Also in this issue, working together to save the family farm, the power of reading empowers women in The Gambia, and updates on Oxfam's work in Bolivia and in eastern and southern Africa.
]]>Drought-related risks are a primary concern throughout Ethiopia where 85% of the population is dependent on smallholder, rain-fed agriculture. Adi Ha is a drought-prone community that has expressed strong interest in incorporating insurance into its risk management strategy.
The pilot will adopt a holistic approach to risk management, examining the suitability of weather insurance and risk reduction measures such as seasonal forecasting and improved agricultural practices. All efforts will be undertaken in close collaboration with the local farming community with the overall objective of alleviating poverty.
The efforts will be funded by Swiss Re and Oxfam America, with primary technical support being provided by the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University. Ivo Menzinger, Head of Sustainability & Emerging Risk Management, commented, "Swiss Re is delighted to support Oxfam in implementing this fundamental and important work in the Tigray Province. In particular, we can combine our commitment to corporate citizenship with providing consulting support to the project on risk transfer issues."
Swiss Re has pioneered weather risk transfer instruments in developing countries, starting in India in 2004 with a program reaching over 350,000 smallholder farmers. In 2007, Swiss Re introduced the Climate Adaptation Development Programme (CADP). The goal of the CADP partnership is to develop and implement weather risk transfer solutions in non-OECD countries.
Oxfam America President Raymond C. Offenheiser said: "This pilot offers a chance for smallholder farmers to become more resilient to changing weather patterns. It's an opportunity to increase the impact of Oxfam's risk reduction programs and explore exciting innovations in weather-based microinsurance..."
Over the last 35+ years, Oxfam America has worked to bolster the capacity of poor communities around the world to reduce vulnerability. Nevertheless, climate change is dramatically increasing the level of risk faced by the poor across the planet. For this reason, Oxfam America is interested in developing new mechanisms to address risk for poor farmers.
]]>"President Bush's veto of the Farm Bill today should get Congress started on a better bill for America's farmers, taxpayers and trade interests. Unfortunately, we know that Congress passed on every single opportunity to make necessary reforms and shift funds from wasteful agricultural subsidies for large scale farms to food aid to meet the needs of the poor.
?Although important gains have been made in nutrition and equity programs, the Farm Bill continues billions of dollars in subsidies to large industrial sized farms, doing little for family farms and rural America, while hurting poor farmers abroad.
?Oxfam calls on all members of Congress to sustain the administration's veto and improve the farm bill by cutting payments to rich farmers, reforming trade distorting subsidies, doing away with the inefficiencies of the food aid programs and retaining gains made on the nutrition and equity fronts. Even in this eleventh hour, it is not too late for Congress to deliver the Farm Bill that America?and indeed the world?deserves."
]]>In a letter to Congressional leaders, Oxfam America president Raymond C. Offenheiser joined the leaders of humanitarian organizations Mercy Corps and the International Medical Corps to call for urgent action by the Congress to meet the historic challenge posed by skyrocketing food prices.
?Congress and the White House are negotiating a new Farm Bill that will spend as much as $300 billion over the next five years. The bill maintains significant farm subsidies which go overwhelmingly to the largest and wealthiest producers despite the fact that US farm income is at record levels,? said the letter signed by Offenheiser, Nancy Lindborg, president of Mercy Corps and Nancy Aossey, president of the International Medical Corps. ?Even a small redistribution of subsidies for wealthy US farmers could make a huge difference in reducing starvation in many parts of the world.?
Faced with a global hunger crisis, Congress has an important opportunity to provide desperately needed funding to help those facing starvation due to high food and energy prices and help head off a global humanitarian disaster, according to the organizations.
?We understand that this represents a major political challenge, but we believe that the dire circumstances warrant dramatic steps and demand leadership,? continued the letter. ?We also know that a humanitarian and development crisis may be averted if these urgent actions are taken.?
