In Katherine Paul's article "The 2013 Farm Bill: What to Know, What to Do," Paul explains that "fine tuning" the S954 and extending the 2008 Bill covers not only agriculture but nutrition, conservation and forestry as well. Paul also provides several examples of the kind of amendments seen the Farm Bill. One amendment that received a lot of focus but was eventually voted down was the "Sanders Amendment," which would require labeling of GMO's (Currently 26 states have labeling). The Boxer Amendment requires that 64 countries must label. Other amendments include the King Amendment (Eggs sold in California must come from special cages), the Frankenfish Amendment (banning MGO Salmon), the Wyden Amendment (legalizing industrial hemp), the Boxer Amendment (protecting honey bees), and the Tester Amendment (which would protect localized/traditional seeds). (Paul 2013) This plethora of amendments certainly does raise the question: is this too much government control? This is especially worrying when you consider that the government is being influenced by Big Ag.
But what exactly is so wrong with the Farm Bill? Why is government control backed by large, transnational, hegemonic corporations a bad thing? Well, according to Heidi Moore the "1 Trillion dollar Farm Bill harms the poor and promotes unhealthy foods." In her article "The New Farm Bill is Economic Disaster" she states that the fiscal crisis has resulted in irresponsible spending by Washington lobbies and lawmakers that are only concerned with corporate interests. The Bill cuts foods stamps for the poor and increases poverty and crime. .
This sentiment is echoed in Paul Lewis' "The New US Farm Bill Proposal Expected to Contain $9 Billion Cut to Food Stamps." Lewis writes that the Bill will affect millions of households while setting minimum spending levels on agriculture and food policy.