Red, Green and Blue: The Farm Bill
Editor's note: In today's Red, Green and Blue, our political commentators Jimmy Hogan and Shirley Siluk Gregory weigh in on the U.S. Farm Bill and its related subsidies, due for reauthorization this year.
Shirley: If Congress is serious about solving the host of problems it claims it wants to fix — rising obesity and diet-related illnesses, polluted stormwater runoff and environmental degradation, food insecurity and overdependence on fossil fuels — it should look no further than the Farm Bill, which is due for reauthorization this year.
As it's crafted right now, the Farm Bill (which, as Michael Pollan writes, should more properly be termed the Food Bill) does little to promote small-scale or sustainable farming. But it's very good at driving chemical-dependent industrial agriculture that floods the market with cheap corn and other commodity crops. The results are an overwhelming supply of corn syrup and corn syrup-derived junk foods that are cheaper than healthy foods, and a system that undercuts family farmers both at home and abroad while helping Big Ag companies like Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and Tyson reap ever-growing profits and market share.
For the sake of food security, there's certainly a good case to be made for farm subsidies of the right kind, but that's not what we have right now.
Tags: big ag, corn, farm bill, farm subsidies, farmers, Red, Green and Blue, soy, sustainable agriculture
- Uncategorized
May 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Shirley, you happen to have picked on one of the few big ole pork bills I really don’t have a lot of trouble with.
The 2002 bill was a successful venture in the direction you seem to want in that it shifted toward better support of smaller scale farming and this bill goes further with that and other provisions to promote organic, etc. The big companies are going to win because they’ve bought support for the candidates (that’s a political tragedy but a truth none-the-less); but there’s even more money in this bill to help set aside undesirable farm land for conservation use so that, too, should be a plus.
There is also a lot of support for biofuel development particularly related to cellulosic ethanol and for the desirable feedstocks like switch-grass that are much less harmful to the environment than status quo ethanol from corn.
Not to go Adam Smith on you here because I like smaller scale diversified farming; but to keep them going at the expense of cheap food harms the poor (worldwide) a lot more than it helps them.
And your larger point about national food security is a primary. We’ve got to keep American food production viable as well as use agriculture to help us become less dependent on foreign fuel…. it just makes sense that we’d buy fuel from farmers rather than spend money in an oil market that feeds our enemies.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
May 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Yes, the 2002 bill was a small improvement over previous ones, and the proposal up for consideration now advances those improvements a bit more. But, as you acknowledged, Jimmy, the big companies will always win the most as long as they contribute as much cash as they do to our politicians. We're in full agreement there.
As for the benefits of cheap food, however, there's plenty of evidence that our massively subsidized flood of commodity crops headed overseas can in fact harm the poor as much as it helps. Certainly, food aid in extraordinary circumstances (the Marshall Plan, Asian tsunami relief, etc.) is hugely beneficial.
But when we ship out our surplus crops as part of ordinary WTO-driven trade, our cheap food actually hurts many small farmers in developing nations (as our cheap cotton has also been disastrous for small cotton farmers in Africa). They simply can't compete with the prices of our heavily subsidized crops, and the result is many small farmers having to abandon the countryside to find work in the cities, or having to switch to American-style, industrial agriculture to raise luxury crops (pineapples, melons, etc.) for export to the U.S. (the result being that they become as dependent upon costly commercial seed, pesticides and fertilizers as small struggling farmers in America … and reap just as little reward).
Finally, ugh, I knew the biofuel issue would raise its ugly head sooner or later. The biofuel rush is a boon for the big guys — which is why they're all rushing into it like crazed soccer moms at a Walmart Christmas toy super-sale — but we're already seeing evidence it might not be so good for either the little guys or the environment. Look at the riots in Mexico over skyrocketing tortilla prices caused by the growing demand for ethanol, or the clearcutting of tropical forests to open up land for biofuel monocropping. If biofuel farming isn't managed responsibly, it could cause far more damage than it relieves.
In fact, the U.N. just yesterday issued a report on the concerns raised by the biofuel rush: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/09/1079
May 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
It seems every solution to the energy problem short of U.S. uber-conservation hits a brick wall, Shirley.
For some reason results matter less than the way we get to them.
To the point of the food I really can’t find the fault in producing massive amounts of it at a really low cost. Due to the progressive income tax structure I probably pay a disproportionately higher amount for crop subsidies than the average person; but that’s OK with me if it keeps US agriculture viable.
You seem to be arguing against yourself in that you don’t want subsidies to drive costs down (hurts small farmers) and you don’t want biofuel crops to drive prices up (starving Mexicans).
Looking at it on the net it certainly makes more sense to pay farmers to grow our fuel rather than paying them not to grow food-stuff.
What am I missing here?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The point I’m making is that our current approach toward food production via the Farm Bill is largely dysfunctional, in that the greatest rewards go to giant industrial-farm corporations whose profits derive largely from producing commodoties for crap food: high-fructose corn syrup, grain-fed, high-fat beef, and an endless stream of processed junk food that is cheap but entirely unwholesome. It’s a big part of the reason that obesity and diet-related illnesses are skyrocketing, especially among lower-income Americans.
Rather than making junk food cheap and subsidizing Big Ag companies, I think we could do better by moving back to a price-support, rather than subsidy, system for farming, much like was in place during the New Deal. Ensure family farmers a base price for their crops, and the playing field is evened out a little more than it is now, where the small guys often find themselves selling their crops for less than it cost to grow … and not making up the difference via subsidies that favor larger players over smaller ones.
The problem with our current approach of producing massive amounts of food at a really low cost is that is doesn’t resolve the key challenges of food security, poverty and health: poor farmers can’t compete with the big guys; there’s plenty of food available, but out-of-work farmers who relocate to sprawling city-slums can’t afford enough of it; and the cheap food in the U.S. hurts our health and makes us fat.
Maybe a reasoned approach toward biofuel farming will help in the long run, but this pell-mell rush doesn’t seem to be heading in an environmentally responsible, small-farmer-benefitting direction right now. Time will tell.
By the way, I’m all for uberconservation : )
May 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I think what you’re missing here Jimmy is that the industrial monoculture that the “Food” Bill subsidizes is wholy supported by oil in the form of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. “It takes thirty-five calories of fossil fuel to make a calorie of beef this way; sixty-eight to make one calorie of pork.” Industrial monoculture as a whole system is unsustainable, just for the very fact that it depends on such a huge amount of inputs (not to mention the environmental degredation).
Talk to any midwestern farmer, if they could compete in a global marketplace that’s so artificially manipulated by the USA “Food” Bill without the inputs they would. Potato fields, for example, are dusted so heavily with pesticides to keep the Potato Weevil out that the fields literally go white with the chemicals. Farmers have to wait at least a few days before they are willing to venture out into the field again.
The “Food” Bill could do some good by supporting small scale farmers to compete in US markets. Smaller farms are more productive, environmentally friendly, and manageable without these costly (in matters of national security, environment, and health) inputs.
Check out Manning’s Article “The Oil We Eat”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915
May 10th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Good points Liam… I’ll have to digest those figures a bit but what you say seems to make sense.
I’m still having a problem connecting less efficient farms with a better overall system.
I guess the case for diversification leading to less transportation could be made.
Shirley… you are busting on some of my favorite foods there. Are you suggesting supply side agrinomics is the reason we are fat instead of the system being driven by demand?
I think we are fat because food is cheap and plentiful in this country. Obesity is a sign of poverty here for heaven’s sake.
This article would indicate that we are making steps to deal with the nutrition side of things particularly focused on organic and specialty growers.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Thank you Liam! I didn’t go into the fossil fuel-related costs of industrial farming initially, but that’s a big part of my beef, so to speak, with the way we raise food today. It’s entirely unsustainable AND unhealthy. (By relying on petroleum-based fertilizers rather than crop rotation, industrial monoculture agriculture also contributes to the depletion of the Farm Belt’s rich topsoil — five tons for every acre.)
Sorry to pick on your favorite foods, Jimmy, but junk food is just that, junk. And obesity IS a poverty-related disease for the very reason that junk food, because it benefits from such heavy corporate subsidies, is the cheapest food available. Take $5 or $10 to the grocery store, and see what gives you the most filling, caloric-rich food for the buck: it’s not fresh sweet potatoes or squash from the produce aisle, it’s the two-pound dollar bag of cream-filled cookies or the super-size bag of ranch-flavored chips. If anything should be subsidized, it should be fresh, locally raised, organically grown produce — not the stuff that leads to juvenile-onset diabetes and congestive heart failure. And it is refreshing to see from the article you linked to that there is some effort being made to move in that direction.
(Of course, another part of the poverty-obesity puzzle is the fact that lower-income neighborhoods, rural or urban, have few or no grocery stores but plenty of junk-filled convenience stores that act as the primary food source for many residents. In post-Katrina New Orleans, some residents find their only local food source is the gas station.)
Another issue I haven’t touched on yet is the heavy subsidies for agricultural water, especially in the West. These subsidies don’t encourage conservation, and they’re at the heart of a growing number of disputes erupting between big farms and residents for an ever-dwindling water supply.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Just got finished with your article, Liam… very interesting… I modified your comment to make it clickable.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
If the demand existed in poor communities for fresh-food markets they would be there, Shirley.
Some people are poor because they are lazy… and often too lazy to prepare decent meals. A study of poor people would also show a substantial absence of ability or willingness to sacrifice today for a benefit tomorrow (see: Marshmallow Test).
You seldom see Jaguars and Mercedes with fitness-couples unloading at the McDonald’s either.
You really believe this to be a supply side phenomenon?
May 10th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Here’s an interesting article on lab photosynthesis to create energy.
Things like this make me optimistic.