Next Generation of Family Farmers— Part 2
By Cooking Up a StoryAcross the national landscape, family farmers have been for decades a declining breed. The national average age of farmers is 57, and climbing. Fertile land is diminishing. Purchasing affordable farmland for new farmers poses severe challenges. Listening to Michael Pollan, perhaps the closest this country has to a patron saint of food, during a recent Fresh Air interview, he reminds us of our earlier history where modern agricultural policy began, and its main intent.
President Richard Nixon, responding in the early 1970′s to a spike in food prices, ordered his new agricultural secretary, Earl Butz, to develop a federal plan to drive down food prices, and to avoid future price shocks. And so it began, through the instrument of the existing Federal Farm Bill, farmers were encouraged to overproduce certain commodity crops, rice, corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton, at the expense of other food crops. This insured not only lower food prices, it also led to the consolidation of the farming industry; it simply was much more profitable to become a larger farmer. Feedlots began as wheat and corn prices fell, animals could now be cheaply fed and housed in super sized pens, without the need for grass pastures, further promoting cheaper prices through increased economies of scale.
And so today, we find ourselves struggling to address a host of serious and interrelated problems threatening not only the future of the family farmer, but also posing increasing threat to our environment, public health, animal welfare, soil fertility, and climate change—all a natural consequence from Nixon’s desire to drive down food prices to the maximum extent possible.
In part two of this series, the farmers and eaters that have gathered to discuss ways of supporting local family farmers in Oregon, their plight, and the eventual solutions, extend well beyond the borders of any given State.
Tags: animal welfare, chronic diet related illness, climate change, family farmers, farming, Growing & Raising Food, infarmation and beer, Local Food Economy, oregon farmers, richard nixon, rising food prices, sustainable agriculture
Share
Digg
Bookmark
Stumble
Miro
3 Comments
Actually, Michael Pollan has it terribly wrong. Agricultural policy began in earnest with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This, of course, was in response to both the Depression and the Dust Bowl. The “industrialization” as it is termed here began not with a reliance on fossil fuels, but in a severe lack of labor due to WWII (actually, it began before that, but the pace was greatly accelerated by the war). At the end of the war, most of that labor returned not to the farm, but tract homes and factory jobs. The reliance on mechanization and chemicals is due in part to ever-increasing demand for food (higher prices), higher prices for labor (opportunity cost driven by higher paying jobs in the city), and yes, to some degree, by farm programs that support farm income when prices drop.
Mr. Pollan has a particular political agenda relating “farm policy” to “obesity” which has been shown scientifically to be a tenuous link at best (I could go into technical details about the income elasticity of demand for food, but that is just too wonkish). Because of the high labor requirements in organic farming, it is not economically sustainable in industrialized countries on a large scale (yes, there is a market for it and it brings a premium, but its not there yet for most people). I would suggest that everyone take a second look at commercial agriculture. Most data now suggest that agriculture’s impact as measured by its carbon footprint has declined substantially in the last 10 years (some crops more than others, of course). Organic is part of the solution, for sure, but it is not THE solution.
TC, you raise a good point. Doesn’t Obama have more serious matters on his plate than dealing with farmers, and the farming industry?
I think the answer may be counter-intuitive, at least on the surface. Even more significant a problem than the economy (though not as urgent, but closing in fast) is the climate change problem. Industrial agriculture relies heavily upon the use of fossil fuels, and puts more greenhouses gases into the atmosphere than the entire transportation sector.
I’m one of those (there are many others out there) that believe we have to tackle our problems, not one at a time as they come to us in crisis stage, but together, requiring an integrated solution. Fixing the economy (at this stage, do we even have a clue how to do that? ) won’t happen, if we don’t tackle the farming issues, that are also entwined with our use (and dependence) on fossil fuels.
Climate change, clean energy independence, food security, and protecting our farmlands and family farmers, in a way, are all members of one interrelated family.
Oh, and let’s not forget healthcare that impacts public health. Our typical diet (those low cost meals you mentioned) greatly effect our health!
We all have to eat, that’s a fact. But right now, I wonder if the economy is first and foremost in people’s minds. In order to buy food, fast food or slow food, one has to have money, i.e., a job. I might be going out on a limb, but I’m guessing the shape of our nation’s economy is taking center stage right now, not the farming industry. Although I realize it ties in with the overall economics of things.