Farm Subsidies
Are the meat and dairy industry stealing our tax dollars?
“Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.”
-Thomas Jefferson Reading this quote, it’s not hard to imagine that the American federal government and agricultural aid have a long history. In fact, we find records of agricultural subsidies all the way back to Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Flash forward to today, about one million American farmers and landowners receive some form of agricultural subsidy. |
What is a subsidy? Basically, a subsidy is either a loan or grant that goes from the federal government to businesses so that the products that business specializes in (in our case, this is going to be farm commodities) can remain at a lower cost for consumers to buy. These can either be a direct payment or indirect assistance, such as through crop insurance.
Subsidies combined with insurance total over $20 billion in financial assistance distributed to farmers and landowners annually. Many have challenged the economic validity of this solution, but I think that most would agree that investing in the industry that puts foods on our table and clothes on our back should be much higher priority in the Congressional budget than many other, more mainstream issues.
I could (and surely eventually will) write an entire article about how many farmers have found ways to cheat the system and many arguments about these programs actually hurting the small, family farmers they were initially created to support, but, right now, my main goal is to debunk another vegan myth: that the federal government, which is supposedly funded by the “meat and diary industry,” heavily favors livestock producers over crop producers.
Here are some charts that describe where the money goes:
Subsidies combined with insurance total over $20 billion in financial assistance distributed to farmers and landowners annually. Many have challenged the economic validity of this solution, but I think that most would agree that investing in the industry that puts foods on our table and clothes on our back should be much higher priority in the Congressional budget than many other, more mainstream issues.
I could (and surely eventually will) write an entire article about how many farmers have found ways to cheat the system and many arguments about these programs actually hurting the small, family farmers they were initially created to support, but, right now, my main goal is to debunk another vegan myth: that the federal government, which is supposedly funded by the “meat and diary industry,” heavily favors livestock producers over crop producers.
Here are some charts that describe where the money goes:
Source: Zero Hedge
|
Source: Farm Doc Daily
|
Payments to farm animal producers would fall in that “Other” column, with most of that intended for livestock raisers going to dairy farming. However, plant-based activists and even innocent yet concerned citizens still claim that the money is going to crops that will become livestock feed, and thus are indirectly funding farm animal production. And this is true… to an extent.
As I’ve previously mentioned, a certain amount of corn is set aside to create corn silage that is used extensively in dairy cattle production. But the truth is, looking at the big picture, over 90% of livestock grain ingredients are not crops that are, or were ever at any point in their processing, edible by humans. The bulk of the materials found in farm animal feed would be produced whether we feed them to livestock or not because they are byproducts of the processing required for human food and cloth manufacturing.
Just to do some quick mental math, the USDA reported that 45% of corn grown in the US goes to livestock animal feed, while roughly 35% goes to fuel and alcohol production and the remaining 10% to human food and industrial processing. Forty-five percent of $3.7 billion (from the graphic) is $1.7 billion. Crop insurance is only dealt to crop growers in the event that climatic conditions cause crop losses or market prices decline, meaning production would cost farmers money. Livestock producers do not tangibly benefit from either of these scenarios—in fact, using corn in livestock feed drives up the demand, preventing price drops from happening. No money should be added to livestock producers’ shares of subsidies here.
Even if we assumed every bit of that “Other” category went to livestock producers (which is not the case, other crops such as tobacco and sunflowers get a share), 1.7 billion added to 0.1 billion equals 1.8 billion, which is only 35% of all direct subsidy payments and 9% of all subsidy payments combined (indirect and direct).
As I’ve previously mentioned, a certain amount of corn is set aside to create corn silage that is used extensively in dairy cattle production. But the truth is, looking at the big picture, over 90% of livestock grain ingredients are not crops that are, or were ever at any point in their processing, edible by humans. The bulk of the materials found in farm animal feed would be produced whether we feed them to livestock or not because they are byproducts of the processing required for human food and cloth manufacturing.
Just to do some quick mental math, the USDA reported that 45% of corn grown in the US goes to livestock animal feed, while roughly 35% goes to fuel and alcohol production and the remaining 10% to human food and industrial processing. Forty-five percent of $3.7 billion (from the graphic) is $1.7 billion. Crop insurance is only dealt to crop growers in the event that climatic conditions cause crop losses or market prices decline, meaning production would cost farmers money. Livestock producers do not tangibly benefit from either of these scenarios—in fact, using corn in livestock feed drives up the demand, preventing price drops from happening. No money should be added to livestock producers’ shares of subsidies here.
Even if we assumed every bit of that “Other” category went to livestock producers (which is not the case, other crops such as tobacco and sunflowers get a share), 1.7 billion added to 0.1 billion equals 1.8 billion, which is only 35% of all direct subsidy payments and 9% of all subsidy payments combined (indirect and direct).
To put this into perspective, animal products represent 43.3% of the food Americans consume in terms of pounds. In terms of calories, not counting the highly-processed fats, oils, and sweeteners that actually make up the plurality of our diets (and, for our purposes, are hard to classify as strictly-plant or animal based after processing), animal products represent 43.4% of American diets. This means that products from livestock cost the federal government less money per unit consumed, but plant products cost them more per unit consumed.
|
One last note on this topic: plant-based activists are like broken records with their conspiracy theories of the “meat and dairy industry” having money in both government and science, but I challenge you to name one public interest group created for the soul purpose of advocating for the consumption of animal products. Name one corporation that’s lobbied for legislation that would benefit the livestock sector, and subsequently profited off that bill or the recognition they gained in the process.
Meanwhile, I can name many vegan public interest groups that profit off of Congressional dealings: PETA, HSUS, PRCM, and Nutrition Facts are just a few I’ve called out. There will be a much more detailed blog post about this in the coming months, but, for now, rest assured the vegans are up to their typical, baseless tomfoolery!
Meanwhile, I can name many vegan public interest groups that profit off of Congressional dealings: PETA, HSUS, PRCM, and Nutrition Facts are just a few I’ve called out. There will be a much more detailed blog post about this in the coming months, but, for now, rest assured the vegans are up to their typical, baseless tomfoolery!