Since the passing of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act the agriculture industry has suffered from manic commodity production by producers trying to compensate for declining market price with high volume crop production. This endless supply of cheap grain, subsidized by the government has lead to dramatic increases in corporate concentration of livestock production. Commodity payments have sky rocketed to more than $59 billion from 1996-2000, and disaster payment are over $4.2 billion in the same period. An outrageous 80 percent of these payments have gone to the largest corporate producers representing 10 percent of all producers. Many fortune 500 companies have received payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, while average payments to the other 90 percent of producers is under $6,000. In the face of dropping prices due to over production and restricted access to markets because of corporate concentration, these payments have done little to help small farmers stay on the land and ensure a future for independent agriculture.

The Juicy Truth

For the last five years agriculture prices, income of independent producers and the number of family farms have been falling in an aggressive race to the bottom. For those who managed to keep afloat, the 2002 Farm Bill held hope for a light at the end of the tunnel. When Congress first started to craft the new farm bill, Democrat and GOP leaders alike assured producers that new farm policy would respond to the growing farm crisis and correct the failures of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Leaders in both houses and from both sides vowed to draft new an innovative policy that would address the needs of independent and small farmers specifically. Now, nearly a year later, the House has passed a farm bill and the Senate is expected to pass their version any day (the Senate bill is being debated as this article is being written), and promises have proven, once again, to be rhetoric. Persistent corporate persuasion has assured that their interests are protected and independent producers and family farmers are wondering how many of their neighbors will survive until the next farm bill.

Notably, the farm bill that was passed by the Senate Agriculture committee did include some wins for independent producers, rural communities and hungry people (the house had very few). Among these wins were: increases in funding for rural entrepreneurship; promoting producer cooperatives and value added production; increased research funding and new conservation programs; the extension of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants and simplified application procedures; expanded outreach programs and new accountability tools for USDA; and the reauthorization of assistance for community food projects that increase public access to fresh, local food.

The losses, however, far exceed the benefits of the wins. The commodity programs that were passed by the full House and the Senate Agriculture committee do nothing to promote a fair price from the market place that reflects the cost of production. Nor do the proposals implement any type of supply management that would limit the over supply of commodity crops and corporate agriculture's continued access to mountains of cheep grain. Economists have stated that new programs will continue to "increase plantings of commodity crops and larger crops [will continue to] lower market prices." President Bush agreed that the Senate farm bill that was passed out of committee would "mislead farmers into producing crops that are already in oversupply." Regardless, both the House and Senate Leadership are moving forward with these proposals and though amendments will be offered on the Senate floor to establish supply management tools and restructure commodity payments, we expect that the final title will be more like the policies of the past then anything new or "innovative."

The establishment of a Competition title that would limit packer ownership of livestock, require greater transparency from agribusiness and restrict exploitative contract practices was narrowly defeated by the Senate Agriculture Committee and now competition amendments on the Senate floor are being challenged heavily by members who support agribusiness. It is likely that the discussion on competition legislation will continue when both bill are sent to conference. Improving competition among agriculture producers and processors would have a significant impact on producers, rural economies and the food supply. Increased concentration and limited accountability of agribusiness has limited competition in all food related sectors, from production to retail, leaving independent, small and family farmers with limited market access and subject to corporate controlled prices (see April 2001 Juicer).

The final debate on the farm bill in conference will largely be dominated by fights over funding, with a focus on preserving expensive commodity programs that substitute government payments for price to the benefit of food processing and retail giants such as Archers Daniel Midland, Smithfield and Wal-Mart. Increases in conservation, nutrition, research and rural development funding will be in severe jeopardy. The wins mentioned above will need to be protected. Improvements to the nutrition program and extension of benefits to legal immigrants will most likely be under attack, as will transparency and accountability from USDA in program participation and county committee elections and procedures. Support for community food projects is expected, but there will be a fight to increase funding. It is likely that there will be a debate over the life of the next farm bill as well. The House has passed an ten year bill that would expire in 2011. The Senate is recommending a five year bill, a time line that is consistent with bills in the past and allows Congress to respond to the ever changing state of agriculture and rural economies.

The December Squeeze

Keep a Pressure on Farm Bill Conference Committee

We are asking the House and Senate Farm Bill Conference Committee to: