For this week’s discussion, Beth and I wanted to collaborate
and move the conversation towards rural farming, as we both agreed that we have
focused a lot on urban farming in past classes. Specifically, I want to address
the ‘elephant’ in the farmhouse, so to speak, in regards to agricultural
subsidies...Who really benefits from farm programs and payments?
Agricultural subsidies are governmental subsidies that
provide ‘safety nets’ for farmers and agribusinesses to help ensure their
production of a stable food supply and their profitability, despite
discrepancies in weather, market prices, and other factors.
The main subsidy system consists of a layering of 5 subsidy
programs, including direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, revenue
assurance programs, marketing loans, and disaster payments. You can read more
about these 5 programs on the EWG Farm Subsidies page à http://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php
Generally, this financial support is skewed to program
commodities of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, with corn and soy being
the top crops for subsidy payments...which is interesting as these are the two
crops that assist in the production of meat and processed foods that we are
supposed to exclude or decrease from our diets. (Beth will talk more about this
in her postàDefinitely
read her Washington Post article on the farm bill!)
Going back to my original question...Who benefits from these
programs really? Despite the rhetoric of ‘preserving the family farm’ that
often accompanies conversations about agricultural subsidies, the vast majority
of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs. Check out this video
on agricultural subsidies that addresses this issues as well as provides a
summary of a few pros and cons of subsidizing food production.
What are your thoughts after watching the video?
I personally believe that farm subsidies can help create
more stable farming systems, enable farmers to compete in the market, and
potentially prevent possible price spikes, etc. However, they can also be
hindering as they don’t always allow farmers space for change (diversifying,
innovating, etc.). They also lead to more intensive agriculture, with an
increased inefficiency in regards to the use of resources like water and
environmental pollution (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.)
Are there more pros and/or cons that you can think of?
Do you think that making the dramatic decision to end all
farm subsidies in the U.S. could be as beneficial as it was with New Zealand?
Beth and I are really looking forward to hearing your
thoughts on Thursday!!
I am really thankful that you brought this to the class’ attention, Eileen. Personally, I didn’t know very much about farm subsidies prior to this blog post and video so I found it incredibly important. I also really like how you showed the good and bad in farm subsidies.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you said about farm subsidies being important in creating more stable farming systems, but I really can’t help but feel like it is a problem that the current farm subsidy programs are also solely helpful to the big, corporate-run farms. This is an issue.
The video really helped me to solidify these feelings in relation to the smaller farms not being able to compete with the larger farms that get subsidies. I really makes no sense. So at first my idea of a solution was to get rid of farm subsidies all together and see what happens like New Zealand did. However, it seems pretty unethical to experiment with our society. But then isn’t that what we do all the time? I don’t know, I might be rambling.
I am really looking forward to this discussion on Thursday.
This is a really valuable discussion to bring to the table, Eileen. We've talked a lot about solutions and more apparent issues in the ag world, but behind the scenes things such as government subsidies is I'm sure a very real struggle for many farmers.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really cool that New Zealand was able to successfully get rid of farm subsidies and have a profitable, relatively secure agriculture industry; it's a reiteration that more often than not, the best kind of economic market is a free market. However, I'm always hesitant when things work well in a small country and we in the US all of a sudden think that's the one way to do it. The US is such a large nation with varying landscapes and populations, that it's difficult to gage whether or not a system in a smaller country could apply and work the same.
Based on the information you provided in your post, it seems to me that the theory of farm subsidies is good: it's a good idea to allow farmers some financial buffer against weather and price fluctuations. However, the fact that mainly large farms are getting subsidized seems counterintuitive. If the government truly wants to "save" family farms, then this money should be going to families and small businesses who need more support. Yes, this is not what the government and large investors have shown to be their main priority over the years - helping out small business - but maybe if enough people voice this demand and make conscious purchases to act towards this, the people with the money will listen. And food is such a crucial industry within which to act, since so many facets of life (employment, nourishment, land) hinge on this.
Farming subsidies are an example of a system that is good in theory being manipulated to increase profits for those in power. I think this is one of the most frustrating aspects of our agriculture system and our political system in general From the video it seems like the farm bill is a way to increase the profits of monoculture-based farm empires and large companies that produce the seeds, grow the food, and/or process it.
ReplyDeleteAnother con is the impacts on the global market and on countries that depend on agriculture. An example of this is the impacts of NAFTA on Mexico's economy and its communities. The influx of US subsidized corn destroyed Mexico's corn market. The majority small scale farms could not compete with the artificially low prices of the imported corn and many were forced off their land or required to look for work elsewhere. This contributed to the movement of people to the US looking for work. And, of course, within the US system they have been dehumanized and face further injustices and exploitation. So, another way that this system is manipulated for the profit of those in power is that the US pushes countries to open up their economies for "free trade" but refuses to participate in a system that is just and allows for the benefit of everyone involved.
The 2014 Farm Bill made some significant changes to farm subsidy programs, including the elimination of direct payments with funding going instead to crop insurance programs. If you want the good, bad, and ugly details, check out: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/farm-bill-subsidy-reform/.
ReplyDeleteAgricultural policy is such a politics game and is often so complicated that it is almost indecipherable. I sometimes wonder if our elected officials even truly understand what they are signing into law. Rather than rant about the destructiveness of our past and current ag policy here, I'll say that there ARE some good programs out there that provide financial support to small and diversified farms and I hope to see such programs growing in the future. Last night, Clay of EarthSmith Food and Forest Products mentioned several grant and loan programs that he's taken advantage on his farm and of course you've all heard about the grant that Karen Warner is applying for. Some of these grants are through the USDA's (United States Department of Agriculture) Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/?cid=stelprdb1048817.
Others are available through SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education), also part of the USDA: http://www.sare.org/Grants.
And there are other sources of funding out there. One program of particular note that was funded through this past farm bill is a cost-share initiative to help farmers with the costs of organic certification. And there are funds available for beginning and minority farmers, for farm-to-school programs, and for farmers implementing conservation practices. Is it enough? No--but some of this is a move in the right direction, I think.
My parents take advantage of a USDA program called the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays them per acre to implement conservation practices on their land rather than put it in active farm production. It might be considered one of those programs that pays people "not to farm." I'd really like to know what you all think about this. Do you think that taxpayers ought to be paying my parents not to farm their land and instead to plant trees, grasses, and wildflowers for wildlife habitat?
I am very glad we are taking the opportunity to discuss rural farming since many of the products I consume can be traced back to large urban farms. The economic side of agriculture is not something I am familiar with so I am grateful you and Beth are helping us explore that area.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video, it seems like farming subsidies are contributing to the problem of endorsing large-scale industrialized farming and not supporting the small family farms. This situation is ironic because that is why the politicians created the subsidies in the first place. The New Zealand model seems like a great idea in theory, however the United States is so much larger I do not know if we would see the same type of results.
While it may seem like a pretty basic analogy I thought the one farmer interviewed in the video summed up this issue nicely by saying farmers need to be told ‘you’re big enough now you can put your pants on by yourself’. One solution that comes to mind is giving smaller farms a leg up with subsidies so that they can compete in the market with other large farms that do not need subsidies. The unequal distribution of these subsidies and the excess money being given to recent homeowners who are not farming is concerning! The financial support programs given towards sustainable farms Amy provided above seem awesome! I look forward to hearing potential solutions from everyone in class tomorrow!
Thanks for bringing up this topic! The video was really helpful in providing a deeper understanding of subsidies. The concept of subsidies isn’t inherently negative, but we are definitely abusing the subsidy system to help the top 1% rather than the struggling small farms. By providing subsidies to large corporations, less wealthy citizens receive the brunt of the detrimental effects. From higher food prices to environmental pollution, those with less money are hit harder.
ReplyDeleteNow, thinking about solutions, I’m wondering about the ideas that Karen (from Big Head Farms) had mentioned. I don’t know logistically how or if her ideas would be viable, but I think she’s on the right track. There are people with money out there, and many of them do want good food, but we need to connect these two entities. This isn’t exactly a subsidy, but it’s sort of a similar idea, so maybe this could be an alternative to the current system. Also, the CRP that Amy mentioned it really interesting. Although I strongly support conservation efforts such as creating wildlife habitat, we also need farms! Especially farms that have knowledgeable, hard-working farmers.
I’m curious to hear what you all think about subsidies, and if you think they can be part of a solution for our food system.
While I believe that the government should provide a safety network for farmers, I don’t think that the current farm bill does that. As the video pointed out, the majority of subsidies and farm bill policies are centered on large agricultural businesses, not the family farm. However, we still have the rhetoric of ‘saving the family farm’, which is interesting to me because I think it shares a lot about the U.S.’s history and national myths, rather than outlines current government values. The idea about saving family farms can be connected with the idea of valuing the environment, but valuing it in a way that commoditizes it and focuses on what we can get out from it, not our relationship with it. Programs like the government subsidies further this relationship to the environment. Also in the video the idea that food is too expensive was presented. I found this interesting in relation to the numerous conversations we have had about how food costs are actually not accurate representations of the work and money put into producing products. Connected to this was that subsidies are primarily for products like corn and soy, not vegetables, which helps explain why the ‘not cheap enough’ rhetoric can still be propagated.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that the government should provide a safety network for farmers, I don’t think that the current farm bill does that. As the video pointed out, the majority of subsidies and farm bill policies are centered on large agricultural businesses, not the family farm. However, we still have the rhetoric of ‘saving the family farm’, which is interesting to me because I think it shares a lot about the U.S.’s history and national myths, rather than outlines current government values. The idea about saving family farms can be connected with the idea of valuing the environment, but valuing it in a way that commoditizes it and focuses on what we can get out from it, not our relationship with it. Programs like the government subsidies further this relationship to the environment. Also in the video the idea that food is too expensive was presented. I found this interesting in relation to the numerous conversations we have had about how food costs are actually not accurate representations of the work and money put into producing products. Connected to this was that subsidies are primarily for products like corn and soy, not vegetables, which helps explain why the ‘not cheap enough’ rhetoric can still be propagated.
ReplyDeleteFarm subsidies are something I definitely feel I need to become more educated about. From my understanding, it seems like the farm bill is a dated system of legislation, in part because so much of what is being subsidized was to address the hardships facing farmers during the dust bowl. Furthermore the farm bill has definitely seemed to perpetuate this sort of get big or get out mentality that many commercial farmers must adhere by today, even if it means generating little to no profit. On the other hand, the farm bill has brought about some beneficial effects including double up food bucks here in Michigan. I'm not sure entirely, but I also think that the farm bill has made a move towards supporting organic practices. However its probably in regards to the NOP which is furthering the industrial mentality that has been linked to much of our popular agricultural models in that these large scale organic farms are intrinsically unsustainable. Large scale organic is often monoculture in model and typically relies heavily on tilling to reduce weeds. Additionally, these organically certified programs can exist alongside non-organic practices on the same parcel of land. Many large scale farms, especially in the western part of this country have conventional and organic programs existing simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteHaving an assured market for crops seems like one of the most crucial aspects of farming and so in theory it seems good to have the associated risks in food production to be subsidized. As I talked about in class, many CSAs look to have their members subsidize their risks for the season, however much of this gets lost as these initiatives come into reality. If there are to be more farmers and especially more sustainable farmers, subsidizing risk is something that needs to be more fully considered. During the dinner on Monday, Dwight mentioned how government provided subsidies are something that could never work for his scale of production, and I think this an important thing when considering the farm bill. Even if the farm bill works to support organic practices, who is benefiting the most? The get big or get out mentality still seems to persist. In consideration of the farm bill, I wonder how the government can work to support farmers in a way that allows them to support their communities and support themselves?
Eileen have you read Food Fight:The Citizen's Guide to the Next Food and Farm Bill, by Dan Imhoff? I tried to read part of it, but sort of got to busy, but after reading your post, I think I'm going to attempt it again!
Interesting post. I only knew a little about farm subsidies but not enough to form solid opinions. I guess I thought that they were beneficial in general because they seemed to be helping farmers who are faced with environmental challenges every year. What I understood from watching the video was that farm subsidies provide aid to large scale farmers who produce large amounts of food for the populations. Generally these farmers are already well off and so servicing them does not quite make sense to me (however it does make sense for the government). What does this mean for my beloved small scale farmers? It does not seem good that the large scale farms are being paid to outcompete the small.This is not where I want my money to be going.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally it is interesting that the only farms receiving subsidies are those producing wheat, corn and soy which are not the predominate food sources that Americans should be eating. The government is praising farmers for growing the wrong kinds of food. The motives for a farmer to grow corn are much higher than to grow any other vegetable because they will be subsidized for doing so. It seems as though the government as well as other corporations are regulating the circulation of foods in grocery stores by paying farmers to slow and quicken the production of certain foods that are the building blocks of what we can call an “unhealthy diet”. The idea comes full circle when this is tied to health care. I become frustrated when I see that the US is producing larger amounts of “bad” food than “good” food, causing our populations to become sicker but then also charging them for being sick.
It would make sense that farmers could get subsidized for growing “healthier” options but maybe it is just more important to service small-scale farmers in general who seem to have the communities best interests in mind. I am interested to see what others have to say about this topic!
Unfortunately, I think farm subsidies are another classic case of government having a conflict of interest with big corporations such as Monsanto. As mentioned in the video, these farm subsidies go to corn and soy. They don't go to ma and pop farms that are growing other plants. However, we all know that there are no such thing as ma and pop farms growing corn and soy anymore. You can't make a profit growing corn on a 10 or 20 acre farm. That means these subsidies are going to farms that are mass producing corn and soy with the use of Monsanto products for the use of animal feed to sustain the millions of fast food restaurants across America as well as for the processed foods that contain mostly GM corn that is so abundant in grocery and convenient stores across America. Farm subsidies are truly an investment for the government agencies such as the FDA, which consist largely of individuals who have current interests with corporations such as Monsanto are previously have had connections. I think the reason farmers are unaware of our ability to break from this paradigm and start a new system for farmers is classic propaganda. In the video we saw the same politicians using the same rhetoric to deceive the minds of the same people. We need more revolutionaries that question the media and the authority structure like we see in New Zealand or Denmark.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the people who benefit the most from the subsidies are the ones who can contribute the most to the monopolization of wealth in this country (and the world). Despite a few politicians in that video saying that the subsidies benefit mom n pop farms, I feel like the majority of the money goes to bigger agri-businesses and I wouldn't be surprised if monsanto receives outlandish benefits from the government. I just don't understand why the farm bill would need to span two football fields. But considering that the crops that get the most subsidies are the ones that are essential to perpetuating our current food climate, the length of the bill makes sense. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest going on.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the example of New Zealand, I don't see why eliminating subsidies altogether would be a bad idea. Better yet, why not give subsidies to anybody who wants to start an organic farm? Seeing the wealthiest American farmer's lifestyle was sickening. It is a shame that people who want to grow clean, honest food have such a hard time while people like him sell their souls for the almighty dollar and never look back.
When I was younger my mom went through a phase of high intensity interest in the role that subsidies play in our food system. Wishing to pass what she was learning on to us, she frequently talked with me about the potential danger in subsidizing certain industrially produced crops and foods and not others. The idea of government subsidies around food was always talked about in a negative light in my household but the reality of eradicating them from our food system in the U.S. was never a part of that conversation.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that the subsidization of certain crops not only assists in the process of running small local farms out of business but also contributes to the affordability of certain types of often less healthy food over healthier options. However, I think that it is also really important to talk about the role that subsidizing food plays in making it affordable to people in low-income situations. I am really interested in talking about solutions to getting food to mouths without our current unequally weighted and distributed subsidization system.
When I was younger my mom went through a phase of high intensity interest in the role that subsidies play in our food system. Wishing to pass what she was learning on to us, she frequently talked with me about the potential danger in subsidizing certain industrially produced crops and foods and not others. The idea of government subsidies around food was always talked about in a negative light in my household but the reality of eradicating them from our food system in the U.S. was never a part of that conversation.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that the subsidization of certain crops not only assists in the process of running small local farms out of business but also contributes to the affordability of certain types of often less healthy food over healthier options. However, I think that it is also really important to talk about the role that subsidizing food plays in making it affordable to people in low-income situations. I am really interested in talking about solutions to getting food to mouths without our current unequally weighted and distributed subsidization system.
I think this is a great topic to discuss and I’m excited to hear everyone’s opinions. I have been aware for some time that the subsidies are skewed towards unhealthy foods, but I am not as educated on the impact that they have on the economic system as a whole. So thanks for bringing this to the discussion table!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what several others have already commented – there really aren’t small farms growing much corn and soy anymore, so all of the subsidy money is going straight to large agribusinesses. I do think that a safety net is important to ensure that small farms stay in business, but obviously the current farm bill is not accomplishing this. Ideally, we would only subsidize farmers who are committed to sustainable, organic farming. I think if something like that were to happen we would start to see faster change in the current farming system. Unfortunately, I think we need a much larger portion of the population on board with sustainable agriculture and the organic movement before a change like that could ever even make it on the table.
I think if we think about who’s really benefitting from the subsidies, it’s ultimately the processed food industry that buys the cheap corn/soy/wheat. Not the farmers, not the consumers, but the big business of industrial food. I was interested in the last bit in the video about New Zealand’s switch to a non-subsidized farming system, so I found a few articles - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ross/farm-subsidies-new-zealand_b_1680259.html
ReplyDeleteOne of the most enlightening excerpts:
“And because subsidies promote the production of commodity crops beyond market demand, they encourage farmers to rely on them instead of consumer demand.”
Our subsidies here are for the corporate, industrial food system demand, not the direct consumer’s demand. How would it change if the relationship was more direct – farmer to consumers? (Hmmm…the whole idea of farmers markets)
“More efficient agricultural production in New Zealand has also spurred better environmental management. Cutting farm subsidies, for example, has reduced the previous overuse of fertilizer. And cutting subsidies has broadened farm operations to encompass activities such as rural tourism that bring management of the rural environment to the fore.”