Policy_Memorandum

1
Policy Memorandum
TO: Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, United States Department of Agriculture
CC: United States Environmental Protection Agency
FROM: Matteo Rodriquez, Santa Clara University student
SUBJECT: The Flawed Farm Bill — How to Fix America’s Agriculture
DATE: December 06, 2012
Executive Summary
This policy memorandum is somewhat unique in noting that the overlying cause
of the environmental degradation observed is caused by an existing government policy —
The Farm Bill. The Farm Bill comes from humble beginnings and was at one point
extremely beneficial to the agricultural sector of the American economy. Since its
usefulness has begun to run dry, the Farm Bill, which goes through Congress about every
five years, has perpetuated a downward spiral in a multitude of environmental and human
health faucets. Previous Farm Bills, notably the one passed in 2008, have been directly
linked to issues from increased obesity in America (Foster, 2012) to waning soil, water,
and air quality, and even to the maltreatment of animals. This year the Farm Bill will be
titled The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. The fact of the matter is that
the Farm Bill is antiquated. Approximately 40 percent of U.S. land is used for agriculture,
and the Farm Bill does not manage those 1.5 million square miles effectively
(Encyclopedia of the Nations, 2010). Nevertheless, I will propose three policy options
that Congress may pursue in relation to Farm Bill policy. Favorability will depend on
political standpoint, but all options are possible. In addition to reforming Farm Bill

2
policy, increased enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) will be
necessary to uphold the proposed changes.
This memorandum provides three policy options for the government to pursue. The first
option, Option A, entails the effects of no policy change. The latter two call for the EPA to assert
its authority and become a direct influence on future Farm Bill policy. We need not necessarily
end policy altogether; the bill does provide important considerations for agricultural production.
Nevertheless, the more useful options call for significant change to the allocation of funds as
provided through the bill. I will support Option B, which allows Congress to fix the bill, as the
best path, but Option C would improve the current situation as well.
Problem Statement and Justification for Action
The Farm Bill was once a viable piece of legislation for U.S. Agricultural Policy; it must
be updated to work with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to provide effective regulation of
the environmental impacts of agriculture. Several groups are influenced by the current
legislation, and their arguments will be heard throughout the context of this memorandum.
From the time the Great Depression began in 1929, gross farm income dropped a
whopping 52 percent until 1932 (Cain, 2004). Farmers, like thousands of Americans, were out of
money, work, and hope. President Franklin D. Roosevelt came to the rescue with the New Deal
in 1933, providing work and new opportunities with programs from corporations like the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Many farmers were forced to give up their livelihood in order to
provide immediate help for their families. Some, however, found salvation in a lesser known part
of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Drafted by then Secretary of
Agriculture Henry Wallace, the Agricultural Adjustment Act brought relief to thousands of
farmers across America by setting price supports. By only farming a portion of their land,

3
farmers were qualified to receive stable compensation for the food they did produce.
With this Act, Wallace “began a time-honored tradition in American agriculture: the
notion that it is necessary to control supply in order for farmers to receive a fair price for
their goods” (Cain, 2004). Secretary Wallace had just created the first Farm Bill.
How did the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a life-saving piece of
legislation for so many farmers, mutate into a law where Congress encourages the
production of orange soda over orange juice, the maltreatment of cows and chickens in
factory farms, and the overuse of pesticides today? There are a couple factors to consider.
The event that truly pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression, debatably more so than
the New Deal, was World War II. Farmers were incentivized to maximize production at
this time by high demands and prices for grain (Cain, 2004). In the time now known as
The Green Revolution, the development of new fertilizers and pesticides helped farmers
reach record yields. Conservation practices were thrown by the wayside to say the least.
There was very little future to conserve for, however, if the war was lost, so wartime
farmers aren’t to blame for the loss of conservation. After the war was won, mountainous
surpluses accumulated as farmers could produce corn, soybeans, and wheat faster than
ever. There was a significantly reduced need for such quantities in peacetime. This is
where one of the key problems posed by today’s Farm Bills lies: surplus. Industrial
agriculture producers have gotten creative with this surplus, and are now exploiting it in a
variety of ways. Herein lays the final historical connection to the issues posed by current
Farm Bills.
The justification for government action is quite obvious in this issue. This is a
problem created through government legislation. Industrial farmers have become so

4
wealthy due the vague language that composes Farm Bills that they can now influence Congress
directly to support their increasing wealth, rather than make appropriate economic and
environmental decisions (Imhoff, 2007, p. 30). The ideal agricultural sector would have a much
different appearance than the one currently supported by the Farm Bill.
Current PolicyContext
“Our challenge is not to abolish government supports altogether, but to ensure that those
subsidies we do choose to legislate actually serve as valuable investments in the country’s future
and allow us to live up to our obligations in the global community,” (Imhoff, 2007, p.19). No
matter which way the future of the Farm Bill is headed, it is important to understand how those
obligations are currently not being met. In his award-winning book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma,
food activist Michael Pollan describes two creations of industrial agriculture I alluded to earlier.
The first is the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), which Pollan describes as a
place “so different from farms and ranches that a new term was needed to denote them” (Pollan,
2006, p. 67). In layman’s terms, this is the factory farm. Cows, chickens, and pigs are crammed
into uncomfortably tight spaces and put on a corn-based diet. This is highly problematic because
the animals produce a tremendous amount of waste in a localized area. This toxicity can seep
into groundwater and nearby streams and rivers. In addition, corn is not any of these animals’
natural diet. Cows evolved to graze pastures, chickens to pluck grubs and seeds, and pigs, well
pigs still eat nearly anything. This dietary discrepancy fattens the animals quicker while lowering
their immune systems. Of course, industrialized farmers and agro-corporations have a “cure” for
this. The farm animals, especially cows, are fed antibiotics while healthy to counteract the
negative effects of their diets down the road (Pollan, 2006, p.78). Scientists (such as Pollan’s
interviewee Dr. Metzin, a farm veterinarian) studying this practice are finding that bacteria are

5
evolving to become antibiotic-resistant due to the overuse of these drugs. Factory farms
knowingly continue to forsake the health of the land and the animals because the Farm Bill
permits it. The over-allocation of money in the form of corn subsidies allows these companies to
cheaply fix errors that are far more costly in the long run. It is time for a legislative stand against
this malpractice.
The other major problematic creation synthesized from corn surpluses is literally
synthesized from corn surplus. Corn by-products, most notably high fructose corn syrup (HFCS),
make their way into many unexpected foods. Because HFCS is so inexpensive to refine, the
products it is used in are also inexpensive. This is the main reason soda can stay as artificially
cheap as it is flavored. It’s no secret that America has an obesity problem, and a large one at that.
Julie Foster’s article, “Subsidizing Fat: How the 2012 Farm Bill Can Address America’s Obesity
Epidemic,” was chosen in a recent volume of the selective University of Pennsylvania Law
Review. Foster points out that the government, and by the government she means the taxpayers,
spends $20 billion annually to reduce the cost of unhealthy food, while Americans spend an
estimated $147 billion in obesity-related healthcare costs (Foster, 2012, p. 237). That is an
enormous discrepancy. It is important to note that the government is not directly reducing prices
of cheeseburgers, soda pop, and potato chips, all of which contain corn by-products, (Pollan,
2006, p. 116), but indirectly through Farm Bill policy. The unhealthy foods that contain corn in
some way, shape, or form (e.g. HFCS) appear less expensive to consumers because they have
already paid for a price reduction through taxes. So we now know that not only is our food
produced unsustainably through CAFOs and monoculture, but the end result, which is more
expensive than lets on, is also bad for us.

6
Foster and Pollan further their arguments by addressing the problem of the Farm Bill
directly. Foster explains, “Farmers who grow fruits and vegetables are not subsidized, and are
ineligible even for most conservation programs, because they do not grow program crops”
(Foster, 2012, p. 242), while Pollan adds, “The Farm Bill supports the growing of corn but not
the growing of fresh carrots” (Waters, 2006). What is a “program crop?” Well, program crops,
like corn and soy beans, are not worth very much on the open market because of how efficiently
they can be produced. In fact, farmers lost an average -$0.95 per bushel of corn in 2000 (Foster,
2012, p. 241). Large-scale farmers were still able to prosper from this disparity by setting aside
small percentages of their land for conservation purposes. Why does this senseless economic
activity continue to happen? Lobbyists from fast food and corn refining industries pay a hefty
sum to make sure Congress continues to pass unsustainable Farm Bills. Large-scale farmers
produce as directed to, earning income through subsidies, and the convoluted circle of
agricultural production is complete.
Evaluative Criteria
Before reviewing the policy options, it is important to understand the evaluative criteria
which each option will be analyzed by. Rather than look at the damage done by CAFOs through
air or water pollution statistics, let’s look at the root of the problem. The evaluative criterion that
would be most beneficial is looking at the number of large-scale CAFOs in the United States as a
measure of Farm Bill progress. (Another valid option would be to measure the annual change in
CAFO animal density.) Because larger CAFOs do proportionally more environmental damage
(Gurian-Sherman, 2008), we should hope to see a reduction in these numbers. This, however, has
not been the case in recent years.

7
Table 1 Source (Gurian-Sherman, 2008). Number of Livestock Operations by Size,* 1982-1997. Note: 1 Animal
Unit is approximately 1,000 pounds ofcow.
While the overall number of CAFOs has decreased, large-scale operations have increased. This
means there are more animals being raised in fewer locations. We really should hope to see an
increase in the total number of feeding operations, as this likely means more small-scale
operations are contributing to total meat production. Small-scale operations are closest to the
classic farm and are generally the most humane and sustainable. Nevertheless, the numerical
value to monitor here is number of large-scale CAFOs.
The other evaluative criterion to key in on, which is depicted below, is the allocation of
funds as directed by the Farm Bill itself. Each policy option presents a different allocation of
funds, with the figure on the next page demonstrating the current breakdown.

8
Figure 1 Source: (Imhoff, 2007) [Congressional Research Service] (Data averaged over 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005,
2006).
The “Food Stamps and Nutrition” category takes up the largest portion of funding, and this need
not change. The categories that are factors in positive policy change (the categories that change
with Policy Options B and C) are Commodity and Foreign Agriculture, Conservation, and Food
Safety. Options B and C call for increased conservation spending accompanied by either less
commodity and subsidy spending, more evenly distributed subsidy funding (not limited to
program crops), or both.

9
PolicyOptions and Comparative Analysis
With a thorough understanding of current policy context and an introduction to
the evaluative criteria now in place, this is a good time to look at each policy option in
depth.
Table 2 Policy Option Overview
Policy Option Description of the
policy proposal
Key political
institutions
involved
Anticipated future impact
to environmental indicator
(number of CAFOs/CAFO
density)
Anticipated future impact
to legislative indicator
(allocation of Farm Bill
funds)
Option A
No change in
Farm Bill policy
-Allow Congress to
continue along the
same path,passing
Farm Bills that
repeatedly degrade
human and
environmental health
-USDA: influence
on Farm Bill is
not enough
(currently spends
money as
Congress directs)
-335 million tons of dry
waste produced annually;
this number is rising
-Expect to see either more
or larger CAFOs with
Congress following this
path
-See Figure 1
-Too much spent on
commodities and
subsidies,not enough
spent on conservation
-Continuation of this
trend with no change in
policy
Option B
Allow Congress
to fix issues with
Farm Bill
-Politically shift the
incentives of large
scale farmers
-Increase regulation
through better
monitoring of CAFOs
-EPA: more
stringent
enforcement of
CAA and CWA
-USDA: increase
role in drafting of
Farm Bill (work
with the House
instead of for it)
-Currently State regulated,
but should be centralized
under Farm Bill reform
-Less CAFOs with reduced
concentration of animals
per CAFO
-With a reduction in
CAFOs we will see
improved water and air
quality locally
-Reduce subsidies to corn
and soy
-Financially reward
conservation and food
safety
-Possible subsidy
beginnings for fresh fruits
and vegetables
-Price of meat increase
Policy Option C
Take the Farm
Bill out of
Congress’s
Hands
-Through EPA
review, change the
Farm Bill to reflect
pressing
environmental/societal
concerns
-EPA and USDA
work togetherto
draft Farm Bill
-Take Congress
out of the final
drafting process
-Significant changes made
to CAFO management
-Reduction in CAFO
quantity
-Fines for improper
management
-Very different allocation
of funds scope
-Most radical change
-More research,
conservation,EIRs
-Evening of the playing

10
The analysis of Option A reveals no change in Farm Bill policy. This option is relevant
because it is the most likely option for at least the next couple Farm Bills (as it is also the
direction taken by The Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012). Continuing to follow
this path will not only sustain the current struggles posed by the Farm Bill, but make them more
commonplace. As demonstrated by Table 1, there has been a huge increase in the number of
large-scale animal feeding operations with an even larger decrease in the number of small-scale
animal feeding operations. My environmental evaluative criterion, number of CAFOs, seems
slightly out of place because the data show an overall drop in number of CAFOs. However, if we
look at the number of CAFOs with more than 1,000 total AU, we see a 47 percent increase from
1982-1997. This is the number to keep an eye on. More large-scale operations absolutely means
the agricultural sector is responsible for more water contamination, more greenhouse gas
emissions, and more maltreatment of livestock. CAFOs thrive under this context because animal
feed remains cheap while the true cost of the degradation to the local environment goes largely
unnoticed. This option keeps the prices of corn and soy by-products, including artificially
flavored sodas and CAFO-produced meat, at falsely low prices. The breakdown of how the
USDA spends Farm Bill funding should also remain constant (Figure 1). Incentives for
sustainable production remain non-existent, and subsidy money will continue to be thrown at
program crops.
Option B presents the ideal scenario. If Congressmen can free themselves from the
campaign funding and other financial incentives provided through fast food and crop refining
-Hypothetical option -No more absurd wealth
from non-sustainable
production
field
-Break up of
commodity/subsidy funds

11
lobbyists, a step that will call for increased public awareness and outcry (Pollan, 2006),
then a just Farm Bill could be produced through EPA and USDA oversight. Allow the
recommendations of these two government organizations to be heard, and the Farm Bill
of the future will not reflect the minimization of production cost. Instead, the Farm Bill
will be a legislative tool as opposed to a burden on our future. Looking at the future
impacts of the environmental evaluative criterion, number of CAFOs, we would expect to
see a drop in the number of large-scale operations. Farming program crops will not be a
walk in the park. This is because subsidy money will be distributed more evenly, with
producers of fruits and vegetables now getting a piece of the pie formerly reserved only
for program crop producers. Option B also calls for the EPA to crack down on CAFOs
through updates made to the CAA and CWA. CAFOs are such a factor in agricultural
production that the EPA needs a set of guidelines just to effectively regulate large-scale
meat production. Not everyone will be pleased with this policy decision. The price of
meat will rise, as producers will now pass their cost of production hike to consumers.
This, however, I believe to be a hidden benefit. With the agricultural sector responsible
for a minimum of 7 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions produced by the U.S.,
CAFO reduction will help shrink that number (USDA, 2008). The final major change,
one that will help the EPA monitor CAFOs better, is a centralization of CAFO policy.
With factory farms tied to national guidelines, the EPA will be able to enforce penalties
and regulations more effectively. All in all, this option refocuses the antiquated method in
which the Farm Bill is written and implemented to directly encourage more sustainable
production.

12
The final policy option, Option C, is more hypothetical. While similar to Option B,
Option C will likely not be a true option in the present because it calls for the Farm Bill to be
taken out of Congress’s hands entirely. This is not necessarily constitutionally sound. The
Legislative Branches of government are responsible for writing the laws which we live by, and
the Farm Bill is no exception. If anything is taken from this paper, it is that the writers of this
particular legislation have consistently dropped the ball. Option B is ideal because it means
Congress has seen the error of their ways and adjusted legislation accordingly. While structurally
similar to Option B, this option is almost a worst case scenario because it means Congress is not
capable of fixing the errors of current Farm Bills. How do we identify this issue? Using the two
evaluative criteria I described is a start. Are there more or less large-scale CAFOs? How have the
funds been allocated? We need not limit ourselves to two criteria though. What do obesity rates
look like? What percent of greenhouse gas emissions is agriculture responsible for? All of these
questions can be analyzed and answered to provide a view of how the Farm Bill is shaping
American agriculture. If the trend continues to be negative, then I propose that the USDA and
EPA write the Farm Bill before Congress does too much permanent damage. While it could be
controversial, this strategy would ensure that agricultural production does not come at the cost of
our environment.
I will admit to a lack of creativity within these proposals. This is because change, should
it come, will likely be gradual. That is perfectly okay so long as it does come. The issue is that
positive change has been absent with every Farm Bill over the past 20-30 years. I have not given
up hope that Congress will eventually start to produce a Farm Bill as a useful piece of legislation
as public awareness of the issues increases. Should they fail, and instead pursue Option A over

