The Food Committee
The United States could urgently use food policy reform. Right now, we have a lot of subsidies to food growers. That’s questionable economics. But what’s more, we subsidize people to grow food that’s bad for public healthy in ways that are environmentally unsound. That’s terrible. If we’re going to subsidize farming, we ought to be subsidizing people for growing healthy crops in a sustainable way. On the merits, this is a no-brainer — there’s obviously no public interest in taxpayer subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup — but the politics is another matter.
Nicholas Kristof did a column on this subject the other day that used as a framing device the idea that it should be called the Department of Food rather than the Department of Agriculture. The idea is that this reenforces the point that public policy should serve people who eat food (everyone!) rather than companies that grow and process food. As far as framing devices go, that’s a fine one. But the focus on the Department of Agriculture sort of obscures where the real action is: Congress. A president only gets to set a few priorities. In principle, agricultural policy could be a presidential priority. But it’s clear that it’s not on Barack Obama’s top five list and it hasn’t been on any president’s top priorities list for a very long time. That’s the way of the world. By contrast, ag policy is always the top priority of the House of Senate Agriculture committees. That’s what they’re there for. The route to improved policy runs through these committees so whatever clever ideas people have, that would be the place to look.
Meanwhile, Kristof writes:
But let’s be clear. The problem isn’t farmers. It’s the farm lobby — hijacked by industrial operators — and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it.
I grew up on a farm in Yamhill, Ore., where my family grew cherries and timber and raised sheep and, at times, small numbers of cattle, hogs and geese. One of my regrets is that my kids don’t have the chance to grow up on a farm as well.
Yet the Agriculture Department doesn’t support rural towns like Yamhill; it bolsters industrial operations that have lobbying clout. The result is that family farms have to sell out to larger operators, undermining small towns.
I’m not going to lie to you and say I’ve read Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, but I can say in good conscience that I read about half of it in Finland and Pollan makes a similar case. Kristof also quotes him in his column, so I think they’re on the same page about this.
But while there’s truth in what they’re saying, there are also some limits. It’s true that status quo farm policy is bad for many farmers. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves here. The Senate Agriculture Committee is chaired by Tom Harken. He’s a good guy and a good senator. But he’s also from Iowa. And though status quo ag policy may be bad for small towns in Oregon, trying to massively switch consumption in favor of fresh, seasonal, local produced food would be a disaster for farmers in Iowa. An Iowa farmer just isn’t “local” to very many people — the Iowa farm economy intrinsically relies on the existence of a big national and international market. California, by contrast, has both good farmland and metro areas full of people who could be buying locally produced food.
91 Responses to “The Food Committee”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Iowa imports 80% of its food. That is a good place to start. Government subsidies for better food plus a greater margin than on the rediculously cheap commodities could help the transition.
And yes, the transition would be astounding in its scope. But let’s be clear- Ag policy has already been a disaster for Iowa, and Illinois, et cetera- not just Oregon.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Again, Matt, you are not giving any thought to the fact that inefficient agriculture is going to raise food prices around the world. Someone is going to have to pay for that, whether it’s the government in the form of subsidies, or, more likely, consumers, squeezing the poor even further. This is anything but a no-brainer.
We have hundreds of millions of starving people in the world, and plenty starving people here in the US. Keeping food prices low is a noble goal. The current subsidy program is skewed and needs adjustment, but it should not be thrown into the trash heap for an urbanist’s agrarian utopia.
Let rich people pay for organic produce. Zone in grocery stores to make sure poor people have access to affordable produce. But don’t deemphasize production in favor of expensive (but locally grown – yay) food.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Matt,
In case you are really lazy, just rent the DVD “King Corn”. Same as “Omnivore’s Dilemma”.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Getting the ag subsidies in-line with the food pyramid is a good way to start. There’s nothing like Congress massively subsidizing foods in one program, and then having the FDA say those foods should only be consumed in moderation.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Nathan, did you really read what Matt wrote? I don’t think that he was arguing that we should throw away farm subsidies, but rather we shouldn’t be subsidizing really unhealthy foods (high fructose corn syrup) which also have a negative impact on the environment (see: fertilizer runoff).
December 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Benny Lava-
I did, and I know he doesn’t mean transitioning to a zero-subsidy world. What he does mean, though, is transitioning to a local, small-scale agriculture that favors taste over price. I’m very much in favor of ending the incestuous corn subsidies and sugar tarriffs that give us high fructose corn syrup. But attempting to shoehorn the national farm industry into a locally grown farmer’s market model would deemphasize production and, inevitably, food costs will rise, which I don’t think is something that should be taken lightly.
Let rich people pay for local produce and sure, make adjustments. But let poor people around the world benefit from the current economy of scale.
Again, I think Matt has some worthy points, he just takes it too far, just like Kristof and especially Pollan.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Matt doesn’t live in a world where poor people exist. He understands that somewhere, they live. But he has no real understanding of what it means to be poor and the degree to which a cheap-food policy really does help them.
In Matt’s world, on the wealthy would be able to eat anything but organ meat. I really don’t understand that to most Americans, Beef and corn products aren’t that cheap.
What we need, long before we can reform food policy, is to reform education so that socio-economic status at birth didn’t almost single-handedly determine who was rich and who was poor. Then we need welfare reform to make sure that the poor aren’t too poor and that the rich aren’t too rich. Until then, this isn’t really the most important reform we need.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Nathan – As an aside – do we really have that many starving people here in the US? I mean, we have plenty of malnourished people, but that’s a different problem altogether and one that Matt is addressing in his post.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
And Soullite – that’s just a dumb reading of what Matt is saying. Actually, I’m more inclined to call it dishonest since I think you’re perfectly capable of understanding what the suggestion is – subsidize, you know, healthy foods, instead of high fructose corn syrup and beef. It’s really trollish to deny that’s what the post is about.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hey, I wonder where we could find a lot more money for education and welfare?
December 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Dying of starvation? Maybe not. Undernourished? A whole lot. There are millions of kids who go to bed hungry. Explain to me how that reinforces Matt’s point and not mine?
December 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Okay. A fair question that deserves a fair response. Two things: 1) You’re confusing terms like “hungry” with terms like “mal/undernourished.” You can eat fritos all day and chicken nuggets all day and you won’t be hungry. But you will be undernourished. The States have a problem wherein we subsidize all kinds of high calorie, low nutrient foods (mainly through corn and corn-products, like beef). As a result, you can be eat a lot, and even be fat, yet still be undernourished. 2) Kids, especially, need to nutrients. It’s not just some sort of vague “veggies are good for you” kind of sentiment. It has real effects on cognitive and physical developement. Ergo, Matt suggests we stop or reduce subsidies to things like corn and beef and shift resources to things that kids need. Subsidizie fruit and vegetable growers, and then maybe we’ll have a healthier population.
Is it guaranteed to work? No. But this is a blog. Some ideas are thrown out, ways in which the existing system can be improved are suggested, etc. Blurting out things like “poor people don’t exist for Matt” are not really helpful.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
And though status quo ag policy may be bad for small towns in Oregon, trying to massively switch consumption in favor of fresh, seasonal, local produced food would be a disaster for farmers in Iowa.
True, but it would be a victory of sorts for eaters in Iowa, the Dakotas, Nebraska and elsewhere. Commodity farming ironically deprives many farmers of access to fresh food. A working farmer usually doesn’t have time to actually grow a garden. And nobody for miles and miles does either. They end up eating their own corn via Hamburger Helper and Mt. Dew.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Francisco-
I see what you’re saying, and you can definitely build on your response and make Matt’s case for nutrition. For instance, Matt’s model that favors nutrition, food might cost more, so ok, you expand the food stamp program to ensure that poor people have better access to nutritious food. Voila — healthier nation.
However, I think there are some problems with the model.
First, who knows how much it would cost to deemphasize production while simultaneously expanding benefits for poor people. In essence, we’d pay for it through higher food costs (which would have similar effects as higher oil prices) and presumably through an expanded food stamp program.
Second, food is already cheap! Produce is cheap! Sure, there are some distortions that favor high fructose corn syrup, which leads to the multi-faceted insanity of the McDonalds Dollar Menu. But it’s still cheap to cook your own meal. It’s a scandal that the poor lack access to decent grocery stores, but I see that as a zoning problem. Better nutrition could happen through eduction and access to grocery stores rather than dismantling our current program.
Third, even if we did skew the farm program to deemphasize production and stable prices in favor of nutrition, food prices are going to go up for the rest of the world, and will have a tremendously destabilizing effects on the urban poor. There are already economists calling for more food production, abolishing restrictions on HMOs, and more investment in infrastructure in order to keep food prices down. Matt wants to do the opposite. If enough Western countries follow the lead, it’s a recipe for global chaos.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
On the other hand, as Pollan points out, the corn/soy culture in Iowa is a kind of treadmill that the farmers would long to get off. You get a situation where farmers overproduce, the price falls, and the federal government makes up the difference, thus subsidising the buyers. The result is a mountain range of corn and soy looking for stuff to be done with it, hence corn-fed livestock, corn ethanol and HFCS.
The farmer that Pollan cites in the book spends $2.50 to grow a bushel of corn that sells for $1.50. He needs to produce more each year to maintain cashflow, even though it depresses the price further and degrades the land.
That’s to say, if there were a way to break the cycle of dependency, you’d likely find farmers willing to diversify. The point of comparison here is likely the tobacco buyout, where similar monopsony powers are wielded by the corporate buyers. Now, that arrangement rewarded large growers over small, thanks to the concentration of quota holdings, but the notion of a ten-year transition period for farmers makes sense as a way of introducing new crops and encouraging new buyers, and provides some kind of going-concern support where needed.
December 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Ha — meant GMOs, but wouldn’t be said to see HMOs gone either.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
One of the points Pollan makes in Omnivore’s Dilemma is that the proportion of household income spent on food has declined significantly, just as the proportion spent on health care has increased. For all the talk about the poor, the fact is that food is incredibly and artificially cheap, and that the wrong types of food are being kept cheap.
BTW, Ezra Klein talked about the idea of a Department of Food on Bloggingheads last week.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Best place to tackle food policy is health care. ‘Cause our food is killing us.
And Pollen’s other book, “In Defense of Food,” is probably not as fun to read, but is likely to more important to you overall. Anyone who eats should read it.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
First, who knows how much it would cost to deemphasize production while simultaneously expanding benefits for poor people. In essence, we’d pay for it through higher food costs (which would have similar effects as higher oil prices) and presumably through an expanded food stamp program.
We’d SAVE money by ending the subsidies though, and reap benefits from better land/energy use and nutrition – the whole point of the idea is that the economic efficiency would be greater with the reform.
Second, food is already cheap! Produce is cheap! Sure, there are some distortions that favor high fructose corn syrup, which leads to the multi-faceted insanity of the McDonalds Dollar Menu. But it’s still cheap to cook your own meal. It’s a scandal that the poor lack access to decent grocery stores, but I see that as a zoning problem. Better nutrition could happen through eduction and access to grocery stores rather than dismantling our current program.
Energy is, all things considered, pretty cheap too. But it would be insanity to subsidize gas down to $0.25 a gallon. The things on the dollar menu, for example, are cheap crap. And at that price, might as well eat two or three! A healthy meal with a few vegetables isn’t even on the radar.
Third, even if we did skew the farm program to deemphasize production and stable prices in favor of nutrition, food prices are going to go up for the rest of the world, and will have a tremendously destabilizing effects on the urban poor. There are already economists calling for more food production, abolishing restrictions on HMOs, and more investment in infrastructure in order to keep food prices down. Matt wants to do the opposite. If enough Western countries follow the lead, it’s a recipe for global chaos.
But the problem is precisely that the mountains of cheap corn are being turned into HFCS and cheap beef – and giving Americans diabetes, NOT feeding the world’s hungry.
Besides, super-cheap (heavily subsidized…) grain from the US undercuts and kills domestic agriculture in developing countries.
A smart price stabilization program might have some merit in the new order, but this just isn’t the way to do it.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
jack-
Matt isn’t advocating eliminating subsidies, just redistributing them to emphasize locally grown, presumably smaller-scale (and thereby less efficient), and healthy food. We wouldn’t save on subsidies, and any spending that decreases production is going to count twice — first you pay for the subsidies, then you pay for the higher-priced food at the checkout stand, then you pay for the food stamps to keep poor people eating. I just don’t think it’s a very rational policy.
Again, I agree there are problems and unintended consequences with heavily subsidized corn, tarrifs on sugar, and we don’t get a great bang for the book. We could do a lot more good by reallocating the resources in a smarter fashion that emphasizes sane levels of production among true staple crops (rice, wheat) and eliminates needless distortions. However, I still think the overall goal should be to emphasize production.
And the argument that we’re killing domestic agriculture in developing countries… it just doesn’t add up, particularly when food prices are high. And that’s because what these countries lack is not high prices, but rather the infrastructure to compete in the global economy. Brazil has ridden investment in agriculture into a pretty expansive boom (granted, at some pretty perilous environmental costs).
What the developing world needs is investment in economically sustainable agriculture to compete with the global food economy while maintaining low food prices to feed their (mainly urban poor) populations. More and more people live in cities in the developing world now, and food price shocks starve and radicalize them.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Matt isn’t advocating eliminating subsidies, just redistributing them to emphasize locally grown, presumably smaller-scale (and thereby less efficient), and healthy food. We wouldn’t save on subsidies, and any spending that decreases production is going to count twice — first you pay for the subsidies, then you pay for the higher-priced food at the checkout stand, then you pay for the food stamps to keep poor people eating. I just don’t think it’s a very rational policy.
I think the key phrase in Matt’s post was if we’re going to subsidize. Ideally, we’re not really subsidizing at all.
But you still can’t have it both ways – if we took all the corn subsidies and put it into kale and squash, than we increase the checkout price on some items, but decrease it on others. It’s not obvious that the balance (and the need for food stamps) is shifting upward in that case. And keep in mind one of the goals of this is probably to reduce average caloric intake, so it’s okay for people to be buying LESS by that measure.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
California, by contrast, has both good farmland and metro areas full of people who could be buying locally produced food.
This blog needs a better set of commenter. McArdle once wrote something like “California isn’t a big dairy state”, third or fourth comment was that California is a big dairy state, the biggest as a matter of fact.
I’m not going to go dig out figures but it’s very probable that California is also the biggest fruit and vegetable producing state. So Californians are already eating locally produced produce. Unless someone is proposing bulldozing all of Oakland so that lettuce could be grown for San Francisco supermarkets….
December 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Jack-
Again, I’m not quibbling with the idea of redistributing the subsidies to emphasize certain (presumably healthier) foods over others in a way that resolves distortions like high fructose corn syrup being cheaper than actual sugar. Sure, kale over corn. Works for me.
That’s not what I’m arguing with. What Matt is proposing is to shift American agriculture from a (yes, industrial) model that benefits from the economy of scale and emphasizes production, resulting in plentiful food at relatively low prices, to a model that emphasizes smaller-scale, local, healthier production. That is a radical, radical shift, and I’ve never seen him explain how he or we would pay for a model that deemphasizes production where there’s much less supply amid growing worldwide demand.
