Pictures really do equal a thousand words.
Yep, that would be beer, butter, and soda that have enjoyed the major declines. And fresh fruits and vegetable that have seen the steepest increases. Ben over at consumerist asks the obvious question - hey washington what’s up with subsidizing corn syrup and soy, but nothing for broccoli? we live in a topsy turvy world when a six pack of Coke is cheaper than some bell peppers.
Once again Tom is tinkering around the edges. Just like the last round of subsidies, this is not going to be enough to keep dairy farmers afloat:
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced initial allocations under USDA’s Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. The program helps U.S. dairy exporters meet prevailing world prices and encourages the development of international export markets in areas where U.S. dairy products are not competitive due to subsidized dairy products from other countries.
“The United States has taken a measured approach in operating the DEIP that is fully consistent with our WTO commitments,” said Vilsack. “It appears, however, that our international markets continue to erode and the European Union has shown no indication that it will refrain from providing dairy export subsidies. We will continue to use this program in a responsible manner in support of U.S. dairy farmers.”
Yep, that’s going to do a whole lotta nothin’.
Steve Pearlstein has a scathing column in the WaPo today on what he calls the most selfish lobby in the world:
But, for farmers, it wasn’t enough to get a free pass on carbon emissions. They are unhappy that the effect of the caps and pollution permits will be to raise the price of their fuel, fertilizer and electricity. No matter that other Americans will suffer similar effects. In the mind of the entitled American farmer, any increase in costs or reduction in revenue — whether from natural causes, market forces or government regulation — must be compensated for by the government.
Steve has a point - there is no other industry in our country that expects, or in most cases, demands, that the goverment hands them massive checks year after year for no other reason than because they exist. They get money whether its a good year, a bad year, or a great year. Regardless if they are producing nutrients or disease. The American farmer is entitled.
Elmer’s support for the climate-change bill, however, could not be had for merely a few billion dollars a year in offsets. There was also an ethanol boondoggle to protect.
It seems those pesky scientists over at the EPA had done a preliminary analysis showing that if you considered the indirect effects of producing a lot of additional corn-based ethanol — like the need to make up for the lost food production somewhere else — then ethanol might not qualify as a carbon-reducing “renewable fuel” under the 2007 energy bill, potentially jeopardizing ethanol’s guaranteed market of 15 billion gallons a year. To rectify this gross injustice, Elmer demanded — and won — a five-year moratorium on any final determination while a study is conducted on how the EPA was conducting its study.
Yep, FIVE YEARS. The farm lobby is out of control. They are hurting themselves and all of us who have to consume their products.And they certainly aren’t willing to come to a reasonable consensus on their impact on the environment. So why negotiate with terrorists?
Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the self-proclaimed “voice of agriculture,” yesterday urged all House members to vote against the climate-change bill, claiming it would “result in a net economic cost to farmers with little or no environmental benefit.”
Monsters.
In the Emerging Issues in the US Organics Industry report that came out this past week from the USDA, we learned that there are major supplies issues in the organic sector. And no where is this more apparent than in the dairy industry:
Shortages in Organics
How about the shortages mentioned before? Keep in mind that the numbers in this particular area are from 2004 (before we had a major dairy crisis on our hands, including a crisis for organic dairies):Percent of handlers reporting a critical shortage
Milk: 26%
Feed grains: 22%
Fruit/veg: $16%
Soy: 13%
Yet just the other week, the NYT was bemoaning the plight of the organic dairy farmer. So what gives? Consumers are lining up for organic dairy, but the high cost of conversion is scaring conventional dairy farmers off. It can cost up to $500,000 to convert a dairy farm to organic. During the transition, which can be up to 3 years, farmers can’t get the premium price for their product. So here’s a thought: instead of throwing subsidy after subsidy at dairy farmers, why not take some of that money to offer zero payments for 3 years loans to dairy farmers who want to make the jump to organic. That way farmers can fill the huge need for more organic milk while not having to expose themselves to huge daunting risk. As the report concludes(pdf):
New public investments in organic research, technical assistance, and support for organic farmers and handlers were included in the 2008 Farm Act. This public investment complements ongoing private efforts to expand organic supply and procure organic products closer to the point of sale. Technical assistance on organic production and financial incentives for organic transition are aimed at providing the tools to help expand the domestic organic grain supply—which in turn supports the fast-growing milk, meat, and poultry sectors—and facilitate organic production in U.S. regions where adoption has been slow. Most American consumers now buy organic products at least occasionally, and could benefit from wider accessibility and enhanced product selection.
