The Catholic community brings to our consideration of agricultural policies the teaching of our Church
and the everyday experience of our community of faith in rural communities in the United States and
abroad. In light of this teaching and experience, we reiterate the criteria for policies that shape our
advocacy:
Do these policies help to overcome hunger and poverty?
Do they provide a safe, affordable, and sustainable food supply?
Do they ensure a just and decent life for farmers and farmworkers?
Do they sustain and strengthen rural communities?
Do they protect God’s creation?
Do those affected by agricultural policies have a real opportunity to participate in their development?
Our criteria lead us to focus attention on several key policy areas. We realize that taking positions on
these issues involves prudential judgments and that people of good will may disagree about the application
of Catholic principles to specific policies. We hope our reflections will encourage widespread discussion
and dialogue on issues related to agriculture and their impact on human life, human dignity, and the
common good.
U.S. Farmers and Farm Policies
Catholic teaching about the dignity of work insists that farmers must be able to support themselves and
their families through their work. This means that they must be able to survive fluctuations in the market
and the risks associated with production. We recognize the great pain and stress experienced when a
family loses its farm, as so many have in recent years. Their loss is our loss.
Those who live and work in rural areas, especially those who have the fewest resources, depend on
small towns to make the transactions of daily life possible without the expense and inconvenience of
traveling long distances. For some rural communities to survive economically, there must be enough
farm families in the surrounding area to support local businesses. The suffering that accompanies the
loss of farms is paralleled by the pain of lost businesses and the struggles of small towns when
concentration of the agricultural sector leads to fewer and fewer small and moderate-sized farms.
We are concerned that the continuing concentration in the ownership of land and resources and in the
marketing and distribution of food leaves control in the hands of too few and diminishes effective
participation.
Policies and programs are needed that encourage rural development, promoting and maintaining the
culture and values of rural communities. These should include policies that encourage a wide range of
economic development strategies, especially by fostering the entrepreneurial spirit of rural people and
investing in their education and training. They also should include policies that promote and support
farming, support the efforts of farmers to establish co-ops and other cooperative ventures, and encourage
widespread diversity in farm ownership. Limited government resources for subsidies and other forms
of support should be targeted to small and moderate-sized farms, especially minority-owned farms, to
help them through difficult times caused by changes in global agricultural markets or weather patterns
that destroy crops. Agricultural subsidies often go to a few large producers, while smaller family farms
struggle to survive. Rather than simply rewarding production, which can lead to surpluses and falling
prices, government resources should reward environmentally sound and sustainable farming practices.
Because of rising land prices, the cost of sophisticated equipment, and the difficulty of making a living,
government resources are also needed to help new farmers and ranchers enter the field of agriculture.
Resources should be targeted towards research that helps smaller farms remain viable and promotes
environmentally sound agriculture. Programs that provide affordable insurance protection are essential
so that farm families can start again if crops fail. In the wholesale and retail sectors of the food supply
system, we favor policies that promote greater competition so that farmers can receive a fair price for
their goods.
U.S. Agricultural Workers
Farmworkers have been among the most visible concerns of our Conference. We renew the commitment
to lift up their situation and to work to improve their lives and those of their families. They are among
the most vulnerable and exploited people in our land. Their situation demands a response from people
of faith.
Agricultural workers are low wage earners. The seasonal nature of their work and the inadequacy of the
minimum wage keep most living in poverty. We affirm our support for an increase in the minimum wage
for all workers. In addition, the hourly pay of agricultural workers should be increased, and enforcement
mechanisms should be available to ensure that they receive just pay and benefits. These agricultural workers,
who work long hours during a seasonal period, should have overtime pay as a measure of justice. Payment
methods such as "piece rates" should not be used to prevent workers from earning a just wage.
A living wage for agricultural workers could help their families live a just and decent life, help to stabilize
the workforce, and stimulate rural communities without significantly impacting food prices domestically
and internationally. Since most benefits generally are not available to them as part of an employment
package, federal, state, and local laws should be amended to ensure that all workers are entitled to health
care, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and Social Security. In addition, agricultural
workers’ low wages and the scarcity of affordable housing in rural areas make it essential that funding for
housing be increased.
To participate fully in the community where they reside and work, farmworkers and their families need
access to services and mobility in those communities. We are encouraged by the enactment of laws in
several states, supported by many state Catholic conferences, that would provide to undocumented
immigrants access to in-state tuition rates and driver’s licenses.
Agricultural labor involves some of the most dangerous jobs in the United States, with workers exposed
to harsh working conditions, pesticides and other chemicals, and long hours of labor-intensive work.
Labor protections are currently inadequate; for those protections that do exist in law, enforcement is
random and ineffective. Labor protections for agricultural workers should be guaranteed in law, consistent
with protections for other workers in the country. The law must also be amended to allow workers to
challenge in civil court employers who do not provide sanitary and safe working conditions, who violate
wage and hour laws, or who use dangerous pesticides. Working conditions should be consistent with
appropriate federal standards. Agricultural workers should enjoy the same protections as other U.S.
workers, including the right to join together to have a voice in the workplace and bargain with their
employers.
In some cases, agricultural employers use labor contractors to hire workers with the intent of protecting
themselves from liability for hazardous and unjust working conditions. Enforcement of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Protection Act (AWPA)
should be strengthened to ensure that both employers and labor contractors are held responsible for the
treatment of workers. Nations should not seek a trade advantage by mistreating working people, including
agricultural workers.
We renew our call for a comprehensive legalization program that would permit hard-working undocumented
workers in agricultural industries to adjust their legal status to legal permanent residency. A legalization
program would help stabilize the workforce, protect migrant workers and their families from discrimination
and exploitation, and ensure that these workers are able to continue making contributions to society. It would
also give them the opportunity to enjoy the benefit of labor laws and protections and to better assert their labor
rights. We would support a legalization program that requires prospective employment in order to qualify
for permanent residency, provided that the work requirements are achievable and verifiable for all eligible
laborers.
We have been skeptical of large-scale "guestworker" programs, such as the Bracero program, which have
led to abuse and exploitation of workers. We recognize that, as an alternative to widespread undocumented
migration, a just and fair legal pathway must be established that protects the basic labor rights of foreign-born
workers. A temporary worker program must guarantee wage levels and benefits that are sufficient to support
a family, include worker protections and job and benefit portability that other U.S. workers have, and allow
for family unity. It also must protect domestic workers from job loss and grant workers the ability to move
easily and securely between the United States and their homelands. This kind of program requires strong
enforcement mechanisms to protect workers’ rights and to give them the option to become lawful permanent
residents after a specific amount of time. A comprehensive legalization program and a temporary or migrant
worker program that protects workers and gives them a path to residency would help reduce the number of
undocumented agricultural workers and ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity. Legalization of
current and future workers would also help reduce the incidence of smuggling and the deaths of migrant
workers. We welcome the ongoing efforts of representatives of farmworkers and agricultural employers
to seek common ground on these issues and to bring about legislation that positively impacts the lives of
farmworkers and their families. For decades we have encouraged workable alternatives to the unjust status
quo, which hurts both groups and diminishes us as a nation. We continue to oppose any program that lacks
adequate, effective, and enforceable protections for workers and fails to give them an opportunity for
permanent residency and an option for citizenship if they so choose.
International Trade, Aid and Development
Catholic teaching requires us to pay special attention to our brothers and sisters who are suffering in
extreme poverty around the world, many of whom live in rural areas. We seek measures that address
the needs and interests of small farm owners and farmworkers—both overseas and in the United States.
As a strategy for global poverty reduction, international trade with developed nations, if guided by
principles of justice, may do far more for poor countries than all foreign aid. While we support targeted
subsidies and other programs for small and moderate-sized farms in the United States (especially those
most at risk), we also recognize that greater access to local, regional, and international markets is
essential for agricultural development in poor countries. Current U.S. and European subsidies, supports,
tariffs, quotas, and other barriers that undermine market access for poorer countries should be substantially
reduced and should be focused on policies that minimize the direct and indirect effects on prices of
agricultural goods. The process of reducing these trade barriers will not be easy. It must take into account
the time needed for farmers and farmworkers in developed countries to adjust, while recognizing the need
to reduce the negative effects of agricultural trade barriers on struggling farmers in poor countries around
the world. Our goal should be to minimize harm to farmers caused by international trade policies. We
should assess all trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for
their impact on farmers and farmworkers.
