Government Subsidies Keep Your Food Boring
The feds’ focus on large-scale crops hinders the resurgence of heritage grains and results in less food diversity.

The renowned whiskey writer Clay Risen recently recounted in The New York Times how nal t'eel, a Mexican corn varietal grown on the Yucatán Peninsula for more than 4,000 years, was saved when a local craft distillery started making whiskey with it. While a gripping and inspiring tale on its own, the resurgence of nal t'eel is also part of a much larger story arc. Over the last decade, the heritage whiskey movement has exploded—part of an even larger ancient and heirloom grain revival.
While there is disagreement on what constitutes an "heirloom" or "heritage" grain—some point to grains developed prior to World War II whereas others define them as varietals brought to the New World by immigrants—they have become catch-all terms for grains that have not undergone significant genetic modification regardless of their age. The results range from whiskey made with Jimmy Red Corn to an artisanal bakery's millet-and-sorghum sourdough loaf.
It's not just hipsters, foodies, and the health-conscious who are swapping their bleached flour for stone-ground buckwheat. The world's ancient grain market is projected to grow at a 37 percent compound annual growth rate, reaching $10 billion by 2032. As Sarah Herrington, a nutritionist at Brio-Medical, summarized it: "We're seeing a return to the traditional, over the conventional."
Yet "the conventional" is growing, not shrinking. Since the early 1990s, the acreage planted in the basic "big four" crops—corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton—has expanded. If consumers are increasingly interested in a return to old-school grain and crops, why aren't more farmers following suit?
Answer: the U.S. government.
Switching crops could mean turning down what is essentially free money. The government subsidizes up to 60 percent of the cost of crop insurance premiums, but that comes with a catch: This and other subsidies are heavily skewed toward monoculture farming—growing a single crop on most or all of a farm's available acreage. This means less crop diversity, less experimentation with obscure grain varietals, and less sustainable and regenerative farming practices. It also increases soil erosion and the use of fertilizer and pesticides.
Modern farm policy began under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with the aim of helping struggling farmers during the Great Depression. That initial legislation applied to a specific list of commodity crops, and although the list has expanded somewhat over time, it remains limited and discourages farmers from experimenting with specialty types of grain.
"Todayʼs crop insurance, for farmers like myself raising corn, soybeans, and wheat, is generous and safe," says Doug Doughty, a grain and livestock farmer in Missouri. "It guarantees a profitable yield and revenue. At the same time, that discourages innovation into more specialty crops that could better diversify and benefit our food supply." Empirical research has likewise demonstrated that subsidies reduce crop diversification, as farmers often replace non-subsidized crops with ones that are subsidized.
We see this play out in the realm of perennial crops—defined as crops that live longer than two years and therefore don't need to be replanted annually—which, alongside heirloom crops, are key players in the modern regenerative agriculture revival. The environmental benefits of perennial crops are vast: They sequester more carbon than annual plants, limit soil erosion, and reduce the use of pesticides.
One of the most promising perennial grains is Kernza, a wheatgrass species that many see as a replacement for conventional wheat and other cereal grains. While researchers just recently made Kernza viable, its derivation from wheatgrass means its ancestry goes back millennia. Kernza lasts for 3 to 5 years, and its deep root system not only helps it pull carbon out of the air but also allows the plant to better survive extreme weather events such as droughts.
Yet only around 4,000 acres of Kernza are currently planted in the U.S.—and as agricultural economists have pointed out, it will never be able to replace traditional annual crops unless the system is overhauled. "You can't just change the crops," the University of Iowa economist Silvia Secchi told NPR in 2022. "This is a whole system that we need to modify."
That's because the current crop insurance system is tied to losses sustained annually, not losses over a multi-year span. Therefore, although many perennial grains can technically be insured, there is no ready mechanism for insuring the entire lifetime productivity of a perennial crop. Perennials also often require more up-front time and investment to bear results, which is likewise not accounted for under the current insurance program.
The repercussions extend beyond grain to other rediscovered crops as well. American hazelnuts, which some have been heralding as a replacement for soybeans in the Upper Midwest, are likewise perennials and face a similar uphill battle.
Unsurprisingly, those that benefit most from the current system—Big Agriculture and large global seed conglomerates—lobby vociferously for protecting the current system and maintaining the monoculture monolith.
"As long as you have economic protection over one crop, then it prejudicially diminishes the viability of an innovative competitor in the marketplace," Polyface Farms owner (and self-described "Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic") Joel Salatin said in 2014. In his perfect world, he added, we would "shut down the [Department of Agriculture] and let farmers rise and fall with their own innovation and the savvy of the marketplace."
Taking the opposite approach to American farm policy, New Zealand decided in the 1980s to eliminate almost all of its farming subsidies. Rather than experiencing calamity, farm productivity increased, agriculture grew as a percentage of the country's overall GDP, and biodiversity improved as fertilizer use declined.
As long as our government keeps a thumb on the scales and determines what crops our farmers should prioritize, we will miss out on the many known benefits and those yet to be discovered about more diverse grains. A new farm bill is moving through Congress now, and the debate over it will reach a crescendo in the coming weeks. It might be time to pick up a bottle of heritage whiskey—not just for relief, but to offer some solidarity to this small corner of the food world.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just the other day in a story about campus protests, I mentioned how insurance rules limit our liberties. Here's another example.
This article is a lie wrapped in a deception. This is the way of BBB/”Eat the bugs”.
