Millions of readers of the New York Times yesterday saw a picture of an Illinois corn field and corn piled up at a Minnesota elevator illustrating an article that blamed food poisoning and the growth in obesity on the Farm Bill. While the article probably riled many of those readers enough to write their Congressman demanding a change in the Farm Bill, it also serves as “writing on the wall” for the Cornbelt farmer who may soon see a completely different philosophy behind farm programs.

That philosophical change converts farm programs to food programs, particularly if urban lawmakers have to answer their constituents who are paying taxes to support farm programs. While their have been more inflammatory articles than the New York Times article of Wednesday, one of the major issues getting increasing debate is the attempt to connect farm program payments with the food that is produced for consumers, particularly healthier foods.

Certainly you grow corn, beans, wheat, hogs, and cattle to be as healthy as you can, but the critics are focused on high fructose corn sweetener and hydrogenated soybean oil as the culprits in the battle for a healthier society. Corn and soybean producers know that a significant portion of their market income is derived from converting corn into sweeteners and soybeans into margarines and cooking oils that require hydrogenation. But change may be in the offing.

In the current issue of Amber Waves, an electronic magazine published by USDA’s Economics Research Service, an article entitled Insidious Consumption begins by saying, “The prevalence of obesity and diet-related illnesses is rising, despite evidence that Americans are aware of the positive effects of a balanced diet and exercise….For USDA, which devotes considerable resources to nutrition assistance programs like food stamps or school meals, findings from behavioral economics also offer alternative strategies that could be applied to improving the diet quality of program participants without restricting their right to choose the foods they like. This exploration of new ideas, however, is by no means a recommendation or endorsement of any of them. A thorough analysis of costs, benefits, and potential impacts would be needed before any strategy could be considered as a policy option.” Those policy options would eventually find their way into the Farm Bill, whether it will be the 2007 version or a future edition. The impact will be incentives for farmers to producer healthier foods, just like current incentives encourage soil and water conservation. If the incentives do not achieve behavioral change, then the incentives convert to requirements.

Take an initial look at your consumer, whose relationship with USDA is closely linked through the food stamp program. “The idea of earmarking funds and mental accounts may partially explain why several studies have found that food stamp benefits, which can be used only for food purchases, are more effective at raising food expenditures than an equal amount given as cash even when both benefits and cash are used on food.” In other words, the administrators of the food stamp program will be among the early groups which clamor for healthier food products for their clientele, whose existence depends on food stamps. Their recommendations will be among those included in Congressional farm and food policy.

Taking it a step further, “Grocery stores could also choose to offer their customers the option of using a prepaid “healthy” card that might, for example, preclude purchases of snack chips, desserts, and soda pop or only be valid on certain items, such as fruit and vegetables. Accepting food stamp benefits as payment for these “healthy” cards would extend this opportunity to food stamp participants.” So USDA’s consumer arm would be rewarding consumers if they chose healthier products by letting them make more purchases. Those purchases would not include corn syrup and hydrogenated soybean oil, but fruits and vegetables produced under new farm program incentives.

If you are not concerned about food stamp recipients, consider what might happen in the school cafeteria, where future consumers are being educated. “Through prepaid lunch cards, such (health promotion) mechanisms are currently increasing in popularity. Some schools allow parents to track the menu items their children purchase at school and even specify that their prepaid card preclude the purchase of specific items, such as sodas or high- fat desserts.”

Policy options for farm programs are currently under debate in Congressional agriculture committees, but once their recommendations get to the floor of the House or Senate, then more urban-oriented Members of Congress will have amendment opportunities, and some of those could create a closer relationship between the producers and consumers both supported by the USDA. “More innovative strategies to improve food choices can also be applied to USDA’s nutrition assistance programs. Incorporating some of these findings—such as providing smaller, but more frequent distribution of food stamp benefits—into the existing programs would require some augmentation, and would have costs shared by both State and Federal partners. Other options, like using prepaid debit cards or providing participants an option for self-imposed restrictions on food stamp benefits, may be relatively more costly or complicated both in technology and policy impact.”

Summary:
The growing concerns about obesity within society, unhealthy food choices made by food stamp recipients, and similar preferences by consumers of school lunches could be addressed by policy development within the 2007 or future Farm Bills. If the policy calls for healthier food products available for the consumer, it will be incumbent upon the farmer to provide those products, since he is participating in a farm program. Although farmers can do nothing to change societal food choices, they can communicate with input suppliers and output customers to begin a conversation on what can be achieved.