13
the next few terms, I will hope to see the Executive branch step up its role in the drafting of the
future Farm Bills.
Conclusion
There is final point that deserves to be heard in this argument. American Farmland Trust
President Jon Scholl was recently heard in the American Farmland Trust Article, “Urging
Congress to Consider Environmental and Conservation Impacts of New Farm Bill.” President
Scholl proposes a safety net that would hold farmers, especially those from large farms, more
accountable. This safety net would encourage farmers to make sustainable choices by giving
them a fall back in case their transitions to sustainable farming provide unexpected production
costs. In order to qualify for the safeguard, farmers have to present soil conservation plans for
highly erodible soil areas as well as ensure no loss of wetlands. The Trust points out that,
“according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, federally subsidized crop insurance is the only
large USDA program that is not currently subject to conservation compliance” (American
Farmland Trust, 2012). This allows farmers to essentially gamble with the fertility of their land.
If they fail, it doesn’t matter because they are insured. The safety net would change this scenario
with a couple main points. The first is that revenue protection should be triggered by current
prices, not historical averages. The most important point is that farmers should only receive
assistance “if they sustain an objective, real loss” (American Farmland Trust, 2012). This would
factor accountability into the rhetoric of the Farm Bill. Finally, to minimize price distortion,
“government payments should not determine where and how intensively crops are grown”
(American Farmland Trust, 2012). The evidence for these claims comes from the studies done
about the economic and environmental impacts of past Farm Bills by our good friends the EPA

14
and USDA. This idea is a key missing piece from current Farm Bills because it would allow
farmers to produce fruits and vegetables with government price protection.
I had a hard time fitting this argument into a specific policy option context, though
President Scholl makes a valid point that further breaks down how to effectively allocate the
funds used for subsidies. The Farm Bill should not help farmers maximize yields, as was the goal
in the 1940s and 1950s, but help farmers sustainably grow crops. There should also be a shifting
in the types of crops farmers are encouraged to grow. Instead of continuing to create surpluses of
corn, soy, and wheat, why not encourage the growth of fresh fruits and vegetables? Furthermore,
we need not pit conservation against production. President Scholl calls for a safety net that would
help farmers transition to a more sustainable agriculture. These are the types of innovative
legislative ideas that Congress needs to consider as we move forward. With guidance from the
EPA and USDA, I am confident that Option B is the best path for Congress to take with regards
to the future of the Farm Bill. There are many aspects to consider, but our focus should now
revolve around the quality of production methods instead of sheer quantity of production.
Signature
Matteo Rodriquez

15
References
American Farmland Trust. (2012, March 15). “Urging Congress to Consider Environmental and
Conservation Impacts of New Farm Bill.” Farm Bill Facts.
Bittman, M. (2011, March 1). “Don’t End Agricultural Subsidies, Fix Them.” The New York
Times.
Encyclopedia of the Nations. (2010). “United States of America – Agriculture.” Encyclopedia of
the Nations.
Cain, Zachary and Lovejoy, Stephen. (2004, April 9). “History and Outlook for Farm Bill
Conservation Programs.” Choices Magazine.
Foster, Julie. (2012). “Subsidizing Fat: How the 2012 Farm Bill Can Address America’s Obesity
Epidemic.” PENNumbra. Volume 160: 235-275.
Grace Links. (2012). “Waste Management.” Sustainable Table.
Gurian-Sherman, Doug. (2008, April). “CAFOs Uncovered.” Union of Concerned Scientists:
16-25.
Hribar, C. (2010). “Understanding concentrated animal feeding operations and their impact on
communities.” Bowling Green, Ohio: National Association of Local Boards of Health.
Imhoff, Daniel. (2007). Food Fight The Citizen’s Guide to a Food and Farm Bill. Healdsburg,
California: Watershed Media.
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. (2008). Putting meat on the table:
industrial farm animal production in America. Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/
Pollan, Michael. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New
York: Penguin.
Stănescu, Vasile (2008). “‘Green’ Eggs and Ham? The Myth of Sustainable Meat and the Danger

16
of the Local.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies. Volume 8: 8-46
Steeves, M. (2002). The EPA’s proposed CAFO regulations fall short of ensuring the integrity of
our nation’s waters. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law 22(2): 367-380.
United Sates Department of Agriculture (2008, August 27). “Greenhouse Gas Inventory.” Office
of the Chief Economist.
Waters, Alice, Ed. (2006, September 11). “One Thing to Do About Food: A Forum.” The Nation.

Policy_Memorandum

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Policy_Memorandum

Policy_Memorandum