It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by intelinside451
Food is subsidized in this nation for the purpose that the farmers in America have enough supply/demand/profits/cost to produce enough food and now fuel for EVERYONE in America to be able to eat and survive.
It's bad enough as it is that farmers are in general broke. They sit on multi-million dollar lands that are just begging to be subdivided for the next neighborhood. Anyone of these farmers can give in and sell the land off at anytime, give up the life of smelling cow manure on a 90 degree day to buy a nice house on a lake somewhere.
The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) (Pub.L. 73-10, 48 Stat. 31, enacted May 12, 1933) restricted agricultural production in the New Deal era by paying farmers to reduce crop area. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby a portion of their fields lie fallow. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies. It is considered the first modern U.S. farm bill.
With the House and Senate close to agreeing on a new $171 billion farm bill, the time is right to take a fresh look at farm policy to ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth. Although farm subsidies are justified as helping struggling family farmers make ends meet, the bulk of subsidy payments goes to the largest high-income farms. In fact, current farm policy allocates two out of every three farm subsidy dollars to the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients while completely shutting 60 percent of farmers out of subsidy programs...
...Under this mistargeted system, agriculture policy has become America's largest corporate welfare program. According to the Environmental Working Group, two-thirds of all farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients while the bottom 80 percent of recipients receive less than one-sixth of farm subsidies. A full 60 percent of America's farmers do not qualify for any assistance. In 2000 alone, more than 57,500 farms received subsidies totaling over $100,000, and subsidies of at least 154 farms topped $1 million. Among these beneficiaries are fifteen Fortune 500 companies, including Westvaco, Chevron, and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, which receive as much as 58 times as much as the median annual subsidy of $935. The current system has caused hardship not only for the taxpayers who pay this enormous subsidy tab, but also for unsubsidized farmers with small farms. Many of the largest, most profitable farms and agribusinesses that have received the lion's share of subsidies have used these funds to buy out smaller farms. In what one agriculture official calls the "plantation effect," family farms with less than 100 acres of land are being bought out by larger agribusinesses, which then convert them into tenant farms. To date, three-quarters of the nation's rice farms have already become tenant farms, and the ownership of other types of farms is beginning to trend in that same direction. In other words, far from saving America's family farms, the current farm subsidy system is destroying them.
Originally posted by faceoff85
Originally posted by intelinside451
First off, I'm going to say that I'm all for this general idea of the government against private farmers.
Food is subsidized in this nation for the purpose that the farmers in America have enough supply/demand/profits/cost to produce enough food and now fuel for EVERYONE in America to be able to eat and survive.
It's bad enough as it is that farmers are in general broke. They sit on multi-million dollar lands that are just begging to be subdivided for the next neighborhood. Anyone of these farmers can give in and sell the land off at anytime, give up the life of smelling cow manure on a 90 degree day to buy a nice house on a lake somewhere.
It's their passion and dedication that allow us to have a steady supply of inexpensive food at any given time in this nation. Show a little appreciation.
Still dont see how the above argument justifies the illegalization of homegrown crops...
But you'd fit right in with the FDA
Originally posted by Logarock
They will tell you that an egg from a production farm is the same a an egg from a free range bird. They also say that crops grown on man made fertilizer had the same nutritional value as an organic grown crop. The truth is if crops grown in tired soil is only being fetilized by man made products its just not possibel.
As well hybirds like say tomato hybrids are great in they can resist all sorts of things but the first time you eat a well grown heirloom you just know the hybirds are missing something. I ate some heirlooms brought over years ago from Italy passed on by seed and they look, smell and taste...its just that clear... much different.
I prefer a realistic reporting of news with realistic headlines to reflect it and also direct not veiled replies that address all the points made in a particular post.
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, Los Angeles County Sheriff, Ventura County Sheriff, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture
Originally posted by Logarock
But fruit and veg? what in the world. They cant even control coc aine, probably dont want to, but to go after gardens.
Did you guys here about a garden licence? Inspector would actualy came out and look around and stuff. its maddness. They would tax wells if they thought they could get away with it.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
I guess somebody didn't read the part of the article
where the milk was making people sick.
Originally posted by thetruthplease
Originally posted by boondock-saint
I guess somebody didn't read the part of the article
where the milk was making people sick.
I guess you didn't read the part where it said no prove of illiness could be attrirbuted to anything, which means it could not hold up in court.
The investigation, she says, began with a report from a local public-health department last spring about children who had become sick who " had consumed unpasteurized milk." She noted, though, that the children's illness was never traced back to raw milk or any other specific food.
.