Intro establishes significance without taking sides: Every five years, Congress introduces a multi-billion dollar bill that affects all Americans. This legislation has come to be known as the Farm bill, and this year’s is quite possibly the most scrutinized, criticized, and important farm bill that has ever been introduced. So, the question arises: “Why is the farm bill such a controversial issue?” Dan Imhoff answers, “If you eat, pay taxes, care about the nutritional values of school lunches, worry about the plight of biodiversity or the loss of farmland and shrinking open space, you have a personal stake in the tens of billions of dollars annually committed to agricultural and food policies” (18). Now the controversy and social problems—as seen by each side—are introduced. The Farm bill is responsible for funding numerous food related programs, such as subsidies, the food stamp program, and also the farmer’s safety net, to name just a few. Where this money goes and how it is spent reflects what the United States values, and what it is defining as a social problem. Some supporters of this bill maintain that this bill provides financial security not only to agriculturalists but also to consumers as well. They believe that this bill promotes an increased emphasis on of conservation, and that it also encourages efforts to explore the merits of bioenergy. The value placed on conservation, cleaner, more efficient energy sources, and the financial protection of American citizens is paramount to most supporters of the 2007 Farm Bill. Proponents also argue that the bill is necessary for a country to provide a financial safety net for the men and women that are providing food for this country. Other supporters maintain that this single bill is crucial to preserving our forestry, wildlife, and farm lands. Meanwhile, groups against the legislation argue that what is at stake here is the health of the nation and its future generations. They feel the social problems and values that are most important are not getting addressed adequately. Opponents of the bill point to the values of improving the health of all Americans, of protecting our environment, and of equality for all farmers financially as the key social problems to be addressed in this bill. They also maintain that there has been a severe social injustice placed upon smaller, family, unsubsidized farmers not growing large quantities of commodity crops. Critics of the bill also argue that the legislation does not tackle important issues such as hunger in America. The website Foodbattle.org states, “The Food Stamp program of the Farm bill provides recipients on average only $3.15 per person per day for food, barely enough for one meal let alone three.” Still, supporters for this bill argue that not all the repercussions of this bill are negative. In fact, “without the (2007 Farm bill), America would struggle to produce sugar—an ingredient that the U.S. Department of Commerce says is used in 70% of U.S. food manufacturing” (American Sugar). The implications of this single act of legislation resonate further into our daily lives than most people take the time to realize. Brief Identification of the stakeholders (general and specific): Unlike most issues in America, the farm bill does not divide neatly in two, between red and blue states, or between liberal and conservative lines. Given the nature of this issue, supporters and critics of this legislation align themselves mainly based on the type of crop they grow or the export they produce. Supporters of this bill include farmers unions such as the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Association of Crop Insurers. It also includes some Republicans, such as Saxby Chambliss and Bob Goodlatte, and some Democrats such as Tom Harkin and Collin C. Peterson. They are focused on insuring the financial security and protection of the safety net for subsidized farming. They also want to maintain the conservation of the land they use to harvest this nation’s crops. Additionally, a value they feel that is at stake is the improvement of local economies. Groups and coalitions of smaller and independent farmers heavily represent the other side of the dispute. Also, organizations and individuals concerned with health and nutrition have deemed this 2007 bill detrimental to the health of Americans. In addition to these groups, several environmental organizations comprise a large group of stake holders against this bill. All of these stakeholders argue that values such as social justice, health, and conservation are not being protected or promoted by this bill. Definitions and background info: In order to further understand this issue, a few key terms must be defined. A subsidy is a type of financial government assistance, such as a grant, tax break, or trade barrier, given to encourage the production or purchase of a good. In this case, the government has granted farm subsidies in order to control production of certain crops. Bioenergy is renewable energy made available from materials derived from biological sources. This mainly refers to crops like corn that are being manipulated to make fuel. Another term is commodity crop. Commodity crops are the crops Congress defines as the most important crops produced by American farmers, and therefore are the ones that receive most subsidy attention. The most important commodity crops are corn, cotton, wheat, rice, and soybeans (Pyle 69). Another term that must be defined is counter-cyclical payment program. This is the way farmers are insured by the government to make money, regardless of how much they grow or sell. The payment is the difference between the price farmers get paid for their farm goods and the target price Congress sets for the goods. For example, if the target price of corn is $1 a bushel, and farmers are selling it at the market price of $.50, Congress covers the difference of $.50 per bushel through a direct payment. This type of program has been used for many years and is the current program under the 2002 farm bill. Limits: For reasons of space, time, and relevance there will be several issues I will not be examining. For example, this paper will not focus on the impact that importing foreign crops and goods have on our agricultural system. The scope of this paper will limit itself to the issue of this nation’s production of agriculture, not other nations. I will also not examine any ethical or health-related issues that occur in the manufacturing or processing of meat or dairy products. There could be a whole paper written alone on just the treatment of dairy and beef cattle, but I will mainly be focusing on crops that are grown from the ground up, and not animals. Furthermore, I will not delve into the controversy surrounding genetically altered crops. This debate has gone on for a long time, but does not bear much importance on this actual legislation in question. History (note multiple sources): To fully understand an issue, it must be placed in full historical context in order to see where it is coming from and also to see where it is going. The farm bill is not a new piece of legislation and has undergone hundreds of variations throughout its complex history. In 1929, The Great Depression brought a time of great hardship to all Americans, especially farmers. “One out of every four Americans lived on a farm, but between 1929 and 1932 gross farm income dropped 52%” (Cain and Lovejoy 1). Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1933 and promised “definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products” (Cain and Lovejoy 1). The FDR administration, “under the leadership of Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, produced the first farm bill: the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act” (Cain and Lovejoy 1). The effect of the first farm bill was quickly apparent. “By providing rural Americans with funding in the late 1930s, the administration was able to increase the quality of life and economic security that was shattered by the Great Depression.” (Cain and Lovejoy 2). The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration helped bring an end to farm poverty through a variety of agricultural policies, including several New Deal programs and subsequently, small farms declined rapidly (Barlett 49). The 1940s were marked as a time of adversity and perseverance because of World War II. However, the war actually promoted a sharp acceleration of economic growth. As the decade progressed towards the start of the war, “agriculture, just as the rest of the economy, geared up to support the war effort” (Knutson, Penn, and Boehm 216). As a result of all the increased efforts of production, “high demand led to higher prices, and the government developed great surpluses to ensure national security” (Cain and Lovejoy 2). The surplus of agricultural goods made America a strong international agricultural force because of “postwar food shortages in Europe and Asia” (Knutson, Penn, and Boehm 217). America, “which had been (a) net importer of food grains prior to World War II,” transformed into an important agricultural force when it “…became a net exporter of food grains to the low income countries” (Hayami 1). Yet, “at the end of World War II there was widespread fear of a repetition of the economic collapse that followed World War I” (Knutson, Penn, and Boehm 216). That fear produced the original farm bill, which was passed and established in 1949 to protect farmers and stabilize rural economies (Rural Coalition). In essence it was a way for farmers to take out loans to plant crops and be covered by the government to ensure they could survive. What is most notable is the 1949 Agricultural Act has a special significance, “because it was the last permanent farm legislation that has been enacted into law, all subsequent farm bills have been amendments to the original bill specified with expiration dates” (Knutson, Penn and Boehm 216). Since then, at approximately five year intervals, a new amendment has been added to keep current policies tied with current prices and values through subsidies and direct payments to farmers. As the nation moved into the post war era of the 1950s, most farmers were forced to deal with a problem of surplus. The farm bill of 1954 did little to control surplus and as “the war ended, demand shrank, and surpluses grew” (Cain and Lovejoy 3). Much of this surplus was attributed to output-increasing technological advances increased farm out, but outgrew consumer demands. Low farm incomes throughout the 1950s and continued all through the 1960s. The large uncontrolled surplus brought increased political unrest and farmers protests. Starting in the 1970s several key issues came to a head and changed the face of agriculture to make it resemble what it is like today. President Nixon and his secretary of agriculture, Earl Butz, were facing a food crisis. “By 1973, the inflation rate for groceries reached an all time high…and farmers were killing chicks because they couldn’t afford to buy feed” (Pollan 51). Butz instituted several new policies and introduced the 1973 farm bill which replaced the New Deal system of supporting prices through loans, government grain purchases, and land idling with a new system of direct payments to farmers (Pollan 52). It seems that if there was one moment that changed the entire way this nation feeds itself, it was the 1973 farm bill. Direct payments, based on differences between actual selling prices and government controlled target prices, implemented by the 1973 farm bill legislation encouraged farmers, especially commodity crop growers, to grow as much as they could, because the government would cover most financial losses. Bigger farms were encouraged because they were considered to be more productive by Butz, and smaller farmers began to consolidate (Pollan 52). Thus, a massive shift occurred from family farms to mega-farms. From 1950 to 2000, the average farm size doubled from 213 acres per farm to 434 acres per farm (Imhoff 40). Today, most of our crops are still grown by these subsidized, consolidated farms and farmers. This again pushed smaller, independent farmers farther down on the proverbial totem pole, and also placed a value on crops that could be grown in surplus (i.e. commodity crops). But the boom of the 1970’s would not last long. Throughout the 1980s and the Cold War, these trends continued as most farmers understood that if they didn’t grow commodity crops, they couldn’t make any money. A slow collapse featuring several factors such as over-surplus, drought, and inadequate direct payments to farmers led to an agricultural crisis in the mid-1980s. Record low rain fall and dry spells brought on some of the worst harvests in years. Market prices of crops either declined rapidly or remained the same, while the costs of seeds, fertilizers, and loan interest rates rose to all time highs, resulting in little to no profit, which made the crisis seem to many farmers seem almost worse than the Depression (Barlett 173). As a result of these unfavorable market conditions, foreclosures and bankruptcies of farms were very common. Farms were forced to foreclose and more often than not, “sold to the highest bidders, thereby displacing family farmers in favor of corporate and non farm investors (Barlett 183). The idea of running a small, independent, or family farm was just not feasible as corporate, subsidized farms begin to grow in size and number. Continuing in the 1990s and the turn of the century, nothing dramatically changed any of these trends. But in 1996, Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement Act, “which tried to look at what was wrong with every farm bill since the New Deal and tried to change it for the better” (Pyle 33). The bill was dubbed the Freedom to Farm initiative and “new bill was designed to encourage farmers to take production signals from the market rather then direction from the government and to wean them off of government payments” (Rural Coalition). The bill set out to graduate farmers away from direct payments by progressively declining payments over a period of 7 years (1996-2002). The bill also aimed to “reduce the amount of government red-tape; spend taxpayer dollars more wisely (by expanding trade and reducing spending on direct payment programs); allow farmers the flexibility to grow whatever they choose; and raise farm income” (Rural Coalition). But, “by 1998 it was being judged a complete failure” (Pyle 34). The Freedom to Farm act was quickly dubbed the Freedom to Fail act by small family, and independent farmers. The FAIR act of 1996 only managed to produce “an increased supply of agricultural products, extremely low farm prices, budget costs as much as 3-4 times the level anticipated in 1996 and a drastically declining number of independent family and small producers” (Rural Coalition). By 1999 disaster payments totaled $23 billion dollars and by 2002 food exports were reported as $53 billion and imports had closed a huge gap to total nearly $42 billion (Pyle 35). The fact that farmers continued only growing commodity crops meant the nation had to import the others. Several policies and laws have been passed in the recent past to combat these trends. In 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act was passed and was “an unabashed return to the New Deal, promising farmers $82 billion in added subsidies over ten years so that their external excess production would not drown them” (Pyle 36). Subsidized farmers and proponents of the current farm bill argue that the subsidies provided to them through the 2002 farm bill only help this nation’s food supply and protect farmers. While at the same time, critics of the policies such as the 2007 farm bill claim that “three in five farmers don’t get any subsidy payments at all, while the richest 5 percent average about $470,000 each” (Imhoff 23). So, nearly 100 years of farm legislation brings us to today. It is 2007, and the same issues are being argued. The proponents for the bill say that this legislation must be passed to insure that the nation continues to produce crops at an efficient rate, and that farmers must be provided with a safety net or their jobs will be in peril. Critics argue that there are more important crops than commodities, and the smaller, independent farmers are being crushed by consolidated, subsidized, mega-farms. They add that our health and environment is being impacted negatively because of the particular crops and types of farmers being valued through these farm bills. In essence, it is a David and Goliath battle but, with a more obscure notion of good and evil. Each side maintains their version of the farm bill protects more people in the long run. To see if this is true, each side must be analyzed and examined to see what issues, values, evidence, arguments, and plans these sides purport are most important. Presentation of Proponents and Values, Arguments, and Evidence: First, I will examine will the proponents of the 2007 farm bill. The supporters of this bill maintain that this legislation provides an appropriate and adequate safety net to protect farmers, while also being fiscally responsible to tax payers. They also argue that this bill promotes an increased effort in conservation, not only of agricultural soil, but also conservation of wildlife, forests, and ecosystems. Also, a key issue to the proponents of this bill is the urgency of the increased spending for the development of bioenergy. It is no secret that Americans are now more than ever looking towards alternatives to foreign crude oil, and American farmers are more than willing to step up and fill that role as bioenergy providers. There are many general pro stakeholders on this side, most notably farmers unions from across the country, and several politicians whose states’ economy and culture are structured around agriculture. Specific stakeholder groups number close to the thousands and usually focus on specific crops or goods. This group includes organizations such as American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Sugar Alliance. Politicians such as Tom Harkin, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and Nebraska state Senator Ben Nelson all realize the impact this bill has on their states and this country. The economic, political, and moral values that shape their arguments focus on protecting and supporting the people who help make this country have the “cheapest, safest, most abundant food supply in the world” (Farm Policy). Presentation of Proponents’ Arguments, and Evidence: Issue 1: “safety net” The first argument presented by the proponents of this bill is that the legislation provides protection to farmers, most commonly known as a safety net. Not only does this safety net protect farmers from market-value pricing and other farming uncertainties, but it also saves tax payers money. David Stanford, vice president of Plains Cotton Cooperative Association, states that, “the safety net protects farmers from the unexpected” (Smith 6). This includes elements of surprise such as droughts, natural disasters, and over-surplus. An article on the House Committee of Agriculture website argues that the bill “continues the price-based counter-cyclical program, which provides assistance when prices decline. Additionally, it preserves the non-recourse marketing loan program, the fundamental piece of the farm safety net.” A crucial element to this safety net is that it must provide farmers with sufficient funds without putting a burden on taxpayers. A research study provided by the Northeast-Midwest Institute shows that this bill establishes a counter-cyclical revenue-based system. By implementing this counter-cyclical revenue based system “over 8.2 billion dollars would be saved over the course of ten years” (“Summary of USDA”). To translate, currently our counter cyclical payment programs are based on price. The new proposed counter cyclical revenue program is based on gross revenue. The new program “provides better protection with less market distortion at not additional cost” (“Reforming Farm”). Furthermore, the proposed new payment program would base revenue at a state level, and not a national level, which would reflect “localized weather anomalies, that occur at the individual state level” (“Reforming Farm”). In essence, it would be implementing a new system of monitoring when farmers need to be paid for a lack of profit based on state average revenue produced by certain crops. According to stakeholders, this would result in less direct payments to all farmers, but more substantial payments to the farmers who need them most, while at the same time saving tax-payers money, something most felt the 2002 farm bill did not do. Moreover, smaller, independent farmers would be able to benefit from these payments just as much as larger subsidized farmers would, reducing the inequality in counter cyclical payments based on large outputs of farm goods. Additionally, the institute showed the bill’s provision that would reduce the adjusted gross income for eligibility to receive direct payments from 2.5 million to 200,000 a year would save $1.5 billion over ten years (“Summary of USDA”). By making a few adjustments to the way farmers receive direct payments from the government, proponents of the 2007 farm bill assert that this piece of legislation protects farmers and benefits tax payers. The 2002 farm bill was criticized for allowing direct payments to farmers who already made too much income. But by reducing the amount of income eligible for direct payments it once again puts the funds in the hands of farmers who need it most, i.e. small, independent farmers. Issue Two: “Environment” The second argument proponents address is that the bill in question provides more protection and funding for natural wildlife, forestry, and land conservation. Never before have so many non-direct agricultural issues been brought to the table while formulating a farm bill. This bill, according to its proponents, successfully addresses the issue of conservation by increasing funding to a variety of programs. According to Jeffery Zinn, a specialist in Natural Resources Policy, notes the 2007 farm bill increases spending in several areas: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals, would increase by a total of $20 billion. The Farm and Ranchland Protection Program provides financial support to state, local and private farm and ranch land protection efforts. These programs protect agricultural land from residential and commercial development by acquiring agricultural conservation easements on productive farmland. Under the new 2007 farm bill funding towards the FRPP would increase by a total of $510 million. Another program that would benefit from the proposed bill is the Grasslands Reserve Program, which would increase funding by a total of $340 million over the same time period. The Grasslands Reserve Program offering landowners the opportunity to conserve and protect grassland resources on their property. In addition to this, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation asserts that this bill will provide, “an estimated $100 million in new, annual funding to help farmers from the Chesapeake Bay region implement conservation practices and methods” (“Save the Bay”). Moreover, as the environmental conservation stakeholder group Ducks Unlimited notes on its website, the bill adds $1.6 billion in funding to the Wetlands Reserve Program which improves conditions for waterfowl and landowners. Supporters of this bill argue that the bill not only promotes a safety net that protects farmers and benefits tax payers, but it also increases funding of programs to increase conservation of our wildlife, forestry, and land. Issue 3: “Bioenergy/”energy independence” The last issue proponents address is the current hot topic of bioenergy. With crude oil prices rising and “peak oil” scares becoming ever so frequent, “clean energy advocates are looking to agriculture to shift our dependence from volatile Mideastern oil reserves to liquid ‘biofuels’ and ‘biomass’ energy derived from Midwestern farm fields” (Imhoff 103). Mike Johanns, the current national Secretary of Agriculture, states, “the new Farm bill proposal would dramatically expand the commitment to renewable fuels” (Crooks 18). Proponents of the farm bill feel that ethanol and other biofuels are an applicable solution to the ever-looming energy crisis. With an increase of biofuel grown in America, the dependency for foreign oil is lessened or diminished, which results in more money for local biofuel farmers, and less money spent by consumers. Proponents claim the farm bill would include several measures to increase biofuel