Only the market carries a sufficient supply of carrots and sticks to drive and sustain change of the magnitude needed
I was privileged to work for Congressman George Brown of California on food and ag policy in the early 1980s. He was a wonderful man and a principled, effective senior member of Congress. Mr. Brown shared many gems of wisdom, including “Dr. Benbrook, it is a good idea to understand the source of a problem before trying to solve it.”
Just about everyone recognizes that the U.S. food and farming system is plagued with problems. But like beauty, problems are in the eye of the beholder. Many current stalemates are grounded in double vision and are proving stubbornly resilient.
Ag Mythology
Reticence to change has been preserved for years by a set of seemingly untouchable myths about food and farming. Yet, I also see in Trump II, and in the stated goals and proposed actions of MAHA advocates and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, a sea change in willingness to question — even contradict —- the myths upon which the economic and political viability of the U.S. food and farming system depends. These myths include the following:
- We are reminded regularly that the U.S. food supply is the cheapest in the world. Wrong. In truth, only the cost per calorie of our daily bread is near the highest in the world. Our per capita expenditures on food are among the world’s lowest because per capita income in the U.S. is nearly the highest.
- Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. are the most productive in the world. Perhaps based on dollars of ag products sold per full-time farming and ranching operation, but not in nearly all other metrics. This is especially true in two metrics that matter more than most: keeping Americans fed and healthy, and earning a livable profit margin for farmers, given what the market pays for crops and animal products.
- The American farmer is feeding the world. Not true. The dollar value of food imports to the U.S. now exceeds the value of our exports. Much of U.S. ag exports feed animals, not people, and do so inefficiently on the basis of human food calories and human-nutrients per acre. This is especially true when compared to the nutrient-rich fruits, vegetables, tea and coffee, cheeses, pasta, and other human foods that account for the bulk of U.S. imports.
- The U.S. food supply is the safest in the world. This surely could be true, but it objectively is not if “safety” encompasses the adverse human-health outcomes known to be caused by, or linked to, the presence of foodborne pathogens and risky chemical residues in food.
- Our food is the most nutritious, tasty and convenient in the world. Well, at least the third claim is arguably true.
- Food assistance programs should not tell people what to eat. Over twenty states have chosen to ignore this once untouchable political imperative, and the federal government might not be far behind. This will open many cans of worms as people realize how tricky it is to distinguish healthy from unhealthy food options. Who is going to take on this task, and who will consumers believe and trust them?
The End of Bipartisanship in the Food Bill?
For decades, the political coalition required to pass farm bills, and to provide taxpayer support for both farmers and citizens in need, was regarded as untouchable. The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) may prove otherwise.
The OBBB increases subsidies for already highly subsidized crops that are financed by cuts in SNAP and other food-related social service programs. This could mark the beginning of the end for how farm bill spending has gained bipartisan support. Farmers and ranchers may be in for some rude awakenings in the next 10 to 20 years when it comes to how tax dollars are deployed in the food and farm sectors.
Corn is king. It is also a huge problem — the proverbial 800-pound gorilla on the back of U.S. farmers, consumers and the planet. The insatiable need for subsidies to keep king corn on the throne could metaphorically bankrupt the realm. One day the American public may come to understand the true magnitude of public subsidies required to keep farmers producing 80-90 millions acres of excessively high-yield corn.
We need to reduce the total acres devoted to corn by at least one-third over the next decade or so and shift the associated tax dollars and tax incentives away from the huge subsidy bundle that is now required to sustain corn-soybean production systems (direct payments, lower-cost crop insurance, subsidized ethanol, high-cost seed, excessive reliance on fertilizer and pesticides). Doing so will open the door to at least three-crop rotations across the Midwest — one of the simplest and most universally beneficial changes that will, one day, occur. Few farmers remember discussions with extension specialists, agronomists or neighbors of the “rotation effect” (~15 percent higher yields), and many of today’s younger farmers have likely never heard the term, nor given it much thought.
While on the topic of yield, the pursuit of higher yields remains the holy grail that defines progress in “modern” U.S. agriculture. This too is beginning to change. Few people growing crops in America today are aware that they have been actively contributing to the “dilution effect” in crop nutritional quality since the day they first climbed on a tractor. In short, higher yields are typically achieved via plant breeding and more nitrogen (N) per acre, and at the expense of a crop’s concentration of health-promoting phytochemicals. (Curious? Google “The Dilution Effect in Plant Nutrition Studies,” a 1981 paper that, ironically in retrospect, appeared in Volume 34 of Advances in Agronomy).
Recognizing the importance of more diverse crop rotations and the dilution effect, and investing in innovations designed to enhance crop nutritional quality and safety, are among the advances in agronomy that fell by the wayside in the pursuit of ever-higher yields.
Nutrition per Acre
It will take time, thoughtful applications of “sound” science, and steady leadership to change our current food and fiber system. For over a century, our system has awarded volume and scale and has largely ignored food quality and costs imposed on others.
And yet year to year, each additional bushel of corn, soybeans and other crops usually comes at higher cash costs, thereby diluting farm profit margins. More N will move into the air and surface waters. The erosion in soil health will continue, despite lots of ink and inspired rhetoric about what various folks, entities, and institutions are doing to restore soil health.
On average across the entire food system, we need to grow progressively more human nutrition per acre. The nation must collectively embrace the need to grow a different mix of crops, and in different ways. Excessively high crop-yield expectations need to give way to the profit potential inherent in producing higher-quality, premium products. In short, a little lower yield, a lot more profit.
The health of farmers, their families, and rural communities will depend on systemic changes in food and farming systems that make safe and nutritious crops and food the most profitable option at every stage along farm-to-food value chains.
It is a dangerous myth that America lacks the resources, science and technology, and farmer-rancher know how to produce nutritious and safe food. Missing ingredients include ways to pay workers livable wages, processing infrastructure, and demand for organic and regenerative food.
Our current food system is a result of our collective choices over the last half century. We will benefit from healthier food and farming systems when we collectively decide to insist that both our food dollars and taxpayer-supported subsidies make healthier and safer food the most profitable option for all players along food value chains.
Market Effects
At the end of the day, only the market carries a sufficient supply of carrots and sticks to drive and sustain change of the magnitude needed. Yet it is hard to imagine how the country will muster the vision, motivation and investment needed to change the food system in such dramatic ways, given today’s politics. But in Trump II, many untouchables are falling by the wayside. And once unleashed, change can become contagious.
It was clearly contagious in the mid-1990s when Congress passed today’s major food labeling and environmental statutes, and the Food Quality Protection Act. Might the next few years test another untouchable belief — that only government is capable of driving change at scale across U.S. agriculture and in the food industry?
If we choose to place more faith and responsibility on markets to drive private sector innovation for the public good, we must also pay attention to whether the product-specific information accessible to consumers is reliable and not systematically twisted to help a given company, brand or technology.
Which brings us back to untouchable myths and Congressman Brown’s advice to understand the source of problems before setting out to solve them: with so many cuts in government institutions, technical knowhow, and public research, will consumers be able to reward brands and companies offering a premium, safer and healthier option, or will the companies with more creative and well-funded marketing and PR departments gain the upper hand? Might this era of unprecedented change in private sector and government roles serve up little more than a perfect recipe for sustaining the status quo?
Time will tell.
