DISCUSSION
Agricultural and food regulatory legislation were not passed in a vacuum. Rather, statutes were heavily influenced by the state of the nation’s social, political, and economic circumstances at the time of their consideration and passage. While agricultural policy was largely influenced by the current market and economic practices, food safety policy was subjective to various social, economic, and technological developments.
Influences on National Agricultural Policy
The Great Depression and Economic Climate
The agricultural crisis had already come to a head when President Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office. Farm commodity prices, wrecked by the Great Depression, were severely depressed, and dismally far from their immediate post-WWI prosperity. During 1914-1919, market prices for cotton, wheat and corn had increased significantly over a short period of time. Consequently, gross farm income more than doubled in the 1910s. Those price heights cracked in a short, but severe depression from 1920-1921, rebounding somewhat in years after, but never to the levels of 1919. In this pre-Depression light of gradually declining income, coupled with Republican presidencies, no debated agricultural legislation advocated extensive government intervention. It wasn’t until a free fall collapse in agricultural prices, accompanied with sharp a decline in overall farm income that farmers and their advocates riled for extensive government assistance (Winders 2009).
Reduction of Agricultural Surplus
During the New Deal, the federal government believed that the agricultural surpluses which lowered commodity prices were so great that they would remain even after relief efforts. The government’s primary strategy for correcting food production problems became control programs that brought supply closer to demand, rather than relief programs to help alleviate hunger. Thus the principle of controlling surplus amidst hunger and want became something of national policy. Growers organized cooperatives and created marketing agreements to reduce production and dispose of surpluses by using them as by-products or sending them to the dump. Most other perishable food agreements depended on regulation of shipments to market as a means of enhancing prices (Winders 2009).
Aside from public outrage at food reduction amidst hunger, a very serious criticism of the plan realized that the benefits had not been evenly distributed. The system of benefits applied only to producers, and not to the tenants that worked the fields (Farley 1936). The AAA was hesitant to pursue actions that would rile Southern planters who wanted to maintain racial plantation system that disadvantaged blacks (Conrad 1965).
The Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 had a very limited impact. The Resettlement Administration had had a vision that was very different from the actual effects of the Bankhead Jones Act; the act fell short of their wishes because of its limitations. Before a farm could be financed, it had to be approved by a committee of local farmers and deemed livable and useable by local standards. “Credit preference went to an upper stratum of tenants who owned implements and who could make down payments. Although not satisfied with such limited legislation, RA leaders considered it the best that could be obtained at the time” (Novel Guide 2004).
Controversies also surrounded many policies. The Flannagan-Hope bill created two separate sides. The House and the House Agriculture Committee was pushing for a separate marketing administration, one that would handle the other aspects of research and work. However, the Department of Agriculture believed the two should be combined into one production unit. The Flannagan-Hope bill called for a general organization of the market system, and Congress ultimately did not require a new agriculture market administration.
Free Market versus Managed Agricultural Economy
For almost two decades after World War II, a consensus could not be reached regarding the free market versus managed agricultural economy debate. There was a general consensus that the goal of agricultural policy was to maintain both a successful and productive farm sector. However debate continuously surrounded the method of reaching this goal. The level of government assistance required in obtaining such objectives, or whether a complete free market system was the solution, was the question that arose when making farm policy. Supporters of free market policy argued that supply would eventually meet demand, as surpluses that drove down prices would cause the end to inefficient farming. Those that advocated government controlled production claimed that, in order to keep incomes high enough to sustain small farmers, federal price supports were necessary. They also contended that control of production was needed to prevent unmanageable surpluses (Blanpied 1984). The legislation passed prior to the 1970’s produced a continuous shifting between the two ideologies in the hopes of finding a successful policy to counteract surpluses and low commodity prices.
The Agricultural Act of 1948 was the first compromise. During the first year, price supports remained high and fixed, but would become lower and more flexible in the following years. As farm prices fell under the 1948 Act, the Agricultural Act of 1949 was enacted to revert to high and fixed support systems. The free market debate renewed after the Korean War, when farm income was dropping, exports were low, and production controls could not keep up with demand. The Agricultural Act of 1954 was enacted, and proved successful in increasing export of commodities while once again moving into a system of flexible price supports in the hopes of reducing surpluses (Cochrane and Ryan 1976). However, reduced price support was not enough to avoid surpluses, and the government passed the Agricultural Act of 1956, turning to large acreage reduction programs to solve the problem. This also proved to be unsuccessful as it did not reduce output, and came at a high cost to the federal government.
The price support flexibility options built into Food and Agricultural Act of 1962 were soon overturned. Attempts of mandatory controls were also dropped, which is seen in the Food and Agricultural Act of 1965. This policy provided a compromise between the two sides of this debate as it relied on a combination of income support payments and reduced levels of price support (Dimitri, Effland, and Conklin 2005). The Agricultural Act of 1970 was an extension of the 1965 Act, continuing emphasis on supply check and direct payments to farmers.
The 1973 Act replaced support prices with lower target prices, which would only be reimbursed if market prices were to fall greatly. Farmers responded by growing a record amount of crops. Unlike prior policies, which tried to curtail production, this policy attempted to increase it to keep up with demand with the US in the world market. The 1977 Act relapsed to more stringent government assistance, but target prices but remained intact. The 1985 Food Security Act also lowered government farm supports, in recognition of a greater movement toward the free market policy concerning agriculture. The 1996 Act exhibited a greater change, giving farmers the freedom to make decisions about their own planting based on the market. However, the government was not be completely absent from the system, providing farmers with a fixed amount of annual payments based on their history of production. Both the Farm Bills of 2002 and 2008 continued the pattern of planting flexibility, but with a return to commodity programs.