research and production. Anthony Crooks, an agricultural economist, states some of these measures include investing $25 million a year for four years to encourage the development and growth of cellulosic ethanol production, and a reauthorization of the Renewable Energy Systems grants to provide $2.17 billion loan guarantees and $500 million for grants (18). In addition to ethanol research and development, one proposal includes a new $150 million over ten year initiative to support wood-based energy systems, such as wood to ethanol conversion (“Summary of USDA”). Proponents argue the benefits of bioenergy research and development would be immense. For example, some benefits include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the potential to boost local economies through transportation infrastructure revitalization, and the possibility for farmers to have new markets and opportunities for farmer-owned multinational cooperatives (Imhoff 107). Supporters of bioenergy and renewable fuel sources cite that biofuels are “just part of a larger integrated future energy strategy” and with an upcoming energy bill pushing towards alternative fuel sources, it only seems logical to be ahead of the market (107). This evidence, coupled with the other two issues and arguments helps advocates of the 2007 farm bill garner support from a variety of organizations and individuals, but what are they doing to promote their cause? Proponents’ Plans: Stakeholders on the pro side of this legislation have enacted several plans of action to further their side. Ducks Unlimited, a conservation organization based out of Tennessee, has a program set up where one can directly contact your representative senator via telephone or email on their website (“Farm bill Passes”). The Chesapeake Bay Foundation offers a variety of ways to get involved which include meeting with Senators, a program that lets users upload pictures of their farm and prints it onto a postcard which is then mailed to your senator, and a donation center for funding their Action Network (“Save the Bay”). In addition to that, several pro farm bill organizations have written formal letters together to show a unified support for the passing of the farm bill through the Senate, which have then been posted online for the public. Without fail, it seems organizations across the country are urging their supporters to contact government leaders, raise money, or just raise awareness of the issues of the safety net, conservation, and bioenergy. Presentation of Opponents and their values: But there is not just one side to this social problem. There are several stakeholders in this dilemma that state that this bill should not be passed for several different reasons. Most point to three main problems: the inequality in the current subsidies system, the concern that the health of citizens is not being adequately addressed, and the damage the bill will do to the environment. The general stakeholders on this side of the issue include small and independent farmers across the country, concerned environmental groups, and nutritionists. Specific stake holders such as Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the Organic Valley Family of Farms, and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture all value smaller farms that are healthy, environmentally sound, profitable, humane, and just. Their stake is in how subsidy payments are given out and to whom they are given out. Specific stakeholder groups such as the American Dietic Association and the Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy all value nutrition and health, and a farm bill that reduces obesity and provides adequate funds for food stamp programs. Groups such as Environmental Defense and the National Resource Defense Council value the environment which includes the lands on which farming occurs. Other specific stakeholders include representatives such as Congressman Kevin McCarthy, who voted against the House version of the 2007 farm bill, Congressman Terry Everett, and Senator John McCain. Con Issue #1: Inequality (multipart argument—various forms of inequality are covered) Critics of the 2007 Farm bill argue that the subsidy system that has been established by the government must be reformed due to the inequality within it. George Pyle states in his book Raising Less Corn, More Hell that subsidies encourage farmers to overproduce crops and depress prices worldwide. He continues, “farmers then consistently sell their products at a loss and make up the difference in governmental loan guarantees, target prices, export subsidies, and emergency payments” (49). Stakeholders against the proposed subsidy system based on counter-cyclical payments also argue the distribution of subsidy monies is not equal. According to Daniel Imhoff, “of the $112 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on subsidies between 1995 and 2004 more than 80 percent went to the production of just five crops: corn, cotton, wheat, rice, and soybeans. Half of that money went to the seven states that produce those commodities” (59). In addition, critics argue that there is inequality also within the crops that receive payments. For example, “farm bill favors just four primary groups: food grains, feed grains, oil seeds, and upland cotton. In turn, these are either fed to cattle in confinement or processed into oils, flours, starches, sugars, or other industrial food additives” (Imhoff 59). Producers of fruits and vegetables or “specialty crops” are often left out of these subsidy payments as their crop yields are deemed “not essential” or as important as other commodity crops. For example, “Ranchers and producers of fruits, vegetables and specialty crops are not eligible for these subsidies –even though they account for most farm sales” (“Farm Subsidies Face”). Additionally, “although California farmers earn more by sale than any state, California farmers received less than half of what farmers in Iowa, Texas and Illinois received between 1995 and 2002” due to the high subsidy payments they receive for their commodity crops (Farm Subsidies Face). In essence, critics claim subsidies only help out the largest farms, producing the largest quantity of commodity crops and push aside the smaller farmers. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that, “the USDA pays farmland owners regardless of whether they farm the land themselves. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid to urbanites and large institutions, including major universities and Fortune 500 companies” (Imhoff 64). Another finding by the Washington Post claims that an estimated “$1.1 billion dollars went to dead farmers over a 7 year period” (Farm bill Food Battle). Imhoff adds to the claim by stating that “programs reward the largest producers, regardless of need, income or exposure to the risk. Nearly 10.5 billion – almost 50% of all commodity subsidies – went to 5% of eligible farmers in 2005” (64). Critics continue the subsidy inequality argument by not only addressing subsidy payments, but also other programs such as crop insurance subsidies. An article in the scholarly journal Regulation states that, “as subsidies have increased, so have total federal expenditures on crop insurance” (Klein and Krohm 27). Since 2001 alone, crop insurance expenditures have increased an estimated $3.6 billion, and that trend shows no sign of slowing (Klein and Krohm 27). In addition to issues with crop insurance, critics claim subsidy programs have promoted racial discrimination. The inequity in subsidy programs does not manifest itself in only financial form; a history of discrimination against minorities has plagued government subsidized farming programs for years. Discrimination in farm program delivery has meant many African-American, Hispanic, and Native American farmers have been prevented from benefiting from programs, such as credit and crop insurance, (which has led to) the loss of 97 percent of African-American-owned farms in the past century. According to the National Black Farmers Association, there are “fewer than 20,000 African American farmers left in the United States” (“Black Farmers” 4). Furthermore, a recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group showed that nearly 81,000 of the 94,000 African American farmers that applied for restitution from the landmark civil rights case against the USDA were denied (“Black Farmers” 4). The historic agreement awarded $2.3 billion to African American farmers for decades of unequal treatment when they applied for USDA crop loan programs, but the USDA has instead withheld 3 out of every 4 dollars of this “automatic” compensation (“Black Farmers” 4). Also, the subsidy inequality affects not only our own country, but the rest of the world also. In September of 2002, the government of Brazil filed a case against the U.S. government’s cotton support programs claiming that the U.S.’s domestic support programs were incompatible with WTO obligations (Mercier and Smith 211). Eventually, the WTO ruled that the U.S. price-related support programs had depressed prices in the world cotton market (Mercier and Smith 212). As George Pyle notes, “the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and other rich countries provide $350 billion a year in subsidies to their farmers…this is seven times what those same nations spend on aid to poorer nations, and it swamps whatever benefit those needy nations might realize from foreign aid” (49). All of these issues, combined with the inequality of subsidy payment to smaller farms and farmers, help critics paint a picture of injustice in the current and proposed subsidy system of the 2007 farm bill. Issue 2: “health”/”nutrition” The second argument opponents raise is that the proposed legislation of the 2007 farm bill does not improve the overall nutrition of American citizens. They claim the farm bill has a large influence on the common health of all Americans because of how the legislation affects obesity, public school lunch programs, food stamp programs, and general diets. As Michael Pollan points out, the surgeon general has declared obesity an epidemic in America that costs tax payers $90 billion a year in healthcare system costs. Many critics of the farm bill attribute this to the surplus of food and its lowered prices. As the American Dietic Association points out, “a critical misperception of US agricultural policy is that abundance of food translates into a well nourished population… (when in fact) seven of the top 10 causes of death in the United States are linked to diet” (Weems and Weber 736). Pollan continues by stating “since 1977 an American’s average daily intake of calories has jumped by more than 10 percent” (102). Critics cite the increased presence of fatty products containing artificial sweeteners, such as High Fructose Corn Syrup (HCFS), in our daily diet as a possible reason as to why obesity is on the rise. In fact, “since 1985 an American’s annual consumption of HCFS has gone from forty-five pounds to sixty-six pounds” (Pollan 104). “Because of massive subsidies in the Farm bill for corn and soybean producers, the price of soft drinks and other sugary foods decreased by nearly 20% while the price of fruits and vegetables increased by 40%” (Farm bill Food Battle). A study provided by the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agricultural policy on the evidence relating HFCS and weight gain concluded that, “in a society that is experiencing unhealthy weight gain, it is necessary for individuals to reduce their energy intake, including energy provided from calorie-dense foods and beverages” (Forshee et al. 580). With an always increasing push of high calorie by- products of readily surplussed, subsidized foods the farm bill does not promote healthier foods or incentives for the production of nutritional food crops. But for critics the impact of the food bill does not extend to just the health of individuals, it also affects programs such as the Food Stamp program. Roughly 26 million Americans rely on Food Stamps to help them purchase a nutritionally adequate diet; unfortunately, the inability to afford a healthy diet also increases the risk of obesity and diet-related illnesses among low income citizens (Hagert 1). Critics state that obesity and illness in turn affect their quality of life and costs tax payers billions of dollars (Hagert 1). As Foodbattle.org points out, “the Food Stamp program of the Farm bill provides recipients on average only $3.15 per person per day for food.” The Center for Public Policy Priorities notes, “when Food Stamp benefits run out, families mostly turn to less expensive and less healthy food, increasing their risk of diet-related illnesses” (Hagert 1). In a recent study by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, it was shown that on average, a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips and cookies, whereas a dollar worth of fresh carrots only provides 250 calories (Drewnowski and Specter 9). When low income parents are forced to provide sustenance for their families, it is only logical they will turn to cost efficient, high calorie (i.e. high energy) foods, instead of more costly, more expensive foods. They state this produces a system where unhealthy, cheaper foods are constantly being consumed by the people who can’t afford adequate healthcare. They go on to explain, “about 35 million Americans – including nearly one in four American children – do not always have access to sufficient food” (Hagert 4). Critics of the food bill point to the fact that the food surplus of cheap, non-healthy food is hurting the nation’s health. “In 2006 alone, obesity-related illness were responsible for 40 million lost work days, 63 million doctor visits, 239 million restricted activity days, and 90 million bed-bound days” (Imhoff 97). Critics believe by not providing citizens with adequate food stamp allotments, more and more Americans are forced to turn to unhealthy foods. And with the surplus of HFCS products being processed and shipped across the country because of the subsidized corn farms overproduction, there are multiple ways to supply ones self with unhealthful foods. Enemies of the farm bill feel that without provisions and limitations set on what types of byproducts, such as HCFS, are going into our foods the trend towards bad health will continue. The opponents of this bill maintain that something must be done in legislation to improve the nutrition Americans are receiving, whether that is through a Food Stamp program or from the local grocery store. Issue 3: “environment” Lastly, detractors of the farm bill also argue that the issue of the environment is not being addressed properly or adequately through the legislation. Critics argue that a healthy, sustainable environment is essential to produce crops and goods at the rate and efficiency this nation currently does. In the book Foodfight, Imhoff explains that “forest, pasture, range, and crop lands make up nearly two-thirds of the country’s contiguous landmass” (120). Every year, “1.2 million acres of agricultural and forest lands are lost to development…and between 2006 and 2010 nearly 28 million acres under Conservation Reserve program contracts will expire; their future is uncertain” (Imhoff 121). In addition to this, “public lands are being exploited for resource extraction, grazing, timbering, off-road recreation, and other harmful activities” (Imhoff 121). Erosion is a large concern to farmers and the average annual erosion rate on land used for row crops and small grains (the majority of crops grown in the U.S.) is 8 tons per acre (Knutson, Penn, and Boehm 331). Peggy Barlett, author of American Dreams, Rural Realities, notes that, “mechanization has put consistent pressure on soil structure, and problems with soil compaction and erosion have increased with each new development of heavier and larger machinery” (63). In addition to that, “raising enough corn to add one pound of meat to a cow depletes 100 pounds of soil” (Pyle 108). “In California alone, an estimated 125,000 acres of irrigated fields, pasture, and other rural lands are developed each year,” which causes critics to question what is being done to save the very environment that provides this country its crops. Stakeholders against the proposed farm bill believe that the environment should be conserved more efficiently through increased funding through the farm bill. Problems such as erosion, unclean air, and pollution all have feasible solutions through increased and focused conservation legislation. Environmental Defense, a pro-environment advocacy group, believes that improving conservation through the farm bill would not only help farmland, but also other vital natural resources. According to the organization website, “expanded conservation funding in 37 states would allow another 114,000 farmers and ranchers to benefit from partnerships with USDA to improve air quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat, restore wetlands and protect farmland from sprawl.” However, critics cite unwillingness on the part of supporters of the farm bill to take steps to improve the quality of the environment. For instance, the House version of the farm bill that was passed in July contained billions of dollars in subsidies to help farmers adopt environmentally friendly practices to protect clean air, water, and other natural resources. But, due to an amendment promoted by the pesticide industry, those funds were made off-limits for reducing the use of specific dangerous pesticides (“House Farm bill”). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, “only 2.4 percent of the funds available through the largest Farm bill conservation program for working farmlands were allocated to pest management between 2003 and 2005,” which according to the NRDC is “woefully inadequate”. Critics feel pesticides have potential to cause harm in the health of all consumers and alternatives should be sought out by funding through legislation. Stakeholders against the proposed legislation feel that although the 2007 farm bill aims to make progressive steps towards a better environment, it is not enough. Critics dispute that “land health and the health of the people will always be deeply interconnected,” which is why they are fighting to preserve and conserve what is left of America’s forest, pasture, range, and crop lands (Imhoff 133). Con side Plans: What, then, are the plans of stakeholders who are against the farm bill? The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture has a variety of ways it is approaching the problems associated with the farm bill. The NCSA helps groups establish themselves to get informed as to how they can impact the agricultural industry. They offer a variety of tools including electronic media press kits to help educate people on how to get organized and to start grassroots organizations like their own (“Ag Matters!”). Bioneers is a program that includes several social and scientific innovators who want not only preserve to and restore the environment, but also heal the people who are involved. They host an annual world conference that focuses on practical models for restoring the Earth and communities (“Bioneers”). The Community Alliance with Family Farmers builds and supports communities of farmers, agricultural professionals, and public institutions dedicated to the voluntary adoption of a whole systems approach to farm management. This approach is flexible, maintains long-term profitability, and conserves and enhances water, soil and air resources. They offer a variety of programs and projects that promote sustainable agriculture. Organic Valley Farms Coop is a cooperative of several family farmers groups across America that is pushing for reform in the 2007 Farm bill. They work together to provide healthy affordable crops and foods, while also practicing environmentally sound farming techniques and not adding any hormones or chemicals to their crops. By organizing together, they are trying to show the larger farms and farmers that efficient farming can be done without subsidy programs and without a cost of quality to the consumer or the environment (“Organic Milk”). Analysis of Argumentation: Now that both sides have been presented it is necessary to analyze these arguments. The proponents pushing for the passing of the 2007 farm bill argue three issues in support of their cause. The first issue being that this bill provides a much needed safety net for farmers. Through a variety of direct payments, loans, and insurances supporters of the bill argue that the bill aims to protect our farmers from any type of economic loss, which to them is very important. In some ways this is an emotional appeal that places the well being of farmers as a priority above all things. They are encouraging critics to consider the costs and struggles farmers incur in order to provide our country with its food supply. Therefore, it places an emotional responsibility for non-farmers to recognize that the people, who work so hard in order to feed us, require a back up safety net in order to take care of their families. Furthermore, supporters argue that the cap limits they have placed on subsidy payments based on income, and direct payments based on counter cyclical revenue averages, effectively improve the current subsidy system. Critics against the farm bill do recognize this need and do not dismiss this claim. However; what critics argue is that the safety net might be more than a safety net, and more of a form of governmental welfare that many farmers take advantage of. Critics have no problem with providing a support system for farmers in need, but they feel that the people who require this net the most, are the ones who are benefiting from the least. In fact, not only are few benefiting from it, but they argue that with the ever decreasing amount of actual family farms, the ones who are receiving the most benefits are the mega-sized, commodity farms who make the most profit of all the farmers in the country. Proponents argue that without an effective support network for all farmers, a large portion of this country’s economy will falter and eventually fall apart, therefore subsidy payments must continue in order to protect the greater good of all citizens of the United States. It seems logical that the individuals, who provide our sustenance, must be protected. However, it seems inequitable for the government to allow farms to manipulate tax payer’s dollars for personal gain. It is imperative for the right funds to be placed in the right hands; otherwise democracy is not being served. I believe the idea of a safety net is a clever use of rhetoric. The idea of struggling farmers requiring something to protect them in times of need is something most people could agree is necessary. However, this image is a stark comparison to what is actually happening. In reality, this safety net is acting as a form of corporate welfare. It is only protecting the larger farmers who do not require much of a safety net at all. While I understand this argument, I cannot agree with it at all. Supporters of the proposed farm bill further their argument with the idea that this legislation, more than any other previous farm bill, promotes improved conservation practices for our country. They maintain that the bill has increased spending in multiple key programs such as Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Grasslands Reserve Program, and has receive support from several environmental groups such as Ducks Unlimited and The Chesapeake Bay Foundation. By increasing spending in several programs and creating new conservation programs proponents feel this bill adequately addresses the issue of conservation. Critics counter these claims by noting while these expenditures make steps in the right direction, they are not large enough strides to make a decent impact on the issues of conservation. Issues such as water contamination from pesticides, C02 emissions from farm equipment, erosion of soil, and loss of wildlife diversity are among a few of the issues that have not been adequately addressed in this proposed bill. Critics counter with the fact that programs such as the Conservation Security Program give annual payments for good stewardship towards conservation, with the highest payments going to address wildlife habitat. Ultimately, supporters argue this bill has dedicated more money towards conservation than ever, while the critics of the bill that this is not enough, because the direction of these funds does not necessarily benefit the environment competently. It is logical to protect the environment in which we live, so that it is possible to sustain our quality life as it is now. However, application of funds to a program that does not benefit vital areas such as pastoral grass lands, or fertile soil, would render any conservational intentions useless. Critics of the farm bill contend that while the proposed farm bill does take small steps in the right direction it is not enough to make a substantial change. Pointing to several statistics and findings opponents of the bill build a case showing that much of the environment is not being properly protected or cared for through legislation. Particularly convincing is a study by an organization stating that increased conservation spending would improve overall quality of environment in over 37 states. Supporters of the bill agree that environment is a key issue to this bill, and that as much funding has been put into place as possible in order to make an impact on conservation. They also note that never before has such attention been focused on non-agricultural issues in a farm bill before. They argue they have addressed the issue of environment by providing funding for several key programs that would protect pastures, wetlands, wildlife, etc. Based on these arguments and evidence I cannot with good conscience agree that the environment is being properly addressed through this proposed legislation. Lastly, proponents of the bill argue that the increased funding and attention appropriated in the bill towards bioenergy will be a benefit in several ways for the country. They argue by increasing funding and research into the bioenergy industry, particularly ethanol, we lessen our dependency on foreign crude oil, thus saving our citizens money and increasing our own economy. Also, moving towards a bioenergy fueled automotive system would reduce greenhouse emissions and also provide jobs and potential for economic success for our countries farmers. While it is reasonable that most of these increases would benefit our country in various ways, not everyone can wholly agree. Critics agree with these assertions for the most part, but also point to several reasons why ethanol might be the best avenue for alternative fuel sources. One, increased bioenergy demands would result in increased farming of commodity crops like corn. In order to meet this demand, more land would need to appropriate and more subsidy payments would continue to be given to many mega sized, corporate farms. Additionally, many critics have shown that unless ethanol can be efficiently processed, the power and emission benefits do not outweigh the cost and efficiency of oil based fuels. Furthermore, while critics agree that a move toward alternative energy sources is imperative, bioenergy sources may not be the most appropriate because any dependency on a potentially non-renewable source could put our nation in the same position of running out of a valued resource. To this writer, the idea of alternative fuel sources seems to be a vital component of our nation’s future. But where and how it is obtained must be carefully considered, in order for this country to not end up where it is now, in the near future. It seems illogical to place all potential for resources in a single source such as a perishable source. More research and technology should be implemented in incorporating several alternatives for energy. Bioenergy is a positive step towards solving our energy crisis, but this bill does not make the stride large enough. However, there is not just one side to this farm bill. Critics and opponents of this bill both feel that there are several issues worth arguing over in this proposed legislation. They begin by arguing that the subsidy system that has been in place for several years now must be reformed. By pointing out several inherent inequalities of the way funds and direct payments are appropriated, the critics have suggested that very few are benefiting from subsidy payments, and more often than not, it is the ones who don’t need to. They argue that the small, family, independent farmer has been run out of business due to government supported, mega-sized, subsidy farms. They also point out that commodity crops are receiving the vast majority of the subsidy payments based on budget analysis. Their arguments paint a decisive picture of injustice and discrimination not only based on income of farmed goods, but also of race and ethnicity. Proponents argue that this idea of injustice is not as unambiguous as one might want to believe. Supporters point to ever rising costs of fossil fuels, fertilizers, and seeds as reasons why large sums of money are necessary in order for farms to sustain high levels of production. While this claim might be true, without substantial evidence of necessary expense levels farmers require it is hard for me to concur that the largest grossing farms must be so supported with such gratuity. Farmers should be supported, but only when it is necessary. Addressing the issue of health in our country, critics argue that this bill does not adequately improve the overall health of the citizens of America. Enemies of the bill contend that by increasing support to commodity subsidies, harmful food by-products become more prevalent in daily diets of citizens. They also point to studies and medical evidence that chemicals such as HFCS have led to greater rates of obesity and diabetes. At the same time, supporters of the bill argue that no conclusive evidence has proved a direct correlation between chemicals such as HFCS and other diseases. Yet, as critics indicate average calorie intake has increased tremendously in recent years, and the majority of medical doctors agree that increased calorie intake without equivalent exercise will lead to unhealthy lifestyles. Detractors of the bill argue this leads to increased medical costs for tax payers because of programs such as Medicaid and welfare. While this assertion might seem logical, it is hard for this writer to recognize a causation/causal affect between obesity and tax payer’s money. Supporters are quick to agree that the correlation might not be as evident as critics might want it to be. Regardless, it is apparent to me that the issue of health is not adequately addressed in the farm bill, and does not play as large a role in the bill as it should. The health and nutrition of citizens in this country is not at the quality it should be, and this bill should reflect major steps in changing policy to reflect that. Moral Reasoning Analysis: While it is extremely beneficial to analyze this dilemma based on arguments produced by stakeholders, this should not be the only way in which one examines these issues. Given the value laden implications of this legislation, it is imperative to focus on the ethics, ideals, and obligations of this controversy through a moral reasoning lens. Since proponents are aiming mainly to ensure that farmers be supported with a strong safety net, their primary obligation is to farmers. This obligation is an informal obligation but as many law makers make decisions based on the people they represent, it is paramount that they please voters that will affect their future. Adherents to the 2007 farm bill, also have a secondary obligation to tax payers. Since the entire bill is funded by tax payers’ money, it is necessary that the proponents of this bill carefully consider how much they spend. Given that supporters of this legislation want to provide a substantial financial safety net for farmers while not abusing funds provided by tax payers, it is clear they value fiscal responsibility. Their concern in limiting payments to those who do not require them shows they are striving to move forward fairness in government subsidies and equality in direct payments. In addition to this value, it is apparent by increasing efforts in protecting the environment and natural landscapes of this country, the supporters of the farm bill value conservation. This value recognizes the importance of natural resources and also acknowledges it is our responsibility to maintain the quality of our environment. Finally, by proposing more funds and research in the field of bioenergy supporters display their value for economic independence from foreign interests. While the environmental benefits of bioenergy may be substantial, it is the idea that our country could fuel itself without having prices dictated by foreign regulators that motivates proponents towards bioenergy. The consequences motivating supporters of the farm bill include both positive and negative outcomes. If the legislation succeeds in its aims, the agricultural sector of the U.S. economy could continue to be prominent and successful. New advances in bioenergy could provide a whole new market for agriculture. Increased conservation could lead to fresher water, more fertile land, protection of wildlife, and cleaner air. In addition to this, these reforms could result in lower overall costs for consumers due to cheaper fuels and agricultural products. It is not certain whether these benefits would be achieved immediately or would take a while to be noticed. Regardless, these consequences would be beneficial for future generations in the long-range. If the bill fails it could potentially waste billions of taxpayer’s dollars by continuing payments to farmers who do not need them. Additionally, money that could have been spent on better conservation techniques or different fields of new energy will have been wasted on ineffective methods of improving our environment and energy issues. These consequences would be both detrimental and long-range, because they would merely stall our country from moving in a forward positive direction. The normative principles that seem to motivate proponents include the Principle of Ends and the Principle of Compensatory Justice. The Principle of Ends declares that one should never treat human beings as mere means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. Supporters are stating that we should not take advantage of farmers merely because they provide for this country. The role farmers play is integral to our country and they should be treated with fairness and equality. This idea extends also to the idea of conservation in the sense that one should not use the environment only to benefit ones self as a means to their end. Rather, one should consider the repercussions of the treatment to the environment also. Supporters of the farm bill also employ the normative Principle of Compensatory Justice. This principle represents the notion that farmers should protected if they are financially hurt by economic conditions or natural disasters. In case of one of these scenarios, they will always be able to look towards the government for Compensatory Justice in the forms of direct disaster payments or crop insurance. Those against this year’s proposed farm bill also have obligations to groups. Detractors of the 2007 farm bill have a primary obligation to farmers. This is a shared obligation with supporters of the bill, however; their obligation is more towards smaller, family, and independent farmers. This is an informal obligation, but it should be noted in a state such as California (where there are primarily non-subsidized specialty crop farms) law makers should push for legislation that benefits their farmers. Obligations to farmers usually rest in which farms are represented in law maker’s states. Critics also have a secondary obligation to consumers. While the supporters have an obligation to tax payers, the critics of the bill have an informal responsibility to ensure that consumers are receiving the best value for farm based goods in price and quality. Consumers drive this economy and the critics of the farm bill recognize the unofficial contract that must be protected in this legislation. A third obligation is the informal responsibility to nature. Critics identify the necessity to maintain a sustainable environment because of the benefits it provides to the nation. Critics also take a value based approach to the issues outlined in the farm bill based on their obligations. Because enemies of the farm bill want to protect small, family, and independent farmers they value equality in subsidies. They believe there should be justice and fairness in the division of government payments and that no farmer should be discriminated upon because of size of farm, gross of output, or income. Those against the farm bill also value health and nutrition, due to their obligation towards consumers. They feel that it is vital that our nation is able to feed itself with healthy, nourishing, nutritious products and not be subject to over produced subsidized farm goods. By valuing health and nutrition, they recognize that the health of citizens and consumers should take precedence over what is good for the economy. Furthermore, those against the bill value the environment by pushing for increasing funding in conservation programs. The consequences of the critics solution to the controversy, which is decreased spending in subsidy payments and increased spending in health and environmental programs, could result it both good and bad effects. If their solution passes there could be an increase in small, family, and independent farms. This could be a long-range benefit to farmers and consumers who want less industrialized food options. Also, an improved environment could be the result of increased conservation spending. This would benefit citizens in many ways such as better health, better farm land, and cleaner air and water. Subsequently, health and nutrition could improve with more healthy foods being supplied at a lower cost because of increased production by independent, smaller farmers. However, should their solution fail, the agricultural industry could be hindered by larger farmers not being able to produce sufficient amounts of goods for a high demand market because of higher costs and lower profits. Payments that are now considered unnecessary by critics of the farm bill could prove to be vital in order for farmers to provide goods at the rates they currently do. With less production of gross farm goods, hunger might rise in lower income families and individuals who rely on cheaper food products. The critics’ values, obligations, and moral reasoning hinge on the Principle of Human Well-Being. This principle states each person is entitled to an opportunity to attain a standard of living consistent with human dignity. By reducing payments to larger, mega-sized farmers it is giving smaller, independent, family farmers to obtain a better standard of living, and quality of life. Furthermore, by ensuring better nutrition and health for all citizens this also increases human well-being in consumers. Moreover, by maintaining a sustainable, clean environment a high quality of living is guaranteed not only for human beings now, but also for future generations. All human beings should be able to have a quality standard of living, regardless of income, size of farm, or environment surrounding them. Critics believe that by enforcing this principle it will benefit all humans. Finally, a second normative principle critics support is John Rawl’s Principle of Distributive Justice. This principle states basic goods should be distributed so that society’s least advantaged members benefit as much as possible. In a sense this provides the notion that smaller, independent farmers should be distributed the same basic funds that other farmers receive so that they may benefit as much as the rest do. Additionally, low income families and individuals, some of society’s least advantaged members, should be able to obtain basic healthy foods as much as possible to assure better health and nutrition. Tentative Solution: After carefully weighing the argumentation and moral reasoning of both sides in this controversy, I am against the passing of the 2007 farm bill. Without serious revisions, the bill, as it stands, does not adequately the social problems it attempts to solve. Time must pass and people must become educated in order for a better farm bill to be passed. Therefore, I propose a multi-part solution that would create a more effective farm bill, to adequately address all the needs and issues of this dilemma. First and foremost, subsidy payments must be determined on a counter cyclical revenue payment program on a state by state basis only. We can no longer dictate target prices of crops on a national level when most crops are grown regionally. These target prices not only affect our country, but also the world market. Foreign nations suffer from the prices we set and sell by, and it hurts more human beings in the long run. Lower income grossing farmers should be able to receive greater percentage of payments than larger sized farmers, and payments should be reduced to the minimal level. Proponents of the bill point to the fact that they have proposed to lower payments by several hundred thousands of dollars, but this change is not substantial enough. Our agricultural economy should move to a system that is virtually subsidy free in the long run. Supporters of the bill also note that farmers need subsidy payments to ensure their farms are profitable (the concept of a safety net). However, what they fail to mention is that the farms receiving the payments hardly require any payments at all, and have been taking advantage of a system with far too many loopholes. The idea of family farmers is virtually non-existent in this country anymore, and they will not be hurt by cuts in subsidy payments, because in reality they aren’t receiving any now. If there is to be any subsidy increases it should be in the area of specialty crops, i.e. fruits, vegetables, and nuts. This industry has potential to benefit not only smaller farmers, but also the health of our nation. More affordable, healthy food would decrease the amount of expenditures tax payers are responsible for obesity and diabetic related illness. Furthermore, limitations and provisions should be placed upon the usage of high calorie, unhealthy food by-products such as HFCS. By reducing these ingredients and moving back to organic, natural foods and ingredients overall health will benefit. Finally, conservation spending should fund programs that address our most serious issues. Protection of endangered lands and species, cleaner air and water levels, and alternative energy based on renewable resources should be our focus. Many supporters of the bill agree that increased land conservation and clean water irrigation is vital, but only because it can benefit farming techniques. We can no longer look to nature as a factory for our foods and goods. It is a fragile system that once damaged, is not easily or quickly repaired. While bioenergy research and current conservation programs help temporarily, we should look at these issues on a larger, more inclusive scale of how these issues affect future generations. Increased bioenergy would mean more subsidy payments to corn farmers and I don’t believe that is something we should put stock in. I do believe that the bill could be modified while it is on the senate floor to fit most of these needs and that is a reason why I maintain some reservation in my tentative solution. It is hard for me to say that simply because this bill does not adequately fix every problem it should not be passed. Perhaps, through more diligent investigation and interviewing I might discover that indeed the bill at hand could fix a lot of problems and fix the social problems at hand. However, at this time I can only say that the 2007 farm bill as it stands should not be passed. Field Research: Interview write-ups: After extensively researching the farm bill through a variety of written and electronic resources and reaching a tentative conclusion against the bill, I proceeded to interview two individuals from the greater Austin area with expertise and knowledge in the area of the farm bill. My intent with these interviews was to come face to face with two human beings on opposite sides of the controversy, and to truly listen and try to understand their perspectives. What I did not expect was for each of those people to make my final conclusion an even more difficult decision than it already was. Each interview was asked a few questions, but I allowed for most of the conversation to travel where it wanted. I conducted a formal interview, but did not let the formality interfere with positive, informative dialogue. The first interview was with Seth Wispelwey. Wispelwey works for Bread for the World Institute, a faith based non-profit organization in downtown Austin. Wispelwey is the regional organizer for legislative action that involves hunger issues, in this case, the farm bill. The second interviewee was Lisa Goddard. Goddard is the Advocacy & Online Marketing Manager for the Capital Area Food Bank. She is also responsible for following and updating members of her organization on legislation and bills that affect the food bank, in addition to being ahead of marketing and awareness. Wispelwey has worked for Bread for the World Institute for nearly five years, despite being a relatively young man. Bread for the World was founded in 1972 when a group of Catholics and Protestants met to examine how people of faith could be mobilized to influence U.S. policies that address the causes of hunger. What started as a small contingent has become a nationwide organization with offices and employees across the nation. Bread for the World believes that people are instructed by scriptural teachings to do their part to eradicate hunger. This faith based approach was something I had not yet come across in my dealings with stake holders on this issue. Wispelwey seemed to be a passionate, knowledgeable individual who strongly believes in the cause he is working for. Wispelwey was very professional but at the same time cordial and friendly. Goddard was also a very professional yet amiable person, whose kindheartedness did not overshadow her zeal in working to end hunger in the Austin area. Much like Wispelwey, she was extremely knowledgeable in the issues of the farm bill and how they directly related to the farm bill. She gave me a full tour of the facility within the Capital Area Food Bank and I was amazed by the complexity and enormity of the warehouse that is used to feed thousands of people in the Austin area everyday. Both of my interviewees were open-minded to other perspectives and were actually once co-workers in the past. I began by asking each of them how the farm bill relates to their organization. Wispelwey explained how instead of working on the physical aspect of feeding hungry people, his organization aims to end hunger by making sure proper legislation is passed in the U.S. to help end hunger. Wispelwey pointed out that sometimes policies inadvertently increase hunger due to conflicting priorities written into the legislation. He feels that it is Bread for the World’s moral imperative to reform such policies that do not decrease hunger. Goddard also explained that the Capital Area Food Bank is a branch of an organization called America’s Second Harvest. This organization is funded exclusively from private donations and government funding. Without funding from the government, the Austin Food Bank could not operate at a capacity to effectively address hunger issues within the city. It is vital that the farm bill provide the necessary funds to organizations such as Second Harvest in order for the Capital Area Food Bank to exist. It was easy to quickly understand that the amount of vested interest in this single bill, deeply affects people all across this city. I delved further into the moral issues of the farm bill by asking each of the interviewees if and how they examined this controversy through a moral and value lens. Wispelwey explained to me that in his opinion a budget is a moral document. Meaning that whatever programs are funded or aren’t fund reflects what this nation deems important or moral. He continued by saying, in the context of the farm bill by providing subsidies with more and more direct payments, we as a nation are deeming subsidized farming morally sound. For Bread for the World it is important that lawmakers legislate morality that is founded in principles of social justice based on the teachings of scripture. It is hard for them to accept overpaying successful farmers, while independent family farms are being foreclosed everyday. Wispelwey claimed that in Minnesota alone, 3,000 farms are being shut down every month. He also showed me a graph provided by the Bread for the World Institute that showed that the areas of the United States that provide the most subsidy crops are in fact the areas of the U.S. that have some of the highest poverty and hunger levels. He feels with the system that is in place the rich get richer and the poor get put out of business, and this in no way is moral. Goddard looked at the controversy through a different moral perspective. She explained that today corporations, more often than not, are not held morally responsible for their actions. She believes that is society’s duty to protect the most vulnerable. In the case of the Capital Area Food Bank, that means providing food security to people who can not afford to feed themselves. Goddard believes through the programs that are funded by the farm bill, such as Second Harvest and the Food Stamp program, allow underprivileged people to have dignity, and to be valued. She also explained that without addressing poverty, there is no hope in addressing hunger, which is why programs such as the Food Stamp program allow people a chance to turn their lives around and eventually not need food stamps to pay for food. Goddard believes that legislation, such as the farm bill, is necessary for morality to be funded. Eventually I asked both persons whether or not they were pleased with the bill in its current version. Goddard explained that for her organization they could not ask for much more from it. Their needs and requirements for funding will be more than satisfied if the proposed legislation passes. She said that it is important that each five years a new farm bill is passed in order to account for changes in prices all food banks deal with. These prices include gas for transportation of foods to soup kitchens and bread lines, labor costs, and prices of food itself. If these are not adjusted every five years or sooner, funds run out quicker. The Capital Area Food Bank was pleased to see that the funding provided in July’s version of the bill would adequately address all of these cost issues. Wispelwey was not as eager in his endorsement of the bill. Despite providing a variety of benefits to various programs, he notes that the bill does not adequately address the injustice in the payments that are being given out to farms that don’t need them. According to him, celebrities such as David Letterman and Scottie Pippen receive some of these subsidy checks simply because they own the land that is farmed. Wispelwey said that if the subsidy issue was adequately addressed in the legislation and direct payments were given to the people who needed them the most, issues such as hunger, health, poverty, and environmental issues would also be helped. While he noted that several limits had been placed on the amount of payments to farmers, it simply was not enough to make a substantial difference in his opinion. He believes if the subsidy system was reformed to remove the inequities within it, many issues such as hunger, health, environment, and poverty could be positively changed for the better. Finally, I ended with the same exact question for each of my interviewees. It was short, straight to the point, and I only allowed them to answer it initially with a yes or no response. I simply asked my original question that I have been researching from the beginning of this semester: Should this bill pass? Goddard explained that yes, this bill must pass in order for the Capital Area Food Bank, or any food bank to have a chance in adequately addressing hunger. Without a current farm bill, federal funds will disappear quickly, and when the shelves at the food bank are empty, people will then look for food in manners that are not always safe. She told me that everyday the farm bill does not pass; more and more people have to wonder where their next meal will come from. While this may statement might have been exaggerated to some extent, it offered a perspective I had never considered. For some people, this bill will provide them sustenance and a means for consumption for an extended period of time. It doesn’t only affect corn farmers in the Mid-west it affects impoverished families on the east side of Austin. Wispelwey countered this argument by stating that unless this bill undergoes serious reform it should not pass. He recognized that he understood that organizations as the Capital Area Food Bank desperately require these funds in order to operate, but he also noted that if the current subsidy system is permitted to function without reform, we will need more and more food banks as time goes on. To Wispelwey, food banks are essentially a band aid trying to cover a gaping wound. He maintains that if we could address the real issue, which is the perpetuation of inequality through legislative policies, we could eliminate the need for food banks and end hunger and poverty. My interview experiences caused me to reflect for several days. I tossed both sides back and forth for over a week, because for the first time I saw the humanity in each side and how it directly affected people within my own community. Lisa Goddard was confident that the farm bill was necessary in order to address hunger in Austin. She drew from personal experiences, and I could sense without a doubt she was speaking without any hesitation in her belief. However, what I feel she failed to recognize was that while the farm bill does succeed in funding vital food donation and food bank centers across the nation, it fails in addressing a slew of other issues besides hunger. Unfortunately, the farm bill is not set up to only address one issue and affects many other programs such as school lunch programs, ethanol research, and conservation programs. I think many people like Goddard do not scrutinize the bill once their interests (i.e. their funds are secured) have been satisfied. While her mentioning of families and impoverished people starving by every delay to the passing of the bill, I cannot with good conscience ignore the multitude of other problems the bill would cause or not address if it does pass. Final Solution: After months of extensive research, several interviews, and much deliberation I must finally conclude that the 2007 Farm Bill should not pass. While I understand that the passage of this bill would result in several small positive consequences, I can not agree to a farm bill that has not been full reformed. The long term costs of not making immediate, significant changes to this piece of legislation heavily outweigh and short term benefits any individual of this society might gain. A dilemma that I have struggled with internally is that this bill could bring about positive change in areas such as the environment, health, and our economy. But every time I thought about those changes I could never reconcile that they were enough for a better America. The farm bill should not pass because most of the proponent’s arguments such as increased conservation, and limited payments simply are not enough. Substantiating my position are obligations, values, consequences, and normative principles that I have determined are essential to my life. As a conscious citizen of this country I feel I have an informal obligation to future generations that will inherit this nation. Also, as a future tax payer I have an informal obligation to myself and to others to insure that our hard earned money is going toward the right causes, and being spent in the proper manner. In addition to these obligations there are several consequences that have influenced my decision. Should this farm bill pass it would guarantee farmers across this nation that despite whatever may happen in any given season, their families are guaranteed an income. However, should this bill pass a continuance of injustice would be allowed to subsist, a consequence I do not want to assist. Poverty among rural areas, unrealistic food stamp allotments, and the persistence of unhealthy cheap food products would be some of the many negative outcomes of this legislation. Also aiding my final decision are certain values. The value of equality extends deep into this legislation from independent farmers in America to farmers in Africa, all should be able to provide sustenance for this world and not have to compete with government funded subsidy farming. The value of health is also very important in this decision. Our bodies were not designed to process the chemically processed food byproducts we consume as a result of this legislation. To me it is clear that the influx of HFCS and other additives is contributing to obesity levels and diabetes and this bill would only promote more of their presence in our diets. Finally, I also look to the Principle of Act of Utilitarianism which states, “an act is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people over the long term.” If this bill were to pass the good it would produce would not benefit the greatest number of people, in fact it would only benefit the ones that are already gaining from it. Over the long term this legislation would be viewed as a failure much like previous farm bills in the recent past. In order to fully address this dilemma, I believe there are several steps we can take into fully reforming the farm bill so that it is fair for everyone. Several amendments have been proposed and could be passed to significantly change the farm bill for the better. I encourage law makers to pass the Dorgan-Grassley amendment would lower commodity payments from $360,000 to $225,000 per household and close enormous loopholes that currently allow farmers and urban investors to collect millions under the current subsidy setup. This amendment would also free up funding that would be re-invested in high priority programs to extend nutrition funding, support family farms, rural development, and conservation programs. In addition to all those benefits the same amendment would address the Food Stamp Program by increasing funding for it by $396 million. I also encourage law makers to pass the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment which would broaden the agricultural safety net by a making a free revenue insurance program available to all farmers. This would save billions of dollars that would also be used to invest in other essential programs in the areas such as nutrition, specialty crops, and critical conservation programs. These amendments would move the farm bill to become fairer for everyone by eliminating much of the discrimination and inequality that is created by the current commodity based subsidy system. Finally, I encourage all consumers to honestly consider what the consequences of their everyday choices. From the cars we buy to the vegetables we purchase in the produce section, lives are affected by every decision we make. It is time for us to realize the moral responsibility that goes into what we consume and to not allow our ignorance of this all too important piece of legislation to be swept under the rug. In conclusion, because of the injustice, inequality, and negative consequences this farm bill would produce, I can not with good conscience support the passing of this bill. I feel that if the bill were seriously reformed to make actual, substantial changes I could agree to it being passed, but as it stands I am against this bill. By not allowing this bill to pass, and for farmers to have to be deprived of their usual payments, perhaps we can reassess this bill at a time when we as a nation are actually ready to pass a fair farm bill. As I stated previously a budget is a moral document, it defines what we value and deem important. I believe in legislation that does not impair anyone regardless of ethnicity, background, or income level from being able to pursue their version of the American dream. Until law makers recognize the discrimination and inequities the farm bill promotes and the social impact it imparts, there should be no compromise within the resolve of the American people to see that everyone is provided with the highest quality of one of the most basic elements of life: food. We should aim to ensure all people can afford an adequate nutritious diet. We should aim to strengthen rural communities. We should help farmers earn a sufficient livelihood and be good stewards of the land, and we should allow small-scale farmers in poor countries to earn their way out of poverty. The truth is we can provide everyone in our country with healthy, nutritious food grown on U.S. soil while at the same time preserving and conserving our environment and protect and support the gracious people that cultivate our sustenance. The question is, are we willing to fight for it?