I’m well aware of the adverse affects of the modern system, including dumping cheap food on the world and environmental costs. But amid rising food prices we need MORE food, not less. People aren’t learning the right lessons from oil shocks — it can happen with food too! We don’t have endlessly farmable land with endless production. We’re taking farm productivity for granted. Amid rising food prices that are threatening to plunge millions of people back into poverty, the last thing we need to be doing is engaging in pie in the sky idealism about everyone in America buying produce from their friendly neighborhood farmer.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Again, I agree there are problems and unintended consequences with heavily subsidized corn, tarrifs on sugar, and we don’t get a great bang for the book. We could do a lot more good by reallocating the resources in a smarter fashion that emphasizes sane levels of production among true staple crops (rice, wheat) and eliminates needless distortions. However, I still think the overall goal should be to emphasize production.
I think that’s really crazy as an overall goal. Production of what? Things we’re very good at producing efficiently, but in enormous quantities have no sane use?
A lot of Americans (myself included!) are really good at watching movies. Should we use taxpayer dollars to employ people to do that? Of course not. We let the market allocate – a handful of reviewers and such DO find productive employment that way, but it’d be wasteful for the rest of us to work that way.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
That’s not what I’m arguing with. What Matt is proposing is to shift American agriculture from a (yes, industrial) model that benefits from the economy of scale and emphasizes production, resulting in plentiful food at relatively low prices, to a model that emphasizes smaller-scale, local, healthier production. That is a radical, radical shift, and I’ve never seen him explain how he or we would pay for a model that deemphasizes production where there’s much less supply amid growing worldwide demand.
I don’t think that’s the proposal at all. The point is the deadweight loss caused by (explicit and implicit) subsidies. Period. The rest – vegetables, farmers markets, less meat, etc., is embellishment.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Also, I think I’d dispute your definition of “production”. It’s not a race to simply produce the most (what? kilotons? petacalories?). I mean, if so, yeah, cheap staple crops all the way.
But the point is really to feed people nutritiously and sustainably. We’re trying to change the MIX of foods, not the level of production.
That applies to aid to developing countries too – it needs to work as a lump sum transfer like food stamp, used to purchase a healthy mix of foods, not a flood of cheap grain.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Uhhhh…. cheap food at stable prices is a crazy goal? Tell that to the millions of people who spend 50% of their income on food.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Or heck, to the Americans who spend a ridiculously low 10% of their food on income and use the rest of their money to drive the economy. The current program has historically ensured that farmers plant more food than otherwise might have been economically feasible, which results in lower prices. In most industries, that’s stupid. But we all have to eat, and preferably cheaply.
And I personally feel that people have gotten a pretty good deal over the years. Yeah, it’s gotten out of whack and needs some adjusting. But the overall goal of providing a baseline of production and stability in the food supply is a worthy one that I think a lot of people take for granted.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Er, income on food. Can’t type today.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Bad that is! We need good healthy.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Speaking seriously tho, if we let the market allocate the price of food, then many millions more will starve to death worldwide in the short term. While what we choose to subsidize is hideous and leads to a negative cycle of bad food to bad diet to ethanol to bad food, the fact is most modern nations do subsidize their agriculture business, and us choosing not to would put agricultural states on a weaker economic footing, lead to more deforestation in Brazil, and greater starvation throughout the third world.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Emphasizing the production of cheap cereals (and thus meat and HFCS) is a crazy goal, yes.
That might be your goal if the problem was simply a lack of calories (or protein). But it’s not – in the US the problem is, if anything, a relative glut of them, and in the developing world, the problems are considerably more complex.
Nobody is talking about reducing food production by any meaningful measure. It’s just that the goal of the food system needs to be producing value and nutrition – not just millions of tons of empty grain-based calories.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Jack-
I’m not sure why you keep disagreeing with the very thing we’re in agreement on.
MATT is talking about reducing food production by suggesting that we emphasize locally grown produce, i.e. “fresh, seasonal, local produced food,” over the current model that emphasizes large scale production. Matt’s idea sounds innocuous but what I am (repeatedly) saying is that a program that emphasizes a local model of agricultural is one that deemphasizes production, and that is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing at the moment.
You and I can sing kumbaya until we’re blue in the face about the need to target more sane crops with subsidies. But let’s not get on the track of deemphasizing cheap food at the very time that food prices are on the rise.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
MATT is talking about reducing food production by suggesting that we emphasize locally grown produce, i.e. “fresh, seasonal, local produced food,” over the current model that emphasizes large scale production. Matt’s idea sounds innocuous but what I am (repeatedly) saying is that a program that emphasizes a local model of agricultural is one that deemphasizes production, and that is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing at the moment.
Matt (and I) think that if the existing perverse subsidy structure were to disappear, this would make locally produced food more economically competitive in a lot of areas, and more nutritious food more competitive everywhere.
I’m not clear on how that “deemphasizes production” in any way except inasmuch as it might lead to a somewhat lower proportion of corn, corn syrup, and Iowa beef in the mix of food that is consumed.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Food is a global commodity. The United States is a major food exporter. Food prices are currently rising. Millions are starving to death because of these rising prices. Restructuring of agriculture takes time. And in the end, large farms are more productive than small farms.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
And in the end, large farms are more productive than small farms.
That’s an extreme generalization that isn’t actually true in a lot of cases.
That aside, no one is talking about breaking up large farms and shipping the farmers off to live in communes.
We’re talking about removing unnecessary subsidies for grain and meat and corn syrup. Maybe adjusting some regulations that unnecessarily discriminate against small farms, and, ideally, taxing carbon emissions from all sources. After that, economically productive farms, whatever their size or location, will still thrive.
What exactly is the problem?
As for the global food crisis, it is considerably more complex than “High Prices Bad”.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Does the complexity of the global food crisis somehow skirt the fact that high prices are in fact bad? Does the complexity change the fact that the higher prices get, the more people die? You sound like a British lord in the aftermath of the potato famine, talking about market rationality – supply, demand, self-sustaining – regarding real human crisis as a short term complication best left ignored.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Sustenance farming, sustainable gardening and other forms of urban gardening tend not to show up in the GDP, but can be life saving in terms of nutrition. The proverbial market simply doesn’t account for some things as sensible as people growing their own food instead of starving and/or slaving to produce food for export.
Land use is a big can worms that will probably not be seriously addressed until a scary amount of land is made worthless and hunger is rampant in the wealthier nations. I think it would be wise to subsidize small sustainable farms for the long term benefit of having arable land, cutting down the costs of storing and shipping food, having the flexibility to change planting patterns to accommodate changes in weather/water, and to cultivate a new approach to farming.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Of course, decreasing the production of maize in the US would drive up the price and cause a lot of people in the poorer parts of the world to starve to death, just as diverting maize production into gasohol threatened to do the same thing. But you can’t expect Yglesias to understand the complexities of modern agriculture: he doesn’t know anything about it. He doesn’t know that the Haber-Bosch process keeps a third of the world fed, he doesn’t know how dwarf rice and wheat (the heart of the Green revolution) played a similar role: why, he probably doesn’t even know that maize is a C4 plant while wheat is C3.
He needs to spend more time on the subjects he really does understand. What were they, by the way?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:05 am
gcochran: once you’ve removed that corncob from your ass, please tell us why it’s a good thing that Iowa farmers who don’t particularly like growing corn and soy continue to do so, at ever-decreasing returns, because it’s the only game in town and the federal checks pay their bills?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Does the complexity change the fact that the higher prices get, the more people die?
The complexity comes into play when the higher food prices that starve people also make sustainable local food production in less developed areas economically viable. When artificially cheap crops flood world markets, remote low tech farms of the third world aren’t in a position to compete effectively. Most of the desertification and deforestation worldwide stems from agricultural practices focused on short term outcomes, not long term viability. Poor countries with shocked/stressed agricultural sectors can starve people as effectively as high prices can.
I don’t know if pointing out how some of these issues really are complex makes me sound like a British lord or not, but it really isn’t as simple as “high prices bad”.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
why, he probably doesn’t even know that maize is a C4 plant while wheat is C3.
Cause everyone knows that ignorance of the metabolic pathways in grasses disqualifies you from having opinions about agricultural subsidies in exactly the same way that ignorance of Farsi means you can’t have anything useful to say about whether or not we should bomb Iran. Jerk.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 am
How many people do you suppose need to die off to restore equilibrium? Because that is what we’re talking about.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I don’t think people dying off is the answer Max Hats. As thrilling as it might be to some to start killing people in the name of human survival, it’s probably not necessary. We can do better than that.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Okay, so food becomes more expensive but as food is becoming more expensive then magically all these new, uh, “sustainable” crops start being harvested in the sahara to offset that and, uh, I don’t even know anymore. Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s what I know:
1) As food gets more expensive, more people die.
2) Third worlders, noble savages they are (uh, that’s what you’re trying to communicate right?) in fact already do know the secrets of agriculture, and use this venerable skill wherever land and water are available. The idea that there is all this phantom agricultural capacity in the developing world that is neglected by the locals is insane. What makes their farms so much less productive than our farms largely comes down to capital and water.
3) this:
Is a list of things that people have been working on for centuries.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:21 am
The end of this post is a non-sequitor that suggests Matt doesn’t know much about either geography or agriculture.
If sustainability is the measure, the claim that California has “good land” couldn’t be further from the truth. Most California agriculture is extensively irrigated and input intensive. Much of the “land” is piss poor, especially in comparison to a place like Iowa. Much of southern California does, however, enjoy a 12 month growing season, a great advantage over a place like Iowa.
Meanwhile, it’s about a four hour drive from the Imperial Valley to LA, about the same distance as any place in eastern Iowa to Chicago or southern Iowa to KC and St. Louis or northern Iowa to Minneapolis. The idea that there isn’t a large supple of people within a days drive — what “local” means functionally — suggests a lack of familiarity with Midwestern geography. There are plenty of people nearby to buy Iowa produce. But in order to make produce farming work outside of niche markets, you need to have a 12 month growing season (assuming you are competing against produce being farmed in a place that does have a 12 month growing season).
People seem to forget: “going local” doesn’t just mean more expensive food; it also means having to radically reduce your expectations about food availability. Unless everyone is prepared to live in SoCal, eating locally will mean considerably less fresh produce in the winter. Of course, if everyone lived in SoCal, there wouldn’t be enough water to irrigate all those crops. But that’s the sort of trade-off of which Matt doesn’t appear to be aware.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:08 am
1) As food gets more expensive, more people die.
See, that’s where you’re wrong. Simplistically (which is apparently all we’re capable of here), high prices are not the problem. Low incomes are.
And the way to remedy that is not with supply distorting subsidies to first world farmers, it’s with transfer payments to those who can’t otherwise afford food at the higher prices.
And with the higher prices, more local farmers in placing like Haiti will be able to make a living, putting more land in prodoction, and diversifying the food supply to help insulate from future shocks. (And with good governance, perhaps further capital improvements can be made, and some of that income used to help on the path to development – but at minimum at least it puts a little less pressure on developing world cities.)
Meanwhile, higher prices cause somewhat less corn to be diverted in the first world to make nutritionally questionable things sodas and Big Macs, and more to be available for making something decent like tortillas to actually feed people – even if corn production overall actually decreases.
But no, I’m sure pursuing a policy of rock bottom global corn prices is really the answer here. It’s worked so well so far. Silly me.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:17 am
People seem to forget: “going local” doesn’t just mean more expensive food; it also means having to radically reduce your expectations about food availability. Unless everyone is prepared to live in SoCal, eating locally will mean considerably less fresh produce in the winter. Of course, if everyone lived in SoCal, there wouldn’t be enough water to irrigate all those crops. But that’s the sort of trade-off of which Matt doesn’t appear to be aware.
Yes. Matt’s proposal of capital punishment for anyone who ships food long distances is really over the top.
Wait. What?
December 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Also, as a correlary, if corn subsidies go so do ethanol subsidies.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
This is a strange argument. What we have is farm subsidies causing cheap sugars to be produced and consumed, which is causing increases in obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. However, it would be immoral to cut these subsidies and replace them with subsidies for produce because it would cause people in impoverished third world nations to starve. I’m sorry Nathan, but that argument is pretty stupid.
Farm subsidies on corn need to go. Now what they are replaced with is an interesting argument. G is correct that California has an advantage of being able to grow produce in the winter. So if we want more produce, especially in the winter, this might make subsidies more difficult. Also, how do we define local? These are interesting questions. But the argument that Americans must continue to fund cheap sugars so that the 3rd world doesn’t starve is absurd.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It would be stupid, or at least simplistic, if that were actually my argument. But I think I’ve repeated myself enough for the armchair aggies that I don’t need to weigh in again.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
It would be stupid, or at least simplistic, if that were actually my argument. But I think I’ve repeated myself enough for the armchair aggies that I don’t need to weigh in again.
Honestly, your position still isn’t all that clear to me.
I think the problem here is that a number of commenters, yourself included, seem to be very badly misconstruing Matt’s argument.
And I probably haven’t been all that helpful in fixing that misunderstanding, rather than just mocking the weird strawmen that are showing up. But it’s really hard for me to see what exactly was unclear about the post.
Please just try re-reading this post (and maybe other things Matt’s written on the subject), but this time WITHOUT imagining that he is proposing a wholesale dismantling of industrial agriculture and the forced relocation of all farmers to small communes in Southern California…
December 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Nathan, what is your argument exactly? You’ve contradicted yourself numerous times in this thread:
First, you are claiming that Matt is advocating for throwing subsidies in the “trash heap”.
Next, you are arguing that Matt does favor subsidies, but ones that emphasize aristocratic preference for “organic” food or flavor, at the expense of the poor.
Here you contradict yourself and concede that Matt might actually be favoring nutrition, not taste.
Here you insert your assumption (without any evidence I might add) that Matt’s idea will be less efficient, and therefore total agricultural output will lessen and food will be more expensive.
This little nugget is rather nonsensical, but sort of explains your position. For you it seems that growing massive amounts of corn is good, even though you contradict this sentiment just a paragraph earlier:
I can’t really figure out if you have a cohesive argument or are an idiot or just a troll (or some combination thereof). So you like the idea of reducing farm subsidies for cheap corn, but then you hate that idea because it will starve the poor? Seriously, are you stupid?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Matt isn’t advocating eliminating subsidies, just redistributing them to emphasize locally grown, presumably smaller-scale (and thereby less efficient), and healthy food.
As a footnote to Benny, I’d point out that this statement (and others like it made by several commenters in the thread) is unsupported by a clear reading of the post – the third sentence of which notes the “questionable economics” of food subsidies of any kind.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Lots of base-stealing by the defenders of the subsidy status quo in this thread.
We have a massive food surplus in the global food economy right now, and people are still starving. Hunger in the developing world is not caused by a lack of good being grown globally, but by local poverty, much of it sustained by the inability of the locals to compete with subsidized Big Agra. Don’t give me this “how many people do you want to starve?” crap – the people making it impossible for a farmer in Africa to keep his family afloat by selling his produce are starving them right now, under the existing system of big, export-oriented American agriculture.
