Hi Derek and all It's good to see this there. And here! Thankyou.
Some gleanings from SANET (Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group): >... there is a remarkable data base where you can view exact >amount of subsidies, by state, by crop and by recipient. No need to argue >about the matter. > >http://www.ewg.org/farm/ > >Ronald Nigh http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2003-10-09/guest.asp Chico News and Review - Guest Commentary - October 9, 2003 How subsidies hurt farmers By Greg Massa Greg Massa is a rice farmer who lives in Hamilton City www.agpolicy.org Thank you for your editorial about U.S. farm subsidies ["Bringing it home," Sept. 18]. It is important for taxpayers to know how their money is being spent. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that subsidies "are good for farmers, at least in the short term." U.S. agriculture is in a policy-caused economic crisis. In the 1996 Farm Bill ("Freedom to Farm"), Congress abandoned traditional market stabilizing tools, such as supply management in the form of "set-aside" programs, in favor of decoupled payments and trade liberalization. Since then, U.S. commodity prices have plummeted, taking world prices along with them. Government payments are up over 100 percent, and net farm income has declined anyway. Economists told us exports would save us, but U.S. farm exports have been down to flat for the past two decades. Continuation of current farm policy will only lead to more of the same: Prices received by farmers will be below the cost of production, leading to large government payments, continued dumping of agricultural products on the world market, and depressed crop prices worldwide. How did we get here? Well, think about who benefits from low commodity prices. It's not the farmer. Large grain companies, such as Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, are the ones who benefit from the low prices induced by U.S. ag policy! The 1996 Farm Bill was designed to generate a steady supply of cheap grain to fill the bank accounts of Cargill and ADM. They don't have to pay the full cost of production if they can get taxpayers to do it for them. So should we just eliminate all the subsidies? If we do, according to the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC) at the University of Tennessee, by 2011, net farm income will drop by 25 percent as prices remain flat, increasing only 2 percent by 2020. This is not an acceptable solution for rural areas such as ours, with our high unemployment rates and financially strapped local governments. How do we get out of here? I don't pretend to know enough economics to answer that question. However, other people do. APAC recently released a study entitled, "Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide." I encourage everyone interested in how their tax dollars are spent to read this research. It takes a comprehensive look at how U.S. ag policy affects global trade, low commodity prices and poverty. Things are bad now, but the policy blueprint laid out in the APAC report could be a step in the right direction. Might I suggest that the News & Review do a bit of thinking about ag subsidies, rather than just taking a superficial look at them? ----- http://www.agriculture.utk.edu/news/releases/0309_AgPolicyHelpsFarmers.htm The University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture SEptember 3, 2003 Changes to U.S. Ag Policy Could Help Farmers Worldwide The report: Rethinking US Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide Executive Summary http://www.agpolicy.org/blueprint/Summary.pdf Full Report http://www.agpolicy.org/blueprint/APAC%20Report%208-20-03%20WITH%20COVER.pdf Best Keith >Those Illegal Farm Subsidies > >Published: April 28, 2004 > >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/opinion/28WED1.html?th > >America's lavish handouts to its farmers harvest poverty throughout >the developing world. And they are illegal as well. That's the >conclusion of a World Trade Organization panel that heard Brazil's >challenge to the cotton subsidies that belie this nation's >commitment to free and fair trade. > >Cotton is far from the only crop that American farmers are able to >dump on the international market at low prices thanks to federal >subsidies. But it is one of the most outrageous cases. Brazil was >wise in choosing it as the first target in the developing world's >challenge of the roughly $1 billion a day in subsidies that rich >nations dole out to their farmers. If the preliminary ruling stands, >as expected, it may mean the beginning of the end for European and >American practices that provide their farmers an unfair advantage. > >In addition to Brazil, an agricultural superpower, some of the >world's poorest nations, including the West African republics of >Mali, Benin and Burkina Faso, are vindicated by the W.T.O.'s >decision. Cotton is West Africa's cash crop, the one economic >activity in which the region has a competitive advantage. By >underwriting much of the costs of America's 25,000 cotton farmers >with checks that can total $3 billion a year, Washington erases that >advantage. Aided by American experts who are critics of this warped >system, Brazil convincingly argued that in the absence of subsidies, >the United States would have produced and exported substantially >less cotton than it did in recent years. Consequently, growers >elsewhere would have enjoyed greater market share and higher prices. > >The glaring contradiction between American farm subsidies and the >principles underlying the global trade system has long posed a moral >and political problem for Washington. Now it is also a legal >problem. Instead of digging in its heels and spending years >appealing the panel's ruling, the Bush administration needs to seize >upon it as a reason to negotiate the surrender of rich nations' >trade-distorting farm subsidies. > >The administration has a mixed record on this issue. It offered >proposals to start weaning corporate farmers off their subsidies two >years ago ÷ admittedly after approving a farm bill that exacerbated >the problem. Then it backed away in the face of strong opposition >from Congress and the European Union. That retreat not only hurt the >poor nations' farmers, but also American taxpayers, consumers and >most business interests, including more competitive farmers. > >The W.T.O.'s talks on the further liberalization of trade faltered >over the subsidy issue at Cancœn last year, but this week's ruling >will vastly strengthen the position of Brazil and others advocating >the dismantling of agricultural subsidies that distort trade. The >sooner they prevail, the better. > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