Late last week, President Bush called on Congress to provide an additional $770 million in assistance to help address the needs of millions of people in developing countries who face acute hunger and to help improve agriculture so they can feed themselves. But, at the same time, Congress was preparing to slash funding for the McGovern-Dole Program, which feeds school children in developing countries. Restoring funding for the McGovern-Dole Program and responding to the President?s request for added funding are essential. In addition, a simple change in our food aid policy to allow cash for local purchase of commodities also requested by the President would immediately increase the speed and efficiency of food aid programs, providing more food and assistance to people around the world.
?Almost half of all US food aid cost due to bureaucratic restrictions and high transportation costs?, says Offenheiser. ?In calling on the Congress to provide more assistance, the Bush administration has also asked the Congress to allow more flexibility in providing food resources to those in need when addressing food crises.?
If aid agencies were allowed to purchase food aid closer to where it is needed?rather than shipping it thousands of miles from the USA?food could get to more people faster according to Oxfam. This would also encourage local food production that can help avert future disasters.
?As we have witnessed in the past few weeks, high food prices are pushing many more people deeper into poverty. Hunger, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity in developing countries are a human tragedy, but they also have implications for America?s long-term security and prosperity,? said Offenheiser. ?Americans want to help people in need. Pandering to wealthy farmers and special interests at the expense of women and children who face malnutrition is not what Americans expect of their elected officials. There's still time for the Congress to demonstrate leadership in helping avert starvation and social unrest resulting from high food prices."
]]>?Faced with a mounting food crisis at home and abroad, Congress had the opportunity through the Farm Bill to shift funds from wasteful agricultural subsidies for large scale farms to food aid to meet the needs of the poor,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?But instead, Congressional leaders settled on a bill that will continue to be costly to taxpayers, undermine our rural economy, damage our trade relationships, and hurt the world?s poorest farmers.?
Even with record breaking prices for corn, soybean, and wheat, as well as record-setting agricultural exports, congressional Republicans and Democrats fought to the bone to prevent any meaningful reforms subsidies that are fiscally irresponsible and harm farmers in developing countries. Across the country, from the left and the right, from San Francisco to Des Moines, Americans have spoken out in favor of changing a system that rewards those who need help the least. Unfortunately, their voices were blatantly ignored by the leadership.
?With the future of the world trading system at a critical juncture, an improved American Farm Bill would have helped facilitate a WTO agreement to reduce trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and end dumping,? said Offenheiser. ?But the pigs at the trough continued to promote generous handouts from taxpayers instead, even as agriculture markets are so strong and our economy so weak.?
Despite mustering the necessary increases for domestic nutrition programs, Congress failed to meaningfully address the crisis of rising food prices overseas and the need to increase the efficiencies of our food aid programs. Current law requires that food aid be purchased in the US and transported on US-flagged ships, meaning that food aid takes months to deliver and costs twice as much. Shifting a quarter of the food aid budget to cash for purchase from regional sources as proposed by President Bush would mean that even more people would be fed.
?Congress should modernize the US food aid program to permit at least one-quarter of US food aid contributions in the form of cash rather than commodities, as requested by the Administration and endorsed by international aid and humanitarian organizations. This reform will help aid agencies respond to emergencies,? said Offenheiser. ?While the Bush Administration proposal would have made approximately $300 million available for local purchase each year, the farm bill only includes $60 million for a small pilot project to be administered over several years.?
While accomplishing little reform, the final bill does make incremental improvements by increasing nutrition and conservation funding and providing a host of critical provisions beneficial to socially-disadvantaged producers here at home. Oxfam also welcomed the extension of US trade preference programs for developing countries, like Caribbean Basin Initiative, also included in the Farm Bill package.
?Some steps were taken to hold back the legacy of discrimination that has lingered on farm programs for decades and to extend duty-free programs for some of the poorest countries in our hemisphere,? said Offenheiser. ?But on the verge of a massive food crisis, Congressional action on the Farm Bill to allow special interests and bureaucracy to deprive poor and vulnerable people food is simply unconscionable.?
]]>The FRESH or Farm, Ranch, Energy, Stewardship and Health Amendment, introduced by Senate Agriculture Committee Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by Ben Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Pete Domenici (R-NM), John McCain (R-AZ), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), John Sununu (R-NH), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) would have brought about much-needed reform to US farm policy in a way that would serve more farmers more fairly, according to Oxfam.
“Not only would the FRESH Amendment have been a better deal for American farmers and taxpayers, but it would also have aligned our agricultural policy and our international trade obligations,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. ”Instead, by rejecting the FRESH amendment senators chose to turn their backs on American family farmers and their brethren in poor countries elsewhere who struggle to make a living from the land. By voting to maintain the status quo, the Senate has elected to continue farm programs that fuel overproduction, raise land prices, and lower commodity prices abroad.”
“Instead of helping the truly needy, the Senate has decided to continue to subsidize the truly greedy in rejecting the comprehensive farm bill reform advocated by Senators Lugar and Lautenberg,” said Offenheiser.
“Few options remain in this Farm Bill to provide some reform of a subsidy program that has long outlasted its purpose and utility. If senators aren’t willing to reform farm programs, at least they can reduce the giveaways by supporting limits on the farm subsidies paid. Supporting the Dorgan-Grassley payment limits amendment will be an important first step down that path.”
]]>"While Oxfam welcomes critical new investments in nutrition, conservation and renewable energy, the Farm Bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee today failed to reform our unfair and broken system of commodity subsidies that undercut farmers and rural economies at home and abroad. Unless the rest of the Senate intervenes, our taxpayer dollars will continue to encourage excess production, reduce world market prices and undermine the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.
"Cotton subsidies maintained by the Agriculture Committee are especially troubling, with just 12,000 farms receiving up to three billion dollars in subsidies annually. These subsidies have a devastating effect on poor cotton farmers around the world. Failure to reform these trade-distorting subsidies will mean that those who don’t need subsidies in the United States continue to benefit at the taxpayers’ expense while those who need the most help—the 10 million people in West Africa for whom cotton is their only source of income—suffer more. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families, most of them living on less than $1 a day.
"Not only is this unfair, it is in violation of existing trade rules. Just last week, the WTO confirmed that the US hasn't done enough to reform its cotton subsidies in a longstanding dispute with Brazil. Most shockingly, the Committee bill reinstates a new version of the contentious Step 2 export subsidy that was done away with by the last Congress. Failure to reform our cotton program leaves our agriculture and other sectors vulnerable to significant retaliation from our trade partners and undermines American farmers' access critical to overseas markets.
"While doing little to nothing to address the needs of the global poor, Chairman Harkin and the members of the Agriculture Committee did make incremental improvements to address inequities faced by farmers of color here at home. This bill would provide a host of critical provisions beneficial to socially-disadvantaged producers—though more work needs to be done to ensure that the funding for these provisions is mandatory.
"Oxfam commends Senator Lugar for standing bravely against the status quo during the Committee mark-up by offering an amendment to require corrective action for any commodity program found in violation of WTO rules. Senator Lugar withdrew his amendment when Chairman Harkin offered to address the issue in his manager’s amendment. Though a good first step, the Senate must be prepared to address the issue on the Senate floor. Failure to do so will continue this gross inequity while endangering the future of other US trade agreements. We hope that the full Senate is prepared to lead where others have failed thus far."
]]>"We welcome the President's stated commitment to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease, particularly in Africa. One important element of the solution is common sense reform to US farm policy by ending subsidies that result in the production of surplus agricultural commodities.
"US subsidies lower the world price of cotton and other commodities, hurting farmers in developing countries who also export these crops and are struggling to survive on less than one dollar a day.
><p>
"Instead of wasting tax dollars on trade distorting subsidies, we believe the President should redirect limited resources to alternative investments in rural America, including the development of renewable fuels.
><p>
"American farmers will benefit, struggling African farmers will benefit, and America's efforts to strengthen our energy security will benefit from this simple policy change."
><p>
]]>
Oxfam said that the US is still paying billions of dollars in trade-distorting subsidies to its cotton farmers, despite having lost a WTO case against Brazil in 2005. The US Congress must now make more meaningful reforms to agricultural subsidies in order to comply with international trade rules and to stop harming developing country farmers.
