United
States
Farm
Bill
Historical
perspectives
and
contemporary
recommendations
Madeleine
Morley
Introduction
The modern United States’ farm bill first began in 1933 as part of President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal program and was called the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933.
The bill was created to help farmers cope with the overproduction of food and subsequent low
crop prices during the Great Depression (Brinkley 1999). The main goal of the act was to reduce
production in order to stabilize prices and farmer income by paying farmers to idle land (Bowers
et al. 1984). During the first five years under the new legislation, the total amount of
government subsidies to farmers was only $1.76 million (calculated using 2000 as the base year;
Economic Research Service 2008) compared with the current farm bill’s price tag of $248.6
billion (Mittal 2002).
Over the past 70 years, this fairly simple, relatively low-budget piece of legislation has
evolved into one of the most complex, expensive, and highly debated laws in the U.S. The
current farm bill does little to support small-scale farming, environmental and public health, and
sustainable agricultural practices; instead the farm bill doles out increasingly large subsidies to
conglomerate agribusiness with little regard for the detrimental effects this has on family
farmers, U.S. residents, and the developing world. This paper will evaluate the current, former,
and proposed U.S. farm bills in terms of their effects on farmers, production, and conservation
practices. In addition, recommendations for creating a more sustainable and fair farm bill will be
offered, such as the promotion of local food systems and small-scale family farming.
History of the U.S. Farm Bill
1930s and 1940s: The Birth of the U.S. Farm Bill
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is considered to be the first modern U.S. farm
bill. It was enacted as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal program during
the Great Depression in order to help farmers cope with the low crop prices resulting from
2
overproduction. The legislation created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) to
administer subsidies to farmers who idled their land. In addition the bill created the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC), which was charged with stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm
prices and income (Brinkley 1999). Parity – “the system of providing farmers with consistent
purchasing power by regulating prices of farm products” (New Oxford American Dictionary,
2005 Ed., s.v. “parity”) – was the main goal of the act. All price and income supports referred to
the parity standard (Bowers et al. 1984). The program included only storable commodity crops,
mainly corn, wheat, and cotton (The National Agricultural Law Center 2002).
In 1936, the act was deemed unconstitutional because it taxed processors of commodities
in order to fund the government subsidies. Congress quickly passed the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 as a replacement to the 1933 bill. The 1936 bill introduced the
first conservation program by authorizing payments to farmers who planted soil-conserving
crops (Bowers et al. 1984).
The first comprehensive, permanent price support programs were enacted in the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. These initial price support programs included nonrecourse
loans and government grain storage during times of surplus (Bowers et al. 1984). The
government would set a target price based on the cost of production for a program crop (such as
corn). Whenever the market price dropped below the target price, the farmer could either sell his
corn on the already weak market, further reducing the price, or he could take out a nonrecourse
loan from the government using the corn as collateral. The nonrecourse loan allowed the farmer
to store his grain until prices recovered. Once prices improved, the farmer would sell his corn
and pay back the government loan. If prices remained low, the farmer could decide to keep the
loan money and give the government his stored corn as repayment. This corn would then go into
the “Ever-Normal Granary,” which stored grain to be sold during times of low production
(Pollan 2006). These first few pieces of farm policy worked very well in that they greatly
3
increased farmer income while retaining a relatively low level of government payments (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1. This graph shows net farm income and government payments from 1930 to 1945. Starting with the
enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and subsequent farm bills, net farm income increased
dramatically despite limited government payments. Data taken from the Economic Research Service at the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In 1949, the government passed the Agricultural Act of 1949, which is seen at the second
permanent farm bill legislation. The bill furnished the legal basis for donating surplus food to
friendly foreign countries for the purpose of development aid. The CCC was put in charge of
purchasing surpluses from the market and distributing the donations to countries (Bowers et al.
1984). This bill set the framework for the eventual destructive practice of agricultural dumping,
which is the term used for the selling or donating of agricultural surpluses to developing nations
at prices less than the cost of production (Suppan 2003).
1950s and 1960s: Controlling Increases in Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural productivity vastly increased during the 1950s and 1960s largely because of
the availability of pesticides and fertilizers. This increase in productivity led to a debate about
whether agricultural policy should retain high, fixed price supports or enact flexible price
supports that would decline as supply increased. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was
4
elected. His administration believed that flexible price supports would discourage farmers from
overplanting, so his administration’s first farm bill – the Agricultural Act of 1954 – included
flexible price supports to cope with the increasing productivity. In previous farm bills, fixed
price supports required 90 percent parity for all program price supports. With the new legislation
of 1954, price supports could range from 75 to 90 percent parity, depending on yearly production
(Bowers et al. 1984). Ironically, government payments soared during the period following the
Agricultural Act of 1954 despite the flexible price supports, which should have reduced
government subsidies (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. This graph displays net farm income and government payments from 1946 to 1969. The year after the
enactment of the Agricultural Act of 1954, government payments skyrocketed despite the authorization of flexible
price supports. Net farm income decreased until about 1957 when it began to recover slightly. Data taken from the
Economic Research Service at the USDA.
Farm production was continuing to rise with subsequent decreases in crop prices
throughout the 1950s, so in 1956 the Soil Bank Act was passed under the Agricultural Act of
1956. The Soil Bank Act provided for the ten-year Conservation Reserve Program, which paid
farmers to reduce program crop acreage and use the land for conservation purposes. Not only
did this program reduce production and increase crop prices, but it was especially important for
preventing soil erosion and a repeat of the Dust Bowl (Bowers et al. 1984). The Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) is in effect today in its amended form with an enrollment of 34.67
5
million acres as of February 2008 (Farm Service Agency 2008). Despite the various supply
management programs like the CRP, mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides, and other
technological improvements continued to increase land productivity during the latter half of the
1950s while also reducing the number of farmers needed to till the land (see Figure 3). The
Emergency Feed Grain Program of 1961 started a voluntary acreage reduction program for feed
grains in order to manage the vast surpluses of grain resulting from the increase in mechanization
(Bowers et al. 1984).
Figure 3. This graph displays the land in farms and the number of farms from 1930 to 2007. The land in farms has
hovered around 1 billion acres for the past 77 years. On the other hand, the number of farms peaked in 1935 at
6,813,700 farms and has steadily decreased since. This graph implies that fewer, larger farms now account for the
majority of farming operations in the U.S. In 1973, there was a relatively significant drop in the number of farms
with the approval of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, which promoted larger farms under the
direction of Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz. From 1930 to 1949, data was only available for 1930, 1935, 1940,
and 1945. Data taken from the Economic Research Service at the USDA.
Supply management programs were continued throughout the 1960s in order to manage
the increasing land productivity and subsequent surpluses. The next major farm bill was the
Food and Agricultural Act of 1965, which extended the emergency feed grain acreage reduction
program of 1961 to include wheat and cotton, the other two major U.S. commodity crops. In
addition, the 1965 farm bill created the Cropland Adjustment Program which expanded the CRP
by paying farmers to convert cropland for the purposes of not only conservation but also the
6
protection of open spaces, recreational resources, and the prevention of air or water pollution
(Bowers et al. 1984).
1970s: U.S. Commodity Crops on the World Market
The 1970s ushered in the era of Earl Butz and the beginning of free market regulation of
agriculture. In 1971, Earl Butz was elected as the Secretary of Agriculture under President
Richard Nixon and remained Secretary under President Gerald Ford until 1976 when he resigned
after making an infamous racial remark (Pollan 2006). The year after Butz was inaugurated,
worldwide grain shortages combined with a large export of U.S. grain to Russia caused crop
prices and grain exports to soar. Butz used this event to assure farmers that export demand
would continue increasing in the future, so it was necessary to expand farm production. His
main goal as Secretary of Agriculture was to increase the competitiveness of U.S. grain on the
world market by expanding production and subsequently driving down prices (Bowers et al.
1984).
The first farm bill enacted under Butz was the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973. This legislation revolutionized farm policy by reversing many of the long held statutes
of earlier farm bills, including the main provisions for supply management. As Butz had desired,
the 1973 bill emphasized expanding production and a strong control of price increases. In order
to achieve these goals, acreage reductions were stopped and price support programs were
replaced with coupled direct payments, which consisted of target prices and deficiency
payments. Target prices were set so that when the market price dropped below the target price,
deficiency payments equal to the difference between the target and the market price were given
to farmers. Nonrecourse loans were removed and the Ever-Normal Granary was essentially
eliminated through producer loan rates that were set at levels lower than the market rate to
encourage farmers to rely more on the market place and less on government storage. The 1973
7
farm bill also changed the standard by which payments were made by not considering parity, as
had been done since the first farm bill of 1933 (Bowers et al. 1984). Subsequently, net farm
income peaked in 1973 following the worldwide grain shortage and U.S. grain export to Russia,
but then crashed with the drop in government payments resulting from the different policies of
the 1973 farm bill (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. This graph shows government payments and net farm income from 1970 to 1979. Net farm income
peaked in 1973 following worldwide grain shortages and a large U.S. grain export to Russia. After the approval of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, government payments and net farm income crashed. Net
farm income began to increase again starting in 1977 with the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977, which raised price
and income supports. Data taken from the Economic Research Service at the USDA.
Conservation programs were largely ignored during this period. Earl Butz was known for
saying that commodity crops like corn should be planted “fencerow to fencerow,” which
promoted planting on environmentally sensitive and marginal lands (University of Florida
Extension). Consequently, conservation payments took a drop from about 1972 to 1973 when
Butz’s bill was passed (see Figure 5). Butz was also known for his motto, “get big or get out,”
which fostered the creation of large, consolidated farms by pushing many small family farmers
to sell their land to larger farms (see Figure 3; Bowers et al. 1984).
8
Figure 5. This graph shows the conservation program payments from 1936 to 2006. Conservation payments
increased starting in 1936 with the first conservation-related bill. Conservation payments began decreasing in 1938.
This is likely due to the introduction of the Ever-Normal Granary, which managed supply so that acreage reduction
for conservation purposes was not as necessary. In 1973, conservation payments took a sharp decrease due to the
lack of conservation during the period of Earl Butz. Conservation payments skyrocketed in 1985 with the Food
Security Act of 1985, which provided for increases in all conservation programs. Data taken from the Economic
Research Service at the USDA.
Around the time when Butz resigned, crop prices started to become unstable due to the
reliance on export sales. Thus, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 raised price and income
supports in order to help farmers cope with this price instability. The 1977 farm bill
reestablished acreage reduction in order to control production and prices and a farmer-owned
reserve program was created for wheat and feed grains in order to further manage supply. Under
this program, the government would pay farmers to store grain on the farm during times of high
production. The Emergency Assistance Act of 1978 further increased price supports by
increasing the target prices for wheat, feed grains, and upland cotton in response to weak prices
and low farmer income in 1977 (Bowers et al. 1984).
1980s: Conservation Increases
Large reductions in government expenditures came with the inauguration of President
Ronald Reagan. From 1981 to 1983, various farm policies were enacted to reduce target prices
and increase voluntary acreage reduction programs in order to increase crop prices (Bowers et al.
9
1984). The Food Security Act of 1985 further decreased price and income supports in order to
reduce grain surpluses while also bringing land back into production. Ironically, a steady
increase in government payments began in 1980 that has more or less continued despite
Reagan’s push for decreases in government agricultural subsidies (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. This graph shows government payments and net farm income from 1930 to 2006. Government payments
remained very low starting at the initiation of the modern farm bill in 1933 to about 1961 when the Emergency Feed
Grain Program of 1961 was enacted. Payments continued to steadily increase along with net farm income until
about 1973 when net farm income drastically increased from the grain shortage and Russian grain export while
government payments dropped substantially with the passing of the 1973 farm bill. Net farm income began to drop
precipitously after the enactment of the 1973 farm bill until the passing of the 1985 farm bill, which significantly
increased government payments (and consequently, net farm income) through many of the updated conservation
programs. Net farm income and government payments have increased overall since 1985. Starting from the early
1970s when free market regulation of agriculture was first promoted, net farm income became relatively unstable
and variable as compared with before 1973. Data taken from the Economic Research Service at the USDA.
Around this time, conservation and environmental issues were beginning to come to the
forefront of public issues. After the destructive Earl Butz era, many were pushing for an increase
in conservation via agricultural policy. The 1985 farm bill answered this request. The bill
created basic conservation mandates that required program participants to idle environmentally
sensitive land. In addition, the CRP was updated to pay farmers for keeping erodible cropland
out of production for a ten-year period, amongst other provisions (Sumner 2007). Conservation
program payments skyrocketed after this bill was enacted (see Figure 5).
10
1990s: Decoupled Direct Payments and Organic Certification
The 1990s has been one of the most revolutionary decades for farm policy in many
respects. At the same time, many of the earlier provisions reminiscent of the 1970s have been
continued, including the promotion of agriculture in free markets. The Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 furthered the reduction in price and income supports from
the 1980s while increasing conservation programs by introducing the Wetlands Reserve Program
and Agricultural Water Quality Protection Program. The bill was seen as revolutionary for its
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established an organic certification program that
set “national standards for the production and handling of organically produced foods”
(Economic Research Service 1991).
Four years after organic certification was approved in the 1990 farm bill, the Plant
Variety Protection Act Amendment of 1994 was passed. This piece of legislation provided
patent protection for scientists who developed new genetically modified plant varieties and
ensured that these varieties were protected as intellectual property (Lipton et al. 1996). This
legislation promoted the use of genetically modified organisms in the U.S. food system.
Thankfully, the public would not allow the USDA to permit the labeling of genetically modified
crops as organic, so the organic certification program was able to retain its integrity (“Secretary
Glickman’s…” 1998).
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR Act) of 1996 was
especially revolutionary because it completely broke the link between government subsidies and
farmer income by replacing previous price and income supports with production flexibility
contract payments (commonly known as direct payments). These subsidies are fixed annual
payments based on farm yield that were supposed to decline over the 7-year term of the bill.
Emergency revisions to the bill were enacted in 1998 in order to help farmers cope with very low
11
program crop prices, so direct payments actually increased over the time period of the FAIR Act
(see Figure 6; Ray et al. 2003). Direct payments forced farmers to rely more heavily on the
market for their production decisions and also increased income risk because the payments were
not dependent on market prices. On the other hand, the 1996 farm bill offered farmers greater
planting flexibility in that they could now plant largely anything and still receive government
payments. The main exception to this rule was the planting of fruits and vegetables, which was
not permitted unless the farmer could prove he had planted them in the past (Economic Research
Service 1996).
Supply management decreased as the farmer-owned reserve program was suspended
(Economic Research Service 1996) and government storage was discouraged through the
implementation of marketing loan programs (Ray et al. 2003). However, a new conservation
program called the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) was created to provide
technical assistance and incentive payments to producers who implemented practices to protect
soil and water resources (Economic Research Service 1996). Despite the new program,
conservation payments actually decreased over the 7-year period of the bill (see Figure 5).
The Current Farm Bill: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
Provisions of the Bill
For the most part, the 2002 farm bill continued the policies of the 1996 farm bill. Direct
payments and marketing loans were included in addition to a new form of subsidy called
counter-cyclical payments. These payments are paid to farmers whenever the “effective price”
falls below a set target price. The effective price is the direct payment rate plus the higher of
either the market price or the national loan rate. These counter-cyclical payments essentially
automate the distribution of the emergency direct payments that were instituted under the 1998
revisions to the FAIR Act. The suspension of market price supports, government storage, and
12
acreage set asides was continued (Sumner 2007). However, the CRP, EQIP, and other
conservation-related funding was extended and expanded and the Conservation Security Program
was created to provide financial incentives to farmers who took part in conservation practices on
working farmland (Ray et al. 2003). The bill also provided grants for research on genetically
modified organisms, organic agriculture, and biofuels (Economic Research Service 2002).
