TThe worst food system disruption since the pandemic was not a natural disaster: In October, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) was temporarily suspended through November due to government shutdown
More than 40 million people food had to be rationed, meals skipped, and sacrifices made that we might associate with the Great Depression rather than 21st century America. Churches, community groups and neighbors took action. They tested single moms juggling multiple jobs, single elderly friends, people with disabilities and large families with children too young for school lunches. And although food stamps were reinstated, Trump administration Now threatening to withdraw Snap funds from Democratic-led states.
During the quarantine and ongoing uncertainty, many people in search of food have turned to local farmers, expecting them to provide them with fresh produce, meat, milk and eggs. Their logic was simple: farmers grow food and take care of society. Shouldn't they help us? But small farmers and local food advocates say it's anything but simple.
Frederick Griffin of Evans, Georgia, Ebony Tree Farms said, “In times of natural disasters or crises like the Snap shutdown, it's natural for people to look to small farms for stability. We work close to the land, we know the families we serve, and our work is woven into the fabric of the community.”
“What many don't see,” he continued, “is that small farms feel the shock of the crisis as quickly as households. Sales channels dry up, costs continue, and the margin for error disappears almost overnight. Distributing food without a clear structure is not only unsustainable. It can jeopardize the farms that people rely on.”
In the immediate panic caused by what I call the “Snap Ocalypse,” many advocates sounded the alarm about what would happen to those millions of Americans who receive food assistance from the government through the U.S. Treasury Department. Agriculture (USDA), which operates Snap.
But what few of us know or consider is that many of these USDA programs are structured in ways that hinder the profitability and survival of small farmers.
Alesha Gonzalez of La Huerta de Alesha Farm in Hephzibah, Georgia, put it into context: “We feel the pressure. [small family] farms will not survive until 2026.” Small family farms like Gonzalez's are mostly family-owned and generate gross farm cash income (GCFI) of less than $350,000 annually, according to the study. USDA definition. Data for 2022 suggests that between half and 79% of these farms are at serious financial risk..
Why? Small farmers say the system automatically puts them at a disadvantage. USDA has established subsidy and assistance programs for large-scale GFCI operations of $1 million or more. The vast majority of subsidies are tied to the production of five major cash crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice) and are paid based on area and volume, primarily benefiting industrial agriculture. “Politics and low profits are working against us… If you have a small farm, you're basically cut off,” Gonzalez said.
USDA Projections for 2024-2025 Quantify this structural disparity in funding: The USDA has allocated an average of $40 billion in direct payments and emergency grants, primarily benefiting large factory farms. This is in stark contrast to the US$33.5 million in competitive grants offered to small farmers.
Oriana J. Bolden of Sierra Saffron Herb & Herb Co. in Grass Valley, California, stressed that recent changes have exacerbated resource shortages and increased instability for small farmers.
“I want people to know that small farms have been impacted by cuts to USDA programs earlier this year. This is due both to the end of grants that went directly to farmers and the loss of community and food programs for low-income people who bought food from small farms,” Bolden said.
Bolden meant recently canceled Local meals for schools (LFS) and Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) programs, which have provided more than $1 billion to schools and other institutions to purchase from local farmers. The loss of these programs means small farmers are losing a significant portion of their income, making it even more difficult for them to survive in an already challenging industry.
She added: “The end of so-called 'DEI' programs that support women, bipocs, gays and young farmers doesn't level the playing field; it mostly benefits massive, mostly white, for-profit operations. And now even these guys are all over the media crying about their mega-soybean farms and beef ranches.”
Small farmers are not just food producers; they also make a significant contribution to the local economy. USDA and Farmers Market Coalition Research show that selling through local channels allows producers to retain a greater share of food dollars, supports local job creation, and positively impacts state economies.
When farmers don't sell equipment, they don't just lose potential income. They also spent money on renting market stalls, seeds, soil improvement, water and the time needed to grow and process food. Without federal subsidies, small farmers often pay costs out of pocket.
While direct sales outlets such as farmers' markets, on-farm markets (farm stands), and community supported agriculture (CSAs, produce or box subscriptions) account for less than 1% (about 0.5%) of all Snap dollars redeemed, the impact is significant for small producers. “People don't realize how many farmers rely on direct sales and how much of that income comes from Snap. For me, about 50% of my sales are Snap purchases,” Gonzalez said.
And there are even fewer places to turn to for advice on how to navigate this new normal. In July USDA ends Regional Food Business Center programa vital support network for small agricultural businesses.
The crisis of the U.S. food system and USDA's preference for large-scale farming require policy changes to restore the agency's original commitment to family-owned enterprises, thwarted by its post-1970s pursuit of profitable industrial scale. Funding inequities, illustrated by USDA investments in local farms of only about $1 for every $1,054 invested in factory farms, must be corrected. The most important steps are permanent funding for local food purchasing (such as the discontinued LFS and LFPA programs) and aggressive expansion of Snap incentive models (such as Fresh for Less in Georgia and Healthy Bucks in South Carolina) that encourage small farmers to sell to the program and its recipients. Farming businesses get a boost and people get food.
The political debate over “free food”—often centered around Snap and who “deserves” the benefits and who pays for them—ignores a fundamental reality: someone always pays. For large corporations, costs are covered by federal subsidies. For the smallest producers, this is a personal financial risk.
The irony is that the Snap-ocalypse began on October 24, the same day the United Nations celebrated its 80th anniversary and renewed its focus on its sustainable development goals, including ending hunger by 2030. Meanwhile, the USDA, which runs the food safety net for the world's richest country, continues to widen the holes in that very net. And the most vulnerable consumers and producers are slipping through the cracks.