"Trade-distorting subsidies are not just unfair, they are illegal," said Gawain Kripke, senior policy advisor for Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign. "With the Farm Bill expiring next year, Congress has the opportunity to reform agriculture policies to ensure that supporting US farmers does not undermine the livelihood of millions of poor farmers in Africa and other developing countries."
In 2005, the WTO ruled that US cotton subsidies harmed Brazilian cotton farmers and violated WTO rules. It gave the US until September 2005 to reduce its trade distorting subsidies. Today, Brazil has asked for a WTO "compliance panel" to determine whether the US has done enough to comply with the ruling. The panel has 90 days to make its decision.
"It should be little surprise that a new global trade agreement – the Doha Round - has stalled considering that the US has failed to abide by rules of the last agreement," said Kripke. "Brazil is certainly within its rights to pursue sanctions, especially since the US refused to negotiate serious reforms to US cotton subsidies."
In June 30, 2005, the US Department of Agriculture partly reformed US export credit programs to comply with the ruling, while the US Congress eliminated Step 2 payments at the beginning of this year, which took effect last month. But these programs represent only 10% of the cotton subsidy program and some of the most trade distorting programs, like the counter cyclical payments were left untouched. The US continues to pay billions of dollars in trade distorting subsidies to the largest of it 25,000 cotton producers. In 2005, US cotton subsidies reached almost $5 billion for a crop that was worth less than $4 billion. These subsidies help to depress world cotton prices, hurting developing country cotton farmers including more than 20 million African farmers who rely on cotton for their livelihood.
"The case against trade distorting US subsidies has been proven again and again but US taxpayers are still doling them out, increasing the wealth of the biggest producers, encouraging overproduction and undermining production in developing countries," said Kripke. "But even as Brazil is pushing forward on retaliation, some vested interests and their ready and willing friends in Congress, are calling for a Farm Bill extension to protect the gargantuan amount of taxpayer subsides that go overwhelmingly to a small group of large farming operations."
The suspension of Doha Round negotiations cannot be used as an excuse to delay reforms of the Farm Bill. Oxfam warns that the Brazil cotton case demonstrates how trade distorting US farm programs are vulnerable to challenge. New litigation at the WTO on other commodities, such as rice or corn, may be brought if reforms are not made.
For example, the US has paid over $25 billion to corn farmers over the past five years for a crop that would otherwise have lost $20 billion over the same period. Those subsidies have depressed world prices and caused losses of up to $4 billion for countries like Argentina, Paraguay, and South Africa. Rice farmers in the US receive over a billion dollars a year in subsidies, which equals the total value of the US crop. Major rice exporters such as Guyana, India, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay could all have strong claims against the US.
"The WTO mechanism for settling trade disputes is an expensive, complicated option of last resort," said Kripke. "Poor countries shouldn't have to seek development through litigation, but with the collapse of the Doha round and the unwillingness of the US to take its international obligations seriously, litigation is one of the few options available."
]]>The modifications negotiated by the Democratic leadership after the agreement was signed and now included in the text take important steps toward making trade work for people living in poverty but remain insufficient to overcome the agreement’s adverse effects on development and poverty reduction in Peru, according to Oxfam. In its current form, this agreement still fails to address development needs as one of its core objectives.
“While trade could be an engine to pull millions out of poverty, this agreement will institutionalize an uneven playing field between the US and Peru,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Although we appreciate the House leadership’s determination to make this agreement better, provisions on agriculture, investment and intellectual property still do not add up to a good deal for farmers, workers and consumers in Peru."
According to Oxfam and other civil society leaders, the agreement fails to take into account US agriculture subsidies, meaning that Peru's small farmers will face massive dumping of subsidized farm products on their market.
“By fully opening Peru’s markets to subsidized US agricultural products, this trade agreement will destroy our domestic agriculture, threaten our food security and increase social problems,” said Luis Zúñiga, president of the National Convention of Peruvian Agriculture (Conveagro). “Farmers’ demands for greater public investment in and modernization of the agricultural sector have gone unmet over many years, but now our needs will be far greater and the threat to our livelihoods far worse.”
The agreement makes it easier for foreign investors to operate in Peru, but it also leaves the government with a weakened ability to enact or enforce its own laws on public health, safety, and the environment. In addition, modifications made on intellectual property remain insufficient to enable Peru to promote access to affordable medicines for all.
“Oxfam welcomes the significant achievement by Congressional leaders to reduce the onerous requirements for intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals in the agreement, as it will make a real difference in preserving access to affordable medicines, a critical need for the poor,” said Offenheiser. “But more is needed on the intellectual property front and others, to really turn this into a pro-development deal.”
Nearly half of Peru’s 28 million inhabitants live in poverty, the majority of them in rural areas. Agriculture is the main source of income in rural areas and generates nearly a third of all employment nationally. About 90 percent of land under cultivation is dedicated to basic crops that supply the domestic market, like rice, wheat, corn, barley, and cotton.
“The trade agreement’s adverse effects on Peruvians will outweigh its limited benefits, which will primarily accrue to a limited group of exporters, whose current duty-free access to the US under the Andean Trade Preferences Act will be made permanent, continued Offenheiser.
]]>Oxfam said that the U.S. is still paying billions of dollars of such subsidies to its cotton farmers, despite having lost a WTO case against Brazil in 2005, with no encouraging signs of reform coming from the U.S. Congress. There is little time for the U.S. Congress to make more meaningful reforms to agricultural subsidies in order to comply with international trade rules before facing possible retaliation from Brazil.
"This ruling reinforces the need for reductions in U.S. cotton subsidies in both the context of the Doha Round and the 2007 Farm Bill," said Isabel Mazzei, head of the Geneva office of Oxfam International. "The U.S. cannot continue to ignore the WTO and the effects of cotton subsidies on global markets and, ultimately, the livelihoods of poor farmers in the developing world."
In 2005, the WTO ruled that U.S. cotton subsidies violate WTO rules and gave the U.S. until September 2005 to reduce them. In response, the USDA agreed to reform export credit programs to comply with the ruling, and Congress eliminated the Step 2 cotton export subsidy program in 2006. But these programs represent only 10% of the overall cotton subsidy programs and some of the most trade distorting programs, like the counter cyclical payments were left untouched. In September 2006, Brazil asked for a WTO “compliance panel” to determine whether the US has done enough to comply with the ruling. Today, the WTO has confirmed that the U.S. has failed to reform its agricultural subsidies enough to comply.
“Not only did the House of Representatives completely ignore the WTO ruling in passing its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, but it elected to take the brazen step of reinstating subsidies for cotton that were eliminated by the previous Congress, parsing the language to try to slide the subsidy under the WTO screen," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Indeed, the cotton lobby, representing about 20,000 mostly large producers, has continued to fare well at the expense of the American taxpayer and family farmers both here and in Africa.”
According to a recent study conducted by Dan Sumner and others at the University of California Davis for Oxfam, reforming U.S. cotton subsidies would increase world cotton prices by 6-14%, resulting in additional income that could feed an additional million children for a year or pay school fees for at least two million children living in extremely poor West African cotton growing households. A typical cotton-producing household in West Africa has about 10 family members, an average life expectancy of about 48 years and an adult literacy rate of less than 25 percent. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families who live on less than $1 a day per person.
"The House-passed Farm Bill will not pass muster with the WTO," said Offenheiser. "If the U.S. is unwilling to live up to its international trade commitments, how can it expect other nations to comply with the same rules? It is now up to the Senate to rally the political will to finally align our agricultural programs with these international rules."
]]>The Farm, Ranch, Energy, Stewardship and Health Act of 2007 introduced today by Senate Agriculture Committee Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and cosponsored by Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) brings about much needed reform to commodity programs and crop insurance that will serve more farmers more fairly and be responsive to regional and national crises that endanger the continuing success of America’s farmers. Not only is this a better deal for farmers and taxpayers, but it would also align our agricultural programs and our international trade obligations.
“The system is broken, and desperately in need of reform,” said Jim Lyons, Oxfam America’s vice president for policy and communications. “Research shows that our subsidies undercut farmers and rural economies at home and abroad.”
All signs from the Senate Agriculture Committee indicate support for a status quo bill that will keep in place trade distorting commodity subsidies and do little to limit handouts to large corporate farms, according to Oxfam. Most egregious are generous provisions for large cotton producers. A recent study conducted by Dr. Daniel Sumner for Oxfam highlighted the direct connection between subsidies and poverty in West Africa. According to the study, additional income that would result from a meaningful reform of the American cotton program could feed up to a million children for an entire year, or send at least two million children to school.
“American cotton operations fare quite well in the current system, with a mere 7,000 subsidy recipients receiving 55 percent of commodity benefits every year,” said Lyons. “Just last week, the World Trade Organization ruled that we have not done enough to reform our cotton program in a long standing case, it’s good to know at least some Senators are paying attention today.”
Oxfam joins organizations from both sides of the political spectrum, including the Environmental Working Group, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Environmental Defense, the National Urban League, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
“Oxfam salutes the effort led by Senators Lugar and Lautenberg to re-align our farm programs to honor our international trade obligations—not to mention our responsibility to family farmers here and abroad,” said Lyons. “Oxfam will work to help reform minded senators bring about meaningful change when the legislation is brought to the Senate floor.”
“Investing new money in nutrition, conservation and minority farmer programs is critical but alone is not enough to halt the devastating effects of not reforming our commodity subsidies will have on farmers and rural communities at home and around the globe,” said Lyons about the proposed Senate Agriculture Committee bill. “There’s only a short time left for the Senate to muster the political will to deliver deep and serious reform that that will best serve America and our standing in the world for years to come.“
]]>The hard-hitting ads set up a direct contrast between the millionaire farmers that benefit most from the Farm Bill, versus small family farmers who are left out in the cold.
“The ball is clearly in the Senate’s court now and they need make the Farm Bill fair,” said Liam Brody, Farm Bill Campaign Director at Oxfam America, which paid for the campaign. “Our campaign asks Senators to stop handouts to millionaires who need it least, and instead help family farms that need it most.”
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which also endorsed the ad campaign, 67% of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in United States. Among subsidy recipients, 10% collected 73% of all subsidies, amounting to $120.5 billion over 11 years.
"The billions of dollars in payments to profitable big farm operations leave only table scraps for small family farmers. Partly financed by federal subsidies, these large operations now have the capitol to outbid smaller farmers for land,” said Ken Cook, President of EWG. “Large farms grow larger, and rural America dries up in the process. Is this government subsidized consolidation in the agriculture sector in the best interest of American taxpayers?"
The first wave of the ad campaign was launched with TV buys in New Hampshire and Minnesota today and print ads in several Washington, DC publications, including The Hill and Congress Daily last week. In both Minnesota and New Hampshire, the Farm Bill is becoming a hot-button political issue, with decisions made by voters having national implications in Senate and Presidential elections.
“The Senate now faces a real test of moral leadership in changing unjust policy that bolsters millionaires at the expense of struggling family farms and people living in poverty at home and abroad,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, Editor and Executive Director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal. “This ad campaign strives to let them know we’re watching.”
“Our members agree that the current commodities programs exacerbate land consolidation and the deterioration of our natural resources, encourage overproduction and create a structure of agriculture that has benefited few, while leaving most producers working harder for less,” said Land Stewardship Project Policy Organizer Adam Warthesen. “Taxpayer dollars would better be used for conservation programs that encourage farmers to be better stewards of the land.”
This farm bill stinks of rotten programs and taxpayer waste," said Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We have joined in this effort to make sure Senators know that they need to clean up farm programs, making them market oriented, less costly and trade compliant."
The campaign was endorsed by Oxfam America, Church World Service, Citizens Against Government Waste, Environmental Working Group, Land Stewardship Project, Progressive National Baptist Convention, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, NETWORK, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Read more about Oxfam America's work to reform the 2007 Farm Bill.
]]>