And so, he doesn’t make a profit. And so, local farm suppliers don’t make a profit off of him. And so, the profits earned on the grain sold in the local markets are transfered to the American midwest. But remember, it’s the people who want him to be able to sell his produce, and the money sent to the US to keep circulating in the local economy, who are keeping people from being able to afford food.
Right.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Also, I take issue with this statement:
Is produce really cheap? If that is true, why is getting proper nutrition difficult, why are sugary and fatty foods so much cheaper, and why do children go to bed hungry as you claim?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jack-
Well, thanks for dialing it back. I also want to admit that I’m not responding just on this particular post but to Matt’s series of blithe posts about the “no-brainer” need to fundamentally change our farm policy. Urban wonks like him and the NY Times editorial board simply don’t understand farm policy and take what we have for granted. So I’ll admit that my arguments might seem strange because they’re tackling issues beyond just this point.
As I’ve said, I think we have problems with the currently subsidy system, which has historically been geared around a few key crops. It makes sense especially (or at least it does to me) for rice and wheat — it keeps the very basic foods rice and bread cheap, which I think is a net gain for the US and the entire world (at the expense of some third world farmers who are plugged into the global food economy but who lose due to lower prices). And until the recent food shock, there had been less hunger around the world than at any time in its history. Part of that is economic, but a big part of that is also cheap food. Overproduction of food (from an economic standpoint) is good because it depresses prices, allowing nearly the entire world to be fed cheaply.
But as we’ve seen, terrifically strong corn and sugar lobbies have resulted in intense subsidies for corn and import tariffs for sugar, resulting in the rise of the sugar beet in the US at the expense of, say, Brazillian cane sugar and ethanol, and, of course, high fructose corn syrup, corn fed livestock, and inefficient corn-based ethanol. I’m not a fan of any of that, and would like to see us change our policy. So yes — let’s adjust some of these unhealthy distortions with a goal of making produce more affordable.
I’m also skeptical that simply making produce more affordable and HFCS more expensive is really going to make people eat more salad, but that’s a discussion for another day.
The main disagreement I have with Matt is that he wants to shift our farm policy’s emphasis to a local model where most food is grown close to urban centers. This is not smart, except as specialty items. Most food right now is grown where it is grown best. Not all soil is created equal. Land in Northern California is good for rice but nothing else. Southern California can grow basically everything because of the weather and soil, but you have water issues. Growing food locally on a small scale is inefficient, and the environmental benefits are not clear at all. Large farm operations benefit from economics of scale. If we switch to a local system, food costs are going to rise.
And that is precisely the opposite of what we should be emphasizing. We should be encouraging more food production in the face of rising food costs. That is a benefit for the US (the less we spend on food the more we can spend on other things that drive the economy) and it’s a benefit for the world (fewer people starving).
Let the rich satisfy their agrarian nostalgia and palate with expensive locally grown organic food. The food industry is already adjusting. But let’s not forget the rest of humanity by blithely suggesting policies that will raise food prices across the globe at precisely the time we need to be trying to lower them.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
You know where produce is cheap? Local farmers markets.
It’s a lot cheaper than the stuff the supermarket sells – you know, the imported stuff from larger scale farms across the country or the world.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
You mean the farmer’s market that is open once a week, for a few hours, for a few months of the year?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
at the expense of some third world farmers who are plugged into the global food economy but who lose due to lower prices.
With subsidized American grains taking up such a large market share in developing countries, it’s not just the farmers “who are plugged into the global food economy” who lose out, but those trying to sell locally.
Assuming these countries are always going to be in poverty, so the only humane thing is to subsidize food exported there, without looking at how that subsidized food keeps their economies from developing, is incredibly paternalistic.
Assuming that food scarcity in the developing world is a conequences of their being unable to produce enough food, as opposed to poverty, is hugely wide of the mark.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Here’s some more background in an article from Foreign Affairs.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
You know where produce is cheap? Local farmers markets.
It’s a lot cheaper than the stuff the supermarket sells – you know, the imported stuff from larger scale farms across the country or the world.
Uh………. yeah, I’m done. This is insane.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Assuming these countries are always going to be in poverty, so the only humane thing is to subsidize food exported there, without looking at how that subsidized food keeps their economies from developing, is incredibly paternalistic.
I’m assuming that people are going to leave farms, go to cities and become part of a productive economy while the countryside becomes more efficient, like in China. It’s paternalistic to think all these peasants should somehow stay on their land, farm inefficiently and hope to somehow raise their way out of grinding poverty.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’d like to see some evidence for this claim. I don’t believe it.
California is the #1 dairy producer in the US. Is that because it has the most open grassland for cows to graze? Do you really think So. Cal. has good topsoil? Are you aware that So. Cal. is a desert (hence the “water issues”)?
There is a reason that small farms went through a tough period in the 70s and through today.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
You mean the farmer’s market that is currently open once a week, for a few hours, for a few months of the year?
There, fixed that for you. This is a thread about shifting agricultural production so that locally-grown foods, and produce vs. grains (like what gets sold in farmers markets) constitutes a larger share of the food market, meaning the availabilitiy problem you bring up would go away.