We support the goal of free and equitable trade; however, the poorest countries need appropriate flexibility
to use protective measures to safeguard food security and achieve income stability for their farmers and
farmworkers. It is important that trade agreements give impoverished nations an opportunity to use
protections when necessary, including tariffs, subsidies, and other support mechanisms, to build their
agricultural sectors so that poor farmers can continue to produce and market staple food crops, can support
their families, and can sustain viable rural communities. The strength and success of the U.S. agricultural
system was achieved in part through policies that provided extensive support for U.S. farmers over the
years. We must find ways for the governments of the United States and other developed countries to
adopt trade policies that provide special access to their markets for farmers from the world’s most
desperately poor nations and to take steps to promote stable prices for agricultural goods. Initiatives for
fairer trade should be supported so that trade relationships benefit poor communities, minimize exploitation
through just remuneration, preserve local culture, and promote environmentally sustainable farming
practices. In some instances, developing countries, in trading agricultural goods among themselves,
could benefit from a mutual reduction in trade barriers.
To protect the health and well-being of all people, trade policies should provide consistent food safety
standards that are open to public review, are based on internationally accepted scientific criteria, and
are subject to a neutral dispute resolution process. This will ensure that all farmers are subject to the
same standards. To promote adoption of consistent standards throughout the world, developed nations
should provide technical and other assistance to poorer countries.
All people have a basic human right to a sufficient amount of safe food to sustain life. Food aid is an
essential response to people who do not have access to adequate food. We encourage more affluent
nations, including the United States, to generously respond to requests for food aid and to focus their
aid on meeting the needs of hungry people, as determined by the countries in need. Food aid should
not be a means for developed nations to dispose of surplus commodities, create new markets for
agricultural products, displace local food production, or distort world food prices. Food aid programs
should not foster dependency among recipient countries and should be designed in ways that advance
broader food security strategies for poor nations. Affluent nations and international institutions should
support and assist developing countries in creating strategies to ensure food security for their people.
The governments of developing nations have an obligation to do everything reasonably possible to
overcome hunger. This requires promoting agricultural development, curbing corruption, and ensuring
that food aid actually goes to the hungry. Sometimes, providing financial assistance to enable food aid
recipients to buy food in regional or international markets might be the best option.
The decision to accept food aid has been complicated by the development of new technologies that alter
the genetic make-up of some grains and other foods. Because some of the world’s developed nations
will not trade with countries whose goods are genetically altered, accepting genetically modified food aid
may jeopardize a poor country’s access to important markets. If genetically altered seeds from food aid are
accidentally planted, a country’s crops may become genetically altered and may no longer be accepted by
some trading partners. Donors should fully inform developing countries when food aid contains genetically
modified crops. We respect the right of sovereign nations to make decisions about accepting food aid based
on their assessment of the risks to health, the environment, and access to international markets. However,
when the threat of starvation places human lives at risk, and there are no feasible alternatives, food aid
must be made available to hungry people. In these situations, donors should make every effort to ensure
that local crops are not affected and local concerns are addressed by milling food-aid grains and other
measures.
In an increasingly globalized economy, multinational corporations provide farmers throughout the world
with seeds, credit, marketing support, transportation, food, and more. While global access to products
and technologies can bring important benefits, it also involves risks that control over these goods can
become concentrated in the hands of a few powerful corporations and that local control over farming
practices may be lost. The policies of governments and international institutions should promote fair
competition in the agricultural sector while protecting the interests of small farm owners.
Emerging Technologies
New agricultural technologies are being developed and used that promise to increase farm productivity,
cut costs, create hardier crops, reduce the need for pesticides, and enhance nutrition. Research into a
wide range of new agricultural technologies should be pursued, but with caution and prudence. Public
investments in research should be expanded, focusing on opportunities to help the world’s poorest
people and nations. For example, if new technologies make it possible to successfully grow crops on
marginal land and in adverse weather conditions in poor regions of the world, they could contribute
significantly to improved nutrition and economic security for the people of those regions. Developed
countries also need to assist developing countries in strengthening their capacity to monitor and regulate
genetically modified organisms on their own.
Looking beyond research to the actual use of new technologies, we see substantial fears and significant
polarization, especially about genetically modified products. Some support the use of genetically modified
foods, noting that they are consumed widely in the United States with no apparent negative impacts on
human health and the environment. Others believe there has not been enough time to conduct thorough
research on the long-term health and environmental effects. We join the Holy See in raising two key
concerns: the urgent need to focus new developments in agricultural technology on reducing poverty and
hunger, and the importance of ensuring open discussion and participation in decision making regarding
the development and use of genetically modified products. (Cf. Archbishop Renato R. Martino, Address
at the Ministerial Conference on Science and Technology in Agriculture, Sacramento, California,
June 23-25, 2003.)
