Last week, the U.S. celebrated our independence from Great Britain, as many other countries do throughout the year. Just before Independence Day, Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill that makes one question what independence actually means in agriculture.
For roughly 50 years, an urban-rural coalition has banded together every four to six years to pass a farm bill that updates a safety net for farmers and other people who may be hungry. In a public breakup of this coalition, Republicans passed a bill that cuts nutrition funding by $186 billion and increases payments to certain farmers by $66 billion over ten years.
House and Senate Republicans cited high input costs and low commodity prices to justify increasing the farm safety net. Inexplicably, the bill they passed does nothing to reduce input costs or ensure fair payment to farmers. Instead, it endorsed input suppliers continuing to increase prices and commodity buyers continuing to underpay farmers.
This is convenient for input suppliers and commodity buyers, both of which operate in industries where four multinational corporations dominate the marketplace. Because of this concentration, it’s easy to understand why input costs are high and commodity prices are low—there’s little competition and farmers don’t have alternatives.
Harder to understand is why Republicans who claim fiscal responsibility chose to increase the national debt rather than solve the problem. One solution would be to listen to the growing number of farmers who understand regenerative agriculture helps their bottom line. When you reduce reliance on corporations, it turns out, regenerative agriculture can help you harness natural inputs (reducing costs), enhance resilience (reducing disaster/insurance payments), maintain yields (similar income), and improve bottom lines (less government support).
One of the biggest obstacles to adopting regenerative practices is getting off the commodity crop treadmill, which relies on grain buyers paying farmers less than the cost of production, forcing them to take out an operating loan. To get the operating loan, banks require farmers to purchase crop insurance. A search of insurance policies covering specific commodities yields 22 hits for corn and zero for carrots. Because commodities like corn have multiple policies while fruits, vegetables, and nuts have few—if any—it’s not hard to understand how a farmer gets stuck on the treadmill.
Rather than listen to farmers seeking the independence to make their own decisions, Congress turbocharged the treadmill with $66 billion in subsidies that will ensure profits for almost everybody, except farmers. While subsidies are not inherently bad—many believe they should be reconfigured to increase production of fruits, vegetables, and nuts—Republicans made clear they’re not interested in supporting Secretary Kennedy’s ideas to improve people’s diets.
Like what you see on the Agri-Pulse website? See even more ag and rural policy news when you sign up for a four-week free trial Agri-Pulse subscription.
In a throwback to the feudal system of a country we declared independence from, Congress only makes these subsidies available to certain landowners, who grew certain crops, in certain years, through a complicated system known as “base acres.” If you own land with base acres, you’re eligible for government subsidies that add income and make your land more valuable because you’re entitled to a subsidy resembling a guaranteed basic income.
Why favor subsidies over solutions? Dig a little deeper to find the answer. Many who receive subsidies aren’t actually farming, and consequently don’t care about reducing input costs, developing resilience, or being paid a fair price. To the degree they’re farming, it’s often little more than picking a government check out of the mailbox.
Unlike the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Congress has been intentionally vague when it comes to farm subsidy eligibility. In SNAP, Congress had no problem establishing strict income and asset thresholds, and requiring participants to work 20 hours a week. When it comes to paying farmland owners, Congress is far less restrictive. Instead of working a specific number of hours, Congress only requires people to be “actively engaged” in farming, which USDA defines in a way that allows farmland owners who aren’t actually farming to work with their accountants and lawyers to make sure they get government subsidies. Unlike SNAP, there are no asset limits, which is why billionaires receive farm subsidies.
For those who actually farm the land, not just the mailbox, only a small number are eligible for subsidies and many are eager to regain their independence, free from the treadmill. Providing these farmers with a safety net is as important as providing everybody else in the country with a safety net that ensures access to the basics necessary for existence, like food, housing, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we’re further from that after Independence Day than we were before.
Trevor Findley is an attorney and clinical instructor in the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School. He served at USDA from 2015 to 2021 in several capacities.