Food Security and Land Use Policies: US vs. Brazil

 

Like a partygoer who chases each tequila shot with seltzer, US farm policy is made up of comically conflicting desires that are sure to result in a bad hangover.

Every year, the Department of Agriculture provides large subsidies to farmers in order to encourage them to increase their maize and soybean production. These commodities account for almost 60% of US agriculture, are used to fatten animals on factory farms, and provide many of the sugars and fats in our ultraprocessed meals. Unsavory side consequences of their manufacture include greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation, and polluted rivers.
Since 1985, the USDA has also provided farmers with financial incentives to use conservation methods aimed at mitigating these negative effects. Growers can earn extra money by incorporating soil-stabilizing crops like rye and oats into their rotations, or by installing filter strips of grasses or legumes to trap chemical runoff. The hitch is that a major portion of federal money—about $14 billion per year on average between 1995 and 2021—is spent on commercial crops, compared to only $1.8 billion for conservation. So, for every dollar the department shines in front of farmers to urge them to grow to their full potential, it only offers 13 cents to assist them manage their land wisely.
Stay in the loop!
Don't miss FERN's most recent revelations, advancements, and projects. Sign up for our email and you won't miss a single story.
Email*: name@example.com.
CAPTCHA
Congress has perpetuated this disparity for decades through the farm bill—the twice-a-decade legislative package that oversees agriculture policy—a process rife with lobbying and campaign donations from agribusinesses that profit. The gusher of cash for commodity production has become even more prodigious in recent years, thanks to temporary subsidies to counter losses from trade disputes and the epidemic. In 2020, commodity and crop insurance payouts outweighed conservation expenditures by more than 22-to-1.
Silvia Secchi, a natural resources economist at the University of Iowa, believes that making conservation a prerequisite is a smarter approach. Do you want gifts from the USDA? Then show us your strategy for protecting topsoil, managing runoff, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The safety net would be based on farmers' efforts to preserve the ecosystems on which their livelihoods rely. In short, taxpayers would get more value for their money. Participation could be voluntary—farmers would be free to grow how and what they wanted—but "if you do take government subsidies, you should do something for them," Secchi contends.

Do you want gifts from the USDA? Then demonstrate the agency your strategy for maintaining topsoil, cleaning up farm runoff, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This idea has precedent. In the 1970s, Earl Butz, President Richard Nixon's USDA secretary, urged farmers to "plant fencerow to fencerow"—use every inch of ground, hedgerows and riparian buffers be damned—to capitalize on what turned out to be a short-lived boom in maize and soybean exports. Prices surged and subsequently plummeted, encouraging farmers to continue squeezing their land to maximize output, resulting in widespread erosion. Things got so bad that Congress felt obligated to act; the 1985 agricultural bill mandated that any farm that sought federal assistance growing crops on land that the USDA classified "highly erodible" have to devise a plan to keep its topsoil. This regulation, known as "conservation compliance," became legislation despite "strong resistance from farm interests," according to Jonathan Coppess, head of the agriculture policy department at the University of Illinois, in his forthcoming book, Between Soil and Society.
Do you want gifts from the USDA? Then demonstrate the agency your strategy for maintaining topsoil, cleaning up farm runoff, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

These regulations are still in effect today, but enforcement is patchy, according to a 2016 report by the USDA inspector general.

And the '85 rules did nothing to slow the boom in maize production caused by the government-backed ethanol program, which began in 2007. Not unexpectedly, erosion has persisted. Farmland in the Corn Belt is already losing soil at least ten times quicker than it does naturally—roughly one-third of this area has had its topsoil completely washed away.
Secchi believes it is necessary to apply conservation compliance to all acreage that gets government assistance and drastically increase enforcement. Such a scheme is unlikely to pass in the current Congress, but Secchi remains optimistic for the future. "Climate change is finally being taken seriously, at least in terms of the money we're putting in," she says, alluding to the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes $19.5 billion for agricultural conservation projects. Aligning farm subsidies and conservation goals would be a critical step toward ensuring that aiding America's farmers does not result in land degradation and water pollution.