How might agriculture fare in the new world order?

' /> Arugula-friendly farm policy? | Beef Today

Sep 22, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin

Out to Pasture

RSS By: Steve Cornett, Beef Today

Read the latest blog from Steve Cornett.

Arugula-friendly farm policy?

Oct 13, 2008
    By Steve Cornett

             The New York Times devoted its Sunday magazine yesterday to food issues. It’s the same old stuff about how bad “agribusiness” is, what with force feeding Americans cheap, fast food, like we were just so many foie gras geese.
             The main theme might be summed up in Michael Pollan’s long list of policy suggestions, all based on his overriding belief that “when we eat from the industrial food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.”
             There’s nothing new here. It’s the same old stuff about avoiding fast foods and “mass produced food” and “eating local” and avoiding “animal factory” meats. This approach to food has never really gained traction outside the arugula crowd because A)Most of us like fast food; B) Most of us are too busy or lazy to spend hours each week shopping for local products one carrot at a time and C) even if we want to, most Americans cannot afford—or, more accurately, don’t choose to pay for—a New York Times diet.
               Left to our own devices, we Americans will keep choosing what we choose now. The question is whether we will be left to our own devices.
The difference this time is that it looks like the leftier side of the Democratic party—Reid, Pelosi and Obama—may be in unbridled charge the next few years—and they may not like the way we choose to eat. They may decide a bit of health food gabage is in order.
One would presume the mental perambulations of folks at the Times will get more serious consideration than they have in the recent past.
The truth is that if you consider the typical American diet to be a “problem” then Michael Pollan has it right. The reason we have “too much” “too cheap” food is the design of farm programs.
Farm policy has, since the 30’s, been based on attempting to assure that an average farmer in an average year would receive enough profit to stay in business. Which is to say that if you are below average, you don’t get that profit. If you’re above average you get enough profit to expand.
That safety net has reduced the need for farmers to manage risk through generalization. Instead, producers of the subsidized crops have become specialists, and the predictable result is that grain farmers have evolved into incredibly efficient producers
As they abandoned their grandparents’ orchards, chicken coops and feedpens to concentrate on corn and cotton, other incredibly efficient specialists emerged.
That, fundamentally, is the way it happened. On that, I can agree with Pollan and the New York Times thinkers.
Where I think we might diverge sharply would be in what we do about it. I’m not sure I can envision a painless way of getting from where we are to where they want to go. However, I can envision a way to get there with only “the rich” farmers feeling the pain—and so can Mr. Pollan. It involves a lot more farmers on a lot smaller farms. It involves a backdoor approach to what, in other countries, would be called “land reform.”
Again, none of this mattered yesterday. But in the wake of this financial meltdown I suspect we are going to redefine the American economic system in the next few years—and I wonder, given the nature of the powers-to-be, how many of the fundamentals we’ve grown up with will be there when that is finished.
               So you guys should go to and spend some serious time thinking about what the New York Times thinks. Their thoughts may be a lot more pertinent to your business in the future.
Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS (4 Comments)

Which is why we need to limit the regulations that prevent farmers from selling their food directly. Pollan posterboy Joel Salatin just broke one million in sales doing just that. And he buys nothing but chicken feed.
1:25 PM Dec 29th
As a Midwest transplant living on the East Coast, I understand your frustration with big-city writers when it comes to ag policy. What I don't understand is why you resorted to simple name-calling when you could have used your space for rebuttal of his arguments? You see, while you belittle his view, you've reinforced mine--you are way out of touch with today's consumer. And regarding the "arugula-crowd", you are absolutely right when you say, "Their thoughts may be a lot more pertinent to your business in the future."
And the profits by those producers able to provide 'locally-grown' fruits and vegetables to increased consumer demand will see that consumer dollor going directly to their farm right here in the good, old USA, not some foreign-owned food service company.
6:07 PM Oct 13th

Receive the latest news, information and commentary customized for you. Sign up to receive Beef Today's Cattle Drive today!. Interested in the latest prices for cattle in your area? See highlights of the latest for-sale cattle in the Cattle-Exchange eNewsletter.

Hot Links & Cool Tools


facebook twitter youtube View More>>
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions