The first Farm Bill was passed in 1933 to stabilize food production and protect the land the U.S. food supply was grown on. The economic collapse of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl were hardships, in part, to be corrected by the New Deal and the Farm Bill.
The last Farm Bill was passed in full in 2018 with three continuing bills passed since to provide short-term funding solutions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), crop insurance, and various other ag-related programs and research.
This year’s effort to pass the Farm Bill was passed by the U.S. House at the end of April, solidifying $187 million in cuts to SNAP benefits that include new work requirements for recipients without dependents and undocumented workers, cut funding for food banks, and fail to protect pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits and labeling requirements imposed by individual states. Additionally, the U.S. Senate version of the bill has potential hurdles of its own including a 60-vote requirement to pass and concerns about immigration reform language.
Perhaps, the most difficult question to answer is this: Does the U.S. even need a Farm Bill anymore?
If one adheres to a pure free-market perspective in a vacuum, the answer is a resounding “no.” But the real-world answer is significantly more complex than that.
While agriculture is conducted in a largely global marketplace, the forces exerted upon it make it a unique business environment. When a tax environment or wage change is imposed on a manufacturer or retailer, there are options like increasing the cost to the consumer or, in extreme circumstances, relocating the business to another state.
Farms and ranches are bound by dueling concerns that run parallel: business and historic loyalty. From a purely business perspective, a farm or ranch that is subject to costly regulation or overhead liquidation of assets and relocation to a “friendlier” environment is a reasonable decision. However, historic loyalty – family land ownership, long-term community investment, overall length of employee retention, potential integration into a new agricultural environment elsewhere – are all hurdles to weigh when determining potential movement of a farm or ranch. Moreover, because farms and ranches are price-takers, selling their goods for a price determined by the market rather than by their income needs, rather than price-makers, operating costs increased by regulation or market forces cannot be passed on to consumers, they are borne by the producer.
What U.S. farmers and ranchers need is a Farm Bill that is refocused on things that will have a dramatic impact on their ability to be profitable rather than being focused on external interests.
If we are going to continue to have a Farm Bill, it should focus on marketing the fruits of U.S. agriculture and encouraging producers to grow and produce what Americans want to eat first. The Farm Bill should act as a backstop and fiscal connection for bringing SNAP and local food production together by prioritizing the purchase of local, fresh foods when and where they are available. The bill should also act as a mechanism for research and development of new crops, farm and ranch methodology improvements, impetus for technology and equipment updates for small and mid-sized producers and encourage earlier adoption of innovations to make producers more cost-effective and efficient.
Instead, the Farm Bill has devolved into a political vehicle for SNAP, immigration reform, border protection, crop insurance, and other items to become bargaining chips while our food producers and consumers suffer the consequences. The Farm Bill has outgrown its initial goal: to stabilize the farm economy. It is time for it to be right sized to suit the needs of U.S. food producers rather than becoming yet another example of a bill bloated beyond necessity.
Pam Lewison is a fourth-generation farmer, Pacific Research Institute fellow, and ag research director for Washington Policy Center.