A Baptist leader said Tuesday that the United States’ farm policy is unfair to African-American farmers and disadvantaged farmers in Africa, the Caribbean and the developing world.
Earl Trent, executive director of missions for the Progressive National Baptist Convention, joined other religious leaders on Capitol Hill hours before the House Agriculture Committee was set to begin debating the 2007 Farm Bill to call for reform that reflects American values of fairness and equal opportunity.
In prepared remarks, Trent said the Progressive National Baptist Convention, founded in 1961, the convention of Martin Luther King, has in its “organizational DNA” a central concern for “the least, the lost and the left out of our society.”
Current farm policies, Trent said, are inequitable. Commodity subsidies to black farmers are “abysmally low,” he said. Out of every $100,000 given for subsidies, black farmers receive three dollars.
So, cut all farm subsidies. The black farmers get so little they won’t miss it, and both taxpayers and consumers would save some money.
Now, what Scripture addresses farm subsidies?
Cousin Vinnie,
I couldn’t have summed it up better myself. The appropriate level of farm subsidies is approximately $0.00 per whatever unit you would like to use. But it is not only the subsidies which perpetuate poverty, it is the tariffs and outright import restrictions that need to be eliminated, as well. This is what would be just to all farmers, not just American ones. The same is true of import restrictions and tariffs. The appropriate form of government involvement (to the extent that government involvment might be justified at all) is to ensure the healthfulness and safety of farm produce. These people (the all-knowing, all-singing, all-dancing clerics testifying on Capitol Hill) have got it about half right.
By subsidizing farming in the industrialized world, we make it uneconomic for those in the poorer countries to compete where they generally have the greatest level of competitiveness, in agriculture. Mexican farmers can grow avocadoes (beautiful, tree ripened Haas avocadoes) and sell them retail for about 1 peso each in Mexico. That is a little less than 10 US cents. So while I pay between $0.60 and $1.00 each in the U.S., Mexico could, if permitted, export them into the U.S. and after paying the shipping charges sell them for a very tidy profit for substantially less than the current U.S. market price. For some items, the second and (especially) third world would have to alter their farming practices for health and safety considerations (hint: don’t eat the strawberries in Mexico, they grow in contact with the fertilizer, and it frequently isn’t from livestock), but each case can only be considered logically if the industrialized world stops distorting the only meaningful data that will allow poor farmers around the world to prosper. That is to say, eliminate tariffs and subsidies. It is not only the just thing to do, it is the only economically sustainable thing to do, for them and for us.
#2 But isn’t in the US’s national interest to feed itself as much as possible, rather than depend on foreign suppliers?
I agree with #2, a common worldwide goal of eliminating all food related tarrifs and subsidies gives 3rd world countries a fair shot at developing and prospering at something other than selling off their natural resources to the highest bidder.
Farmers in the U.S. are being led by the nose by the USDA instead of the market. Ag subsidies operate on the assumption that American Farmers are not smart enough to read the marketplace and decide FOR THEMSELVES what is appropriate and profitable to plant. Nothing could be further from the truth, farmers know what they are doing in this day and age and need to be left alone to manage their own marketplace.
Just take a look at the ridiculous disruptions in the food producing community today due to our even sillier experiments with ethanol or E-85. Does it make any sense at all, even in the name of “energy independence” (which it won’t make us) to spend MORE BTU’s of energy to produce a gallon of fuel than it gives back when you burn it? That’s ethanol in a nutshell, every gallon produced is an energy-loser. Corn is about the 3rd or 4th best choice to make ag-fuel out of. Brazil, for example, makes ethanol out of sugar cane and gets a nearly positive energy return for their investment.
KTF….mrb
[blockquote]But isn’t in the US’s national interest to feed itself as much as possible, rather than depend on foreign suppliers?[/blockquote]
Not so much. Agriculture is very much an international enterprise so no one supplier would ever have leverage on US policy. Furthermore, enhancing the economic viability of developing countries from the ground up increases the stability of those states. Foreign stability is very much in the US’s national interest. The primary motivator for protectionist economic policies is domestic politics; to gain votes and campaign funding from special interest groups.
#3 is spot on. Retaining the capacity to feed ourselves is a strategic necessity. Despite #2’s $0.60 avacado, Americans pay less than any other people for their food. Farmers are barely able to make a living wage as it is, and while it’s true that most of the subsadies go to mega-farms, those are the folks putting the inexpensive food on your table. As an owner (with my two sisters) of a small family farm, I desperately want some relief for the family farmer. And as for the issue of black farmers only getting $3.00 for every $100,000.00 paid out in subsadies, I live in the south and there are no black farmers in my county that I know of. Therefore, I’m not at all surprised that “black farmers” receive so little. Unfortunately, they’re simply statistically insignificant.
#6. By stating that [blockquote] Americans pay less than any other people for their food. [/blockquote] you are ignoring the costs of the subsidies and tariffs, and certainly ignoring the retail cost of food in the lesser developed nations of the world (especially Africa, South and Central America, and much of Asia). I believe that you need to do a better job of [i]vetting[/i] your sources of statistics.
Your comment reminds me of the believers in the “candle maker’s fallacy.” That argument runs as follows: [i]We cannot allow the adoption of electric lighting because it will put all of the candlemakers out of work.[/i]
#2, In response to your question [blockquote] (I)sn’t (it) in the US’s national interest to feed itself as much as possible, rather than depend on foreign suppliers? [/blockquote] let me pose a simple thought experiment.
The retail price of refined white sugar in U.S. dollars in a fair number of countries outside the industrialized west is about one-half the cost paid in the western democracies (U.S., EU, etc.). This is in large part due to a system of subsidies and “market orders” administered by the U.S. Dept. of Agr. In 2004 we paid about $0.43/lb, whereas about half of the other countries consuming refined white sugar were paying around $0.20-$0.35 per lb. This is the actual retail cost in the U.S., and does not include the cost of the sugar subsidies paid to the U.S. producers. So the U.S. price is actually somewhat higher than the $0.43/lb quoted above. (data are from this [url=http://www.sugaralliance.org/files/docs/LMCWorldSugarPrices_2004.pdf]US Sugar Industry Source[/url]). Just how much do you think it is worth to American consumers to pay that difference year in/year out? And, do you honestly think that all U.S. sugar producers would be put out of business if they were forced to compete in an open and honest free market?
As to the avocados, the California avocado producers were forced to become competitive by NAFTA. Prior to January 13, 1997, Mexican fresh avocados were only permitted entry into one U.S. state (Alaska). The reason avocado prices have not been climbing since then, is because, provided they meet strict hygeine requirements, they can now be imported into 19 northeastern U.S. states and D.C. (Data source: [url=http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp2/highlights/1998/98-03/avocados.html]USDA Foreign Agriculture Service[/url]).
I am not confident your fellow citizens would be all that happy to learn that these agricultural policies (insulating the U.S. agriculture industry from foreign competition) are as widespread as they are and that, in many instances, they get to pay twice for each item they buy. I know that I have better things to do with my limited resources than to pay extra for such questionable conduct on the part of our elected officials.
Agricultural subsidies promote overproduction.
With or without them, we will remain able to feed ourselves many times over—just as we did before farm subsidies were instituted during the Great Depression.
Somehow, I bet there is more to this story. Sounds kinda one-sided. Probably a good bit of facts out there that make it a lot harder to figure out than this article.
One thing though, we don’t want to depend on imports for food like we do oil…
bl
#9 Irenaeus,
Whether or not [blockquote] Agricultural subsidies promote overproduction [/blockquote] or sortages, they severely distort the proper functioning of the market, because they skew the only data that have any efficacy for the allocation of resources, namely [i]price[/i]. And they do so in a manner that is not able to be measured and, therefore, not able to be counteracted. Other than that minor quibble, the remainder of your statement is precisely correct.
Sorry for the typo, should have read “or shortages …”