The Politics of Food Supply

Stopping School Lunch Reform

2011-11-18T19:50:00.000-08:00

In case you didn't hear, the food lobby (or lobbies) successfully resisted the proposed changes to make school lunches more healthy by, in part, cutting back on french fries and pizza.

The food lobby argued that pizza and french fries should be counted as vegetables.

Paperback Edition of The Politics of Food Supply!

2011-10-29T06:22:00.001-07:00

It's official: Yale University Press is publishing a paperback edition of The Politics of Food Supply!

For the paperback edition, I wrote a new preface that discusses the world crisis of 2007-2008. This new preface explains the connection between that food crisis -- which centered on sharply increased food prices -- and the analysis of US agricultural policy in the book.

In addition, the paperback edition is much cheaper than the hardcover, at only $22. It will be available in February 2012.

Yale University Press lists the paperback edition on its website. And, you can pre-order the paperback edition on the Barnes and Nobles website for just $18.

Amazon.com just put it up as well -- $22 per-order.

Check it out!

French Fries as Vegetables

2011-10-18T17:08:00.000-07:00

I was listening to National Public Radio a couple weeks ago, and I heard a story about how the USDA is trying to change school menus to reduce the amount of french fries the kids are served. The point was to try to fight childhood obesity.

The story on NPR pointed out that Senator Susan Collins and others were fighting the proposed regulations. Here is the story.

One of the things that surprised me was the discussion about french fries (potatoes) versus "other vegetables." I get that potatoes are tubers and vegetables, but it's just odd to hear that someone might choose between french fries and broccoli as a vegetable for dinner.

So, in the 1980s, were french fries and ketchup counted as two servings of vegetables?

Book Award

2011-08-23T17:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, my book received the Book Award given by the Political Economy of the World-System (PEWS) section of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

There were eleven books nominated for the 2011 PEWS Book Award.

I am very excited and pleased that my book won this award, which emphasizes the contributions made to understanding the relationship between national policies and processes and the world economy.

Book on Sale

2011-08-18T07:36:00.000-07:00

I just saw that Amazon.com has my book on sale for about $38, which is about a 30% discount. Yes, still expensive, but it's a much better price that usual.

The Politics of Food Supply at Amazon.com

Fast Food, Healthy Children's Menus?

2011-07-15T18:12:00.001-07:00

I saw this article the other day in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about chain restaurants (few of which are fast food) that are trying to make children's menus that are more healthy.

On the one hand, of course, we should applaud such a move by restaurants, especially of the fast food variety. (Check out the book Fat Land to see how such unhealthy diets infiltrated schools and affected children's health.) Any step is positive.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that even a move such as this will have much of an effect on children's health or diets.

Plus, it's worth noting that McDonald's, KFC, and many other fast food restaurants are not signing up to be part of this program, according to the article.

Resiliency of Farm Subsidies

2011-07-15T17:44:00.000-07:00

Even amidst the debt ceiling talks, farm subsidies continue to be protected. This New York Times article discusses attempts by Presidents G. W. Bush and Obama to make cut particular programs, but each one failed.

I wouldn't be surprised if farm subsidies saw a few cuts, but I don't expect them to be very significant. Support for farm subsidies cuts across political party and region. In addition, farm subsidies actually represent a fairly small portion of the overall federal budget.

New USDA Food Plate

2011-06-13T05:07:00.001-07:00

Check out this great article about the USDA's new Food Plate that replaced the Food Pyramid. The author's key point, for me, is that trying to educate people on what to eat is a rather ineffective way of changing their eating behavior.

Certainly, it is good that the USDA has changed its recommendations to emphasize fruits and vegetables, and it emphasizes (or at least, discusses at length) beans and other meat alternatives as sources of protein -- that don't have cholesterol, a major contributor to heart disease and heart attack.

Nonetheless, if we look at government subsidies, the organization of grocery stores, mass marketing and advertisements -- in short, if we look at the organization of our food system -- then we have to acknowledge that our food system promotes, indeed relies on, people eating unhealthy diets. To a great degree, that's because unhealthy diets are often the most profitable; those foods have a lot of added-value.

Trying to educate consumers is fine and nice, but ultimately it won't change eating behaviors. To do that, we have to make serious reforms to the system that produces the food we eat. Until we do that, the average American diet will be less than ideal, less than healthy.

Farm Subsidies to be Cut?

2011-05-09T17:22:00.000-07:00

There has been some talk recently of cutting farm subsidies among the many other programs to see reductions in spending. For example, see this New York Times article.

Before anyone gets too excited about this, let me point out a couple of things: (1) it's not a surprise the farm subsidies might be reduced, (2) the proposed cuts are not necessarily that deep, and (3) what really matters is the long-term. Let me discuss each of these in turn.

I. First, it's not really much of a surprise the farm subsidies might be cut, for two reasons. One obvious reason is the current budget-cutting rhetoric that seems pervasive in Washington (and much of the rest of the US) right now. When recipients of subsidies are portrayed as "corporate farms" as they are in this article, then public support for farm subsidies decreases dramatically.

(By contrast, when subsidy recipients are portrayed as "family farmers," then public support actually quite high for subsidies. Which characterization of farm subsidies is correct? To some extent, both are. Certainly, many "family farmers" receive subsidies. But, in 2007, the richest 3% of farms/farmers received 32% of all direct payments, and the richest 9% of farms/farmers received 54% of all direct payments that year. Yet, some of the largest farms and biggest recipients of subsidies are indeed "family farms" -- that is, farms owned by families as opposed to corporations.)

The other reason that farm subsidies may be cut is because farm prices are high. Corn prices in the US reached over $6/bushel in April 2011. From 2000 to 2007, the price of corn in April averaged about $2.32/bushel. Wheat prices in the US reached $8.18/bushel. From 2000 to 2007, the price of wheat in April averaged about $3.45/bushel.

With prices reaching historic highs, government payments are less central to the income of farmers. Consequently, farmers and farm organizations may see government payments as less important and may expend fewer political resources protecting subsidies. Farm subsidies, then, are politically vulnerable. Importantly, though, this political vulnerability is a result of the particular political and economic context, which can and will change in the future.

II. Second, I would like to point out that the proposed cuts mentioned in the article may sound like large cuts -- $30 billion -- but this needs to be clarified and put into context.

Note, first of all, that the article states that this cut is over ten years, which means that the average annual cut would be $3 billion. While that is a sizable cut, it's still useful to know that between 2000 and 2007, government payments to farmers averaged about $17.5 billion per year and totaled about $140 billion.

In 2007, government payments to farmers totaled about $11.9 billion, according to the Economic Research Service of the USDA. A reduction of $3 billion would amount to a cut of about 25%, which is significant. But, at times I get the impression that people think farm subsidies will be cut altogether. My point is that subsidies will not likely disappear even under proposals such as Ryan's discussed in the NYT article.

III. Third, and finally, I want to point out that cutting farm subsidies in the near future does not necessarily mean that farm subsidies will permanently disappear.

This situation reminds me of the context in which the 1996 FAIR Act passed: prices were high, Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and cutting the budget became a central political focus.

And indeed, government payments to farmers were slashed in the 1996 farm bill. (See my book for a detailed discussion of the FAIR Act.) Within a few years, however, prices began to fall. By 2000, government payments to farmers increased significantly. Thus, the cuts in subsidies were temporary.

By contrast, the FAIR Act made one change that demonstrated much greater longevity: eliminating production controls, which put restrictions on what farmers could grow in terms of crops and acreage.

What was the difference between these two policies (income supports vs. production controls)? A significant political coalition in agriculture emerged to support eliminating production controls. For example, many organizations representing the interests of corn farmers pushed for this change. With such support, production controls have not returned -- regardless of price fluctuations.

The elimination of subsidies did not have the same support in agriculture. So, when prices fell in the late 1990s, there was a significant push to increase farm subsidies.

Will subsidies be cut? Perhaps. Will those cuts be permanent? Probably not.

Bernstein & Byres Award

2011-03-23T09:16:00.000-07:00

The editors of the Journal of Agrarian Change recently announced the winner of the Bernstein & Byres Award: Me! (Go to the link and scroll down the page, then you'll see the announcement.)

This award goes to the best JAC article of the year. (This year, the prize goes to the best article in 2009.)

"The articles are judged on: (a) their quality as works of political economy; (b) their analytical
power; (c) their originality; and (d) the quality of evidence presented and its deployment."

Here is the cite and link for my article: "TheVanishing Free Market:The Formation and Spread of the British and US Food Regimes," Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(3): 315–44. (Just go to the link and scroll down a bit, then look at the PDF link.)

To see the editors' comments about the prize and my paper, look here. (Again, just scroll down and look at the PDF link.)

Aside from the self-promotion (but isn't this whole blog about self-promotion?), noting the recognition of this article is appropriate here and now as I begin to turn my attention to food crises in the world economy.

This article on food regimes discusses some of the fundamental processes that underlie the creation of the international food regime -- that is, the rules and institutions that govern the production, distribution, and price of food in the world economy.

Anyway, take a look if you have a moment. You can also download the article and brief comment for free -- that's what winning an award does for you. . .

Rising Food Prices

2011-03-10T18:31:00.000-08:00

As you have probably heard, world food prices have been rising.

In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization shows that food prices have been increasing steadily since last June. The FAO has tracked food prices with its Food Price Index since 1990. Over the past four years, food prices have exhibited significant instability. They peaked in June 2008, during the most recent food crisis.

More recently, however, food prices rose even higher in December 2010. But prices apparently have yet to peak, as "Global food prices have reached their highest point in 20 years" in February, according to the AP article linked above.

Food is essential individually and socially. A decrease in food security (the availability of food in a country, and the people’s access to that food) can contribute to political instability. Take, for example, food riots in Tunisia and Algeria in January.

Recognizing the fundamental importance of food -- individually, politically, socially, etc. -- makes it imperative to explore some of the factors contributing to the rise in food prices.

Over the next several weeks, I will explore some of the factors behind rising food prices.

Returning Slowly

2010-11-11T12:20:00.000-08:00

It's been a long time, so let me try to get back into this slowly (which is better than not at all).

I saw a Long John Silvers commercial last night advertising "Pacific Shrimp." Is this in reaction to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? (That is, we don't serve shrimp from the Gulf.) Or, is it just a coincidence?

I guess I just don't follow shrimp ads much -- so maybe "Pacific Shrimp" is a delicacy or something (found only at fastfood restaurants?).

Shirley Sherrod, the Media, and Racism and the USDA

2010-07-22T17:45:00.000-07:00

Okay, it's been a long time as usual. But, recent politics are calling to me to make a post of some kind. The media has quite thoroughly covered the Shirley Sherrod affair. So, I won't spend much time on it. I do think that it's worthwhile to put a few links up regarding Sherrod, the media coverage, and especially the links between racism and the USDA.

This is a very good synopsis of the Sherrod affair and media coverage:
Rachel Maddow.

And, this is interesting look at some of the right-leaning media response:
Beck.

Most importantly, though, this link shares some insights about the (recent) history of racism and the USDA:
Facing South.

More posts coming soon.

Listen to the Interview

2010-05-18T19:10:00.000-07:00

If you weren't able to hear my interview on KSPC radio in southern California but want to, then you can listen to it here.

A Radio Interview

2010-05-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

I had an phone interview today with Tony Abraham for "Uproot," which is a program that airs on KSPC radio in southern California. The interview is suppose to air this Sunday (May 16) evening. The website lists the program in the 5-7pm time-slot, Pacific time.

The interview is about 20-25 minutes long, and focuses on my book. It's only the second radio interview I've ever given, so you'll have to forgive any errors or irritating speech habits. (The first interview I did was about 10 years ago, and I think I really stunk that one up... I think I did better this time, but we'll see.)

New Health Care Law and Taxes

2010-04-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

I had an exchange with someone about health care the other day, and I think it is somewhat informative on the issue of taxes (increases and decreases) and the new health care law. It began when this person said that under the new law, her sister’s family would have to pay $4,000 more in taxes each year and would consequently be unable to afford their health insurance and then would be fined for not having insurance.

This, of course, would be an alarming occurrence since the new law is suppose to increase access to health care, not take away insurance. So, I asked this person why her sister’s family would have to pay more in taxes. Instead of giving an answer that spoke directly to this case, she directed me to two articles about taxes and the new health care law: one in the Washington Times, and a second in Kiplinger’s magazine. I found a third with the same information in the Christian Science Monitor.

After reading each of these articles closely, here’s what I learned about taxes in the new law. From these articles, there are five likely sources of that $4,000.

First, this family might make excessive visits to an indoor tanning bed each year adding up to the additional tax. That's probably not the source, but if it is then I'm won't be that sympathetic. (It would take a whole lot of trips to the tanning salon to add up to $4,000 in taxes. This is a 10% tax on indoor tanning services. To pay $4,000 in this tax in a given year, a person would have to spend at least $40,000 in that one year for indoor tanning bed services.)

Second, these articles note that before the law passed, people could deduct medical expenses beyond 7.5% of their income, but the new law makes it 10% of their income. For this to be the source of the additional $4,000, this family's annual income would have to be at least $160,000. (This is actually a very low estimate because I really just calculated $4,000 less in tax deductions. To make it $4,000 less in taxes would mean a larger deduction and, hence, a larger annual income -- probably around $190-200K if not higher.) The problem here is that it doesn’t really make sense that they would have to go without insurance because of the $4,000 tax. Their household income would be more than 3-times the national average and should allow enough of a cushion to avoid any truly painful financial decisions, such as whether to keep or forgo health insurance.

