[repealed 1976]). This act encouraged the westward expansion of European Americans by selling federally owned lands for farming. Another method of sale was land debt, a financial arrangement in which farmers agreed to pay the federal government a certain amount from their yearly profits in exchange for the land. Congress passed subsequent legislation concerning land ownership for farming pur- poses, but federal lands were eventually exhausted, and in 1976 these late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century acts became unnec- essary and were repealed. The colonial and pioneer families who practiced farming generally raised a variety of animals and crops, depending on what the soil would yield. This seminal arrangement came to be known as the “family farm.” The family farm community was rich in resources derived from land, not money, and from this unique prosperity grew a lifestyle with a status all its own. Expendable income was not a priority for farm families. The values attached to their way of life placed a higher premium on plentiful food, vast land ownership, and a spiritual fulfillment derived from farming. Farmwork was difficult, and the farmer was different from the rest of society; it was against this backdrop that federal and state legislators began to work when addressing the pressing issues that farmers would come to face. The years following the Civil War were especially fruitful for farming communities. WORLD WAR I saw an increase in the value of farm products, and in the Roaring Twenties, robust prices were maintained by a general public capable of buying food and clothing. However, in the months before the STOCK MARKET crash of October 1929, the value of farmland and its products began to decrease. This was due in part to high tariffs on manufacturing equipment essential to farming, which allowed U.S. manu- facturers to price farming equipment without foreign competition. It was also due in part to a new emphasis on mass productivity inspired by the Industrial Revolution. The ability of farmers to increase production on less land led to lower prices and, eventually, fewer family farms. The Great Depression of the 1930s eliminated many family farms. As the general public became less able to buy such basic farm products as food and clothing, food prices dropped drastically, and farmers found themselves with- out the profits they needed in order to pay their mortgages. Foreclosures became routine. Farm As farm foreclosures became commonplace during the Great Depression, some farmers resorted to violence to try to keep their property. This image shows Iowa National Guard members, armed with rifles, ready to put down any disturbance during an auction in Crawford County in 1933. FDR LIBRARY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 178 AGRICULTURAL LAW families considered foreclosures a breach of the government’s promise to allow productive farm families to keep their land, and vast numbers of farmers organized to withhold food from their markets in an effort to force product prices higher. A smaller number of farmers resorted to violence to prevent other farmers from deliver- ing their goods to market. Several foreclosures were also preve nted by force. The unrest of the early 1930s in the Great Plains states eventually led to widespread state legislation that limited the rights of banks to foreclose on farms with undue haste. Action was also taken on the federal level. To avoid a national farmers’ strike planned for May 13, 1933, President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.) on May 12. This act was the first in a series of federal laws that provided COMPENSA- TION to farmers who voluntarily reduced their output. Parts of the act were declared unconsti- tutional by the Supre me Court in 1936, in part because the Court considered agriculture a matter of local concern. Congress and President Roosevelt continued to press the issue, with the amended Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which contained more federal control of production, benefit payments, loans, insurance, and soil conservation. The TEST CASE for the new Agricultural Adjustment Act was Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942). In Wickard, Ohio farmer Roscoe C. Filburn sued Secretary of Agriculture Claude R. Wickard over the part of the act concerning wheat acreage allotment. Under the act, the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) had designated 11.1 acres of Filburn’s land for wheat sowing and established a normal wheat yield for this acreage. Filburn defied the department’s direc- tive by sowing wheat on more than 11.1 acres and exceeding his yield. This constituted farm marketing excess, and Filburn was penalized $117.11 by the department. When Filburn refused to pay the fine, the government issued a LIEN against his wheat, and the Agriculture Committee denied him a marketing card. This card was necessary to protect Filburn’s buyers from LIABILITY for the fine, and to protect buyers from the government’s lien on Filburn’s wheat. Filburn sued to invalidate the wheat-acreage- allotment provision, arguing in part that it was beyond the power of the federal government to enforce such farming limitations. Even though Filburn did not intend to sell much of the wheat, the Supreme Court reasoned that because all farm product surplus had a substantial effect on interstate COMMERCE, it was within the power of the U.S. Congr ess to control it. This decision affirmed the power of Congress to regulate all things agrarian, and the U.S. farmer, for better or worse, was left with a meddlesome lifetime friend in the federal government. As the United States enjoyed economic prosperity through the 1950s and 1960s, t he number of family farms remained relatively s table. Farm families learned to work with the federal government and its dizzying stream of agencies, regulations, and paperwork. Nevertheless, the mid-1980s saw another farm crisis. Widespread financial difficulty led to the loss of more family farms and prompted further federal action. In response to this crisis, Congress passed an extensive credit-relief package in 1985, over the PROTEST of President Ronald Reagan’s agriculture secretary, John R. Block. The various bills in this package provided for additional Number and Acreage of U.S. Farms Year 1990 1995 2000 2008 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations, annual. Total acreage (in millions) Average acreage per farm Number of farms (in thousands) ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION AGRICULTURAL LAW 179 federal monies for loan guarantees, reduction of lender interest rates, and loan advancements. This farm crisis was triggered by a combi- nation of natural disasters, market shifts, lower prices, and production improvements. Further- more, the onset of corporate farming, which involves mass production of farm products, forced farm families to consistently reckon with the harsh realities of the financial world. Dissatisfaction with federal farm laws and policy led Congress in 1996 to pass the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, which came to be known as the Freedom to Farm Act (Pub.L. 104–127, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 888). The law, which conservatives trumpeted as the means to end 60 years of federal farm subsidies and to reinvigorate the free market, reduced regulatory burdens on farmers and ended requirements that farmers idle land to qualify for crop subsidies. However, the central part of the law consisted of “market transition payments”—the USDA paid farmers to compensate them for the possibility that farm subsidies might end in six years. This departed from the traditional federal practice whereby support payments were inversely related to crop prices—the higher the crop prices, the lower the support payments. In 1996 and 1997 the Freedom to Farm Act gave farmers more than three times as much in cash subsidies as they would have received under the previous five-year farm bill. Even with these payouts, farm income began to fall in 1998, leading Congress to reverse course and authorize billions of dollars in farm relief. By 2002 Congress had abandoned the idea that the federal government should not subsidize farm- ers. It passed the Farm Security and Rural INVESTMENT Act of 2002 (Farm Bill 2002), Pub.L. 107–171, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 134, which set agricultural policy for the next six years. It is estimated that the total subsidies paid out over this period will reach $200 billion. While government involvement in farming continues, the face of U.S. farming is evolving. Most farmers are now trained in business and keep abreast of farming trends, technological and manufacturing improvements, and the stock market. Many family farms have adapted by specializing in the mass production of one or two particular foods or fibers, like corporate farms do. Other farmers have formed what is called a “cooperative,” a group of farmers dedicated to the most profitable sale of their products. By pooling their resources and producing a variety of goods, cooperative farmers are able to weather low-price periods and postpone sales until a product price reaches a high level. Agriculture has become a powerful LOBBYING group in state capitals across the country, and the political issues are myriad. The industry itself is split into competing special interests, according to product. Family farms and cooperatives are often at odds, although sometimes they join forces against massive corporate farming. Farm- ing interests are frequently opposed by advocates for the environment and food purity. The government does not always seem to act in the best interests of farmers, and farm ers and their creditors continually struggle for leverage. Fed- eral and state regulations seek to provide some predictability for the players in these struggles. Federal Law According to the Wickard case, the U.S. Congress has the power to regulate agricultural production under Article I, Section 8, of the federal Constitution, and Congress has left virtually nothing to chance. The numerous programs and laws that promote and regulate farming are overseen by the secretary of agriculture, who represents the USDA in the president’s cabinet. The USDA is the government agency that carries out federal agricultural policy, and it is the most important legal entity to the farmer. Usually, some two dozen agencies are housed within the USDA, all charged with carrying out the various services and enforcing the numerous regulations necessary for the efficient, safe production of food and fiber. Other administra- tive agencies can affect a farmer’s legal rights, such as the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA), the INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, and the TREASURY DEPARTMENT , but the USDA is the single depart- ment to which every farmer must answer . The 2008 Farm Bill In April 2008 Congress finally enacted the massive Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110–246, more commonly referred to as the Farm Bill. The entire law incorporated a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy bill that essentially continued the 2002 Farm Bill. Specific initiatives were aimed at increased Food Stamp benefits, research money for new pest and disease control in crops, and support for the production of cellulosic ethanol (an alter- native energy). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 180 AGRICULTURAL LAW Other major provisions included the Aver- age Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), which will allow farmers to chose between continued subsidies or revenue-based market oriented protections; funding for local food programs, including farmers’ market programs; and funds for conservation and working land programs. Section 9003 provides for grants of up to 30 percent of costs for developing and building biorefineries demonstratively capable of pro- ducing biofuels (all fuels not produced by corn kernel starch). Section 15321 establishes a new tax credit for producers of cellulosic biofuels (produced from wood, grasses, or the non- edible parts of plants). Section 9010 authorizes the COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION (CCC) to purchase sugar from U.S. producers and sell it to bioenergy producers. Section 9011 creates the Biomass Crop Assistance Program supporting the establishment and production of biomass crops. Two other sections, 9009 and 9013, create rural energy self-sufficiency initiatives to devel- op community-wide renewable energy systems. The Farm Bill also created the National Institute of Food and Agriculture for federal sector agricultural research. For fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the bill granted $78 million for organic agricultural research; $230 million for specialty crops; and $118 million for biomass research and development. The Agricultural Adjustment Acts establish and maintain prices for crops by preventing extreme fluctuations in their availability. These acts empower the secretary of agriculture to allot a certain amount of farmland for the production of a specific crop, and to apportion the land among the states capable of producing the cro p. State agricultural committees then assign a certain amount of the land to various counties, and the counties in turn assign the land to local farms. This system guards against crop surpluses and shortages, and preserves economic stability by preventing extreme fluc- tuations in crop prices. The COMMODITY Credit Corporation (CCC) exists within the USDA to further the goal of stabilizing food prices and farmers’ incomes. The CCC provides DISASTER RELIEF to farmers, and it controls prices through an elaborate system of price support. Loans to farmers and govern- mental buyouts of farm products allow the CCC to maintain reasonable price levels. The secre- tary of the CCC is also authorized to issue subsidies, or governmental grants, to farmers as another means of controlling prices by main- taining farmers’ incomes. By encouraging or discouraging the production of a particular food or fiber through financial reward, subsidies promote price stability in the markets. Several federal programs help serve the same purpose of price stability. The secretary of agriculture may set national quotas for the production of a certain farm product. Set-aside conditions, also established by the secretary of agriculture, require farmers to withhold pro- duction on a certain amount of cropland during a specified year. Diversion payments are made to farmers who agree to divert a percentage of their cropland to conservation uses, and the Payment in Kind Program allows farmers to divert farmland from production of a certain commodity in exchange for a number of bushels of the commodity normally produced on the diverted land. Federal CROP INSURANCE, emergen- cy programs, and INDEMNITY payment programs protect farmers against unforeseen production shortfalls. The FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION, established by Congress as an independent agency in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government, provides funds for farmers who are unable to purchase feed for livestock or seed for crops. Also in place are federal programs and regulations that provide for the coordination of farm cooperatives, standardization of marketing practices, quality and health inspections, the promotion of market expansion, the reporting of farm statistics, and the administration of soil conservation efforts. For example, the Soil Conservation and Domesti c Allotm ent Act (16 U.S.C.A. §§ 590 et seq. [1936]) directs the secretary of agriculture to help farmers and ranchers acquire the knowledge and skill to preserve the quality of their soil. The federal Food Stamp Program helps to support domestic food consumption and economic stability for consumers and farmers alike by subsidizing the food purchases of people with low incomes. Under Title VII of the United States Code, the secretary of agriculture is charged with coordinating educational outreach services. The Morrill Act (7 U.S.C.A. §§ 301–05, 307, 308), passed by Congress in 1863, granted public land to institutions of higher education for the purpose of teaching agriculture. In 1887 the HATCH ACT (7 U.S.C.A. § 361a et seq.) created agricultural experiment stations for colleges of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURAL LAW 181 agriculture, and in 1914 the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 341 et seq.) created the Extension Service, which allowed agriculture colleges to educate farmers not enrolled in school. In the Extension Service, agents are