ farmer image play into consumer attitudes?

Does existing Farm Bureau policy ade-quately address the need to communicateto consumers and the non-farm public?

Is agriculture investing enough in thepromotion of the farmer’s image and agri-culture issues? Are farmers contributingenough?

How should efforts to improve thefarmer’s image be funded?

Your thoughts?

PRODUCERS AND PERCEPTIONU.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is a newly formed alliance con-

sisting of a wide range of prominent farmer- and rancher-led organizations andagricultural partners.

The group intends to lead the dialogue and answer Americans’ questionsabout how we raise our food — while being stewards of the environment, respon-sibly caring for our animals and maintaining strong businesses and communities.More information on the alliance can be found at {www.usfraonline.org}.

The Illinois Farm Bureau is an affiliate member of the alliance.Meanwhile,the group Illinois Farm Families has conducted extensive research

on consumer perceptions of agriculture. Here are some of its findings:Overall, consumers like farmers

The image of an Illinois farmer is trusted and respected. Consumers usedwords like hard working, honest, respect, appreciation, traditional, and closemultigenerational families to describe farmers.Consumers admit they don’t know much about farming. • 40 percent of Illinois consumers said their main source of information was

farmers’ markets.• 37 percent said their main source was driving by farms.• Only 1 in 4 feels somewhat or very knowledgeable about farming and prac-

tices on Illinois farms.• Only 2 in 5 felt somewhat or very knowledgeable of how food is grown.

View of family vs. corporate farmsMore than 7 out of 10 Illinois consumers hold a favorable opinion of family-

owned farms and trust the people running family farms, but fewer than 1 in 5trusts people on corporate-owned farms. They perceive these operations as lessresponsible, cutting corners in an effort to produce food too quickly, and causinghealth or environmental concerns.

Illinois consumers estimated that fewer than half of Illinois farms are family-owned, when actually 94 percent of Illinois farms are family-owned. Illinois consumer top concerns — those somewhat and very interested:

Protecting the environment — 89 percentBecoming healthier through the foods they eat — 87 percentPreparing foods with the most nutritional value — 85 percentEating foods that are free of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones — 84 percent

What do consumers expect farmers to do?Focus on keeping land, water, and air healthy for their community — 78 percentCare about growing /raising healthy food for their family to eat — 77 percentBe hands-on, personally overseeing decisions made on the farm — 76 percentBe passionate about farming — 75 percentStrive to provide good care for their animals — 75 percent

from the coffee shopto the delegate floor

the 2011 IfB resolutIons commIttee

District 1: Joseph White (President,Kane County Farm Bureau)

District 2: Ryan Keltner (President,Stephenson County Farm Bureau)

District 3: Donald Temple (President,Whiteside Farm Bureau)

District 4: Monty Whipple (President,LaSalle County Farm Bureau)

District 5: James Gutzmer (President,Cook County Farm Bureau)

District 6: Keith Mussman (President,Kankakee County Farm Bureau)

District 7: Kenneth McKee (President,Marshall-Putnam Farm Bureau)

District 8: Theodore Mottaz (Presi-dent, Knox County Farm Bureau)

District 9: Chad Kelly (President,Schuyler County Farm Bureau)

District 10: Randy Fornoff (President,Mason County Farm Bureau)

District 11: David Carr (President,Macon County Farm Bureau)

District 12: Jerry Watson (President,Champaign County Farm Bureau)

District 13: Dennis Green (President,Lawrence County Farm Bureau)

District 14: Paul Chitwood (President,Marion County Farm Bureau)

District 15: Robert Reed (President,Calhoun County Farm Bureau)

District 16: Jack McCormick (Presi-dent, Randolph County Farm Bureau)

District 17: Chad Broster (President,Wabash County Farm Bureau)

District 18: Thomas Fox (President,Jackson County Farm Bureau)

Illinois Farm Bureau ACTION TEAMCarleen Paul (Madison County)

Illinois Farm Bureau Young LeaderCommitteeDarrin Storm (Shelby County)

IAA Board of DirectorsRich Guebert Jr. (Chairman)

Chuck Cawley

Chris Hausman

J.C. Pool

From D.C.to Danvers?Who ultimately will manage farmnutrients? Farmers or regulators?

There continues to be interest at both thenational and state levels to address excessivenutrients in certain water bodies.

The scope of the issue has increased substantially. Itis connected to how nutrient application is managed onthe farm. Agriculture needs to better understand theimpact of this scrutiny and the role that best manage-ment practices (BMPs) play in nutrient management.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is pushing states to set numeric nutrient standards forwater quality. EPA has been involved in proposingnutrient water quality standards for Florida since thatstate had not set standards on their own.

In 2009, EPA issued a determination that nutrientstandards were needed in Florida and then proposednumeric nutrient water quality standards for the state.In April 2011, the Florida Department of Environ-mental Protection petitioned EPA to withdraw itsdetermination and stop further rulemaking in aneffort to help the state regain control over the issue.

In 2010, EPA issued a Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in orderto force restrictions on sediment and nutrient runoffacross the six state, 64,000-acre watershed. The Amer-ican Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and othernational groups filed a lawsuit in 2011 challenging theTMDL since it micromanaged state actions and wouldimpose regulations on farming and other economicactivities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

For years, agriculture has expressed concerns withthe Hypoxia Action Plan for the Gulf of Mexico.That plan states that nutrient loadings from the Mis-sissippi River contribute to the hypoxia zone and lowoxygen levels in the Gulf.

On the livestock side of the issue, EPA regulationsfor concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)have been debated by Illinois Farm Bureau, AFBF,and other livestock groups. IFB has voiced concernscountless times on the issue.

The Illinois EPA (IEPA) has developed a draftNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit for CAFOs that would echo the fed-eral regulations. Recent court cases have helped withthe issue somewhat as the latest court decision statingthat unless a livestock facility was discharging, it did notneed an NPDES permit.

The next debate will focus on how the agencydefines “discharging.”

In Illinois, IEPA organized a stakeholder group todiscuss ways to reduce the point and nonpointsources of nutrient loadings of Illinois waters. Theagency’s goal is to develop a nutrient strategy and isrelying on input from three groups (agriculture,municipalities, and environmentalists) on the strategy.

IEPA wants to gather information about what isknown about current nutrient loadings, determinewhat needs to be done, and then measure progress.The municipalities have been discussing the develop-ment of nutrient standards that, for the most part,would affect urban effluent permits.

To address the nonpoint side of the equation, the agri-

cultural groups, including IFB, have developed a KeepingIt for the Crop (KIC) by 2025 strategy that relies onresearch, BMPs, education, and analysis of those prac-tices. A key component of KIC focuses on certainwatersheds in Illinois with elevated nutrients.

KIC efforts in those watersheds would help paint amore accurate picture of nutrient balances as a guideto help measure adoption of nutrient BMPs. The pro-gram also promotes educational and incentive-basedprograms that will be environmentally and agricultur-ally cost-effective and that will make the most impacton priority watersheds.

For the past several years, the Council on Best Man-agement Practices (C-BMP), of which IFB is a mem-ber, has received grants to develop programs thatencourage voluntary best management practices onnutrient management and nutrient research. Projectshave involved the Lake Decatur and the Lake Bloom-ington watersheds and Trees Forever.

Voluntary programs of the USDA, the IllinoisDepartment of Agriculture, the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, and IEPA have been used to addressenvironmental issues, and some of the recent effortshave focused on nutrient management. The historicchallenge with these programs has been the lack offunding and technical assistance to implement them.

A recent USDA program, the Mississippi RiverBasin Initiative, is evaluating different fertilizer ratesand split applications with strip tillage, while otherprograms are focusing on the use of bioreactors,drainage water management, wetlands creation, andtwo stage ditches for removal of excessive nitrates.

One of agriculture’s key concerns is that there isnot just one program or project that would fit inevery watershed in Illinois. We continue to state that aheavy-handed, mandated set of regulations (such asthe elimination of fall fertilizer application) will notwork for agriculture.

Effective management practices must be compati-ble with a profitable, viable agricultural sector in Illi-nois.

Page V-3 Monday, August 1, 2011 FarmWeek

Would elimination of fall-applied nitrogenbe a significant barrier for your operation?

What best management practices wouldwork in your watershed to avoid mandateson nutrient application?

How can we assist decision-makers inunderstanding the impact of manure appli-cation regulations on agriculture while stillmaintaining a viable livestock industry?

Are changes to existing IFB policy need-ed to reflect the challenges facing farmersregarding nutrient management?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Hearing about a new food-borne illnessoutbreak when listening to the news seemslike a common occurrence these days.

The most recent E. coli O104:H4 outbreak that sick-ened more than 4,200 and killed 50 people throughoutEurope received significant media attention. Reportedly,the outbreak stemmed from sprouts, but Germany initial-ly blamed Spanish cucumbers as the source of the out-break.

Ultimately, Spanish cucumbers were found to besafe, but considerable damage was inflicted on Span-ish farmers. According to Spain’s fruit and vegetableexport federation, the industry experienced exportlosses of $200 million per week.

In addition to export losses, Doane Advisory Serv-

ice economists estimate farm prices for all differenttypes of vegetables dropped by nearly two-thirds andcost European produce farmers a combined $610million per week.

While this most recent scare occurred in Europe, similarsituations, such as the 2006 E. coli outbreak in California-grown spinach, have occurred in the U.S. Even though thesource of the 2006 E. coli spinach outbreak was found to belocated in California, Texas A & M University researchersestimate that Texas growers lost $11 million in sales. The2006 outbreak exemplifies the impact that food safety issueshave on growers.

