The document argues against the misconception that subsidies favor junk food over fruits and vegetables, asserting that both types of crops face chronic market failures and need better pricing and support. It refutes claims that fruit and vegetable farmers are neglected in subsidy programs, presenting evidence that they have historically fared better than subsidized grains despite the lack of dedicated subsidies. The document emphasizes the need for unity among farmers and advocates for restoring price floors to ensure fair wages rather than relying solely on subsidies.

1. Subsidized Field Crops
Vs
Fruits &Vegetables: Part I
(Introductory Information &Vegetables)
Data Slides Fix the Myths

2. Do subsidies favor junk food? No.
Chronic market failure plus cheap minimum Price Floors, hurting, (NOT helping) corn and wheat, are the cause.
Fruit and Vegetable farmers also need higher prices! We don’t need cheaper food! We need living wages and adequate
food safety net programs. All of these crops are in the same boat. We must not be divided and conquered.

3. U.S. PIRG: Apples toTwinkies: Brad Rebuttal
Here’s a concise rebuttal to a video by U.S. PIRG pitting fruits and vegetables against grains and oilseeds. See further citations there.
The blog and this whole slideshow rebut the report behind the video, Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of fresh Produce and
Junk Food, which is found here: https://uspirg.org/reports/xxp/apples-twinkies . I provide the data and analysis that they omit.

4. 45 Fruits &VegetablesVs. 5 Subsidized Crops
Here’s the story I’m going to tell, the over all summary. Note that subsidies are added in
on top of market prices for the 5 subsidized crops. Now I’ll move toward the details.
Skip ahead to the Fruit & Vegetable Data Charts if you want!

5. Fruits &Vegetables as “Specialty Crops”
✤ A second way of pitting grains, oilseeds and cotton against Fruits and Vegetables is the claim that the former are “Commodity
Crops,” and the latter are “Speciality Crops.”
✤ In fact, however, Fruits and Vegetables are ALSO classified as “Commodities,” as I show on the next slide.
✤ Commodity crops are then interpreted as representing “commodification,” a mechanistic a philosophy of reductionism, while fruits
and vegetables are claimed to be exempt from “commodification.” Again the crops are pitted against each other.
✤ In fact, however, mechanistic, industrial approaches have also been applied to fruits and vegetables for many years, such as
changing the tomato to be more suitable for mechanical harvesting, lending the title to Jim Hightower’s 1978 book Hard Tomatoes,
Hard Times. See also, O. A. Lorenz and Melvin N. Gagnon, "Systematizing the Tomato, or More Punch for Pizza", Yearbook of
Agriculture 1975: That We May Eat, pp. 337-344, https://naldc-legacy.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?
id=CAIN769013752&content=PDF (next slide).
✤ Part of the argument with regard to “Speciality Crops” is that the term is sometimes interpreted to mean that these crops are treated
as lesser, neglected crops in farm programs, not main crops. That’s mainly argued because the farm subsidy programs usually
cover crops like grains, oilseeds and cotton, and not include fruits and vegetables, suggesting that the former get much better
treatment in farm bills and programs.
✤ A major flaw in this argument is that, even with subsidies, fruits and vegetables have long fared somewhat better than the
subsidized crops, (even when subsidies are added to the latter,) as I show with a mass of evidence in this slideshow.

7. Commodity Crops! Fruits &Vegetables too!
At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fruits and Vegetables are viewed as commodity crops.
U.S.D.A., Economic Research Service, https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17845 .

8. Farm Subsidies
✤ Subsidies were not needed in parity programs. Proposals to restore parity programs also propose to end
all farm subsidies. I.e. https://familyfarmjustice.me/2016/12/09/family-farm-act-of-1987/ .
✤ While there were a few early farm subsidies, there were none from 1944 until they started up again on
various years for various crops.
✤ In 1961, subsidies began for wheat, corn and sorghum, in 1962 for barley, in 1964 for cotton, in 1977 for
rice, (as shown above,) in 1982 for oats, in 1998 for soybeans, never for rye. James S. Ward, compiler,
Farm Commodity and Related Programs, Agriculture Handbook 345, USDA, ASCS, reprinted, revised,
1976, US Government Printing Office, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?
id=uc1.b4381263&view=1up&seq=11 .)
✤ Farmers have consistently received less with subsidies, and less with bigger subsidies, as subsidies did
not make up for reduced income from the lowering and ending of Price Floors. See the 5 subsidized
farms on charts here. Cf. https://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/trump-subsidies-in-context-
states .

9. What? Market Management!
The Paradigm of the Real Farm Bill
✤ Behind the various farm subsidy myths, especially the ones regarding fruits and vegetables, (as shown in this slideshow,) is
a false paradigm based on not knowing “what” the real farm bill was meant to be.
✤ In the false paradigm, the farm bill is viewed as a government spending pie chart. To “follow the money,” look at
government spending. That points to “the subsidized crops.”
✤ The Agricultural Policy Analysis Center has referred to this paradigm with the phrase “clever money delivery
systems,” (see next slide).
✤ Really, the farm bill was designed as market management, like minimum wage and living wage. If you get a minimum
wage, you get a standard, not a government check. To follow the big money in the farm programs, look at market failure
on one hand, and market management impacts, (or the lack thereof,) on the other. That’s the big money!
✤ Since so many interpretations of the farm bill and farm programs today leave out market management, (and yes, most of
these programs no longer exist, resulting in the cheapest of cheap farm prices,) and see only subsidies, (“clever money
delivery systems,”) I call the market management portion, “the hidden farm bill,” compared to government spending as
“the visible farm bill.” See this article, https://zcomm.org/zblogs/the-hidden-farm-bill-secret-trillions-for-agribusiness-by-
brad-wilson/ and this slide show https://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/the-hidden-farm-bill-37959389 .

10. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johans
Misunderstood “WHAT” a Farm Bill Is
✤ APAC says, “Johanns … spoke about specialty crops saying,
‘specialty crops now are equal in value to the program crops
…. But they…don't even get a subsidy. They don't receive
anything.’”
✤ “Statements like that nearly give us heartburn for two
reasons. First, these statements seem to assume that farm
program payments have no purpose other than to dispense
money to farmers whose predecessors in the 30s earned a
fraction of their urban cousins.”
✤ Second,…. What kinds of payments, policy mechanisms,
and direct and indirect support programs are enjoyed by
specialty crops?
✤ “The first statement is like arguing that we have a problem
with health insurance because sick people generate most of
the payouts. Of course they do.”
✤ Source for above: Harwood D. Shaffer and Daryll #. Ray, Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center, “Johanns’ ‘facts’ divert attention from
agriculture’s root policy problem?” 10/13/06, http://agpolicy.org/
weekcol/323.html.
✤ “… program-crop farmers receiving direct payments are
prohibited from using that cropland to grow specialty crops like
vegetables, fruits, and tree nuts.” “Wysocki said specialty crop
producers would sustain annual losses in excess of $3 billion if
the current planting restriction were to be removed.”
✤ “The AgWeb article also points out, ‘fruits and vegetables
received about 40% of all Market Access Funds (MAP) funding
in FY2004.’ In addition, specialty crop producers have been
frequent recipients of USDA grants.”
✤ “Furthermore AgWeb author writes, “Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) activities for disease and pest
control, including the eradication program for fruit flies, citrus
canker, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, and the emerald ash
borer have also proven especially important to specialty crops.
So too are Marketing Orders, Research and Promotion
Programs, the Quality Samples Program, Grading and Quality
Certification Programs, the Federal State Marketing
Improvement Program, Market News, and the National Organic
Program.”
✤ Source for below: “Johanns’ ’60 percent of farmers do not receive
payments’—A case of correct answer to the wrong question?” 10/20/06,
http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/324.html .

11. What’s the Farm Bill? Not “Money Delivery”
Harwood D. Shaffer and Daryll E. Ray, http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/334.html .

