Editing Agricultural subsidy

{{Short description|Governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses}}

{{Update|date=September 2016}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}}
[[File:Agricultural machinery.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|Agribusiness: a display of a [[John Deere]] 7800 [[tractor]] with Houle slurry trailer, Case IH [[combine harvester]], [[New Holland Agriculture|New Holland]] FX 25 forage [[Combine harvester|harvester]] with corn head]]
An '''agricultural subsidy''' (also called an agricultural incentive) is a [[subsidy|government incentive]] paid to [[agribusiness]]es, agricultural organizations and [[farm]]s to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural [[commodity|commodities]], and influence the cost and supply of such commodities.

Examples of such commodities include: wheat, feed grains (grain used as fodder, such as [[maize]] or corn, sorghum, barley and oats), cotton, milk, rice, peanuts, sugar, tobacco, oilseeds such as soybeans and meat products such as beef, pork, and [[lamb and mutton]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Karnik |first1=Ajit |last2=Lalvani |first2=Mala |title=Interest Groups, Subsidies and Public Goods: Farm Lobby in Indian Agriculture |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |date=1996 |volume=31 |issue=13 |pages=818–820 |jstor=4403965 |url=https://www.epw.in/journal/1996/13/perspectives/interest-groups-subsidies-and-public-goods-farm-lobby-indian |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

A 2021 study by the UN [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] found $540 billion was given to farmers every year between 2013 and 2018 in global subsidies. The study found these subsidies are harmful in numerous ways. In wealthy countries, they damage health by promoting the overconsumption of meat.

In under-developed countries they encourage overconsumption of low-nutrition staples, such as rice. Subsidies also contribute to the climate crisis, by encouraging deforestation; and they also drive inequality because smallholder farmers, many of whom are women, are excluded. According to UNDP head, Achim Steiner, redirecting subsidies would boost the livelihoods of 500 million smallholder farmers worldwide by creating a more level playing field with large-scale agricultural enterprises.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|date=2021-09-14|title=90% of global farm subsidies damage people and planet, says UN|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality|access-date=2021-09-14|website=The Guardian|language=en}}</ref> A separate report, by the World Resources Institute in August 2021, said without reform, farm subsidies "will render vast expanses of healthy land useless".<ref>[https://www.wri.org/research/farm-restoration-subsidies Repurposing Agricultural Subsidies to Restore Degraded Farmland and Grow Rural Prosperity], World Resources Institute</ref>

== History ==
On the earliest known interventions in farming markets was the [[Corn Laws|English Corn Laws]], which regulated the import and export of grain in Great Britain and Ireland for centuries. The laws were repealed in 1846.<ref name="Agricultural Subsidy Programs">Daniel A. Sumner, [https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AgriculturalSubsidyPrograms.html Agricultural Subsidy Programs]</ref> Agricultural subsidies in the twentieth century were originally designed to stabilize markets, help low-income farmers, and aid rural development.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://food-studies.net/foodpolitics/agricultural-subsidies/jades-sample-page/|title=History of Agricultural Subsidies in the US and EU|website=food-studies.net|language=en-US|access-date=2018-11-27|archive-date=10 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180910221639/http://food-studies.net/foodpolitics/agricultural-subsidies/jades-sample-page/|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|reason=Website created as part of an introductory class assignment, essentially self-published|certain=y|date=November 2018}} In the United States, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] signed the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]], as part of the [[New Deal]] in 1933. At the time the economy was in a severe depression and farmers were experiencing the lowest agricultural prices since the 1890s.<ref>Hurt, R. Douglas, Problems of Plenty: The American Farmer in the Twentieth Century, (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2002), 67.</ref> The plan was to increase prices for a range of agricultural products by paying farmers to destroy some of their livestock or not use some of their land - known as land idling.<ref name="Agricultural Subsidy Programs"/> This led to a reduction in supply and smaller agricultural surpluses. Initially seven products were controlled: ([[Maize|corn]], [[wheat]], [[cotton]], [[rice]], peanuts, [[tobacco]] and [[milk]]).<ref>Rasmussen, Wayne D., Gladys L. Baker, and James p. Ward, "A Short History of Agricultural Adjustment, 1933-75." Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 391 (March 1976), pg. 2.</ref> Unlike traditional subsidies that promote the growth of products, this process boosted agricultural prices by limiting the growth of these crops.

In Europe, [[Common Agricultural Policy|Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)]] was launched in 1962 to improve agricultural productivity. According to the [[European Commission]], the act aims to

* Support farmers and improve agricultural productivity, so that consumers have a stable supply of affordable food
* Ensure that [[European Union]] (EU) farmers can make a reasonable living
* Help tackling climate change and the sustainable management of natural resources
* Maintain rural areas and landscapes across the EU
* Keep the rural economy alive by promoting jobs in farming, agri-foods industries and associated sectors<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en|title=The common agricultural policy at a glance|website=European Commission - European Commission|language=en|access-date=2018-11-27}}</ref>

[[File:Meat Atlas 2014 subsidies animal products.png|thumb|250px|OECD countries support their livestock and dairy industries with subsidies worth billions of dollars.<ref>[[Meat Atlas]] 2014 – Facts and figures about the animals we eat, page 20, download [https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_hbf_meatatlas_jan2014.pdf Meat Atlas] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729165403/https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_hbf_meatatlas_jan2014.pdf |date=29 July 2016 }} as pdf</ref><ref>[http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation-2013_agr_pol-2013-en OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2013, 2013, p. 317, table: "OECD: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (USD)"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412191329/http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation-2013_agr_pol-2013-en |date=12 April 2016 }}</ref>]]

== By region ==

=== Canada ===
Canadian agricultural subsidies are currently controlled by [[Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada]]. Financial subsidies are offered through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Programs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/programs-and-services/?id=1362151577626|title=Programs and services|last=Canada|first=Agriculture and Agri-Food|date=2013-07-11|website=www.agr.gc.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> The Canadian Agricultural Partnership began in April 2018 and is planned to take place over five years with a combined federal, provincial and territorial investment of three billion dollars.<ref name="cap.alberta.ca">{{Cite web|url=https://cap.alberta.ca/CAP/|title=Canadian Agricultural Partnership - Home|website=cap.alberta.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> Some programs offered surround issues including AgriAssurance, agricultural leveraging programs, promoting diversity in agriculture, crop and livestock insurance, marketing activities, risk mitigation, and more.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/key-departmental-initiatives/canadian-agricultural-partnership/?id=1461767369849|title=Canadian Agricultural Partnership|last=Canada|first=Agriculture and Agri-Food|date=2016-05-06|website=www.agr.gc.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> Before the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, agricultural subsidies were organized under the Growing Forward 2 partnership from 2013 to 2018.<ref name="cap.alberta.ca"/>

=== European Union ===
{{Main|Common Agricultural Policy}}
{{See also|Intervention storage}}

In 2010, the EU spent €57 billion on agricultural development, of which €39 billion was spent on direct subsidies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2010_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN123A5/index.html |access-date=1 January 2011 |title=Title 05 – Agriculture and rural development |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719092134/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2010_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN123A5/index.html |archive-date=19 July 2011}}</ref> Agricultural and fisheries subsidies form over 40% of the EU budget.<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/eu-budget-2010-pbKV3009138/downloads/KV-30-09-138-EN-C/KV3009138ENC_002.pdf?FileName=KV3009138ENC_002.pdf&SKU=KV3009138ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=KV-30-09-138-EN-C|title=EU Budget 2010|date=15 March 2024 |publisher=Publications Office of the European Union |isbn=978-92-79-13391-6 }}</ref> Since 1992 (and especially since 2005), the EU's Common Agricultural Policy has undergone significant change as subsidies have mostly been decoupled from production. The largest subsidy is the ''[[Single Farm Payment]]''.

=== Malawi ===
Increases in food and fertilizer prices have underlined the vulnerability of poor urban and rural households in many developing countries, especially in Africa, renewing policymakers' focus on the need to increase staple food crop productivity.

A study by the [[Overseas Development Institute]] evaluates the benefits of the Malawi Government Agricultural Inputs Subsidy Programme, which was implemented in 2006–2007 to promote access to and use of fertilizers in both maize and tobacco production to increase agricultural productivity and food security. The subsidy was implemented by means of a coupon system which could be redeemed by the recipients for [[Fertilizer Subsidies in Sub Saharan Africa#Input vouchers|fertilizer]] types at approximately one-third of the normal cash price.<ref name=malawi /> According to policy conclusions of the [[Overseas Development Institute]] the voucher for coupon system can be an effective way of rationing and targeting subsidy access to maximize production and economic and social gains. Many practical and political challenges remain in the program design and implementation required to increase efficiency, control costs, and limit patronage and fraud.<ref name=malawi>{{cite web|url=https://www.odi.org/publications/2464-towards-smart-subsidies-agriculture-lessons-recent-malawi|title=Towards 'smart' subsidies in agriculture? Lessons from recent experience in Malawi|date=September 2008|publisher=[[Overseas Development Institute]]}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===
New Zealand is reputed to have the most open agricultural markets in the world<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411 |title=Save the Farms – End the Subsidies |access-date=22 October 2008 |publisher=[[Cato Institute]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081025124712/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411| archive-date= 25 October 2008| url-status= live}}</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html "Surviving without subsidies", NYT] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722191728/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html |date=22 July 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Pickford |first=John |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm |title=New Zealand's hardy farm spirit |work=BBC News |date=16 October 2004 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref> after radical reforms started in 1984 by the [[Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand|Fourth Labour Government]] stopped all subsidies.

<blockquote>In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including [[overproduction]], [[environmental degradation]] and inflated land prices.</blockquote>

As the country is a large agricultural exporter, continued subsidies by other countries are a long-standing bone of contention,<ref name="TVNZ_2755476">{{cite web|url=http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/return-us-dairy-subsidies-sours-kiwis-2755476 |title=Return of US dairy subsidies sours Kiwis |date=25 May 2009 |work=[[Television New Zealand]] |access-date=15 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110921001757/http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/return-us-dairy-subsidies-sours-kiwis-2755476 |archive-date=21 September 2011 }}</ref><ref name="NZ_Herald_10633801">{{cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/agriculture/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=10633801&pnum=0 |title=Why bother with a US FTA? |date=23 March 2010 |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |access-date=15 September 2011}}</ref> with New Zealand being a founding member of the 20-member [[Cairns Group]] fighting to improve [[market access]] for exported agricultural goods.

=== Turkey ===
{{Excerpt|Agriculture_in_Turkey#Quotas and subsidies}}

=== United States ===
[[File:U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Fy2020-budget-summary (1).pdf|thumb|right|200px|USDA fiscal year 2020 budget summary<ref>{{Cite web|title=Budget Summary|url=https://www.usda.gov/obpa/budget-summary|access-date=2021-05-08|website=www.usda.gov|language=en}}</ref>]]{{See also|Agricultural policy of the United States|Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008}}
The [[Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002]], also known as the 2002 [[U.S. Farm Bill|Farm Bill]], addressed a great variety of issues related to [[agriculture]], [[ecology]], [[energy]], [[trade]], and [[nutrition]]. Signed after the [[September 11 attacks|September 11th attacks]] of 2001, the act directs approximately $16.5 billion of government funding toward agricultural subsidies each year. This funding has had a great effect on the production of grains, oilseeds, and upland cotton. The United States paid allegedly around $20 billion in 2005 to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"<ref>[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/sheets/hist03z2.xls] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128135925/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/sheets/hist03z2.xls|date=28 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html |title=Farm Subsidies Over Time |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2 July 2006 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Stephen Vogel |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances.aspx |title=Farm Income and Costs: Farms Receiving Government Payments |publisher=Ers.usda.gov |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref> via [[United States farm bill|farm bills]]. Overall agricultural subsidies in 2010 were estimated at $172 billion by a European agricultural industry association; however, the majority of this estimate consists of food stamps and other consumer subsidies, so it is not comparable to the 2005 estimate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.momagri.org/UK/press-reports/The-SGPA-Global-Support-to-Agricultural-Production--The-per-capita-farm-support-is-close-to-three-times-higher-in-the-United-States-than-in-the-European-Union_1123.html|title=The per-capita farm support is close to three times higher in the United States than in the European Union|publisher=Momagri|access-date=2 December 2018|archive-date=9 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190609042437/http://www.momagri.org/UK/press-reports/The-SGPA-Global-Support-to-Agricultural-Production--The-per-capita-farm-support-is-close-to-three-times-higher-in-the-United-States-than-in-the-European-Union_1123.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Agricultural policies of the United States are changed, incrementally or more radically, by Farm Bills that are passed every five years or so. Statements about how the program works might be right at one point in time, at best, but are probably not sufficient for assessing agricultural policies at other points in time. For example, a large part of the support to program crops has not been linked directly to current output since the [[Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996]] (P.L. 104–127). Instead, these payments were tied to historical entitlement, not current planting. For example, it is incorrect to attribute a payment associated with the wheat base area to wheat production now because that land might be allocated to any of a number of permitted uses, including held idle. Over time, successive Farm Bills have linked these direct payments to market prices or revenue, but not to production. In contrast, some programs, like the Marketing Loan Program that can create something of a floor price that producers receive per unit sold, are tied to production.<ref name='The_2002_Farm_Bill'>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/263929/ap022_2_.pdf 
 |title=The 2002 Farm Bill: Title 1 Commodity Programs 
 |publisher=USDA 
 |date=22 May 2002 
 |access-date=6 December 2006 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061207052638/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/Farmbill/titles/titleIcommodities.htm 
 |archive-date=7 December 2006 
 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref> That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was $3.80, farmers would get an extra 58¢ per bushel (52¢ plus the 6¢ price difference). Fruit and vegetable crops are not eligible for subsidies.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chrisman |first=Siena |date=14 September 2018 |title=American Farmers Are in Crisis |url=https://www.eater.com/2018/9/14/17855080/american-farmers-crisis-trade-war |work=Reports Policy |access-date=17 September 2018 }}</ref>

Corn was the top crop for subsidy payments prior to 2011.  The [[Energy Policy Act of 2005]] mandated that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies were between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefited from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that had brought the total to 85 cents per gallon or more. However, the federal ethanol subsidy expired 31 December 2011.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sweet |first1=William |s2cid=208802093 |title=Corn-O-Copia |journal=IEEE Spectrum |date=January 2007 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=26–28 |doi=10.1109/MSPEC.2007.273036 }}</ref> (US corn-ethanol producers were shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon [[tariff]]; however, that tariff also expired 31 December 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/brazilian-sugarcane-industry-responds-to-introduction-of-pomeroy-shimkus-legislation-that-taxes-clean-renewable-energy-89126552.html |title=Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Responds to Introduction of Pomeroy-Shimkus Legislation That Taxes Clean, Renewable Energy |location=District of Columbia |publisher=Prnewswire.com |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/04/business/fi-biofuels4 |title=Brazil raises cane over U.S. ethanol tariff |work=Los Angeles Times |date=4 November 2009 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref>)
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+2018 U.S. Loan Rates<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Price-Support/pdf/2018/2018cropyearsnationaverages.pdf|title=2018 National Average Loan Rates|date=7 April 2018|website=USDA}}</ref>
!Commodity
!Loan Rates per Unit
|-
|Corn
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Upland cotton
|$0.52/pound
|-
|Wheat
|$2.94/bushel
|-
|Rice
|$6.50/hundredweight
|-
|Peanuts
|$355.00/ton
|-
|Soybeans
|$5.00/bushel
|-
|Grain Sorghum
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Barley
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Oats
|$1.39/bushel
|-
|Oilseed (sunflower, flaxseed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard, crambe, sesame seed)
|$0.1009/pound
|}
=== Asia ===
{{expand section|date=June 2012}}
Farm subsidies in Asia remain a point of contention in global trade talks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/114947/|title=US, India, Japan Farm Subsidies Face WTO Ag Committee Scrutiny|publisher=ICTSD|access-date=13 June 2012|archive-date=3 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203061708/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/114947/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://theindianawaaz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6802&catid=9|title=BRICS for end to rich nations' farm subsidies|publisher=The Indian Awaaz|author=Ashok B Sharma|date=2012-03-28}}</ref>

==== China ====
In 2016, China provided $212 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|title=Agricultural Subsidies Remain a Staple in the Industrial World {{!}} Worldwatch Institute|website=www.worldwatch.org|language=en|access-date=2018-11-01|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214120206/http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2018, China increased their subsidies for soybean farmers in their northeastern provinces. Corn farmers, however, received reduced subsidies due to Beijing's 2017 policy that set out to reduce its huge stockpile. Soybean farmers in Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Inner Mongolia provinces will receive more subsidies from Beijing than corn farmers. The cutting of corn acreage and the lifting of soybean acreage came in 2016 as a push from China to re-balance grain stocks. Subsidies for agriculture machinery and equipment will also be provided by Beijing to farmers.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-agriculture-subsidies/china-grants-more-subsidies-to-soy-farmers-as-it-cuts-corn-stocks-idUSKCN1HA176|title=China grants more subsidies to soy farmers as it cuts corn stocks|work=Reuters|access-date=2018-11-01|language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Indonesia ====
In 1971, as a method of expanding the rice supply in Indonesia, the government began subsidizing fertilizer to farmers after the discovery and introduction of new, high-yielding rice varieties.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hedley |first1=D |title=Fertilizer in Indonesian agriculture: the subsidy issue |journal=Agricultural Economics |date=March 1989 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=49–68 |doi=10.1016/0169-5150(89)90038-8 |doi-broken-date=15 March 2024 |s2cid=154965004 |url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/172153/files/agec1989v003i001a003.pdf }}</ref> In 2012, Indonesia provided $28 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|title=Agricultural Subsidies Remain a Staple in the Industrial World {{!}} Worldwatch Institute|website=www.worldwatch.org|language=en|access-date=2018-05-02|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214120206/http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==== Japan ====
Over the 2000s, Japan has been reforming its generous agricultural subsidy regime to support more business-oriented farmers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jentzsch |first1=Hanno |title=Tracing the Local Origins of Farmland Policies in Japan—Local-National Policy Transfers and Endogenous Institutional Change |journal=Social Science Japan Journal |date=1 August 2017 |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=243–260 |doi=10.1093/ssjj/jyx026 |hdl=10.1093/ssjj/jyx026 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Yet, subsidies remain high in international comparison. In 2009, Japan paid US$46.5 billion in subsidies to its farmers,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agrimoney.com/news/eu-farm-subsidies-fall-bucking-global-trend--1932.html|title=EU farm subsidies fall, bucking global trend|publisher=Agrimoney.com|date=2010-07-01|access-date=13 June 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130522171051/http://www.agrimoney.com/news/eu-farm-subsidies-fall-bucking-global-trend--1932.html|archive-date=22 May 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> and continued state support of farmers in Japan remains a controversial topic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2011/farming-survive-liberalization|title=Can Japanese Farming Survive Liberalization?|publisher=The Tokyo Foundation|author=Yutaka Harada|date=2012-01-17}}</ref> In 2012, Japan provided $65 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0" />

==== South Korea ====
South Korea has made attempts to reform its agricultural sector, despite resistance from vested interests.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2012031703458|title=Coffee shop farmers|publisher=The Dong-A Ilbo|date=2012-03-17}}</ref> In 2012, South Korea provided approximately $20 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0" />

====India====
Agricultural subsidy in India primarily consists of subsidies like, fertilizer, irrigation, equipment, credit subsidy, seed subsidy, export subsidy etc. Subsidy on fertilizers is provided by the Central government whereas subsidy on water and irrigation is provided by the local State governments.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Singh|first=Hemant|title=Different Types of Agricultural Subsidies Given to Farmers in India|url=https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/different-types-of-agricultural-subsidies-given-to-farmers-in-india-1445333409-1 |website=Jagran Josh|date=20 October 2015 }}</ref> Drawing on the most recent estimates, annual central government subsidies to farmers would be of the order of {{INRConvert|120500|c|lk=|year=2020}} as the sum of fertilizer subsidies ({{INRConvert|70000|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2017/18), credit subsidies ({{INRConvert|20000|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2017/18), crop insurance subsidies ({{INRConvert|6500|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2018/19) and expenditures towards price support ({{INRConvert|24000|c|lk=|year=2020}} estimated for 2016/17).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ramaswami|first=Bharat|date=March 2019|title=Agricultural Subsidies|url=https://fincomindia.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/fincom15/StudyReports/Agricultural%20subsidies.pdf|journal=Study Prepared for XV Finance Commission}}</ref> Total subsidies to farmers in India is in the range of $45 billion to 50 billion, to the tune of 2%-2.5% of GDP. But per farmer the subsidy just about touches $48 in India, compared to over $7,000 in the U.S.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Gupta|first=Dipankar|date=2020-12-25|title=The farmers' protest, truths and half-truths|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-farmers-protest-truths-and-half-truths/article33413371.ece|access-date=2020-12-26|issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

==== Armenia ====
Direct subsidies, of the Ministry of Agriculture, include subsidies for fertilizers, improved seed, [[agrochemical|agricultural chemicals]], and fuel. The purpose of subsidies is to aid the smallest farmers in the sector. In particular, the maximum loan size for interest subsidies is minimal, and only farms with less than 3 ha are eligible for fuel, fertilizer, chemical, and seed subsidies. For loans of up to 3 million drams (about US$6,185 at current exchange rates), subsidies decrease interest rates from 10%–12% to 4%–6% in an effort to support Armenia's smaller farms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Garry |first=Christensen |date=May 2017 |title=Sustainable, Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth in Armenia |doi=10.1596/29699 |url=https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29699?show=full |language=English}}</ref>

== Impact of subsidies ==

=== Global food prices and international trade ===
Although some critics and proponents of the [[World Trade Organization]] have noted that export subsidies, by driving down the price of commodities, can provide [[cheap food]] for consumers in developing countries,<ref>{{cite magazine
 |last=Panagariya 
 |first=Arvind 
 |author-link=Arvind Panagariya 
 |title=Liberalizing Agriculture 
 |magazine=Foreign Affairs 
 |date=2005 
 |url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051201faessay84706/arvind-panagariya/liberalizing-agriculture.html 
 |access-date=26 December 2006 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070218085350/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051201faessay84706/arvind-panagariya/liberalizing-agriculture.html 
 |archive-date=18 February 2007 
}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release
 |title=World Bank's Claims on WTO Doha Round Clarified 
 |publisher=Center for Economic and policy research 
 |date=22 November 2005 
 |url=http://www.cepr.net/pressreleases/2005_11_22.htm 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070322102955/http://www.cepr.net/pressreleases/2005_11_22.htm 
 |archive-date=22 March 2007 
}}</ref> low prices are harmful to farmers not receiving the subsidy. Because it is usually wealthy countries that can afford domestic subsidies, critics argue that they promote poverty in [[developing country|developing countries]] by artificially driving down world crop prices.<ref>{{cite web | author = Andrew Cassel | title = Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World | website = The Philadelphia Inquirer | date = 6 May 2002 | url = http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm | access-date = 20 July 2007 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070609232802/http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm | archive-date = 9 June 2007 | url-status = dead}}</ref>

Generally, developing countries have a [[comparative advantage]] in producing agricultural goods,{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}} but low crop prices encourage developing countries to be dependent buyers of food from wealthy countries. So local farmers, instead of improving the agricultural and economic self-sufficiency of their home country, are forced out of the market and perhaps even off their land. This occurs as a result of a process known as "[[Dumping (pricing policy)|international dumping]]" in which subsidized farmers are able to "dump" low-cost agricultural goods on foreign markets at costs that un-subsidized farmers cannot compete with. Agricultural subsidies often are a common stumbling block in trade negotiations. In 2006, talks at the [[Doha round]] of WTO trade negotiations stalled because the US refused to cut subsidies to a level where other countries' non-subsidized exports would have been competitive.<ref>{{cite web | author1=Alan Beattie |author2=Frances Williams | title = US blamed as Trade Talks end in acrimony |work=Financial Times | date = 24 July 2006 | url =http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfa460d0-1afd-11db-b164-0000779e2340.html | access-date =18 May 2008}}</ref>

Others argue that a world market with farm subsidies and other [[market distortion]]s (as happens today) results in higher [[food prices]], rather than lower food prices, as compared to a free market.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-20 |title=Farm Subsidies Are Making Your Food More Expensive |url=https://www.johnlocke.org/farm-subsidies-are-making-your-food-more-expensive/ |access-date=2023-06-17 |website=John Locke Foundation |language=en}}</ref>

In 2002 [[Mark Malloch Brown]], former head of the [[United Nations Development Programme]], estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about US$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:

<blockquote>It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://content.undp.org/go/newsroom/2002/november/mmb-uganda.en;jsessionid=axbWzt8vXD9 |title=The Millennium Development Goals and Africa: A new framework for a new future |access-date=2009-06-10 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090727194456/http://content.undp.org/go/newsroom/2002/november/mmb-uganda.en%3Bjsessionid%3DaxbWzt8vXD9 |archive-date=27 July 2009}} Address by Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 12 November 2002</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kristof |first1=Nicholas D. |title=Farm Subsidies That Kill |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/opinion/05KRIS.html |work=The New York Times |date=5 July 2002 }}</ref></blockquote>

=== Poverty in developing countries ===
The impact of agricultural subsidies in developed countries upon developing-country farmers and [[international development]] is well documented. Agricultural subsidies can help drive prices down to benefit consumers, but also mean that unsubsidised developing-country farmers have a more difficult time competing in the world market;<ref>{{cite book|last=Patel|first=Raj|title=Stuffed and Starved|date=2007|publisher=Portobello Books|location=UK|page=57}}</ref> and the effects on poverty are particularly negative when subsidies are provided for crops that are also grown in developing countries since developing-country farmers must then compete directly with subsidised developed-country farmers, for example in cotton and sugar.<ref name="boxes">[http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/10/green-box-web-1.pdf Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111112002442/http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/10/green-box-web-1.pdf |date=12 November 2011 }}, ICTSD, September 2009.</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Agricultural Subsidies, Poverty and the Environment | publisher = World Resources Institute | date = January 2007 | url =http://pdf.wri.org/aspe_domestic_reform.pdf | access-date =25 February 2011}}</ref> The [[International Food Policy Research Institute|IFPRI]] has estimated in 2003 that the impact of subsidies costs developing countries $24 billion in lost incomes going to agricultural and agro-industrial production; and more than $40 billion is displaced from net agricultural exports.<ref>{{cite web|title=How much does it hurt? The Impact of Agricultural Trade Policies on Developing Countries |publisher=IFPRI |year=2010 |url=http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/media/trade/trade.pdf |access-date=25 February 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172604/http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/media/trade/trade.pdf |archive-date=26 July 2011 }}</ref> Moreover, the same study found that the [[Least developed country|least developed countries]] have a higher proportion of GDP dependent upon agriculture, at around 36.7%, thus may be even more vulnerable to the effects of subsidies. It has been argued that subsidised agriculture in the developed world is one of the greatest obstacles to economic growth in the developing world; which has an indirect impact on reducing the income available to invest in rural infrastructure such as health, safe water supplies and electricity for the rural poor.<ref>{{cite web | title= Farm subsidies: devastating the world's poor and the environment | url= http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba547 | access-date= 25 February 2011 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180109013829/http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba547 | archive-date= 9 January 2018 | url-status= dead }}</ref> The total amount of subsidies that go towards agriculture in OECD countries far exceeds the amount that countries provide in [[development aid]]. In the case of Africa, it is estimated that a 1% increase in its total agricultural exports could lift its GDP by $70 billion, nearly five times what the region is provided in total foreign aid.<ref>{{cite book |last=Adams|first=Brock |date=2005 |title=The Structure of American Industry |location=Upper Saddle River, New Jersey |publisher=Pearson |page=21 |isbn=978-0-13-143273-4}}</ref>

==== Haiti and US rice imports ====
Haiti is an excellent example of a developing country negatively affected by agricultural subsidies in the developed world. Haiti is a nation with the capacity to produce rice and was at one time self-sufficient in meeting its own needs.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm#endnote11 |title=Trade and the Disappearance of Haitian Rice |publisher=.american.edu |access-date=12 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329074024/http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm#endnote11 |archive-date=29 March 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis |last1=Altidor |first1=Paul |title=Impacts of trade liberalization policies on rice production in Haiti |date=2004 |hdl=1721.1/28350 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> At present, Haiti does not produce enough to feed its people; 60 percent of the food consumed in the country is imported.<ref>http://www.ifad.org/operations/projects/regions/pl/factsheet/haiti_e.pdf{{full citation needed|date=August 2020}}</ref> Following advice to liberalize its economy by lowering tariffs, domestically produced rice was displaced by cheaper subsidized rice from the United States. The Food and Agriculture Organization describes this liberalization process as being the removal of barriers to trade and a simplification of tariffs, which lowers costs to consumers and promotes efficiency among producers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e08.htm#fnB52 |title=Chapter 4. Trade liberalization and food security in developing countries[45&#93; |publisher=Fao.org |date=12 July 2002 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref>

Opening up Haiti's economy granted consumers access to food at a lower cost; allowing foreign producers to compete for the Haitian market drove down the price of rice. However, for Haitian rice farmers without access to subsidies, the downward pressure on prices led to a decline in profits. Subsidies received by [[American rice]] farmers, plus increased efficiencies, made it impossible for their Haitian counterparts to compete.<ref>{{cite thesis |last1=Germain |first1=J. Claude |title=Trade liberalization and globalization: The experience of Haiti |year=2009 |id={{ProQuest|305170611}} }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/osgdp20053_en.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=6 February 2012 |archive-date=17 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170517073509/http://unctad.org/en/docs/osgdp20053_en.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to Oxfam and the International Monetary Fund, tariffs on imports fell from 50 percent to three percent in 1995 and the nation is currently importing 80 percent of the rice it consumes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oxfam.org/development/haiti-no-longer-grows-much-its-own-rice-and-families-now-go-hungry |title=Haiti No Longer Grows Much of Its Own Rice and Families Now Go Hungry &#124; Oxfam International |publisher=Oxfam.org |access-date=12 April 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121128093750/http://www.oxfam.org/development/haiti-no-longer-grows-much-its-own-rice-and-families-now-go-hungry |archive-date=28 November 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=Jan 2001 |title=Haiti: Selected Issues |url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2001/cr0104.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231117155059/https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2001/cr0104.pdf |archive-date=Nov 17, 2023 |website=IMF}}</ref>

The United States Department of Agriculture notes that since 1980, rice production in Haiti has been largely unchanged, while consumption on the other hand, is roughly eight times what it was in that same year.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Rice%20Production%20and%20Trade%20Update_Santo%20Domingo_Haiti_11-9-2010.pdf |title=Rice Production and Trade Update |website=Global Agricultural Information Network - USDA |access-date=6 February 2012 |archive-date=16 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016094622/http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Rice%20Production%20and%20Trade%20Update_Santo%20Domingo_Haiti_11-9-2010.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Haiti is among the top three consumers of long grain milled rice produced in the United States.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Nathan |last1=Childs |first2=Alexander |last2=Burdett |chapter=The U.S. rice export market |pages=48–54 |s2cid=166235903 |s2cid-access=free |title=Rice Situation and Outlook |year=2000 |publisher=USDA Economic Research Service |isbn=978-1-4289-0898-7 }}</ref>

As rice farmers struggled to compete, many migrated from rural to urban areas in search of alternative economic opportunities.<ref>{{cite news |last=Doyle |first=Mark |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11472874 |title=US urged to stop Haiti rice subsidies |work=BBC News |date=4 October 2010 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref>

=== Impact on nutrition ===
One peer-reviewed research suggests that any effects of US farm policies on US obesity patterns must have been negligible.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Alston |first1=Julian M. |last2=Sumner |first2=Daniel A. |last3=Vosti |first3=Stephen A. |title=Farm subsidies and obesity in the United States: National evidence and international comparisons |journal=Food Policy |date=December 2008 |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=470–479 |doi=10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.05.008 |s2cid=53641508 }}</ref> However, some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, in the US, [[cane sugar]] was replaced with cheap [[corn syrup]], making high-sugar food cheaper;<ref>{{cite news |last1=Pollan |first1=Michael |title=THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 10-12-03; The (Agri)Cultural Contradictions Of Obesity |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-10-12-03-the-agri-cultural-contradictions-of-obesity.html |work=The New York Times |date=12 October 2003 }}</ref> beet and cane sugar are subject to subsidies, price controls, and import tariffs that distort the prices of these products as well.

The lower price of energy-dense foods such as grains and sugars could be one reason why low-income people and food insecure people in industrialized countries are more vulnerable to being [[Food security|overweight and obese]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/|title=FRAC Food Research and Action Center|website=frac.org|access-date=7 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120914070718/http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/|archive-date=14 September 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to the [[Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine]], meat and dairy production receive 63% of subsidies in the United States,<ref name=pcfrm /> as well as sugar subsidies for unhealthy foods, which contribute to heart disease, obesity and diabetes, with enormous costs for the health sector.<ref name=pcfrm>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2586|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130415140347/http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2586|url-status=dead|title=PCRM - Taxing America's Health: Subsidies for Meat and Dairy Products|date=15 April 2013|archive-date=15 April 2013|website=archive.is|access-date=7 April 2018}}</ref>

Market distortions due to subsidies have led to an increase in corn fed cattle rather than grass fed. Corn fed cattle require more antibiotics and their beef has a higher fat content.<ref name=corn>{{cite journal |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/kummer|title= Back To Grass|access-date=29 April 2008 |journal=The Atlantic|author= Kummer, Corby|date= May 2003| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080516174706/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/kummer| archive-date= 16 May 2008| url-status= live}}</ref>

=== Cross-border movement of businesses ===
Tariffs on sugar have also caused large candy makers in the US to relocate to Canada and Mexico, where sugar is often half to a third the price.<ref name="The Sugar Industry and Corporate Welfare">{{cite web|url= http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2005/sugar_industry_subsidies.php|title= The Sugar Industry and Corporate Welfare|access-date= 6 February 2011|archive-date= 20 July 2012|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120720025808/http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2005/sugar_industry_subsidies.php|url-status= dead}}</ref>
The Dominican Republic Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), though, has had little impact in this area. The sugar issue causing alarm had reasoning due to what plausible effects could come through the tariffs as well as the undetermined future of these types of negotiations considering sugar importation in the United States. Due to various continuing disputes in trade, Mexico began to have fewer exports of sugar into the United States, where the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allowed. Those who left and sought out other companies for sugar have leaned marginally more towards Canada than Mexico. The tariffs are what keeps the large pressure from competition from south of the Rio Grande at bay.<ref name="The Sugar Industry and Corporate Welfare" />

=== Non-farming companies ===
Subsidies are also given to companies and individuals with little connection to traditional farming. It has been reported that the largest part of the sum given to these companies flow to multinational companies like food conglomerates, sugar manufacturers and liquor distillers. For example, in France, the single largest beneficiary was the chicken processor [[Groupe Doux]], at €62.8m, and was followed by about a dozen sugar manufacturers which together reaped more than €103m.<ref>{{cite web |title=French farmers survive but multinationals cash in on EU subsidies |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=30 August 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603221556/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6111715/French-farmers-survive-but-multinationals-cash-in-on-EU-subsidies.html |archive-date=2023-06-03 |url-status=live |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6111715/French-farmers-survive-but-multinationals-cash-in-on-EU-subsidies.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/eu-farm-subsidies-more-skewed-than-ever-report |title=EU Farm Subsidies More Skewed than Ever: Report |access-date=23 April 2018 |archive-date=2 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200102111204/https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/eu-farm-subsidies-more-skewed-than-ever-report |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30subsidy.html http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/ Europe’s Vast Farm Subsidies Face Challenges]</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/ |title=Farmsubsidy.org |access-date=23 April 2018 |archive-date=29 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150629184007/http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Public economics implications ===
Government intervention, through agricultural subsidies, interferes with the price mechanism which would normally determine commodity prices, often creating crop overproduction and market discrimination. 

Journalist Michael Pollan argues that corn became a prime crop for over-production (and thus subsidies) due to it having a wide genetic variability and flexibility; historical uses of corn as food and as a commodity fueled its growth with capitalism.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Pollan |first=Michael |title=The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals |publisher=Penguin Publishing |year=2007 |isbn=978-0143038580}}</ref>  As a result of overproduction and falling prices, farmers were subsidized with direct payments from the government. The pressure to produce massive swaths of corn, however, resulted in farmers tending to monocrop agriculture.  As Pollan argues, this not only pushed many small farms out of business, but also resulted in paradoxical "food deserts".<ref name=":2" />

Subsidies are also an inefficient use of taxpayer's money. For instance, in 2006, the Department of Agriculture estimated that the average farm household income was $77,654 or about 17% higher than the average US household income.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Thompson |first1=Wyatt |last2=Mishra |first2=Ashok K. |last3=Dewbre |first3=Joe |title=Farm Household Income and Transfer Efficiency: An Evaluation of United States Farm Program Payments |journal=American Journal of Agricultural Economics |date=December 2009 |volume=91 |issue=5 |pages=1296–1301 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01300.x }}</ref> From a public economics perspective, subsidies of any kind work to create a socially and politically acceptable equilibrium that is not necessarily [[Pareto efficient]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Rosen|first=Harvey|title=Public Finance|url=https://archive.org/details/publicfinanceeig00rose|url-access=limited|year=2008|publisher=McGraw-Hill Irwin|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/publicfinanceeig00rose/page/n111 83]–84}}</ref>

=== Environmental implications ===
{{See also|Environmental impact of agriculture|Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture}}
A study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization found 87% of the $540bn farmers given every year between 2013 and 2018 in global subsidies are harmful to both people and environment.<ref name=":1" /> The monoculture system associated with subsidized large-scale production has been implicated as a contributory factor in [[Colony Collapse Disorder]] which has affected bee populations. Bee [[pollination]] is an essential [[ecosystem service]] essential for the production of many varieties of fruits and vegetables. Subsidies often go towards subsidising meat production which has other nutritional and environmental implications; and it has been found that out of the $200Bn subsidies to subsidise crops from 1995 to 2010 around two-thirds of this went to animal feed, tobacco and cotton production.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-touts-fruit-and-vegetables-while-subsidizing-animals-that-become-meat/2011/08/22/gIQATFG5IL_story.html |title=U.S. touts fruit and vegetables while subsidizing animals that become meat |first=Arthur |last=Allen |date=3 October 2011 |access-date=7 April 2018 |newspaper=The Washington Post }}</ref> On the other hand, farmers producing fruits and vegetables received no direct subsidies. The [[environmental impact of meat production]] is high due to the resource and energy requirements that go into production of feed for livestock throughout their lifespan, for example, a kilogram of beef uses about 60 times as much water as an equivalent amount of potato.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hoekstra |first1=Arjen Y. |title=The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy |journal=Animal Frontiers |date=1 April 2012 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=3–8 |doi=10.2527/af.2012-0038 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The subsidies contribute to meat consumption by allowing for an artificially low cost of meat products.<ref>{{cite web |title=What We Do |url=http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/what-we-do |website=UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity |date=20 April 2020 }}</ref>

== Alternatives ==
[[Free trade|Liberals]] argue that subsidies distort incentives for the global trade of agricultural commodities in which other countries may have a comparative advantage. Allowing countries to specialize in commodities in which they have a comparative advantage in and then freely trade across borders would therefore increase global welfare and reduce [[food prices]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Kym |last2=Martin |first2=Will |s2cid=154986778 |title=Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda |journal=The World Economy |date=September 2005 |volume=28 |issue=9 |pages=1301–1327 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9701.2005.00735.x |hdl=10986/6889 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Ending direct payments to farmers and deregulating the farm industry would eliminate inefficiencies and deadweight loss created by government intervention.

However, others disagree, arguing that a more radical transformation of agriculture is needed, one guided by the notion that ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political, cultural and economic arenas that conform and determine agriculture. The organized peasant and indigenous based agrarian movements, e.g. [[Via Campesina]], [[Individual action on climate change|take action]] by arguing that only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture model of large farms can halt what they call the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and environmental degradation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Altieri |first1=Miguel A. |title=Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty |journal=Monthly Review |date=8 July 2009 |volume=61 |issue=3 |pages=102 |doi=10.14452/mr-061-03-2009-07_8 }}</ref>

== See also ==
* [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/farm-bill-socialism-subsidies/ Subsidies For All!]
*[[Perverse agricultural subsidies]]
* [[Protectionism]]
* [[Free trade]]
* [[Agricultural policy]]
* [[Price support]]
* [[Farm gate value]]
* [[2007–2008 world food price crisis]]
* [[Electrical energy efficiency on United States farms]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Further reading ==
* Farm Commodity Programs: A Short Primer, a [[Congressional Research Service]] Report for Congress, 20 June 2002.

== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20131219223406/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?ex=1334894400&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ei=5090&part You Are What You Grow] – Article on farm subsidies from ''[[The New York Times]]''.

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Agricultural subsidies| ]]
[[Category:Agricultural policy]]