hired by an agriculture college to help farmers address a variety of farming issues, and to promote progress in farming by providing farmers with information on technological advances. Many farm families have been helped by the land-grant programs, but some critics have argued that this college syste m too often emphasizes increased productivity and frenzied technological advance- ment at the exclusion of small-scale farm operations. In the mid-1990s the Extension Service began to branch out. The Minnesota Extension Service, for example, began to address such issues as teen drug abuse and child neglect. This use of agricultural monies for social services has disappointed some and pleased others. One high-profile controversy involves the Bovine Somatatropin (BST) bovine growth hormone. The BST hormone increases the milk output of dairy cows. The Milk Labeling Act bills passed by Congress in April 1993 regulate the use of the drug by requiring the secretary of agriculture to conduct a study of its economic effect on the dairy industry and on the federal price support program for milk. The act also requires the producers of the milk from cows treated with BST to keep records on its manu- facture and sale. Proponents of the drug praise its production benefits, but opponents argue that increasing productivity is less important than ensuring food purity. HOMESTEAD protection is another form of federal relief, which helps keep farms out of FORECLOSURE. To qualify for homestead protec- tion, farmers must show that they have received a gross farm income that is comparable to that of other local farmers, and that at least 60 percent of their income has come from farming. A 1993 case challenged the definition of this type of relief. Schmidt v. Espy, 9 F.3d 1352 (8th Cir. 1993) was a suit brought by the Schmidt family to stop the FmHA from calling in the Schmidts’ farm loan. The USDA had ruled that because the Schmidts’ farm had suffered net losses, it could not qualify for homestead protection. The Schmidts took their case to the U.S. district court, which affirmed the USDA’s decision. The Eighth CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals re- versed the decision. According to the appeals court, the statutory definition of income for purposes of homestead protection is GROSS INCOME , not gross profits. The court reasoned that because homestead protection is normally sought by financially distressed farmers, limit- ing the protection to profitable farmers would run contrary to the purpose of homestead protection. State Law The TENTH AMENDMENT grants states the right to pass laws that prom ote the general safety and well-being of the public. Because courts have found that agricultural production and con- sumption directly affect public health and safety, states are free to enact their own agricultural laws, provided those laws do not conflict with federal laws and regulations. Many state laws provide for financial assis- tance to farmers. By issuing loans or providing emergency aid, states are able to ensure the survival of family farms and continued agricul- tural production. The states also have the power to impose agricultural liens, which are claims upon crops for unpaid debts. If a farmer is unable to make timely payments on loans for services or supplies, the state may sue the farmer to gain a security interest in the farmer’s crops. States also enact laws to supervise the inspection, grading, sale, and storage of grain, fertilizer, and seed. Municipalities can also set regulations that ostensibly control agricultural production. The subject of wetlands, for example, is within the jurisdiction of local governing bodies. In Ruotolo v. Madison Inland Wetlands Agency, No. CV 93-0433106, 1993 WL 544699 (Conn.Super., Dec. 23, 1993), Michael Ruotolo, a farmer in Madison, Connecticut, challenged a MUNICIPAL regulation that prevented him from filling in wetlands located on his property. Ruotolo wanted to plant nursery stock on the area after moving earth to raise the ground level, but the Madison Wetlands Reg ulation precluded the filling in of any wetlands. According to a state statute, however, farming was permitted on some wetlands of less than three acres. Ruotolo asserted a right to farm, and argued that because the state law and the local regulation were in conflict, the state law should prevail. However, in previous proceedings between Ruotolo and the Madison Inland Wetlands Agency, the agency had found that the wetlands on Ruotolo’spropertyhad“continual flow,” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 182 AGRICULTURAL LAW and were therefore subject to more protection than standing-water wetlands. Because the state statute prevented even farmers with less than three acres from filling in wetlands with continual flow, Ruotolo was prevented from farming the wetlands on his own property. FURTHER READINGS Barnes, Richard L. 1993. “The U.C.C.’s Insidious Preference for Agronomy over Ecology in Farm Lending Deci- sions.” University of Colorado Law Review 64. Commodity Credit Corporation. Available online at www. fsa.usda.gov/ccc/default.htm (accessed May 29, 2003). Daniels, Tom, and Deborah Bowers. 1997. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmland. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Department of Agriculture. 2009. “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.” Available online at http://www. usda.gov/wps/portals; website home page: http://www. usda.gov/ (accessed September 10, 2009) Farm Credit Administration. Available online at www.fca. gov (accessed May 29, 2003). Gardner, Bruce L. 2002. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How It Flourished and What It Cost. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Hamilton, Neil D. 1993. “Feeding Our Future: Six Philosophical Issues Shaping Agricultural Law.” Nebraska Law Review 72. ———. 1990. “The Study of Agricultural Law in the United States: Education, Organization, and Practice.” Arkansas Law Review 43. Kimbrell, Andrew. 2002. Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Looney, J. W. 1994. Agricultural Law: Principles and Cases. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, Keith G., et al. 1985. Agricultural Law: Cases and Materials. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Prim, Richard. 1993. “Saving the Family Farm: Is Minnesota’s Anti–Corporate Farm Statute the Answer?” Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 14. Sumner, Daniel A., ed. 1995. Agricultural Policy Reform in the United States. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. CROSS REFERENCES Agriculture Department; Agriculture Subsi dies; Environ- mental Law; Land-Use Control; Zoning. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) is an executive, cabinet-level department in the federal government. It is directed by the secretary of agriculture, who reports to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES . The USDA’s primary concern is the nation’s agriculture industry, and the depart- ment addresses this concern through numerous economic, regulatory, environmental, and scien- tific programs. The USDA provides financial aid to farmers through loans, grants, and a system of price supports. The USDA’s international efforts promote domestically grown products abroad. The department regulates the quality and output of the grain, meat, and poultry industries. Through various conservation programs, the department helps protect soil, water, forests, and other natural resources. The USDA also administers the federal Food Stamp Program, one of the WELFARE system’s largest services. The USDA h as a long h istory. As early as 1838, farmers had urged Congress to create a federal AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, but it took more than 20 years before t he idea gained widespread support . On May 15, 1862, President ABRAHAM LINCOLN signed the Department o f Agriculture Organic Act (12 Stat. 387, now c odified at 7 U.S. C.A> § 2201), which c reated the department. The creation of the USDA coincided with several other major events, including the middle of the Civil War. Within days of signing the act that created the USDA, Lincoln also signed the HOMESTEAD AC T OF 1862, which was vital in the development of family farms in the western United States. The USDA was administered by a COMMIS- SIONER of agriculture until 1889 (25 Stat. 659). In 1889, Congress enlarged the departmen t’s powers and duties (7 U.S.C.A. §§ 2202, 2208). It made the USDA the eighth executive depart- ment in the federal government, and the commissioner became the secretary of agricul- ture. Federal lawmakers have tinkered with the department ever since. Notably, programs pro- viding economic aid to farmers were established during the Great Depression, and these programs have since become a firmly entrenched part of federal law. Important contemporary reforms have included federal welfare services such as the Food Stamp Program, administered through the Food and Nutrition Service since the 1970s, and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1421 note et seq.), enacted to maintain the income of farmers. Several federa l statutes have established the department’s central role in administering subsidy programs. These statues include: the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Freedom to Farm Act) (Pub. L. No. 104–127, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 888), the Farm Security and Rural INVESTMENT Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 107–171, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 134), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 110–246, 122 Stat. 1651). The secretary of agriculture presides over an elaborate BUREAUCRACY. The deputy secretary GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT 183 runs day-to-day operations, serving as the secretary’s principal adviser. Reporting to the secretary and deputy secretary are six officers: chief financial officer, general counsel, inspector general, executive of operations, director of communications, and chief information officer. These officers and their staffs coordinate a number of operations, including: the USDA’s personnel management program; equal oppor- tunity and CIVIL RIGHTS activities; safety and health activities; management improvement programs; media relations; accounting, fiscal, and financial activities; automated data processing administra- tion; procurement and CONTRACTS; and manage- ment of real and PERSONAL PROPERTY. Various branches of the USDA handle the department’s legal affairs. The judicial officer, rather than the secretary, serves as the final deciding officer, in regulatory proceedings and appeals of a QUASI-JUDICIAL nature where a hearing is required by law. Two quasi-judicial agencies , the Office of Administrative Law Judges and the Board of Contract Appeals, adjudicate cases and decide contract disputes. Additional input to the secretary comes from the general counsel, who is both the principal legal adviser and the chief law officer of the department. All audits and investigations are condu cted by the Office of the Inspector General, established by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 et seq.). The Office of Congressional Relations informs Congress of administrative policy. Also reporting to the secretary and deputy secretary are seven under secretaries who oversee major divisions. These divisions include Rural Development; Marketing and Regulatory Department of Agriculture Secretary Chief Information Officer Chief Financial Officer Inspector General Executive Operations Director of Communications General Counsel Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Assistant Secretary for Administration Deputy Secretary Forest Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Farm Service Agency Foreign Agricultural Service Risk Management Agency Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Rural Utilities Service Rural Housing Service Rural Business Cooperative Service Under Secretary for Rural Development Food and Nutrition Service Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Food Safety and Inspection Service Under Secretary for Food Safety Agricultural Research Service Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Economic Research Service National Agricultural Library National Agricultural Statistics Service Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics Agricultural Marketing Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 184 AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT Programs; Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; Food Safety; Farm and Foreign Agricul- ture Service; Natural Resources and Environ- ment; and Research, Education, and Economics. The USDA also runs a graduate school. Rural Development The Rural Development division includes three programs that provide financial help to farmers and rural communities. The Rural Business- Cooperative Service (RBS) provides and guar- antees loans to public entities and private parties who cannot obtain credit from other sources. Loans are made to help finance industry and business and to provide jobs in rural areas. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) provides affordable rental housing, home own- ership opportunities, and essential community facilities. It also provides loans to buy, operate, and improve farms, and guarantees loans from commercial lenders. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is a credit agency that helps rural electric and telephone utilities obtain financing. As part of the farm bills passed in 2002 and 2008, the Rural Development division has issued grants and loans to promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. Those eligible to receive these loans include individual farms as well as rural businesses. Many of these loans are awarded for the production of energy- efficient grain dryers, but some farms and businesses receive funds for other purposes, such as replacement of farming equipment. Marketing and Regulatory Programs The Marketing and Regulatory Programs division oversees three major programs. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers standardi- zation, grading, inspection, market news, market- ing orders, research, promotion, and regulatory programs. The Animal and Plant Health Inspec- tion Service conducts programs pertaining to quarantine, environmental protection, the hu- mane treatment of animals, and the reduction of crop and livestock losses. The Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration regulates grain, meat, and poultry industries, in addition to other commodities. It also enforces antitrust laws to ensure fair competition in the meat industry. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services The Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services division includes two social welfare programs and one consumer information service. The Food and Nutrition Service admi nisters federal assistance programs to needy people, including the Food Stamp Program, special nutrition programs, and supplemental food programs. The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) conducts research to improve prof es- sional and public understanding of diets and eating, and develops the national Dietary Guide- lines for Americans. The CNPP also focuses on consumer advocacy by helping USDA policy makers, representing the department before Congress, monitoring USDA programs, and conducting consumer outreach. Food Safety The Food Safety division administers the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). Established in 1981, the FSIS conducts federal meat and poultry inspections on cattle, swine, goats, sheep, lambs, horses, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and guineas used for human food. It also inspects the production of egg products. The service monitors meat and poultry products in storage, distribution, and retail channels. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the USDA emphasized the need to protect the nation’s food supply. The department’s primary focus was on bioterrorist threats and working to establish an infrastructure that provides better food safety. For example, additional Import Surveillance Liaison (ISL) inspectors were hired to focus on specific points of entry across the United States, and to re- inspect meats and poultry imported from other countries. The USDA also increased resources at universities and laboratories where research into biological agents and food safety analysis were taking place. Such initiatives ultimately benefit the overall integrity of the nation’sfoodsupply. In 2005 the USDA and several other federal agencies announced the formation of the Strate- gic Partnership Program Agroterrorism (SPPA) Initiative. This program requires collaboration between the federal government, the states, and private industry to ensure that the nation’s food supply would be protected in the event of a terrorist attack. Other federal agencies involved in this initiative includ e the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION , HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT, and the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service division administers three programs that help GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT 185 maintain a stable market for farm commodities, thus ensuring a steady income for farmers. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers pro- grams of the COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION (CCC). The se programs include so-called price supports: farmers who agree to limit their production of specially designated crops can sell them to the CCC or borrow money at support prices. The FSA also furnishes emer- gency financial aid to farmers, operates a grain reserve program, provides milk producers refunds of the reduction in the price received for milk during a calendar year, and provides payments to dairy farmers if their milk is removed from the market because of contami- nation. It has responsibility for plans relating to food production and conservation in prepara- tion for a national security emergency, and provides incentives for preserving and protect- ing agricultural resources. The Risk Manage- ment Agency (RMA) provides CROP INSURANCE to farmers to protect them against unexpected production losses caused by natural causes. The division also has an international focus. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has primary responsibility for the USDA’s overseas market information, access, and development programs. It maintains a worldwide agricultural intelligence and reporting system, and also administers the USDA’s export assistance and foreign food assistance programs. The Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD) helps other USDA agencies and U.S. universities enhance U.S. agricultural competi- tiveness globally. Utilizing the techni cal exper- tise of the U.S. agricultural community, it seeks to increase income and food availability in developing nations. Natural Resources and Environment Two programs in the Natural Resources and Environment division address environmental resources. The Forest Service oversees the national forests. It manages 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and eight land-utilization projects on more than 191 million acres in 44 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. It provides national leadership as well as financial and technical assistance to owners and opera- tors of nonfederal forestland, processors of forest products, and urban forestry interests. The N atural Resources Conservation Service has responsibility for developing and carrying out a national soil and water conservation program in cooperation with landowners, developers, communities, and federal, state, and local agencies. It also assists in agricultural POLLUTION control, environmental improvement, and rural community development. Research, Education, and Economics The Research, Education, and Economics divi- sion administers four major programs. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts studies in the United States and overseas to improve farming. The Cooperative State Re- search, Education, and Extension Service administers acts of Congress that authorize federal appropriations for agricultural research carried out by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The Extension Service is the educa- tional agency of the USDA. The National Agricultural Statistics Service provides informa- tion services to everyone from research scien- tists to the general public, and maintains the electronic Agricultural Online Access (AGRI- COLA) database ava ilable over the INTERNET and on compact disc. It prepares estimates and reports on production, supply, price, and other economic information. The Economic Rese arch Service (ERS) analyzes economic and other social science data in order to improve agricul- tural performance and rural living. It makes analyses of recommendations by USDA agen- cies, task forces, and study groups to be used as a basis for short-term agricultural policy. One of the units within the ARS is the National Agricultural Library, which is one of four national libraries in the United States. The library houses one of the largest collections of agricultural information in the world. It has two locations: Washington, D.C. and Beltsville, Maryland. The library helps to fund the National Agricultural Law Center based at the University of Arkansas School of Law. This center studies a wide range of legal issues affecting agriculture. USDA Graduate School The Graduate School, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a continuing education school offering career-related training to adults. Not directly funded by Congress or the USDA, it is self-supporting, with a mostly part-time faculty drawn from government and industry. The graduate school is administered by a director and governed by a general administration board appointed by the secretary of agriculture. The school was established on September 2, 1921, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 186 AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT pursuant to the act of May 15, 1862 (7 U.S.C.A. § 2201); JOINT RESOLUTION of April 12, 1892 (27 Stat. 395); and the Deficiencies APPROPRIATION Act of March 3, 1901 (20 U.S.C.A. §. 91). FURTHER READINGS Agriculture Department. Available online at http://www. usda.gov (accessed May 3, 2009). Drummond, H. Evan, and John W. Goodwin. 2000. Agricultural Economics. New York: Prentice Hall. Ellis, Seth L. 2008. “Disestablishing ‘The Last Plantation’: The Need for Accountability in the United States Department of Agriculture.” Journal of Food Law and Policy. Spring. Hallberg, Milton C. 1992. Policy for American Agriculture: Choices and Consequences. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press. The United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 1825–1998. Available online at http:// www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/sen_agriculture/ U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed May 3, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Agricultural Law; Agriculture Subsidies; Consumer Protec- tion; Environmental Law. AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES Payments by the federal government to producers of agricultural products for the purpose of stabilizing food prices, ensuring plentiful food production, guaranteeing farmers’ basic incomes, and generally strengthening the agricultural sector of the national economy. Proponents of AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES point to several reasons why they are necessary. They claim that the country’s food supply is too critical to the nation’s well-being to be governed by uncontrolled market forces. They also contend that in order to keep a steady food supply, farmers’ incomes must be somewhat stable, or many farms would go out of business during difficult economic times. These premises are not accepted by all lawmakers and are the subject of continual debate. Critics argue that the subsidies are exceedingly expensive and do not achieve the desired marke t stability. The U.S. government first initiated efforts to control the agriculture economy during the Great Depression of the 1930s. During this period, farm prices collapsed, and farmers became increas ingly desperate in attempts to salvage their livelihood, sometimes staging violent protests. President HERBERT HOOVER made several failed attempts to shore up prices and stabilize the market, including the disastrous Smoot-Hawley TARIFF Act of 1930, 6 U.S.C.A. § 1, 19 U.S.C.A. § 6 et seq., which created a limited tariff to protect farmers from competi- tion from foreign products. The tariff set in motion a worldwide wave of protective tariffs, greatly exacerbating the global economic panic and resulting in drastically decreased export markets for U.S. commodities. After the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930, tariffs were not a widely supported method of subsidizing most agricultural products. The model for post–Smoot-Hawley farm subsidies is the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA), 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq., passed by President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT and the NEW DEAL Congress. The AAA implemented some ideas that became staples of agriculture subsidy programs to the present day, including provi- sions allowing the government to control production by paying farmers to reduce the number of acres in cultivation; purchasing surplus products; regulating the marketing for certain crops; guaranteeing minimum payments to farmers for some products; and making loans to farmers using only their unharvested crops as COLLATERAL. The government also has attempted to stabilize agricultural markets by subsidizing the export of U.S. agricultural products and by signing international agreements designed to promote agricultural exports. In the 1950s and 1960s the government took major steps to increase exports, including the adoption of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1427 et seq., and the GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT). Such measures resulted in widened markets for U.S. agricultural products. The GATT, a multination agreement in- tended to reduce international trade impedi- ments and decrease the potential for tariff-base d trade wars, has undergone several revisions during its history. Agriculture subsidies and tariffs have often been a source of great debate in these revisions. During the Uruguay round of modifications, GATT members could not agree on this issue. The stalemate nearly resulted in a renewed tariff war and the abandonment of the agreement during the 1980s and 1990s. At one point, farmers in France staged violent demon- strations when that country agreed to lower its subsidies and open its markets to imports. Some export-based policies have had draw- backs. In 1972 the Nixo n administration GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES 187 . Reform Act of 19 96 (Freedom to Farm Act) (Pub. L. No. 10 4 12 7, Apr. 4, 19 96, 11 0 Stat. 888), the Farm Security and Rural INVESTMENT Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 10 7 17 1, May 13 , 2002, 11 6. experiment stations for colleges of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION AGRICULTURAL LAW 18 1 agriculture, and in 19 14 the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 3 41 et seq.) created the Extension Service,. secretary of agriculture. The school was established on September 2, 19 21, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 18 6 AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT pursuant to the act of May 15 , 18 62 (7 U.S.C.A. §