News & Events - Archived News

Balance sought in farm aid

Kenneth Cook, president of the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, contends that in the past five years, seven top officers of the Farm Bureau reaped $1.4 million in federal payments while most farmers in the state collected less than $6,000.

Although Cook says the payments are legitimate, he argues that they show federal farm policy tilts toward big agribusiness represented by the Farm Bureau, which is lobbying hard to extend programs for 10 years.

"Any time you have an organized group getting large subsidies, they have a much larger voice in Congress," Cook said. "It raises a question of who's interests they are pursuing."

Farm Bureau officials bristle at Cook's suggestion and the Environmental Working Group's conclusions, which the organization gave to The News Washington Bureau. The Farm Bureau, which counts 45,000 of Michigan's 52,800 farmers among its members, responded in a four-page statement.

Don Sutto, a Farm Bureau executive committee member and owner of Sutto Farms in Spaulding Township, said Cook's math is askew.

The Environmental Working Group's calculation shows Sutto Farms receiving $180,357 in subsidies since 1996. The Farm Bureau Web sit puts the number at $141,512.

"Cook says 10 percent of the payments are going to (Farm Bureau) board members when in reality it's one-eighth of 1 percent," Sutto complained.

"It's on the Internet. Anyone can look it up."

The Farm Bureau Web side indicates the top recipients in most counties are not members of the organization.

In Saginaw County, the most money, $818,480, went to Irish Farms of Burt.

Sutto's farm ranked 68th in subsidies out of the 2,521 farms in Saginaw County.

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit group that researches government databases to try to influence environmental policies.

Farm Bureau President Wayne Wood, a Marlette farmer who collected $264,634 in subsidies since 1996, also disputed the environmental groups conclusions.

"EWG's contention that MFB board members are protecting their own self-interest at the expense of smaller farms is at best based on an ignorance of Farm Bureau's policy development process or at worst a blatant disregard of the facts," Wood said.

"First and foremost, farmers want to get their income from the marketplace, not the government, but market conditions, especially for crop producers, have not been favorable since 1998. Farm program payments have allowed most farmers to survive this long period of relatively low prices."

Sutto said if his payments were larger than many other farmers received, it's probably because he farms more acres.

Sutto farms 1,500 acres, when the average size of a Michigan farm is 200 acres.

Congress actually planned to phase out crop subsidies with the "freedom-to-farm" law in 1996. Growers were to receive declining amounts for six years, regardless of what they grew, with the payments based on the acreage they planted before the law passed.

The idea was to wean farmers from subsidies for corn, wheat and soybeans by encouraging them to plant crops with stronger markets. Instead, overproduction by U.S. agriculture sent commodity prices plummeting, and Congress responded with emergency aid bills that provided record subsidies in recent years.

In all, 51,469 Michigan farmers received payments totaling $1.22 billion over the past five years, the environmental group's study indicates.

Just 5 percent of the recipients, or 2,463 farms, received nearly half the money in amounts averaging $235,067 per farm, the group found. At the same time, the bottom 80 percent of recipients had average payments of $5,701.

The pattern in Michigan is the same across the nation, where 5 percent of farms receive about half of the roughly $20 billion in crop subsidies paid out annually by the government, said environmental group spokesman Mike Casey.

The Farm Bureau said the imbalance simply reflects the continuing consolidation of agriculture, including the merger of smaller, adjacent farms into joint business ventures or corporations.

"Farm program payments are made on the basis of acreage, so it is not surprising to see some large recipients," Wood said.

"In addition to paying for machinery, seed and fertilizer, all of which supports local businesses and infrastructure, this money also went to pay household bills, interest on farm loans and college tuition for children."

With crop prices falling and production costs rising, net farm income in Michigan dropped 55 percent in 2000, to $305 million, even with $381 million in federal aid, said Dennis Rudat, communications manager for the Farm Bureau.

"It's a business survival issue," Rudat said.

Cook and other environmentalists say more would benefit if Congress shifted money from crop subsidies into conservation programs that all farmers need, such as money to preserve wetlands, reduce pesticides or control runoff of fertilizer and animal wastes into nearby waterways.

"An awful lot of farmers are left out of federal assistance, but they might like to have assistance that helps them deal with pesticides or deal with water quality issues," Cook said.

The House defeated a bill to transfer $19 billion from crops to conservation 226-200 when it passed its $170 billion farm bill Oct. 5. A similar proposal likely will emerge when the Senate starts debating its version of the 10-year farm bill.

If the Senate approves more for conservation than the House, a conference committee would have to hammer out a compromise, which would delay final action until next year. Congress hopes to adjourn for the year in early December.

Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, are caught in the crossfire between environmentalists and the Farm Bureau.

Stabenow's spokesman, Dave Lemmon, said she is leaning toward increased conservation spending. Levin spokeswoman Kathleen Long said he is still studying the issue.