<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>EWG Report: Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities
and Gross Inequities</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
sosfbay-discuss<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>EWG Report: Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities
and Gross Inequities</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:15:17 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Kari Hamerschlag <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kari@ewg.org"><kari@ewg.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Kari Hamerschlag <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kari@ewg.org"><kari@ewg.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<title>EWG Report: Farm Subsidies in California: Twisted Priorities and
Gross Inequities</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
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: <font color="#0000ff"><u><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://farm.ewg.org/">http://farm.ewg.org/</a></u></font>
and read EWG President Ken Cook’s commentary on it here: <font
color="#0000ff"><u><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/bGv93C">http://bit.ly/bGv93C</a></u></font>. 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: <font
color="#0000ff"><u><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/accyi0">http://bit.ly/accyi0</a><br>
</u></font><br>
Here are three particularly compelling statistics that came out of my
analysis:<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">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).<br>
</span></font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">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.<br>
</span></font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
</span></font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">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.<br>
</span></font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I would welcome any questions, thoughts and reactions you have to our
analysis.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Kari<br>
<br>
<br>
______________<br>
Kari Hamerschlag<br>
Senior Analyst<br>
Environmental Working Group<br>
2201 Broadway Ave Suite 308<br>
Oakland, Ca 94612<br>
510-444-0973 x303<br>
cell: 510-207-7257<br>
<font color="#0000ff"><u><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="kari@ewg.org">kari@ewg.org</a><br>
</u></font><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ewg.org/agmag">www.ewg.org/agmag</a><br>
</span></font>
<br>
</body>
</html>