This is an important press release, including as it does the perspective of U.S. and world farmers in this issue. Note the statement: "The recent food crisis has shown that poor countries need to reduce their dependence on imported food and focus on strengthening their domestic agriculture." The solution to the food crisis isn't low, below cost (export dumping) food prices (cheap food imports for poor countries, which are destructive to local farmers), but rather on higher prices for the farmers in these countries, so they have the "strength" to feed their own people, and the wealth to make capital investments which, through economic multipliers, can put people back to work and create wealth in these countries. Economic multipliers for agriculture are high. Especially in light of the current hemorrhaging of US wealth, the Obama administration should end the US policy of losing money on farm exports (in order to covertly subsidize the agribusiness output (buyers: exporters, processors, animal factories) complex, even as US farmers are blamed for receiving the compensatory subsidies that often don't even bring their losses back up to zero (ie. lose $10,000 or even a million dollars, then receive nearly that much in subsidies, as Cargill, ADM, Kelloggs, Tyson, Smithfield and the others escape notice (ie for even bigger below cost gains, as studied by Timothy Wise et all at Tufts University).

IATP is the lead group, (and often the lone leader, though Food First is often on board) among Common Dreams list of "America's Progressive Community" (commondreams dot org/community dot htm) to get at this angle on these crucial world hunger and poverty issues. For those interested in the great progressive divide I've often highlighted in what I've seen as weak farm/food articles here, (I've posted on many of the recent ones) check out IATP's website(s) and compare what you find there to what other groups on the list are saying. Especially see agobservatory.org, tradeobservatory.org and healthobservatory.org (scroll down to section on "Agriculture policy and public health").

I wish IATP had also posted their press release, "New Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Faces Big Challenges," which emphasizes the need for "Stabilizing Agriculture Markets," (which means farm bill Commodity Title price floors and ceilings with supply management and strategic reserves (see nffc.org), as well international agreements to support these policies, though they don't specify that in the PR).

IATP's Ag Observatory also has "Today's Headlines" which is a great source for what the media is saying about a broad range of farm issues. In contrast, Environmental Working group, which ignores and works against the NFFC issues in the preceding paragraph, features a long list of media articles in support of their own position, almost always based upon false analysis and false facts (ie. "352 Editorials Call for Farm Bill Reform," "two main themes:" "stop the taxpayer-funded giveaways to wealthy individuals and operations that do not need support," and "the Bush Administration comes across as far more progressive and reform minded than the Democratic leadership"). In fact commodity subsidies are compensations for massive, well documented losses (the bigger the farm the bigger the losses, with some exception for economies of size). Nowhere have I seen EWG mention this obvious fact, nor have I seen them mention the much larger (ie. multibillions, not thousands or multimillions) below cost gains (with no preceding losses whatsoever,) for the agribusiness industrial output complex grain and other commodity buyers. These de facto subsidies are not "taxpayer-funded" and have been hidden from view and missed by most progressive (ie. food, hunger, health) organizations. They're caused by the lack of "price responsiveness" on both supply and demand sides in farm markets, which was remedied by adequate price floors and related policy mechanisms in the New Deal (ie 100% of parity 1942-1952). Under pressure from the agribusiness output complex the US government lowered price floors (& etc.) 1953-1995 and then ended them in 1996 (& 2002 & 2008, including in most progressive-endorsed proposals). From 1981-2006 US farmers lost money on major program crops in the market place (USDA Economic Research Service, price and production x acres harvested vs per acre full costs x acres planted), devastating rural economies in LDCs around the world. (Note: for key commodities the US thoroughly dominated world export market share over these years, but tried to lose money, not make a profit, in support of the multinational output complex against the world's farmers and rural people, and against the economy of the United States.)

The Bush administration showed no support for commodity price floors (& etc., ie for ending dumping so the U.S. would make a profit on exports). The Democratic leadership was stronger in understanding the massive losses US farmers have under these policies, but still offered no support for price floors. (Note: Iowa's Senator Harkin, current Senate Agriculture Chair, was the leader on price floors during the 1980s through the late 1990s, but switched sides when he became chair, taking Gephardt, Daschle and Wellstone with him. With Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, Harkin is clearly the key figure for ending defacto multi-billion dollar below cost gains for corporate agribusiness, so America will profit on exports to rebuild world agriculture and unsustainable, uneconomic, community crushing livestock factories will no longer receive this multibillion dollar competitive favoritism). Progressives should switch 2007-2008 farm bill positions (ie. in most cases it would take a switch to get on the correct side of this issue) and join US and world farmers (those informed about US policies, ie. NFFC, Via Campesina, Global Farmer) in these efforts.