2

Popcorn subsidy up for debate in Farm Bill

An amendment in the current Farm Bill would keep government protection for popcorn crops.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

David Brancaccio: In Washington this week the Senate has been working on what's called the Farm Bill. A spending plan that, aimed, in part, at helping the nation's farmers. But as with any big legislation, there's a lot in there.

Marketplace's Eve Troeh reports on one of the lesser known subsidies up for debate.


Eve Troeh: To you it's the sound of popcorn, but to some, like Senator John McCain, it's the sound of pork. The current Farm Bill would keep government protection for popcorn crops. Popcorn is a tiny kernel in the big bowl of U.S. agriculture, but without the subsidy:

Larry Bruyer: What will happen is Farmer Jones will say, well, instead of raising popcorn on this 200 acre field, I'll just raise field corn.

Larry Bruyer at Schlessman Seeds has sold popcorn to farmers for 40 years. He says field corn is just easier. That's the stuff used for corn syrup, corn oil, or animal feed. And field corn is covered by government crop insurance.

If popcorn doesn't get that same insurance, there's no reason to risk growing it, says Ohio farmer Rick Fruth.

Rick Fruth: It's going to make it more difficult for companies to convince farmers to grow popcorn. The consumers will pay.

He says popcorn companies already had trouble signing on farmers this year. No popcorn subsidy could mean paying even more for that buttery tub at the movies.

I'm Eve Troeh, for Marketplace.

About the author

Eve Troeh is a reporter on Marketplace’s Sustainability Desk, filing features and breaking stories on how sustainability issues impact business and the economy.
jrking123's picture
jrking123 - Jun 15, 2012

Wait a minute - gov (IE taxpayer (IE hopefully, you and me)) support for a crop that has no nutritional value and could even be considered unhealthy? While NYC bans big drinks. Gov has no business being involved in either situation. Let the market price everything and while we're talking markets, let the health insurance market give me a discount for making the choice to skip both the soda AND the popcorn.

DR's picture
DR - Jun 15, 2012

"The consumers will pay. ... No popcorn subsidy could mean paying even more for that buttery tub at the movies."
Really? So, is having the taxpayers subsidize the product better than having the consumers pay the cost of what they consume?