Appendix A
Current Law and Policy To summarize the current language of the 2002 farm bill in one page would be nearly impossible. Instead I have paraphrased a document by Paul C. Westcott, C. Edwin Young, and J. Michael Price who wrote the USDA Agriculture Bulletin for the USDA website in 2002. The President signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 into law on May 13, 2002. Although the budget framework for the legislation extended over 10 years through 2011, the new law covered 6 years, governing Federal farm programs through 2007 (Westcott, Young, Price 4). The 2002 Farm Act provided income support for several commodity crops such as wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice, and oilseeds through three programs: direct payments, counter- cyclical payments, and marketing loans (Westcott, Young, Price 4). These payment programs are currently the ones that being most heavily scrutinized as the bill looks to be reformed. Other changes in the conservation stipulations included expansion of land retirement programs. The legislation increased the emphasis of conservation on working lands by raising funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and establishing a new Conservation Security Program, which paid producers to adopt or maintain specified conservation practices. Additional conservation provisions raised funding for farmland protection and create a new Grassland Reserve (Westcott, Young, Price 4). These are only a few of the thousands of provisions the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provided, but probably are the most vital.

Appendix B
Civic Engagement I was inspired to do my civic engagement through one of my interview subjects. Seth Wispelwey offered a suggestion stating that I should participate in calling my congressional representative and inform them of amendments Bread For the World supported. The amendments suggested were the same ones I mentioned in my final conclusion, the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment. Both of these proposals provided feasible solutions to help seriously reform the farm bill for the better. Both of them involve changing the way subsidy payments are appropriated and distributed. I felt that the best way to voice my support for these said proposals was to call as quickly as I could. Wispelwey provided me the telephone number to the congressional switchboard. Before I called this number I determined who my state senator was, because currently the bill is being debated on the senate floor. I discovered my representative senator was Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I reviewed the amendments one more time before dialling the number. Once I was connected to the congressional switchboard, an operator asked me which congressperson I wished to speak with. I replied with my respective senator, and I was immediately transferred to an aide of Senator Hutchinson. I explained who I was and began to tell the aide that I would like to voice my support of a few proposals. I detailed why I believed these proposals would benefit the state of Texas and the nation for the better. After several minutes the aide said that he would report this to Senator Hutchinson and also asked for my zip code. After this exchange, I felt proud that I was able to participate in the democratic process in some small way.
Appendix C
Interview Questions

1. What is the name of your Organization and how are you affiliated with it?

2. How long have you worked within this organization? Within this type of work?

3. How does this bill affect your specific organization?

4. What is one of the most important aspects of this bill?

5. Are you pleased with the bill in its current version?

6. Is it possible for you or your organization to view this legislation through a moral reasoning lens?

7. Should this bill pass?

Works Cited

"2007 Farm bill Commodity Title." House Committee on Agriculture Web site. Department of Agriculture. 10 Sept. 2007 .
"Ag Matters!" National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. 10 Sept. 2007 .
American Association of Crop Insurers Web site. 28 Sept. 2007. .
American Sugar Alliance Web site. 27 Sept. 2007. .
“As Senate Nears Action on Farm bill, Economic Study Shows Most States Would Benefit from Shifting Some Direct Payment Subsidies to Conservation Funding.” Environmental Defense Web Site. 27 Sept. 2007. Environmental Defense. 29 Sept. 2007 .
Barlett, Peggy F. American Dreams, Rural Realities. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina P, 1993. 101-175.
"Bioneers." Bioneers. 10 Sept. 2007 .
"Black Farmers Denied Benefits, Study Shows." Mississippi Monitor Aug.-Sept. 2004. 28 Oct. 2007.
Cain, Zachary, and Stephen Lovejoy. "History and Outlook for Conservation Programs." Choices 19 (2004): 1-9. .
"Community Alliance with Family Farmers." Community Alliance with Family Farmers. 10 Sept. 2007 .
Crooks, Anthony. “Shouldering the Risk.” Rural Cooperatives May/June 2007: 14-18.
Drewnowski, Adam, and S E Specter. "Poverty and Obesity: the Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79 (2004): 6-16.
“Farm bill Passes House.” Ducks Unlimited Web site. 27 Jul. 2007. Ducks Unlimited. 26 Sept. 2007 .
Farm Policy Facts Web Site. 15 Sept. 2007. .
Forshee, Richard A., Maureen L. Storey, David B. Allison, Walter H. Glinsmann, Gayle L. Hein, David R. Lineback, Sanford A. Miller, Theresa A. Nicklas, Gary A. Weaver, and John S. White. "A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain." Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (2005): 561-582. Academic Search Premier. 10 Sept. 2007.
Goddard, Lisa. Personal interview. 15 Nov. 2007.
Hagert, Celia. “The 2007 Farm bill is an Opportunity to Stop the Erosion of Federal Food Stamp Benefits.” Center for Public Priorities Web site May 2007. Center for Public Priorities. 23 Sept. 2007 .
Hayami, Yujiro, and Vernon W. Ruttan. Agricultural Development: an Internal Perspective. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins UP, 1971. 244-245.
“House Farm bill Leaves People, Environment Vulnerable to Pesticide Poisoning.” National Resources Defense Council Web site. 25 July. 2007. Natural Resources Defense Council. 26 Sept. 2007 .
Imhoff, Daniel. Food Fight the Citizen's Guide to a Food and Farm bill. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2007. 1-170.
Klein, Robert W., and Gregory Krohm. "A New Season?" Regulation 29 (2006): 26-33. Academic Search Premier. 10 Sept. 2007.Knutson, Ronald D., J.B. Penn, and William T. Boehm. Agricultural and Food Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. 249-251.
Mercier, Stephanie, and Vince Smith. "Domestic Farm Policy 2007: Forces for Change." Choices 21 (2006): 209-214. Academic Search Premier. 10 Sept. 2007.
National Farmers Union Web site. 25 Sept. 2007. .
"Organic Milk, Dairy, Natural Foods." Organic Valley Farms Coop. 10 Sept. 2007 .
Pyle, George. Raising Less Corn, More Hell. New York City, NY: PublicAffairs, 2005. 28-53.
"Reforming Farm Support Programs to Better Serve Farmers." Farm Bill 2007. 20 Aug. 2007. 19 Oct. 2007 .
Rural Coalition Web Site. 27 Sept. 2007. .
“Save the Bay: The Farm bill.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation Web site. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 26 Sept. 2007 .
Schmitz, Andrew, Troy G. Schmitz, and Frederick Rossi. "Agricultural Subsidies in Developed Countries: Impact on Global Welfare." Review of Agricultural Economics 28 (2006): 416-425. Academic Search Premier. 10 Sept. 2007.
Smith, Ron. “Maintaining the Farm bill Safety Net.” Southwest Farm Press January 2004: 1-6.
“Summary of the USDA’s 2007 Farm bill Proposal.” United States Department of Agriculture Web site. 31 Jan. 2007. United States Department of Agriculture. 22 Sept. 2007 .
The Farm bill Food Battle Home Page. 20 Sept. 2007 .
"The Voice of Agriculture." American Farm Bureau. 10 Sept. 2007 .
Weems, Suzy, and Jenifer A. Weber. "Farm bill Offers Opportunity to Improve Nutrition for All Americans." Journal of the American Dietic Association 107 (2007): 736-738. Academic Search Premier. 1 Sept. 2007.
Westcott, Paul C., C. Edwing Young, and J. Michael Price. United States of America. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Provisions and Implications for Commodity Markets. Nov. 2002. 6 Dec. 2007.
Wispelwey, Seth. Personal interview. 13 Nov. 2007.
Zinn, Jeffrey. Congressional Research Service. Funding Levels for Conservation Programs in the 2007 Farm bill. Washington: GPO, 2007.