Where
How Subsidies Scatter
Understanding agricultural subsidies in the US and the EU requires an evaluation of the differences between the two power-house’s policy structures.
The United States is a nation of 50 individual state governments consolidated under a larger federal government. Under federalism, states hold individual powers and liberties while the federal government is responsible for handling overarching aspects of governance like civil liberties, national infrastructure, and agricultural subsidies. When it comes to agriculture policy, the United States federal government has the ultimate power in deciding who gets what, where, and how. Factors used to evaluate subsidies include farm size, age, crop production type, and location. Once subsidy money is allocated in the United States, it is very difficult to take it away. Historically, very few states are favored in US subsidy policy. California, for example, is the 5th largest producer of food in the world but receives relatively low subsidies. (15) This may be due to how subsidies are distributed; certain crops are heavily subsidized (corn, wheat, soy, rice) while others are not. California is not a top producer of these crops therefore they receive low subsidy amounts that are not representative of their contribution to the nation's food supply. (8)
The EU is a bloc or political community of 27 nations created after two world wars ravaged the continent. The ranks of the EU have grown over the last two decades. The Union added 10 Eastern European member states (Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Malta, and Cyprus) to their ranks in 2004, nearly doubling the size of the Union. (38) The CAP evaluates each member state on their productivity, quality of output, workforce, and cost of production to determine where subsidies will be allocated. EU subsidy money is divided by hectare (ha) of agriculture (ie 6 EURO for a ha of cereal grain). As a result, larger farms get more support. (11) EU agricultural policy is highly effective in states like Germany and France but lacks policy specifics for economic and social factors in the Eastern Bloc. (13)
Poland, for example, produces over 10% of the food for the bloc. However, subsidies enacted in Poland have not differed greatly from those offered in Western Europe. (7) Poland boasts very high rates of food insecurity despite producing a bounty of food for the bloc. Successful policy formation requires the consideration of individual member state economy, culture, and history. This presents a complex policy problem for the European Union that is largely non-existent in the American context of subsidies. The maps below displays how subsidies are divided along the bloc/nation by state.
This map displays how the EU prioritizes their top producers. The countries in yellow are all large agriculture producers with large populations. Most of them trade widely inside and outside of the bloc. Additionally, it is important to consider that subsidies in the EU are divided depending on farm size; those farms with more hectares of land are given more subsidies. (7) Despite this, there are far more small farms that receive subsidies in the EU than in the United States. As previously stated, American agriculture industry is much more concentrated in large farms. (42)
Farming additionally remains concentrated to arable areas. The Midwest in the US and the coastal states in Europe possess particularly fertile soil. The US does possess more variable climate zones not present in Europe. (42)
The United States has much simpler policy implementation than the European Union. Not only are subsidies narrower in the US, (awarded to fewer farmers) the country also subsidizes a less diverse portfolio of crops. Over 70% of agricultural subsidies in the United States (3) flow into beige fields of corn, rice, wheat, and soybeans. This division hugely simplifies the subsidization process. (42) The model nurtures monoculture farms (or a one-crop farming structure) allowing the federal government to carve up subsidies into simplistic chunks. (12) Data for this graph comes from the Environmental Working Group a non-profit, non-partisan organization researching various public health problems and contributing to policy on Capitol Hill for over two decades. (13, 14)
As previously mentioned, policy in the United States also does not necessarily reflect the consideration of individual state production in allocating funds. While subsidies still line the pockets of farmers in the most productive states, outliers remain. For example, California (CA) is the nation’s breadbasket producing nearly 60% of the country’s food. (8,15) However, the state receives very low subsidies in comparison to its fellow top-producing states. Food insecurity is also prevalent in the state of California, particularly among the low-income communities involved in the harvest of the nation’s food. (17, 38, 42)
The European Union and the United States differ vastly when it comes to governance. Outside of government, the two also diverge in demographics, culture, and geography. Their resulting policies across the board (not just for agricultural subsidies) reflect these tremendous differences. In any comparison, it is important to address how differences influence present structures and future outcomes. To explore how these factors weigh into the question right now, visit the Who page.
Subsidy Hotspots
In both the US and the EU, subsidies are concentrated to certain states over others. The images below feature the states of Texas, Iowa, Germany, and Italy. Click on them to enlarge them. (3, 18, 39, 40)
 Texas Agriculture |  Iowa Agriculture |  Germany Agriculture |
|---|---|---|
 Italy Agriculture |
Production Hotspots
Production and subsidies share a link, however California is an exception to this link. As mentioned above, the state of California is vital to US food supply. France acts in the same way for the EU as California does for the United States. With massive agriculture sectors, both states feed millions of people. In the EU, France receives more subsidies than any other state ($11.5B). Yet it's twin, California has not experienced the same generosity from its government. The maps below show the state's subsidy funding compared to the rest of the country/bloc. (3, 8, 34)
 California Agriculture |  France Agriculture |
|---|
Tracing the Money
The graphs below display a collection of the top food producing states in the US (15a) and the EU (15b) based on their cash agricultural receipts. In simpler terms, the graph displays total sales of particular crops by top producers in the US and the EU. This data is included to display not only the difference between agriculture production in both areas but also what top producers in both areas of the world grow.
In the United States, certain crop sectors are concentrated to only a few of the top producers. For example, California and Texas are the only producers included in this data set that grow fruits and nuts. In the EU, all five top producers grow at least some top sector crops. The graphs also display vegetables are grown by all 5 EU top producers while only 2 of the US top 5 producers grow enough vegetables to make the graph. Also noted is the similarities between the states of California and France on the graph as top producers with similar total profits at the end of 2018.
Pressing the play button prompts the graph to show total sales in specific crop sectors. To observe the individual graphs, click across the bottom bar to reveal stand alone data by agricultural sector. For top producers in the US, agricultural sectors include food grains (wheat, soy, rice, etc.), feed crops (animal agriculture), oil crops, fruits and nuts, and vegetables. EU sectors include cereals (wheat, soy, rice, etc.), industrial crops (used for fibers/clothing), vegetables and melons, and fruits and nuts. For both the US and the EU, the graphs also display all other state agricultural outputs (crops that fall outside of the mentioned sectors) and state 2018 cash receipt totals. In evaluating the shapes of the graphs themselves, the EU's curve displays a more diverse portfolio across the board for their top producers. (3, 34-37)
Organics
Prioritization of Alternative Farming Methods
Steering away from which produce crops receive subsidies and examining crop production methods also displays the European Union’s futuristic vision for the CAP. Graph 5a below illustrates the number of active organic farms in the EU while graph 5b displays organic farms in the US.
The difference illustrated by these graphs can all be traced back to policy. The European Union has made a point of rebranding anything CAP related to be included under the umbrella “sustainable growth and natural resources.” The European Union’s dedication to organic farming is unsurprising considering this rebrand. Organic farming is so heavily incentivized (and subsidized) by the European Union, farmers join a 5 year wait list to convert their traditional farms to organic. Some organic farms in the European Union are subsidized. (41)
This is relevant to food security in the EU on a socio-economic level. Regular produce in European grocery stores is affordable for most people, but organic produce (better both for human health and the ecosystem) is still only accessible to certain socio-economic groups. While the poorest in society can afford regular produce, middle- and upper-class individuals have greater access to organic foods. As supply and demand shifts in the European Union to accommodate buying practices, desire for organic foods increases rendering the organic produce cheaper and therefore more accessible to low income groups. Subsidies should work to help keep the price of particular crops low and affordable. The EU and some of its member states have subsidy policies that work to incentivize organic farmers directly. As a result, these foods are available to low and middle income citizens in some member states such as Denmark, France, Germany, and Italy. (26, 42)(21, 26)