Had you forgotten?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Uh………. yeah, I’m done. This is insane.
Nathan’s never actually been to a farmer’s market, but he read in Reason magazine that rich city-folk go there, and it’s really expensive.
Nathan, I’m telling you – doling out my lived, real-world experience for your benefit – that the same types of produce are cheaper at farmers markets and farm stands than at the supermarket.
You’re welcome.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The main disagreement I have with Matt is that he wants to shift our farm policy’s emphasis to a local model where most food is grown close to urban centers.
I have some quibbles with your second paragraph, but I think this is the key point of disagreement:
This is absolutely not what Matt is proposing.
I think possibly it confuses people when he spills a lot of ink on it, but if you look carefully, there is just no policy proposal in there to artificially distort the market in favor of small and/or local farms.
What he IS saying is that when subsidies are removed and the artificially large price gap between the industrial muck and fresher, more nutritious food thereby shrinks, we’ll tend to see a relative increase in demand for better food. Thus, a larger market for small and local farmers.
I think perhaps he overestimates (or at least overstates) the likely magnitude of this effect, but it’s not ridiculous.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Had Nathan ever been to a farmer’s market, he wouldn’t think they consist mainly, or even to any significant degree, of organic foods or specialty items.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Here is a different perspective on food prices, from the same publication:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080528faupdate87376/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-ethanol-fuels-the-food-crisis.html
December 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I’m assuming that people are going to leave farms, go to cities and become part of a productive economy while the countryside becomes more efficient, like in China. Urbanization can’t happen when there is a strong rural economy? Is that what happened in the US between the early 19th and mid-20th centuries, when our society urbanized?
But it’s touching that you’re willing to assume an adequate number of urban jobs for the “peasants” your policies are destituting, despite the countries in question being impoversished as a result of their agricultural sectors being undermined by subsidized imports.
It’s paternalistic to think all these peasants should somehow stay on their land, farm inefficiently and hope to somehow raise their way out of grinding poverty.
Oh, I see. Since you don’t think that it’s best for them to be farmers, you’re actually doing them a favor by making it impossible for them to make a living as farmers. Remember, we’re not talking about whether we should stop people who want to leave their farms for the city from doin so, but about stopping subsidies to their competitors – and you’re against that, because you think it’s for their own good. How humane, and non-paternalistic.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
…and, of course, it is specifically those subsidized imports that make farming in so many countries a one-way ticket to grinding poverty.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I would also add that industrial farming has the invisible subsidies of ignoring environmental costs. Which reduces the reduces the “efficiency” of huge farms by quite a lot. That subsidy must be addressed or even big agra will eventually be unable to grow whatever mono-crop is currently the most lucrative, regardless of how heavily they’re subsidised.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jack-
If your argument characterizes Matt’s position better than mine then I guess we’re much more in agreement across the board. My feeling is that he would rather we have smaller, less efficient farms. If I’m wrong on that and he just wants to adjust the subsidy program to remove unhealthy distortions we’re probably all pretty much in agreement.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
My feeling is that he would rather we have smaller, less efficient farms. If I’m wrong on that and he just wants to adjust the subsidy program to remove unhealthy distortions we’re probably all pretty much in agreement.
I think it’s fair to say that Matt is sympathetic to the idea of more small and local farms. But that is because he thinks that in some ways the smaller farms are MORE efficient, so they would thrive under a less distortionary subsidy regime.
But that’s a very far cry from supporting policies that would actively support inefficient small farms to the detriment of everything else.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
And if you can see that, then yeah, we’re probably closer to agreement. Although I still think you’re backwards on subsidies for grains being a good thing for hunger generally.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Well, I think growing local seems more efficient on the surface level than in reality. It intuitively seems to make more sense to grow food close to population centers rather than shipping it all over the globe. But the loss of productivity through scale and efficiency (similar to artisans vs. factories) and by not growing food where it is best grown (for instance, rice is grown best in California, Arkansas and Louisiana because they have the best soil/climate for it) negates the productivity benefit of the food being local. There are definitely some benefits, especially in taste, but I personally feel they are outweighed by loss of productivity in a time when we need more of it. Let the industry follow the market for local produce, but overall I think the farm program should be geared toward emphasizing production.
And yeah, we can agree to disagree on subsidies for grains being good for hunger globally. I would prefer a situation where US food had more market access, countries didn’t engage in export restrictions, and the EU and Japan also ended subsidies and opened up their markets. That isn’t going to happen, though, and for now I think subsidies are the least-bad solution to a host of complex issues.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Let the industry follow the market for local produce, but overall I think the farm program should be geared toward emphasizing production.
I don’t think we two (and Matt) disagree on the local issue. Post subsidies, Local farms that are able to deliver a better product, or a cheaper product, or a fresher product, or whatever will do well. Those that don’t, won’t.
I’m curious what “emphasizing production” means in practice though. Is this a reference to continued subsidies on wheat or what-have-you? I don’t see how it makes any sense except as a statement in support of a policy that will distort the supply (production) of certain foods, at the expense of others (and of overall efficiency).
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra