Subsidies are so ingrained in our public psyche; so relied upon by farmers, and so embedded in our political system it almost seems a waste of breath to discuss them. However, they happen to be one of the most destructive practices utilized in agricultural production today. Most subsidy issues fall within the realm of bulk production, such as corn, wheat, and cotton and are not suitable to be grown under glass or in controlled environments due to the relative cost of production. Nevertheless, it is an issue that is tremendously relevant and a vicious cycle of waste- subsidies are subsidies. This is mostly due to the inflexibility of subsidy legislation. Subsidies intentions are genuine, but government bureaucracy quickly strangles the good that comes of it, treating subsidies as handouts that harbor political weight instead

Roger Stone, in his book The Nature of Development, estimates that industrialized nations spend $300 billion a year subsidizing local farmers (29). Between '95 and '02, the United States spent $114 billion on agricultural subsidies to farmers and livestock producers, according a 2003 study that used U.S. Department of Agriculture figures by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization. Subsidies are designed to help farmers withstand market downturns. However, they make it possible for us and other industrialized nations to export food so cheaply that farmers in poorer nations can't possibly compete. The farm bill of 2002 does include a form of subsidy repayment, which is designed to give farmers better protection from low market prices, yet relieve taxpayers' burden when crop prices are high enough to sustain the farmers. However, ideally, any subsidy is a wasteful practice and in the end counterproductive to fair and free trade worldwide. The majority of this info pertains to bulk crops such as cotton, corn, wheat, grains, etc. and is not feasible to be put in controlled localized environments. The idea here is to educate people about the nature of subsidies so they will be more informed when it comes to publicly shaping these issues.

Subsidies are put in place to protect farmers from drought, crop loss, and falling crop prices. Lets go through these one by one. Drought is caused by lack of water. Obviously we cannot control rain production, but we can absolutely control water usage. For example, almost 70% of water put on a field for agriculture is not utilized by the plant. Agriculture is also responsible for twice as much of total US water use as all buildings, industry, and mining combined ("Natural Capitalism", 214). Why not incentivize recirculatory production systems or farmers that devise ways to conserve water via subsidies or tax breaks?

Crop loss is due to many factors including drought, unpredictable weather, natural disasters, etc. With the ability to replicate environments and with the ability to utilize 1/5th of the water via hydroponics relative to field growth crop loss would not be such a dire issue to farmers. Farmers could also contain and protect their crops in a way not possible with traditional field-based growing. This may not apply to bulk farmers directly, but indirectly in that the less water used the cheaper it becomes.

Falling crop prices are also attributable to multiple reasons. Generally prices go down due to overproduction. Because subsidies pay farmers per unit of goods produced, they create an incentive to overproduce those goods. This creates a surplus, which often is exported to other countries at a low price to maintain low prices in the United States. This creates problems for subsistence farmers in developing nations who cannot compete with the low prices. This problem is then thrown back at us via aid packages designed to alleviate the conditions we created in the first place. Makes a lot of sense.

If the US really wanted to help developing nations pull themselves out of poverty, it would eliminate subsidies as opposed to direct food aid. Much of the reason for the proliferation of subsidies is tied into political agendas. Lobby group members and senators from Midwestern farming states who are looking to secure their voting constituencies often say subsidies are necessary for small farmers. By using terms such as "family farms" and other emotionally charged words to manipulate public opinion, large-scale agricultural businesses often are successful at fostering public support and are effective in their lobby efforts. What began as a sincere method of preserving the lifestyles of small, rural farmers is now benefiting large corporations now more than ever. Contract companies that take on the management and operation of farms in return for a portion of profits increasingly are dominating large farms today. Many of those companies never set foot on the farms they manage and have previously had little to do with the business of farming. For example, some of the more unlikely recipients of farm subsidies in '01 included Caterpillar, $171,698; Chevron, $260,223; DuPont, $188,732; Georgia Pacific West Inc. $37,156; International Paper $375,393; and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, $125,975; according to a 2001 study by the Environmental Working Group that cited U.S. Department of Agriculture records.