Third, the articles note that the new law includes a Medicare tax increase for households with incomes $250,000 or higher. Any household with less than $250K (or individual earning less than $200K) will pay no more in Medicare taxes than they currently do. I did not estimate the exact income to get the $4,000 because at this income level, I can’t see how that tax increase would force someone to drop their health insurance.

Fourth, the article states that Medicare taxes will now apply to capital gains over $250,000 for a household. To earn this much in capital gains, a family must have several hundred thousand dollars in stocks, bonds, etc. (Average household wealth in the US is about $80K, and most of that is in home equity not liquid assets.) Again, a $4,000 tax increase should not lead such a family to drop their health insurance.

Fifth, the article notes that very expensive health insurance programs will be taxed pretty heavily. These are health plans that cost more than $27K for a family. (My family’s health plan costs about $11K including employer contributions. This is a fairly average plan.) Most of these plans seem to be held by two groups: executives and professionals with fairly high incomes, or industrial workers represented by strong unions (e.g., autoworkers). In the case of the former, their incomes are generally high enough that going without insurance should not be a serious option. In the case of the latter, the cost of health insurance is arrived at through collective bargaining; when the next contract negotiations occur, the cost of the health plan will be addressed. In any event, this tax does not begin until 2018. So, this cannot really be the source of the $4,000 in additional taxes.

After reading the articles suggested by this person, I shared these scenarios with her to see which most closely matched the situation she described. Her response was that she couldn't say anything more about the situation. It was too personal, too secret.

Given the evidence that she presented and her subsequent response, I can only assume that the claim of a $4,000 tax increase leading to a loss of insurance (1) is an unfounded claim (the tax increase won't happen), (2) is an exaggerated claim (the health insurance won't actually be lost), or (3) involves some other personal calamity (e.g., crisis regarding someone’s job, family, or health) that has really created the financial despair rather than the tax increase.

(Had I been given evidence of how this situation would come to pass, I would have accepted it. That's why I asked about the specific context to begin with. But, the evidence I was given just did not seem to support the claim.)

It is a serious charge that the health care law will take health care away from people because that's the opposite of what the law should do. I hope that would not happen, and I would be upset if it did. But after looking at the different tax increases and decreases associated with the law, I sincerely doubt that loss of insurance will happen in this case -- unless there is some crucial information that hasn't been shared.

This new law obviously has positive and negative elements to it, and some people will pay more taxes. But the scenario described here (a $4,000 tax increase leading to loss of insurance and a fine) does not strike me as a legitimate complaint about the health care law.

In sum, I think this is informative for a couple of reasons. First, it highlights the situations under which taxes will increase. Second, it is one more reminder to be cautious about the dire warnings regarding this new law. There may be plenty to critique about the new law, but there also seems to be much misinformation swirling about.

Making a Profit on Health Care -- AT&T Style

2010-03-27T13:39:00.000-07:00

AT&T and a few other companies (AK Steel Corporation, Caterpillar, Deere and Co., and Valero Energy) have recently said that the new health care law "would raise their expenses," and AT&T said they might have cut back on health benefits for workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/technology/companies/27phone.html?ref=business

Here's the crux of the problem for the companies: Previously, the federal government would provide subsidies to cover 28% of what the companies paid on medicare prescriptions (for their retired workers) and the companies could deduct the total of their expenditures on these prescriptions from their taxable income -- including what they already got reimbursed for. Essentially, they got to double-dip in this regard.

The new health care law closes this loop hole and states that companies will still receive subsidies to cover 28% of what they spend on prescriptions, but they will be allowed to deduct only 72% of what they spend from their taxable income. In other words, they won't get the subsidy and get to deduct it from their taxable income.

Sorry, but I don't think the corporations are going to gain my sympathy on this one -- especially AT&T, which earned more than $120 billion in consolated revenue in 2009.

Capitalists against free-marketeers: Restaurants vs. Free Enterprise Groups

2010-03-23T19:56:00.000-07:00

I was reading the New York Times and came across this article that epitomizes the issue that I have tried to highlight in this blog: capitalists favoring government intervention even when free market adherents oppose it.

Check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24menu.html

The article discusses a little noticed measure in the new health care bill that requires restaurant chains to provide calorie information on their menu boards, including drive-through menus.

Take a look. The 8th and 9th paragraphs (which begins "The measure was approved by Congress. . .") explain that the restaurant industry likes the new measure, while two paragraphs later we read that "some free enterprise groups" opposed the measure.

Health Care Reform: Clinton's failure, Obama's success

2010-03-22T04:46:00.000-07:00

On the day after the passage of historic health care policy in the US House, let me try to wrap up this discussion of recent health care reform in the US.

So, why did Clinton’s health care reform fail in 1994? Throughout most of the 1990s – even in the fall of 1993 – public opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans favored some kind of significant government role in health care. Leading up to the 1992 presidential election, even Republican candidates expressed support of health care reform that included an increased government role (though a smaller role than envisioned by most Democrats).

And, as we have seen, a cross-class coalition that included workers, unions, and many businesses and trade organizations supported an expansion of government activity in health care. Again, large businesses who had long offered their employees health insurance saw their costs (i.e., premiums) rise alarmingly during the 1980s. They turned to the federal government to regulate health insurance, create cost controls, and spread the costs of providing health care.

Remember, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported government-mandated employer health benefits, as did many large corporations, including Bethlehem Steel, Lockheed, Chrysler, Xerox, and Westinghouse. Not only did these businesses want to control premiums, but many of them also wanted to correct what they saw as an unfair situation: most small businesses did not provide health insurance for employees; these employees were often married (or otherwise related) to someone who worked for a medium- or large-business that provided health insurance for that employee’s family. Many medium- and large-businesses saw this as a subsidy that reduced the labor costs of small businesses (and put some large businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global market).

So we return to the question at hand: Why did the Clinton health care proposal fail? There were obviously many immediate political factors: intense partisan opposition, a strong effort by the insurance lobby, and a “combative and secretive strategy” by the Clinton administration, among others. Such factors, no doubt, contributed to problems.

But these answers overlook a key factor: the expansion of HMOs began to effectively rein in rising health care costs. The annual growth in private health insurance premiums (i.e., the cost to employers) fell from 17% in 1990 to 10% in 1992, 8% in 1993, and -1% in 1994. This sent a signal to many businesses that had favored – and even advocated for – health care reform that the insurance industry was reforming itself and controlling costs through managed care.

Consequently, these businesses backed off from their previous advocacy for reform. This loss of strong support was very significant and affected the political debate, resources behind the political battle, and ultimately affected public opinion because some of the voices in favor of an expanded government role (including an employer mandate to provide employees with health insurance) weakened or disappeared.

What does all of this mean for the passage of health care reform under Obama? Obviously, there were notable partisan battles, parliamentary strategies, resistance from the insurance lobby, questions about the administration’s strategy, and so forth. There are always these kinds of issues.

But beneath this level of partisan politics are more fundamental dynamics. I have not researched the recent battle over health care reform and therefore can’t point to the underlying coalitions. Nevertheless, they are there.

For example, here is one telling link between Clinton’s failed attempt and Obama’s success. HMOs controlled health costs from the 1994 thru 1997, when the cost of insurance premiums did not rise more than 2.5% in any year. A few years later, however, health care costs were rising rapidly once again. In 2000, the growth in health insurance premiums was at 10%. The ability of HMOs to contain costs began to falter. In that context, what groups had been hit hardest by rising premiums? Maybe some businesses once again had an interest in containing health care costs.

One thing is for sure: The Obama health care reform is not about socialism. But it is very likely about capitalism. And in capitalism – in a market economy – based as it is on competition and the drive for profit, some segments of capital will seek national policies that protect them from competition or even from the market, itself, in an effort to secure “adequate” profits (which is always relative, of course).

This can be seen in Clinton’s effort at health care reform, in the history of US agricultural policy, as well as in labor policy, social security, and many other policy arenas.

A full understanding of recent efforts at health care reform requires us to move beyond much of the current political debate.

Health Care Reform: Is it actually "socialism"?

2010-03-01T19:55:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm way behind in posting this. I actually had most of this written last November, but life took me on a detour. I have a little energy tonight (surprisingly, my three-year-old son didn't sap all of it), so I'm posting.

With the U.S. Congress (and public) still embroiled over the health care bill, it’s time that I finally get around to posting about this perspective on national policies accused of being socialist.

Here’s the tie-in with agricultural policy, as I see it: Supply management policy – with its regulation of production and prices – was not about socialism. Instead, that policy was the outcome of competing political-economic interests trying to ensure profitable production.

In particular, southern planters growing cotton were hardly socialists. They were simply large landowners trying to cope with a chronic problem of overproduction and low prices. They saw supply management policy as protection against vagaries of the market economy. They were “Capitalists Against Markets.” (That is the title of Peter Swenson’s book comparing national policy formation in the US and Sweden.)

This same kind of analysis is useful in exploring health care reform. Take, for example, Clinton’s attempted health care reform in 1993-94. Two health care issues became central in the early 1990s: universal coverage and cost containment. (Sound familiar?) Health care costs were rising, and tens of millions of people were uninsured. But, these conditions had existed to a greater or lesser extent for decades. Something else put health care reform at the forefront of US politics in the early 1990s.

An important coalition emerged to support an increased government role in health care: a cross-class coalition between workers and industry. Labor unions and many large businesses (such as Bethlehem Steel, Lockheed, Chrysler, Xerox, and Westinghouse) formed the National Leadership Coalition for Health Care Reform (NLCHCR), which was a leading advocate for health care reform at the time. This organization advocated for government-mandated employer-provided health insurance. (That’s right: many businesses were in favor of some kind of national health care system.)

In addition, more than half of CEO’s for Fortune 500 companies favored a government mandate for all employers to provide health benefits. And, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported government-mandated employer health benefits.

Why did some business advocate expanded government action in health care?

First, rising health costs fell heavily on business, especially large employers. In 1988, for example, Chrysler famously spent more on health care than on steel: $600 million per year on health care; $600 per car.

Second, there were an increasing number of strikes and labor conflicts over health care.

Third, international competition likewise encouraged some US companies to favor an expanded role for the government in health care, because other nations – Germany, Japan, France, etc. – provide health care for all workers.

In the early 1990s, then, health care reform was not really about socialists pushing for government control of the market economy. Instead, there were large companies whose economic interest in controlling health care costs – especially insurance premiums – prompted them to favor a greater role for government in health care.

Why, then, did Clinton’s health care reform proposal fail? See my next post, which I hope will not take another three or four months...

By the way, much of the information for this post came from an article written by Peter Swenson and Scott Greer, "Foul Weather Friends: Big Business and Health Care Reform in the 1990s in Historical Perspective," in Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, August 2002, pages 605-638.

Meat Consumption and Food Supply

2009-11-25T14:54:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is upon us, and hundreds of millions of Americans will be feasting on turkey or other animals. At the same time, millions of Americans will volunteer at food kitchens and shelters to help feed the needy during the holidays. (It’s the busiest time of the year for volunteering, often resulting in too many volunteers.) And, people frequently express concern about the food being wasted while millions around the world go hungry.

So, this is a good time to have a slight diversion from my ongoing discussion of national policy formation to talk about meat consumption and the politics of food supply. What’s the connection between meat consumption and hunger/malnutrition? More generally, what the some of the implications of meat consumption?

In 2008, approximately 9 billion chickens are slaughtered and eaten in the United States. This is a 30 percent increase over the 6 billion chickens consumed in 1990. In addition, the average size of chickens slaughtered has increased continuously since 1975, when the average weight was 3.79 pounds. In 2008, the average weight was 5.58 pounds, which represents a 32 percent increase.

(Just in case you’re wondering, approximately 270 million turkeys were killed and eaten in 2008.)

In 2007, per capita meat consumption in the US was about 220 pounds. That is, the average American consumes about 220 pounds of animal flesh each year. (About 87 of those were chicken, and about 17 pounds were turkey.)

This level of meat consumption eats up (pun intended) an amazing amount of corn and soybeans, which are two of the central ingredients for animal feed. The production of feed grains for the billions of animals to consume rests heavily upon chemical fertilizers and machinery that use petroleum. Researchers estimate that a gallon of gas is required to produce one pound of beef, for instance.

On just these two points, we should recognize that meat production consumes immense resources. Redirecting these resources to food grains could make a significant contribution to the potential to reduce hunger.

So, why do we consume so much meat? Part of the answer has to do with the market economy: meat is a high-value commodity. A farmer can get much more profit out of a bushel of soybeans by feeding it to a chicken or cow and then selling that as meat than the farmer can get from selling the soybeans directly to the market. That is, meat is more profitable than the field crops that animals eat.

Another part of the answer has to do with agricultural policy. As I show in my book (here’s my shameless plug for this post…), the combination of price supports and production controls in the 1900s drove up the production of various commodities. One solution to the overproduction of and consequent low prices for feed grains was to increase meat consumption.

Meat consumption is a central part of the politics of food supply. National agricultural policies have supported expanding meat consumption, and rising meat consumption – in the US and elsewhere – have important implications for the supply of food.

Charges of Communist Agriculture in the 1950s

2009-10-07T20:13:00.000-07:00

The extensive federal regulation of agricultural prices and production under supply management policy was at times controversial. And, this policy often drew the charge of being “socialist” or “communist.” In fact, a heated debate erupted during a House subcommittee meeting on supply management policy in 1958.

The members of the House subcommittee included several southern Democrats, who generally favored both price supports and production controls. Robert Poage, a Democrat from Texas, was the chair of the subcommittee. The hearing included testimony from representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest and politically most influential farm organization.

These two sides – southern Democrats and the Farm Bureau – held opposing views of supply management policy. Southern Democrats believed that price supports and production controls were necessary to support prices for southern crops, such as cotton and tobacco. By contrast, the Farm Bureau advocated for a policy that would eliminate many production controls, dramatically reduce price supports, and create greater reliance on markets.

This hearing took place in the midst of the Cold War, in which anything could be labeled “communist” and everything “communist” was automatically bad or wrong.

During the hearing, the southern Democrats wrangled with the Farm Bureau representatives. Tensions rose over discussions of price supports, production controls, farm income, and the Farm Bureau’s policy positions generally. The southern Democrats favored maintaining extensive government involvement in agriculture with high price supports, rigid production controls to raise farm income. By contrast, the Farm Bureau officials advocated for a more market-oriented policy that would dramatically lower price supports and eliminate many production controls.

But, tempers reached the boiling point toward the end of the hearing, when the specter of communism emerged. The exchange over this issue began between Paul Jones (D-MO) and Frank Woolley, Legislative Counsel for the Farm Bureau.

Mr. Jones: I have one question before we adjourn. Mr. Woolley . . . didn’t you tell me then that the program we were suggesting of payments on cotton had been originally inspired by Communists, and that it was a Communist-inspired program—did you tell me that?
Mr. Woolley: No. What I said to you was that in 1955—and I am glad you asked that because—
Mr. Jones: . . . did you tell me that?
Mr. Woolley: Now, Congressman, I want—
Mr. Jones: I want you to tell me yes or no.

Woolley said he could not remember if he had brought up the issue of communism with Mr. Jones, but Woolley went on to discuss a pamphlet in his possession that was printed in 1955 by the Communist Party in the U.S. and titled “The Farm Crisis.” According to Woolley, the pamphlet showed that the Communist Party “unequivocally supports production payments.” Chairman Poage then joined the fray.

Mr. Poage: Well, now, let us get this straight.
When you come to making those comments charging communism in this committee, and that is what you are doing, calling us Communists, because we are opposed to your proposal—let us lay it out on the table, and you just go ahead and name the people that you think are the Communists on the committee, and I want you to put that in the record; I don’t want you to be going behind my back and, frankly, if you think I am a Communist, say so here and get it on the record.
Mr. Woolley: . . . I told Mr. Jones . . . that when I said that the Communists were supporting the production payment [program], . . . this did not carry with it the idea that he or anybody else that was proposing production payments was a Communist. . . .
The point I am trying to make . . . [is] that if the Communists spend thousands of dollars propagandizing for a particular method . . . doesn’t it cause somebody to raise a question as to whether it might or might not be against our interest? That is the question, and it is not that you are a Communist—I know you are not—at least, I hope you are not.
..........
Mr. Jones: Are you inferring by your propaganda, are you trying to say that a bill that we introduced here was inspired by a Communist program? I resent that very much. . . .
Mr. Fleming: Might I make a statement, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Poage: [gaveling] This committee is going to adjourn right here and now, . . . and I am sorry that anybody dragged communism into this, when it has nothing to do with the corn bill or the cotton bill or any other bill . . . and I will not permit it to go any further.
Mr. Fleming: Just one sentence?
Mr. Poage: No; you can make it somewhere else, anywhere you want to.
The committee is adjourned.

Then, according to newspaper accounts, Poage shouted, “But if you want to discuss it further, I’ll meet you in the alley.”

It is not very often that a Congressional hearing ends with the committee chair inviting a panel witness into the alley to settle a dispute. Nor was it common for southern Democrats to be charged with being “communist.” More often, the southern Democrats were the accusers, finding communists among especially among civil rights activists and union organizers.

In truth, southern Democrats could hardly be labeled “liberals” much less “communist.” So, why did they favor a policy that relied so heavily on government and oppose a more market-oriented policy? Why did the Farm Bureau officials opposed to supply management policy so much as to raise the specter of communism?

The answer has two parts. First, painting a policy or person as “communist” could severely undermine its legitimacy. That is, it was political strategy. The real issue is what lay beneath this political charge.

Second, the division between southern Democrats, representing southern cotton producers, and Farm Bureau officials, representing farmers in the Corn Belt. These groups of farmers had very different economic interests. Cotton farmers were suffering from overproduction, declining exports, and growing competition from synthetic fibers. They needed government assistance to turn a profit and bring production in line with demand.

Corn Belt farmers, growing corn and soybeans, did not suffer from these same problems. Then as now, the vast majority of corn and soybeans were fed to livestock, especially hogs. In fact, this was the most important source of farm income in the Corn Belt: hogs were much more profitable that field crops, such as corn or soybeans. So, these corn farmers had little interest in artificially high crop prices. They were more interested in maintaining the significant growth in per capita meat consumption, which prevented any overproduction as seen with cotton.

So, what does this have to do with the current debate about health care reform? The same tone and style of political debate occurred around agricultural policy in the 1950s as is occurring around health care today. We need to look beyond the political rhetoric and red-baiting to examine the underlying economic interests represented in the debates. For example, take the Clinton-era attempts at reform. That will be my next installment.

The case of US agricultural policy -- socialism?

2009-09-04T14:23:00.000-07:00

From the 1930s to 1996, supply management was the core of U.S. agricultural policy. Supply management rested on three principal programs: price supports, production controls, and export subsidies. Price supports were essentially guaranteed minimum prices that farmers would receive for certain commodities – including cotton, wheat, and corn. To receive price supports, farmers had to adhere to production controls, which limited the acreage that could be devoted to growing these crops. Export subsidies helped to reduce the costs of US agricultural goods to make them more competitive in the world economy.

Through supply management policy, then, the federal government set prices, closely regulated production, and was deeply involved in trade. This was a tremendous about of government intervention in the market economy. More than seen previously in agriculture, and more than seen in almost any other sector of the economy. Supply management policy severely restricted the “normal operation” of the market economy - for more than 60 years.

This policy was meant to (1) raise prices for farm commodities and (2) prevent the overproduction that plagued agriculture (especially cotton and wheat) in the 1920s and 1930s. All of this was also intended to raise farmers’ incomes.

How did the policy exist in the U.S. for the duration of the Cold War, when socialism and communism were vehemently eschewed in every corner of society? Why did the US engage in such extensive regulation of the market at a time when it was the leader of laissez faire economics?

Was supply management policy an example of the federal government imposing its socialist will on American farmers and consumers? Was this policy an example of anti-market (i.e., socialist) groups winning a national policy?

The answer to these questions will come soon. (Or, you can just read my book…)

National Policies, the Market Economy, and "Socialism"

2009-08-30T19:43:00.000-07:00

This book (and blog) is about more than agricultural policy; it’s really about national policies, in general. Of course, I explain many details about the politics surrounding the formation and development of agricultural policy in the United States.

But, the explanation that the book offers for why we have this particular agricultural policy – one that relied heavily on national regulation for most of the twentieth century – applies in varying degrees to other national policies, including labor, social security, welfare, and health care policies. The case that I examine just happens to be agriculture.

My focus is how the market economy prompts political coalitions (sometimes unexpected coalitions) that can reshape national policies. I see these same dynamics in recent policy debates.

This perspective leads me to find much of the debate around health care to be overly simplistic – especially the references to “socialism.” Critics of the Obama administration have called the president and his policies “socialist” for some time now, but the charges have grown more frequent and more vocal in the battle over health care.

Why are the president and his policies socialist? At least part of the answer is because the policies bring more regulation and government oversight, more government influence over businesses and their practices, and more taxes (at least to some degree) and redistribution of wealth. In other words, government policies are socialist to the degree that they limit the operation and functions of the market economy.

There are important parallels to be found in past arguments about federal policies, which often revolved around similar questions: Is a policy “socialist” if it intervenes in the market economy? Are people/groups who favor such policies “socialist”? Do such policies lead to “socialism”?

We might pause, therefore, and ask if these attributes (e.g., more government regulation and influence) really make a person or a policy “socialist.” Stepping back for a moment and considering some of our own political history suggests that these charges are typical political name-calling. By taking this perspective, we can see that more is going on, and we can look a little deeper into the underlying political context.

For instance, we might ask, who receives and advocates for such government support and regulation? And, who makes the charges of “socialism”?

Over the next couple of weeks, I will draw on several historical examples of policies that have seen such charges of socialism. My first essay will focus on an example from agricultural policy in the 1950s, which is the story with which my book begins.

But, other forthcoming essays will also draw parallels with policies related to the coal industry, economic policies surrounding the civil war, and of course the last attempt at health care reform in the Clinton administrations.

What I will show that who opposes the market economy is sometimes quite surprising. Quite often, the proponents of such national policies hardly qualify as “socialist.”

So, stay tuned.

Welcome!

2009-07-13T12:34:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog! This blog is dedicated to topics and issues related to my book, The Politics of Food Supply. My book explores the development of U.S. agricultural policy from the 1920's to the early 2000's.

This space will consider a variety of issues related to food, politics, the world economy, and so forth.

Watch for more posts soon!