<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A response to my critics]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:34:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/1 the next farm bill

As this farm bill bumbles toward its finish, I'm afraid we don't have one.

True, but not surprising.  I'd say that the major triumph of this round was simply in bringing the Farm Bill to the public's attention.  Previously, no one knew what it was.  Hopefully we can build on that next time around, although the five-year period between farm bills is going to make it hard to sustain those gains.

]]> the next farm bill

As this farm bill bumbles toward its finish, I'm afraid we don't have one.

True, but not surprising.  I'd say that the major triumph of this round was simply in bringing the Farm Bill to the public's attention.  Previously, no one knew what it was.  Hopefully we can build on that next time around, although the five-year period between farm bills is going to make it hard to sustain those gains.

]]> Comment #2 by Jason D Scorse http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:05:10 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/2 Tom..I appreciate the response

And you make some good points. We probably agree more than we disagree. My bottom line, however, is that farmers simply don't deserve or need subsidies. If farmers can produce things that people want and make money doing it fine; if not, they shouldn't be in farming. I apply the same logic to my life so I walk the walk on this one.

There are good social and economic reasons for subsidizing things that have positive externalities- where the social benefit is greater than the private benefit (e.g. education). Agriculture simply doesn't fall into this category. When I go to the farmer's market (as I do every week) I pay for healthy food that supports local farmers and I get the benefit that I pay for. People who don't care about local food don't buy it and they probably don't pay much attention to agricultural issues. And in fact, farmers throughout most of California receive zero subsidies.

I can live with investments in basic R&D and quality control and regulatory efforts but that's all. New Zealand's example is not a 1-1 for U.S. policy, but the lesson is still instructive. I have faith that American farmers could be competitive and healthy without government help. Anything else is in my view essentially an insult to farmers, saying that they need government welfare in order to make a living- they really don't. One day we'll get there and we'll wonder why we wasted so much money for so long.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Tom..I appreciate the response

And you make some good points. We probably agree more than we disagree. My bottom line, however, is that farmers simply don't deserve or need subsidies. If farmers can produce things that people want and make money doing it fine; if not, they shouldn't be in farming. I apply the same logic to my life so I walk the walk on this one.

There are good social and economic reasons for subsidizing things that have positive externalities- where the social benefit is greater than the private benefit (e.g. education). Agriculture simply doesn't fall into this category. When I go to the farmer's market (as I do every week) I pay for healthy food that supports local farmers and I get the benefit that I pay for. People who don't care about local food don't buy it and they probably don't pay much attention to agricultural issues. And in fact, farmers throughout most of California receive zero subsidies.

I can live with investments in basic R&D and quality control and regulatory efforts but that's all. New Zealand's example is not a 1-1 for U.S. policy, but the lesson is still instructive. I have faith that American farmers could be competitive and healthy without government help. Anything else is in my view essentially an insult to farmers, saying that they need government welfare in order to make a living- they really don't. One day we'll get there and we'll wonder why we wasted so much money for so long.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Comment #3 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:24:15 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/3 positive externalities

What about the positive externality of having an adequate food supply?

Unlike a manufacturer, a farmer only has limited control over how much product he will produce every year.  There are good years and bad years, and they tend to effect whole regions, so it means you've usually got too much of a crop, or too little.

If you let the price drop arbitrarily in the good years (due to surplus), then some farmers go out of business, and some will plant less the next year, and attempt to optimize their production for maximum economic efficiency, in your model.

Generally speaking, this sort of optimization is good for the healthy functioning of the economy, providing the things people want, etc.  But with farming, if you cut too close to the optimal production level, then in a bad year you will wind up dramatically underproducing.

For a non-staple crop, this is not such a problem.  If the apple harvest is bad, eat pears.  Or whatever.

But with staple crops (which tend to be the commodity crops), you're talking about the thing which provides a substantial fraction of your society's total calories.  If you come up short, people starve (or spend a fortune just keeping themselves fed).  Pricing basic caloric intake on a pure supply-and-demand model does not seem like the basis of a particularly just or good society.  But that's what I think you get to, when you treat farming as a pure laissez-faire market.

]]> positive externalities

What about the positive externality of having an adequate food supply?

Unlike a manufacturer, a farmer only has limited control over how much product he will produce every year.  There are good years and bad years, and they tend to effect whole regions, so it means you've usually got too much of a crop, or too little.

If you let the price drop arbitrarily in the good years (due to surplus), then some farmers go out of business, and some will plant less the next year, and attempt to optimize their production for maximum economic efficiency, in your model.

Generally speaking, this sort of optimization is good for the healthy functioning of the economy, providing the things people want, etc.  But with farming, if you cut too close to the optimal production level, then in a bad year you will wind up dramatically underproducing.

For a non-staple crop, this is not such a problem.  If the apple harvest is bad, eat pears.  Or whatever.

But with staple crops (which tend to be the commodity crops), you're talking about the thing which provides a substantial fraction of your society's total calories.  If you come up short, people starve (or spend a fortune just keeping themselves fed).  Pricing basic caloric intake on a pure supply-and-demand model does not seem like the basis of a particularly just or good society.  But that's what I think you get to, when you treat farming as a pure laissez-faire market.

]]> Comment #4 by meander http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:07:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/4 Some points

GreenEngineer wrote: "Hopefully we can build on that next time around, although the five-year period between farm bills is going to make it hard to sustain those gains."

I also hope that the awareness built during this year's farm bill debate will be around in 2012.  But we don't have to wait until then to be active.  Each year's agriculture appropriations bill offers a chance to affect food policy.  For example, Congress has the habit of promising big dollars for conservation in the farm bill, then not fulfilling that promise in the following years.  We'll need to remind Congress each year that they need to fully fund the conservation programs (and other non-mandatory programs).  There is also lots of work to do at the state and local level (like that preposterous ban on labels about antibiotics and growth hormones in Pennsylvania).

To Jason's point about farmers producing things that people want, a few weeks ago the SF Chronicle had a front page story about the lack of subsidies in California has allowed the farmers to be daring and demand-driven:  

They operate on a simple concept that mystifies Washington.

"The first mistake a lot of farmers make is to figure out what they can grow and grow that," said Jim Cochran, an organic strawberry and vegetable grower on the coast north of Santa Cruz. "Which is a really big mistake. The first thing they need to figure out is what they can sell."

In fact, if California vegetable farmers got crop subsidies, we might all still be eating iceberg lettuce, said Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at UC Davis. Crop subsidies discourage the innovation that is evident everywhere in California.

Imagine, Sumner said, what today's produce aisles might look like had Congress decided to subsidize salad in 1933.

"The payments are made for iceberg, and you think the market's going to demand romaine," he said. "You say, 'But I have to give up my payments to do that.' You can picture the scenarios."

In the San Joaquin Valley, farmers are planting tens of thousands of acres of almonds because prices are high. In Georgia, the market is calling for pecans, but Congress subsidizes peanuts - regardless of the market.

But if you have a barn full of specialized equipment and lots of debt on that equipment, it can be difficult to switch crops or diversify.  Perhaps more government fund should be directed towards allowing farmers to transition to crops that local people want to buy, like vegetables in Iowa, or pastured chickens in Illinois, or pecans in Georgia.

--- meander




]]> Some points

GreenEngineer wrote: "Hopefully we can build on that next time around, although the five-year period between farm bills is going to make it hard to sustain those gains."

I also hope that the awareness built during this year's farm bill debate will be around in 2012.  But we don't have to wait until then to be active.  Each year's agriculture appropriations bill offers a chance to affect food policy.  For example, Congress has the habit of promising big dollars for conservation in the farm bill, then not fulfilling that promise in the following years.  We'll need to remind Congress each year that they need to fully fund the conservation programs (and other non-mandatory programs).  There is also lots of work to do at the state and local level (like that preposterous ban on labels about antibiotics and growth hormones in Pennsylvania).

To Jason's point about farmers producing things that people want, a few weeks ago the SF Chronicle had a front page story about the lack of subsidies in California has allowed the farmers to be daring and demand-driven:  

They operate on a simple concept that mystifies Washington.

"The first mistake a lot of farmers make is to figure out what they can grow and grow that," said Jim Cochran, an organic strawberry and vegetable grower on the coast north of Santa Cruz. "Which is a really big mistake. The first thing they need to figure out is what they can sell."

In fact, if California vegetable farmers got crop subsidies, we might all still be eating iceberg lettuce, said Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at UC Davis. Crop subsidies discourage the innovation that is evident everywhere in California.

Imagine, Sumner said, what today's produce aisles might look like had Congress decided to subsidize salad in 1933.

"The payments are made for iceberg, and you think the market's going to demand romaine," he said. "You say, 'But I have to give up my payments to do that.' You can picture the scenarios."

In the San Joaquin Valley, farmers are planting tens of thousands of acres of almonds because prices are high. In Georgia, the market is calling for pecans, but Congress subsidizes peanuts - regardless of the market.

But if you have a barn full of specialized equipment and lots of debt on that equipment, it can be difficult to switch crops or diversify.  Perhaps more government fund should be directed towards allowing farmers to transition to crops that local people want to buy, like vegetables in Iowa, or pastured chickens in Illinois, or pecans in Georgia.

--- meander




]]> Comment #5 by Jason D Scorse http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:42:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/5 A couple points

An adequate food supply would exist without farm subsidies- in fact, we'd get production of more things people want and less production of things they don't- if anything, the current system is ripe with negative externalities- the exact opposite of what government should be paying money to support

Meander makes a good point- as part of a transition phase out of subsidies I could support some form of transition fund for diversification efforts or low-interest loans- this would be a one-time thing, not another special interest boondoggle that went on for decades- again, bottom line: farmers eventually should fend for themselves in the market just like the majority of people do- this isn't throwing them to the wolves, it's have the confidence and respect to know that in such an environment they will thrive, our food system will improve, and we won't have to have these ridiculous debates about how to dole out tens of billions in corporate welfare every 5 years

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> A couple points

An adequate food supply would exist without farm subsidies- in fact, we'd get production of more things people want and less production of things they don't- if anything, the current system is ripe with negative externalities- the exact opposite of what government should be paying money to support

Meander makes a good point- as part of a transition phase out of subsidies I could support some form of transition fund for diversification efforts or low-interest loans- this would be a one-time thing, not another special interest boondoggle that went on for decades- again, bottom line: farmers eventually should fend for themselves in the market just like the majority of people do- this isn't throwing them to the wolves, it's have the confidence and respect to know that in such an environment they will thrive, our food system will improve, and we won't have to have these ridiculous debates about how to dole out tens of billions in corporate welfare every 5 years

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Comment #6 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:43:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/6 Adequate food supply

So you say.  But I have outlined how, if farmers follow your own model of economic behavior (the applicability of which, you will note, the actual farmers present in this discussion dispute), we will not.  In order to minimize the negative price impact of overproduction in fat years, they would seek an economic optimum average production.  Given the natural and unavoidable variation in production, that means there will be inadequate supplies of staples in lean years.

I realize that what I'm saying violates your model of economic behavior, but unless you can explain to me where my model breaks down, simply asserting that your model is right and mine is wrong doesn't carry much water.

There are ways to avoid the problem I am describing other than price supports.  One would be a diversification of staple crops.  IF in addition to wheat, rice, and corn, we also grew alot of quinoa, amaranth, and other non-traditional grains, the impact of variations in production would be mitigated: a fat year for one crop is probably a lean year for another and an indifferent year for a third.

IMO, that would be a better way to go.  However, it still probably represents a substantial degree of intervention in the marketplace, at least initially.  Our traditional staples are traditional because they are what people are used to.  It would not be economic to grow thousands of acres of quinoa in this country, until or unless a market develops for it.  A variety of factors, including consumer taste but also including climate, the established body of farming knowledge, and the available equipment and material, make the production of a few staple crops economically favorable.  If we want diversity in the face of these pressures towards specialization, we are once again most likely talking about some kind of intervention.

(It's also worth noting that if we did succeed in diversifying our base of staple crops, we would have done something that has never, as far as I know, been done before.  Historically, societies tend to fixate on one or a very few staples.  There's probably a reason for this.)

]]> Adequate food supply

So you say.  But I have outlined how, if farmers follow your own model of economic behavior (the applicability of which, you will note, the actual farmers present in this discussion dispute), we will not.  In order to minimize the negative price impact of overproduction in fat years, they would seek an economic optimum average production.  Given the natural and unavoidable variation in production, that means there will be inadequate supplies of staples in lean years.

I realize that what I'm saying violates your model of economic behavior, but unless you can explain to me where my model breaks down, simply asserting that your model is right and mine is wrong doesn't carry much water.

There are ways to avoid the problem I am describing other than price supports.  One would be a diversification of staple crops.  IF in addition to wheat, rice, and corn, we also grew alot of quinoa, amaranth, and other non-traditional grains, the impact of variations in production would be mitigated: a fat year for one crop is probably a lean year for another and an indifferent year for a third.

IMO, that would be a better way to go.  However, it still probably represents a substantial degree of intervention in the marketplace, at least initially.  Our traditional staples are traditional because they are what people are used to.  It would not be economic to grow thousands of acres of quinoa in this country, until or unless a market develops for it.  A variety of factors, including consumer taste but also including climate, the established body of farming knowledge, and the available equipment and material, make the production of a few staple crops economically favorable.  If we want diversity in the face of these pressures towards specialization, we are once again most likely talking about some kind of intervention.

(It's also worth noting that if we did succeed in diversifying our base of staple crops, we would have done something that has never, as far as I know, been done before.  Historically, societies tend to fixate on one or a very few staples.  There's probably a reason for this.)

]]> Comment #7 by SnoDragon http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:13:49 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/7 Wisdom of the 1930s

Here's an idea straight out of the 1930s, how about we pay farmers NOT to plant corn and soybeans?

The only thing that will drive the market price up and kick our addiction to cheap corn and all its derivatives is crop scarcity.

Of course, tariffs against cheap incoming corn might then be in order. Which may not fly.

But then, how about subsidizing more biodiverse crops like barley or amaranth or fruits and veggies? Because I think we could all do with cheaper, local fresh fruits and veggies.

The "plant fencerow to fencerow" policy of Earl Butz has proven a disaster. Maybe subsidizing UNDERproduction would be a way to wean ourselves off of cheap corn and soy so that some day we might be able to do away with subsidies altogether.

Or we could adopt another throwback of the New Deal era: giving farmers low-interest-rate federal loans to keep afloat and hold their crop off the market if the price is not desirable, instead of paying them the market difference (as we do now, which means farmers sell their crop for less than it cost to produce). Then it wouldn't be subsidizing, it would be a loan that had to be repaid.

Of course, not having to spend ridiculous amounts of money on ag chemicals and GMO seed and mega-machinery would help farmers, too.

]]> Wisdom of the 1930s

Here's an idea straight out of the 1930s, how about we pay farmers NOT to plant corn and soybeans?

The only thing that will drive the market price up and kick our addiction to cheap corn and all its derivatives is crop scarcity.

Of course, tariffs against cheap incoming corn might then be in order. Which may not fly.

But then, how about subsidizing more biodiverse crops like barley or amaranth or fruits and veggies? Because I think we could all do with cheaper, local fresh fruits and veggies.

The "plant fencerow to fencerow" policy of Earl Butz has proven a disaster. Maybe subsidizing UNDERproduction would be a way to wean ourselves off of cheap corn and soy so that some day we might be able to do away with subsidies altogether.

Or we could adopt another throwback of the New Deal era: giving farmers low-interest-rate federal loans to keep afloat and hold their crop off the market if the price is not desirable, instead of paying them the market difference (as we do now, which means farmers sell their crop for less than it cost to produce). Then it wouldn't be subsidizing, it would be a loan that had to be repaid.

Of course, not having to spend ridiculous amounts of money on ag chemicals and GMO seed and mega-machinery would help farmers, too.

]]> Comment #8 by mat http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:17:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/8 groan....


ok, i've read your column here 4 times, your previous column and all the responses over and over. i guess i sort of agree with you, but,
i mean REALLY, HOW did this get SO complicated???

(GreenEngineer seems to understand it, and has some good points mentioned also).

i'm not a farmer, it's obvious, unfortunately, but most people aren't. i'm very sure most regular Americans don't understand this issue very well at all. Most of us parrot what Oxfam thinks - they feed the hungry and support poor farmers after all - if we think anything about this issue at all.

like i said in my original response to your first column a few days ago, if i could vote AGAINST ADM and Cargill, etc.. i would, but i don't have that choice and i don't think that my gov't reps do either??? look what has happened with what Pennsylvania just did w.r.t. milk labeling of growth hormones - now milk can't say when it has no horrible homones in it? that can't be constitutional, but the big producers of the hormones given to dairy cows(other livestock too) just BUY PEOPLE OFF who make the decisions.

what to do?? doesn't look good for real Farm Bill reform legislation this go-round Tom...what a wonderful world it would be if we had a few billion less humans.

]]> groan....


ok, i've read your column here 4 times, your previous column and all the responses over and over. i guess i sort of agree with you, but,
i mean REALLY, HOW did this get SO complicated???

(GreenEngineer seems to understand it, and has some good points mentioned also).

i'm not a farmer, it's obvious, unfortunately, but most people aren't. i'm very sure most regular Americans don't understand this issue very well at all. Most of us parrot what Oxfam thinks - they feed the hungry and support poor farmers after all - if we think anything about this issue at all.

like i said in my original response to your first column a few days ago, if i could vote AGAINST ADM and Cargill, etc.. i would, but i don't have that choice and i don't think that my gov't reps do either??? look what has happened with what Pennsylvania just did w.r.t. milk labeling of growth hormones - now milk can't say when it has no horrible homones in it? that can't be constitutional, but the big producers of the hormones given to dairy cows(other livestock too) just BUY PEOPLE OFF who make the decisions.

what to do?? doesn't look good for real Farm Bill reform legislation this go-round Tom...what a wonderful world it would be if we had a few billion less humans.

]]> Comment #9 by jarmadi http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:46:55 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/9 Subsidy Snapshot

Tom has questioned whether our current farm subsidies really have the powers that have been attributed to them......to have a large significance in the decisions of farmers, and a responsibility for overproduction, obesity, world hunger, etc. etc.

Let's examine more closely the wheat subsidy.  Our area is typical wheat growing country, and the subsidy is $14.35 per acre.  This is taxable income, and a typical farmer in the 15% tax braket would owe back that 15% plus about 16% FICA taxes plus 6% state income tax......a total of 37%.  This leaves $9.04 for the farmer to add to his loan payment or something.  The $9 is a pitiful percentage of the farmers total investment on an acre of wheat, and the idea that he would obcess about how to retain this subsidy at all costs, or would shape his farming decisions around the existence of this subsidy, or to be in need of "weaning away" from this subsidy are all preposterous ideas.  

The subsidies for corn and soybeans are greater than for wheat, but the land and equipment cost for these crops are proportionally higher, so I think the "subsidy snapshots" would look much the same.  In some of these comments, I have gotten the impression that some believe that farmers "get rich" from collecting these subsidies, and become addicted to them, etc.  Clearly that cannot be the case.

]]> Subsidy Snapshot

Tom has questioned whether our current farm subsidies really have the powers that have been attributed to them......to have a large significance in the decisions of farmers, and a responsibility for overproduction, obesity, world hunger, etc. etc.

Let's examine more closely the wheat subsidy.  Our area is typical wheat growing country, and the subsidy is $14.35 per acre.  This is taxable income, and a typical farmer in the 15% tax braket would owe back that 15% plus about 16% FICA taxes plus 6% state income tax......a total of 37%.  This leaves $9.04 for the farmer to add to his loan payment or something.  The $9 is a pitiful percentage of the farmers total investment on an acre of wheat, and the idea that he would obcess about how to retain this subsidy at all costs, or would shape his farming decisions around the existence of this subsidy, or to be in need of "weaning away" from this subsidy are all preposterous ideas.  

The subsidies for corn and soybeans are greater than for wheat, but the land and equipment cost for these crops are proportionally higher, so I think the "subsidy snapshots" would look much the same.  In some of these comments, I have gotten the impression that some believe that farmers "get rich" from collecting these subsidies, and become addicted to them, etc.  Clearly that cannot be the case.

]]> Comment #10 by Jason D Scorse http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:28:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/10 greenengineer....

since about 85% of the grain produced in the country is fed to animals and an increasing portion of the 15% used for fuel the idea that ending subsidies would lead to inadequate food supply is untenable.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> greenengineer....

since about 85% of the grain produced in the country is fed to animals and an increasing portion of the 15% used for fuel the idea that ending subsidies would lead to inadequate food supply is untenable.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Comment #11 by occidentalpoppy http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/ Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:26:08 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/subsidies-and-the-agony-of-modern-farm-policy/11 Alternatives to the status quo

     I am enjoying this discussion about subsidies and the role they do or don't play in overproduction of monocropped starches and proteins.   I think it is important to remember that the economics of fresh produce are entirely different from the economics of storable commodities.  Farmers gravitate to commodity crops in part because the fact that they store allows for supply management, i.e. protection against poor harvests or poor prices.  Fresh crops are riskier in part because they don't store, and the higher prices of fresh crops correctly reflects the higher risk of growing them.  

     We who believe the goal of farm policy should be affordable and abundant fresh produce with minimum environmental impact should be less concerned with the economics of commodity crops and more concerned with the economics of the fresh market.  The cheap price of corn would not be a major nutritional issue if high quality fresh produce was available along side, and raising the price of corn will not change the availability of fresh produce in rural America or in the inner cities.   If we subsidize either producers or consumers we will simply have more escalation of land prices and environmental problems in the prime specialty crop regions of the country and still no distribution networks serving marginal markets.  What we need is investment in the cooling and distribution infrastructure that will make localized fresh market production viable.  Farmers growing for the fresh market should be able to make tax deductible contributions to self insurance accounts from which they could withdraw tax free if crop or market conditions were certified as losses.  Every school system should have money to contract for fresh procurement and processing (including cooking and distributing to individual schools,) there should be generous tax credits for new regional cooling and distributing operations, and grants and easy credit for cooling and marketing in the most marginal markets.  These investments would improve the quality of the American diet and the economic health of our poorest and least economically diversified communities.

     I agree with Michael Pollen's assessment that we have been long on critique of the current system and short on alternatives.  The people who produce subsidized commodities have a stake in a food system that provides abundant affordable fresh produce and a stake in clean waterways and wildlife habitat, but they are more immediately motivated to preserve their livelihoods and the fragile economies of their rural communities.  The direct subsidy system will not be overturned in a single Farm Bill.  Entrenched industrial ag interests are going to fight for subsidies every step of the way, and many individual producers will support the status quo.  Rather than taking on the rightness or wrongness of subsidies, we should do more to argue the benefits of investments in business that will support rural economies and improved diets.  Pitting the urban public against an apocryphal Park Avenue welfare farmer is not the way to bring about a new vision of a food and farming system in the public interest; not in the city, not for specialty crop producers, and certainly not for the producers currently taking direct subsidies.

]]> Alternatives to the status quo

     I am enjoying this discussion about subsidies and the role they do or don't play in overproduction of monocropped starches and proteins.   I think it is important to remember that the economics of fresh produce are entirely different from the economics of storable commodities.  Farmers gravitate to commodity crops in part because the fact that they store allows for supply management, i.e. protection against poor harvests or poor prices.  Fresh crops are riskier in part because they don't store, and the higher prices of fresh crops correctly reflects the higher risk of growing them.  

     We who believe the goal of farm policy should be affordable and abundant fresh produce with minimum environmental impact should be less concerned with the economics of commodity crops and more concerned with the economics of the fresh market.  The cheap price of corn would not be a major nutritional issue if high quality fresh produce was available along side, and raising the price of corn will not change the availability of fresh produce in rural America or in the inner cities.   If we subsidize either producers or consumers we will simply have more escalation of land prices and environmental problems in the prime specialty crop regions of the country and still no distribution networks serving marginal markets.  What we need is investment in the cooling and distribution infrastructure that will make localized fresh market production viable.  Farmers growing for the fresh market should be able to make tax deductible contributions to self insurance accounts from which they could withdraw tax free if crop or market conditions were certified as losses.  Every school system should have money to contract for fresh procurement and processing (including cooking and distributing to individual schools,) there should be generous tax credits for new regional cooling and distributing operations, and grants and easy credit for cooling and marketing in the most marginal markets.  These investments would improve the quality of the American diet and the economic health of our poorest and least economically diversified communities.

     I agree with Michael Pollen's assessment that we have been long on critique of the current system and short on alternatives.  The people who produce subsidized commodities have a stake in a food system that provides abundant affordable fresh produce and a stake in clean waterways and wildlife habitat, but they are more immediately motivated to preserve their livelihoods and the fragile economies of their rural communities.  The direct subsidy system will not be overturned in a single Farm Bill.  Entrenched industrial ag interests are going to fight for subsidies every step of the way, and many individual producers will support the status quo.  Rather than taking on the rightness or wrongness of subsidies, we should do more to argue the benefits of investments in business that will support rural economies and improved diets.  Pitting the urban public against an apocryphal Park Avenue welfare farmer is not the way to bring about a new vision of a food and farming system in the public interest; not in the city, not for specialty crop producers, and certainly not for the producers currently taking direct subsidies.

]]>