The media and some special interest groups often suggestthat modern agricultural production has increased the prevalenceof E. coli. This is far from the truth. It is important to under-

stand the sources ofE. coli, the associa-tion between E. coliand agriculture, andways to prevent E.coli ingestion.

E. coli is con-tracted throughconsumption ofcontaminated foodincluding meat, pro-duce, and unpasteurized milk as well as contaminated waterand unhygienic contact with people or animals.

See Safety, page V-4

From Plano to the plateFood safety is crucial both to consumer health and farm income

FarmWeek Page V-4 Monday, August 1, 2011

Articles for this supplement were prepAred by illinois fArm bureAu stAff members doug yoder, chris mAgnuson, nAncy erickson, And cynthiA hAskins

Continued from page V-3According to the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention (CDC), illnesses caused by the most commonstrain of E. coli (O157:H7) have decreased by nearly halfsince 1997. Improved detection and investigation, inspec-tion, and consumer awareness, among other factors, havecontributed to the decrease in E. coli and other food-borneillness incidences.

In fact, USDA reports thatless than one quarter of onepercent of ground beef samplestested positive for E. coliO157:H7 in 2010. While thevast majority of products areperfectly safe, an estimated onein six Americans (or 48 millionpeople) gets sick from food-borne diseases in the U.S. eachyear resulting in 128,000 hospi-talizations and 3,000 deaths,according to CDC

However, many cases offood-borne illness in the U.S. arecontracted in the home andmany can be prevented throughproper kitchen health, storage,and cooking. Typically, thoseindividual cases do not makethe six o’clock news.

A report, Produce Safety Proj-ect, conducted by GeorgetownUniversity in March 2011, indi-cated such illnesses cost the U.S. economy $142 billion ayear in health care and related expenses.

Nonstop media coverage focused on food scares causedconsumer mistrust regarding food supply and led to newfood safety legislation. The passing of the Food and Modern-ization Act, widely referred to as the most sweeping federalfood safety measure in 70 years, is a prime example.

On Jan. 4, 2011, The Food and Modernization Act wassigned into law by President Obama. The intent of the act

is to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting regulato-ry focus from contamination response to contaminationprevention.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can nowforce recalls, rather than relying on companies to voluntari-ly remove contaminated foods from store shelves, in addi-tion to having regulatory authority over fruit and vegetable

production. In coordination with the

USDA, the FDA will devel-op science-based standardsfor the safe production andharvesting of fruits and veg-etables. Priority is given tospecific fruits and vegetableswith the highest risk offood-borne illness out-breaks. USDA will continueto be responsible for over-sight of meat products.

The responsibility forfood safety prevention nowrests squarely on the shoul-ders of food producers andprocessors. Food producersand processors must havetheir facilities inspected tosee where potential hazardsmay occur, establish preven-tive controls to addressthose hazards, monitor theirperformance, and fix prob-

lems when they occur. There is speculation that the new food safety regulations

will drive up food prices by $300 million to $400 million asfood and food-related companies pass compliance costs onto consumers and others doing business within the indus-try, according to Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Other issues that can contribute to driving up foodprices include costs to those who are wrongfully singledout by FDA recalls. For example, in 2008, tomato growers

were wrongly blamed for a salmonella outbreak that costthem millions, when, in fact, the outbreak stemmed fromjalapeno peppers.

After the Food Modernization Act was negotiated amonglegislators, an exemption was included, allowing producerswith less than $500,000 in annual sales to not be subject tonew federal requirements if they sell the majority of theirfood directly to consumers within the state or within a 275-mile radius of where it was produced.

Education, training, and technical assistance will be pro-vided to growers and small processors. Many businessessourcing food products directly from the farmer are nowrequesting proof of product liability insurance. The busi-nesses may know their farmer, but they want to make surethe farmer has liability insurance in case a food-borne dis-ease outbreak were to occur.

Even many farmers’ markets throughout the countryare starting to require this insurance. Commercial generalliability insurance is a major budget item, but many aredetermining it is a bigger risk not to have it.

Food safety scares are not limited to the fruits, vegeta-bles, or meat industries. In 2010, there were 1,939 Salmo-nella-related illnesses stemming from eggs in Iowa. Howev-er, until the source was pinpointed to two farms, farmersthroughout the Midwest were affected.

Uncertain and confused on which products were con-taminated, suppliers and consumers quit buying eggs alto-gether, resulting in lost sales, not to mention the dimin-ished reputation of growers, distributors, and operationsselling the product.

The Illinois Farm Bureau supports measures to improvefood inspection and safety to assure consumers’ confi-dence of a safe food supply while being cost effective andsize neutral. A reported budget of $1.4 billion for the new-ly passed legislation already has been reduced to $750 mil-lion.

