But now is a critical time to start asking questions about what the consequences would be–intended or otherwise–if subsidies go away. This week, Congressional agriculture committees proposed cutting $23 billion out of Farm Bill programs over the next 10 years, and by most reports, one type of farm subsidies called direct payments are the first thing on the chopping block. Even the corn and soybean lobbies seem resigned to the end of direct payments to growers of commodity crops.

So if the most often-cited example of farm subsidies is about to end, does that mean we’re on our way to a food system that makes broccoli more affordable than fast food burgers? It’s not quite that simple. As we describe in a new report, released this week with the Public Health Institute, subsidies are not making junk food cheaper and more abundant than healthy food –the real culprit is the deregulation of agriculture markets, the failure to enforce anti-trust law and the millions spent on marketing junk food.In a market controlled by just a few buyers of crops like corn, wheat and soybeans, and no mechanisms to manage overproduction that causes prices to collapse, subsidies have served as the bandage that partially stops the bleeding of farmers who often cannot stay in business any other way. Pulling the subsidy rug out from under the small and midsized farmers who depend on this support to keep farming in lean years could result in even fewer independent family farmers and even larger mono-cropping behemoths who buy up that land and keep using it to produce crops like corn and soybeans.

Commodity crop overproduction has been around long before the current subsidy program existed. During the New Deal, farm policies encouraged farmers to idle some of their land so they wouldn’t overproduce and established a national grain reserve, much like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve we have today. It prevented crop prices from skyrocketing during times of drought or falling too low during times of surplus. Overproduction was kept in check, and the stable commodity prices functioned like a minimum wage for farmers.

Beginning in 1985, food processors, grain traders, meat companies and marketers mounted a strong and successful lobbying effort against these policies. In 1996, crop prices were high and budgets were tight – much like they are today – and the agribusiness lobby called for policies that would, as they put it, give farmers “the freedom to farm.” That Farm Bill eliminated land-idling programs, letting farmers plant as much as they wanted, and production increased over the next few years. That, along with the elimination of grain reserves earlier, resulted in farmers overproducing themselves into bankruptcy, and the subsidy system we know today was born.

While simply doing away with payments to commodity farmers may help deficit hawks reduce the federal budget for the short term, the longer-term impacts may land us with a food system that’s even more consolidated and gives even more control to the cabal of agribusinesses we’re fighting to diffuse.

What, then, would effective food and farm policy reforms look like if we want to promote healthy foods and reduce obesity? Rather than just ending subsidy programs, we should develop responsible federal supply management programs that reduce overproduction and stabilize price and supply, undoing the damaging deregulation that took place in the 1980s and ‘90s.

While the idea of simply moving the dollars used to subsidize corn and soybeans over to apples and spinach is obviously appealing, it won’t solve the problem. A rural farmer with a few thousand acres of wheat can’t suddenly switch to growing tomatoes to sell directly to consumers at the farmers market. The demand and infrastructure needed to sustain this type of transition away from intensive commodity crop production no longer exist. Ending subsidies won’t change this. Doing the hard work of reforming the commodity policies in the Farm Bill could, along with enforcing anti-trust law and regulating the marketing to children of junk food.

Read more at Food & Water Watch’s Web site.

With the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) set for renewal this year, Food & Water Watch (F&WW) last month launched a School Milk Campaign asking Congress to give schools nationwide the opportunity to buy milk that is free of artificial growth hormones. Their online petition has already generated 8,000 signatures.

CNA authorizes the National School Lunch Program, providing schools with reimbursements for food purchases like fluid milk and supplying schools with surplus foods, like butter, cheese, ground beef and grains. According to the National Milk Producers Federation, nearly 430 million gallons of milk were distributed to schools during the 2005-2006 school year.

Roughly 15 percent of U.S. dairies inject cows with the synthetic growth hormone called rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone) that increases milk production. According to F&WW, it’s possible that at least 84 million gallons of milk from rbGH-treated cows were distributed through the school nutrition program during 2005-2006—or about 1 in 5 pints of milk offered in school cafeterias nationwide.

rbGH has been linked to increased rates of infections in dairy cows, elevated antibiotic use, and unresolved questions about its links to serious human health risks, including cancer. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have banned the use of rbGH, and the Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations’ main food safety body, twice decided that it could not endorse the safety of rbGH for human health.

Growing consumer concern has brought changes in the marketplace as major dairies and milk producers and retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Kroger, have made a commitment to go rbGH-free. Universities, institutions and hospitals are making the change as well, and schools are the next logical step.

F&WW is working on legislation that will make it easier for schools to purchase milk produced without rBGH. Right now, schools are required to accept the lowest bid on a milk contract that meets the school’s specs and food service buyers often don’t realize that they can specifically request rBGH-free milk in the bid. This legislation will clarify that they have this option. Often times the current choices are not always the most nutritious, as public schools receive just $1.13 per child per lunch in federal funding; some states contribute additional funds, but many do not, leaving school food service directors to “squeeze water from a stone.”

“This is not promoting luxury milk,” said Noelle Ferdon, Senior Organizer for the Food Program at F&WW, which recognizes that many school districts are already cash-strapped. “This is a no-cost administrative change in the CNA that would help schools make choices that respond to the needs of students, parents and communities. rBGH-free milk is now cost competitive in the marketplace in large part because of consumer and retailer preference for this milk.”

Many school districts have been able to procure rbGH-free milk—in fact several school districts have built rbGH-free milk into their nutrition or wellness policies—but many districts don’t know they have the option to specify the type of milk they want to buy. As long as standard competitiveness procedures are followed, F&WW wants school food services to have the option to procure milk from cows not treated with this controversial artificial growth hormone.

“Our children’s health should not be put at risk by their being made to consume rbGH milk at school,” said Ann Cooper, a chef and school food advocate with Lunch Lessons LLC Food Family Farming Foundation.  “Legislation must be put into effect that eliminates artificial hormones and antibiotics from all milk served in school cafeterias all across the country – our chidren’s health depends upon this.”

As for nay-sayers that think there might not be a rbGH-free milk supplier in the district, Ferdon says this hasn’t been an issue as all of the areas have suppliers of rbGH-free milk.

The group has rallied leaders in the environmental, health and food and education movements to write a national coalition letter, which will be presented to Congress on Wednesday, March 11, “National Know Your Milk Day.” That day, supporters can also call their representatives and ask them to include language in the Child Nutrition Act clarifying that schools can purchase rbGH-free milk. In addition, you can also host your own local Day of Action on March 11th to support this effort.

Bottled water is hard on the Earth, so it’s not surprising that water packaged in plastic won’t be sold at Slow Food Nation. Instead, the 50,000 people expected to attend the sessions showcasing sustainable agriculture and healthful eating will quench their thirst with tap water.

Slow Food Nation is not alone in its rejection of bottled water in favor of tap water. Across the country, big city mayors, including those in San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and New York City, have prohibited the use of city funding for bottled water. Restaurants on both coasts and everywhere in between are shunning bottled water and serving their patrons from the tap. University groups and event planners also are joining this trend to take back the tap.

At the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, for example, the Tap In! student group was fed up with the sale of bottled water during new student orientation. So this year, the bottles will be banned and, instead, a tanker truck will distribute water. Organizers figure this will spare the campus of thousands of plastic bottles.

While this bottled water backlash is real and growing, much work remains in the quest to take back the tap. And that’s where Washington, D.C.-based Food & Water Watch enters the picture. The non-profit organization dedicated to breaking the stranglehold that multinational corporations have over our food, fish and water resources has been busily educating consumers across the country about why bottled water is bad and then organizing them to take action.

In 2007, U.S. consumers wasted $12 billion on nearly 9 billion gallons of bottled water, in large part because advertising spin has led them to believe that water in a bottle is safer or better than tap water.

In addition, Food & Water Watch research has found that U.S. tap water is just as safe as bottled water and, in many cases, more so. The federal government requires far more rigorous and frequent safety monitoring of municipal drinking water than bottled water. Independent testing has found a wide range of heavy metal, microbial and chemical pollutants in bottled water. Although it’s not superior to tap water, bottled water is far more expensive. On a per gallon basis, tap water costs about $0.002, while bottled water costs $0.89 to $8.26.

Meanwhile, the production and transportation of plastics takes a significant toll on the environment. Annual U.S. plastic bottle production requires more than 17 million barrels of oil, enough to fuel one million vehicles on our roads each year. The industrial processes emit toxic chemicals, while the transport adds more pollution and carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change.

Now, Food & Water Watch is taking a step beyond its research and organizing work. We will be catering the delivery of tap water for Slow Food Nation. Working in conjunction with SMWM Architecture, Urban Planning + Design, Food & Water Watch will coordinate the installation and operation of five tap water stations at the event and will sell patrons re-usable, environmentally friendly stainless steel canteens. Today we are also releasing a guide for caterers, conference planners or anyone who wants to plan an event that excludes bottled water.

Together, Food & Water Watch and Slow Food Nation aim to educate tens of thousands of consumers about the bottled water bane and to help them change their behavior right there on the spot. After all, they’ll be sipping on the alternative – clean, fresh tap water.

Photo by utnapistim