Monday, March 03, 2008

Exploring the Farm Bill

Here is the article that my cousin, Kristin, linked to her comment in a previous post. It's a great article if you're trying to understand why the Farm Bill hinders small farmers from producing fruits and vegetables. I've been trying to learn about the Farm Bill from the Slow Food movement and Farm Aid, but I'm still having a difficult time understanding how the Farm Bill stays the way it is. It's updated every year but remains a dinosaur. I don't know enough about the bill to know what the solution is...except maybe to get rid of the whole thing and start from scratch. As you will see in the New York Times article below, the Farm Bill isn't benefiting most of us as it is currently written.

Toward the end of the article, the author asks the question, "Who pays for this senslessness?" and his answer focuses on farmers. I would say that not only do the small farmers pay for the senselessness of the Farm Bill, we all do. We pay with our declining health. The more commodity crops that are planted, the cheaper they get, hence the relatively low price of highly processed food, which is made mostly from commodity crops (especially corn and soy). The cheaper processed food is, the more likely people are to buy it instead of healthier alternatives, like real food. Plus, if commodity crops are taking up land that could be used to grow fruits and veggies, then there are fewer fruits and veggies on the market and, thus, they cost more. Simple supply and demand, right? That doesn't even take into consideration the impact of animal feed. If the price of corn and soy for animal feed goes up, the price of meat goes up which, in my mind, is a good thing, since we should be eating less meat and cows shouldn't be eating grain at all. Cows are meant to eat grass and I've come to the conclusion that it is inhumane to feed them large quantities of grain for the purpose of fattening them up. But...that's beyond the scope of this article.

March 1, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)

Rushford, Minn.

IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.

But consumers who would like to be able to buy local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’ markets, but also in the produce aisle of their supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the federal government works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.

As a small organic vegetable producer in southern Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to expand production to meet regional demand have been severely hampered by the Agriculture Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve looked into the politics behind those restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this is precisely the outcome that the program’s backers in California and Florida have in mind: they want to snuff out the local competition before it even gets started.

Last year, knowing that my own 100 acres wouldn’t be enough to meet demand, I rented 25 acres on two nearby corn farms. I plowed under the alfalfa hay that was established there, and planted watermelons, tomatoes and vegetables for natural-food stores and a community-supported agriculture program.

All went well until early July. That’s when the two landowners discovered that there was a problem with the local office of the Farm Service Administration, the Agriculture Department branch that runs the commodity farm program, and it was going to be expensive to fix.

The commodity farm program effectively forbids farmers who usually grow corn or the other four federally subsidized commodity crops (soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton) from trying fruit and vegetables. Because my watermelons and tomatoes had been planted on “corn base” acres, the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance with the commodity program.

I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for the year on that acreage, he is also penalized the market value of the illicit crop, and runs the risk that those acres will be permanently ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables — if the farmer decides to grow another commodity crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)

In my case, that meant I paid my landlords $8,771 — for one season alone! And this was in a year when the high price of grain meant that only one of the government’s three crop-support programs was in effect; the total bill might be much worse in the future.

In addition, the bureaucratic entanglements that these two farmers faced at the Farm Service office were substantial. The federal farm program is making it next to impossible for farmers to rent land to me to grow fresh organic vegetables.

Why? Because national fruit and vegetable growers based in California, Florida and Texas fear competition from regional producers like myself. Through their control of Congressional delegations from those states, they have been able to virtually monopolize the country’s fresh produce markets.

That’s unfortunate, because small producers will have to expand on a significant scale across the nation if local foods are to continue to enter the mainstream as the public demands. My problems are just the tip of the iceberg.

Last year, Midwestern lawmakers proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would provide some farmers, though only those who supply processors, with some relief from the penalties that I’ve faced — for example, a soybean farmer who wanted to grow tomatoes would give up his usual subsidy on those acres but suffer none of the other penalties. However, the Congressional delegations from the big produce states made the death of what is known as Farm Flex their highest farm bill priority, and so it appears to be going nowhere, except perhaps as a tiny pilot program.

Who pays the price for this senselessness? Certainly I do, as a Midwestern vegetable farmer. But anyone trying to do what I do on, say, wheat acreage in the Dakotas, or rice acreage in Arkansas would face the same penalties. Local and regional fruit and vegetable production will languish anywhere that the commodity program has influence.

Ultimately of course, it is the consumer who will pay the greatest price for this — whether it is in the form of higher prices I will have to charge to absorb the government’s fines, or in the form of less access to the kind of fresh, local produce that the country is crying out for.

Farmers need the choice of what to plant on their farms, and consumers need more farms like mine producing high-quality fresh fruits and vegetables to meet increasing demand from local markets — without the federal government actively discouraging them.

Jack Hedin is a farmer.

No comments: