Real Reform Needed for Farm and Food Policies
July 24, 2007 | Posted by Scott Faber in Uncategorized
The House Agriculture Committee would allow 99.9% of America's farmers to collect unlimited subsidies and turn away two of of three family farmers offering to share the cost of a healthy environment.
Is that reform?
The Washington Post doesn't think so.
Unless we reward farmers when they offer to share the cost of stewardship, we can't hope to meet some of the nation's biggest environmental challenges. Unfortunately, if the House fails to amend the Farm Bill that will be brought to the floor this week, two out of three farmers will still be turned away when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment with USDA because of our misplaced spending priorities.
Helping farmers when they help the environment would also help many more farmers and states receive a fair share of farm and food spending.
Current farm and food policies are unfair
Less than 40 percent of farmers grow crops that are eligible for subsidies, and the largest 10 percent of those farmers receive two-thirds of the payments. Overall, most farmers receive no benefit or less than $125 a month from farm subsidies that cost more than $20 billion in some years. Because payments are concentrated in so few hands, half of all farm spending flows to just 20 congressional districts.
This week, the House will debate the 2007 Farm Bill and consider the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment," which would reduce and restructure subsidies to help reward — not reject — farmers when they take steps to help the environment. In particular, the amendment will provide a better safety net for family farmers and will do much more to help meet our hunger, health and environmental challenges.
Real reformers will be fair to family farmers and support the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.
2 Responses
Comment from Steve Andrew
July 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
First what you must understand is that the 20 congressional districts that you continue to name are in states where the majority of the cropland is located. What this means is that in Kansas for example their are lots of subsidies paid out but their are a lot more bushels produced than in say the Rockey Mountains. What you don't understand is that a producer pays the same out per acre regardless of the amount of acres they farm, if a farmer received $100,000 in farm payments vs. a farmer who receives $1000 the result is the same the farmer getting $100,000 has just as many input costs and makes the same per acre. Saying that farmers in Kansas are rich because they receive government payments is wrong. I live in Western Kansas and I will tell you that farmers are struggling through seven years of drought and if we didn't have strong crop insurance and government subsidies many more farmers would be filing bankruptcy than have currently. Our rural economies rely on these payment because they spend the money on our main streets, so if you want cheap food and care at all about small rural economies, then anybody in their right mind would support a strong farm bill with very little reform. Lastly, many times people in large urban areas take for granted cheap food prices. Also, I am for putting more money into the farm bill to allow any producer in any state not currently receiving government payments to be receiving them. This can only be accomplished by putting more money in our farm bill, not taking money from certain programs just to help some and hurt others. We must support our homeland! Thanks. Steve
Comment from earthymom
July 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Please understand Steve that I (and those who agree with me) don't oppose all farm subsidies. It sticks in our craw when farm OWNERS who don't even live in the same state as their "farm" receive automatic subsidy payments for corn and soybeans. The largest recipients in my county for example: he owns a 31% interest in the farm, his wife 25%. In 2005 they received more than half a million dollars between them and they don't live on the farm or, as far as I can tell, ever work it. I seriously doubt they spend any of that money in my community. And corn prices were and are at record highs to boot.
The vast bulk of farm subsidies currently go for commodities — not the food we really eat. Smaller farms that grow vegetables and fruit and act as stewards for the environment instead of polluting the water and depleting the soil can barely break even. How many farmers have day jobs to support their farming habit — LOTS. And that's wrong. I want a farm bill that helps "real" farmers and their communities so all of us may eat healthy food. And high fructose corn syrup and grain fed/anti-biotic saturated CAFO raised meat are not healthy food. I want a farm bill that puts an end to hunger in this country. I want a farm bill that rewards farmers who act as stewards of the land. I want a FAIR farm bill — one that is fair to farmers and every body else.
I say, spend even more tax money to support agriculture — BUT spend it wisely and FAIRLY.
Leave a Reply
User comments reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of Environmental Defense Fund. We reserve the right to delete comments that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate. We also reserve the right to delete duplicate comments, or comments that have no relationship to the original post.