Congress Deaf to US Opinion on Farm Bill

For more than 15 years, the Environmental Working Group has been active protecting public health and the environment with public information. Their latest tool: an interactive map of editorials from newspapers around the country demanding reform of the Farm Bill which Congress is reauthorizing without much change.

The editorials unmask the economic unfairness of the farm bill and show a nation ready for a break from record-high commodity prices, rising rates of obesity and diabetes, and growing concern about industrial agriculture’s contribution to global warming and other environmental perils.

The editorials reveal a people ready for a paradigm shift all over the U.S. and particularly in the agricultural heartland, but neither the House or Senate versions of the subsidy-laden 2007 Farm Bill come close to making the needed fixes.

One common thread through all the editorials is:

Something must be done to stop the taxpayer-funded giveaways to wealthy individuals and operations that do not need support. Especially when so many other crucial programs such as nutrition and conservation are lacking critical funding.

While the Farm Bill is divided into several titles related to issues like nutrition, conservation, research and energy, it is really the commodities title that dictates the shape of the agricultural system, and the source of the most contention. The vast majority of subsidies go to the production of corn, cotton, wheat, rice, and soybeans, and as EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database reveals, the beneficiaries are largely corporate agribusinesses.

The map debunks the notion that Farm Bill reform stems from an out-of-touch urban elite that doesn’t understand rural America:

Some of the strongest criticism of agri-business-as-usual subsidies has arisen from the heart of farm country itself, in California, the Midwest, the Mountain West and the South. Nor is it only editorial boards that think an overhaul of agriculture policy is past due. A recent poll commissioned by Oxfam America in several states including Iowa, Colorado, and Minnesota shows that 60 percent of voters believe the Farm Bill needs reform.

As small family farmers struggle to survive with virtually no assistance, they want a Farm Bill that supports them too.

One might have hoped the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate would have crafted legislation curbing corporate handouts. Not so. That's why editorials like this one published recently in the New York Times look to the White House to spur Farm Bill reform. EWG also concludes:

Ironically, the Bush Administration comes across as far more progressive and reform minded than the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate when it comes to matters of equity and fairness in subsidy payments.

It's because the White House has expressed concern over both versions of the bill, which would cost taxpayers over $280 billion over five years. Bush has threatened to veto a bill that requires tax increases or continues to subsidize the wealthiest Americans.

Tom Philpott at Gristmill is not fooled. He's quick to point out Bush’s stance arises more out of a need to find budget cuts where he can, compensating for his overly funded wars and unwillingness to curb subsidies elsewhere (i.e. Big Oil), rather than a push for real agricultural reform.

But that is what concerned citizens across the map want. The problem with the farm bill legislation, Philpott contends is:

None of the versions of the farm bill floating around congressional back rooms and White House crannies challenge the basic premise of industrial agriculture: that mega-farms, using whatever synthetic chemicals and genetically modified seed available, should crank out as much corn, soy, cotton, and meat as they can, environmental and social consequences be damned.

One California editorial points out House Speaker Pelosi’s initiative to green the House Cafeteria—promoting eco-friendly, local and organic fare while banishing high-fat, high-sugar and processed—and wonders:

If only Chez Pelosi could now put the same energy and imagination into transforming the 2007 farm bill.

But even these changes in the cafeteria did not come without a fight from lobbyists and the House agricultural committee that caters to them.

As EWG’s editorial map report concludes:

“Change” may be the buzzword of this presidential campaign cycle, but when it comes to the farm bill, Congress is hewing to the flawed, failed policies of the past.

The clock is ticking as Congress attempts to finalize legislation by March 15, when the extension on the 2002 Farm Bill expires, but there is not much hope the final bill when it gains passage will be ‘change we can believe in.’

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›