Empowering Farmers, Reducing Waste, and Strengthening America's Food System

Food
, , ,
1

This policy calls for a comprehensive reevaluation of U.S. agricultural subsidy practices, aiming to empower farmers, reduce food waste, enhance transparency, address food insecurity, and promote a more sustainable agricultural economy. It encourages farmers’ autonomy in production and crop selection, breaking away from monopolies that limit crop diversity and innovation.

Additionally, the policy emphasizes transparency in agricultural chemical usage to empower consumers with knowledge about the food they consume. By removing barriers to sustainable practices, encouraging organic options, and educating the public on health risks associated with conventional farming chemicals, the policy seeks to establish a healthier and more sustainable food system.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 was established to stabilize crop prices during the Great Depression through subsidies and production control. Over time, the 1938 and 1949 Acts and subsequent Farm Bills expanded this framework, providing crop subsidies, conservation support, and crop insurance programs through entities like the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), founded in 1933. Currently, under the Farm Bill, subsidies are allocated for major commodities, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, and dairy, with crop insurance support extended to these and other crops.

While these support mechanisms have been essential for stabilizing farm incomes, they have also created imbalances in the food system, resulting in overproduction and waste, particularly in staple crops. This policy proposes a shift toward a flexible, market-responsive agricultural economy that addresses food waste, food insecurity, and health concerns associated with chemical-intensive farming methods.

Key Issues:

  • Food Waste and Food Insecurity: Surpluses from production limitations have led to waste, even as millions of Americans experience hunger and poverty.
  • Price Gouging and Consumer Strain: Current policies can contribute to inflated food prices, making basic staples unaffordable for low-income households.
  • Limited Seed Freedom and Monopolies: Farmers face restrictions on seed purchases, limiting crop diversity and encouraging dependency on genetically modified seeds and chemical-intensive practices.
  • Health Risks from Chemicals: Pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, are widely used and linked to health risks, including cancer and hormone disruption.

Policy Proposal:

  1. Remove Production Limits and Empower Farmers:

    • Eliminate government-imposed production quotas, allowing farmers to base crop decisions on market demand and local needs.
    • Enable farmers to sell surplus produce at market prices, fostering a more responsive food system that reduces waste and addresses food insecurity.

  2. Support Food Security and Minimize Food Waste:

    • Establish a nationwide food recovery program for surplus crop donations to food banks and charitable organizations.
    • Remove penalties for farmers who donate excess food and offer tax credits to encourage hunger relief participation.

  3. Allow Greater Seed Market Access and Promote Agricultural Independence:

    • Remove restrictions on seed purchases, allowing farmers to source seeds from any market to reduce monopolistic control.
    • Enable farmers to diversify crops by choosing seeds that support sustainable, health-conscious farming practices.

  4. Promote Transparency in Agricultural Chemicals and Health Risks:

    • Develop a public website to disclose critical information about food origins, including GMO status, pesticide use, organic or sustainable practices, and harvest dates.
    • Educate the public on the health risks associated with conventional chemical use, including GI-related issues and cancer, as well as the health benefits of organic food.
    • Require all pesticide and herbicide usage to be reported and publicly accessible through USDA platforms.

  5. Support for Farmers in Transition:

    • Provide education and financial support for farmers moving toward sustainable and organic practices, including grants and loans for equipment and land management changes.
    • Incentivize small and medium-sized farms adopting practices that prioritize reduced chemical inputs and environmental sustainability.

  6. Expand Exports and Strengthen the Economy:

    • The elimination of production quotas will position U.S. farmers to increase exports, supporting the national economy.
    • Support trade agreements that promote U.S. agricultural products, helping to address global food security.

  7. Health Impact Transparency in Public Institutions:

    • All food served in public institutions, including schools and hospitals, will require full disclosure of pesticide and herbicide use, allowing families to make informed choices.

Expected Outcomes:

  • Reduction in Food Waste: Farmers will have greater freedom to donate excess food, improving food security.
  • Lower Prices for Consumers: Increased supply and transparency will reduce food prices, especially benefiting low-income families.
  • Healthier Food System: Access to organic and sustainably grown food will reduce chemical exposure and improve health outcomes.
  • Increased Exports and Economic Growth: A diverse, flexible agricultural system will boost exports and support global food security.
  • Greater Transparency and Accountability: Public access to chemical use information will empower consumers and ensure accountability within the agricultural sector.

Conclusion:
This policy represents a shift toward a more sustainable, transparent, and consumer-focused agricultural system. By empowering farmers, encouraging healthier farming practices, and ensuring transparency in chemical usage, we can create a food system that is economically viable and safer for Americans.

17 Likes
2

I understand that on-farm food loss and post-distribution food waste are huge concerns. It would be interesting, IMO, to understand which foods are lost the most and which are wasted. Is it vegetables? Is it meat? Do our dietary “choices” (e.g., those foisted upon us by the USDA) result in more loss and waste? Would a change to more protein-based production and consumption help address the food loss and food waste? For me personally, that has worked. My roomie is basically a carnivore and I’m a “ketovore.”

1 Like
3

I only recently learned about seed patents and farmers having to purchase new seed each year.

If companies do not have a seed patent and therefore no way to profit from their work; how do we encourage these companies to continue research and to sell the seed?

It might not sound like a major concern, until we remember the invention of the dwarf wheat plant by Norman Borlaug. It helped save some counties where the old wheat was ill suited for the environment because it grew too tall and top heavy.

He earned a Nobel prize for his work.

2 Likes
5

Norman Borlaug developed his wheat varieties prior to utility patents being made legal for living organisms in the 1980s (utility patents are the patents used to prevent seed saving). Borlaug’s work was 20-30 years before that, where the only patents on plants were for grafted woody plants like roses, apples, etc. So his work is actually an example of how agricultural innovation occurred without the utility patents that the industry claims are necessary for innovation.

Companies that sell seeds make their money from selling seeds, not securing utility patents. Allowing farmers to save the seed of a plant designed to reproduce isn’t going to prevent seed companies from making money, just as allowing consumers to repair their electronic devices isn’t going to stop manufacturers from making them. The demand for new innovation will always be there. Plus, in a highly mechanized farming world, many farmers prefer to buy their seed so they can dedicate more time to growing and harvesting a larger crop. There’s also agricultural commodities that are grown free of utility patents, such as the potato market (4th largest crop worldwide), and the European pear market, which in America runs entirely on public domain varieties that anyone can graft and propagate (Bartlett, Bosc, D’Anjou, Comice, and all other pears). Seed potato farms and fruit tree nurseries are still in business because they can offer specialized knowledge and expertise to farmers that is an added cost (financial, labor, expertise, land) to maintain on top of the farm itself.

There’s no real risk of large seed companies dying because patents go away.

1 Like
6

Seed companies used to compete through “hybrids”. Natural methods of selection, (rather than Frankenstein methods) for yield, drought resistence, strong stalks, etc. Ever heard of detassling? It used to be a summer job, good pay for teenagers who couldn’t drive yet. Farmers had to educate themselves on what would work in their region. Listen to advice from their seed salesman, and sometimes take chances with other hybrids if previous seeds were under performing.

Not enough farmers saved and reused seeds prior to gmo’s when they very well could have, and should have. The infrastructure and pattern of farmers buying new seed unnecessarily every spring was long established prior to the introduction of gmo. Laziness, and convenience on the part of the farmers, the relative affordability of new seed, and then add in greed of seed companies, it’s no mystery how gmo became the norm. It was a small step to gmo, which gave farmers even more convenience to be lazy and spray instead of cultivate. They retitled that laziness, “savings”, And then later came the real and mounting significant costs…