ENVIRONMENTALISTS MISS THE MARK ON FARM SUBSIDIES

Farm subsidies are a broad, easy-to-hit target. Last week a group calling itself Environmental Working Group issued a report saying that 1,400 U.S. Department of Agriculture employees and members of local committees that oversee federal farm programs in Missouri had received $91.7 million in payments over the past 10 years.

The implication of the report, based on the environmentalists' own study, was that federal farm subsidies are so riddled with abuses and underhandedness that they should be abolished outright. "It is a system seemingly designed to blur the distinctions between legitimate self-interest and worrisome conflict of interest," said the president of the organization, which is funded by a variety of environmental groups.

The question raised elsewhere on this page is simple and to the point: Why are environmentalists so keenly interested in farm subsidies? In his guest column, Peter C. Myers Sr. of Sikeston suggests that the environmentalists are looking for a bargaining chip as Congress takes a close look at both environmental and agricultural programs funded by the federal government.

Myers brings some fairly respectable credentials to the discussion. He is president of a land management company that does agricultural consulting and farm management with expertise in crops, livestock, environmental issues, finance, legislation, marketing and development. In addition, Myers was the No. 2 administrator in the USDA when he served as deputy secretary of agriculture during the Reagan administration.

Interestingly, Myers does not react to the report of the environmentalists by blindly defending farm subsidies. Like most conservatives who want less government involvement in all areas of our lives, not to mention less federal spending on seemingly endless programs, he favors a gradual elimination of federal farm subsidies. And, he suggests, if that happens the environmentalists would need to find a new wedge to use on the powerful farm presence in Washington.

But the real issue raised by the report is one of confidence and trustworthiness. In reality, the federal farm programs always have been administered by county committees made up of farmers and ranchers, the very individuals who know about crops in Pemiscot County or livestock in Bollinger County. They certainly have a familiarity with agriculture in those areas that bureaucrats -- and environmentalists -- in Washington could never grasp.

As a result of this process, farm programs have been administered under the scrutiny of neighbors and other farmers who aren't likely to favor shady handouts to USDA employees or other committee matters. The plain truth is that the employees and committees members in question are all farmers and ranchers and are entitled to the same subsidies and other federal assistance as any other farmer or rancher.

Keeping a reasonable perspective on news stories that result from reports like the one issued by the Environmental Working Group isn't always easy. Stories aren't always written in a way that offers reasonable balance. As a result, many newspapers including the Southeast Missourian ran the story on their front pages. The allegations of the environmentalists received a big splash, because the rebuttal from the USDA and farmers involved in the subsidy programs was near the end of the story.

In retrospect, it would have been better to have waited until the likes of Peter Myers and others close to the farm program's county committees had been given an opportunity to weigh in. But the environmental group knows what gets the attention of editors everywhere. This time they were highly successful.