Bill Overview
Title: Farmers Feeding Families Act of 2022
Description: This bill amends The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) to authorize the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to provide funds for states to purchase priority agricultural products (e.g., fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains) from eligible small businesses and distribute them to needy persons through emergency feeding organizations. New farmers and small or mid-sized family farms qualify as eligible small businesses under this FNS program, as well as packers, distributors, cooperatives, and others that source agricultural products from them. The bill also requires a state's TEFAP plan eligibility standards to include, at a minimum, all individuals or households with an income less than 250% of the poverty line.
Sponsors: Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in poverty globally relying on agricultural and emergency food assistance
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill is designed to impact farmers, specifically new farmers, and small or mid-sized family farms.
- Emergency feeding organizations and needy persons who benefit from the distribution of agricultural products will also be impacted.
- The eligibility criteria based on income less than 250% of the poverty line suggest a broad impact on low-income households.
- Packers, distributors, cooperatives, and other entities involved in sourcing agricultural products will also be affected by increased opportunities for business.
Reasoning
- The simulation includes a variety of individuals who are likely to be impacted by the policy, such as small and mid-sized farmers, low-income individuals, and others involved in the agricultural supply chain.
- The target population for this policy primarily consists of individuals living under 250% of the poverty line, which includes millions of Americans who rely on food assistance.
- Some individuals, such as those not in poverty or involved in farming, may not feel a significant direct impact from the policy.
- The policy's reach is balanced by its budget limitations, so not every eligible person may experience the full intended benefit.
- The simulation includes persons from various parts of the U.S. to reflect differing regional impacts based on agricultural and economic conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Small Family Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a good opportunity for small farmers like us to have a new market for our produce.
- I'm hopeful this will help us financially stabilize our operations, especially during tough seasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Distributor (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely bring more business to distributors like my company.
- It could provide more job security and possibly create new jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Food bank manager (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help us provide better quality and variety of food to those in need.
- More funding and supplies from local farmers could strengthen community support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
New Farmer (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might be the break I need to get my farm off the ground.
- Access to buyers for my cattle could really help my business grow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Low-income individual (Mississippi)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will mean more food and healthier options available at my local pantry.
- It's hard living on limited means, and any help is appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cooperative Worker (Washington)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring more work to my cooperative from local sourcing efforts.
- It might improve job opportunities and wages for workers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will expand access to more nutritious food options without increasing my costs.
- Living on a fixed income is tough, so any extra help counts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Mid-sized family farmer (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might provide a stable outlet for my corn, which currently faces uncertain markets.
- Opening up new avenues for steady buyers is always good for business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Warehouse Worker (Ohio)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to better job security if our facility gets more contracts through the program.
- I'm optimistic about job stability but unsure about long-term impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Former Farmer (Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the policy as a potentially great help to future farmers and hope it succeeds.
- It pains me that something like this wasn't around when I needed it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $810000000, High: $1220000000)
Year 3: $1050000000 (Low: $830000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 5: $1100000000 (Low: $860000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $1200000000 (Low: $940000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1180000000, High: $1780000000)
Key Considerations
- Price volatility in agricultural markets could affect the cost of purchasing products.
- Administrative efficiency will impact the effectiveness and cost control of the program.
- Inter-state variability in implementing TEFAP standards may lead to unequal benefits.