EWG Database Ploy to Kill Farm Bill, AFBF Claims

November 26, 2001

An American Farm Bureau Federation official believes a recent report from the Environmental Working Group is designed to put farmers on the defensive and kill the House farm bill. The EWG has published a database of federal payments to farmers from 1996-2000.

"EWG hopes to capitalize on the old adage that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and pit small and large farmers against each other. But most farmers know that a list of government payments tells only part of the farm economics story," says Lynne Finnerty, editor of Farm Bureau News, Washington.

The EWG database will be offered free of charge and will be searchable by name, zip code, county, or municipality. It will detail how, under the current farm programs that "Congress is considering expanding, taxpayer funds intended to help family farmers were instead awarded to the largest agribusinesses and commodity growers," according to EWG.

"Two-thirds of the nation's farmers - often residing in big agricultural states in which livestock or non-commodity crops are raised - were bypassed entirely. For 80% of those eligible for the funds, the average annual subsidy check was roughly $1,000. Nationwide, two-thirds of the funds went to just 10 percent of all eligible recipients, while the bulk of all commodity program money went to approximately eight Great Plains and Deep South states," EWG added.

The EWG statement continued, "Big government checks have enabled big producers to buy neighbors' farms or out-compete them in the farmland rental markets. This has helped fuel the increased concentration in agriculture long decried by a group of Senators who are now advocating an expansion of these very same programs. The Bush Administration and newspaper editorial pages of every ideological leaning have criticized the programs. A House bill passed in October would expand the programs, locking in the inter- and intrastate inequities for another 10 years."

In an article on the AFBF web site, Finnerty writes, "What the EWG database doesn't show is: a) how many families often take part in running a farm; b) how thinly those government payments are stretched when divided over a five-year period and balanced with input costs; c) the collateral benefits to other rural businesses and residents; and d) the environmental practices that farmers take to qualify for some government payments."

Divide a government payment of $500,000 by five years and four families, "you end up with $25,000 per year, per family. On a large farm, $25,000 hardly covers the cost of the fuel used in one year, not to mention labor, fertilizer, seeds, equipment, and services like aerial spraying, insurance and accounting," according to Finnerty.

"EWG has angered farmers by invading their privacy in disclosing financial information. They apparently forget farmers are on the front line of protecting the natural resources that produce their daily bread and ours. If farmers are forced to give up because their income, including government payments, doesn't even cover their costs, not to mention produce a profit, our nation will end up with more development and less conservation. Attacking farmers, large or small, is not the answer to environmental problems."