Why I’d Rather Be a Team Big Dissident, Than a Team Small Cheerleader (On making positive changes.)
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/30/why-id-rather-be-a-team-big-dissident-than-a-team-small-cheerleader/"...
Which goes to the discomfort I very quickly began to feel almost as soon as I started to identify myself with the Food Movement. I am greatly inspired by a lot of the animating spirit of the movement. I’m an environmentalist. I’m naturally inclined to root for the small guy. I’m critical of capitalism. I think the Standard American Diet is a national disgrace. All of that means that I want to see big improvements in our environmental impacts and big improvements in diet related health outcomes, especially for low income citizens. I don’t just want to read stories about cool projects that people are doing. I want to see significant improvements in CDC numbers on diabetes, heart disease and low income life expectancy.
As much as farmer’s markets, CSAs, and co-op stores appeal to me, they can’t achieve the scale of changes that I want to see. To me reforming our food system means improving industrial agriculture, not trying to replace it. I’m interested in what a left/progressive response to the major issues in industrial ag looks like. How are our labor laws failing farm workers? Which best practices need to be better integrated into current systems? How can we extend school lunch reform into every cafeteria? What are the proper regulatory responses to antibiotics in meat production, water pollution from agricultural sources, soil erosion, greenhouse gases? We live in an industrial society, with the population largely centered in cities. Just as we don’t expect our phones, or cars, or sneakers, or medicine to be locally made by small producers, we can’t expect our food to come from those kinds of producers in way that approaches the scale that we consume.
On issues like healthcare and energy, liberals and progressives quite clearly see reform as meaning setting standards for the industry as well as encouraging scalable new approaches that can have major impacts. No one is proposing replacing our healthcare system with a ragtag network of scrappy community clinics. Healthcare reform means reforming the healthcare industry, not de-industrializing it. Why wouldn’t we approach the food system the same way? Where the Food Movement is pushing for evidence based regulatory reform, I’m there, all the way. Where they are pushing for improvements in school lunches at the local and federal level, I’m there. Where the Food Movement stands with farm workers and fast food workers for better pay and working conditions, I’m with them.
But, I also see a lot of projects and attention given to projects that can only amount to becoming rounding errors. In fact, it sometimes seems like antagonism towards scalablity is the price of admission. Farmer’s markets are great cultural assets for a community, the can be smart place making and economic development moves for local governments. But in a country of 314 million people, in a 15.6 trillion dollar economy, they will always be a rounding error in the food system. I’m more interested in seeing supermarket chains that serve the triple bottom line."
A great little piece in response to the content of a rather good book. This conversation point could be pushed into every area. It's an important conversation to have, IMO.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'll try to respond to your points, but, obviously not completely. If you're up for it, it might be fun to go back and forth on these points, thoughtfully, working to keep things constructive. If I remember correctly, you're a constructive person, and I'm going to work to be the same way.
1. The problems with capitalism are the same across all areas of the planet. However, the products these companies have developed have increased yield, saved some fruits that wouldn't even be in existence otherwise, reduced pesticide use, and improved the incomes of poor farmers. I see those as positive outcomes.
2. What other ways can we feed the planet, without causing more deforestation or increasing food costs?
3. How can you accomplish three without increasing food costs, reducing incomes, and increasing food insecurity?
4. This seems like a repeat of what you wrote in number one. What is your definition of "industrial" agriculture, and what would be bette?
5. Did you read the piece in the OP? Co-ops and community gardens are nice, but there is no way they're going to feed the planet. Most farms are still family owned.
Thanks for the discussion.
your # 4: the definition of "industrial," and what would be better.
I've had to sort through a whole host of things; some of them are more emotional triggers.
So...industrial:
When I hear, or read, that word, the first things that come to mind are factories, producing more for cheaper through mechanization. Along with that, I see this:
You know; the industrialist making money off of cheap labor.
When it comes to agriculture, "industrial" farming triggers thoughts of large scale, mechanized farms using lots of machines, chemicals, some that are harmful to the biosphere and to the people consuming the food, and, again, cheap labor.
And at the top of that combined pile is Monsanto, who wants to own patents to the world's food supply.
I have a hard time separating the concepts of "industrial" and "factory," and, in my lifetime, I've experienced first hand over and over that the bigger a system gets, the further away from the people and the more dysfunctional it tends to be. The more local and "grass roots" the control, the healthier and more productive. That's just my experience, and it's in public education, not agriculture.
On the animal side of food production, I find factory farms to be horrific, and while I'm a meat eater, I think we ought to treat our food with respect. I'd rather we all eat less meat, produced more humanely. I live rurally. I know the difference between an egg my hens laid and a store-bought carton, in freshness and flavor. I know the difference between a home-raised turkey and one of the frankenbirds from industrial turkey production; one of those birds that can no longer reproduce naturally, and if not killed young to become someone's large-breasted thanksgiving dinner, would not be able to actually WALK through a natural life.
And, I would like to see "family farms" be a single farm to a single family, not a wal-mart style family with multiple farms. I'd like to see those family farms be self-sustaining, not dependent on pricey equipment and patented seeds and methods that depend on industrial technology.
I'd like to see people's diets change; to see them eat more fresh things, less meat, and much less processed food. Fresh food that is locally sourced whenever possible. That's stepping down a related path, of course, but everything is connected.
More fresh, less processed, less meat...in order to make sure that small farms could make a living, without depending on cheap migrant labor paid sub-standard wages, the price of food might need to go up. That's an issue, since the planet has close to 7 billion people to feed; an issue that is directly related.
That's too many damned people to sustain. But we'll leave off the population politics for another discussion, another time.
I'd like to see more people, most people, closer to the production of the food they eat. I'd like to see them participate. And yes, that might mean community gardens, co-ops, roof-top and balcony gardens, and whatever else we can dream up. I'd also like to see diets change. But, while we're still trying to feed a massive population, if "industrial" agriculture is necessary, I'd like it to be structured in this way:
"Industrial" farms should be government owned non-profits, and/or non-profit corporations. They should be strictly regulated, sustainable, and should pay workers a living wage. They should feed their local region. Those strict regulations should cover environmental and ethical concerns. There should be no genetically engineered foods.
Anyway, that's what I've got for now.