Consequences of the 2002 Farm Bill
There have been multiple deleterious consequences of the current farm bill, some
stemming from earlier farm bills and others created directly from the 2002 legislation. A main
concern for most farmers, politicians, and citizens is the question of who is receiving the billions
of dollars in agriculture subsidies. Because the current subsidies are proportional to the
production of program crops, payments are directed mainly to individuals who are relatively
wealthy compared with most Americans (Sumner 2007). In fact, the income cap for receiving
government payments is set at a whopping $2.5 million per year. While large agribusiness farms
are making millions and being heavily subsidized, many small farmers are struggling to make
ends meet (see Figure 7; Mittal 2002). Mittal (2002) points out that “the top 10 percent of farmsubsidy recipients collect two-thirds of the money, and the bottom 80 percent get just one-sixth.”
Nothing in the bill prevents the consolidation of agribusiness, which further pushes small farmers
out of business (Mittal 2002).
Figure 7. Farm subsidy beneficiaries in New York City, NY.
The largest beneficiaries are agribusinesses located on Park
Avenue on Manhattan Island. Taken from the USDA 2007
Farm Bill website.
13
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are heavily subsidized under the
current farm bill. EQIP funding is being funneled into CAFOs to help build waste lagoons
instead of going to small-scale producers who are trying to produce food in an environmentally
friendly manner (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition 2007). CAFOs also become more viable
than sustainable systems when the farm bill promotes the production of cheap corn and soybeans
for animal feed via increasingly large subsidies (Pollan 2006). The production of cheap grains
has led to agricultural dumping, which creates commodity market distortions in developing
countries where agriculture is vital for rural livelihoods and poverty reduction. These market
distortions undermine the livelihoods of 70% of the world’s poorest people (Suppan 2003).
The farm bill’s promotion of commodity crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat instead of
“specialty crops” like fruits and vegetables has also led to health problems in the U.S. For
example, the commodity corn grown in the U.S. is processed into hundreds of different products,
one of which is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). From 1970 to 2000, the average U.S.
consumption of HFCS increased by more than 4,000%, completely replacing sugar in sweetened
beverages and many food products. Soybean production has also led to the creation of partially
hydrogenated soybean oil, which is a trans fat known to increase the risk of coronary heart
disease (Raimondi et al. 2007). Throughout the history of the U.S. farm bill, government
subsidy programs have never included fruit and vegetable production despite their proven health
benefits.
In part because of the lack of specialty crop programs, farmers find it difficult to diversify
the crops on their farms. For example, even if a farmer plants 1000 acres of corn and decides to
plant one acre of apples, he will be ineligible to receive government payments because he
planted a specialty crop on his farm (Althoff et al. 2004). Crop diversification can be especially
important for controlling soil erosion. Diversification can increase soil organic matter and
14
control wind and water erosion if the proper crops are planted (Gliessman 2007). Although the
CRP has been especially helpful in controlling soil erosion, a recent New York Times article
sheds light on why the program should not be the only solution to this problem. According to
the article, many farmers are hoping to relinquish their CRP acres in order to plant crops that are
currently at high prices like wheat and corn. Congress is being pressured to make this switch
easier for farmers despite its deleterious environmental consequences (Kincaid 2008).
Government funding for biofuels in the farm bill has been one of the main driving forces in
increasing commodity crop prices and creating situations like these. Unfortunately, the
government has not paid significant attention to the sustainability and environmental impacts of
the promotion of biofuel production (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition 2007).
On the positive side, there have been some minor successes resulting from the 2002 farm
bill, particularly for organic agriculture and direct producer-to-consumer marketing. Organic
agriculture received $3 million in annual mandatory funding for research. In addition, the bill
provides for an organic certification cost share program, although the program is limited and
underfunded. However, there are still no provisions to help producers make the move from
conventional to organic agriculture, which can be costly (National Catholic Rural Life
Conference 2002).
Direct producer-to-consumer marketing received a small boost in the 2002 farm bill with
the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program. This program provides grants to “establish, expand,
and promote farmers’ markets, roadside stands, community supported-agriculture programs, and
other direct producer to consumer opportunities” (Economic Research Service 2002). However,
only $1 million is allocated each year for this purpose compared with $150 million for the
bioenergy program (Economic Research Service 2002). The 2002 farm bill also introduced the
Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, which provides low-income seniors with coupons
15
that can be used at eligible farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and community supported
agriculture programs (Food and Nutrition Service).
The 2007 Farm Bill
Proposed Legislation
The $290 billion 2007 farm bill has been under heavy scrutiny for over a year. The 2002
farm bill had to be temporarily extended because the 2007 farm bill could not be agreed upon;
the deadline for enacting a new farm bill is April 18, 2008. Both the House and Senate have
officially passed the bill, but President George W. Bush is threatening to veto if Congress does
not reduce the price tag of the bill. The legislation would largely continue the subsidy payment
programs of the 2002 farm bill with a substantial increase in funding for biofuel production
(USDA 2007).
Conservation programs would also essentially remain the same except they would be
consolidated under a new EQIP to reduce confusion and overlap. Unfortunately, much of the
money from the consolidated EQIP is likely to continue going to CAFOs. On the other hand, the
bill does provide for a reduced income cap for all government payments, moving from the
ridiculous $2.5 million cap to a $200,000 per year cap. There is still nothing that prevents
agribusiness consolidation, such as a moratorium on agribusiness mergers. However, the
proposed bill does provide some financial support for beginning farmers who would most likely
farm on a smaller scale (USDA 2007).
The 2007 farm bill provides some policies to be thankful for. It increases organic
agriculture provisions by expanding the cost-share program from the current 15 states to all 50
states in addition to providing it with more funding. The bill also requires that the USDA
conduct market research on organic products in order to keep organic producers better informed.
Direct producer-to-consumer marketing is also promoted with grants to be used for acquiring
16
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card readers at farmers’ markets. Additionally, the bill
increases funding for the newly renamed Farmers’ Marketing Assistance Program, previously
known as the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program (House Committee on Agriculture 2007).
Specialty crops would receive more assistance under this bill than in any other U.S. farm
bill. The bill allows farmers to plant fruits and vegetables on base acres and still receive
government payments, an important step forward. Unfortunately, the reasons behind this change
were not for the promotion of public or environmental health, but were done in order to appease
the World Trade Organization. The bill also provides for mandatory funding for the purchase of
fruits and vegetables by the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs in addition to the
creation of a Specialty Crop Research Initiative to fund the research of science-based tools for
the industry (USDA 2007).
The Optimal 2007 Farm Bill
The optimal policies for a new farm bill will be different depending on who one talks to
and will likely range from the complete breakdown of government interaction to extreme
protectionist policies. Daryll Ray et al. (2003) has categorized the two prevailing views as the
people who promote the “free-market solution” and the ones who believe in the “farmer-oriented
solution.” According to Ray, the most commonly held view is that of the free-marketer, who
believes that high subsidies result in overproduction and low prices. Proponents of this view
emphasize the need for subsidy-free agricultural markets and the elimination of government
intervention. Farmer-oriented proponents believe that low prices and overproduction result from
the elimination of government mechanisms for managing supply. This view argues that
agricultural supply and demand are not very responsive to price changes and would, therefore,
fail in a free market. Ray is a strong believer in the farmer-oriented solution. He advocates for a
17
farm bill that includes acreage diversion programs, a farmer-owned food security reserve, and
government commodity purchases (Ray et al. 2007).
The National Family Farm Coalition has created an alternative to the 2007 farm bill – the
Food from Family Farms Act – which is also promoted by the American Corn Growers
Association. This bill advocates for policies similar to those emphasized by Ray, including
market price supports with nonrecourse loans, a government reserve, and acreage set asides. The
act also argues for making the Conservation Security Program a permanent title in the farm bill.
The proposed bill targets family farms instead of large corporations, especially with the EQIP
and Conservation Security Program, in addition to encouraging entry into farming (National
Family Farm Coalition 2007).
The California Coalition for Food and Farming (CCFF) advocates supporting the need for
farmers to protect our natural resources, wildlife, and farmland by expanding and improving the
conservation programs and promoting organic agriculture. The CCFF also argues that the
government should provide more support for small- and mid-sized fruit and vegetable producers,
beginning and minority farmers, organic and sustainable agriculture, and local market
development. The CCFF would like the farm bill to include provisions for creating increased
access to fresh, local, healthy, and nutritious foods by investing in urban agriculture and
increasing the ability of institutions to buy locally produced food (California Coalition for Food
and Farming 2007).
The optimal farm bill for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) would
establish a fair price floor for crops, reverse the trend toward the concentration of agricultural
markets, stop agricultural dumping, and make healthier foods more accessible by promoting
local and regional food systems. In addition, IATP advocates for a farm bill that would include a
“renewable energy title that prioritizes rural development, supports local ownership and
promotes sustainably produced feedstocks” (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2007).
18
My optimal farm bill would be a mixture of many of the abovementioned policies. I
would like to see a farm bill that provides incentives for small-scale farming, diverse cropping
systems, biodiversity enhancement and management, and reduced pesticide and chemical
fertilizer use. My optimal farm bill would promote the idea of food sovereignty as defined by La
Via Campesina:
Food sovereignty is the RIGHT of peoples, countries, and state unions to define
their agricultural and food policy without the “dumping” of agricultural
commodities into foreign countries. Food sovereignty organizes food production
and consumption according to the needs of local communities, giving priority to
production for local consumption. Food sovereignty includes the right to protect
and regulate the national agricultural and livestock production and to shield the
domestic market from the dumping of agricultural surpluses and low-price
imports from other countries. Landless people, peasants, and small farmers must
get access to land, water, and seed as well as productive resources and adequate
public services. Food sovereignty and sustainability are a higher priority than
trade policies (La Via Campesina 2008).
Conclusion
The current farm bill hardly resembles the low budget farm bill of 1933 that
promoted supply management and price supports. Instead the 2002 farm bill doles out
billions of dollars in subsidies, mainly to large-scale farm operations and even nonfarmers like 92-year old David Rockefeller Sr. – the heir to oil-baron John D. Rockefeller
– who received $554,000 in government payments from 1995 to 2005 (Etter et al. 2008).
The main beneficiaries of the 2002 farm bill subsidies are big farm businesses like King
Ranch Inc., a giant farm company with 683 employees and sales of over $34 million in
2007 (Environmental Working Group 2008). While large corporate farms receive
millions of dollars in government payments, many small farmers are still trying to make
ends meet (Mittal 2002).
Most Americans, including farmers and politicians, would like to see a different
kind of farm bill, whether it be one that lets the free market completely regulate
19
agriculture or one that more closely resembles the productive capacity management
policies of the earlier farms bill. Either way, lawmakers should consider our past
successes and mistakes in order to learn from them and create a more sustainable, fair
farm bill for Americans and the world as a whole.
References
Althoff, K. and A. Gray. 2004. Analysis of the impacts resulting from the 2002 farm bill on
Indiana fruit and vegetable growers. West Lafayette, Indiana: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Purdue University.
Bowers, Douglas E., Wayne D. Rasmussen, and Gladys L. Baker. 1984. History of Agricultural
Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84. Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Information Bulletin No. 485.
Brinkley, Alan. 1999. American History: A Survey. 12th Ed. McGraw-Hill College.
California Coalition for Food and Farming. 2007. 2007 Farm and Food Policy Platform.
Economic Research Service. 1991. Provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990. Edited by Susan L. Pollack and Lori Lynch. Agriculture and Trade Analysis
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 624.
Economic Research Service. 1996. 1996 FAIR Act frames farm policy for 7 years. Agricultural
Outlook Supplement, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economic Research Service. 2002. The 2002 Farm Bill: Provisions and Economic Implications.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economic Research Service. Updated 19 January 2008. Data Set. Net value added (with net farm
income), 1910-2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed online at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/FinfidmuXls.htm on 12 April 2008.
Environmental Working Group. 2008. EWG farm bill 2007: policy analysis database. Accessed
online at http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/ on 10 April 2008.
Etter, Lauren and Greg Hitt. 2008. “Farm lobby beats back assault on subsidies.” The Wall Street
Journal. Accessed online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657645419967077.html
on 10 April 2008.
Farm Service Agency. Updated 28 February 2008. Conservation Reserve Program. United States
Department of Agriculture.
20
Food and Nutrition Service. Senior Farmers’ Market Nutriton Program. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Accessed online at
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SeniorFMNPoverview.htm on 13 April 2008.
Gliessman, Stephen R. 2007. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. New
York: CRC Press.
House Committee on Agriculture. 2007. 2007 Farm Bill Discussion Draft Language. Accessed
online at http://agriculture.house.gov/2007FarmBill.html on 13 April 2008.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. 2007. A Fair Farm Bill for America.
Kincaid, Will. 2008. "As prices rise, farmers spurn conservation." New York Times.
La Via Campesina. 2008. People’s food sovereignty. Accessed online at
http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcatego
ry&id=27&Itemid=44 on 14 April 2008.
Lipton, Kathryn and Susan Pollack. 1996. Major agricultural and trade legislation, 1933-96.
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed online at
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=25481 on 14 April 2008.
Mittal, Anuradha. 2002. “Giving away the farm: the 2002 farm bill.” Food First, Institute for
Food and Development Policy. Volume 8, Number 3.
The National Agricultural Law Center. Updated 2002. Farm Bill Definitions. Accessed online at
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/farmbills/glossary.html#1933 on 13 April
2008.
National Catholic Rural Life Conference. 2002. Farm Policy Initiatives. Accessed online at
http://www.ncrlc.com/2002FarmSecurityAct.html on 13 April 2008.
National Family Farm Coalition. 2007. Food from Family Farms Act: A proposal for the 2007
U.S. Farm Bill.
New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005 Ed., s.v. “parity”
Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals. London,
England: Penguin Books.
Raimondi, Mary Pat and Fern Gale Estrow. 2007. “The 2007 farm bill – issues, implications, and
what it means for you.” Today’s Dietician. Vol. 9 No. 2 P. 52. Accessed online at
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/tdfeb2007pg52.shtml on 12 April 2008.
Ray, Daryll E., Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, and Kelly J. Tiller. 2003. Rethinking US
Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide. The
University of Tennessee: Agricultural Policy Analysis Center.
21
“Secretary Glickman’s surprise announcement a change in the right direction.” 1998. Organic
Trade Association. Accessed online at http://www.ota.com/news/press/105.html on 14
April 2008.
Sumner, Daniel A. 2007. Farm subsidy tradition and modern agricultural realities. Agricultural
Policy for the 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute.
Suppan, Steve. 2003. “United States Dumping on World Agricultural Markets.” Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2007. Groups urge Congress to restrict farm bill funds for
CAFOs: Conservation program funds should not be used to promote factory farms. Press
release. Washington, DC.
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2007. Renewable energy: sustainable agriculture agenda for
the 2007 farm bill. Accessed online at www.sustainableagriculturecoalition.org—keyfarmbill.html on 13 April 2008.
University of Florida Extension. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Accessed online at
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/extension/florida_forestry_information/planning_and_assistance/
conservation_reserve_program.html on 13 April 2008.
USDA. USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposals. Washington, DC.
22