By John Pappalardo
They call it the “Farm Bill,” and the name alone gives a pretty good indication of focus for one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress produces, meant to drive and fund the nation’s food production.
This is a huge piece of legislation, full of everything from price supports for farmers to big purchase programs for meat and poultry producers, guarantees and subsidies for ranchers. It impacts the economy of every state in the Union, the health of millions of people, subject to intense lobbying and scrutiny in places like the Agriculture Committees of the House and Senate, the halls and offices of the United States Department of Agriculture, the White House.
And oh yeah, every once in a while the historic American fishery is recognized as part of the nation’s food production. But like the name suggests, we are far from the epicenter.
The Farm Bill is supposed to get renewed and refreshed every five years, an opportunity to push national effort and spending in new directions. That’s happening now – actually it was supposed to have been done in 2023 but Congress couldn’t agree on new language. They probably won’t be able to agree again, so the existing bill will carry forward to avoid de-funding ongoing programs. But it’s an interesting moment to consider how fishermen play into the national perspective.
We’re pretty much ignored.
Politics more than nutrition, let alone an unwillingness to support American-based food production, explains our weak position. All 50 states have an agricultural sector, as well as meat and poultry producers, many of them significant employers (and donors). That means elected representatives of every state have a vested interest in supporting their constituents and businesses.
But of course fishing is a coastal practice in states at the edge; even including the Great Lakes we don’t have universal clout. So our initiatives become like herring pushing upstream, battling a political flow.
This year the Farm Bill’s seafood focus, such as it is, seems to be resting on a subset of the fishery that we loosely call “aquaculture.” Various elements advocate for more funding of the practice, more study, more emphasis on its role.
When people in Washington talk about “aquaculture” they aren’t referring to our local practice — independent growers on small grants who rely on natural nutrition carried by tides to feed oysters and quahogs. They are talking generally about massive “farms” that grow the likes of shrimp, salmon, and tilapia packed into dense pens that require artificial food and antibiotics, or large offshore areas set aside for everything from mussels to tuna. Large corporate interests see great growth possibilities here, and so continue to push hard for political support.
As you might imagine, this is not the kind of vision for the American fishery that our community celebrates.
There are other proposals that might be somewhat more helpful.
For example, for many years we have seen that in the United States Department of Agriculture, where most of these programs center and emerge, there doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined group of bureaucrats who understand the fisheries well, who have a vested interest in pushing hard for more support, who see the key differences between a factory trawler off Alaska landing millions of pounds of pollack (with a foreign crew) and independent small-boat fisheries that support communities like ours.
So it’s good to see a proposal in one version to create a “liaison” in the USDA to work as an educated industry advocate. Only one problem: they refer to the position strictly as “aquaculture liaison.”
Maybe that definition could be expanded.
The uneven playing field extends to areas like education and training. For example, every year tens of millions of federal dollars are dedicated to programs that bring up-and-coming young ranchers into classrooms and facilities to learn more about their industry, offering a leg up to the next generation. We have been advocating for similar programs for fishermen for many years, and have had some success both at the state and national levels. But the amount of funding for programs on the water is tiny in comparison.
All that said, the American fishery perseveres. It has never succeeded by putting a hand out for federal funding, always surviving based on its own merit, grit, and effort. That will continue to be true, even as we continue to push for more equity on the fisheries’ behalf.
Who knows, maybe one day the “Farm Bill” might get a new name; how about the “Food Bill”? Or maybe there will be a companion big piece of legislation full of creative proposals, the “Seafood Bill.”
John Pappalardo is CEO of The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance