Know your farmer, know your food, but most importantly, know where your tax dollars are going.
As part of first lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now provides over $15 million in federal grants to subsidize farmers markets across the country, promoting local and organic foods to communities where demand is already high.
The USDA’s Farmers Market Promotion Program is designed to help farmers meet the skyrocketing demand for homegrown food and specifically aims to help make those foods more accessible to lower-income consumers, but many agriculture experts and taxpayer advocates say the grants are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a perfect example of the federal government meddling in the private market that doesn’t need the help.
The USDA awarded nearly $80,000 to the Columbia Heights Community Marketplace in Washington to help establish a new Wednesday evening farmers market and promote food-stamp redemption at the market in a city with multiple such markets and in an area where the average home price is $518,400, according to data from Zillow.com.
“That’s outrageous. There’s absolutely no reason why a bunch of craft beer-drinking, white-collar hipsters need a farmers market paid for by hard-working, tax-paying families across America,” said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform.
Other critics say that the grants are the USDA’s way of solving a problem that they themselves created by subsidizing certain crops under the periodic farm bills.
“One of the [arguments for] farmers market promotion is they need these grants to help level the playing field, but it’s a playing field that has been distorted by other federal grants and subsidies,” said Joshua Sewell, senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense. “What you have is the USDA in an arms race against themselves.”
For using taxpayer dollars to needlessly promote healthy, local food vendors and influence consumer choice, the USDA wins this week’s Golden Hammer award, a distinction highlighting examples of wasteful or unneeded government spending.
Defending the markets
USDA spokeswoman Wendy Wasserman challenged the idea that the program was misguided, saying that farmers markets help to expand local and regional food distribution networks and provide a special boost for local family farms and farmers just getting established.
“Supporting local farmers and ranchers provides substantial economic benefit to rural and urban communities while improving access to fresh, healthy food for millions of Americans,” she said.
According to Ms. Wasserman, the program has been one of the agency’s most popular and fastest-growing programs. Since 2008 the number of farmers markets has jumped 76 percent, with the USDA’s National Farmers Market Directory listing over 8,200 markets nationwide.
But critics question why the federal government needs a grant program to bolster an already rapidly expanding market, even as the program is repeatedly renewed by Congress in the farm bill.
“The government shouldn’t be in the business of doing things that the private sector can do on its own,” said Daren Bakst, a research fellow in agricultural studies with the Heritage Foundation.
Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, defended the grants, saying they were launched to help farmers efficiently meet a rapidly growing demand.
“Every time there is a food safety scare, in particular, you see a lot of folks that are raising questions and wanting to know more and more about where their food comes from,” Mr. Johnson said. “Every time that happens you just get an uptake in demand, and there needs to be a way to meet it. I think this program is designed to help facilitate farmers that want to meet demand.”
One of the USDA’s main arguments is that the program helps farmers markets create programs that make local and organic food more affordable for lower-income families.
For example, Washington’s Columbia Heights Community Marketplace used the grant money for a matching program that offers incentives to low-income customers who shop at the market using federal benefit programs. Customers who shop with federal benefit program funds can get up to $10 in matching funds each week.
But according to Mr. Sewell, the USDA is just throwing money at a problem it created by controlling the economy among farmers markets. If the vendors are given grant money, then there is no reason for them to lower prices to remain competitive with supermarkets, thus making farmers market produce more expensive.
The farmers market promotion grants are up for review every five years, with the next review scheduled for 2019. It’s unlikely that the subsidies will be cut, but Mr. Bakst said that there is an “appetite for reform” growing within the farming community.
• Kellan Howell can be reached at khowell@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.