The American Soybean Association pointed to a new university analysis this week to show that the key commodity program in the House version of the farm bill could distort crop production.
The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri released the report comparing the commodity programs in both versions of the farm bill.
P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT T
ASA stated the study shows problems with the fixed target-price program in the House bill, the Price Loss Coverage program. The soybean association stated "the potential for high, fixed target prices coupled to current plantings to cause global market distortions, which would increase U.S. farm program vulnerability to challenges under the World Trade Organization."
ASA argues that the FAPRI report makes it clear, "Target prices need to be decoupled from current-year planting decisions under any price-based program. “The FAPRI report drives home our concern that the House PLC program could cause planting distortions by tying target price payments to planted acres,” said ASA President Danny Murphy, a soybean, corn and wheat farmer from Canton, Miss. “For example, the report highlights the potential for significant increases in planting and production of barley, rice and peanuts, which would push down prices. While producers of these crops would receive larger government payments, the lower prices would also decrease market receipts for peanuts by $70 per acre, rice by $20 an acre, and barley by $15 an acre.
Those price and market distortions were highlighted last month in a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which raised issues about program changes such as shifting from base acres to planted acres.
Murphy stated that “these lower prices would then impact other countries that produce the same crops, potentially spurring WTO complaints similar to what we saw when Brazil successfully challenged the U.S. cotton program under the WTO. While we didn’t like the WTO’s decision in the cotton case, legislators need to be mindful of the outcome of this case and avoid increasing the vulnerability of U.S. farm programs to potential challenges.”
(I wrote on the FAPRI report earlier this week as well. http://dld.bz/… )
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.