This story was adapted from an article I wrote for Georgia Organics in May of 2007. Georgia Organics is a local non-profit supporting healthy foods, farms and families

Attention farmers, foodies and fellow citizens of Georgia: the 2007 Farm Bill is about to make its way through Congress, so if you enjoy eating food, drinking clean water and stimulating your local economy, listen up. Now is the perfect time to get involved. Already members of the Congressional Subcommittee on Agriculture, three of whom are Georgians, have begun putting together the budget for this important piece of legislation. They need to hear from us.

Our current farm policy is breathtaking in its inadequacies; however, the tide may be turning. With a dramatic increase in influential media coverage on issues surrounding food, a notable amount of concern from consumers and continual pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut commodity subsidies, the government may be taking steps to pass one of its most progressive Farm Bills in the past 50 years.

A Brief History
US farm policy was originally intended to support farmers and ensure that America would never go hungry. Over time, however, the government’s approach has descended into an ineffective strategy for achieving either of these goals.

Before the 1970’s, the USDA supported farmers by stepping in whenever there was a bumper crop and purchasing a certain amount of the harvest, which they would then store for use in the event of future crop failures. By doing this, they ensured that there would never be a glut on the market that would drive prices too low. But in 1974, USDA Secretary, Earl Butz, completely dismantled the government’s practice of agricultural surplus management, and developed fiscal incentives for our farmers to plant from “fencepost to fencepost.” His program established certain commodity crops (corn, soy beans, cotton, rice and wheat) for which the government paid farmers directly regardless of the year's yield. This led farmers to ramp up production of these crops as much as possible, ignoring the market entirely.

The subsidies guarantee that, despite an almost continual surplus of commodities that drives market value down until it is well below the cost of production, farmers will continue to grow them in greater quantities year after year in order to get their government check. In other words, farmers are being compensated by the American tax payer to grow something we do not want and cannot use. Is this what Americans mean when they praise the free market?

Supporting our Farmers
The Farm Bill’s shortcomings don’t stop at the taxpayer. A major goal of US Farm policy is to support growers, but over the past century, America has lost 70% of its farms to bankruptcy or consolidation. The wealthiest 10% of farmers receive 72% of all direct payment subsidies, and according to the USDA’s own economic report from March 2006, “93% of farm households have negative farm operating profits, on average, and draw most of their income from off-farm sources.”
The “get big or get out” mentality under which we are currently operating, has forced most small farmers out of business while multinational agribusinesses continue to grow. As this consolidation continues, the few large farms that remain are actively encouraged by our government to industrialize their production through commodity crop monocultures. Farming this way requires vast amounts of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in order to replace the natural health that a biologically diverse system provides. Chemical inputs have devastating consequences on our health and the environment. They also contribute to America’s dependence on foreign oil. As a result of chemical use and long distance food transportation, our agriculture industry now consumes 1/5 of the total oil used in the United States.

Feeding the Nation
Another goal of the farm bill is to ensure that our country will always have food. However, due to government incentives that encourage the production of commodities instead of food, 200 million acres of farmland in this country are dedicated to producing crops that we cannot or should not eat. The majority of commodity grain grown in this country is fed to animals. What is left over is most often processed into junk foods like high fructose corn syrup, which are primary contributors to our notorious obesity and diabetes epidemics. As a direct result of our food policy, 1 in 3 Caucasian children and 1 in 2 African American and Hispanic children, born in 2000, will develop diabetes in his or her lifetime, most before they graduate from high school.

Meanwhile food security is also on the decline. According to the USDA’s Foreign Agriculture Trade of the United States (FATUS) March 2007 Summary, this country is about to become a net importer of food for the first time in generations. We are importing vegetables and fruits from across the globe while we waste valuable farmland here growing crops that don’t make fiscal or ecological sense. At the same time, small scale farmers, who grow produce are going bankrupt because there is no infrastructure to sell their food, an issue which the farm bill should address.

Room for Change
There is hope, however. Several factors have made change inevitable. One is a continued pressure from the World Trade Organization to cut federal subsidies which make it impossible for developing countries to compete on the world food market. Because of this, the administration has submitted what many consider to be a fairly progressive proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill. The new proposal calls for the following:

• An increase of $7.8 billion for conservation financing
• An increase of $5 billion for fruit, vegetable and “specialty” growers
• Farmers making more than $200,000 would no longer be eligible to receive direct payments
• $1.6 billion for research and development on cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste and nonfood crops
• Commodity payments based on low yields instead of low commodity prices.

While this proposal is a positive step, it can and should go farther. As it is, however, it faces serious challenges from several key Senators. Chief among them are Georgia’s own Senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chamblis who believe that the current farm policy should not be changed. Without pressure from their constituencies, Congress will assuredly step into line with industrial agribusiness, which has a definite interest in making sure the current policies stay in place. A House vote on the Bill is slated for late Summer or Fall. In the mean time, whether you are a farmer or a consumer, please contact your Senators and Congressmen and let them know where you stand on healthy foods and sustainable agriculture.

Concerned Citizen Wish List

1. Sustainable and Organic Production – With demand for organic food growing every day, the farm bill should make increasing supply a priority. We support funding for resources, research and education for farmers who are transitioning to organic production. We also support the full funding of programs like ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas) and NCAT (National Center for Appropriate Technology) which provide valuable information and educational services to farmers who want to grow more sustainably and/or organically.
   
2. Conservation – All working land conservation programs, including the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which reward growers who farm responsibly should be fully funded and open to all. Currently 75% of applicants are denied access to these programs. We propose doubling the budget to $3 billion in order to open the door to more growers. Additionally the application process should be simplified and streamlined to eliminate multiple forms, redundant entries and confusing program regulations.
   
3. New Farmers - We advocate the funding of a new farmer and rancher grant program that would provide financial assistance to new small-scale farmers who want to buy land and farm it in an environmentally responsible way as defined by current USDA conservation programs.
   
4. Infrastructure – We support $1 billion in funding for the development of local infrastructure for small scale farmers. This would include, but not be limited to, the development and marketing of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture schemes, community gardens, and small scale processing.
   
5. Public Health – We propose funding to support the purchase of fresh, local and organic foods by public schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Large scale consumers should be able to purchase food from their own communities in order to build local economies and serve the health needs of those dependant on their services.