Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

fb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#311

Post by jasonlotito »

gruez wrote: post #284
duxup wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps. One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from. Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces…

>Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (o…

> How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades?

They can see progress. ACA wasn't a slam dunk, but it was progress.

Also, you aren't voting for a Republican or a Democrat, you are voting for a person, and if the person you are voting for supports M4A, that's what you can do. If someone else in the same party doesn't support that, you can't do anything about that. However, your representative is one piece of the puzzle. Giving up on that is dumb.

It's not like the Democrats are under the heels of a tyrant leading their party and country over a cliff.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#312

Post by blackcatsec »

mekdoonggi wrote: post #298
gruez wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (o…

At least (some) Democrats actually say they want Medicare for all. The farmer parallel would be like voting for a Republican hoping for Medicare for all. Though I'm a bit biased, because it seems like if you want anything other than for billionaires to get more money, you would vote Dem.

to be fair, this isn’t a perfect solution but it does get us much closer to that solution each time. There are still plenty of democrats whom don’t support solving these problems (for any number of reasons, I’m not going to conjecture here why)

The best solution I’ve seen is to just keep pushing leftward—even if we only get a few increments here and there.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#313

Post by [deleted] »

ptero wrote: post #280
jansper39 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also down to vaccination requirements for EU based farms who take far more preventative measures than US ones. It's why you can eat raw eggs and keep them out of the fridge in the EU/UK but not in the US, because the chickens are vaccination for Salmonella.

The reason for keeping eggs in a fridge is different (primarily washing vs not washing). This has been discussed a number of times at HN. Here is an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19815155

[deleted]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#314

Post by toomuchtodo »

mlrtime wrote: post #202
toomuchtodo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~60 million acres of corn and soybean in the US, the size of Oregon, is grown exclusively for biofuels. This is unnecessary as you mention, as are the subsidies to farmers for these row crops.

Which could be easily converted in one harvest to feed a nation if needed. That option is very valuable.

The US already has far more food production than needed, this option is of little value.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#315

Post by nkrisc »

gruez wrote: post #284
duxup wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps. One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from. Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces…

>Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (o…

> How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades?

How is it different? It’s different because people do stop voting for right-leaning Democrats who are all talk, and then they lose and Republicans win, and then the Republican voters get exactly what they voted for (and everyone else gets it too).

Republicans control the government, what on Earth do Republican voters have to complain about? They got what they voted for.

If they’re unhappy with the government they should complain to the mirror.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#316

Post by FireBeyond »

gruez wrote: post #278
unglaublich wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives. If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds…

>inferior products like HFCS, [...] prevalence of GM crops The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

What? On HFCS:

While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid.

Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides.

It bypasses our body's normal appetite regulation, as fructose also (in addition to insulin) does not stimulate leptin, providing the body with no/less feeling of satiation, and is also less effective at stimulating ghrelin (hunger hormone).

You feel less full, you keep eating, calories and obesity go up.

This is at its worst in liquids, as liquid fructose is absorbed rapidly, and leads to effective weight gain even at small amounts of consumption.

Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

I can't imagine where you're hearing that there's "no evidence that HFCS is bad" other than those in the production pipeline or their lobbying.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#317

Post by BearOso »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #182
unglaublich wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives. If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds…

> bleached chicken I don't understand this meme that appears whenever US vs "Europe" food/crop standards are discussed. I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx... > Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those tha…

My understanding was that the meat-packing process in the US involves a butchering method that results in more fecal matter contamination, posing the risk of salmonella, which necessitates the wash. Those bacteria occur naturally, so you can't avoid that without being careful with butchering, which is probably what the EU standards require. But I doubt the big meat conglomerates like Tyson will want any hit to productivity, and they would fight a change every step of the way.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#318

Post by conductr »

jadenPete wrote: post #6

This question may be naive, but why is the agricultural industry so subsidized? I understand the moral argument, but why, economically, does subsidizing farms result in a more efficient allocation of resources? I've heard that it's because farming as a business is full of unpredictability, but if that were the case, wouldn't there be a significant market for private insurance, and wouldn't the cost of that insurance…

It’s similar to oil. Our people are very price sensitive to food and gas. It’s required in America at all economic classes fairly heavily in our society. So, politicians have decided to try to force prices low and keep hidden costs at the federal level. It allows for reallocation of wealth (a richer person’s taxes helps pay for a poorer person’s lunch and gas to the grocery store). Also, if taxes aren’t enough to cover it well we run our country at a huge deficit so it’s all a big illusion of sustainability that pretty much is destined to fail eventually anyway. I don’t think people or politicians really care about the future or what world their children will inherit as much as they act like they do here; or I’ve not been witness to that thought process in most of our systems.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#319

Post by thinkcontext »

9rx wrote: post #137
thinkcontext wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US produces an unbelievably enormous calorie surplus way beyond what is needed for the health of the country and in fact its detrimental. The biggest is not even used as food, over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That's an amount of land that's truly beyond comprehension. Its a horrible program as well, corn ethanol is worse than the gasoline it replaces in terms of carbon footprint when taking land use…

> over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That doesn't mean much without more details. Corn is used as a tool in the crop rotation to enable growing foods for humans to eat. As we learned before ethanol's time in the sun, farmers are going to grow it anyway to support their rotations. The only question is if it is better to recapture that into usable energy or to let it rot out in the field. > ... when taking…

> Corn is used as a tool in the crop rotation to enable growing foods for humans to eat. As we learned before ethanol's time in the sun, farmers are going to grow it anyway to support their rotations. The only question is if it is better to recapture that into usable energy or to let it rot out in the field.

This doesn't make sense in light of the large expansion of corn acreage that corresponds to ethanol policy.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10323 https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_corn_acres_planted

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#320

Post by mexicocitinluez »

GrinningFool wrote: post #277
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers? For the love of God, please don't "both sides" this stuff. When is the last time you took a look at the bills coming before Congress and how they were voted on? Like, literally go to the congressional website and view bills and vote tallies? Would you believe it if I…

> Lastly, there are at least 50 Dems in congress right now who explicitly aren't beholden to corporate finance and regularly introduce bills to remove money from politics. Sometimes seems like they introduce those bills only when they can't possibly pass. Makes for good theater and talking points ("I _tried_, look!").

So I don't see those particular Dems doing that as much as I see the Schumers & Pelosis doing it. And to that end, I agree completely.

Though not introduced by Dems, this is a great example of just how stupid all of this is: http://congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-concurrent-res...

Of all of the things currently plaguing the US, the fact that they think this is appropriate speaks volumes.

Post reply on HN