http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20020422150853.asp For Immediate Release, 4/22/2002 Save the Family Farm Stop the Corporatization of Agriculture Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) today spoke at an Earth Day event at Green Mountain College in Poultney, Vermont. The focus of the Congressman’s remarks were on the need to save family-based agriculture in this country, which is currently under enormous pressure as a result of low commodity prices, and agri-business consolidations. The following is the text of the Congressman’s remarks. “American agriculture now stands at a crossroads. The question that we as a society have to answer is do we want an agricultural system that comprises very few, very large corporate producers -- probably owned by one of the largest supermarket chains and probably overseas -- or do we want a decentralized system of family-based agriculture that produces food in rural communities across the nation. For me, the answer is clear. We need to support and preserve family-based agriculture throughout the nation in all commodities. Why do I say this? Why should Americans care that their food is produced overseas on large corporate farms? While overseas producers are not as efficient as U.S. farmers, they are in many cases lower cost producers because the cost of land and labor are, to excuse the pun, dirt cheap. And the health and safety standards and environmental standards are far more lax than ours, if they exist at all. So, Americans may get food that is produced more cheaply overseas. But is that the only consideration that should dictate the shape of American agriculture. I don’t think so. For a host of reasons it is increasingly clear that corporate controlled farming is bad for the nation. First, I consider the preservation of the family farm a question of national security. Everyone in this room will agree that we are far too dependent on foreign oil. With all the troubles today in the Middle East we see how vulnerable our economy is to foreign upheavals over which we have little or no control. In 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, this nation went to war quickly in order to protect our oil supply from the Middle East. How vulnerable will we be if we become dependent on foreign nations for our food? Secondly, small decentralized farms are important for our environment. When farming is spread out it has less impact on the environment. In addition, family farms help reduce the blight of suburban sprawl that is gobbling up so much open space in this country. Thirdly, family farming is an integral and critical part of our rural economy. They support not only their own families, but also a host of related businesses like feed stores, equipment dealers, and local retailers. They also maintain the scenic landscape that is so important for the tourist industry in Vermont and elsewhere. Finally, consumers are ultimately the winners when food is produced on family run farms across the country. As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons that American farmers can be undersold is that we have some of the highest food safety standards in the world. While that makes our food more expensive to produce, it also means that American consumers can be more certain that the food they are buying is high quality and safe for their families. And as for the cheaper cost of production overseas, consumers are unlikely to benefit. Consolidation in the retailing and processing industry means that lower cost food from overseas is more likely to provide increased profits for them rather than lower consumer prices. Those are just some of the reasons that, in my view, we need to promote a system of family-based agriculture. But as you know trends are currently against those of us that support family farmers. In 1950, there were 5,388,437 farms in the U.S. By 1997, that number had fallen to 1,911,859. That’s a loss of 3,476,578. Or to put it another way, in just 47 years, almost two-thirds of the farms in the U.S. have vanished. But while farms were getting fewer, they were also getting bigger. The average farm in 1950 was 216 acres. By 1997, the size of the average farm had more than doubled to 487 acres. Just as troubling and perhaps more troubling for farmers is that the people who buy their product -- namely the processors and retailers -- have become larger and larger to the point that they have far, far too much control over the price that farmers get for their milk. In 2000, the top five food retailers controlled 42% of retail sales in the U.S. (Kroger Co; Wal-Mart; Alberton’s; Safeway; and Ahold USA). This represents a staggeringly fast consolidation because the top five retailers in 1993 only controlled 20% of food sales and as late as 1997 the top five only controlled 24% of food sales. (Top 5 in 1997 were Kroger Co.; Safeway; American Stores; Albertson’s; Ahold USA.). The same is true among dairy processors. As of 2000, the top four dairy processors (Dean Foods, Suiza, Kroger and Prairie Farms) controlled 35% of the fluid milk market. That’s over a 34% increase in only 2 years. And regionally, control is even more concentrated. Although Suiza entered the dairy processing industry in 1993, by 2000 it controlled 70% of fluid milk processing and distribution in 13 Northeastern states. This consolidation is not limited to dairy, it is happening in every agricultural commodity. The top four beef packers control 81% of the market. Among, pork packers, the top four control 59%. The top three corn exporters control 81% of their market. Those top three corn exporters also are the top three soybean exporters and they control 65% of that market. In a business environment like this, family farmers are getting squeezed harder and harder as fewer and fewer buyers control the marketplace. It’s true for dairy, it’s true for apples, it’s true for commodities across the spectrum. This imbalance in the marketplace and this consolidation in the among producers is being accelerated by the increased amounts of foreign trade in agricultural products. In 2000, the U.S. was importing enough cheese and dairy ingredients to replace some 10.6 billion pounds of domestic milk production. The U.S. exported the equivalent of 4.3 billion pounds. That’s a trade deficit of 6.3 billion pounds of milk. And this pattern is going to get worse as processors and retailers look to cheaper sources of food to fatten their profit margins. In fact, a 2001 report from the University of Missouri noted that if there was completely free trade in dairy, the world milk price would always be lower than the U.S. cost of production. This led the researchers to conclude, and I quote, "If the dairy lobby is successful in opening up global trade through the World Trade Organization (WTO), we will find most of the remaining 90,000 US dairy farms exiting rapidly." What an absolute tragedy that would be. Now if you agree with me that America needs family farmers; and if you agree with me that we, at a minimum, need to protect small farmers from the increasing power of the concentrated processing and retailing sectors, what should we do? What we need to do is make sure that we have agricultural policies that protect, promote and empower family farmers in this country. That means for a start that we do not put American farmers at the mercy of world milk prices. We also need a federal agricultural policy that doesn’t focus its help on large farms. Under the failed 1996 so-called "Freedom to Farm" program, only 40% of farmers in the US received subsidies. 60% did not. The top ten percent received 70% of the subsidies. Fifty percent of farmers received only 2%. Companies like DuPont, Archer Daniels Midland, Boise Cascade and others have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is why I have consistently supported capping the amount of subsidies that one agribusiness concern can receive. As part of the Senate’s version of the farm bill, they included a provision that limits the participation in crop subsidy programs by Fortune 500 corporations and wealthy non-farmers. For individual farmers, the amendment would limit payments to $225,000 or, if married, $275,000. I am happy to say that earlier this month the House approved a measure in support of those caps. This represents a break through because the House rejected a subsidy cap last October. It makes no sense to me that scarce agricultural dollars are being given to Fortune 500 companies and wealthy agribusiness concerns. I am also pleased to say that the delegation has been working extremely hard to provide federal help to family dairy farmers in light of the expiration of the Northeast Dairy Compact. All three of us, Senators Leahy, Jeffords and myself, pulled out all the stops to extend and expand the Compact. But we were opposed by the dairy processors, who were working with large producers in the West, and Congresspeople from the Upper Midwest who, mistakenly, in my view, thought the Compact hurt their farmers. Last October, I introduced an amendment on the floor of the House to essentially create a national Dairy Compact program. We were opposed by the top Republican and the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, both of whom are from Texas. Much to everyone’s surprise, we received 194 votes after just two weeks of organizing. Senators Leahy and Jeffords then took that concept into the Senate where a version was included in the Senate bill. Now the House and Senate conferees are working out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill, and I and the Senators are working very hard to make sure the dairy program is included in the final bill. In its current version, the national program would provide virtually the identical benefits as the Compact with the difference being that the money would come from the federal government as opposed to the processors. Now I, as much as anyone, want the processors to have to pay a fair price for their product. But without the Compact, family dairy farmers in Vermont and across this country need this safety net. My hope is that in years to come we can shift the funding source back where it belongs, on the processors so that farmers are getting their money from the market. But it makes no sense to me to let thousands of family farmers go out of business while we work to make that happen. This program will also help make sure that farm subsidy payments are more evenly distributed across the country. Right now, the vast majority of the money goes to the Midwestern and Southern states who produce program crops. In addition to making sure federal ag policy benefits small farmers, we also have to address the concentration issue among processors and retailers by enforcing our current antitrust laws and perhaps enacting new ones if current law doesn’t offer enough protections. The road ahead for family agriculture is not going to be an easy one. But farmers will not have to fight it alone. There are millions and millions of Americans who do not live on farms or in rural communities who understand the value -- from a national security standpoint, from an environmental standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from a consumer standpoint -- of decentralized family-based agriculture in the country. They will be your allies. At the same time, farmers have to realize that the corporate, agribusiness interests are the opponents of family-based agriculture. They need to be cut loose so that, for example, when they want outrageous free trade agreements that allow them to purchase agricultural products overseas at a fraction of the US price, family farmers all over this country stand up and say no. It will be a tough fight but together we can reshape American agriculture for the better.” For More Information: Visit the AGRICULTURE section. Contact: Jeff Weaver at (202) 225-4115