Jeremy

You asked a question, Jack, about health impacts. So looking at that rather long list of items, there clearly is a pecking order. Wheat, soy, and corn as food staples of the 1930s were the first up, I imagine. And then there’s been a proliferation of every kind of farmer advocating to get themselves added to this list over time. Is that your sense? Did this start as a short list that continuously gets longer and longer with no prioritization that has anything to do with health impacts, This is basically what I’m sensing. Because I see avocados way down there on the list. And as far as I understand, those are pretty healthy. I don’t see a health asterisk or a health factor being considered.

Jack

No, and many of these items on the list are very healthy. Gosh, if we could eat more beans, that would be great. And peanuts, sunflowers, and apples. Many of these are very healthy products. In America, it’s very difficult to raise many of these healthy products at a profit. Furthermore, depending on what happens during the next six months, it’s going to be even more difficult to raise many of these crops at a reasonable price for consumers. This subsidy policy makes sure crops can be sold at a reasonable price to consumers as well. These price props assure that the farmer gets a reasonable wage and that the product can be sold to the consumer at a reasonable price—with that difference being made up by the farm bill subsidies.

Jeremy

It does appear to me that unprocessed food prices have not inflated at the natural rate they might have. They are proportionally much cheaper than they would be without this bill. That’s the healthy side of what you’re saying, right? We have kept inflation rates down for many of the crops on this list that don’t get processed. They stay within consumer range without price fixing—which is declared by many people to be “socialism”. So this is a non-socialist way to control prices [offered with a smile]. Is that correct?

Jack

Yes. And that’s the funny part of this farm bill. It pays to lower the price for consumers. It pays to increase the price paid to farmers. It is essentially a financial shifting from all the taxpayers. The provisions of this bill allow consumers to be able to afford fresh apples and cherries. At the same time, farmers are able to produce those apples and cherries while still maintaining their livelihood.

Gay

I would like to add a little piece of information that is being ignored. This concerns the treatment of products when they are being raised or brought to market. I wonder about the healthy foods that you all are talking about–avocados, cherries, and fruits. Given the issue of cost, is there anything in the bill that stipulates the farmer has to produce healthy food? It is both a cost and marketing issue. What keeps the farmers from sending their apples to the supermarket that are full of wax on the outside so that these apples look enticing? What about a requirement that farmers don’t use glyphosate on the wheat crops? Is there anything involved in the bill that would direct farmers to produce healthier crops?