Scything Farmers: How American Corporate Policy Undercuts Developing Nations
By Aleks Stoller
Though the life of a farmer may sound simple, in this age of ever-accelerating globalization, it is far from it. The days of taking produce to market are long gone; today, farmers spend every moment wondering how they can efficiently maximize production without driving themselves into debt and exhausting their soil. Most family farmers have been working the land for generations but their labor no longer brings in the profit it used to; in recent years, small farmers have been filing for bankruptcy in droves. They can no longer compete with corporate farms that sprawl over huge tracts of synthetically-fertilized land.
Most large agricultural corporations produce excess foodstuffs each year. Initially they attempt to sell as much as they can domestically, but often end up marketing a large portion of their yield overseas, thus putting foreign farmers at risk of bankruptcy, as well. When surplus American produce reaches foreign shores, it is sold well below cost of production (sometimes up to 40 percent less). Many of the countries on the receiving end are developing nations with agrarian- based economies and no government control of commodity pricing. This means that local farmers can only sell their crops at prices equal to or below the price of the crops that were “dumped,” either driving them out of their traditional market or drastically reducing the amount they receive from exporters. Without government intervention or off-farm income, these farmers will quickly go bankrupt.
Many researchers argue that these policies are crippling efforts to reduce poverty in developing nations. The former director of the International Food Policy Research Institute, John Mellor, argues that more international resources should be focused on agricultural development. This would create a greater demand for labor for on and off-farm goods and services, such as textiles and education. Further research on developing countries has shown that producing food domestically is more effective in the course of economic development than is reliance on the inexpensive, imported food “dumped” on their markets.
It has been argued that since many people in developing nations can hardly afford to feed their families, their governments should embrace “dumped” foodstuffs: the cheaper, the better, right? One problem with this argument is that farms are often the most important employers of people who do not own land. They help stabilize the demand for local wage labor while pumping additional capital into the economy. Secondly, some countries may become too dependent on foreign food markets. Unless they can provide the developed world with some highly prized natural resource like oil or diamonds, many nations’ only marketable commodity is fertile land to grow crops. They have no guarantee that they will be able to continue to pay or trade for foreign-grown food indefinitely.
In this day and age, with such advanced technology and such an abundance of food in some places, it would seem that no one in the world should ever have to starve. Obviously that is not the case. I believe that when a country depends on agricultural output to keep its economy running, it is not the best idea to put all the agricultural laborers out of work and depend on foreign producers. Once that dependence exists it is almost impossible to stop. It is a vicious cycle that has no winners. If American corporations cut back their production of foodstuffs, they could reduce soil-exhaustion, decrease the amount of fertilizer required and not have to sell their product overseas below the cost of production. In addition, this would aid developing countries in their efforts to nurture their own economies.
The U.S. government spends over a billion dollars a year on agricultural subsidies. That money is given away to try to keep producers from growing too much, but also to keep farmers from losing everything in a drought year and to keep prices low for consumers. Yet small farmers carry extra risk because they do not possess the resources that corporate farms do. While the government tries to keep small farmers in business, the ones who truly profit from agricultural subsidies are the corporations. As I become a tax-paying adult, I’d rather see my hard-earned money appropriated to someone who really needs it.
Aleks Stoller is a sophomore from Pepper Pike, Ohio.