Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025

29. United States

Main findings

Support to agriculture

Producer support in the United States averaged 7% of gross farm receipts in 2022-24, well below the 20% of the mid-1980s and early 2000s, and below the OECD average. The share of potentially most-distorting transfers in all support was 10% in 2022-24, also below the OECD average. Sugar is the only major agricultural commodity receiving market price support in the form of border protections (including tariff rate quotas). Producer prices of most commodities align with border prices, and the value of budgetary transfers directed at specific commodities is usually less than 10% of their gross farm receipts.

Budgetary support focusses on risk-management, crop insurance, and more recently, emergency compensation payments. The counter-cyclical nature of budgetary support links it to market price developments. Domestic commodity prices have been strong in recent years, lowering overall support despite higher spending on compensation for market disruptions.

US domestic food-assistance programmes that support consumers account for nearly half of total US support to agriculture. Expenditures for general services (General Service Support Estimate, GSSE) was 12% of all support in 2022-24, equal to 2.9% of the value of production, with the largest component (31%) related to institutional infrastructure for crop insurance. Agricultural knowledge transfer and marketing and promotion are the next largest components. Total support to agriculture was 0.45% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Key recent policy changes

On 21 December 2024, the American Relief Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 118-158) was signed into law. Among other provisions, the act extended agricultural programmes authorised in the 2018 Farm Bill and provided USD 30.78 billion for disaster relief for the agricultural sector.

Several actions were taken to prevent and mitigate the impact of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, including expanding existing programmes to provide assistance for impacted producers, requiring mandatory testing for interstate movement of cattle, and launching of a National Milk Testing Strategy.

Assessment and recommendations

• Compensating farmers for the effects of market disruptions should be targeted, tailored and temporary, as policies to ensure stable and predictable export markets will be more effective at keeping the sector on a secure long-term footing.

• The recent focus on small farms is a welcome development. Successful targeting of small farms should be verified through monitoring and reporting of the distribution of support according to farm size.

• Sugar is the last major agricultural commodity receiving market price support. Reforming those parts of sugar policy that affect the distribution of domestic production could be a first step in improving domestic competitiveness, which could improve prospects for more open trade of sugar.

• Estimated total factor productivity (TFP) growth in agriculture has slowed down considerably. Low estimates of agricultural productivity growth have persisted over several years, making it less likely that these are data artifacts. Productivity growth is an important driver of economic and environmental performance of the sector. Targeted analysis and investment in those commodities where productivity growth is lagging can help boost this important measure of economic health.

• Increased uptake of conservation programmes in the context of higher funding as part of the Inflation Reduction Act showed significant latent demand for participation. Maintaining funding levels equal to demand for conservation programmes can improve policy performance.

Development of support to agriculture

Table 29.1. United States: Estimates of support to agriculture

Million USD

	1986-88	2000-02	2022-24	2022	2023	2024p
Total value of production (at farm gate)	143 469	193 454	505 284	532 266	488 791	494 795
of which: share of MPS commodities (%)	78.31	73.64	79.32	80.86	78.75	78.35
Total value of consumption (at farm gate)	124 148	164 683	419 097	441 050	400 701	415 540
Producer Support Estimate (PSE)	33 946	43 724	38 188	40 974	35 436	38 155
Support based on commodity output	13 724	19 648	2 747	2 595	2 607	3 040
Market price support¹	10 616	12 467	2 706	2 508	2 593	3 015
Positive market price support	10 737	12 467	2 706	2 508	2 593	3 015
Negative market price support	-121	0	0	0	0	0
Payments based on output	3 108	7 181	42	87	13	25
Payments based on input use	7 061	7 572	13 423	11 583	14 056	14 629
Based on variable input use	3 697	3 091	3 042	3 117	3 002	3 006
with input constraints	791	403	2 180	2 252	2 143	2 146
Based on fixed capital formation	1 233	361	3 600	2 109	4 340	4 350
with input constraints	1 233	358	3 194	1 838	3 923	3 821
Based on on-farm services	2 131	4 120	6 781	6 357	6 714	7 273
with input constraints	349	677	2 021	1 936	2 067	2 062
Payments based on current A/An/R/I, production required	12 231	5 655	18 358	22 414	16 488	16 172
Based on Receipts / Income	912	2 055	4 116	2 772	3 901	5 676
Based on Area planted / Animal numbers	11 319	3 600	14 242	19 642	12 587	10 496
With input constraints	2 565	1 571	14 241	19 641	12 587	10 496
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production required	0	0	108	324	0	0
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required	338	8 789	945	2 204	355	277
With variable payment rates	0	3 969	945	2 204	355	277
with commodity exceptions	0	3 969	945	2 204	355	277
With fixed payment rates	338	4 819	0	0	0	0
with commodity exceptions	0	4 819	0	0	0	0
Payments based on non-commodity criteria	592	2 061	2 607	1 854	1 931	4 037
Based on long-term resource retirement	592	2 050	1 894	1 842	1 920	1 921
Based on a specific non-commodity output	0	0	0	0	0	0
Based on other non-commodity criteria	0	11	713	12	11	2 116
Miscellaneous payments	0	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage PSE (%)	20.35	19.46	7.06	7.18	6.79	7.20
Producer NPC (coeff.)	1.10	1.11	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.01
Producer NAC (coeff.)	1.26	1.24	1.08	1.08	1.07	1.08
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)	3 108	6 164	14 469	13 451	13 909	16 046
Agricultural knowledge and innovation system	1 129	1 805	3 609	3 102	3 762	3 964
Inspection and control	372	685	1 463	1 391	1 492	1 507
Development and maintenance of infrastructure	13	461	4 512	5 002	3 868	4 667
Marketing and promotion	495	957	2 790	2 001	2 624	3 744
Cost of public stockholding	0	107	1	4	0	0
Miscellaneous	1 100	2 149	2 093	1 951	2 164	2 164
Percentage GSSE (% of TSE)	6.59	8.89	11.56	9.95	11.61	13.31
Consumer Support Estimate (CSE)	-1 314	5 191	66 842	75 334	64 957	60 236
Transfers to producers from consumers	-10 073	-12 173	-2 706	-2 508	-2 593	-3 015
Other transfers from consumers	-1 624	-2 061	-2 983	-2 875	-2 936	-3 137
Transfers to consumers from taxpayers	10 089	19 425	72 530	80 717	70 486	66 388
Excess feed cost	294	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage CSE (%)	-1.15	3.57	19.29	20.91	19.67	17.25
Consumer NPC (coeff.)	1.10	1.09	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.02
Consumer NAC (coeff.)	1.01	0.97	0.84	0.83	0.84	0.85
Total Support Estimate (TSE)	47 143	69 314	125 187	135 142	119 831	120 589
Transfers from consumers	11 697	14 234	5 688	5 384	5 529	6 152
Transfers from taxpayers	37 071	57 141	122 482	132 634	117 238	117 574
Budget revenues	-1 624	-2 061	-2 983	-2 875	-2 936	-3 137
Percentage TSE (% of GDP)	0.96	0.65	0.45	0.52	0.43	0.41
Total Budgetary Support Estimate (TBSE)	36 528	56 847	122 482	132 634	117 238	117 574
Percentage TBSE (% of GDP)	0.75	0.54	0.44	0.51	0.42	0.40
GDP deflator (1986-88 = 100)	100	139	228	221	229	235
Exchange rate (national currency per USD)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

Note: p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient. A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income. 1. Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost. MPS commodities for the United States are: wheat, maize, barley, sorghum, alfalfa, cotton, rice, soybean, sugar, milk, beef and veal, sheep meat, wool, pig meat, poultry and eggs.

Source: OECD (2025), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Policy landscape

Main policy instruments

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) provides the basic legislation governing farm programmes for 2019 to 2023 (most provisions of this legislation have since been extended to cover through 2025). The 12 titles of the 2018 Farm Bill authorise policies for commodity programmes, conservation on agricultural land, agricultural trade promotion, international food aid, nutrition programmes, farm credit, rural development, agricultural research, forestry, energy, horticulture and organic agriculture, and crop insurance. About 75% of budgetary spending under the 2018 Farm Bill is for programmes in the Nutrition title – primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – with farm programmes accounting for most of the remainder. Of the farm programmes, crop insurance is the largest at around 9% of total expenditures, followed by commodities and conservation at 7% each.

The primary crop commodity programmes under the 2018 Farm Bill include programmes that make payments to producers with historical base acres1 of covered commodities (including wheat, feed grains, rice, oilseeds, peanuts, pulses and seed cotton) when prices fall below minimums set out in the legislation or when crop revenue is low relative to recent levels. Producers are not required to produce the covered commodity to receive payments on their historical base. Price Loss Coverage (PLC), a counter-cyclical price programme, makes a payment when market prices for covered crops fall below effective reference prices.2 Agriculture Risk Coverage-County (ARC-CO),3 a revenue-based programme, makes a payment when actual revenue at the county level falls below rolling average benchmark revenues. For both programmes, payments are made on 85% of base acres. Producers select their programme participation in either ARC or PLC on a commodity-by-commodity basis each year.

The crop insurance programme offers subsidised crop insurance coverage to producers who purchase a policy to protect against losses in yield, crop revenue, or whole farm revenue. In addition, the Supplementary Coverage Option (SCO) and Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) offer area-based insurance coverage, SCO in combination with traditional crop insurance policies and STAX for upland cotton producers.

Marketing assistance loans are available for producers of 23 eligible commodities (including wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice, oilseeds, pulses, wool, mohair and honey). These loans provide cash flow at harvest when prices are typically lower, allowing farmers to delay sales until market conditions improve. These are non-recourse loans that can be repaid at market prices when those fall below the loan rate, although market prices for most commodities have been above loan rates in recent years.

For dairy producers, the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programme offers risk management coverage when the margin between a nationally defined milk price and the average feed cost falls below a producer-elected level. Producers may participate in both DMC and dairy livestock insurance programmes.

Sugar is supported by a tariff rate quota (TRQ), together with provisions for non-recourse loans (which are not eligible for the repayment provisions discussed above) and marketing allotments. TRQs are in place for dairy, beef and some other products. However, US agricultural tariffs are generally low, at 4.5% on average in 2021.

Federal agri-environmental programmes focus on land retirement, easements restricting land use options and measures to encourage crop and livestock producers to adopt practices that reduce environmental pressures on working land (cropland and grazing land in production). Working land programmes include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Land retirement and easement programmes include the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) offers options for regional or watershed-based conservation efforts that may combine land retirement, easements, and working lands programmes. Production of ethanol and other biofuels is supported mainly in the form of mandated blending for fuel use, and loan and grant programmes. Eligibility for most federal commodity programmes, including crop insurance, is subject to recipients having established an individual farm-based conservation plan to protect highly erodible cropland and wetlands.

Other farm programmes include direct and guaranteed loans (including microloans) for farmland purchase and for operating credit, designed to assist producers who face difficulty obtaining credit in the private market. Farm Bill programmes also support public agricultural research and technical assistance, including programmes targeted to specialty crops; organic production; pest and disease prevention; the promotion of sustainable farming practices; and standing disaster programmes for livestock, forage, and trees, bushes and vines to help producers cope with production, financial and physical losses related to or caused by natural disasters.

Policies for trade and sustainability in agro-food markets

The USA-Chile FTA contains an annex on the improvement of agricultural practices (in application since 2004). To help reduce pollution from agricultural practices in Chile, the countries agreed to adapt and implement a training programme for Chilean farmers and other workers to promote appropriate handling of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and to promote sustainable agriculture practices. The countries will work jointly to modify existing training programmes to fit Chilean agricultural practices and customs.4

Imported biofuels made from agricultural biomass must achieve a minimum reduction in calculated emissions (20% less GHG emissions for bioethanol and 50% for biodiesel). These regulations aim to reduce GHG emissions from the transport and energy sectors by setting mandatory targets for renewable fuels. These environmental criteria for imported biofuels are part of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program

The United States has developed nine farm-level tools and one sector-level tool that can be used to measure the carbon footprint of agricultural commodities. These cover major traded commodities and could help inform trading partners of the carbon footprint of imports. Farm-level tools include the COMET tool, which is available for cropland, pasture, rangeland, orchards and more; the BeefGEM and DairyGEM models for beef and dairy; the Integrated Farm system Model (IFSM) and the Conservation Evaluation and Monitoring Activity (CEMA) for crop and animal production; CRP soil carbon monitoring for conservation land covers; and the USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (FD-CIC) for biofuel feedstocks. The Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Viewer operates at the sector level and covers crops, livestock and forestry.

Recent policy developments

Domestic policy developments in 2024-25

Farmer-focussed policies

The regulations for the Dairy Margin Coverage Program were revised in February 2024. Notably, this allowed eligible operations with production history of less than 5 million pounds (2 268 tonnes) to make a one-time update to their production history according to a prescribed formula for 2019 marketings to better reflect current production (production history was previously based on the highest observed value of 2011, 2012, or 2013 marketings).

The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) was expanded in July 2024 to provide financial assistance to eligible dairy producers who incurred milk losses due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 infection in dairy herds. H5N1 infection in dairy herds can cause losses both from the removal of symptomatic cattle from commercial milk production and from reduced production after an infected animal recovers from the disease. Cattle must meet certain eligibility conditions to qualify for this assistance, including being part of a dairy herd that had a confirmed positive H5N1 test.

A second round of payments for participants in the Emergency Livestock Relief Program 2022 (ELRP 2022) was announced in October 2024. ELRP 2022 was initially launched in 2023 to provide payments to producers who faced increased supplemental feed costs as a result of forage losses due to a qualifying drought or wildfire in calendar year 2022, using data already submitted through the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). Payments under the second round of ELRP 2022 were equivalent to 2022 LFP payments multiplied by a payment factor of 7.25%.

In December 2024, the American Relief Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 118-158) was signed into law. Among its provisions, the act appropriated USD 30.78 billion in assistance for agricultural losses incurred in calendar years 2023 and 2024. Of this total, USD 2 billion was earmarked for assistance to livestock producers for losses due to drought, wildfires, or floods.

In August 2024, USDA, FSA amended the Farm Loan Program (FLP) regulations, including to implement a new Distressed Borrower Set-Aside (DBSA) Program. The DBSA programme provides a new loan servicing option for financially distressed borrowers that allows for the deferral of one annual loan instalment at a reduced interest rate. FSA also amended the FLP regulations to revise loan making and servicing to improve programme access and delivery.

The Federal Crop Insurance Program in was updated in 2024 to include expanding coverage for certain specialty crops and other insurance products and raising premium support for all crops covered by the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) from 44% to 65% beginning with the 2025 crop year.

In August 2024, a new Water-Saving Commodities (WSC) programme with a budget of USD 400 million was announced. WSC will offer non-competitive grants to help irrigation districts and producers build long term drought resilience by supporting agricultural commodity production while reducing water losses in places experiencing impacts from drought. This funding is expected to conserve up to 50 000 acre-feet in water use across 250 000 acres of irrigated land in production.

The Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops Program was launched in December 2024 to provide up to USD 2 billion in support to eligible specialty crop producers to expand domestic markets through outreach, marketing, and investments in packaging, storage, transportation equipment and supplies necessary to protect perishable specialty crops. Eligible crops under the programme include fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, nursery crops, Christmas trees, floriculture, culinary and medicinal herbs and spices, honey, hops, maple sap, tea, turfgrass, and grass seed.

USDA undertook several actions to prevent the spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in livestock. In April 2024, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Order requiring mandatory testing for interstate movement of dairy cattle, after USDA confirmed that HPAI H5N1 had been detected in 33 dairy cattle in 8 states. Following on from the Federal Order, in May 2024, USDA’s APHIS launched a voluntary H5N1 Dairy Herd Status Pilot Program, which provided alternative testing and movement options to the Federal Order to increase USDA’s monitoring capabilities. On 6 December 2024, USDA, APHIS issued a new Federal Order requiring that raw (unpasteurised) milk samples nationwide be collected and shared with USDA for testing, and launched a National Milk Testing Strategy to facilitate improved surveillance of the Nation’s milk supply.

Consumer-focussed policies

In April 2024, USDA published a rule finalising long-term school nutrition requirements. Among its provisions, this rule:

• gradually phases in limits on added sugars in breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavoured milk (by July 2025) and overall weekly limits on added sugars (by July 2027) for the school lunch and school breakfast programmes

• implements lower limits on sodium in the school lunch and breakfast programmes by July 2027

• includes an expansion of the geographic preference option, which permits child nutrition programme operators to use “locally grown”, “locally raised,” or “locally caught” as a specification when procuring unprocessed agricultural products.

The rule takes effect during the 2024-25 school year, though most major changes are phased-in over time.

In April 2024, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) published a new rule revising the regulations for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food packages to align them with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The changes will provide participants with a wider variety of foods to support healthy dietary patterns and allow WIC state agencies more flexibility to tailor the food packages. WIC state agencies will have two years to implement these changes.

The suite of SUN Programmes (USDA’s Summer Nutrition Programs for Kids) was launched in May 2024 to help improve nutrition security during the summer months when school meal programmes are not accessible. These included:

• The new SUN Bucks programme (the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer, or Summer EBT programme) provides households with a grocery benefit of USD 120 per eligible school-aged child during the summer, with the value adjusted annually for inflation.

• SUN Meals (the rebranded summer nutrition programme first launched in 1968) offers free meals and snacks to all children aged 18 and under at schools, parks, and other eligible locations.

• SUN Meals To-Go, first offered in 2023, offers meals for pickup or delivery in some rural communities where SUN Meals are not available.

In March 2024, the USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a final rule amending its regulations to define the conditions under which meat, poultry, and egg products may bear voluntary labelling claims indicating a product is of United States origin. The final rule allows the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” claim to be applied only to those FSIS-regulated products that are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The final rule also allows producers the flexibility to make other types of voluntary US-origin claims if they are truthful and not misleading and comply with labelling requirements. Establishments voluntarily using a claim subject to the final rule will need to comply with the new requirements by 1 January 2026.

The 2024 Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance Program (ODMAP 2024) was launched in September. ODMAP 2024 provides a one-time payment to eligible organic dairy operations (including those that produce milk from cows, goats, or sheep) to assist with projected 2024 marketing costs, similar to the programme announced in 2023. USDA has made available USD 58 million from CCC funds for the programme.

A new Organic Dairy Product Promotion Program was announced in October 2024. The programme makes available USD 15 million in funding for projects that aim to increase domestic consumption of organic dairy products to children and young adults and diversify dairy products offered at learning institutions and other youth and young adult focused programme sites.

In May 2024, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published its final determination declaring Salmonella to be an adulterant in raw breaded stuffed chicken products when Salmonella levels surpass one colony forming unit per gram of product. Under this new rule, FSIS will sample and test raw chicken components and prevent chicken that tests positive for Salmonella from being used in final raw breaded stuffed chicken products.

In June 2024 the Food Safety Certification for Specialty Crops Program (FSCSC) for 2024 and 2025 was launched. Similar to FSCSC for 2022 and 2023, the programme will cover a percentage of the specialty crop operation’s cost of obtaining or renewing their certification, as well as a percentage of their related expenses. Eligible expenses include those related to developing a food safety plan, maintaining or updating an existing food safety plan, food safety certification, certification upload fees, microbiological testing, and training expenses.

In June, USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jointly published the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics. The strategy includes four overarching objectives (prevent food loss, prevent food waste, increase the recycling rate for organic waste, and support policies that incentivise and encourage the prevention of food loss and waste and organics recycling) and highlights actions that each agency can take to achieve those goals.

Trade policy developments in 2024-25

In June 2024, the United States and Chile exchanged letters to confirm mutual understanding of market access to Chile for several US cheese and meat products. The agreement ensures that current and future US exporters of certain cheeses and meats will continue to be able to use terms such as cheddar, gouda, provolone, prosciutto, and salami in marketing their products in Chile. The letters will also be treated as part of the US-Chile Free Trade Agreement, including for purposes of dispute settlement.

In May 2024, the new Assisting Specialty Crop Exports (ASCE) initiative was announced. ASCE will fund projects to address non-tariff barriers that hinder US exports of fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, horticultural crops and related products, using USD 65 million in funding set aside from the USD 1.2 billion Regional Agricultural Promotion Program (RAPP) launched in 2023. Projects under the initiative will target cross-cutting issues for specialty crop exports, including addressing the implications of new and forthcoming regulations; helping US exporters identify potential export markets and better understand the mechanics of exporting; assisting US exporters with navigating foreign standards, certifications, and import requirements; and helping importing countries adopt international standards and harmonise import regulations in order to facilitate trade.

In December 2024, a dispute panel convened in August 2023 under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) sided with the United States on all seven claims in its dispute with Mexico challenging certain Mexican biotechnology measures concerning genetically engineered (GE) corn. The panel concluded that Mexico’s measures were not based on science and undermined the market access that had been agreed to under USMCA. Under the provisions of USMCA, Mexico has 45 days from the date of the final ruling to comply with the decision. The dispute challenged two sets of measures outlined in Mexico’s February 2023 presidential corn decree: 1) an immediate ban on the use of GE corn in dough and tortillas, and 2) an instruction for Mexican government agencies to gradually eliminate the use of GE corn for other food uses and in animal feed.

Policy context

Key economic and agricultural statistics

The United States is the second-largest agricultural trader globally and a leading producer of grains, soybeans, livestock, and dairy. Primary agriculture accounts for a small part of the economy – around 1% of GDP and 1.4% of employment – but agro-food accounts for almost 11% of total exports (Table 29.2). The US agricultural sector benefits from a large domestic consumer market, as well as abundant arable and pasture land and diverse climatic conditions that support the production of a wide range of commodities. Key industries include grains (maize and wheat), oilseeds (soybeans), cotton, cattle, dairy, poultry and fruits and vegetables.

Table 29.2. United States: Contextual indicators

	United States		International comparison
	2000*	2023*	2000*	2023*
Economic context			Share in total of all countries
GDP (billion USD in PPPs)	10 251	27 721	25.5%	18.0%
Population (million)	282	335	6.6%	6.3%
Land area (thousand km2)	9 162	9 147	11.2%	11.1%
Agricultural area (AA) (thousand ha)	414 399	412 413	13.8%	14.2%
			All countries1
Population density (inhabitants/km2)	31	37	52	64
GDP per capita (USD in PPPs)	36 300	82 697	9 368	29 013
Trade as % of GDP	9.4	8.8	12.3	14.9
Agriculture in the economy			All countries1
Agriculture in GDP (%)	1.2	1.0	2.9	3.5
Agriculture share in employment (%)	1.8	1.4	-	-
Agro-food exports (% of total exports)	7.8	10.2	6.4	8.1
Agro-food imports (% of total imports)	3.5	6.3	5.8	7.3
Characteristics of the agricultural sector			All countries1
Crop in total agricultural production (%)	55.8	51.4	-	-
Livestock in total agricultural production (%)	44.2	48.6	-	-
Share of arable land in AA (%)	42.3	36.8	31.8	33.3

Note: *or closest available year.

1. Average of all countries covered in this report.

Sources: OECD statistical databases; International Labour Organisation (ILO); UN Comtrade; World Bank, WDI; FAO database and national data.

The US economy has continued to expand at a solid pace, pushing up wages and drawing people into the labour market (Figure 29.4). Price pressures have somewhat eased, but services inflation remains elevated (OECD, 2024[1]).

US agricultural exports and imports increased significantly over the last 25 years (Figure 29.5A). The US agricultural trade balance was positive for nearly 60 years until 2019, when it shifted to a deficit. Imports exceeded exports by USD 21 billion in 2023. In the last decade exports grew at 1% annually – hindered by competition, a strong dollar, and trade barriers – while imports rose 6% during that time. Import growth has been driven by a strong US economy, favourable exchange rates, and rising consumer demand. Export value declined in 2023 mainly due to lower prices of export products, though some commodities like cotton, beef and sorghum saw lower volumes. The leading US agricultural exports are grains and feeds, soybeans, livestock products, tree nuts, fruits, vegetables, and other horticultural products. The leading US imports are horticultural and tropical products. Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and East Asia are major US trade partners.5

The commodities with the highest export share (whose export shares account for 40% or more of their total market value) include fruits and tree nuts, oilseeds, and food grains such as rice and wheat. The United States exports a balanced mix of processed and primary products. Primary products include food grains such as rice and wheat, oilseeds, and tree nuts such as almonds. The United States processed product exports include sweeteners, bakery products, and dairy products (Figure 29.5B). The US share of agricultural consumption sourced from imports tends to be higher for processed and higher-value agricultural product groups. Sweeteners, and processed sugar, and confections are groups of products where the United States is reliant on imports. Fruits, nuts, and vegetables are also frequently imported. The United States tends to have a lower reliance on imports for unprocessed commodities such as feed grains, livestock, and oilseeds. 

TFP growth has been a robust driver of productivity increases in the modern era, averaging 1.5% per year since 1948, a rate that was maintained through the 1991-2000 decade. However, TFP growth has slowed and is now slightly negative in the most recently estimated period of 2012-21 (Table 29.3). The slowdown may stem from agriculture-specific factors, such as stagnating levels of public research and development expenditure. It may also be influenced by broader factors, such as slowing technological progress in other domains and a general tendency for innovation to get harder. However, slowing progress in agriculture may simply be following a slowdown in innovation across the wider non-farm economy (Clancy, 2023[2]). Growth in primary factors (land, labour, capital) and other farm inputs has kept output growth positive, at about 0.6% over the last decade (Figure 29.6).

The US environmental situation is largely similar to the OECD as a whole, as measured by main environmental indicators (Table 29.3). Nutrient balances of nitrogen and phosphorus have improved since 2000, with phosphorus now nearly in balance. Water stress is reducing as well, though some regions are vulnerable to shortages. Conversely, agricultural GHG emissions reductions have lagged that of the overall economy, resulting in the agriculture share of emissions increasing from 7.7% of the total in 2000 to 9.4% in 2022.

Table 29.3. United States: Productivity and environmental indicators

	United States		International comparison
	1991-2000	2013-2022	1991-2000	2013-2022
			World
TFP annual growth rate (%)	1.5%	-0.2%	1.7%	0.8%
			OECD average
Environmental indicators	2000*	2023*	2000*	2023*
Nitrogen balance, kg/ha	34.4	29.0	32.0	29.7
Phosphorus balance, kg/ha	2.8	2.0	3.3	2.5
Agriculture share of total energy use (%)	0.9	1.3	1.7	2.0
Agriculture share of GHG emissions (%)	7.7	9.4	8.7	10.1
Share of irrigated land in AA (%)	5.3	5.3	-	-
Share of agriculture in water abstractions (%)	39.7	45.6	47.0	49.5
Water stress indicator	19.5	15.6	8.7	..

Note: * or closest available year.

Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Productivity database; OECD statistical databases; FAO database and national data.

Historical trends in agricultural policies

The US Congress passes legislation that sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy, commonly referred to as the “Farm Bill”. The Farm Bill is an omnibus bill that is renewed on a regular basis, about every five years. Since 1933, the United States has passed 18 farm bills, the most recent being the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018.

Historically, the commodity support component of Farm Bills focused on stabilising and boosting farm income to aid economic recovery and development during the Depression and post-war eras through price and income support for a specified set of commodities, including but not limited to corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, dairy, and sugar (OECD, 2011[3]). Over time, Farm Bills expanded in scope: the 1973 Farm Bill first included a nutrition title while subsequent farm bills added titles on policy areas such as agricultural trade, farm credit, rural development and crop insurance. The 1985 Farm Bill added conservation provisions; the 1990 Farm Bill, organic agriculture; the 1996 Farm Bill, agricultural research; the 2002 Farm Bill, bioenergy; and the 2008 Farm Bill, horticulture and local food systems (Congressional Research Service, 2019[4]).

Agricultural policy reform in the United States has been characterised by a significant shift towards less production- and trade-distorting forms of support. Commodity programmes originally supported farm incomes through a combination of taxpayer-funded production payments and supply management in the form of acreage limits and commodity storage programmes. The Food Security Act of 1985 introduced changes that moved farmers towards more market orientation by reducing price supports in favour of direct payments, introducing greater planting flexibility and giving more attention to export opportunities for US farm products (OECD, 2011[3]).

Reforms continued with subsequent Farm Bills. The 1996 Farm Bill6 re-designed income support programmes by replacing target prices, price-based deficiency payments and acreage controls with historically based direct payments independent of current production. A series of ad hoc emergency top-up payments supplemented the historically based payments implemented under the 1996 Farm Bill to provide additional assistance in the face of low commodity prices. These ad hoc payments were institutionalised under the 2002 Farm Bill7 as counter-cyclical payments linked to the historically based direct payments, and continued under the 2008 Farm Bill8 (OECD, 2011[3]). The 2014 Farm Bill ended these direct and counter-cyclical payments but continued direct income support based on historical production with programmes triggering payments based on either reference prices or revenue benchmarks. It also ended the dairy price support programme, replacing it with a premium-based milk-to-feed margin protection programme. The 2018 Farm Bill continued these programmes with only small adjustments (Table 29.4).

The largest of the farm programmes in the Farm Bill, the Federal Crop Insurance Programme (FCIP), was established in the 1930s to cover yield losses from most natural causes.9 The programme’s current form was authorised by the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980 and modified by subsequent Farm Bills and other legislation. The 1980 Act introduced federal premium subsidies and brought in private insurance companies (Approved Insurance Providers, or AIPs) to deliver crop insurance policies. The catastrophic (CAT) coverage level was created in 1994, under which 100% of the premium is subsidised and producers pay a fee for coverage of yield loss greater than 50% at 55% of the base commodity price.10 The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 expanded the geographic availability of insurance, increased premium subsidy levels, and removed restrictions on livestock insurance products.

Table 29.4. United States: Agricultural policy trends

Period	Framework	Changes in agricultural policies
1980	Federal Crop Insurance Act of 19801	Introduced federal premium subsidies for crop insurance (30% at the 65% coverage level) Created a public-private partnership with private insurance companies (Approved Insurance Providers), which became responsible for delivering crop insurance policies
1985	Food Security Act of 1985	Established marketing loans for cotton and rice, removing market price support element of cotton and rice commodity loans Set up the Export Enhancement Programme and the Dairy Export Incentive Programme. Established the Conservation Reserve Programme (CRP) Established conservation cross-compliance requirements (highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions)
1990	Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990	Introduced 15% “normal flex acres” and 10% “optional flex acres” Extended marketing loan provisions to oilseeds in 1991, and to wheat and feed grains in 1993 Allowed oilseeds and alternative crops to be planted on land in a 0/85-92 programme without loss of payments.
1994	Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 19941	Catastrophic (CAT) crop insurance coverage level created Increased premium subsidies for higher coverage levels (buy-up coverage)
1996	Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996	Replaced crop deficiency payments and target prices with fixed direct payments decoupled from current prices and production levels to be reduced over time Eliminated most planting restrictions Extended marketing loan provisions to most other covered crops and created alternative direct Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP) Phased-out the dairy support price (although interim legislation modified this provision) Consolidated cost share and technical assistance programmes for crop and livestock producers into the Environmental Quality Incentives Programme (EQIP) Extended CRP authorisation and capped enrolment Lifted conservation cross-compliance requirements for crop insurance participation
2000	Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 20001	Expanded the geographic availability of crop insurance, increased premium subsidy levels, and removed restrictions on development of livestock insurance products
2002	Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002	Annually decreasing Production Flexibility Contract payments replaced by fixed Direct Payments programme Created the Counter-Cyclical Payments programme triggering supplemental direct income support payments when prices fell below targets Added soybeans and peanuts as covered commodities under the fixed Direct Payment and Counter-Cyclical Payments programme Increased payments for environmental conservation and protection Eliminated peanut price support quota system, buying out peanut quota rights
2008	Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008	Retained Direct Payment, Counter-Cyclical Payment and Marketing Assistance Loan programmes Created the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) as a revenue-based alternative to the Counter-Cyclical Payment programme Changed the dairy price support programme basis from milk price to prices of dairy products Increased marketing assistance loan rates and Counter-Cyclical Payment programme target prices for a number of programme crops and sugar Introduced a permanent disaster assistance programme (Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance) to end the need for ad hoc programmes Significantly increased funding for domestic food assistance programmes Ended the Export Enhancement Programme
2014	Agricultural Act of 2014	Repealed Direct Payment, Counter-Cyclical Payment, and ACRE programmes; created the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), which used the historical payment base established for the repealed programmes Added new crop insurance options: Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for upland cotton; Expanded the Noninsured Crop Assistance Programme (NAP) to allow for higher premium-based coverage Re-established conservation cross-compliance requirement to receive crop insurance premium subsidies Expanded programmes for specialty crops, organic farmers, bioenergy, rural development, and beginning farmers and ranchers, continuing orientation to technical assistance, research, and development loans.
2018	Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018	Continued 2014 Farm Bill programmes with only minor changes, with some additions to programmes for specialty crops, organic farmers, local and regional markets, and beginning, military veteran and minority farmers. Extended to 2024.

Average producer support has declined as emergency payments (related to COVID-19, drought, and supply chain issues) continue to be phased out. Support now approaches historical lows and the overall pattern and level of support is stable. In 2024, most budgetary support was based on payments that require production and were based on either area planted or animal numbers, including the Federal Crop Insurance Program and certain disaster programmes. Sugar is the only commodity with MPS (Figure 29.7).

References

[2] Clancy, M. (2023), “Is technological progress in US agriculture slowing?”, in Artificial Intelligence in Science: Challenges, Opportunities and the Future of Research, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8d820bd-en.

[4] Congressional Research Service (2019), What is the Farm Bill?, CRS Report RS22131, Congressional Research Service, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22131.

[1] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdfff156-en.

[3] OECD (2011), Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the United States, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096721-en.

Notes

← 1.  Base acres are a farm’s crop-specific historical acreage of 22 eligible covered commodities (including wheat, feed grains, seed cotton, rice, oilseeds, pulse crops or peanuts) for purposes of participation in the ARC and PLC commodity programmes. Base acres are not linked to current plantings.

← 2.  The effective reference price is the greater of the statutory reference price or 85% of the average of the Market Year Average (MYA) price from the preceding 5 years, excluding the highest and lowest prices, capped at 115% of the statutory reference price. This method of calculating the payment rates allows the effective reference price to be greater than the statutory reference price if historic average prices are greater than the statutory reference price.

← 3.  ARC has an additional variation – Agriculture Risk Coverage – Individual (ARC-IC) – which instead is based on farm level revenues per acre. Under this variation, ARC must be selected for all covered commodities on the farm. In addition, payments under ARC-IC are calculated based on the yields of the farm and are made only on 65% of base acres. Participation in ARC-IC has historically been small, never exceeding 5% of base acres.

← 4.  See https://www.state.gov/united-states-chile-fta-environmental-chapter/.

← 5.  See https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/.

← 6.  Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127).

← 7.  Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171).

← 8.  Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246).

← 9.  Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281).

← 10.  Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (“2008 Farm Bill”) continued the 100% premium subsidy for CAT but increased CAT fees from USD 50 to USD 300/crop/county.