Comments Farm Bill Girl has made

Right On!

I work with both commodity crop farmers and those doing direct marketing and CSAs. I am very tired and irritated by all these foodie activists who continually bash "Iowa corn farmers" as some kind of epithet and especially Ken Cook and his diabolical database for making out the real enemies of the food system to be "millionaire" farmers on welfare when it's really corporate AGRIBUSINESS who gets the real profits off our cheap grain policy. Corn farmers are just a cog in the larger machine to fuel the profits of Monsanto and John Deere and ADM/Cargill. Farm Bureau somehow brainwashes farmers to believe that agribusinesses' interests align with farmers.

Here at the National Family Farm Coalition, we have always advocated getting rid of subsidies and replacing them with a price floor (akin to min wage) to force agribusiness to pay a fair price to farmers. THis is what we had during the New Deal. Then you need a grain reserve to store excess production to release onto the market if prices spike too high. The AEI right wingers thought this was too Communistic, so eventually, we got the 1996 Freedom to Farm Bill, which was supposed to eliminate all price supports and subsidies and let the "free market" rule. Then commodity prices collapsed, Farm  BUreau realized it needed to do something to pretend it cared about farmers and thus why we have the current system of countercyclical payments and direct payments, but alas, no price floor to force Smithfield and ADM to pay fairly the farmer.

Here is ag economist's Darryl Ray's landmark report advocating for such a policy, instead of the current cheap grain agribusiness policy that allows us to dump commodities as well into third world markets. I suggest all you folks who simply advocate for "getting rid of subsidies" and complete deregulation of commodity prices read this to get a more accurate view of how farm economics really works.

http://www.agpolicy.org/blueprint/APACReport8-20-03WITHCOVER.pdf

Several food activists (like Barbara Kingsolver) were misled by some of the Ron Kind-Richard Lugar alternative Farm Bills that wanted to take money from commodity subsidies to give to good "organic" farmers or nutrition programs. Frankly, it was a bill only Monsanto/Cargill could love. Farmers would still be producing corn/soybeans because the market is there, and the ones who would have benefitted the most from the coming collapse in corn prices would be ADM/Smithfield who get cheap HFCS and cheap feed for CAFOs.

I can tell you how Farm Bureau justifies the commodity subsidies since I read their propaganda everyday. Americans have the "safest, cheapest most abundant food supply in the world." farm programs are meant to be only a safety net for when commodity prices collapse (yeah, funny they don't care about safety nets for anyone else of course...). free trade will help save farmers by getting them an export market so commodity prices may someday rise (never mind it's Cargill who does the trading, not farmers!). Farm programs take up less than 1% of the federal budget and help ensure we are never reliant on foreigners for our food (never mind that our relentless promotion of FTAs has already made us dependent on imported food..)

Grain Reserves

National Family Farm Coalition has pushed for this entire farm bill the reinstatement of Grain Reserves and a Farmer Owned Reserve. Commodity prices had just started surging when we warned that with nothing in stock, we risked being one drought away from $10 corn. Well, they never did listen so our food security is still at the mercy of commodity speculators. This when China, India, Philippines, the EU are all either building up their reserves or considering establishing them. very irresponsible for Congress. The agribusiness users and food processors and folks like the bakers want to lift CRP acres as their solution to get back cheap corn/wheat. we can't grow our way out of this crisis. a little prudent planninig wouldd help.

April 28, 2008

Dear Member of Congress:

All around the globe, food riots have shaken countries from Haiti to Egypt to India to Uzebekistan while rising rice prices cause grief in many Asian countries. A global food crisis threatens to impoverish millions around the world. Here at home, livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors have expressed their fears over skyrocketing commodity prices while higher food prices are eating into many family budgets. News reports nervously highlight that U.S. and world grain stocks are at all-time lows since World War II.  

For more than a decade, and particularly during Farm Bill negotiations of the past year, we have been sounding alarms over the precarious state of our food security.  The undersigned farm, consumer, environmental, religious and development groups believe it is urgent that we establish a Strategic Grain Reserve, similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and re-instate the Farmer-Owned Reserve. Under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, the United States eliminated all its government stocks, save for a very small amount in the Emerson Humanitarian Trust Reserve intended for foreign aid. We are just one drought away from possibly seeing $10/bushel corn or $20/bushel wheat with absolutely no plan in place to deal with such a calamity. The president and U.S. Congress have irresponsibly ignored this issue throughout the entire Farm Bill debate, even as other countries such as China and India build up their strategic stocks. Last October, the European Union stated they would examine establishing reserves to further buffer against price shocks. The United States cannot afford such ill-prepared planning that is putting our food system and larger economy at grave risk.

The idea of holding grain reserves to stem hunger has been a part of many ancient civilizations. In the Old Testament, Pharoah put Joseph in charge of Egypt's grain reserves that would set aside one-fifth of production to account for seven fat years followed by seven lean years. A "constantly normal granary" operated in China for over 1,400 years. China's grain reserve is presently between 150 million and 200 million tons. During the New Deal, the United States established grain reserves as a way to protect farmers from depressed prices and to ensure soldiers and consumers had enough to eat. The idea for the government to hold "buffer stocks" as a way to stabilize commodity markets was widely popularized by Benjamin Graham, a Wall Street legend who mentored Warren Buffett. In 1977, Congress enacted the Farmer-Owned Reserve in the Farm Bill as a means of "maintaining adequate food reserves." These policy mechanisms were all dismantled by the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The global move towards free trade and trade liberalization means countries around the world have also forfeited much of their food stocks. The current price volatility roiling global food prices should come as no surprise.

Reinstating food reserves would facilitate more orderly marketing, protect consumers from price surges, and could meet energy and humanitarian needs. The possibility of short supplies seriously threatens our reputation as a reliable exporter and is one of the fundamental reasons behind current market speculation as suppliers hoard their stock and commodity traders buy and sell wildly. Currently, private corporations control U.S. grain reserves as a result of Congress's decision to privatize our excess commodity supply.

Our government should be responsible for providing a stable supply of food for their citizens in the face of unpredictable disruptions in grain production. Strategic reserves are also a much more responsible approach to addressing the rise in commodity prices that have caused much anguish from livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors. Some groups have advocated for allowing Conservation Reserve Program acres to be brought into production as a solution. We oppose this shortsighted move that would devastate ecologically sensitive land so revered by conservationists and hunters. We cannot grow our way out of this crisis.

Those clamoring for the days of cheap commodities need to remember that commodity prices collapsed after the 1996 Farm Bill, with corn falling to $1.50 / bushel and wheat under $3 / bushel. These prices were lower than what farmers received in the 1970s! As a result, thousands of farmers went out of business and billions were spent in emergency federal payments. Agribusinesses profiting from buying cheap corn and wheat have never showed much concern for the perilous plight of farmers. Now that higher prices are sparking cries for more production, the United States needs to have a long-term vision for preserving our food security and food sovereignty - much more than simply answering agribusiness's pleas for cheap commodities. A prudent reserves policy that stabilizes commodity prices would reduce controversial farm subsidy payments by ensuring prices do not collapse. Ten-dollar corn is a threat to our system, but $2 corn should be every bit as unacceptable.

A Strategic Grain Reserve is just as vital as a Strategic Petroleum reserve. It is not too late for Congress to establish policy that will benefit both consumers and farmers instead of leaving our fates to the whims and dictates of unstable, globalized markets. As a matter of national security, our government should recognize and act on its responsibility to provide a stable market for food in an era of unprecedented risk.  

Sincerely,

Agricultural Missions, Inc.
American Agriculture Movement, Inc.
American Corn Growers Association
Ashtabula County Farmers Union (Ohio)
Border Agricultural Workers Project (El Paso, TX)
California Farmers Union
Center of Concern
Community Farm Alliance (Kentucky)
Congregation of the Holy Cross; Coordinator for Peace and Justice
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Family Farm Defenders  
Farm Aid
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund
Food and Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Grassroots International
Hispanic Organizations Leadership Alliance
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
International Labor Rights Forum
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
Kansas Farmers Union
Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
        Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office
Missouri Rural Crisis Center  
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farmers Organization
National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association
Ohio Farmers Union
Organic Consumers Association
Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA)
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office
Rural Advancement Fund (NC)
Rural Coalition /Coalicion Rural
Western Organization of Resource Councils
WHY (World Hunger Year)
On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Bush a farm bill hero??!

