[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: EWG Report: Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities and Gross Inequities

[Wes Rolley]

sosfbay-discuss

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	EWG Report: Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities 
and Gross Inequities
Date: 	Tue, 11 May 2010 17:15:17 -0500
From: 	Kari Hamerschlag <kari at ewg.org>
To: 	Kari Hamerschlag <kari at ewg.org>



Dear Colleagues,

Last week EWG released its updated Farm Subsidy database, which for the 
first time, includes information on crop insurance subsidies. You can 
find the database here: _http://farm.ewg.org/_   and read EWG President 
Ken Cook's commentary on it here: _http://bit.ly/bGv93C_.  I prepared a 
separate report analyzing what the data means for California, including 
additional research looking at 2008 and 2009 federal funding allocations 
in the US and California to support the fruit, nut and vegetable 
sectors.   The title of the report sums up the findings pretty well: 
Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities and Gross Inequities. 
You can find the report here: _http://bit.ly/accyi0
_
Here are three particularly compelling statistics that came out of my 
analysis:

    * California upland cotton growers received the largest portion of
      federal agricultural payments in the state in 2009, an estimated
      $198 million in taxpayer subsidies.  This is  the same amount that
      went to support the state's entire fruit, nut and vegetable
      sectors.  Upland cotton growers generated just $105 million in
      revenue in 2008 or .3 percent of California's agriculture output
      while specialty crop growers who produce California's vast bounty
      of fruits, nuts and vegetables brought in $18.2 billion in 2008,
      or 50 percent of California's total agriculture output. Yet
      taxpayer dollars flow equally to both. (Most of the cotton
      subsidies were based on past, rather than actual production, which
      has declined by 80% since 2003).


    * In 2009, the top one percent of subsidy recipients in California,
      some 125 growers, reaped $57 million in subsidies, a whopping
      $453,000 per recipient. Ironically, that is precisely the amount
      spent on the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the state's
      most important agricultural conservation program to help farmers
      conserve animal habitat, curb air and water pollution and reduce
      water use.  Last year, the program turned away 4,200 farmers and
      ranchers, or 70 percent of applicants due to lack of funds.


    * In 2009, cotton and rice growers raked in $271 million or 66
      percent of the $407 million in direct subsidies to the state.
      That's more than five times the amount spent for specialty crop
      research, extension, marketing and promotion and more than 20
      times the amount spent to support local and regional food systems
      in the state.


In a time of large federal deficits, the agricultural budget is a 
zero-sum game. Every dollar that goes into wasteful, inequitable 
programs cannot be committed to solving serious environmental problems, 
promoting local and sustainable organic food systems, increasing access 
to healthy foods, or building new opportunities for beginning and 
minority farmers. A better strategy is needed to help growers and 
ranchers of all sizes, sectors and regions cope with the myriad 
challenges facing agriculture.

It is my deep hope that a broad alliance of groups can get a Farm Bill 
passed in 2012 that delivers far greater public health and environmental 
benefits for California and the nation, while ensuring a real safety net 
for all farmers and ranchers in tough times when losses occur that are 
beyond their control.

I would welcome any questions, thoughts and reactions you have to our 
analysis.

Best regards,
Kari


______________
Kari Hamerschlag
Senior Analyst
Environmental Working Group
2201 Broadway Ave Suite 308
Oakland, Ca 94612
510-444-0973 x303
cell: 510-207-7257
_kari at ewg.org
_www.ewg.org/agmag

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100511/dfdf2323/attachment.html>