The Debate Over Subsidizing Snacks
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 07. 4.07
Here is yet another post on the Farm Bill, because it doesn't get nearly the interest that the energy bill did yet it is probably as important to us all. The New York Times provides a very good overview of the issues, noting that in the 2002 bill, $67.6 billion was spent to subsidize the growers of five commodities: soybeans, corn, rice, wheat and cotton. Fruit and vegetable farmers do not get subsidies. The result: fresh fruits and vegetables have increased in price by 40% in fifteen years while soda pop, made from high fructose corn syrup, has declined by 25% adjusted for inflation. The system is completely biased to the big- one giant cotton farm collected $2.95 million in subsidies, nearly as much money as the federal government spent on its primary research program for organic agriculture last year — $3 million.
There are all kinds of neat ideas for what should be in the farm bill to promote better and local food; according to the Times:
"Some of the bills before Congress are aimed at helping growers of fruits and vegetables and adding to the supply of local food.
One goal is helping to pay for new processing plants and slaughterhouses so that small farms could more easily market their products in their regions rather than sending them long distances. Many regional plants went out of business when the food industry became more concentrated.
Another is setting up more farmers’ markets and helping farmers sell to nearby schools, hospitals and other institutions, and helping low-income older people buy from small farmers.
Other ideas include giving grants, loans and technical assistance to beginning, immigrant and minority farmers to start new farms or to keep small struggling farms in business, and providing money for farmers who want to convert to organic methods.
Spending money on researching the cultivation of fruits and vegetables would help farmers find more efficient ways to irrigate and fertilize crops and deal with pests while cutting back on pesticides. Greenhouses would also be built to extend growing seasons."
Unfortunately, change is unlikely to happen when all those corn states with small populations have two senators each. ::New York Times Read also ::Red State Welfare, ::Michael Pollan: The Government Makes You Fat and ::Shhhh, We've Got a Secret: Soil Solves Global Warming, Part 1
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- What is American Food? A Green Eating Manifesto
- Emeril's Corn and Potato Chowder (Video)
- Forget about Pills: Eat Away A Bad Mood!
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
So what can one actually do about this other than bitch that the corn states have 2 senators, and the industry has lobbyists, and the system is screwed?
How are the subsidies structured? I think for grain the gov't sets a high buying price which not only creates a surplus but also rises the price of food. Not sure how high fructose corn syrup subsidies work, but if this is the case, then the price should actually rise. I would be in favor of getting rid of all subsidies and letting the free market do its job (with regulations of course) - can't be any worse environmentally than what is happening now.
"What can one do" is a great question, sagefool1975. There are a lot of organizations out there lobbying for reform. Environmental Working Group is one of them (ewg.org and in the interest of full disclosure: I work for the organization). EWG Action Fund has started a Grow Organics campaign, including a petition to Congress to level the playing field for organics in the new Farm Bill. It might not seem like a lot, but it's a start! We're aiming for 30k signatures by July 15th, so that we can bring it to Congress on the 17th. You can sign the petition at http://ewg.org/organics/petition