Why in the world would anyone who cares about local food systems, sustainable agriculture, think GEORGE BUSH is a "hero" on the Farm Bill??! Does anyone who works on these issues seriously think Bush would ever do anything that offends his corporate agribusiness backers or seriously challenge the Monsantos, Cargill, Smithfield, Archer Daniel Midlands of the world? Especially when his farm bill negotiator, Chuck Connor, used to be with the ADM/Cargill-led Corn Refiners Association? Perhaps payment limits are not the real "reform" it's backers think it is. The only reason why Bush is now making noises about farm bill "Reform" is because farm subsidies are holding up the WTO. and the only reason why corporate urban newspapers like the NYT and Washington Post are lauding Bush's stance is because they are as gung-ho free trade as he is. Free trade ideology is a direct contradiction to food sovereignty and localized, sustainable food systems. NAFTA and the Peru FTA destroy local food systems while promoting export-oriented industrial agriculture and factory farms. Supporters of a more just food system should be wary of the agenda and policy proposals of the NYT and others, who all supported the Kind-Flake and Lugar "radical" farm bills that proposed cutting commodity subsidies and shifting them to "good' things we all support: nutrition, organic, specialty crops. Many celebrities, good food gruops, sustainable/organic ag types and even Barbara Kingsolver fell for this dangerous bill, which would simply deregulate even further the prices of commodities and fuel more overproduction of corn, soybeans etc, and further fuel factory farms needing cheap feed. And this was done, as Lugar, Kind admitted, to end "trade distorting" subsidies so we could get the WTO Doha Round moving and more free trade agreements! instead of fostering a local, sustainable food system, Lugar-Kind (and its cheerleaders in the corporate media) would have done the exact opposite, all to promote more local-food destroying free trade agreements that are harming family farmers around the world. I hope folks who think Bush's rhetoric represents "good" change or that Kind-Lugar was "real" reform of our food system reconsider and not get sucked into the globalization agenda of corporate America!On After all the fuss, looks like we might get an extension of the 2002 farm bill posted 1 year, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Roscoe is agribusiness tool

While it is perhaps right to oppose the RFS increase on a lot of policy grounds, one reason it is absolutely NOT right to oppose it is because agribusiness and factory farms want CHEAP CORN so they can continue feeding us e.coli beef and high-fructose corn syrup junk food!!

Roscoe opposes the RFS because it has stimulated demand for corn and increased corn prices (thus leading to less need for subsidies!) so that his poultry CAFO and dairy factory farms are now paying more for feed. boo hoo. and Twinkies and Pepsi are more expensive with higher HFCS.

A new study by Tufts University shows that the factory farm industries saved $35 BILLION since 1997 because of access to cheap below-cost corn.

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/BroilerGain ...

Meanwhile, low corn prices meant taxpayers had to bail out farmers with subsidies.

So you can't have it both ways enviros. Bash farmers for taking subsidies for growing all that cheap corn, then side with Agribusiness like Tyson and Smithfield and the Grocery Manufacturers for bitching about expensive corn and "higher food prices." Family farmers want to work with enviros in addressing the problems of agrofuels (of which there are MANY!!) but quoting folks like Roscoe who are simply parroting factory farms line will not help you.On Bartlett opposes energy bill over RFS posted 1 year, 11 months ago 12 Responses

commodity production

Farmers are price-takers. they don't set the prices themselves. Unlike ADM or Tyson, who can cut back production or raise prices when they want  to make more profit, farmers have NO such options. thus, they cannot influence the market in the same way. if you read about the 1800s booms and busts in agriculture, there was always overproduction leading to depressed prices, leading to the rise of farmers movements like the Non Partisan League in North Dakota and Populist Parties who advocated for supply management policies with government reserves. lot of these ideas became reality finally during the NEw Deal, which set a price floor for commodities. so overproduction has been in problem in agriculture for WAY longer than the modern subsidy system. that's the empirical evidence.

subsidies (the countercylical ones at least) only kick in at low prices. when prices are low, farmers do not cut back on production. they try to max out production to recapture lost income. when prices are high, farmers again will produce a lot to make money. those high prices then lead to overproduction...which then leads to a crash in prices. this is the vicious cycle farmers face adn why we need a price stabilization policy instead of this "free market" policy that only benefits Cargill and ADM.

Also, see coffee. not grown in the first world. no subsidies. still massive overproduction and depressed prices. During the 1960s, under the threat of "Castroism" the U.S. helped to create the Intl Coffee Agreement, a supply management agreement designed to throw a bone to Latin American peasants. this helped stabilize the coffee price and benefitted many countries, though not perfect. Under Reagan, coffee prices were deregulated and he got rid of the Intl Coffee Agreement in the name of "free markets." the result has been a collapse in coffee prices down to Depression-level prices, and massive impoverishment of the countryside in places from mexico, to nicaragua to Ethiopia.

which is why the Oxfam line on how our cotton subsidies hurt WEst AFrican farmers is not quite right. Our subsidies ARE hypocritical, but they are not what is causing the depressed prices and getting rid of them will not magically make cotton prices increase. Only supply management can do that, so everyone wins.

So the equation is
overproduction --> low prices --> subsidies

it is NOT (as is commonly assumed)

subsidies --> overproduction --> low prices

How you view this equation leads you to diff policy responses.On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

Focusing on the REAL enemies of our food system

On behalf of the farmers getting demonized in the media for beiing "millionaire welfare queens", I really thank you for this piece Tom and what a relief it is to see that one reporter "gets" who the real devils are in our system.

Who are the "real" beneficiaries of our subsidy system? it is farmers? or is it Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Smithfield and those who rely on cheap corn to produce HFCS and to expand factory farms?

The great folks at Tufts have documented how cheap corn led the chicken and hog industry to save $11 billion over the past decade. Meanwhile, taxpayers shelled out billions in subsidies to help farmers make up for some of that lost income

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/BroilerGain ...

Having Oxfam, Enviro Working Group and other "reformers" train all their ire at millionaire farmers in Manhatten or Scottie Pippen or even rich cotton farmers is a huge waste of time and fraudulently misleading and misses the point! The real cancers in our food system are the likes of ADM/Cargill/Smithfield who are screwing over farmers, taxpayers, animals, the earth.

Unfortunately, many of the well-meaning religious and public health groups fail to grasp this as they look to subsidies as the root cause of our bad food system.

The Senate Farm bill contains a new livestock title to address antitrust issues that have led Tyson/Smithfield/etc to screw farmers for so long with their monopoly power. These urgently needed reforms will help save some of our independent ranchers. There is a packer ban (to prevent Tyson from also owning livestock and manipulating the market), an office of competitive oversight in USDA created, justice for poultry contract growers being screwed by Tyson. Corporate agribiz is lobbying HEAVILY against these reforms. All the bad guys from the American meat institute, cargill , DC lobbyists are lining up heavily on one side with sustainable agriculture, family farmers on the other.

Yet the "reformers" do not see corporate control of our food systems as the problem and have done nothing to raise awareness or help family farmers in their decades long fight to return some profit and fairness to their beloved rural communities. the NYT/Wash Post and other urban press would rather demonize subsidies and farmers than address the corporate agribusiness giants.

here is an action alert to call your Senators to support the full livestock/competition title!

http://whatcounts.com/dm?id=13381C5DF7D5C4AC3D56921D8FB3B ...

The BUsh Administration HATES all the reforms in the Senate Bill and has threatened to veto on those grounds. It is highly likely we will lose to the highpowered lobbying. Any support on behalf of family farmers and ranchers strugging against these multinationals would be greatly appreciated!On Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

AFT and NCGA = corporate free traders

AFT and NCGA are NOT that divergent. They represent a very pro-corporate, pro-free trade, pro-"free market" view of agriculture. Thus, Ralph's ridiculous comments about how easily farmers "react" to the markets. The problem of overproduction is one we have had for over a century now, regardless of subsidies, due to the nature of farm economics and farmers as price takers.

I fear a lot of folks may take a bad view of farmers from this interview. Not all farmers endorse the philosophy and policies of NCGA, which shows little concern about HCFS's impact on public health, nor the enviro impacts of fertilizer use.

The American Corn Growers Association is a splinter group of 11,000 corn farmers that truly only represents producers and broke off from
NCGA precisely because of their corporate free-trade views on agriculture. No Monsanto money for them! They are very criticial of the revenue scheme and how it simply represents a privatization of our farm programs. an ACGA board member is the one who rented the 1 acre to the guys who made King Corn.

http://acga.org/2007/092107.html

The issue of corporate consolidation (such as 3 companies controlling 85% of the grain market) never seems to trouble NCGA, nor AFT. Nor does the devastating impact of NAFTA, the WTO and "free trade" agreements, which results in our
dumping our cheap corn into foreign markets while undermining farmers here. It is quite disturbing to see folks like Sherrod Brown now carry
the water for these groups, who so are divergent from his views on trade, with this complicated revenue payment scheme.

And don't blame the sugar program for HCFS and the sad state of the American diet. The sugar program is a supply management approach (which does NOT dump on world markets) and no cost to the US govt because it sets a price floor (no subsidies needed). It should be how our other commodity programs should work, to save taxpayers money and make corporate agribiz pay a fair price for commodities. It's too bad the food processors and supermarkets complain, but sugar is still pretty damn cheap at my grocery store. The only reason why the world price is so low is because of Brazil, and they use slave labor on their plantations vs our unionized sugar
plants! that is NOT the model of agriculture we should be endorsing, but AFT wants more free trade. And why would we want to make sugar cheaper if we are so concerned about obesity/healthy foods? if corn had been at cost of production for these past decades (i.e. true parity enforced), HFCS would never have developed.On A conversation with a spokesperson for the National Corn Growers Association and his friend from the posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Addendum

In regards to the defensiveness of farmers, it is true that there are progressive family farmers who do not like the current system, do not like subsidies and wanted REAL reform , but that the dangerous reforms being offered by outside parties would make a broken system even worse, so farm groups were forced to prefer the [still broken] status quo over even worse reform.

I will say that thanks to the awareness raised by the "reformers", we did get a better bill, with more funding for food stamps, specialty crops, minority farmers, farmers markets, etc. And i think they deserve credit for that.  On A conversation with Michael Pollan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

Outstanding column

Your work is so excellent Tom. It is finally great to see a perspective that doesn't just lazily blame ethanol or high corn prices for our higher food costs. Consumers angry about higher food costs shouldn't blame ethanol or corn--they should be aiming at corporate agribusiness's market power and the monopoly power of the supermarkets (Wal-Mart). All the crying by factory farms over higher corn prices shows they are still making millions, mostly on the backs of our independent and diversified family farmers.

Food and Water Watch has just released a report showing how corn prices do not correlate with food prices, and that in times of low corn prices, food costs did not necessarily decrease (though I'm sure agribusiness's profits increased!)

http://foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/corn-rising-g ...On How the meat industry thrives, even as costs rise posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

Oxfam misguided

Oxfam has the right analysis--there is a LOT of devastating dumping into developing countries, but they are wrong on the diagnosis and the solutions. Subsidies do not cause overproduction. They are the sympton of a rotton system, not the cause. Farmers are geared to max out production and commodities are inelastic goods. Also, Oxfam also buys into the dangerous myth that third world countries can "export" their way out of poverty. Exports geared toward the First World's tastes and consumption only devastates their own food security as well as destroying the environment (see Palm oil in SE Asia and soybeans in Brazil/rainforest).

Also, look at the example of coffee, which is not subsidized or grown in the First World, but still suffers from record low commodity  prices due to a worldwide glut. A supply management agreement was put into place in the 1960s--the International Coffee Agreement, because the West was terrified of "Castroism" taking over Latin America and believed we needed to throw a bone to Latin American peasants. the Agreement was dismantled by Reagan and thus we now have worldwide misery for coffee farmers everywhere.On Time to kick it old school on the farm bill. posted 2 years, 5 months ago 22 Responses