PFCs: A chemical family that contaminates the planet
Ford SUVs: Suddenly Upside-down Vehicles
Perchlorate: Rocket fuel in water
BodyBurden: Pollution in People
Science Review: C8 contamination in West Virginia
http://www.ewg.org/opening.html
EWG Letter to House Agriculture Committee, Larry Combest (TX-19)
| ||||||||||||||||
May 14, 2001
Honorable Larry Combest
Chairman, House Agriculture
Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1301 Longworth House Office
Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
With the passage of the budget resolution, Congress has launched a $190 billion pledge to help American agriculture and farm communities over the next ten years. To help lawmakers reassess policies and priorities for this funding in the next farm bill, Environmental Working Group (EWG) is launching a new series of reports to examine how farm subsidies have been spent in the past and who benefited. Our research can also help identify regions where current policies result in under-investment in farm income support and environmental protection. The first reports will focus on the districts and states that are represented by members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
Last year, EWG analyzed more than 30 million USDA farm payment records for 1996 through 1998. Our report, "Green Acre$: How Taxpayers are Subsidizing the Demise of the Family Farm," raised important questions about the distribution of payments under the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" act that, in our view, have not been discussed or debated adequately.
To help lawmakers and the public understand the effects of current and proposed farm income support programs, EWG has processed millions of computer records from USDA that track farm payments from1985 through 2000. EWG has used this database as the foundation for a "Farm Subsidy Scorecard" series, which will provide detailed analyses of farm payments by state and congressional district. Our "Scorecards" also provide related economic and environmental data.
Given your critical role in writing the next farm bill, the first scorecard will be about your district, which EWG will publish and post on our web site this week at www.ewg.org. EWG's analysis raises important questions about the extent to which farm payments are adequately aiding the family farmers in your district. One issue is the severe concentration of payments among relatively few, large farm operations. A related concern is the apparent inadequacy or irrelevance of such a substantial taxpayer investment as a means of protecting farm jobs, which fell by nearly 40 percent from 1969 through 1998 in your district. Moreover, the data clearly show that farm subsidies have not helped farm operations become more dependent on the free market, rather than the government, for their income. In seven counties in your district, from 1969 through 1998, farm subsidies accounted for more than half of the total net farm income for farm corporations and sole proprietors.
Our analysis begs the question of what taxpayers are buying with farm subsidy payments. They are not buying consumer protection as you recently argued in news accounts. Farm costs of subsidized raw commodities have only a small impact on the price of food since they make up a small fraction of retail prices for food and fiber goods. For example, farm cost made up only five percent of the retail cost of corn flakes. In addition, farm subsidy payments are not supporting the majority of foods Americans consume. In your district, for example, cotton growers were the leading recipients in recent years of farm subsidies. While we do not advocate the elimination of commodity subsidies, both logic and evidence overwhelmingly support Senator Lugar's conclusion that "there would be extraordinarily adequate supplies of food [and fiber] in America if you had no control and not subsidies." However, consumers should be concerned about government-subsidized concentration of crop production that might someday affect food and fiber prices.
Taxpayers are also not buying environmental protection. Less than 10 percent of farm payments since 1996 went to conservation programs which help improve water quality, protect open space or enhance wildlife habitat. In fact, with the majority of subsidies going to large farmers, they may be undercutting the gains conservation programs have made in reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Even though agriculture is now the leading non-point source of water pollution, farmers have been left waiting in line for assistance to meet water quality goals.
The next farm bill is an unprecedented opportunity to examine these issues and adopt policy reforms that address the concerns of a broader group of farmers and all taxpayers. We want to make clear that an even greater investment of public resources, beyond current budget allocations, may be appropriate to address the economic and environmental problems in your district.
We hope EWG's analysis will provide Congress with tools to better assess and target funds in ways that help a larger segment of farms, farm communities, the environment and public health. We look forward to working with you on this important endeavor.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Cook
President
Anne C. Keys
Vice President for Policy
