[Community_garden] New York Times Farm bill article

[Betsy Johnson]

New York Times
 
July 4, 2007

The Debate Over Subsidizing Snacks 

By MARIAN BURROS
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/marian_burros/
inde
x.html?inline=nyt-per> 

EVERY five years the farm bill comes up for renewal and, usually, the only
people paying attention are the farmers, their lobbyists and a few outraged
groups who think subsidies are a big waste of taxpayers' money. 

This year is different.

Increasingly, people are blaming the farm bill, and the longstanding
agriculture
policy it embodies, for some of the problems afflicting the country: the
growth
in obesity, the increase in food poisonings, and the disappearance of the
family
farm. Payments for farmers were started in the 1930s during the Depression
to
help save family farms; now the program costs billions and benefits about
one-third of the nation's farmers. 

Changes in the farm bill are being supported by the Bush administration and
an
unusual alliance that includes the American Heart Association
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/america
n_he
art_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org> , Environmental Defense,
Taxpayers
for Common Sense and GMA/FPA, a food industry association. They agree that
some
subsidies should be cut and money spent instead to help fruit and vegetable
growers, protect farmland, support small farmers and promote healthier
eating.

For the first time, lobbyists for farm subsidies are facing off in the halls
of
Congress against hundreds of activists. 

There is still formidable opposition to the proposed changes, particularly
among
representatives in the 19 districts that received half the crop subsidies in
2005, according to Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a
nonprofit group which has just released details of who receives what
payments,
drawn from Agriculture Department computer files. But many experts think
this
new alliance, which spans the political spectrum, could bring about
significant
changes in the bill. 

"I am more optimistic this year that we can see significant reform for farm
policy because of a coalition of diverse interests," said Cal Dooley,
president
of GMA/FPA. Senator Tom Harkin
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/tom_harkin/ind
ex.h
tml?inline=nyt-per> , Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate
Agriculture
Committee, said: "This is not just a farm bill. It's a food bill, and
Americans
who eat want a stake in it." 

The 2002 farm bill provided $143.3 billion for nutrition programs like Food
Stamps, $16.8 billion for conservation and $67.6 billion to subsidize the
planting of certain crops. Almost all of the subsidies usually go to growers
of
five commodities: soybeans, corn, rice, wheat and cotton. Fruit and
vegetable
farmers do not get subsidies. 

Supporters say the subsidies have kept food affordable for Americans.
Critics
disagree and say the subsidies lead to cheap snack foods and soft drinks,
made
from ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated
soybean oil. Meanwhile, the lack of subsidies for fruits and vegetables
makes
them expensive by comparison. 

Between 1985 and 2000 the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables increased
nearly
40 percent while the price of soft drinks decreased by almost 25 percent,
adjusted for inflation, according to a study done by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a group in Minneapolis set up to help save
family
farms and rural communities. 

Health professionals say calories from those subsidized foods are partly
responsible for the epidemic of childhood obesity and the increased
incidence of
diabetes. 

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. 

Food Stamp benefits would be increased so that a family of three would
receive
$317 a month, up by $10. 

Some bills would expand farm and ranchland preservation programs, restore
and
protect more wetlands, grasslands and watersheds, and improve water quality
by
cutting back on pesticides and preventing nutrients and pesticides from
washing
off farms and into streams and lakes.

Others include money for research and incentives for renewable energy on
farms
and ranches for wind power, biofuels from crops other than corn and for
equipment to capture the methane from manure and turn it into an energy
source. 

The House requires that any new program be paid for either by cutting an
existing program or specifying a new source of revenue, both difficult
prospects. 

On Friday, Representative Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and
chairman of
the House Agriculture Committee, is expected to announce two bills: the
first
will propose marginal cuts in subsidies and call for a number of proposals,
including some money for fruits and vegetables, organic farming, farmers'
market
promotions, novice farmers, and additional energy and conservation programs.
It
would retain current levels of funding for nutrition programs. But
supporters of
those programs say the bill does not provide enough funding for them.

The second bill will propose programs for which no money has been allocated,
including some additional funds for nutrition programs and conservation
money to
reward farmers who are already using what are considered the best
environmental
practices.

The House leadership has already indicated it doesn't want a floor fight and
may
try to force both sides to compromise on the depth of cuts in subsidies and
on
the level of new spending.

Whatever the House passes has to be reconciled with the Senate bill. Senator
Harkin wants to cut some subsidies. The most likely cuts are what are called
"fixed direct payments," $5.2 billion per year paid to farmers even if they
grow
nothing, based on what they had raised in the past. 

"You don't have to sit on a tractor seat, visit the tractor seat, you don't
even
have to be alive to get a fixed payment," said Mr. Cook of the Environmental
Working Group. "We have fixed payments to dead people all over the place.
It's
ridiculous."

Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, the second largest
organization for farmers in the country, said, "It is hard to defend direct
payments." But he added, "You can write a safety net that protects farmers
and
ranchers when times are tough." 

The Bush administration, as well as many alliance members, wants to
eliminate
subsidy payments for farmers who have an adjusted gross income of more than
$200,000 a year. And some in Congress want to limit subsidies entirely.
House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/i
ndex
.html?inline=nyt-per>  has supported limits on subsidies in the past and
some
Congressional bills would prohibit any farmer from getting more than
$200,000 a
year in subsidies. 

According to the subsidy data from the Environmental Working Group, one
giant
cotton farm collected $2.95 million through crop subsidies in 2005, nearly
as
much money as the federal government spent on its primary research program
for
organic agriculture last year - $3 million.

Mary Kay Thatcher, a policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau
Federation,
the largest farm lobbying group, said current subsidies, which the
federation
supports, might be tweaked, but added, "I think it is highly unlikely that
we
will see huge changes." 

That may depend on whether the new activists can counteract the power of
lobbyists who make large campaign contributions. 

"Congress and the administration have a unique opportunity to begin reforms
providing a sustainable, community-linked food system," said Gus Schumacher,
a
consultant to the Kellogg Foundation for its food and society initiative and
a
former under secretary of agriculture. "Will they take this opportunity to
start
or will it be business as usual?"







The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the
Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this
information.