WASHINGTON D.C. — President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposal calls for cuts in spending for agriculture but maintains the focus on rural America by continuing efforts that are working in reversing population and economic decline in less populated areas of the nation.

That’s according to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, who spoke about the proposed budget and what it contains related to the agriculture industry on Feb. 2. The budget, for example, calls for $16 million in cuts for the farm program over 10 years, with much of the spending reductions in crop insurance premiums subsidized by the federal government.

Vilsack, though, spoke highly of the budget, calling it efficient yet more effective with continued focus on bolstering some of the major weaknesses in agriculture, such as high poverty in rural areas and aging farmers. Much of his presentation was spent discussing the president’s desire to reorganize within government to accomplish goals like having a single food safety agency, an idea that’s been proposed several times over the past 15 years or so.

Currently, food safety is split up by 15 different agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the USDA, and although the results have been excellent, there’s room for improvement, said Vilsack.

He pointed to figures showing 45 million people in the United States contracted a foodborne illness last year, with 130,000 going to hospitals and 3,000 dying. He said a single food agency would reduce costs by eliminating duplication and bureaucratic red tape and lead to quicker response to food safety issues, helping to reduce sickness related to food consumption.

Delays now occur from a lack of communication and sharing of knowledge that happens sometimes among all of the agencies, he added. “The bottom line is that it reduces the opportunity for the right hand not knowing what the left hand knows about a particular incident or situation,” said Vilsack.

He said Obama wants the power as other presidents have had to do some reorganization, but Congress must grant the authority – and one reason for again bringing up the idea of a single food safety agency is to begin the debate.

“The point is to get this on the table so that people can start having these conversations,” said Vilsack, who added “the U.S. is one of a few, if not the only, industrialized nations not with one food safety agency.”

Vilsack spoke favorably about the budget despite it containing less money than six years ago, claiming it continues with programs favorable to agriculture, rural areas and the middle class along with efficiencies that make the budget more effective.

For example, he said there are funds designed to aggressively further the gains made recently on increasing the presence of manufacturing in rural communities, not only to provide badly needed jobs but to make those areas more diverse and less reliant on agriculture. There are also more than $1 billion in loans and grants set aside to keep extending municipal water and waste treatment into rural communities and funding to grow school breakfast and lunch programs.

Enough money to issue more than 20,000 loans to beginning farmers is also in the budget to help with an aging farming population, something he viewed as a major concern. Too, he quoted statistics that one child out of every four in poverty in the nation lives in a rural area and that 85 percent of the country’s high poverty rates are in rural communities. “The budget has to address many of these issues,” said Vilsack, who emphasized one out of every 12 jobs is tied to agriculture and that agriculture has a $775 billion annual impact on the nation’s economy.

R.J. Karney, director of Congressional relations for the Washington, D.C.-based American Farm Bureau, said the health of rural communities is a major concern and he has mixed emotions about what the president’s budget, if approved by Congress, would do for communities that rely heavily on agriculture.

Karney feels the budget is pointed in the right direction for solving the issues of rural communities in the long term. But, in the short run, he said more needs to be done, citing figures that show for the first time since the last U.S. Census the population of “rural America” has declined.

He said better access to things like broadband, higher-quality schools and health care, along with more job opportunities, are vital for attracting families. “I think everyone understands that work needs to be done and now it’s up to our policymakers,” said Karney, who questioned claims by Vilsack that gains have been made in reversing the decline in recent years.

“I haven’t seen any specific figures to show one way or another there’s been significant change occurring.”

The American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) is concerned with factors such as proposed cuts in the federal subsidy for farmers buying private crop insurance, but applauds other areas of the budget such as full funding of the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program.

“We’re encouraged to see a commitment to expanding our reach to new and existing trade partners and some increased investment for domestic infrastructure that help us to get American soybeans to our customers faster and more economically than our foreign competitors,” said ASA President Wade Cowan.

He did find fault with the president’s request to decrease funding for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance and upgrades to inland waterways and ports.