Food for the People

Policy solutions to protect farmers and consumers from overbearing government and corporate restrictions on what they can eat, and how that food is made. Redesigning America’s nutritional guidelines away from highly-processed, corporatized food, towards natural, clean food, while protecting the freedom to choose.

For decades, small and mid-sized family farms have disappeared from the rural American landscape and economy, replaced by ever larger farms and food processors that consolidate food production into industrial factory systems. Cheap, plentiful, ultra-processed foods conceal the true human, animal, and environmental costs of this profit-driven transition.

The solution to these manmade problems requires a reversal of some of these commercial consolidations by relaxing onerous regulations that disproportionately burden smaller operators, and phasing out government subsidies that have favored large centralized industrial agricultural methods and operations at the expense of sustainable, widely dispersed local farms. A sensible list of policies that will improve food nutrition, productivity, and profitability for farmers and consumers alike will include:

The Farm Bill

Since its creation in the Great Depression, the US Farm Bill has swollen into an enormous juggernaut of funding and provisions. Originally crafted to connect farmers suffering from declining commodity prices with citizens starving during economic decline, the agricultural industry has changed dramatically over the past century. The Farm Bill has become an albatross to effective and responsive agricultural policy, dragging the nation in its wake. Current US farming policy is functioning under an extension of the 2018 Farm Bill; it does not appear that an updated Farm Bill will be legislated in 2024.

The chief reason for this damaging delay is that the Farm Bill includes too many provisions regarding too many players, and that there are really two teams – farmers and food assistance beneficiaries. For any revised Farm Bill to be enacted, it must craft consensus among the nation’s affected farmers (who have very different needs and business models, which also vary geographically and by crop), then dovetail that with provisions concerning the nation’s SNAP benefit recipients. These are two very different groups of stakeholders with very disparate policy goals.

The Farm Bill provides commodity loans and supports to farmers, and nutrition subsidies for low-income Americans. About 20% of funding under the Farm Bill goes to farmers: about 76% is allocated for nutrition: and 95% of that comprises SNAP benefits. Farms are facing unique inflationary pressures that impact food prices and thus the efficacy of SNAP Benefits: farms must be separately regulated to respond to such economic and market realities.

The Farm Bill should be split into separate pieces of legislation for congressional consideration: the needs of farmers in one; those of food benefits in another. This will greatly improve political efficiency and effective implementation of policy for both groups – there will be no need for legislators to swap farming policies or funding as a political trade-off for food distribution or other provisions unrelated to the best needs of the nation’s agricultural production.

Changing Laws to Help Farms

Regulations. Numerous federal and state regulations purporting to improve public safety have shuttered small farms and processors. It is not beneficial to Americans’ health and safety if there are only a handful of meat processors in the nation, or if local food production is slowly strangled as dependence on faraway, even foreign-grown (and less regulated) foods increases. Small businesses often cannot afford to comply with the high compliance costs that serve as a glass ceiling protecting the largest market players, whose ever-escalating economies of scale pose greater health risks and should be subjected to closer regulatory scrutiny.

Commodity Support Payments Through loans, price supports, and crop insurance, the federal government doles out billions of taxpayer dollars annually to the nation’s largest farming enterprises. These dollars are unavailable to small businesses, skewing food production toward larger, often more environmentally destructive industrial operations. Abruptly ceasing these payments would inflict unfair harm on many farmers and seed market anxiety and disruption. However, many of these subsidies are for environmentally deleterious, chemical-dependent monoculture crops, which have been unfairly favored by government subsidies for decades.

As of February 2024, the 2018 Farm Bill cost American taxpayers $1.4 trillion. Farms received $22.6 billion in payments in 2019 alone. The highest amount of agricultural subsidies – well above $6 billion annually – go to corn, soybean, and sugar production. These three industries all employ industrial farming methods of methodical application of glyphosate, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to the nation’s farmlands. These processes not only taint the foods American children eat, but pollute drinking water, kill soil microbes, increase erosion, and deplete soil and food nutrients. They are also the three crops most damaging to human health after processing into syrups, hydrogenated fats, and food additives.

Paring down these payments will reduce federal spending; a mere portion of the money saved can be used to instead subsidize regenerative agriculture, pilot studies of nutrition and soils, opioid recovery models connected to agriculture, improved educational materials for schools, improved nutritional content in public school meals and public assistance food purchasing.

Sugar Subsidies

There is longstanding contention over the inequitable distribution of billions of US taxpayer dollars each year to sugar producers, while archaic domestic protections and import restrictions drive up US food prices: currently, Americans pay more than twice the world price for the sugar the federal government subsidizes through the Farm Bill. High sugar prices have influenced many food producers, including soft drink makers Pepsi and Coke, to replace sugar with more harmful but less expensive (and highly subsidized) high fructose corn syrup.

Taxing consumers for the “sin” of eating sugary foods adds hypocritical government insult to regulatorily-inflicted injury. Reducing sugar subsidies and relaxing border restrictions will lower the price of sugar while releasing funds to support farming and processing of other crops or food products or to fund increased incentives for healthier food options for SNAP benefit recipients.

Our nation’s sugarcane and sugar processing policies are grossly overdue for sensible review and revision. This will reduce costs for a widely used food input cost, relieving food inflation pressures for many industries, while equitably improving health outcomes. The important effort to reform US sugar policy has been underway for many years. A useful model to consider how some of these policies can be productively updated is contained in the (unenacted) Sugar Policy Modernization Act of 2017.

Areas of Future Investment

By simply diverting some taxpayer dollars currently spent unwisely on practices that amplify short-term corporate profits at the expense of human and soil health, the agricultural system – and bureaucratically dizzying farming legislation – can be employed to heal what it has in the past inflicted. Money saved from subsidization of destructive agricultural practices can instead be invested for better food outcomes, including:

– exempting small farms and producers from regulatory strictures or subjecting them to less intrusive regs.

– a commission to fully consider whether glyphosate, atrazine, and other controversial chemicals should be more closely regulated in US agriculture.

– federal policies or funding to prioritize fresh, local food provision for public schools, prisons, military personnel, statehouses, and other public outlets. The SNAP Program is a useful vehicle to encourage and assist states to improve the connection of local producers with schools and other consumers. Low-income recipients can be incentivized to purchase healthy food options such as fruits and vegetables and buy directly from local farmers at farmstands and farmers’ markets.

– NSLP The National School Lunch Program is a rubber-meets-the-road opportunity to fund and equip school cafeterias to improve health outcomes for children by offering healthier meal choices that they want to eat, educating our youth, and shaping their eating habits for life.

– Addiction-related agricultural systems can be easily funded and built upon once proven successful. Pilot programs to house substance abusers in facilities where they learn to eat fresh food, how to farm various plants or animals, and then sell these products directly to the community have already proven how much more successful these therapeutic farming pathways are than essentially confining those in addiction recovery in boarding houses. These facilities can produce fresh, organic foods for local markets to subsidize recovery costs while contributing to local community health and economic activity, but also destigmatize addiction and substance abuse treatment facilities. Successful graduates can go on to start or work at a farm.

– improved distribution systems and labeling for certified organic small-scale producers. Consumers find it challenging to discern which foods are safe versus those that are harmful. Studies show low-income, inner-city households often buy fewer fruits and vegetables for fear of chemical residues: improved labeling and education will help all Americans shop more wisely and health consciously.

– increased funding for research of regenerative and organic agricultural processes and improvements, especially toward soil health and reduced chemical applications

– increased funding for composting education and facilities, reducing organic landfill waste while increasing compost availability at cost for agricultural and residential uses.

– providing more educational resources for Americans regarding food health. Consumers are confused and yet easily educated. The more people are educated, the better decisions they can make. The government warns about cigarettes, and we have active shooter drills in schools – how about active toxic food drills? The government should be involved in educating people about healthy food, having spent nearly a century serving processed food companies to deceive them. This is low-cost and effective: America needs a new, true food pyramid and materials that help consumers know what is healthy rather than labels and messaging designed to accomplish the opposite.

– phase out ethanol subsidies. The current US ethanol scheme pushes high-erosion sloped and sandy soils into corn production. It is environmentally destructive; far more damaging to the ecosystem than is justified by purported savings in fossil fuel usage energy usage. Cheap, highly subsidized corn supports the continued manufacture of unhealthy, high-fructose corn syrup and unnatural hydrogenated fats.

– FDA must be held to higher human health standards when evaluating food flavorings, additives, preservatives, and hormones that are fed to our nation’s young, often with little or insufficient evidence of safety. America must craft a way to either bolster existing regulatory oversight of certain substances, ban some individual substances outright (glyphosate?), or help people avoid them using subsidies (for non-toxic options), education, labeling, etc.

– increase funding for the Specialty Crops Program, to incentivize agricultural production and marketing of more nutritious fruit and vegetable crops in lieu of grains and corn, and possibly to fund organic crops – particularly crops heavy in chemical residues (such as listed annually in the Dirty Dozen, including many popular berry crops).

– a government database to inform the public about specific food processes, ingredient risks, what products to avoid, preservatives and their threats, endocrine disruptors, packaging risks, and the risks of take-out food (known to contain higher amounts of phthalates than home-cooked meals). Increased public education about the importance of breastfeeding, physical exercise, and practical ways to save money while improving health outcomes (such as preparing trustworthy baby foods at home rather than buying processed offerings) will reduce healthcare costs and disease. Helping consumers make wise decisions rather than making those decisions for them equips Americans to protect themselves.

– pilot programs to investigate utilizing agricultural education or farming environments as therapeutic interventions for children with special needs, including children born with drug or alcohol-related syndromes, autistic children, and trauma victims.

– school program modules educating children about food toxins, nutrition, what foods are healthiest, and how to avoid chemicals in food and packaging. It is easier to start kids right than reverse established bad habits. This also reverses corporate America’s incessant barrage of young children with food advertisements for junk cereals, etc. Class modules in civics, home economics, and related practical knowledge will educate children already embroiled in a “buyer beware” war with food sellers. Children must learn about soils and their connection to human health, basic farming, where there food comes from, and how to prepare and store it safely. Children are eager to learn these life skills, and often take this knowledge home to parents also struggling to figure out what is best for their dinner table.

Legislation to be Monitored

Current bills to support are listed here. New legislation that will support these plans to improve health and access to nutritious local food will be crafted and tracked here. Americans must become more knowledgeable about their food, but also become involved in legislation that so directly impacts its health, freshness, and future availability.

316 Likes

Each county/state actively recruit individuals to go into farming at the state level.
Community colleges house organic farming training programs.
War funds- tax dollars, be reallocated to build infrastructure for processing facilities where needed.
War funds-tax dollars, be reallocated to support the basis of our nations most important resource-the people-nutrition/healthcare through robust food programs.
GMO, chemical growth food systems- kill soils, kill inner biome, dismantled.
Households, schools other institutions like nursing homes be invited to participate-cook and eat local in season produce.
Local county parks or other available community land grow seasonal fruit trees appropriate for the region, to be utilized throughout that local county/state.
Employ individuals to maintain, harvest and distribute.

81 Likes

Our entire Public Health system can incorporate all these vital principles of health and replace the current outdated ( potentially harmful) standards. This would include every county and municipality.
Scores for water safety and soil safety should be included.

32 Likes

Excellent idea.

This brings to mind the current controversy over water fluoridation, given the September 24 ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that current intake levels pose sufficient risk to require the EPA to take action: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf

With that in mind, on what scales would water/soil safety be scored? Levels of various contaminants, etc?

32 Likes

Certainly an interesting development – we will see if the District Court is overturned. Tracking soils and water is a daunting task – we don’t even track contaminants in our food supply, nor fully test food additives for risks prior to incorporating them in products. That might be a better place to start – EPA has now identified 12,043 “forever chemicals” that are in soils and water – which ones to track, and how, and whether they can be remediated at all, is an important anaylsis long overdue… Thanks for your input!

19 Likes

There are 8400 Farmers Markets in the US. Supporting local producers with the ability to sell vegetables, food from a licensed kitchen, meat shares and process animals on farm is key. Our food industries have been collected into a few mega chicken producers and mega slaughter houses. The local small farm industry is in place today and has the ability to grow into egg shares, milk shares, meat shares and more. Farmers Markets have been in place for decades and they work. Reduce regulations… the Markets are independent and the farmers in them are independent.

50 Likes

I don’t have first hand knowledge, but I do know that the requirements for a farm to become organic are so expensive and overbearing many farms meet the requirement but can’t get the label. I would like to see the costs and excessive requirements to be addressed to allow smaller farms to acquire the organic label. I would also like to see more transparency for consumers as to exactly what organic means. And/Or to allow private organizations to set requirements for various labels and run the oversite. I understand there is some of that at this point but it is not transparent as to what each label means and how they compare to allow consumers to make an educated decision.

26 Likes

Further, “organic” has become so tainted, so lax except at the small-producer level, that people are moving away from it. Thanks, government corruption and corporatocracy! Add to this the belief among average folks that ALL farmers’ market fare is organic, and is grown without pesticides and herbicides – not so!

As a longtime (decades-long) advocate for farmers’ markets, I wish more people understood their value. I also wish more people would take the time to ask market vendors how they grew their offerings, what practices they used, what their interests and aims are. That discussion can be educational for both sides! Buyers learn what’s available and why, and sellers learn what people think they want and why. Those aren’t endpoints, they’re negotiation points and learning opportunities.

18 Likes

I’m working on a Micro community food project to make nutrient-dense food for local consumption! Here is the general Idea:

Mission Statement:
To create a regenerative, community-centered farm that provides nutrient-dense, locally grown food while fostering holistic health, sustainable living, and empowerment through community involvement. Over time, we will incorporate educational programs, family-building initiatives, and food service to the disadvantaged as part of our broader mission.

Project Overview:
Our Micro Farm Community Nutrition Project will operate on 19 acres of land, implementing regenerative agricultural practices with a focus on nutrient-rich food production. We will raise rabbits and chickens for grazing, protein, and egg production, while also partnering with a local provider to supply beef and pork. The farm will initially operate as a for-profit organization, utilizing a CSA model (Community Supported Agriculture) to provide local, seasonal produce and protein to members.

The feasibility of this is good and I’m currently making arrangements for it. It will have many solutions for community development, education, and family building! It also addresses all of the problems with our current mega agri industry. Thus, providing sustainability!

19 Likes

Absolutely. Studies show farmers’ markets have plateaued in recent years due to costs. Simply phasing out existing corn and soy (and other GMO) subsidies and diverting some of those funds to organic producers or perhaps seed money for farmers markets and CSAs themselves, would help reverse the artificial cost imbalance that makes farmers markets unaffordable for many lower income people. Additionally, farmers’ markets vouchers or discounts for SNAP recipients would empower them greatly while increasing revenues for organic and local farmers.

12 Likes

Yes! Supporting farmers’ markets is doubly beneficial because it not only nurtures the farmer-consumer connection without profit-thieving corporate middlemen, but because it educates buyers about many dimensions of farming – including awareness of the person behind the plow. Organic certification will always be subject to fraud: the safest food is the closest to the producer. If consumers know their farmer, they can trust the food – the further they get away from that relationship, the more opportunity for fraud or unethical conflict arises. I visited a small farmers’ market in Anchorage this past Saturday, and was please to see most vendors displaying signs promising that their products were organic… The farmers markets continue to thrive as people learn more about their food and farmers.

15 Likes

We are “in the trenches” and have found that most small farmers who sell at Farmers Market also have a healthy profitable CSA and other repeat loyal customer models. They are making a living… The model works and can scale. Farmers Markets are where you ‘find’ new customers for your repeat model and build your brand. We need to remove as much that gets in the way of that. As a rule the costs to sell at Markets is not a barrier. Things like having to CHIP every cow (which i am will have extra fees at each step) have to not happen. I get my organic chickens every week from the guy who grew them… Right out of his 'colder than mine" freezer. Farm to table and i pick them up at the Farmers Market 2 blocks from my house… all the confirm and charges are done on line… easy model that we need to preserve and expand,

14 Likes

The farm bill needs to increase funding to the Farm Service Agency’s farm loan program. The cost of farmland has increased significantly since 2018 and $600,000 doesn’t cut it in many high-cost-of-living areas The agency also suffers from a low staffing budget and needs money for county loan staffing to increase program access and time-frames.

5 Likes

Thanks for the input! Good points! Do you think restrictions on foreign farmland ownership are appropriate?

14 Likes

@FarmerJohn,

I agree with the call to reform U.S. agricultural policy, especially focusing on separating the Farm Bill to better address the needs of farmers and food assistance independently. One way to improve this idea is to also include targeted grants or incentives for new farmers who want to adopt sustainable practices. This would not only promote a more localized, regenerative food system but also help ensure the long-term viability of agriculture by supporting the next generation of farmers, encouraging young people to enter the field with the right support in place.

8 Likes

Fully agreed! (However, I am strongly biased – this is one of the key components of my own policy arguments in my book, Small Farm Republic. :slight_smile: )

4 Likes

Id love to know for example what percentage of farmland is used for corn that ends up either A) turned into ethanol and/or B) gets turned into poisonous “food” like high fructose corn syrup. To me it seems like there’s a relationship there; smaller more community based farms would in turn allow for greater quality, less processed foods, allowing us to plant more viable, useful crops as well. And is ethanol really a net positive or not?

I also dont want to derail but it feels related, farming is basically unattainable unless you’re born into it. Its completely cost prohibitive, even from just a land and equipment perspective. As the older, farming generations begin to pass away, I know younger generations are health conscious and i suspect likely to pick it up, if they realistically had the means to do so

8 Likes

MRhodes:
Ethanol is definitely not a net positive when toxins and soil and water loss are measured; probably not net-zero on carbon either: The Corn Ethanol and Water Pollution Boondoggle - Liberty Nation News “Of the 92 million American acres planted to corn in 2023, approximately 40% will be processed into ethanol to meet subsidized mandates in Americans’ fuel blends.”
The rest is mostly GMOs and much of that ends up in animal feeds, including for export.
My own policy proposals address your exact concern: reallocate monocrop subsidies to start-ups as grants, tax credits, low interest loans, etc. while relaxing burdensome regulations for small producers. Supporting SNAP, school lunch, and other public benefits programs with incentives to buy local, organic, or from farmers’ markets will help new farmers increase sales.

8 Likes

We could really benefit from implementing electroculture farming. A climate resilient farming technique that eliminates dependency on chemicals & improves soil health all while producing much more greater yields of produce that small farmers could use to feed their local communities.



images
41MNOxAn9bL.AC_UF350,350_QL80

71p3bm7gLJL.AC_UF350,350_QL80

7 Likes