It’s never been clearer where the loyalties of congressional agriculture committees lie. In their seemingly endless quest to shift prosperity from small farmers to large ones — to erode any protections for animals and producers that actually value organic farming — the House-passed budget reconciliation plan plants a flag firmly in the realm of “profits over people.”
The plan cuts nearly $300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits to support (in the amount of about $60 billion) industrial agriculture operations.
This is on top of the existing $180 billion projected in future subsidies for programs like Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage and crop insurance. That goes without mentioning the $10 billion recently allocated to big agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, which an American Enterprise Institute report called “probably not justified.” That’s a lot of bacon going disproportionately to America’s largest producers.
At the same time, congressional agriculture committees are promising to override state and local regulations that protect small farmers, as well as set basic humane agriculture standards.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has introduced the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — formerly known as the EATS Act — to override any state law that “affects” an out-of-state producer. Directly in her crosshairs are laws like California’s Proposition 12, which sets humane welfare standards for farm animals. That ballot measure, which voters approved in 2018, was the single biggest win for the meek and miserable farm animals who feed us. It was the result of legislative decision-making that the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed perfectly constitutional. It also created more demand for animal products sourced from farms employing more traditional husbandry practices — i.e., smaller ones.
The biggest problem for rank-and-file farmers is that the Food Security and Farm Protection Act is vague enough that it could be used to disrupt or derail any state or local agricultural regulation that companies with the means deem inconvenient. That includes, notably, procurement regulations that may favor local producers.
According to a study from Harvard, there are more than 100 food and agricultural procurement laws already on the books. In Louisiana, for example, procurement officials are required to purchase agricultural goods from Louisiana unless out-of-state goods are both cheaper and of higher quality. This would likely qualify as a “standard or condition on the preharvest production of … agricultural products” that would fall under the Food Security and Farm Protection Act’s broad scythe.
Ernst’s effort is no outlier. The House Agriculture Committee said that the new farm bill would prevent states from passing animal welfare regulations that others must follow. They are no doubt talking about the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — and, again, it’s going to have the effect of overriding state sovereignty not just on the animal protection front but in all areas under the penumbra of state farming policy.
Some commentators have couched the Food Security and Farm Protection Act as an affront to federalism — but, really, all of this activity amounts to an outright fight against small farmers, particularly those interested in something different than the status-quo of factory farmed, chemical- and antibiotics-ridden, steroid-pumped franken-food.
Consider that the Trump administration already axed two programs giving food banks and schools $1 billion in funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. And they want to put the kibosh on $754 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which assists farmers with resilience efforts and reduced chemical use. Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)? More like “HAHA.”
Congressional agriculture policy has become the epitome of the self-licking ice cream cone. We cut programs that help small and organic farmers, then redirect tax dollars to provide subsidies. Those subsidies largely go to the biggest agricultural interests, inoculating them against having to make any broader systemic reforms. Then, under the next administration, we create new programs to support small and organic farmers. Rinse and repeat.
To give congressional agriculture folks their due, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act could go a long way towards ending this loop by making any state-level support for smaller farmers obsolete and allowing the largest interests — like China’s Smithfield Foods — to kill any law they don’t like. No more demand for humane products — and, hey, higher profit margins while we’re at it.
Obviously, this is ridiculous, for all sorts of reasons. What we should do is drop the charade and end or dramatically reduce the crony-capitalist corporate welfare system when it comes to Big Agriculture. Let states pass laws reflecting their own health and safety priorities. Let the consumers speak for themselves. And then let the free market do its work.
Marty Irby is president of Competitive Markets Action and secretary at the Organization for Competitive Markets. John Cleveland is a senior fellow at Wilberforce Institute.
