Don’t end agricultural subsidies, fix them

Photo by Alex E. Proimos/Flickr

By Mark Bittman

NEW YORK TIMES—Agricultural subsidies have helped bring us high-fructose corn syrup, factory farming, fast food, a two-soda-a-day habit and its accompanying obesity, the near-demise of family farms, monoculture and a host of other ills.

Yet — like so many government programs — what subsidies need is not the ax, but reform that moves them forward. Imagine support designed to encourage a resurgence of small- and medium-size farms producing not corn syrup and animal-feed but food we can touch, see, buy and eat — like apples and carrots — while diminishing handouts to agribusiness and its political cronies.

Farm subsidies were created in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression, which makes it ironic that in an era when more Americans are suffering financially than at any time since, these subsidies are mostly going to those who need them least.

That wasn’t the plan, of course. In the 1930s, prices were fixed on a variety of commodities, and some farmers were paid to reduce their crop yields. The program was supported by a tax on processors of food — now there’s a precedent! — and was intended to be temporary. It worked, sort of: prices rose and more farmers survived. But land became concentrated in the hands of fewer farmers, and agribusiness was born, and along with it the sad joke that the government paid farmers for not growing crops.

The farm bill, up for renewal in 2012, includes an agricultural subsidy portion worth up to $30 billion, $5 billion of which is what you might call handouts, direct payments to farmers.

Read the full article

I agree that we need to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 02:49.

I agree that we need to change what gets subsidized, but in order to avoid history repeating itself we need to set boundaries. For example, if one subsidized crop has a market share within the top five percent, don't subsidize it any longer. Just stop completely. And if falling within the top six to twenty percent of market share, cut down the total subsidies to the crop: the higher its market share, the less that crop gets in subsidies.

And finally, the richest agribusinesses get no subsidies using a formula along the same lines.

Not quite the whole truth

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 19:23.

The tax on processors of food was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; it was the Agriculture Adjustment Act that gave rise to the current farm welfare programs. In effect the act converted faming into a government regulated utility; however the USDA has reneged on the provision requiring a guarantee of parity prices to farmers in the marketplace. The solution is to void government involvement altogether or restore lawful parity.
To redivide the pie only alters the crooks, even organic producers having sold CSA's and received crop damage insurance payments due to weather related crop losses, effectively collecting twice.

Farm subsidies are no different than corporate welfare

Submitted by Jonathan (not verified) on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 18:14.

As a CSA it is hypocritical to criticize corporate farms for taking farm subsidize to increase profits off the backs of working taxpayers.

My CSA is a private business, and I don't want to have to be forced to take government handouts. If we start subsidizing CSA's then I will be forced to take the subsidy in-order to compete with other CSA's.

Lets keep the playing field level among all CSA's, and not allow any handouts from the taxpayers.

If you want reform, I encourage guaranteed farm loans that encourage banks to take risks with young and new CSA farmers who may not otherwise qualify for those loans.

Lets be smart about going forward with government policy and acknowledge that subsidies are immoral, unnecessary, and costly to the taxpayer.

Lets be real here...

Submitted by Bsavoie (not verified) on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 17:59.

I for one would love to see the subsidies go away, but lets be real here. We all know that money walks and #$%$^^ talks. What a small certified organic farmer like myself will see is a total end to conservation programs and any sort of NRCS payments. I am fine with that, as long as it is ended for everyone. I don't trust Congress these days as far as I can throw them. Big corporate subsidized agribiz will somehow still get their funding while the tiny fraction of payments to guys like me will go away in the name of "reducing the deficit", making it even harder for a small business to compete.

Does anyone really think the GOP will stop the endless flow of money to their corporate campaign contributors?

Yes, Let's

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 14:37.

Please keep the partisan BS out of it. Do you think the GOP is the only one taking money from the agibiz? Get Real. I don't align myself with either party, I go for the best candidate, the one most in line with my veiws. But remember it was FDR that started all this subsidy BS in the first place.

Subsidies should be done away with for all!!!

Keep the figures in perspective

Submitted by Farmer Fred (not verified) on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 20:16.

Yes good point, I agree, a larger portion of the subsidies should go to support programs for smaller farms to grow food for people on the local level. But let’s keep the figures in perspective. When the author writes that “these subsidies are mostly going to those who need them least” Let’s be real about the perspective of where the lion’s share of farm bill money is going. About 14% - $35 billion goes to agricultural commodity programs, including about $5 billion of that to what are known as "direct payments," However, about 86% - $209 billion goes to nutrition assistance, such as what has been known as the food stamp program and has been renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 86% goes to “nutrition assistance” but we call it the “farm” bill. SNAP is indeed a program for those who need it most not the least.