Agricultural Subsidy Programs And The United States

One of the main concerns surrounding agriculture today is how agricultural influences will affect the society of tomorrow, including the effect of agriculture on adolescents, in addition to the agricultural workforce and its ability to sustain the needs of the global population. The most effective way to study this is through the impact of involvement in the Future Farmers of America (FFA) and agricultural environments and education on students, which Chelsea Rose et al. successfully highlight in their article “The Benefits of FFA Membership as Part of Agricultural Education.” Both Erin and Kayla added to this discussion with valid points brought up in their class presentations, reporting on whether agricultural

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers food assistance programs that help provide food for low to no income families. It is their goal to increase food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans (Caswell, 2013, para. 1). Some of the current nutrition assistance programs include “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)”(Caswell, 2013, para. 1). SNAP will be the primary nutrition assistance program of the paper at hand. No matter how morally good it is to try to help reduce hunger and increase food security within the United States, there are still many questions regarding issues with SNAP. This paper will be discussing why there is such a strong support for the program, how it helps the United States as a whole, problems with the program, and why some people are against SNAP.

Former president George Washington once said, “Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most noble employment of man,” (George Washington Quote). Since Washington’s presidency, countless advancements and developments within the agricultural industry have allowed the United States to grow, develop, and become one of the most prosperous countries in the entire world. Nevertheless, this prosperity is also marked by several key historical events, such as the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, which have caused the core values and traditions that this great nation was built on to slowly disappear. Today, the majority of Americans have no knowledge, understanding, or appreciation for the agricultural industry, causing them to take for granted the basic necessities they rely on each day. This disconnection has created a gap between producers and consumers, which is known as

Agricultural subsidies is a very complex and controversial economic topic today. It will continue to be a hot topic as government continues it. It is largely debated in the United States as well as in other countries. The reason it is so largely debated is because it literally have an effect on the entire world market. Not to mention that the farm has been booming the last 5 to 10 years. This topic also tends to draw strong opinions in our area in particular due to the large agricultural community in our region. However, even within different states there are many supporters as well as opponents to these government subsidies.

Over the years agriculture has nearly diminished from the workforce. Why is this happening? In fact, ever since the Industrial Revolution’s promises of “big city success” agriculture has taken a hit. Agriculture has been a foundation for the infrastructure of the United States since it’s creation. Agricultural careers are a necessity for the nation. It is important through the history, from whom it affects, the effects on the environment and people, and to find a solution to the loss of this core element.

Although a 2002 agriculture law superseded many parts of FAIRA, acreage was still increased because of the growing demand for corn in animal feed, the need for corn in ethanol manufacturing, and the increased possibility to make food with corn byproducts. These seem to be good and fair reasons to focus our efforts on increasing output, however, the same issue arises: the more corn that is made, the less stable a livelihood farming becomes, regardless of the subsidies that the federal government provides.

subsidies; which are grants of money that are given to the Canadian agricultural markets and

In the United States of America, there is enough food in this country that the total amount of agricultural exports is enough to feed everyone twice over (Dorsch, 2013). The problem is that even though there is so much food in this country millions of people require assistance to purchase the food and feed their families. Dating back almost 100 years, the now called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) has evolved to keep up with the changing needs of the Country. In 1933 SNAP was built into Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA was put into law during the great depression. The purpose of the law was to help farmers deal with the excess supply of crops by having the government subsidize the cost. The government would also distribute these crops to relief agencies and local communities (The History of SNAP). In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Food Stamp Act. With this legislation enacted it was now required to purchase stamps. These stamps also had bonus amounts that were determined by income level. In the 90’s and early 2000s major changes were done to SNAP. The electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card was

(Parker-Pope, 2007) “If you have three dollars to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar.” said Dr. Drewnowski, Professor of the Department of Epidemiology and Medicine at the University of Washington. He further stated, “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.” (Parker-Pope, 2007) Much of these cost are due to our Governments Farm Policy. Farm policy encourages the production of commodities for processed foods instead of healthy foods. Whether by intention or not, because of the low cost of commodities like corn and soybeans, sugars and fats like fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oils, current farm policy has directed food industry investment into funding ways of using these cheap food additives in processed foods, thus causing consumers to eat more added sweeteners and oils than is healthy. Because these highly processed foods can be produced at a very low cost, they give significant profit for the food industry which creates an industry incentive to market “junk” foods instead of healthier foods. (Food without Thought:How US Farm Policy Contributes to Obesity)

Like much of the midwest, Indiana is especially dependent on agricultural success to boost their economy. Farming is the backbone of the Hoosier state, with 57,500 farming operations functioning in 2016, per the United States Department of Agriculture. While Indiana relies heavily on the agricultural sector of their economy, the agricultural sector in turn often relies upon subsidization. According to “Food Policy: Looking Forward from the Past”, a book written by Arlene Spark and Janel Obenchain, “An agricultural subsidy is governmental assistance paid to farmers and agribusiness to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities.” Now that we accurately

The New Deal, a series of programs and laws created to assist agriculture struggles, hurt numerous families. In the San Joaquin Valley of California, sent recruiters to encourage farmers to sign a contract limiting a farmers’ acreage. Specifically, for cotton, the contract stated that the farmers “would not grow more than so many acres” (p. 25). The concept of signing a contract to limit cotton production was one of the many attempts to fix the agricultural economy. According to Bean (1938), he affirmed Holmes’ experience since cotton is one of the few overproduced products (p. 28). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that the gross income for farmers from all production between 1928 and 1932 would shrink 55 percent for each cent. The USDA accounted for the increase in production of commodities in international markets which damaged the United States’ agriculture gross income.

Growing up on a small family wheat farm in southwestern Oklahoma, I have experienced the harsh conditions of farming firsthand. The job that used to employ the largest amount of people in the United States has lost the support and the respect of the American people. The Jeffersonian Ideal of a nation of farmers has been tossed aside to be replaced by a nation of white-collar workers. The family farm is under attack and it is not being protected. The family farm can help the United States economically by creating jobs in a time when many cannot afford the food in the stores. The family farm can help prevent the degradation of the environment by creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the people producing the food and nature. The family farm is the answer to many of the tough questions facing the United States today, but these small farms are going bankrupt all too often. The government’s policy on farming is the largest factor in what farms succeed, but simple economics, large corporations, and society as a whole influence the decline in family farms; small changes in these areas will help break up the huge corporate farms, keeping the small family farm afloat.

Most Americans are not aware, or have not been exposed to the fact that part of their taxes are given to companies that take away the sources of income of the Mexican people who already live in poverty. Moreover, the encouragement of corn subsidies have created a greater demand from American growers, who are only getting wealthier from the tens of billions of dollars that the government pays them. Since 1995, $84 billion have been paid to agricultural subsidies, and currently the Farm Bill spending estimates that the total government aid to farmers will reach up to $23.9 billion in 2017 (Charles 2016). Most importantly, Americans should be more concern about the health issues and the environmental harm that comes with the overproduction of crops; which are mostly used for unhealthy foods like sweeteners and additives that can contribute to

At one point I feel farm subsidies were justified. However, as technology has advance, so has the ability for farmers to facilitate better yields from their land. With the unknown effects of climate change on the agriculture industry, it may be beneficial to the country to maintain these subsidies. There isn’t a problem until the cost of produce skyrockets. If subsidies for farmers disappear there will certainly be a spike in the price of produce. We as a country should do anything possible to maintain that all citizens have access to reasonably priced agriculture

The Agriculture sector has changed monumentally over the past century in response to vast economic change and technological advancements. Farm subsidies are various forms of payments from the federal government put in place in an effort to stabilize prices, keep farmers in business, and ensure quality of crops. The federal government currently pays $20 billion in cash each year to US farmers and spent an estimated $250 billion between 1995-2005. Presently, a new farm bill is passed every five years