12. Cheapening Rice Prices
(RED) Price Floors were lowered by Congress starting in 1953. (BLUE) Prices followed.
(Yellow) Subsidies: zero correlation with lower prices 1953-1976 (no rice subsidies).
Same for other subsidized crops. Subsidies are not the cause of cheap prices.

13. 4 Proofs: Subsidies do not cause
cheap market prices
✤ 1. Economically, low farm prices are caused by a lack
of price responsiveness on both supply and demand
sides, not by subsidies. http://agpolicy.org/
weekcol/248.html
✤ 2. Farm prices went down for years, when there were
NO subsidies, so there is zero correlation between
commodity subsidies and the lowering of farm prices
for those years. Instead we find that price floors
were lowered, and prices followed them right down.
Subsidies came after the fact to quiet down (and
blame) angry farmers. See the rice chart.
✤ 3/ Five studies cited by Timothy Wise, at the Global
Development and Environment Institute at Tufts
University, found very small impacts of subsidy
elimination on the prices of these commodities (ie.
"program crops"), well under 5% and sometimes
prices increase with subsidy elimination. This
contrasts with the much larger percentages of export
dumping (below cost, below zero, farm exports), and
these percentages do not cover the full range up to a
fair trade, living wage price. P. 21 here: https://
www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/
Paradox_of_Agricultural_Subsidies_MeasurementI.p
df .
✤ 4. Real world evidence from subsidy elimination in
other countries also supports me, not Pollan. In three
countries discussed by Daryll E. Ray at APAC
(University of Tennessee), subsidy elimination did
not fix the problem of oversupply, which leads to low
prices. Pp. 40-42 here: http://agpolicy.org/
blueprint/APACReport8-20-03WITHCOVER.pdf .

14. 5 Subsidized Crops in each chart.
✤ Corn
✤ Wheat
✤ Soybeans
✤ Rice
✤ Cotton

15. (Red) VEGETABLES declined, but stayed mostly above the 5 (blue) SUBSIDIZED CROPS.

16. What is Percent of Parity?
✤ Parity is a standard of fair prices, with 100% of parity as similar to
living wage.
✤ Parity statistics factor in costs as “prices paid” by farmers.
✤ Parity is a ratio of Prices Paid and Prices Received by farmers.
✤ Parity is a way of comparing crops with each other, and over time, as
on my charts.
✤ Later I will add other kinds of comparisons, other kinds of data,
which reinforce my findings.

17. Same Crops: Total Summary
Includes subsidies for the first 5.

18. Same Crops: Here are the details.
So here’s the story of carrots, for carrot cake. They did better than the 5 subsidized crops.

19. Data Sources
✤ Data used to calculate data for the charts: market prices and parity prices. Then divide market prices by parity prices to get
percent of parity. I’ve gathered and calculated about 15,000 numbers for this project, mostly by hand, typing each one
gathered, then calculating percent of parity, then calculating various summaries, adjusting for missing data, etc.. (I have
more data, not shown.) This took place over months, all unpaid. I’m grateful to the inventors of the spreadsheet, the
inventors of the internet, previous work of the Family Farm Movement, (on whose shoulders I stand,) and to USDA-NASS.
✤ The primary data source for the historical numbers is USDA’s National Agricultural Statistical Service, (NASS,) in their
publication, the Agricultural Statistics, Annual, in chapter 9 for each year. Online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/Ag_Statistics/ .
✤ For the latest numbers, (and I’ll update this when I have time,) see USDA’s NASS, in their monthly publication, Agricultural
Prices, https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/c821gj76b?locale=en .
✤ Some data, (but not parity prices and not fruits and vegetables,) is also available from USDA NASS, in their publication,
Historical Track Record - Crop Production, https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/c534fn92g?locale=en . See
also USDA-NASS, Quickstats, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/ .
✤ Another valuable source is Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition Online, from Cambridge University
Press, under “Economic Sectors,” and then “Agriculture,” https://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/toc/showPart.do?id=D
where data can be purchased.

20. 5 More FreshVegetables. Worse off, but better than the Blue Crops.
The Twinkies argument is false. The 5 crops are NOT grown for profit with subsidies.

21. Parity Farm Programs
✤ Some parity programs featured Minimum Farm Price Floors for various crops, as shown for
rice, above. They were supported by supply reductions, as needed to balance supply and
demand.
✤ Minimum Farm Price Floors were set at 90% of parity, with a goal of achieving market prices of
100% of parity.
✤ Wheat, cotton, corn and rice were “basic” crops, soybeans, “nonbasic.”
✤ Parity was achieved most of the time for these crops for 1942-1952.
✤ The programs also had Maximum Farm Price Ceilings, to trigger the release of stored reserve
supplies, to prevent price spikes during shortages, and protect consumers.
✤ Congress lowered, (1953-1995) and ended (1996-2023) Price Floor programs, and prices fell to
the lowest levels in history.

22. There were quite a few Price Floor programs at first.
Some vegetables had price floors, potatoes, and sweet potatoes.
From USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics, Annual, 1952, pp. 680-681.

23. Parity Programs forVegetables & Fruits
✤ Most Vegetables and Fruits had Market Order or Marketing
Agreement Programs.
✤ These programs supported fair prices “indirectly.”
✤ Vegetables and Fruits achieved 100% of parity or more during
1942-1952. Agriculture as a whole achieved 100% of parity or more.
✤ Today parity still plays a role in “ 45 fruit, vegetable, and nut Federal
marketing orders.” The programs have become less effective, and
market prices have all declined a lot.

24. 5 FreshVegetables with no subsidies.
It would be more profitable to grow most of the vegetables shown in this slide show than
to grow the 5 subsidized crops. Incentives are less, not more, for the 5 subsidized crops.

25. Details. 5 Subsidize crops, 5 FreshVegetables.
The trend line is clear. All are paid less. All farmers are in the same boat most of the time.

26. Corn Prices + Subsidies, 1940-2026
Farmers have received less with subsidies, as Price Floors were lowered. The latter figures are projections.

27. Wheat Prices + Subsidies, 1940-2026
Farmers have received less with subsidies, as Price Floors were lowered. The latter figures are projections.

28. Soybean Prices + Subsidies, 1940-2026
Farmers have received less with subsidies, as Price Floors were lowered. During the 1970s, some farm prices rose
dramatically due to the larger Soviet grain sale. Prices stayed higher for longer during the 1970s for soybeans. Note:
Soybeans received no subsidies until 1998. The latter figures are projections.

29. Cotton Prices + Subsidies, 1940-2026
While cotton had some early subsidies, they soon ended and didn’t start again until
1964.The latter figures are projections.

30. 5 ProcessingVegetables.
Not on the charts, the 5 subsidized crops have also stayed low in price since 2014, 2015.

31. 5 ProcessingVegetables do better than 5 Subsidized crops (including subsidies).

32. ProcessingVegetables: Here are the details.

33. 5 More Fresh & ProcessingVegetables
Again, the red line is consistently above the blue line.

34. Total Summary: 5 Fresh & ProcessingVegetables
Again, the 5 subsidized crops, plus subsidies, fared worse.

35. Data Details: 5 MoreVegetables.
Over and over, farmers are all in the same boat. Don’t pit farmers against each other.

36. Final Summary: 23VegetablesVs 5 Subsidized Crops

37. We must stop bashing the subsidized crops, stop being divided and conquered.
Farmers are all in this together. Subsidized Crop farmers want to unite with ALL farmers.
Farmers have long wanted to restore Price Floors (& end all subsidies). For example, this
was the top priority at the United Farmer United Farmer and Rancher Congress of 1986.
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Delegate%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf .

38. For further reading.
Brad Wilson, "Commodity Crops Vs. Vegetables? Data Slides Fix the Myth," Zspace,1/29/13, & see the links there.
https://zcomm.org/zblogs/commodity-crops-vs-vegetables-data-slides-fix-the-myth-by-brad-wilson/.

39. Date
Go to Part II:
Subsidized Field CropsVs. Fruits & Concluding Information.
Parent Link: http://www.slideshare.net/bradwilson581525/presentations