With these priorities in mind, we believe that use of genetically altered products should proceed cautiously
with serious and urgent attention to their possible human, health, and environmental impacts. Even if
genetically modified foods are safe to consume, they can still pose environmental risks that must be
managed. Scientists in developed countries have emphasized the need to anticipate and manage the possible
effects of genetic modification on the environment. Developing countries may need financial and technical
assistance in building their capacity to monitor and address the environmental risk associated with genetic
engineering.
Debate about genetically modified food aid reflects two key moral questions: Who will decide about the use
and availability of these new technologies? And who will benefit from them? Some individuals and countries
seek to reject genetically modified goods. They have major concerns about health and environmental risks.
They also fear that other crops will be affected by genetically modified seeds, resulting in the loss of some
trading partners. We accept their right to assess the risks and to choose to reject these products as long as
lives are not put at risk.
Others are concerned that the benefits of new technologies and genetic engineering will not be made widely
available. They fear that farmers will become dependent on seeds patented by a few companies, which could
provide returns for investors at the expense of producers. Both public and private entities have an obligation
to use their property, including intellectual and scientific property, to promote the good of all people. To
ensure that the benefits of emerging technologies are widely shared, patents should be granted for the minimum
time and under the minimum conditions necessary to provide incentives for innovation. Agricultural products
and processes developed over time by indigenous people should not be patented by outsiders without consent
and fair compensation. To ensure that poor countries can take advantage of new technologies, strategies and
programs will be needed to help transfer these technologies affordably. The driving force in this debate should
not be profit or ideology, but how hunger can be overcome, how poor farmers can be assisted, and how
people participate in the debate and decisions.
 New Technologies, New Questions: What Are the Opportunities and Problems
in New Agricultural Technologies?
Scale. The United States accounts for approximately 66% of all the world’s genetically
engineered crops. In 2001, 66% of both cotton and soybean acreage planted in the United States
and 25% of corn acreage were genetically modified.1
Market. The ten largest agrochemical companies accounted for 82% of sales in 1996; six
agrochemical companies are the major producers of agricultural chemicals today.2
1 P. G. Pardey and N. M. Beintema, for International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Food
Policy Report, Slow Magic: Agricultural R&D: A Century After Mendel (October 2001), 19.
2 Andrew Burchette, "Family Tree," Farm Journal (February 2002).
|
Stewardship of Creation
Protecting God’s creation must be a central goal of agricultural policies. We support policies that promote
soil conservation, improve water quality, protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity. Government resources
should be targeted to farms and ranches that practice environmentally sound agriculture. We urge farmers
to minimize their use of pesticides and other chemicals and, where they are used, to take strong measures to
protect themselves, agricultural workers, and their families from exposure. Farmworkers who may be
exposed to these hazards need greater access to information to prevent and treat exposure. Government
policies and regulations should seek to reduce the use of toxic pesticides and promote safer alternatives.
When farmworkers or their families are injured or become ill due to exposure, adequate health care and
benefits should be made available.
Catholic teaching about the stewardship of creation leads us to question certain farming practices, such
as the operation of massive confined animal feeding operations. We believe that these operations should
be carefully regulated and monitored so that environmental risks are minimized and animals are treated
as creatures of God.
Another important concern is the practice of focusing large acreages on one crop or a few strains of a crop.
While economies of scale are associated with this practice, so are environmental risks. Unless managed
properly, this limited approach to production can lead to depletion of the soil and destruction of fertile lands.
This practice should be carefully assessed in light of its environmental impacts.
Final Note
Agriculture is not just another economic sector. It is about food and hunger, the way we treat those who
grow and harvest our food and fiber, and what kind of nation and world we are shaping. Agriculture and
rural life, farmers and farmworkers have been longstanding concerns for our Conference, but the forces
of increasing concentration in agriculture and increasing globalization in our world are raising new
questions that have significant human dimensions and ethical implications. We hope these reflections
will contribute to a broader dialogue about the moral dimensions of agriculture and to renewed efforts
to advance the dignity of farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers.