Anyone who has driven through the Midwest, pumped gas into their car, or looked at the list of unpronounceable ingredients on their bag of chips likely has some sense that corn is omnipresent in America. You cannot escape it. The United States is the largest consumer, producer, and exporter of corn in the world. Corn is also the most subsidized crop in the United States, receiving $2.2 billion in government payments in 2019. Why is corn the recipient of billions of taxpayer dollars? The answer lies in the powerful corn lobby which promotes misconceptions about the effectiveness of subsidy programs and prevents politicians from questioning whether assistance is necessary. These subsidies disproportionately benefit a handful of major producers at the expense of small-scale family farms, while incentivizing inefficiency and expansion into vulnerable environments.
Talks of cutting corn subsidies often incite fear for the fates of small farmers who might rely on these payments. But that struggling family farm down the street probably doesn’t qualify for government assistance. Nearly 80 percent of federal farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of recipients. The corn lobby ensures that these subsidies remain plentiful for large-scale farms and their wealthy owners. In 2022 alone, the agricultural industry spent more than $165 million on political lobbying. Through strategic campaign payments to pro-industry nominees, extensive direct lobbying of officials in congress, and revolving door employment between industry leaders and lobbyists to regulatory positions, the agribusiness industry has become our 536th congressional member.
While agricultural land in the United States has decreased by 66 million acres since 2000, corn acreage rose from 78.7 million to 94.1 million acres. Furthermore, consolidation has led the largest producers of corn to dominate the market, driving out smaller competitors. From 1987 to 2017, the share of cropland farmed by large farms more than doubled, rising from 15 percent to 41 percent while the number of mid-sized farms declined sharply. With favorable treatment from the US government, corn producers gain a special advantage over other agricultural goods, allowing big corn producers to prosper even as more and more agricultural land has been sold off for development.
However, it is unclear whether this government assistance is making the industry more efficient. Examples from other developed countries demonstrate that subsidies might restrict the agricultural economy. For example, when Australia underwent economic reform in the 1980s, phasing out price controls and production quotas as well as government assistance programs for farmers, “total factor productivity in Australia’s broadacre agriculture sector grew 1 percent a year on average from the late 1970s to the early 2010s.” This policy resulted in a farm sector that is both more efficient and more sustainable.
The current subsidy system distorts the corn market on multiple levels—encouraging overproduction, inflating land prices, and fostering disregard for environmental consequences. An American Enterprise Institute (AEI) study, for example, argued that the crop insurance program creates a moral hazard: “subsidized crop insurance has encouraged farmers to shift production onto more fragile lands, thereby increasing soil erosion and, by implication, agriculture’s carbon footprint.” By reducing the risk of large-scale agriculture, the crop insurance program encourages corn operations to expand into vulnerable ecosystems with little concern for environmental health. A 2019 study found that corn production can be attributed to 4,300 premature deaths each year in the United States due to air pollution; the largest share of which results from the application of ammonia-based fertilizers in corn production.
From high-fructose corn syrup to livestock feed, corn’s possibilities are endless. It is cheap, non-perishable, and produces high yields per acre. But, does America need this much corn? One controversial use of the crop is for its use as ethanol, an additive to gasoline. The myth of corn ethanol’s “lower carbon footprint” was recently debunked when a study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that ethanol produced under the Renewable Fuel Standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline due to “increased…fertilizer use” and “land use change emissions.”
Corn not only harms the planet, but it harms our personal health as well. It is no secret that corn-based “miracle sweeteners” like high-fructose corn syrup pose a detriment to Americans’ health. Furthermore, meat from livestock fed with corn-based feed also provides less nutritional value to consumers. A 2016 study surveying the diets of 10,308 Americans found that about 56 percent of all calories consumed belonged to major subsidized foods, and those in the highest quartile had a 14-41 percent higher probability of cardiometabolic risks, such as a high BMI. In the context of a worsening obesity epidemic, it does not help that government officials continue to subsidize a key input for the ultra-processed foods industry.
Beyond the endless rows of maize lining America’s corn belt, change looms on the horizon. The 2018 Farm Bill, up for reauthorization in September of this year, presents a chance for Congress to reevaluate the necessity of these payments to the wealthy. Within this complex, 1000-page bill lies the opportunity for reform through a reduction of corporate welfare subsidies and incentives to overproduce, as well as the implementation of environmental protection incentives and restrictions.
Corn is inextricable from modern American life. While we cannot escape its ubiquity, it is time to step back and reconsider just how much financial support the corn industry needs. With large-scale corn monopolies on the rise and America’s abundance of maize, corn has managed to find its way into nearly every aspect of American life. Taxpayers should not be held responsible for underwriting the risks of wealthy corporations to the detriment of our economy, environment, and health. Cutting corn subsidies is a crucial step towards a fair market and a sustainable future.