Who gets what? Large subsidies used to go to farms that grow corn, piled high in Minnesota, above, while growers of fruit, like California cherries, get none.This year is different.
The New York Times reports:
Every five years the farm bill comes up for renewal and, usually, the only people paying attention are the farmers, their lobbyists and a few outraged groups who think subsidies are a big waste of taxpayers’ money.
Increasingly, people are blaming the farm bill, and the longstanding agriculture policy it embodies, for some of the problems afflicting the country: the growth in obesity, the increase in food poisonings, and the disappearance of the family farm. Payments for farmers were started in the 1930s during the Depression to help save family farms; now the program costs billions and benefits about one-third of the nation’s farmers.
Changes in the farm bill are being supported by the Bush administration and an unusual alliance that includes the American Heart Association, Environmental Defense, Taxpayers for Common Sense and GMA/FPA, a food industry association. They agree that some subsidies should be cut and money spent instead to help fruit and vegetable growers, protect farmland, support small farmers and promote healthier eating.
For the first time, lobbyists for farm subsidies are facing off in the halls of Congress against hundreds of activists.
There is still formidable opposition to the proposed changes, particularly among representatives in the 19 districts that received half the crop subsidies in 2005, according to Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group which has just released details of who receives what payments, drawn from Agriculture Department computer files. But many experts think this new alliance, which spans the political spectrum, could bring about significant changes in the bill.
“I am more optimistic this year that we can see significant reform for farm policy because of a coalition of diverse interests,” said Cal Dooley, president of GMA/FPA. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said: “This is not just a farm bill. It’s a food bill, and Americans who eat want a stake in it.”
The 2002 farm bill provided $143.3 billion for nutrition programs like Food Stamps, $16.8 billion for conservation and $67.6 billion to subsidize the planting of certain crops. Almost all of the subsidies usually go to growers of five commodities: soybeans, corn, rice, wheat and cotton. Fruit and vegetable farmers do not get subsidies.
Supporters say the subsidies have kept food affordable for Americans. Critics disagree and say the subsidies lead to cheap snack foods and soft drinks, made from ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Meanwhile, the lack of subsidies for fruits and vegetables makes them expensive by comparison.
Between 1985 and 2000 the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables increased nearly 40 percent while the price of soft drinks decreased by almost 25 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to a study done by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a group in Minneapolis set up to help save family farms and rural communities.
Health professionals say calories from those subsidized foods are partly responsible for the epidemic of childhood obesity and the increased incidence of diabetes.
Some of the bills before Congress are aimed at helping growers of fruits and vegetables and adding to the supply of local food.
One goal is helping to pay for new processing plants and slaughterhouses so that small farms could more easily market their products in their regions rather than sending them long distances. Many regional plants went out of business when the food industry became more concentrated.
Another is setting up more farmers’ markets and helping farmers sell to nearby schools, hospitals and other institutions, and helping low-income older people buy from small farmers.
Other ideas include giving grants, loans and technical assistance to beginning, immigrant and minority farmers to start new farms or to keep small struggling farms in business, and providing money for farmers who want to convert to organic methods.
Spending money on researching the cultivation of fruits and vegetables would help farmers find more efficient ways to irrigate and fertilize crops and deal with pests while cutting back on pesticides. Greenhouses would also be built to extend growing seasons.
Food Stamp benefits would be increased so that a family of three would receive $317 a month, up by $10.
Some bills would expand farm and ranchland preservation programs, restore and protect more wetlands, grasslands and watersheds, and improve water quality by cutting back on pesticides and preventing nutrients and pesticides from washing off farms and into streams and lakes.
Others include money for research and incentives for renewable energy on farms and ranches for wind power, biofuels from crops other than corn and for equipment to capture the methane from manure and turn it into an energy source.
The House requires that any new program be paid for either by cutting an existing program or specifying a new source of revenue, both difficult prospects.
On Friday, Representative Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, is expected to announce two bills: the first will propose marginal cuts in subsidies and call for a number of proposals, including some money for fruits and vegetables, organic farming, farmers’ market promotions, novice farmers, and additional energy and conservation programs. It would retain current levels of funding for nutrition programs. But supporters of those programs say the bill does not provide enough funding for them.
The second bill will propose programs for which no money has been allocated, including some additional funds for nutrition programs and conservation money to reward farmers who are already using what are considered the best environmental practices.
The House leadership has already indicated it doesn’t want a floor fight and may try to force both sides to compromise on the depth of cuts in subsidies and on the level of new spending.
Whatever the House passes has to be reconciled with the Senate bill. Senator Harkin wants to cut some subsidies. The most likely cuts are what are called “fixed direct payments,” $5.2 billion per year paid to farmers even if they grow nothing, based on what they had raised in the past.
“You don’t have to sit on a tractor seat, visit the tractor seat, you don’t even have to be alive to get a fixed payment,” said Mr. Cook of the Environmental Working Group. “We have fixed payments to dead people all over the place. It’s ridiculous.”
Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, the second largest organization for farmers in the country, said, “It is hard to defend direct payments.” But he added, “You can write a safety net that protects farmers and ranchers when times are tough.”
The Bush administration, as well as many alliance members, wants to eliminate subsidy payments for farmers who have an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 a year. And some in Congress want to limit subsidies entirely. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has supported limits on subsidies in the past and some Congressional bills would prohibit any farmer from getting more than $200,000 a year in subsidies.
According to the subsidy data from the Environmental Working Group, one giant cotton farm collected $2.95 million through crop subsidies in 2005, nearly as much money as the federal government spent on its primary research program for organic agriculture last year — $3 million.
Mary Kay Thatcher, a policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farm lobbying group, said current subsidies, which the federation supports, might be tweaked, but added, “I think it is highly unlikely that we will see huge changes.”
That may depend on whether the new activists can counteract the power of lobbyists who make large campaign contributions.
“Congress and the administration have a unique opportunity to begin reforms providing a sustainable, community-linked food system,” said Gus Schumacher, a consultant to the Kellogg Foundation for its food and society initiative and a former under secretary of agriculture. “Will they take this opportunity to start or will it be business as usual?”
