Interviews
Criticisms of cotton farm programs unwarranted
11 Jul '08
3 min read
Criticisms of U.S. cotton farm programs are unwarranted. The truth: U.S. farm programs have operated as designed, supporting farmers' incomes in times of low prices while allowing them to react to market signals.
A report that dispels myths about U.S. farm law support to America's cotton farmers can be found on the National Cotton Council's website.
A key misconception among the general press is that the 2002 U.S. cotton program drove world cotton prices down hurting some cotton-producing developing countries while U.S. cotton production and exports increased. Not true.
Independent studies by Texas Tech University, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund found very low price impacts from the presence of the U.S. cotton program 1 to 3 percent.
In fact, Council economists point to world cotton prices that generally increased over the life of the 2002 farm law. At the same time, the U.S. share of world cotton production has remained stable and even declined in recent years.
Another myth is that the cotton program led to a rise in U.S. cotton exports. Not so. Exports have increased in response to U.S. textile manufacturers' steady decline in cotton use as a result of Asian competition.
U.S. cotton fiber that was once being spun in U.S. textile mills is now being spun in Asian textile mills as the U.S. textile sector continues to shrink.
Even though some U.S. cotton fiber found a new home in Asian spinning mills, the United States still consumes more cotton apparel and textile products than it produces cotton fiber, with cotton product consumption exceeding fiber production by 4 million bales in 2007.
Critics also contend that the U.S. cotton program does not allow America's cotton farmers to respond to market signals and plant other crops.
“The reality is that U.S. farmers responded to expected market prices in recent years by planting more cotton when cotton prices looked more attractive than competing crops and less cotton when cotton looked less attractive,” said Dr. Gary Adams, the Council's vice president of Economics & Policy Analysis.
“U.S. farm programs have operated as designed, supporting farmers' incomes in times of low prices while allowing them to react to market signals.”
Another falsehood is that the U.S. cotton program is causing economic injury to West African cotton producers. Even when cotton prices are rising, as they have been for several years, those countries' producers receive only a small portion of the world cotton price as a result of internal production and marketing problems and as a result of the link between West African currency and the Euro.
“Strength in the West Africa currency has negated all price improvement since 2002,” Adams said, “and, unfortunately, those countries' yields are not keeping pace with those in other developing countries that produce cotton.”
A report that dispels myths about U.S. farm law support to America's cotton farmers can be found on the National Cotton Council's website.
A key misconception among the general press is that the 2002 U.S. cotton program drove world cotton prices down hurting some cotton-producing developing countries while U.S. cotton production and exports increased. Not true.
Independent studies by Texas Tech University, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund found very low price impacts from the presence of the U.S. cotton program 1 to 3 percent.
In fact, Council economists point to world cotton prices that generally increased over the life of the 2002 farm law. At the same time, the U.S. share of world cotton production has remained stable and even declined in recent years.
Another myth is that the cotton program led to a rise in U.S. cotton exports. Not so. Exports have increased in response to U.S. textile manufacturers' steady decline in cotton use as a result of Asian competition.
U.S. cotton fiber that was once being spun in U.S. textile mills is now being spun in Asian textile mills as the U.S. textile sector continues to shrink.
Even though some U.S. cotton fiber found a new home in Asian spinning mills, the United States still consumes more cotton apparel and textile products than it produces cotton fiber, with cotton product consumption exceeding fiber production by 4 million bales in 2007.
Critics also contend that the U.S. cotton program does not allow America's cotton farmers to respond to market signals and plant other crops.
“The reality is that U.S. farmers responded to expected market prices in recent years by planting more cotton when cotton prices looked more attractive than competing crops and less cotton when cotton looked less attractive,” said Dr. Gary Adams, the Council's vice president of Economics & Policy Analysis.
“U.S. farm programs have operated as designed, supporting farmers' incomes in times of low prices while allowing them to react to market signals.”
Another falsehood is that the U.S. cotton program is causing economic injury to West African cotton producers. Even when cotton prices are rising, as they have been for several years, those countries' producers receive only a small portion of the world cotton price as a result of internal production and marketing problems and as a result of the link between West African currency and the Euro.
“Strength in the West Africa currency has negated all price improvement since 2002,” Adams said, “and, unfortunately, those countries' yields are not keeping pace with those in other developing countries that produce cotton.”
Popular News
Leave your Comments
Yohan Lawrence
Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAFSL)
Therese Premler-Andersson
Textile Machinery Association of Sweden (TMAS)
Esteemed Clients
-Ltd..jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Thermore (Far East) Ltd.")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSllC Ltd)")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Taiwan Textile Federation (TTF)")
