ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Update: More Venues Offer to Host Farm Policy Showdown | Main | Like Mother, Like Baby »
"We Need to Talk About Farm Policy" -- A Must Read.
The following editorial, written by Thomas Rowley of Rural Policy Research Institute, explains---in terms we can all understand--the ways we are linked to farm policy, and how the idea that farm subsidies "help farmers" is misleading.
And finally, at long last--a farm policy piece that will not sail over the heads of all but the most studied wonks!
July 10, 2006
We Need to Talk.About Farm Policy
By Thomas D. Rowley
I confess that I shudder at the phrase: We need to talk. Immediately my
mind begins to race and pulse quicken. Sweat forms on my brow as my gut
tightens. What did I do? What does she think I did? How long is this
"talk" going to take? You guys know the feeling. The only thing worse is
to hear, "We need to talk later," because, of course, we will then spend
every second between now and "later" inventorying our infractions and
preparing a confession that includes far more than we're being accused
of.
That said, we need to talk about farm policy. Boy, do we need to talk.
And not just the farmers, lobbyists and bureaucrats, but all of us.
Why? Because farm policy affects all of us (and millions of others
around the world). Because so few of us understand it. And because it's
broken.
As commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower
says, "If you eat, you're involved in agriculture." To that, I'd add
that if you pay taxes or care about rural communities, the environment
and/or poor people around the world, you ought to care about
agricultural policy, the $25 billion it passed out in assistance last
year and the huge impacts it has.
With respect to understanding, farm policy in this country has to be
among the most Byzantine of all governmental arenas. It's rife with
convoluted jargon, counterintuitive methods and unintended consequences.
I've worked on rural issues for 18 years and still get headaches trying
to keep track of direct and countercyclical payments; loan deficiency
payments; amber, green and blue boxes and the like.
Finally, farm policy doesn't even work well for most of the people it
purports to help. As reported in The Washington Post last week, the
lion's share of payments goes to a small percentage of producers of a
few select crops-some who don't even need help. Payments also go to
landowners-some who aren't involved in farming at all. Left wanting are
all the growers of so-called "non-program" crops like fruits, vegetables
and livestock. Also left wanting are the nation's rural communities,
even those that are home to farmers receiving big government checks.
Indeed, analysis by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank shows that farm
payments don't improve the economy in counties where most of the
payments go, if anything they depress it, creating not growth but
dependency.
None of which is to say that Americans shouldn't care about our
farmers. We should and most of us do. But we ought to make darn sure
that the people who receive farm payments are farmers and that they are
farmers who really need the help. To do that, we have to talk.
As President of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit research
organization, Ken Cook has done more than anyone else to start that
conversation. In 2004, EWG's farm subsidy database began posting the
names of farm payment recipients beside the amounts they receive. That
information got many people talking and many others crying foul. Cook
has now gone a step further by challenging former House Agriculture
Committee Chair Larry Combest (R-TX) and chief architect of the current
farm program to a series of debates on the subject. The debates, Cook
says, would help inform the public as Congress formulates the next Farm
Bill. Prominent farm journalists and policy experts have agreed to
moderate the debates, which would be held around the country and which
Cook calls "PowerPoint at thirty paces."
Unfortunately, Mr. Combest-who now lobbies for clients such as the
Minnesota Corn Growers, the American Sugar Alliance and the USA Rice
Federation and has staunchly defended current farm policy in the
press-isn't interested. Over the phone, Mr. Combest told me he had no
intent of debating Cook, didn't appreciate the public delivery of the
challenge and suggested that Cook travel the country learning about
farmers and their circumstances.
While I wasn't surprised by Mr. Combest's refusal to debate, I was
greatly disappointed. What better way could there be to improve a policy
that affects so many than to have an open and honest debate on the
issues? Here's hoping Mr. Combest reconsiders, because we really need to
talk.
--
Copyright 2006, Thomas D. Rowley, RUPRI Fellow
Leave a comment