FARGO, ND — Former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson issued a stark warning: the current trajectory of U.S. farm policy is unsustainable, serving more as a "band-aid" than a long-term solution for the American producer.
Joined by members of the Turning Point USA NDSU chapter, Peterson—now a key figure behind the Midwest Council on Agriculture and the newly established NDSU Ag Policy Research Center—argued that the era of repeated "ad hoc" government bailouts is undermining the very industry it intends to save.
A System of "Band-Aids"
Peterson pointed to the recent $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance Program as the latest symptom of a broken system. While acknowledging that such payments are often a necessity during market disruptions, he warned they have created a cycle of dependency.
"Anybody who says that what we're doing with farm policy is working, they're kidding themselves," Peterson said. "Every year we're having to send money to farmers... it's based on what the situation was 30 years ago".
While the Midwest remains relatively stable—with local bankers reporting that 70-80% of farms were profitable last year—other sectors are in "significant trouble". Growers of cotton, rice, and peanuts in the South are facing dire economic conditions, fueling the push for more government intervention.
The "Conduit" Effect: Why Subsidies Aren't Reaching Farmers
One of the most provocative points raised during the discussion was how federal aid is inadvertently driving up the cost of doing business. Peterson argued that instead of bolstering a farmer's bottom line, government checks often act as a conduit that flows directly into:
-
Land Prices and Rent: Increased federal support keeps land values and rental rates artificially high.
-
Input Costs: Suppliers often adjust pricing in anticipation of federal payouts.
-
Consolidation: Critics and analysts note that these programs disproportionately benefit "mega farms," making it harder for small operations to compete for land.
Titus, a student whose family farms near Roseau, MN, highlighted the volatility of these costs, noting that fertilizer prices jumped 16% in a single day recently.
The Brazilian Threat
The conversation took a global turn as Peterson highlighted the "huge problem" posed by Brazil. Unlike the U.S., Brazilian farmers are successfully:
-
Double-Cropping: Producing high-yield soybeans followed immediately by cotton or corn.
-
Lowering Costs: Brazil’s land prices remain significantly lower than in the U.S. Midwest, while their yields—particularly in cotton—now rival or exceed American production.
"We have a lot of problems facing us beyond the weather," Peterson noted, suggesting that without a more competitive and modernized policy, the U.S. risks falling further behind its South American rivals.
A Generational Debate: Why Only Ag?
The discussion grew sharp when NDSU students questioned the "special carve-out" for the agricultural industry. Hayden and Aiden, representing the younger "city boy" and rural perspectives, asked why farmers receive federal bailouts while other businesses, like roofing or small-town retail, are left to the whims of the free market.
Peterson’s response was rooted in the unique risks of the profession: "Farming is unlike any other business because you don't control the price of your product, and you don't control the amount of output" due to weather and global trade wars. However, he admitted that if the public perceives the system as a permanent welfare program, they will eventually "turn against us".
The Prescription: A Market-Oriented Safety Net
What is the solution? Peterson's vision for a "Farm Bill 2.0" involves:
-
Eliminating Ad Hoc Bailouts: Moving away from unpredictable, politically-charged emergency packages.
-
Market-Driven Coverage: Developing a system where farmers pay for enough insurance/coverage to satisfy their lenders and manage their own risk.
-
Regional Policy Analysis: Using the NDSU Policy Center to provide data-driven solutions tailored to the Midwest, rather than one-size-fits-all national policies.
"I am not for the government running agriculture," Peterson concluded. "But I am for the government recognizing how much risk farmers are taking. We have to step in, but we have to do it in a way that makes sense for the long term".