A Small Farmer vs The USDA – Who won?
Are some cases a loss for us all?
Welcome to Raw Milk Mama, a newsletter about food freedom, our food systems, and how to create local food security in our communities. As always, I appreciate any and all paid upgrades. I am a solo writer bringing you real, sometimes difficult, news from the front lines of our food system. Sign up here for weekly posts, or keep reading…
Once upon a time, in 1940, Roscoe Filburn, a dedicated, small farmer, outside Dayton, Ohio grew 23 acres of wheat.
Coming from a family of Western European immigrants, self-sufficiency was nothing new, it was a way of life.
Of that 23 acres of wheat, 11.9 acres was for Filburn’s own use–to make bread for his family, feed his livestock and keep for seed.
That mere 11.9 acres of wheat changed American governance and caused a shift in food security ideology…
What led to this?
Most of us living today, including me, have no concept of what it was like to live through the Great Depression. The depression uprooted families, changed how people lived, and caused an upheaval for most Americans. The pain was visceral. But perhaps the best comparison is the dramatic shift in our world in 2020 when the country shut down due to COVID restrictions.
Do you remember the fear?
The upheaval was serious.
People’s lives changed dramatically and rapidly.
There is a clear “before” and “after” line for many of us.
Perhaps a similar rapid and dramatic shift in mentality and ideology happened during the Great Depression.
Fear gripped the minds and hearts of Americans.
Farmers were desperate. Crop prices were at all time lows due to “overproduction.” They needed an immediate solution.
FDR’s 1933 New Deal promised that solution: its passage would bring back a sense of normalcy. It was going to solve “America's anxiety.”
Like most Americans 3 short years ago, those facing the consequences of the great depression likely did not care how or where their relief came from or what happened next.
Similar to the “Stimulus checks” of the Covid era, the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) which was part of the New Deal, got pushed through fast. 1
This provision specifically “offered farmers subsidies in exchange for limiting their production of certain crops. The subsidies were meant to limit overproduction so that crop prices could increase.” 2
In other words, farmers were subsidized to reduce the amount of grain they produced. But, just like the Covid lockdowns, it wasn’t optional. It was mandatory.
The reasoning was that farmers would grow less, thus triggering higher prices for grain in commerce and the economy would be reinvigorated.
Remember that many Americans were suffering greatly from the depression and wanted relief. Just like Americans in 2020-21 were eager for the temporary “relief” that the stimulus checks promised. (Whether or not there was truth to the relief is not the subject matter here. It is only that many Americans wanted it and believed this would help them.)
But, it wasn’t as simple as some hoped.
The AAA was challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law in January 1936. In 1938, a modified version became law.3
Farmer Roscoe knew about these new rules.
He grew the amount of wheat allocated to him to sell. And then he grew a little bit more for his family–including his livestock.
The 11.9 acres of “unallowed” grain he grew was materially insignificant.
Yet, he was fined for the wheat he grew for his family that never even left his farm.
He protested the fine claiming that he did not violate the Agricultural Adjustment Act because this wheat was for private use only. Again–and importantly, it never even left his farm. He sued Claude Wickard--USDA secretary--in Federal District Court claiming that the fine was unconstitutional.
The Federal District Court sided with Filburn.
However, the USDA appealed and FDR’s Supreme Court reversed that decision.
(Can you imagine the tension and the politics surrounding the case?)
“It held that Filburn’s excess wheat production for private use meant that he would not go to market to buy wheat for private use. While that impact may be trivial, if thousands of farmers acted like Filburn, then there would be a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress’ power to regulate is proper here, even though Filburn’s excess wheat production was intrastate and non-commercial.” 4
This court case changed the scope of how the US government regulates, increasing its powers dramatically.
It gave Congress the power to deal with the internal affairs of states whether or not they were in “interstate commerce.”
The ruling stated, in part:
"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. The same consideration might help in determining whether, in the absence of Congressional action, it would be permissible for the state to exert its power on the subject matter, even though, in so doing, it to some degree affected interstate commerce.
But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect'." 5
In other words…
“The juggernaut case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942) which, using the concept of “aggregation,” or “others similarly situated,” … laid a foundation for almost unlimited power of Congress in federalism under the Commerce Clause; it allowed Congress to regulate how much wheat a farmer could grow on his own land for his own use” 6
An ideology prevails
I am not a legal scholar.
I do not wish to immerse myself in the minutia of this case. Nor is that the point of this article.
It’s to explore the principle and ideology that made the law and this ruling possible–one that remains in place today.
That is, how do these ideas control how we perceive our individual relationship to our food system now?
At what point did humans living together in society decide that local food production and local food access–leading to basic food security–was not essential?
When did we collectively decide that food production was so burdensome that it could be relegated to a mere 1% of our population? (3.4 million farmers and workers in a country population of approx 330 million) 7
Ideologies shift. They sway as we humans learn and live; live and learn. In some ways, and too often in my opinion, we flow heavily towards dependence on others rather than understanding our true, interdependent nature.
But again, it is the underlying and controlling ideology that creates these shifts.
Pursuit of food access, through one’s own hard work and knowledge and relationship to the land, is a fundamental right of all humans through the span of time. It is the right of every squirrel, every worm, every deer, every ant–all wildlife roaming our lands, flying our skies and swimming our waters.
We can change our relationships to our food systems so we no longer want, need, or accept heavily centralized control.
But it takes responsibility. It takes hard work and a collaborative dedication to local production unlike anyone alive has ever seen.
It takes learning how to sacrifice some things we take for granted for better things we cannot yet imagine.
And it takes adhering to nature in ways that feel foreign to us now.
The challenge is real. Thus, many resist it. I believe the challenge to produce more of our own food locally with integrity to our land, soil, and community is the greatest privilege and responsibility of this and the next generation.
It is the calling that is beckoning us whether we know it yet or not.
Here are ways to get started today:
Creating Food Security
22 real ways to change the ideology of our food system:
$1-50 range
Buy seeds and plant them in your yard, a friend's yard, anywhere you have access to. Just start. Don’t worry about being perfect.
Support apps like SAGE that help people come together to grow food.
Buy locally produced food from a farmer near you (you have no idea how much that purchase means to them!)
Take a gardening workshop or class.
Donate to a local non profit that provides support to farmers.
Donate to the FOR FARMERS movement that provides private mini grants to farmers.
Get involved politically to change your state and local regs.
If you’re part of an HOA, work to change those policies to allow for chickens, goats, bees or whatever else you want to grow.
$50-300 range
Take a permaculture course and learn more about the ecosystem where you live and eat.
Host your next event at a local farm (you have no idea how much that means to them!)
Donate to or help build garden beds for a local urban farm/garden.
Learn about food forests and apply what you learn locally.
Start to stock your freezer by sourcing from a meat farm near you.
Buy a bunch of books about gardening and farming so that if our communication networks go down, you still have the information.
Purchase (or graft) 1 or more fruit or nut trees and plant them.
$300-1000 range
Help fund a local organization’s campaign to change state or local regulations around food production.
Support a case that has a chance of winning.
Invest in shared infrastructure or land with others who have the same goals.
Support legitimate small farms kickstarters.
Donate more appreciably to movements like “For Farmers” or other private grant opportunities for farmers.
Spend more of your budget locally.
Invest in a permaculture design for your land and learn how to create year-round, edible crops.
$1000+
Get creative!
About Raw Milk Mama: I believe that we can reclaim our food systems through direct action. But it takes your participation whether you’re growing food, processing, or willing to support those who are. And sometimes, it takes taking direct action or calling on your state or federal elected officials.
I’m dedicated to helping people understand our food system and how we each fit into it.
Some specific provisions of the AAA addressed crop prices and how the government managed some of the perceived surplus.
This article covers facts on the AAA
Commentary about the documents on the case
Quoted from the justices unanimous ruling on the case
Commentary on the case from an actual legal scholar
Statistics on how many farmers and farm workers are in the US