This poses the question: Why pass legislation if it cannotbe funded? Regardless of the budget dollars attached to thebill, it is costly and will likely prompt many to weigh in onwhether the law is cost effective when the majority of food-borne outbreaks occur at home.

Should a cost-benefit study be conduct-ed on any proposed regulation that mayimpact the agriculture industry?

Should a study be conducted to deter-mine the most cost-effective means of iden-tifying risk points in the food production,processing, and distribution system?

How should Illinois Farm Bureau encour-age consumer education programs thatfocus on proper food handling, preparation,and cooking methods?

What measures can we take to makesure the media reports accurate informa-tion in the event of a food-borne illnessscare?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Safety

Farm billContinued from page V-1

bill. Prior to SURE, Congress would debate the need for agricultural disaster fundingafter the disaster occurred. This was not good for Congress or farmers.

When Congress felt the need to help producers in disaster regions, it would beforced to find the funding off budget, or ad hoc. Also, those farmers negativelyimpacted by the disaster would have to wait one to two years after the disaster toreceive any support — often too little, too late.

Including SURE in the farm bill was intended to address both of those shortcomings.Congress could now budget for SURE-related disaster coverage in the budget processand farmers would conceptually be able to know the level of disaster support they wouldreceive prior to planting a crop. If they felt the need for additional protection, they couldpurchase crop insurance to provide further production and price protection.

Regrettably, SURE did not completely satisfy either of those goals. Given thecomplexity of the program, farmers still find it extremely difficult to adequatelygauge the level of protection SURE will provide and payments are still delayed untilwell after the disaster occurs.

The other main component of support to American farmers in the commodity titleof the farm bill are direct payments. The pros and cons of direct payments have beenhotly debated during budget cutback and early farm bill discussions. These WorldTrade Organization (WTO)-friendly payments have been the most significant and reli-able form of support farmers have received from the commodity title in recent years.

By design, other provisions such as countercyclical payments, ACRE, and SUREonly make payments when certain loss situations occur. The lack of a loss trigger fordirect payment eligibility during recent periods of high commodity prices and netfarm income have made them and their $5 billion annual cost an enticing target forbudget cutters.

However, a recent study released by the Food and Agricultural Policy ResearchInstitute (FAPRI) suggests that actual budget savings from cutting direct paymentswould be much smaller than $5 billion. This analysis is based on the assumption thatif direct payments were cut more farmers would be encouraged to enroll in ACREthus exposing the federal budget to additional ACRE payments.

Crop insurance, while not contained in the commodity title of the farm bill, isanother target for budget cuts. In addition to the $11 billion in previous cuts outlinedearlier in this article, premium subsidies are now a potential area for cuts as well.

Reductions to premium subsidies could have a significant negative impact onfarmer's ability to afford and use crop insurance, which has become the cornerstoneof the farmer’s safety net.

In Illinois between 75 and 80 percent of our corn and soybean acreage is insuredannually, illustrating that Illinois farmers have stepped up and invested heavily in cropinsurance over the years. Even though Illinois is an extremely low loss state and lossindemnities fall short of premiums paid, farmers have still realized the value of pro-tecting their operations with revenue protection that also provides support to lock infavorable prices on significant bushels when losses occur.

Doing anything to reduce the use of this self-help program could have a verydetrimental impact on agriculture and our food supply the next time an unforeseenwidespread disaster occurs.

It is common knowledge that commodity prices and net farm income have beenstrong in recent years. It would be very easy for newly elected legislators not familiarwith agriculture's issues to look at the current ag economy during this budget cuttingperiod and come to the conclusion that ag spending needs to be cut.

During this farm bill debate no one should lose sight of the fact that at somepoint in the future the ag economy is likely to turn around as it always has in the past.The sustainability of farmers, American agriculture, and our nation's food supplymay very well depend on our elected officials having the foresight to include a mean-ingful safety net for that next rainy day in the 2012 farm bill.

Given the vast array of uncontrollable risks that farmers face every year — includ-ing droughts, floods, insects, plant and animal diseases, freezes, and not to mentioncommodity price and input cost volatility — it is vital that farmers have access to asafety net and risk management tools that can help them manage these risks.

All of these complex issues, and more, are being analyzed and debated by IllinoisFarm Bureau's Farm Policy Task Force (FPTF), Resolutions Committee (RC), andGrassRoot Issue Teams (GRITs). All proposals forthcoming from GRITs and theFPTF will be reviewed by the RC in preparation for the policy debate during the IFBannual meeting in December.

It is vital to this process that the farmers serving on these various committees andtask forces hear from you. Our congressional leaders are seeking input on this veryimportant farm policy debate. Your input as to what the next farm bill should contain inorder to provide meaningful protection for farmers needs to be heard.