Food banks are bracing for potential ripple effects from H.R. 7567, with concerns over reduced resources and increased need.
U.S. House Republicans have reintroduced a quasi-version of the 2018 Farm Bill, prompting a mixed reaction from California and North Bay agriculture and food relief stakeholders as well as lawmakers expected to vote on it within the next few weeks. H.R. 7567 is heralded by farmers and their groups but criticized by food assistance organizations. There lies the quandary for a bill dubbed less than ideal by some. The 93-year-old Farm Bill encompasses American agricultural policy spun out of the Great Depression, setting crop prices and providing subsidies to farmers, among other policy-driven agriculture and food programs. Intended to be renewed every five years, the Farm Bill has long been championed as a massive, bipartisan legislative package. But a deeply divided Congress extended the eight -year-old version several times. The $1.3 trillion Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 covers funding and policy law ranging from commodities and conservation to crop insurance and research. U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, noted the extensive list of topics represents “all the stuff that remains,” referring to leftover government funding programs from the federal budget — as suggested by the initial draft proposal’s name: Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026. But even given its Christmas tree wish list, some critical programs that address food insecurity affecting 1 in 7 people in the United States have fallen off this version. “We’re concerned about where we’ve gone in regard to [the farm bill] always being a bipartisan piece of legislation and how we’ve been able to include different parts of agriculture,” Thompson said. “Now, we’ve taken farming practices and food
insecurity and divorced the two.” Despite expressing encouragement about the new Farm Bill and support for aspects related to wine grape research, Thompson pointed to $200 billion in critical food security programs dropping off the primarily ag policy proposal. “All the food security programs are in jeopardy because of cuts, and it’s hard to put them back,” he added. Debate among the Republican majority in the U.S. House Agriculture Committee has re-prioritized whether programs that address hunger should be included in the next Farm Bill. But critics who support food assistance programs lament the big cut in H.R. 1 — labeled the One Big Beautiful Bill — to the $186 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as CalFresh in California. The California Association of Food Banks claims the losses sustained from reduced SNAP funding puts over 500,000 recipients statewide “at risk of losing the critical food assistance they receive.” In Sonoma County alone, nearly 36,000 people — amounting to 7% of the population — were receiving federal food assistance at a cost of $9.4 million. The Redwood Empire Food Bank, joining its umbrella organization, also shared its disappointment in the draft proposal. “We’re deeply concerned about the proposal that separates farming programs from nutrition programs,” food bank spokeswoman Rachelle Mesheau said. In the last year, food banks have already faced a variety of cuts — temporary or otherwise — including $500 million in deliveries halted nationwide. Reduced funding has also hit the Local Food Purchasing Assistance program as well as the Emergency Food Assistance Program. “We’re urging a ‘no’ vote,” Mesheau said of the proposal seen
58 NorthBaybiz
March | April 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs