Farm subsidies under fire

This article in The New York Times is getting a lot of play, and shows why traditional farm interests in Congress may begin to lose their iron fisted grip on farm policy. Titled The Debate Over Subsidizing Snacks, the article by Marian Burros, looks at the public policy impact (particularly relating to obesity) from current farm policy. By now, these arguments are not new, but they do appear to be gaining traction.

Here is the lede:


EVERY five years the farm bill comes up for renewal and, usually, the only people paying attention are the farmers, their lobbyists and a few outraged groups who think subsidies are a big waste of taxpayers’ money.
This year is different.

TK: Why is it different this year? The story notes blame is laid on farm policy for: the growth in obesity, the increase in food poisonings, and the disappearance of the family farm.The article handicaps the chance for significant changes in farm policy, and the viewpoints are decidedly mixed. While several sources expressed optimism for real reform, a Farm Bureau official indicated it could be business as usual.
From the story:

Mary Kay Thatcher, a policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farm lobbying group, said current subsidies, which the federation supports, might be tweaked, but added, “I think it is highly unlikely that we will see huge changes.”

TK: There is still much in the balance, but at least the arguments for funding fruit and vegetable industry priorities in the 2007 farm bill are not assigned to irrelevance quite yet.