another farm-bill boondoggle

[Guest guest]

My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01hedin.html?_r=1 & oref=slogin

By JACK HEDIN

Published: March 1, 2008

Rushford, Minn.

 

IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market

recently, you know that the local food movement

is thriving, to the point that small farmers are

having a tough time keeping up with the demand.

 

But consumers who would like to be able to buy

local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’

markets, but also in the produce aisle of their

supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the

federal government works deliberately and

forcefully to prevent the local food movement

from expanding. And the barriers that the United

States Department of Agriculture has put in place

will be extended when the farm bill that House

and Senate negotiators are working on now goes

into effect.

 

As a small organic vegetable producer in southern

Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to

expand production to meet regional demand have

been severely hampered by the Agriculture

Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve

looked into the politics behind those

restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this

is precisely the outcome that the program’s

backers in California and Florida have in mind:

they want to snuff out the local competition

before it even gets started.

 

Last year, knowing that my own 100 acres wouldn’t

be enough to meet demand, I rented 25 acres on

two nearby corn farms. I plowed under the alfalfa

hay that was established there, and planted

watermelons, tomatoes and vegetables for

natural-food stores and a community-supported

agriculture program.

 

All went well until early July. That’s when the

two landowners discovered that there was a

problem with the local office of the Farm Service

Administration, the Agriculture Department branch

that runs the commodity farm program, and it was

going to be expensive to fix.

 

The commodity farm program effectively forbids

farmers who usually grow corn or the other four

federally subsidized commodity crops (soybeans,

rice, wheat and cotton) from trying fruit and

vegetables. Because my watermelons and tomatoes

had been planted on “corn base” acres, the Farm

Service said, my landlords were out of compliance

with the commodity program.

 

I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who

grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn

acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for

the year on that acreage, he is also penalized

the market value of the illicit crop, and runs

the risk that those acres will be permanently

ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The

penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables —

if the farmer decides to grow another commodity

crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)

 

In my case, that meant I paid my landlords $8,771

— for one season alone! And this was in a year

when the high price of grain meant that only one

of the government’s three crop-support programs

was in effect; the total bill might be much worse

in the future.

 

In addition, the bureaucratic entanglements that

these two farmers faced at the Farm Service

office were substantial. The federal farm program

is making it next to impossible for farmers to

rent land to me to grow fresh organic vegetables.

 

Why? Because national fruit and vegetable growers

based in California, Florida and Texas fear

competition from regional producers like myself.

Through their control of Congressional

delegations from those states, they have been

able to virtually monopolize the country’s fresh

produce markets.

 

That’s unfortunate, because small producers will

have to expand on a significant scale across the

nation if local foods are to continue to enter

the mainstream as the public demands. My problems

are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Last year, Midwestern lawmakers proposed an

amendment to the farm bill that would provide

some farmers, though only those who supply

processors, with some relief from the penalties

that I’ve faced — for example, a soybean farmer

who wanted to grow tomatoes would give up his

usual subsidy on those acres but suffer none of

the other penalties. However, the Congressional

delegations from the big produce states made the

death of what is known as Farm Flex their highest

farm bill priority, and so it appears to be going

nowhere, except perhaps as a tiny pilot program.

 

Who pays the price for this senselessness?

Certainly I do, as a Midwestern vegetable farmer.

But anyone trying to do what I do on, say, wheat

acreage in the Dakotas, or rice acreage in

Arkansas would face the same penalties. Local and

regional fruit and vegetable production will

languish anywhere that the commodity program has

influence.

 

Ultimately of course, it is the consumer who will

pay the greatest price for this — whether it is

in the form of higher prices I will have to

charge to absorb the government’s fines, or in

the form of less access to the kind of fresh,

local produce that the country is crying out for.

 

Farmers need the choice of what to plant on their

farms, and consumers need more farms like mine

producing high-quality fresh fruits and

vegetables to meet increasing demand from local

markets — without the federal government actively

discouraging them.

[Guest guest]

sadly, i see it only getting worse and worse....

yarrow Mar 6, 2008 11:48 AM vegan chat another farm-bill boondoggle

 

 

 

My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01hedin.html?_r=1 & oref=sloginBy JACK HEDINPublished: March 1, 2008Rushford, Minn.IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.But consumers who would like to be able to buy local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’ markets, but also in the produce aisle of their supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the federal government works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.As a small organic vegetable producer in southern Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to expand production to meet regional demand have been severely hampered by the Agriculture Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve looked into the politics behind those restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this is precisely the outcome that the program’s backers in California and Florida have in mind: they want to snuff out the local competition before it even gets started.Last year, knowing that my own 100 acres wouldn’t be enough to meet demand, I rented 25 acres on two nearby corn farms. I plowed under the alfalfa hay that was established there, and planted watermelons, tomatoes and vegetables for natural-food stores and a community-supported agriculture program.All went well until early July. That’s when the two landowners discovered that there was a problem with the local office of the Farm Service Administration, the Agriculture Department branch that runs the commodity farm program, and it was going to be expensive to fix.The commodity farm program effectively forbids farmers who usually grow corn or the other four federally subsidized commodity crops (soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton) from trying fruit and vegetables. Because my watermelons and tomatoes had been planted on “corn base” acres, the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance with the commodity program.I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for the year on that acreage, he is also penalized the market value of the illicit crop, and runs the risk that those acres will be permanently ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables — if the farmer decides to grow another commodity crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)In my case, that meant I paid my landlords $8,771 — for one season alone! And this was in a year when the high price of grain meant that only one of the government’s three crop-support programs was in effect; the total bill might be much worse in the future.In addition, the bureaucratic entanglements that these two farmers faced at the Farm Service office were substantial. The federal farm program is making it next to impossible for farmers to rent land to me to grow fresh organic vegetables.Why? Because national fruit and vegetable growers based in California, Florida and Texas fear competition from regional producers like myself. Through their control of Congressional delegations from those states, they have been able to virtually monopolize the country’s fresh produce markets.That’s unfortunate, because small producers will have to expand on a significant scale across the nation if local foods are to continue to enter the mainstream as the public demands. My problems are just the tip of the iceberg.Last year, Midwestern lawmakers proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would provide some farmers, though only those who supply processors, with some relief from the penalties that I’ve faced — for example, a soybean farmer who wanted to grow tomatoes would give up his usual subsidy on those acres but suffer none of the other penalties. However, the Congressional delegations from the big produce states made the death of what is known as Farm Flex their highest farm bill priority, and so it appears to be going nowhere, except perhaps as a tiny pilot program.Who pays the price for this senselessness? Certainly I do, as a Midwestern vegetable farmer. But anyone trying to do what I do on, say, wheat acreage in the Dakotas, or rice acreage in Arkansas would face the same penalties. Local and regional fruit and vegetable production will languish anywhere that the commodity program has influence.Ultimately of course, it is the consumer who will pay the greatest price for this — whether it is in the form of higher prices I will have to charge to absorb the government’s fines, or in the form of less access to the kind of fresh, local produce that the country is crying out for.Farmers need the choice of what to plant on their farms, and consumers need more farms like mine producing high-quality fresh fruits and vegetables to meet increasing demand from local markets — without the federal government actively discouraging them.

 

 

 

 

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

Confucius

[Guest guest]

That's a sad commentary.

 

Since when did healthy competition become a thing of the past?

Like you said, it's all about just a few manufacturers who want to

monopolize the entire business. I also thought it was illegal.

 

Without healthy competition we are doomed. It leaves us no choice.

Same thing happened in the Cosmetic industry regarding shampoos.

There is not A ONE shampoo being sold that doesn't have toxic

chemicals. A year ago I could find one or two on the market that were

very mild on my scalp. To make sure no one would find those few who

did sell mild shampoos, they were bought out. The ingredients were

changed and they were resold. Even worse, when I tried buying

overseas, they wouldn't sell to me. They said they couldn't afford

the insurance to sell to US residents. Do I need to say anymore?