Perspectives on the Past and Future of Farming[i]

I appreciate the opportunity to return to Snohomish County to speak at the 20th Focus on Farming conference. I spoke at the inaugural conference in 2004, and it is an honor to be asked back to speak at your 20th anniversary. I also spoke here in 2017, so it’s a particular honor to be asked back a third time. As I said in 2017, return engagements always place a bit more stress on speakers. The first time, there is generally no expectation other than that you will do at least a halfway decent job. If you are asked back, you know people expect you to do at least as good, and hopefully better, than the last time. So, I feel the pressure to do my best here today.

Today, I want to share my perspectives on the past and future of farming. My perspectives are what I call “my truth,” or what I believe to be true based on my life experiences. I speak my truth with conviction because I know why I believe what I believe. However, none of us should be so egotistical as to think that “only we” know “the truth.” So, if “your truth” is different from mine, that’s okay with me, as long as you know why you believe what you believe.

If I am lucky, by the end of this year, I will be 86 years old. I have personally experienced the transformation of American agriculture from small, diversified, family-owned and operated farms to the large, specialized, corporately controlled, industrial farming operations of today.  I have lived through the transformation of the American food system from small, mom-pop, local-owned and operated grocery stores that sourced most of their products from local provisioners—canneries, meat processors, and bakeries—to the global, industrial food system of today that is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations at all levels from farming, to food processing, to retailing.

This transformation happened during a span of 40 to 50 years, from the 1950s through the 1990s. The changes that have happened since the 1990s have been basically just more of the same. There are good reasons to believe that changes in how we farm and what we eat over the next 40 years will be greater than anything during the last 80 years, greater than anything in my 86-year lifetime. We collectively have an opportunity to make the future better or allow it to be worse.

If the trend toward corporatization continues, the “farming” 40 years from now, maybe sooner, will be done by robots, controlled by drones guided by artificial intelligence to grow crops and livestock that have been genetically modified to maximize yields and profits for the benefit of agribusiness corporations and investor-owners of farmland. On the other hand, there are also realistic possibilities of a fundamentally different future, a future of farms, food systems, rural communities, and landscapes that look and feel more like those of the past, but with all of the advancements made possible by new, emerging technologies and the ecological and social wisdom gleaned from generations of experience.

When I spoke here in 2004, I talked about “People-Friendly Farming in a Crowded World”—about the kinds of farms that are good places to live around or near, as well as good places to live, raise families, and farm. I saw the potential to relocalize food systems by producing more food closer to where most people live: in urban and urbanizing areas. When I spoke here in 2017, my topic was “The Status and Future of the Local Food Movement”—how more people were turning to local farmers, people they trusted to provide their families with food that is healthy, nutritious, and produced using socially and ethically responsible means.

Both of these basic trends have continued, and I believe both can be important aspects of the future of farming and food production. Today, however, I plan to broaden the scope of my remarks to the big picture—to the past and future of farming in general as well as the future of the agri-food system. I want to share my perspective on why we have the farms and food systems we have today, why there is a movement for fundamental change, and how we, collectively, can create a fundamentally better future for farmers, consumers, and taxpayers.

The keys to a better future are better farm and food policies. I don’t need to get into partisan politics to talk about better farm and food policies. There has been little difference between Republicans and Democrats in their support of the major farm policies that have shaped American agriculture over the past six decades, and I doubt there will be in the future. Politicians may disagree on the levels of spending on conservation and food assistance programs, but there has been a bipartisan consensus on the policies that have incentivized, subsidized, and continue to support the farms and food system of today.

As one of my mentors, a distinguished agricultural economist, Harold Breimyer, always said, “We can have any kind of agriculture we want. We just need to choose the right farm policies to get it.” I agree. I have recently documented the changes in U.S. farm policies over the past 90 years and have linked changes in policy to changes in American agriculture.[1] The agriculture and food systems we have today are a direct reflection of fundamental changes in farm and food policies nearly 60 years ago, during the 1960s and 1970s. New chemical and mechanical technologies that emerged after World War II—affordable farm tractors, fertilizers, and pesticides—made the industrialization of agriculture possible. The changes in farm policies during the 1960s and 1970s made the large, specialized, mechanized industrial farming operations of today inevitable.

If we want more of the same, we can continue the same kind of farm policies. If we want a different future, a better future, we must change farm policies. We must start by changing, or at least informing, public opinion. Politicians don’t lead; they follow.”[iii]  People need to understand that we know more about the logical alternatives to industrial agriculture today than we knew about industrial agriculture in the 1960s. We also have new mechanical and digital technologies that could be used to support small, diversified, independent family farms rather than large, industrial farming operations. If the people want fundamentally better farms and food for the future, they need to understand that they can have it, but only if they demand it.

So, I still believe in the future of farming and the promise of better days through better ways of farming.  I grew up on a small, diversified family farm in southwest Missouri. My brother continued to farm it until he died, and it remained a small, family-owned and operated grass-based dairy farm. During my high school years in the 1950s, I was a member of the Future Farmers of America. I have always remembered and believed in the FFA Creed:

I believe in the future of farming with a faith born not of words but of deeds, —achievements won by present and generations of farmers in the promise of better days through better ways, even as the better things we now enjoy have come up to us from the struggles of former years.

I believe that to live and work on a good farm is enjoyable as well as challenging, for I know the joys and discomforts of farm life and hold an inborn fondness for those associations which, even in the hours of discouragement, I cannot deny.

I believe that rural America can and will hold true to the best traditions of our national life, and that I can exert an influence in my home and community, which will stand solid for my part in that inspiring task.

Farming has changed a lot since I graduated from high school in 1957. The Future Farmers of America organization apparently lost faith in the “future of farming” somewhere along the way. The name of the organization was changed to the simple FFA, and its programs began to focus on careers in agribusiness rather than farming. The FFA Creed was reworded, replacing “farms and farmers” with “agriculture and agriculturalists,” and changing “rural America” to “American agriculture.”

The Land Grant University System, where I received all of my education and had a 30-year academic career, also largely abandoned small, diversified family farms to focus on the development and promotion of industrial agricultural technologies. I lived and worked through that transition, but eventually resisted the abandonment of farming and promotion of agribusiness. I spent the last half of my academic career, and the years since, as an advocate for independently owned and operated, ecologically sound, and socially responsible sustainable family farms. I still believe in the future of farming, farmers, and vibrant rural farming communities—we just need to get the policies right.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is generally recognized as the first “Farm Bill.” It was enacted to support family farms and rural communities during the Great Depression. Section 2 of the Act begins:  It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, To establish and maintain such balance between the production and consumption of agricultural commodities… that will reestablish prices to farmers at a level that will give agricultural commodities a purchasing power… equivalent to the purchasing power of agricultural commodities in the base period.[2]  The base period of 1909 to 1914 was chosen because that was a time when farm family incomes were equal to or at parity with incomes of non-farm families.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled the 1933 Farm Bill unconstitutional. One reason for the Court’s rejection was that it focused on the economic interests of farmers rather than the public interest of taxpayers. Congress responded in 1938 by integrating most of the 1933 Act with the Soil Conservation Act of 1935, which had established soil conservation as a national food security issue.[3] The stated purpose of the resulting Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was for “conserving national resources, preventing the wasteful use of soil fertility, and of preserving, maintaining, and rebuilding the farm and ranch land resources in the national public interest.” [4] The 1938 bill retained the 1933 Farm Bill commitment to: “assisting farmers to obtain, insofar as practicable, parity prices for such commodities and parity of income, and assisting consumers to obtain an adequate and steady supply of such commodities at fair prices.” [5]  

So the 1938 Farm Bill, the first constitutional Farm Bill, was actually a sustainable agriculture bill—a bill to support resourceful, regenerative, resilient family farms that would sustain rural communities and ensure long-term domestic food security. The same basic purpose and principles continued to guide U.S. farm policies from the 1930s until the late 1960s.

The new agricultural technologies that emerged following World War II fundamentally changed American Agriculture. The technologies developed for munitions and chemical warfare during the war led to cheap nitrogen fertilizers and commercial pesticides. Mechanical technologies developed for jeeps and tanks made farm tractors affordable. Electricity also came to many rural areas during the 1950s and 1960s. These technologies reduced farm labor and simplified farm management. This allowed farmers to specialize, mechanize, farm more land, and produce more than they could during the 1909-1914 parity base period. Parity prices were adjusted downward in 1948 to reflect the change, but remained an important part of farm policy until 1981.

A fundamental shift in U.S. farm policy began in the late 1960s. In the early 1960s, the Committee for Economic Development (“CED”) assembled a group of business and academic leaders to develop government proposals to address the growing “agricultural problems.” The CED was established in 1942 and claims credit for initiating the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods Agreement, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other major public policies.

In the 1962 CED report,  called “An Adaptive Program for Agriculture,” concluded, The common characteristic shared by these [agricultural] problems is that, as a result of changes in the economy, labor and capital employed in the industry cannot all continue to earn, by producing goods for sale in a free market, as much income as they formerly earned, or as much as they could earn if employed in some other use; that is—the industry is using too many resources![6] In other words, the CED report concluded that the U.S. had too many farmers.

The Committee noted that the rapid migration of farmers out of agriculture had been taking place for some time, but concluded, “Nevertheless, the movement of people from agriculture has not been fast enough to take full advantage of the opportunities that improving farm technologies and increasing capital create for raising the living standards for the American people, including of course, farmers.”[7]  The CED proposed an “adaptive approach” that “utilizes positive government action to facilitate and promote movement of labor and capital where they will be most productive and will earn the most income,”[8] meaning more farmers needed to be employed somewhere other than in farming. The report suggested the government take “positive action” to reduce the number of farmers.

The basic strategy was to phase out government programs, leaving only those farmers who could compete in global markets. The 1968 Farm Bill gave farmers the option of unlimited production for free markets rather than accepting acreage controls and price supports. Major revisions in the Farm Bill in 1970 reduced price supports, which increased the free-market incentive.[9] The stated purpose of the new Farm Bill in 1973, “To extend and amend the Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose of assuring consumers of plentiful supplies of food and fiber at reasonable prices.”[10] In other words, the nation would rely on markets, not family farmers, for domestic food security.

The extensions and amendments to the 1973 Farm Bill provided further incentives for farmers to choose the free-market option, reflecting the CED's free-market proposals. The mantra of the Department of Agriculture during the Nixon-Butz administration was to “plant fencerow to fencerow” and “get big or get out.” America’s “cheap food policies” were not only going to make food more affordable for Americans; American farmers were going to feed the world. Virtually every major farm program since the 1970s has incentivized and subsidized the continued industrialization of American agriculture.

However, the booming export markets of the 1970s dried up in the 1980s as the U.S. and global economy plunged into an economic recession. Farmers who had borrowed money to expand, to get big, were caught with large debts at record high interest rates of 15% to 20%. Prices of farmland dropped by 25% between 1984 and 1987. Many farmers couldn’t even pay the interest on their loans. Farm foreclosures and bankruptcies reached levels not seen since the Great Depression and were lead stories on network news programs.  Depression and divorce among farm families skyrocketed. More than 1,000 farmers committed suicide during the 1980s.

Rural farming communities were also devastated by the farm financial crisis of the 1980s. The rural population had already declined by nearly 50% by 1970, as government price supports were lowered and farms grew larger and fewer. The farm population dropped another 14% during the “get big or get out” years of the early 1970s. Farm population dropped another 30% during the farm financial crisis of the 1980s. Many counties in farming areas lost more than 20% of their total population during the 1980s, and the farming-dependent state of Iowa lost 5% of its total population as the total U.S. population increased by 10%. With the loss of farm families, many rural communities lost their main street businesses, schools, hospitals, doctors, churches, and community leaders.  Many rural farming communities were left in a state of decline and decay—places that, without family farms, no longer had a purpose to exist.

The so-called policy experts saw the 1980s as a period of necessary adjustment, and farm policies continued to promote a transition to a free-market farm economy into the 1990s. However, when the so-called “Freedom to Farm” Bill of 1996 became known as the “Freedom to Fail” Bill, the government finally abandoned its free-market aspirations. It could no longer be denied that large, specialized, industrial farming operations couldn’t survive without government support. Every Farm Bill since 2000 has clearly incentivized, subsidized, and supported large, specialized, industrial farming operations. In fact, every Farm Bill since the 1970s has supported the industrialization of American agriculture, by one means or another.

Industrial farming operations have the same fundamental flaws as other large industrial operations. As farms become larger and more specialized to increase economic efficiency, they lose their resilience or ability to absorb shocks and survive disruptions. The risks in agriculture are even greater than in most industries. Unpredictable weather and outbreaks of pests and diseases in crop and livestock operations result in large production risks. Highly volatile and unpredictable agricultural prices magnify market risks. Large industrial farming operations also require large outlays of capital for land, buildings, and equipment.

Government price supports and various types of deficiency payments have shielded large commodity producers from price risks. Government-subsidized crop insurance has absorbed the production risks of large-scale crop production. Government-subsidized crop revenue insurance essentially guarantees that farmers won’t lose money, or much money, regardless of how many acres they plant of a single crop, with the government picking up more than 60% of the insurance cost. And, if there is a “disaster,” such as a drought, flood, disease outbreak in livestock or poultry, or an international trade disruption, special government bailout programs come to the rescue.

Low-interest loans and loan guarantees make it easy for farmers to borrow large sums of money, including financing for large farm equipment and concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Farm tax credit and accelerated depreciation of buildings and equipment also favor large, specialized operations. Furthermore, industrial farming operations have been exempted from environmental and public health regulations imposed on other industries that produce similar quantities of potentially toxic chemical and biological waste.

Advocates of industrial agriculture argue that farm policies have succeeded in increasing agricultural production and reducing food costs, so why change them? The percentage of disposable income that American consumers spend on food has dropped from about 15% in the late 1960s to 9% in the late 1990s and has since remained around 10%. However, “cheap food” hasn’t decreased domestic food insecurity or outright hunger.

Five percent of U.S. households were classified with “very low” food security in 2023,[11] which is slightly higher than the first official estimate in 1995,[12] and the same as the unofficial estimate reported in the 1968 CBS video documentary, “Hunger in America.”[13] The number of households classified as “low: food security in 2023 was 13.5%, slightly higher than in 1995. Equally troubling, “cheap food” polices have created an additional kind of food insecurity. Obesity among adults has doubled since the 1960s, from 20% to 40%, and childhood and adolescent obesity has quadrupled, reaching nearly 20%. Obesity has been linked with diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and other diet-related diseases.[14] A 2012 global report by 500 scientists from 50 countries suggested that “obesity is a bigger health crisis than hunger.”[15]

Industrial agriculture has succeeded in producing a lot of cheap commodities for ultra-processed foods, exports, and biofuels, but it has failed to provide domestic food security.  U.S. exports have not gone to the hungry people of the world, but to those who can pay global market prices.

The industrial agricultural establishment argues that the economic benefits of the industrial agri-food system outweigh any environmental or public health costs; that its impacts on the environment are overblown or inevitable, and that the public health problems reflect individual personal choices, not the agri-food system. However, there are legitimate concerns about the industrialization of agriculture and the growing corporate control of the global food system. 

That’s what the “Good Food Movement” is all about: creating an ecologically sound, socially responsible, and economically viable alternative to the industrial agri-food system: ensuring access to enough “good wholesome, nutritious food” for everyone, and leaving opportunities for future generations to do the same. The Good Food Movement is not a single, well-defined movement. It is numerous individual initiatives focused on creating a more sustainable, equitable, and healthful food system. The movement encompasses farmers’ markets, CSAs, food hubs, food stops, and local food co-ops, all of which promote relocalization, transparency, and sustainability in food production and provisioning.

Innovative, creative farmers have been developing organic, sustainable, agroecological alternatives to industrial agriculture since the early 1900s, particularly since the 1960s. That’s how we have learned more about the potential replacements to industrial agriculture than we knew about industrial agriculture when the policy changes were made back in the 1960s. These farmers have persisted in competing with industrial agriculture despite the lack of government acknowledgement or support. Today’s farm policies treat farmers with smaller, diversified farms as “hobby farmers” or “niche producers”—not “real farmers.”

I contend that it’s time to “level the public policy playing field” for agriculture and let the people choose what kind of farms and food systems they want in the future. If the people can’t agree, why not implement government policies that offer them a choice between industrial and sustainable, between “cheaper food” and “better food”?  Looking to the future, we can have a “Good Food” system, at least as an alternative to the industrial food system. We just need to demand farm and food policies that incentivize and support the development of sustainable food systems, as we did, and still do, for industrial food systems.

First, we need to focus farm policies on producing food for domestic consumption, not exports and biofuels. In recent years, 10% to 20% of the U.S. corn crop[16] and about 50% of soybean production[17] have been exported. Of domestic corn uses, 45% was used for corn ethanol, and 40% was fed to livestock and poultry. Biofuels have claimed more than one-third of soybean oil in recent years, and about 80% of domestic soybean meal is used for animal feed rather than human food.[18]  Wheat, rice, and dried beans and peas account for less than 14% of harvested cropland, and more than 50% of the production of these crops is exported. Only 3% of all farmland was used to produce fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The bottom line is, less than 13% of harvested cropland, only 4% of total U.S. farmland, is devoted to direct food production.[19]

Furthermore, the third of U.S. farmland used to produce corn and soybeans for industrial livestock and poultry operations could be used more sustainably in diversified crop and livestock farming systems. Grazing lands that are unsuitable for crop production but could support grass-based dairies and intensively-managed beef and multispecies grazing operations. The U.S. has plenty of farmland and farmers to ensure domestic food security without degrading or polluting the soil, air, or water, or destroying the quality of life in rural communities.

Regenerative, resilient, resourceful farming systems will become more economically competitive with industrial food production as subsidies for non-food uses of farmland are reduced or eliminated. However, farming sustainably is knowledge- and management-intensive, rather than technology- and capital-intensive; it takes time and commitment to learn to farm sustainably. Degraded agroecosystems also take time to heal and restore their fertility and natural productivity. Farmers beginning or transitioning to sustainable farming will need to be assured of consistent, dependable government support over a period sufficient to regenerate soil fertility, restore agroecosystem integrity, and nurture a new generation of management-intensive farmers.

The best way to ensure adequate long-run government funding might be to fund the transition program through the IRS rather than the USDA, so continued funding would not depend on congressional reauthorized in each new Farm Bill. One way to absorb transition risks would be through “refundable tax credits.” Most tax credits are nonrefundable, meaning that if taxpayers owe less tax than the amount of the credit, they do not receive the full benefit of the credit. If they have no taxable income, the credit is worthless. A refundable tax credit is paid, even if taxable income is less than the tax credit. Examples include the off-road vehicles Fuel Tax Credit for farmers and the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income taxpayers.[20]

The refundable tax credit for sustainable farming could ensure that farmers who commit to transitioning to or beginning sustainable farming operations can maintain a family income equal to or at parity with non-farm families in their area. This was the intent of early Farm Bills that ensured parity prices for agricultural commodities.[21]  The program could be limited to individual farmers and farm couples who file income taxes jointly. If calculations on the individual or joint IRS tax return resulted in an “after-tax income” less than the median non-farm after-tax income of individuals or families for the area, the refundable tax credit would make up the difference.

Multi-year plans for transitioning to sustainable farming would be developed in collaboration with a cadre of Cooperative Extension and Natural Resource and Conservation field staff. Land Grant Universities would need to collaborate with experienced farmers to reeducate field staff. They would need to learn to develop and monitor the implementation of plans for sustainable whole-farm systems rather than promote industrial farming technologies and best management practices. Farmers could be required to verify that they are following approved plans for transition to or maintaining sustainable farming systems to qualify for the farm tax credit.

Once a sustainable farming system reaches its full potential, there would be less need for government support. Diversified farming systems are more resilient and less risky than specialized systems. However, resource conservation, regeneration, and protection require long-term investments that cannot compete economically with investments that are allowed to benefit from resource extraction, depletion, and pollution. The development of viable alternatives to industrial agriculture will depend on U.S. taxpayers recognizing the long-term, public benefits of a regenerative, resilient, resourceful agri-food system. 

A public consensus regarding the future of farming and food production is not likely to emerge spontaneously among American consumers and taxpayers. Rather than assemble a distinguished panel of experts and academics, like the Committee for Economic Development in the 1960s, to decide what kind of agriculture we are going to get, it might make more sense to give the people a choice and let them decide what kind of agri-food system they want. And if the people ultimately don’t agree, why not provide two parallel food systems from which to choose?

One approach would be to provide “public alternatives” to today’s “private” food systems, much as many state governments are now funding private alternatives to public school systems. Today’s government food assistance programs (such as SNAP) function much like a school voucher program. Recipients receive debits to their EBT cards, which they use to buy food at privately owned and operated markets, much like parents use vouchers to pay tuition for private schools. A public food system would be similar to the National School Lunch Program, but organized and operated by the students, or in this case, adult consumers. Public transportation is another example where the government supports both public and private modes of transportation. 

Government-supported local and regional food systems could provide public alternatives to current private food systems. People would be free to choose between private and public systems to meet a portion or all of their food needs, like many people in the U.S. can choose between public and private transportation, and in many countries, choose between public and private health care. Those eligible for current government food assistance programs could choose to participate in the public option by authorizing the government to transfer funds to their local or regional good food system. In return, they would receive the assurance of access to enough healthful, culturally appropriate, sustainably produced food to meet their nutritional needs.

Those who are eligible for only limited government assistance or are ineligible for government programs could participate in the public option by contributing a specified portion of a typical local food budget to support the public option. Government-funded food assistance programs would provide a dependable economic foundation for sustainable farmers and provisioners to develop regenerative, resilient, and resourceful local and regional food systems.  

Unlike industrial food systems, sustainable food systems must be developed as complete vertical food systems, from farmers to consumers, one complete food system, one bioregion, one food community at a time. Entire vertical national and global food chains will not be changed simultaneously, but systemic change can take place within local communities, one community as a time.  Community-based food systems, or “food-based communities,” could be economically feasible with as few as 200 to 500 participating households, supporting 4 to 10 farm families.[22] The organizational structure for community-based public alternatives could be vertical cooperatives,[23] community food utilities,[24] or some other democratic form of organization. Government oversight would be limited to verification, provided by participants, that the publicly supported local and regional food systems were fulfilling their intended purpose.

A long-term government commitment would be essential to provide farmers and provisioners with the time needed to adjust their production systems, and consumers to change their food selection, preparation, and eating habits. A focus on locally grown, raw, and minimally processed foods would be essential for nutritional health as well as economic feasibility. This would likely require significant changes in the production and eating patterns of participating farmers and consumers. The success of the public alternative to the industrial food system would depend on an increasing number of people recognizing the necessity of a fundamental change in the culture of food production and consumption.

As individual local and regional public food systems succeed, they can form regional, national, and even international networks, with a shared commitment to providing healthful, culturally adapted, sustainably produced food accessible to all who choose to participate. As the networks grow, they will become more economically efficient and competitive with industrial food systems. However, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for sustainable foods to compete with industrial foods, or for good food to compete with cheap food—my truth. However, there are non-market environmental and public health benefits of sustainably produced foods that justify their continuing government support.

Regardless of whether you agree with the specific policies and programs I have suggested, my basic message is that we can have any kind of farms and food systems we want. We can prioritize food cost and convenience, or we can prioritize nutrition, public health, and social responsibility. Or we can choose policies that support both and let the people choose. In today’s divisive political environment, there may be little reason for optimism, but I still have hope for a better future for farmers, consumers, taxpayers, society, and humanity.

I still believe in the future of farming with a faith born not of words but of deeds—the deeds of real farmers, people in rural communities, and other thoughtful, caring people I have worked with over the years.  I still believe that to live and work on a good farm can be enjoyable as well as challenging—that farms of the future need not be controlled by corporations and farmed by drones and robots, but can be good places for real farmers to work, live, and raise their families. I still believe that the local food movement reflects a common longing of people, both rural and urban, to come together and rebuild their communities.

When I have advocated for government support of sustainable farmers, I have been told by those in the agricultural establishment that “the government shouldn’t pick winners.” I agree, the people should pick the winners, not only with their food-buying decisions but with their political decisions. In the past, however, the government has picked industrial agriculture. It’s time to give those farmers willing to respond to the growing public demands for a regenerative, resilient, resourceful, sustainable food system an equal opportunity to do so. It’s time to let the people pick their own winners, and if they can’t agree on one, why not offer them more than one choice?

We can’t change the history of farming or farm policies, but we can change the future: Within the bounds of nature, including human nature, we can have any kind of farms and food systems we want, if we are willing to support the right policies to create them. I still believe in the future of farming, because I believe that we Americans, rural and urban, will hold true to the best traditions of our national life, and that we can exert an influence in our homes and communities that will stand solid for our part in that inspiring task.

Footnotes

[i] Prepared for presentation at the 2025 Focus of Farming Conference, Monroe, WA, November 5, 2025

[ii] John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Many of his professional articles and papers are available on websites. Six books available through Amazon.com: John Ikerd’s Books. Email: JEIkerd@gmail.com; Website: http://ikerdj.mufaculty.umsystem.edu , https://johnikerd.com 

[iii] Politicians have been following the dictates of what I call the “industrial agricultural establishment,” which includes the agribusiness corporations, major commodity organizations, some general farm organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, and most agricultural colleges.

Endnotes

[1] John Ikerd, Farm and Food Policies for a Sustainable Future, 6 Bus. Entrepreneurship & Tax L. Rev. 34 (2022).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/betr/vol6/iss1/6

[2] Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Pub. L. No. 73-10, § 2(1), 48 Stat. 31, 32.

[3] Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-430, § 2, 52 Stat. 31.

[4] Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act § 2, 52 Stat. at 31.

[5] Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act § 2, 52 Stat. at 31.

[6] Comm. for Econ. Dev., An Adaptive Program for Agriculture 9 (1962).

[7] Comm. for Econ. Dev., An Adaptive Program for Agriculture 9 (1962).  at 7.

[8] Comm. for Econ. Dev., An Adaptive Program for Agriculture 9 (1962).  at 11.

[9] Econ. Rsch. Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 485, History of Price-Support and Adjustment Programs, 1934-84, v (Dec. 1984).

[10] Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-86, 87 Stat. 221.

[11] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics

[12] https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/46632/31197_fanrr26-2_002.pdf?v=22648

[13] CBS documentary, Hunger in America, 1968, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h94bq4JfMAA.

[14] Ikerd, J. (2015). Food sovereignty: A new mandate for food and farm policy. Journal of Agriculture,

Food Systems, and Community Development, 5(2), 11–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2015.052.004

[15] Danielle Dellorto, CNN News, “Global report: Obesity bigger health crisis than hunger.” December 14, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/health/global-burden-report/ .

[16] USDA Economic Research Service. (updated 4/7/2025) Corn and Other Feed Grains - Feed Grains Sector at a Glance.  https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance#:~:text

[17] USDA Office of Communications. (February 2015) Coexistence Factsheets-Soybeans. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf

[18] Ramsey, Steven. (5/28/2024). Renewable diesel production surpasses biodiesel. USDA, ERS.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=109240#:~:text .

[19]  Leibtag, Ephraim. (2/1/2008) Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About Food Costs? Amber Waves. ERS USDA.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2008/february/corn-prices-near-record-high-but-what-about-food-costs

[20] IRS, Refundable Tax Credits, https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/refundable-tax-credits

[21] Ikerd, J. Farm and Food Policies for a Sustainable Future, 6 Bus. Entrepreneurship & Tax L. Rev. 34 (2022).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/betr/vol6/iss1/6

[22] Ikerd, J. (2025). The Economic Pamphleteer: Why not food-based communities?. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 14(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2025.142.001

[23] Ikerd, J. (2012). Cooperation: The key to sustainable livelihoods in food systems. Journal of Agriculture, Food

Systems, and Community Development, 3(1), 9–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.031.005

[24] Ikerd, J. (2016). Enough good food for all: A proposal. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems,

and Community Development, 7(1), 3–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.071.001