The Effect of Agricultural Practices on Society and what consumers eat. Every American depends on agriculture, so policy regarding its practices will have widespread economic effects. Government policies regarding agriculture can have an economic impact on society by subsidizing poor land use and obesity. Policy regarding agricultural practices of using cheaper migrant labor can affect American society by lowering food prices and introducing new participants into the American economy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essaySubsidiesAgricultural subsidies such as the Farm Bill are a form of government policy that affects agricultural practices by determining the amount of production, crop selection and determination of and the global market. Before 1973, subsidies were based on a loan system that controlled agricultural production. The current production system encourages overproduction, which violates World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules. The current system is exemplary of the fourth economic principle that people respond to incentives because farmers have an incentive to overproduce in some cases. By distorting trade, this policy cannot meet the fifth economic principle, according to which trade can improve the situation of all. If the international market suffers, the WTO could then resort to sanctions against the United States. Trade distortions and sanctions are two externalities of the current system that could have critical consequences for American society. Certain sections of the Farm Bill encourage the production of unhealthy crops that negatively affect Americans by contributing to obesity and lung cancer. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been identified as an ingredient in sweet foods and beverages that is higher in calories than the more expensive cane sugar. HFCS is a sweetener formed during the corn harvest and production process, which is heavily subsidized by the Farm Bill. Additionally, tariff restrictions (TQR) on corn-based sweeteners make foreign sweeteners more difficult to import, making HFCS cheaper and more accessible. If corn subsidies were removed, subsidies could be redirected to healthier foods. Kammer (2011) stated that the Farm Bill: “. . . exacerbates America's epidemic of diabetes, obesity and coronary heart disease, contributes massively to health care costs…” There is also a subsidy program for tobacco producers. The 1982 legislation allows the tobacco industry to tax itself to support other industry players who may be in trouble. However, Altman, Levine, Howard, and Hamilton (1997) state: “. . . that the tobacco price support program represents no net cost to taxpayers. “Tobacco subsidies cost individual taxpayers nothing, unlike other subsidies. The latent function of subsidies is poor land use and agricultural overproduction. Lobbying by the corn industry has injected nearly five billion taxpayer dollars into the corn market, providing incentives for farmers toplant more corn. A significant portion went to megafarms that grow corn to make ethanol, HFCS and concentrated animal feed. Several threatening externalities arise from these corn byproducts, such as environmental damage from ethanol pollution and antibiotic-resistant bacteria found on farms using animal feed concentrated in corn kernels. Recently, Congress cut ethanol subsidies for corn by 12 percent. This is because ethanol is linked to deforestation and rising food prices. It also removes funding for nutritious crop subsidies. Due to the nature of the Farm Bill, a billion-dollar comprehensive project, this ethanol reduction may never be implemented. Subsidies can encourage land misuse through insurance programs covered by the Farm Bill, such as “Price Loss Coverage (PLC). . .PLC pays when agricultural prices during the first five months of the agricultural year are lower than the reference price. The Supplementary Coverage Operation (SCO) covers farmers' insurance premiums up to 65%. This system could be misused by underselling to claim PLC and underwriting an insurance claim against underperforming land in which the majority of the deductible is paid by SCO. A farmer could make as much money from hedging as the actual yield of his crops, and he can insure up to 85% of his expected yield. Migrant laborPolicies regarding the agricultural practice of using migrant labor have advantages and disadvantages. The main government policy regarding agricultural labor practices is the H-2A visa. The H-2A visa grants foreign nonimmigrants the opportunity to work in agriculture as needed. In recent years, H-2A usage has been low due to the short-term labor contract combined with the mandatory need to house workers. In fact, Guthman (2016) found, “As one producer pointed out, using H-2A would make him a landowner and a producer. “H-2A use increased rapidly in California between 2013 and 2015, and this increase can be attributed to the types of crops harvested or even hourly wages. With rising wages and more H-2A workers, migrants have more money to spend in America. This system creates an efficient flow of capital by introducing new market participants. The effort required to use the H-2A program serves as a disincentive to the use of H-2A labor. The H-2A workforce frequently clashes with domestic workers. Additionally, farmers are prohibited from moving H-2A workers between ranches. This results in a loss of productivity which is economically corrected by changing the planting strategy to improve worker happiness and crop yield. The policy prohibiting dairies from using H-2A labor has not been reversed, therefore dairies continue to use undocumented workers. As the federal government addresses the use of illegal workers, the inability of dairies to capitalize on the legal use of H-2A labor will result in an economic downturn. This will negatively impact dairy-dependent industries, increase consumer spending and decrease tax revenues. Another disadvantage, as Bent (2011) notes, is that “…as farmers struggle to make ends meet…more are.

Essay / The Effect of Agricultural Practices on Society and what consumers eat. Every American depends on agriculture, so policy regarding its practices will have widespread economic effects. Government policies regarding agriculture can have an economic impact on society by subsidizing poor land use and obesity. Policy regarding agricultural practices of using cheaper migrant labor can affect American society by lowering food prices and introducing new participants into the American economy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essaySubsidiesAgricultural subsidies such as the Farm Bill are a form of government policy that affects agricultural practices by determining the amount of production, crop selection and determination of and the global market. Before 1973, subsidies were based on a loan system that controlled agricultural production. The current production system encourages overproduction, which violates World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules. The current system is exemplary of the fourth economic principle that people respond to incentives because farmers have an incentive to overproduce in some cases. By distorting trade, this policy cannot meet the fifth economic principle, according to which trade can improve the situation of all. If the international market suffers, the WTO could then resort to sanctions against the United States. Trade distortions and sanctions are two externalities of the current system that could have critical consequences for American society. Certain sections of the Farm Bill encourage the production of unhealthy crops that negatively affect Americans by contributing to obesity and lung cancer. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been identified as an ingredient in sweet foods and beverages that is higher in calories than the more expensive cane sugar. HFCS is a sweetener formed during the corn harvest and production process, which is heavily subsidized by the Farm Bill. Additionally, tariff restrictions (TQR) on corn-based sweeteners make foreign sweeteners more difficult to import, making HFCS cheaper and more accessible. If corn subsidies were removed, subsidies could be redirected to healthier foods. Kammer (2011) stated that the Farm Bill: “. . . exacerbates America's epidemic of diabetes, obesity and coronary heart disease, contributes massively to health care costs…” There is also a subsidy program for tobacco producers. The 1982 legislation allows the tobacco industry to tax itself to support other industry players who may be in trouble. However, Altman, Levine, Howard, and Hamilton (1997) state: “. . . that the tobacco price support program represents no net cost to taxpayers. “Tobacco subsidies cost individual taxpayers nothing, unlike other subsidies. The latent function of subsidies is poor land use and agricultural overproduction. Lobbying by the corn industry has injected nearly five billion taxpayer dollars into the corn market, providing incentives for farmers toplant more corn. A significant portion went to megafarms that grow corn to make ethanol, HFCS and concentrated animal feed. Several threatening externalities arise from these corn byproducts, such as environmental damage from ethanol pollution and antibiotic-resistant bacteria found on farms using animal feed concentrated in corn kernels. Recently, Congress cut ethanol subsidies for corn by 12 percent. This is because ethanol is linked to deforestation and rising food prices. It also removes funding for nutritious crop subsidies. Due to the nature of the Farm Bill, a billion-dollar comprehensive project, this ethanol reduction may never be implemented. Subsidies can encourage land misuse through insurance programs covered by the Farm Bill, such as “Price Loss Coverage (PLC). . .PLC pays when agricultural prices during the first five months of the agricultural year are lower than the reference price. The Supplementary Coverage Operation (SCO) covers farmers' insurance premiums up to 65%. This system could be misused by underselling to claim PLC and underwriting an insurance claim against underperforming land in which the majority of the deductible is paid by SCO. A farmer could make as much money from hedging as the actual yield of his crops, and he can insure up to 85% of his expected yield. Migrant laborPolicies regarding the agricultural practice of using migrant labor have advantages and disadvantages. The main government policy regarding agricultural labor practices is the H-2A visa. The H-2A visa grants foreign nonimmigrants the opportunity to work in agriculture as needed. In recent years, H-2A usage has been low due to the short-term labor contract combined with the mandatory need to house workers. In fact, Guthman (2016) found, “As one producer pointed out, using H-2A would make him a landowner and a producer. “H-2A use increased rapidly in California between 2013 and 2015, and this increase can be attributed to the types of crops harvested or even hourly wages. With rising wages and more H-2A workers, migrants have more money to spend in America. This system creates an efficient flow of capital by introducing new market participants. The effort required to use the H-2A program serves as a disincentive to the use of H-2A labor. The H-2A workforce frequently clashes with domestic workers. Additionally, farmers are prohibited from moving H-2A workers between ranches. This results in a loss of productivity which is economically corrected by changing the planting strategy to improve worker happiness and crop yield. The policy prohibiting dairies from using H-2A labor has not been reversed, therefore dairies continue to use undocumented workers. As the federal government addresses the use of illegal workers, the inability of dairies to capitalize on the legal use of H-2A labor will result in an economic downturn. This will negatively impact dairy-dependent industries, increase consumer spending and decrease tax revenues. Another disadvantage, as Bent (2011) notes, is that “…as farmers struggle to make ends meet…more are.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch