The Negative Effects of Corn Subsidies on American Agriculture
Small scale farming has steadily been replaced by large industrial farms since 19th
century. During the Great Depression there were 7 million farms in the United States. In 2002
there were just 2 million (Farm Subsidy Data Base). Many factors lead to the decline in farms,
but perhaps the biggest player is the agricultural subsidy. Ironically crop subsidies were the one
intervention that was intended to save the family farm by guaranteeing a steady base price that
protected farmers from wildly fluctuating prices during the Great Depression. The purpose of
these agricultural subsidies was to ensure farmers’ wellbeing by offering them a steady price for
a crop regardless of actual demand set prices. Now wheat, rice, soy, cotton, and corn production
has increased immensely requiring 265 million acres of the 382 million acres in crop production
in the US (Barrett).While intent was originally good, there have been some unintended negative
consequences, especially in regards to corn subsidies. It is now nearly impossible for the
American farmer to grown anything but corn and as a result the government must fabricate
demand for the crop that costs Americans taxpayers 3 billion dollars in 2010 alone("Farm
Subsidy Data Base"). For many years environmentalists and economists have struggled to
remedy this problem, but the influence of the large farms who the main beneficiaries have
paralyzed Congress. Strangely enough the problems we now face because of corn subsidies
could be remedied by subsidizing the small scale farms that so quickly fell out of favor with the
implementation of feed subsidies (Richards).
After the depression in the 1930’s farmers faced a huge problem; The American people
could not afford to buy the crops farmers were growing. The government found that the best
way to protect farmers was to implement agricultural loans, but contrary to what many think,
they were not started to make it possible for farmers to grow more food, but rather to ensure that
farmers did not grow more than the American people could afford (Pollan 49). In the 1970’s
under President Nixon and his Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, rather than giving loans to
farmers, the US government began to implement direct payment, the government would set a
price for corn and would pay farmers for it directly (Pollan 52) . Independent farmers now find
it hard to avoid growing the subsidized crop, not because the profit they turn from corn is so
enticing ( a corn farmer makes very little ), but because the guarantee of making some profit is
more enticing than complete bankruptcy. Even with subsidies many independent farmers cannot
avoid financial failure and find that their only option is to sell out to larger farms. Research has
shown that 10% of farmers receive 75% of the allotted agricultural subsidies a year (Farm
Subsidy Data Base). This means that large farms are collecting more and of the money while
growing bigger and bigger pushing land prices to new highs leaving small farmers little choice
but to sell out. So it is with the direct payment system that small scale farms began to disappear
and large industrial farms became possible (Family Farms).
The United States is the largest producer of corn in the world (US Grain Council). With
so much corn being grown it shows up in practically all of our food ( Pollan 91). This is not
because Americans have a penchant for eating corn, at least not directly; it is because the
government must somehow ensure that the corn taxpayers are paying for is used. While Coca
Cola is still made with cane sugar in Europe and Mexico, in the USA it is made with High
Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).Corn also sweetens our fruit juices and fattens the beef, pork, and
poultry we eat, and even makes up the packaging that these goods are in. Even the beef
American enjoy at a much higher rate than in the past is not natural (cattle are grass eating
animals).At first glance it may not seem that a change in the human diet is worthy of enough
concern to claim that we must halt or reduce corn subsidies and focus on re-establishing small
scale farms, but many issues have risen as a result of us being a corn-fed people. The cattle we
consume must be given loads of antibiotics because of the unhealthy conditions in crowded feed
lots and the fact that cows’ stomachs are not meant to process corn and E coli and other harmful
bacteria flourish in their stomachs (Pollan 78). As a result our antibiotics are less effective in
combatting human disease.
Many would also argue that with the enactment of direct payments for corn Americans
became obese (Alston, Sumner, and et al 1-4). Many factors have contributed to American
obesity, but with cheap corn, unhealthy food was made readily available and Americans now
consume these corn products like no other nation (Alston, Sumner, and et al 1-4). Health issues
caused by obesity cost Americans an estimated 117 billion in the year 2000 (Carmona). Many
factors contribute to the American obesity problem, but corn’s hand in the matter cannot be
ignored.
There have also been many negative environmental consequences because of wide
spread corn growth. A change has taken place in our agricultural practices. Farmers no longer
find it worth their time and resources to their rotate crops, meaning they no longer alternate crops
(Altieri).This is a problem because when only one crop is grown, the soil loses the nutrient that
that crop uses most. As a result soil is left depleted of nutrients and erosion is accelerated
requiring greater applications of inorganic fertilizers than would be necessary under mixed
farming (Willson). Eventually the land will be unable to sustain any crop and it must be
abandoned. But until that point farmers simply increase the amount of corn they plant on the
same amount of land hoping that more plants will yield enough corn. Fertilizer runoff also poses
a threat to bodies of water causing eutrophication leaving large bodies of water without oxygen
and life. All of this is incredibly bad for the environment.
Another less acknowledged problem that also takes a toll on the environment is the use of
corn ethanol in gasoline. In an attempt to be more environmentally conscious congress passed
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, declaring that gasoline must contain increased amounts of
ethanol (Ethanol.org). Unfortunately studies have shown that, “federal government subsidies for
corn-based ethanol products produce potentially catastrophic consequences to the environment,
and have no payback to taxpayers in terms of alleviating global warming effects.”(Markham ). It
seems that because we have so much corn, we will come up with ways to use it without taking
efficiency into account.
Fortunately, these problems could be avoided on small farms growing a variety of crops
in rotation. Some would argue that the subsidization of corn is not a problem, but as has been
explained above, this is simply not true. There are serious negative impacts on everything from
human health to the environment. The subsidization of corn in the US must stop or at least be
modified so that it does not encourage destructive practices and just benefit the biggest and
richest farmers.
There are many possible solutions to the corn subsidy problem, but the most effective
and beneficial solution would be to slowly replace the corn subsidy with a ‘land bank’ that would
promote small farms (Richards).
A land subsidy is different from the aforementioned corn subsidies because instead of
subsidizing products, the United States could subsidize the cost of agricultural land on which
crops are grown. We do not have to subsidize a certain crop to make things easier on the farmer;
instead we can subsidize the land their crops are grown on. This is a relatively new idea, but has
already been put into practice in France where land prices are controlled by the government, and
the government has the right to purchase farm land (Swinnen, Ciaian, and et al).
Essentially, as happens in France, the US government would have precedence to buy
farm land when it is put up for sale (Swinnen, Ciaian, and et al). The government could buy the
land at market price and subsidize it’s resale to new farmers at the price determined by what the
land could earn using sustainable practices (Richards). Agricultural land would thus be in a “land
bank” from which only would-be small scale farmers could purchase land. The amount of land
an individual could buy would depend on the number of acres that would be necessary for,
“economically viable production” (Swinnen, Ciaian, and et al). This means that large industrial
farms would simply not be eligible and could not buy more farm land. These restrictions on who
the government may sell to would stop the expansion of giant industrial farms and the
conversion of farmland to housing developments giving small scale farming a chance to regain
footing in the US, giving farmers an opportunity to grow something other than corn.
The unnatural amount of corn grown in the United States has proven to have multiple
negative effects both economically and environmentally. To not address the problem would just
cost Americans more in the future. Small scale farming has many advantages over large farms. It
is better for the environment, because excessive fertilization is not necessary. Also, a variety of
crops means farmers are not as vulnerable to extreme weather events and price fluctuations
(Diversification in agriculture). Small scale farmers would have no incentive to grow corn
because the corn subsidy does not make corn really profitable on a small scale. The need for
fabricated demand for corn will cease to exist if farmers no longer depend on the subsidy.
Americans spend billions of dollars on agricultural subsidies a year with the main beneficiary
being corn. With a change in policy we could save taxpayer money while re-invigorating the
small scale American farm.
WORKS CITED
Alston, J, D Sumner, et al. "Farm Subsidies and Obesity."Giannini Foundation. 11.2 (2007): 1-4. Web. 29
Nov. 2011. <http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v11n2_1.pdf>
Altieri, . "Agreocology in Action." Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly
sustainable farming. University of California, Berkeley, 30 07 2000. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
Barrett, . "U.S. Farm Service Agency Major Crop Acreage for 2011." Bloomberg. N.p., 18 10 2011. Web.
29 Nov 2011. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/u-s-farm-service-agency-majorcrop-acreage-for-2011-table-.html>.
Carmona, R. "The Obesity Crisis in America." Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce United States House of Representatives. (2003)
Encyclopedia of the Earth.Diversification in agriculture. N.p., 19 Nov 2010. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Diversification_in_agriculture>.
Environmental Working Group. Farm Subsidy Data Base. N.p., 2010. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
<http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr=2010>.
Latest News. Ethanol.org. American Coalition for Ethanol, n.d. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=78
Markham, D. "Environmental Groups Oppose Ethanol Bailout in Stimulus Package." gas2.org. N.p., 19
Dec 2008. Web. 29 Nov 2011
Richards, Ira. Internet Chat Interview. Nov 22 2011.
Sustainable Table. Family Farms. Grace Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
<http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/familyfarms/>.
Swinnen, J, Ciaian, et al. "Study on the Functioning of Land Markets in the EU Member States under the
Influence of Measures Applied under the Common Agricultural Policy ." Center for European
Policy Studies. n. page. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.
<http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/landmarkets/report_en.pdf>.
"US Grain Council." http://www.grains.org/corn. Corn, 2010. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
<http://www.grains.org/corn>.
Willson, J. "The effects of corn monoculture on soils."Helium. N.p., 02 08 2010. Web. 29 Nov 2011.
<http://www.helium.com/items/1851230-the-effects-of-corn-monocultures-on-the-soil>