Another Voice

The cow may have kicked the lantern

by Charles E. Kruse

The United States is blessed with progressive and hard- working farmers and ranchers, a research system that remains the envy of the world and abundant natural resources. Yet, somehow the success of our food system has resulted in a culture that threatens to dismantle the food security that generations have worked so hard to achieve.

The irony of current policymakers is astounding. In his inaugural address, President Obama stated, “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” In remarks delivered in April at the Group of Eight Agricultural Ministerial meeting in Treviso, Italy, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack said, “As we saw in last year’s food riots, food insecurity not only threatens vulnerable populations, it puts our economic security and international stability at risk.”  

The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization General Director, Jacques Diouf, is quoted to have said recently, “We have never seen so many hungry people in the world.” The FAO now forecasts the number of hungry people in the world could soon hit a record 1 billion, despite the recent decline in food prices.

The U.S. is dealing with a rural crisis of its own. Dairy producers are struggling to pay feed costs as milk prices have plummeted. Peanut producers lost millions when consumer demand fell following contamination at a processing plant. Hog producers, already experiencing dire farm-level prices, suffered another setback as members of the media found it more convenient to refer to the current H1N1 outbreak as “swine flu” and consumer demand fell further. In each of these cases, the federal government has been asked to take measures restoring demand and improving farm-level prices.

Mixed messages are sent when officials work to list animal manure as hazardous waste yet actively promote organic agriculture. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., now has an organic garden.

Congress is considering legislation expanding the scope of the Clean Water Act, the primary source of federal water laws. Yet behind its slick title, the Clean Water Restoration Act would put more than 300,000 Missouri ponds and lakes on private lands under federal regulatory control. If passed, many landowners would find themselves subjected to the heavy hand of government control for the first time.

The Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and other extremist organizations are aggressively seeking to alter the nation’s food supply under the guise of animal welfare initiatives. While their efforts lack scientific basis, they could force livestock producers to make expensive changes or simply go out of business.

The most egregious example of Washington, D.C., doublespeak has to be the dogged pursuit of climate change initiatives. President Obama and congressional leaders are determined to regulate greenhouse gases one way or another. On Capitol Hill, congressional leaders are seeking passage of a cap and fee system that could impose vast new taxes on American businesses. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare. The finding is yet another step toward the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

In agriculture, this could be the cow that kicks over the lantern and starts a fire that will be difficult to extinguish. While some argue that farmers and ranchers will actually benefit under a cap and trade system, a more realistic case can be made for just the opposite; the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from farms and rural communities to federal coffers. Using EPA’s “presumptive minimum rates” on annual releases of carbon from farms that exceed 100 tons annually, Missouri farmers and ranchers could be assessed fines that have been estimated at $399 million to $522 million annually, more than 20 percent of total net farm income. To put this in perspective, more than 28,000 Missouri farms would be assessed carbon fines and 93 percent of the state’s corn acreage, 94 percent of the cotton acreage and 91 percent of soybean acreage would be affected.

We can’t have it both ways, publicly pronouncing the need to address growing world hunger while at the same time asking U.S. farmers and ranchers to operate in an environment of illogical regulations and outrageous taxes. A change is coming but, unfortunately, it spells disaster for rural America.

Charles E. Kruse is President of Missouri Farm Bureau and a fourth generation farmer from Stoddard County.

Click here to respond to this article

Top of Page