EWG wants to redraw subsidy map

What do Ken Cook and delegates of the World Trade Organization have in common? Both are trying to change the way farm subsidies are delivered. And both were in Hong Kong, attempting to make that happen last week, albeit in somewhat different ways.

Granted, Cook was only one of 2,100 registered "non-government organizations" or NGO guests who were trying to influence the global influencers. But back in the U.S., the head of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has already made quite an impact.

Cook is perhaps best known as the mastermind of the farm subsidy database. Just go to www.ewg.org and you can find how much your friends and neighbors (plus a few famous folks like broadcaster Sam Donaldson) received from the federal government in the form of farm program payments. By publishing the data, Cook added a great deal of openness to the debate over whether or not taxpayers should be transferring dollars to the countryside and secondly, "How much is enough?"

Now he's trying a different tactic: comparing the "haves" to the "have nots," in hopes that the "have nots" will build more pressure to change.

"Over the past decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $112 billion on commodity subsidies, but just seven states took in half of the money," said Cook. "Why? Because four commodities-corn, wheat, rice and cotton-account for 78 percent of the subsidies, and a handful of states produce most of the subsidized crops."

So what if we crunched those numbers a different way--providing farm payments on the basis of the value of crops produced, rather than volume? In politically powerful states like California and Florida, where 90 percent of the farmers receive no farm subsidies, the changes would be dramatic.

"If support for farming and rural areas had been pegged to economic activity instead of being locked to patterns set during the New Deal, California would have received $14 billion instead of $4.6 billion over the past decade," explained Cook.

Florida's fruit, vegetable, dairy, and beef production makes it another food powerhouse, but only 6 percent of its farms and ranches get direct subsidies, amounting to $232 million over the past 10 years. Basing support on farm revenues would have meant $3.4 billion more in agriculture aid for the state.

Five more states with large farm sectors would have gained at least a billion dollars more than the current system, including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. In fact, 34 states would come out ahead, including Virginia, home for House Agriculture Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and Georgia, from where Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss hails.

Of course, the odds of Congress serving up this type of dramatic farm program restructuring are between slim and none. First of all, farmers in many of those "have not" states don't want to be part of the "traditional" farm programs. Instead, they've been asking for more money to invest in research, technical assistance, soil and water conservation, marketing, and the development of value-added processing industries.

In 2004, they championed the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act and won approval for about $50 million to do many of those same things. The majority of the funding is delivered via block grants through the state departments of agriculture.

Shortly after the bill was signed last year, Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, emphasized the political shift that made passage possible. The bill was cosponsored by 122 members of Congress representing farmers who grow more than 250 fresh produce crops ranging from lettuce in California to melons in Arizona and blueberries in Maine.

"This legislative victory is a great day for our industry and the equivalent of a declaration that this sector of agriculture has now arrived as a major player in Washington," said Nassif. "This bill has won congressional approval against all odds and will be seen in the future as a turning point for the fresh produce sector of agriculture. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act paves the way for future legislation and will give pause to those who assumed that agriculture is incapable of changing the way it does business in Washington."

Granted, $50 million is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the estimated $20 billion that will be paid out for commodity programs in 2005. But with a little taste of success, the specialty crop folks will be back at the table, asking for even bigger bite. And Ken Cook will be doing everything he can to help change the farm program "menu."

Editor's note: Ken Cook will speak about reforming farm subsidies at our Feb. 24-25 meeting, Focus on Farm Policy: How the next farm bill will affect your bottom line. The event will be held at the Gateway Center in Ames, Iowa.

To register, go to: www.midwestagjournal.com/farmbill.

Columnist Sara Wyant is president of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc. and publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, Agri-Pulse, on food and farm policy. For more information, you can e-mail her at Agripulse@aol.com.