OK USDA, you know what you need to do. Now do it.
Last week, the Dept of Ag announced a new round of subsidies for the ailing dairy sector:
The Dairy Export Incentive Program allocations of 68,201 metric tons of nonfat dry milk; 21,097 metric tons of butterfat; 3,030 metric tons of various cheeses and 34 metric tons of other dairy products, as well as individual product and country allocations will be made available through Invitations for Offers. Country and region quantities may be limited by the invitation.
The move was necessary, they reasoned, because US dairy producers are not currently competitive in the world market due to dairy subsidies in other countries, particularly in the EU. Well, our European brethren wasn’t going to take this dairy smack talk sitting down. Or at least without denying any culpability. See the “Who Me?” defense at work:
“On the United States, I don’t like to see that the Americans are using Europe’s reinstatement of export subsidies as an excuse to go ahead in this direction,” EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel told a news conference
“We did not introduce our export refunds until we had calculated the effect on the market … and we have not covered the gap between the EU and international price,” she said, speaking after a monthly meeting of EU farm ministers.
Which translates to: “um, ok, maybe we did something, but what we did isn’t to blame for your problems”. They may be right, I have more research to do, but my understanding was that the cheap milk was coming from places like China and Russia, not the EU. Sounds like no one knows who’s to blame.
SD man convicted of operating sham farms to bilk the USDA of agricultural subsidies loses yet another appeal. The government is seeking repayment.
Food interests across the board are gearing up to take on the Administration’s proposed cap on farm subsidies. Obama’s 2010 budget details were released last Thursday, and it takes some serious swipes at the corporate welfare program that is US farm subsidies. But is this part of a larger strategy? According to that budget, farm subsidy spending will be cut $1 billion a year in areas including:
As many small farm advocates have howled for the last several years, farm subsidies, which are intended to help family farmers through lean years, has become a major source of corporate welfare. It also gets the US into plenty of trouble with the WTO, because technically subsidies are equivalent to tariffs when it comes to international commodity trading. The bill also aims to retain fixes from 2008 and close some of the many loopholes that Big Ag has been so good at leveraging:
The administration plan also would retain the $40,000 per person limit on direct payments and the $65,000 limit on counter-cyclical payments in the 2008 farm bill and institute a new $145,000 limit on marketing loan gains. (The 2008 law places no cap on loan deficiency payments or marketing loan gains.)
The budget cuts have also upset would be allies such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, who is concerned about cuts to the conservation program: (more…)
For years the USDA discriminated against black farmers by denying applications for credit and loans. Finally, 1999, case known as the Pigford settlement was decided in favor of black farmers, awarding them more than $50,000 in payments and $12,500 in tax credits each. The problem is that many more farmers applied than expected and the fund has much, much less money than expected.
In a meeting Wednesday, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) vented frustration at recent court filings by the Justice Department that could severely limit compensation owed to black farmers discriminated against in the past by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Justice Department has estimated that it could cost as much as $4 billion to repay the farmers, yet the recent filings suggest it may cap the total compensation at $100 million — about 2.5 percent.
Considering that total US farm subsidies totaled $13.4 BILLION WITH A ‘B’ in 2006 alone, $100 million to set things right is just offensive. I don’t blame the CBC for being ticked.
What Marion said.
One of my biggest concerns is how the quest of eating healthy is stacked against the American people. It’s just wrong that one can buy 2-3 bags of Frito-Lays for the price of a single bell pepper in this country. Economically the average food consumer just can’t win. Citizens are paying more for less of the good stuff.
You want kids to drink more juice and less soda? Well then why is cranberry or orange juice twice the price of Coca-Cola? Those who have been following food politics will tell you - our government provides mass sunsidies for corn, and therefor corn syrup, while leaving fruit and veggies to die on the vine.
These disparities are no less destructive than the wealth gap that has led to the current economic crisis. And are just as important. People still go hungry in our country. More concerning is people are getting fat while still not receiving the nutrients they need.
* For those who don’t know, Marion Nestle wrote the tome Food Politics, which is a must read.
The NYT Business section has a huge sprawling piece on food activism today. It covers the gamut of issues from school lunches to sodium consumption to food safety. I’m not going to attempt to rehash all of it right now, but in the midsection of the article, I think the author gets to the heart of what food policy advocates must grapple with:
Nancy M. Childs, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph