Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to support and incentivize domestic activities to address fertilizer shortages and deficiencies, diversify fertilizer sources, and reduce dependency on foreign sources for fertilizer, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Agriculture to support and incentivize domestic activities to address fertilizer shortages and deficiencies, diversify fertilizer sources, and reduce dependency on foreign sources for fertilizer, including by increasing the availability of innovative fertilizer and fertilizer alternatives.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: people relying on agriculture and food systems globally
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The global agricultural sector could be impacted due to changes in the US fertilizer market.
- Farmers who currently rely on imported fertilizers may benefit from increased local availability and diversity in fertilizers.
- Agricultural industry workers might be impacted by changes in fertilizer sourcing and production.
- Consumers might be indirectly affected due to changes in agricultural productivity and food prices.
- Innovative fertilizer companies and businesses focusing on alternative fertilizers will likely see a positive impact.
- Countries that currently export fertilizers to the US might see a decrease in demand.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at American farmers and the agricultural industry, which includes a broad range of people such as farm workers, agricultural scientists, food production managers, and more. This means the direct impact will be on those directly working within the agricultural sector, especially those dealing with fertilizers, crops, and soil management.
- Farmers who rely on imported fertilizers may experience the most noticeable change, as increased domestic production could mean lower costs and more availability of different fertilizer options.
- The impact on consumers is indirect and likely minimal in terms of their personal wellbeing scores, as changes in food prices might not be instantaneous or significant for everyone.
- Innovators in the fertilizer industry might see an increase in demand, which would likely boost their business prospects and thus their personal and business-related wellbeing.
- The commonness scores are varied to reflect the prevalence of these roles in the broader US population.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a good move. We've been dependent on foreign fertilizers for too long. Local production could save costs and provide reliability.
- It might take some time to see the real benefits, but I'm hopeful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Agricultural Scientist (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a game-changer for innovations in the field of fertilizers. We could see real growth and development.
- I look forward to the increased funding and interest in what we do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retail Manager - Agricultural Supplies (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We definitely need more stability in our fertilizer supply; local options could make a difference.
- There's a risk to my business if we don't enhance domestic production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by the policy, but it's interesting to see agriculture getting this kind of attention.
- Maybe some of my clients will benefit if they're involved in agriculture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Soybean Processor (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our yields depend on fertilizer quality, which this policy could improve.
- Export prospects might improve with better local fertilizer options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Consumer Advocate (North Carolina)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy leads to stable food prices, it will be a win for consumers.
- I hope it doesn't result in price hikes due to initial implementation costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small-Scale Organic Farmer (Montana)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the focus on alternatives and innovative fertilizers, but I hope it doesn't push small sustainable farms aside.
- There could be benefits if alternative fertilizers become more accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Agricultural Worker (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps ensure stable fertilizer supply, it might mean more stable work hours for me.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about what it could mean for job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Researcher - Agronomy (Nebraska)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly supports what I research. It's crucial we diversify fertilizer sources.
- I believe it can advance our agricultural capabilities significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Owner - Fertilizer Production Company (Kansas)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Great to see policy support for domestic fertilizer production. This is a chance for us to expand our market.
- We might see increased demand for our products during the policy implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Year 3: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Initial costs would need to account for establishing new infrastructure and technology for fertilizer production.
- Long-term savings are uncertain and depend on shifting market dynamics and global fertilizer prices.
- Potential trade repercussions, as erecting barriers to imported fertilizers may provoke retaliatory measures.