KANSAS CITY — It is troubling how little influence the food and agriculture industry appears to have on significant national policy decisions in Washington. Whether it is trade, immigration, the environment or even health care, where many rural communities are facing harm by a continual reduction in services, key national policies often do not seem to prioritize this industry and the vital part of the American economy it represents.
This waning influence comes on the heels of one of the most dramatic changes in food and agriculture during the past 50 years — the emergence of a global, integrated supply chain. To meet the needs of consumers throughout the world, U.S. food companies and agriculture producers have consolidated operations and diversified offerings in an unprecedented manner. The volume of raw materials that move from millions of farms throughout the country to processing plants where value is added and then shipped to the tables of consumers throughout the world is remarkable.
This engine of productivity contributed $992 billion to U.S. gross domestic product in 2015, a 5.5-per cent share, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2016, 21.4 million full- or part-time jobs were related to the food and agriculture industry, 11 per cent of total U.S. employment. The G.D.P. and employment figures do not include food retail or food service, two sectors inextricably intertwined with the industry.
In Washington, in the halls of Congress and the White House, the voice of food and agriculture is muted. Part of the reason is the fragmentation of representation. At the producer level there is the American Farm Bureau Federation, an umbrella organization that represents all types of producers. Beyond the Farm Bureau are myriad organizations representing everything from corn, soy, wheat, dairy, sugar, beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, etc. Among the commodity organizations, each may be effective at advocating for the targeted needs of its members, but at the national policy level they lack standing.
What is needed is an entity that represents the totality of the food and agriculture supply chain. The breadth of the industry in the Unites States is significant and underappreciated.
An anecdote in a recent story from the news outlet Politico illustrates the issue. As the Trump administration moved toward imposing tariffs on China, a commodity organization requested a meeting with administration officials to outline what may happen in their market if China retaliates and the issue escalates into a trade war. This group was unable to deliver their message in person, because they could not get a meeting. Instead, they sent a letter.
The situation is little better on the food manufacturing side. The industry’s leading group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, is redefining itself in the wake of losing some of its largest members. Beyond the G.M.A. there is a multitude of groups representing all facets of the business.
What is needed is an entity that represents the totality of the food and agriculture supply chain. The breadth of the industry in the Unites States is significant and underappreciated.
National policy decisions emanating from Washington such as the pullout from the Trans Pacific Partnership or the recent plans for tariffs on steel imports may one day cause a serious disruption to the food supply chain. It is important those making such decisions hear a loud clear voice from the industry. At the moment, such a voice does not exist.