Government-backed crop insurance is a bad thing. Wholesale conversion of the domestic cash crop markets, especially all of them, would be catastrophic. Remember the kale superfood craze? Remember all the same people using the retarded ‘monoculture’ buzzword right after saying ‘corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton (and barley, oats, sorghum, rice, cannabis…)? Remember beepocalypse? Kernza’s current yield is approximately 1/3-1/2 of wheat’s in the first year. It’s selling feature is that it yields over multiple years, but yields dip after the first. Despite the heritage and ancient grain stupidity, it’s not an ancient grain any more than half the varieties of corn or wheat or rice or oats are. It’s the same stupidity that because some progress made in the last 10, or 50, or 100 yrs. is bad, all progress for the last 100 yrs. is bad or that because some little-known crop has some niche advantage or feature, it's broadly better. At ~1/2 the yield of wheat in Nebraska, it will never compete with cane in the tropics. Will it offer some off-season advantage in agricultural zones with hard freeze winters? Sure. Will eliminating crop insurance level the playing field? That's like saying having parking lots on one side of the stadium makes the field of play unfair.
I *love* me some steel-cut oats. I like quinoa. Amaranth, spelt, even sunflower seeds and walnuts (Mmm… black walnuts) only enhance bread AFAICT. Mrs. Casual and two of the broodlings don’t like it as much. It’s too gritty and bitter or sour to them and I’m well aware that every last loaf of bread being made with black walnuts would wind up bankrupting a lot of people, starving a lot of people, or both.
That’s not the government’s fault. The market prefers white bread buns for its McDonald’s cheeseburgers (Mmm… cheeseburgers). Simply declaring the market to be manipulated as justification for calls to completely overhaul food production to suit your tastes is not libertarian. It’s the same giaism/cyborg theocracy bullshit as Ron Bailey saying we need to eat more cultured meat so that we can return the ranch land back to nature (with ungulates grazing it).
It really gets back to Chesterton-esque common sense or a lack thereof. The US government didn’t decree “Let there be wheat.” and there was wheat. The crop insurance programs aren’t exclusive to wheat. Kernza or any other crop that is immune to bumper crops and famine will also be susceptible to relatively low yields in bumper years and price shifts of other crops in famine years. The idea that crop insurance, the ossified supply chains that currently make use of it are the problem and that Kernza and “heritage grains” would succeed if only we would tear these meaningless fences down is jut more stupidity on the part of an irrelevant faction of a flailing idiotic political party clawing at anything for legitimacy.
But what about food trucks? I hear that the more we subsidize the population, the more food trucks we get.
We'll have a greater variety of food trucks if they don't have insurance. Or something...
I only read the first paragraph but I think the goal is whiskey trucks.
If it's not, it should be
When presented with the challenge of feeding a family on the government food stamp allowance Gwyneth Paltrow created a weekly food basket that would have resulted in slow, but very healthy and organic, starvation.
Sometimes boring but fed isn't all that bad.
Remember that day FDR and [D]-trifecta amended the US Constitution so the ‘fed’ was authorized to STEAL for food insurance?
Yeah; me neither.
F’En treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
Just another example of the better Americans in advanced states subsidizing the half-educated, economically inadequate hayseeds in can't-keep-up backwaters.
UR so full of BS.
Oh yeah; $20B sure out subsidizes the $34T.
Ironically it's you urban sh*t-for-brain liberals (FDR-[D]-trifecta) who keeps passing this crap. The hay-seeders don't want your [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
The way things are going in this country, I suspect most people care less about their food being boring, and more about their food being available and affordable.
This is such a smug, ivory tower article. Its concern is aristocratic and misplaced. The government – especially its Ministry of Gaia Worship – needs to back off food production not so that we can have dumb pre-colonial wheat variants, but so that we can have factory farms. It needs to back off not so that the aristocrats can have DiVeRsItY LOL in their grain options, but so that we can take arable land currently set aside to protect some endangered stink lizard and make it productive and profitable.
While griping about the government, this article stinks the same way hipster punks talk about solar cars and wind-powered trains. No, shut up. Shut your stupid pig-ignorant priorities-misplaced mouth and help us build some nuclear power plants. For pete’s sake.
The government policy of spend, spend. spend, is what is causing the national debt.
Eliminating subsidies is a good start to ending this insane idea of wasting the taxpayers' money on a bunch of the DC cronies.
But unfortunately, cronyism is very much a part of politics, especially in that sewer called Washington, DC.
While there is disagreement on what constitutes an “heirloom” or “heritage” grain—some point to grains developed prior to World War II whereas others define them as varietals brought to the New World by immigrants—they have become catch-all terms for grains that have not undergone significant genetic modification regardless of their age.
The latter is precisely what constitutes an heirloom grain. A seed that isn’t patented or that can only be purchased from a corporation that has turned nature into a barrier to entry. A seed that, because it is neither hybridized nor eternally someone else’s property, can be harvested – and then either eaten, stored, or planted. A seed that has a value to something like a seed bank.
Too many heirloom seeds are just hipster foodie shit. Nowhere near enough are being used to provide an alternative economic ag system to the current one that is driven by land prices and BigAg. Existing farmers aren’t going to change anything. But it surprises me that there is no ‘market’ for opening the market up to ‘new farmers’.
It is really really odd that the average age of a ‘new farmer’ is 46. That isn’t because farming requires 25 years of education. It’s because it requires 25 years to accumulate the capital/land required in today’s ag market. And anything that requires that sort of grub stake, is also going to discourage structural competition that might undermine the ag industry.
Just to give one example of how entrenched the ag industry is to the status quo. It is near impossible for a farmer in say Iowa to even grow something other than corn and whatever is in the corn supply chain.
I'm pretty sure one could obtain crop insurance for a thousand acres of "heritage grain". It's just that there is a limited market for it.
“ Modern farm policy began under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt”
Well there's your problem
But seriously, is there anything that he didn’t make a pigs arse of?