Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Subsidies to Industrial Crop Farmers Costs Taxpayers $8 Billion

Subsidies to Industrial Crop Farmers Costs Taxpayers $8 Billion

Environmental Working Group

A new report on subsidized federal revenue insurance for industrial crop farmers shows that the government has failed to control its costs and big insurance companies and agents continue to reap billions of dollars in windfall profits. Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has long advocated meaningful reform of this misguided policy, commissioned economics professor Dr. Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University to do the analysis.

“It confirmed our worst fears,” said Craig Cox, EWG’s senior vice president of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

According to the report, program costs have increased exponentially—tripling to $8 billion since 2000—and the insurance policies have enticed farmers to buy the most expensive policies, which carry high premiums that are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

“This insurance can pay out even if a farmer has not suffered any loss and duplicates the coverage farmers can obtain from traditional commodity programs,” Dr. Babcock wrote.

His analysis comes as top Congressional agriculture leaders draft sweeping changes to farm policy behind closed doors and try to pass them off as reform. One proposal they are pushing would replace the wasteful direct payment program with an even more generous insurance program that guarantees growers a certain level of income.

“At a time when the agriculture economy is white-hot, providing additional billions of dollars to benefit the richest of corporate agriculture businesses is indefensible,” Cox said.

Big agriculture lobbyists and their supporters in Congress want to block deficit reduction cuts to revenue insurance, arguing it has already been trimmed. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and insurance companies struck a deal that was supposed to reduce excessive profits going to insurers and agents. Dr. Babcock’s analysis shows that it has barely made a dent.

“Congress should take a close look at what exactly was cut in the 2010 agreement as well as why the program’s costs have grown so rapidly,” Babcock wrote. “Neither the integrity of the program nor farmers’ benefits was affected.”

EWG is calling for an open, democratic debate that includes input from reformers who want to protect working farm and ranch families and provide a true safety net.

EWG’s recommendations include:

• Eliminate direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments, ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election) and SURE (Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments). (Savings—$57 billion over ten years).

• Provide every farmer with a free crop insurance policy that covers yield losses of more than 30 percent and eliminate federal premium and other subsidies for revenue-based or other crop insurance products. (Savings—$26 billion just in premium subsidies over 10 years).

• Have the federal government take bids from insurance companies to service the policies, eliminating windfall profits and encouraging the private sector to develop and offer innovative options for farmers to increase their insurance coverage—but not at taxpayers’ expense.

• Require producers to meet a basic standard of conservation practices in order to be eligible for publicly financed crop insurance.

• Ensure full transparency by requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make available information about who is getting the free policies, the taxpayer cost of providing those policies and how much farmers in insurance payouts.

These proposals would save $80 billion over 10 years—nearly four times more than the $23 billion proposed by the agriculture committees.

“With nutrition and conservation funding and an array of programs that support healthy, local food all under the knife, budget cutters must not let themselves be used as pawns in the subsidy lobby’s chess game,” Cox said.

For more information, click here.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

By Jacob Carter

On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced that it will be rescinding secretarial order 3369, which sidelined scientific research and its use in the agency's decisions. Put in place by the previous administration, the secretarial order restricted decisionmakers at the DOI from using scientific studies that did not make all data publicly available.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Producing avocado and almond crops is having a detrimental effect on bees. Molly Aaker / Getty Images

At first glance, you wouldn't think avocados and almonds could harm bees; but a closer look at how these popular crops are produced reveals their potentially detrimental effect on pollinators.

Read More Show Less

Trending

An electric vehicle is plugged in to an EV charging station at a Walmart parking lot in Duarte, California on Sept. 14, 2018. FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images

Six major U.S. electricity utilities will collaborate to build a massive EV charging network across 16 states, they announced Tuesday.

Read More Show Less
Matthew Micah Wright / The Image Bank / Getty Images

By Deborah Moore, Michael Simon and Darryl Knudsen

There's some good news amidst the grim global pandemic: At long last, the world's largest dam removal is finally happening.

Read More Show Less
Scrap metal is loaded into a shredder at a metal recycling facility on July 17, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois. Scott Olson / Getty Images

Hunger strikers in Chicago are fighting the relocation of a metal shredding facility from a white North Side neighborhood to a predominantly Black and Latinx community on the Southeast Side already plagued by numerous polluting industries.

Read More Show Less