Current Farm Policies and How They Contribute to Negative Environmental Impacts
Summary: Part of current farm policies (and farm policies going back the past 50 years) is to directly pay farmers to grow certain crops. These payments, surprisingly enough, are called direct payments, and they were featured heavily in the 2002 Farm Bill, which is still used since the 2007 Farm Bill hasn’t passed yet. “Great!” you may think. “Let’s support farmers and get cheap food!” There’s a problem though. The government only pays for certain crops, called cash crops (wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans). The farmers, to take advantage of these subsidies, plant these cash crops, using industrial farming techniques with pesticides, herbicides, and monocropping. Not vegetables or fruits. All the farmers planting cash crops leads to excess – so much so, in the case of corn, we dump it into the sea or into foreign markets at below cost. In other words, there is much waste at a high cost to the environment and taxpayers.
Monocropping
The Unisfera International Centre found that the 2002 Farm Bill reduced crop-choice flexibility and encouraged intensive corn, soybean and wheat production.[1] These crops are grown by monocropping, which is where a large area is planted with one crop, and it’s usually not rotated year to year. Monocropping leaves crops extremely vulnerable to pests due to the unnatural, unvaried ecosystem it creates. Just like your finances, it is good to have diversity in your agricultural portfolio to protect yourself. Since it’s inherently unhealthy, monocropping requires high inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Quoting USDA reports that show chemical and fertilizer use and run-off increases in areas paid direct commodity payments, the Izaak Walton League of America concluded in their report on the 2007 Farm Bill that “Commodity payments with limitless incentives for maximizing production can increase environmental threats in the form of higher fertilizer application rates.”[4] Intense cultivation also leaves the soil less and less fertile through the leaching of minerals which are not replaced through industrial fertilizers, while increasing erosion through row-cropping and loss of forest cover.
Monocropping also requires high inputs of water, which is scarce in many areas of the country. This is especially prevalent in the western US which is water-poor, but yet grows much of our food. These areas rely on irrigation from pumped groundwater and diverted water from rivers and lakes. Some rivers, such as the Colorado, do not reach the sea due to so much water being diverted. This disrupts ecosystems, water quality, downstream communities, and all species who live in and depend on the water source. Groundwater is not doing much better; indeed, some studies estimate that “20% of the irrigated area of the United States is supplied by groundwater pumped in excess of recharge.”[2] In other words, we are at an unsustainable level of water use. Moreover, using this water in irrigation increases salt and mineral concentrations in water sources through evaporation and overuse. These salts and minerals degrade soil quality and water quality. All to support yet another cash crop.
Overproduction
These subsidies have worked so well that we overproduce, causing taxpayers to have to pay to find uses and storage for excess crops.[1] Direct subsidies also encourage what member of the EU cabinet of agriculture, Tassos Haniotis, calls the price crisis.[2] Subsidies encourage overproduction, which drive prices lower, which then increases subsidies, which encourages more production.
As previously stated, the direct payment program only covers certain crops and thus encourages their production. Most of these crops have high-water and organic matter needs but yet are grown in areas that are water-poor such as the West. We are not using our geography wisely which is contributing to our resource battles in the West. Thus, farm policies are also damaging because they do not encourage food production that is suited to the area.
Agribusinesses
In addition, a large percentage of farm subsidies go to large agribusinesses. The USDA reports that in 2004, 65% of government payouts went to farms with incomes over $100,000. Subsidies did not reach the farmers with incomes less than $50,000 on the same scale, who, while comprising 44% of the farm workforce only received 32% of payments.[3] These figures vary a bit based on source but since it’s a USDA program, these figures are straight out of the horse’s mouth. These figures clearly show that the farm bill is supporting large industrial farms, such as the Big 4 (Monsanto, Archer-Midland, etc.) who have powerful connections in Washington, instead of medium- to small- sized farms. 93% of federal agricultural subsidies go to growers of 5 cash crops. Billions upon billions of dollars, just to grow corn, cotton, etc. 60% of farmers do not grow these crops, instead choosing to grow vegetables, fruits, etc. (USDA.gov) These unsubsidized foodstuffs are worth the same as the subsidized cash crops, (USDA.gov) which shows the waste of money going on, if you look at it from a free market view.
One effect of all of this is the staggering rate at which the US is losing small- to medium sized farms (for further information, check out University of Wisconsin’s report on the fate of small farms in the Midwest and why it matters here by Diane Mayerfield).
We need our small- to medium- sized farmers. A sustainable food system cannot happen without them, as they can set up shop near cities and use more hands on, wise approaches to growing food. Our current system favors the corporations, the agribusinesses, at the expense of healthy, sustainable food, and at the expense of farming families everywhere. This is unethical; it is pork barrel politics, instead of wise politics. Billions of dollars of our taxpayer money goes right to corporations who harm our environment. Instead, we could support organic agriculture, support small to medium sized farmers, and support vegetable and fruit growers.
[1] Myers, Norman; Kent, Jennifer. Perverse Subsidies: How Tax Dollars can undercut the environment and the economy. Island Press 2001. Online edition. Pg 42.
[2] Haniotis, Tassos. An EU Perspective of the US Farm Bill. http://www.economia.unimore.it/bertolini_paola/economia%20agraria%20vo/farm%20bill1.pdf
[1] http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/Eco-Envi-Impacts-Agric-Subsidies_en.pdf
[2] Nature 418, 671-677 (8 August 2002) | doi:10.1038/nature01014. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Tilman, David; Kenneth G. Cassman3, Pamela A. Matson4,5, Rosamond Naylor5 and Stephen Polasky2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01014.html#f1
[3]http://www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07riskmgmtsum1.pdf
[4] Stone, Kelly. Environmentalists seek common ground with producers on Farm Bill. Agriculture Weekly. March 20, 2007.
