The State of Food Production, Part 1

Healthy local food. It appears on the surface as if this concept should go without saying, but it has become few and far between in the realm of "the homogenizer", Big Agribusiness. The very fact that you are reading these lines attests to it. As our modern market-based economy has taken on a life of its own the almighty dollar has replaced the integrity of our food as the impetus for its production. Too many these days lay blame on the Wal-Mart's and Monsanto's of the world when it turns out its all our fault. Not on an individual basis, many of us do all that we can to stay devoid of the materials so indiscriminately utilized in modern agriculture and ensure we are "doing the right thing"- but as a society. The harm that these corporations may cause or the liability they should retain are not to be overlooked, but they are simply practicing business. Unfortunately the business model that has been adopted to govern the modern world has no conscience regarding human sustainability or morality. There is one glimmer of hope in this seemingly unethical situation. The fundamental law in this modern economy is that the producers respond to the consumers- not the other way around. In other words, if there were no market for homogenized or genetically modified food there would be no homogenized or GMO food. Our Buying Power represents the pulse of our capitalist society and our daily buying habits are its heart. It turns out we have the collective ability as humans to determine what we are offered for sale. What's the stick in the spokes here, basically collective recognition that this is true.

Before you say, "easier said than done", marinate on the concept of Buying Power and the fundamental control it has over our economic model. The intention is not to preach to the choir here, but to plant a seed of insight that may propagate into a more pronounced collective recognition of the war we must wage in order to bring food production back from the brinks and attain sensible and secure food to all people.

Farming has evolved over thousands of years with the farm as the basic unit of local community and culture. Its practice was shaped everywhere by geography and the creative skills of the farmer to be optimally productive. Until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the advent of synthetic fertilizers and processing techniques most of our food was produced within a hundred miles of our homes. There were scores of local farmers and food processors, each competing for our business. In those days "fresh" meant fresh. Local farmers were not as skilled in the techniques of disguising poor quality and the means by which the world travels were not as immediate. Modern cultivators have continually selected for longevity and presentation in foodstuff; and techniques such as irradiation, pasteurization, and other methods of synthetic preservation allow logistical opportunities that were not previously available. Historically it simply was not feasible to ship bell peppers from Holland or tomatoes from Israel, for example, because the produce would not be delivered intact. The problem with these ostensible progressions is it leaves the food we are eating far less nutritious relative to historical standards. It might look pretty, but does it taste pretty; and more importantly does it feel pretty?

Today, the process is Big Ag. Local farmers are finding it harder to compete and are actually competing against the grain that has been established by our federal agriculture programs. Take subsidies for example. 60% of all farmers and ranchers do not collect any subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which cites U.S. Department of Agriculture figures. Among those that do, the top 20% collected 71% of all subsidies -- approximately $35,000 a year -- and the remaining 80% received an average payment of approximately $800 a year, according to 2003 EWG findings. Roger Stone, in his book The Nature of Development, estimates that industrialized nations spend $300 billion a year subsidizing farmers (29), the majority of it coming from the United States. This is even more depressing when you learn that much of the monies deemed as subsidies for farmers are going to corporations that do no farming. For example, some of the more unlikely recipients of farm subsidies in 2001 included Caterpillar, $171,698; Chevron, $260,223; DuPont, $188,732; Georgia Pacific West Inc., $37,156; International Paper, $375,393; and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, $125,975, according to a 2001 study by EWG. "Money makes the world go 'round", a statement usually made with an air of compunction. Why not take it literally and use it to our advantage?

We now have larger and more centralized farms, larger food processors, and even larger chemical companies supplying farmers and food processors. This results in enormous armies of lobbyists enlisted to protect these vast sums of money trained in the method of protecting the bottom line. A true Catch-22, as our food production logistics get more homogenized it may become more prolific at producing foodstuff, but it more importantly veers further from its true intention- providing healthy food and food security to all people. It also dilutes the crucial balance of supply and demand. It is estimated that 20% of all food produced in America (about 137 million tons, worth $31 billion) is wasted every year. Of that, about 60 million tons, worth $5 billion is simply left in fields for lack of commercial value (USDA). In fact, many farmers are actually paid to not grow food in times of high supply, not to mention the disastrous effect our subsidy programs have on third world farmers as our subsidized foodstuff floods the international markets. For example, per capita food production has fallen every year in Africa since 1960, when development assistance was invented. I have seen this first hand in Zambia. The focus is on "when is it coming", not "how can we produce it". Add to that the increasingly high costs of packaging, storing, preserving, handling, and transportation after it leaves the field, plus the fossil fuels burned in route, and the result is clear- we have an extremely inefficient way of producing and supplying food. Get this, the total energy consumed by US agriculture per year is equivalent to more than 30 billion gallons of gasoline (714,285,000 barrels), and represents more than 5 times the energy content of the food produced ("Solviva", 95)! We have a long ways to go.

So what can be done about this state of affairs? Tune in for part two, "Our Options", in the next Tidal Creek Newsletter.