Re: food from large corporations

January 8, 2004

In a message dated 1/8/04 9:05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> I don't know anything about Eden, but I suspect that if they're

> making artisanal products like real soy sauce they would be more in

> the mid-size range than large. Also, do you have any other reasons

> to applaud their product other than it being fermented for two

> years? Organic, non-GM soybeans?

Yes, it's organic. I don't know whether they're " large " or " mid-sized "

because I don't know what size they are nor what constitutes " large " as I'd

said.

Their products are largely available in chain stores, all health food stores,

some supermarkets.

I agree that if one simply avoided food from large corporations one would

tend to " hit " much more often than " miss " -- this is only in part, though, due to

some inherent characteristic of " bigness " that necessitates shortcuts that

diminish the value of the product vis-a-vis health. I think more importantly,

markets such as us are tiny, minority niche markets, and no corporation could

become " large " servicing us, because " we " aren't a " large " market. I think,

say, Eden, could attain " largeness " quite easily, were the demand for their

product to grow, without the value of their product suffering.

Chris

January 8, 2004

Chris-

I wonder how true this really is, though. I expect we'd agree that

agriculture should follow a sustainable organic model along something like

biodynamic lines, but such operations don't lend themselves to scaling up

dramatically.

>Eden, could attain " largeness " quite easily, were the demand for their

>product to grow, without the value of their product suffering.

-

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 12:50:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I wonder how true this really is, though. I expect we'd agree that

> agriculture should follow a sustainable organic model along something like

> biodynamic lines, but such operations don't lend themselves to scaling up

> dramatically.

They require more labor put into management, but that doesn't dictate size

necessarily, especially if the company making or distributing the product isn't

doing the farming. For example, Organic Valley is turning into quite a huge

distributor, but they contract with many, many, small local farms, rather than

owning one giant farm. Having more small farms rather than less big farms

allows for a more labor-intensive production, though that could conceivably work

on a big farm, if done correctly.

I don't know whether Eden grows their soybeans or not.

Chris

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 11:12:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> It depends on the shape of the competition. In Japan, for example,

> " efficiency " is not prized in certain food domains (I'm particularly

> thinking of milk) though that may be changing as western values creep

> in.

Prized by who? I value efficiency in everything I do, and I frankly think

it's kind of silly for anyone not too. A true evaluation of efficiency takes

into account all of the costs and benefits. So I consider increased nutrition a

benefit-- but I value *efficient* nutrition, not just good nutrition, so I'm

not going to pay, say, a 20% increase in price for a 5% increase in

nutritional value. People in Japan must think like this, no?

But here in the States, even now with growing awareness of the

> importance of organic growing methods and even of grass-fed and whatnot,

> it's still hard for labor-intensive operations to succeed on a large scale,

> because economies of scale just don't kick in much.

As far as I can tell, this growing awareness has been met with a

proliferation of grass-fed products in health food stores.

Artisanal niche

> producers can succeed, but an umbrella operation simply adds overhead while

>

> doing very little to reduce costs -- unless measures which are detrimental

> to consumers' health are taken.

It provides a market for the product, and a name that consumers are willing

to pay for, and high premiums at that. I personally would rather buy direct

from a farmer, because I can better evaluate the farming techniques, can usually

save money, and the farmer gets more money. But farmers can only survive

like this when there is a large local market of very knowledgeable consumers

willing to drive to a farm.

>

> >For example, Organic Valley is turning into quite a huge

> >distributor, but they contract with many, many, small local farms, rather

> >than

> >owning one giant farm.

>

> And look at some of the results: ultrapasteurized cream (and, IIRC, some

> other dairy products too).

I think their butter is a good product. But in what way can you show that

ultrapasteurized cream is a result of the size of Organic Valley's company,

rather than their ignorance of its supposed negative effects?

Chris

January 9, 2004

Chris-

>They require more labor put into management, but that doesn't dictate size

>necessarily, especially if the company making or distributing the product

>isn't

>doing the farming.

It depends on the shape of the competition. In Japan, for example,

" efficiency " is not prized in certain food domains (I'm particularly

thinking of milk) though that may be changing as western values creep

in. But here in the States, even now with growing awareness of the

importance of organic growing methods and even of grass-fed and whatnot,

it's still hard for labor-intensive operations to succeed on a large scale,

because economies of scale just don't kick in much. Artisanal niche

producers can succeed, but an umbrella operation simply adds overhead while

doing very little to reduce costs -- unless measures which are detrimental

to consumers' health are taken.

>For example, Organic Valley is turning into quite a huge

>distributor, but they contract with many, many, small local farms, rather

>than

>owning one giant farm.

And look at some of the results: ultrapasteurized cream (and, IIRC, some

other dairy products too).

-

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 6:03:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You may consider increased nutrition an efficiency bonus, but market

> efficiency is virtually evaluated that way, because the vast majority of

> consumers place no meaningful premium on nutritional value.

Sure, but consumers can, of course, change their preferences.

As to what

> people in Japan think, I don't know why specifically they value freshness

> in milk so highly (taste, perhaps?) but they do, and there's been a great

> deal of pressure to curtail the " inefficiency " that introduces into their

> system.

Well then I wouldn't say that they don't value efficiency, but rather that

they consider freshness a significant benefit.

If it were left to the market then, in Japan, fresh milk would remain an

option, because there would be a market for it. If consumers value it enough to

pay a premium over crappy old stinking milk, then the market would favor the

fresh milk.

> It depends what you mean by a proliferation. I've seen grass-fed products

> appear in some stores -- and then disappear in some of those. Also,

> compare the nutritional quality of a mass-scale grass-fed product, like,

> say, the raw grass-fed milk you can get in California (Claravale? I forget)

> with the stuff you can get from smaller operations like Amish farms. I

> don't mean to suggest that Amish farmers are guarantors of quality (far

> from it in some cases) but the difference between the best that niche

> producers have to offer and the best that mass-market producers have to

> offer is striking, with few if any exceptions.

I don't think there's enough large grass-fed milk operations to judge. I've

also never had the opportunity to try Claravale milk.

Considering the increased awareness of grass-fed products is brand new, I

don't see how you can judge how the market has been able to respond to it yet.

I'd say we'd have to wait a couple years and see whether that " awareness " stays

fashionable and continues to grow-- and give suppliers a chance to start

supplying it.

>

> >I personally would rather buy direct

> >from a farmer, because I can better evaluate the farming techniques, can

> >usually

> >save money, and the farmer gets more money. But farmers can only survive

> >like this when there is a large local market of very knowledgeable

> consumers

> >willing to drive to a farm.

>

> This is quite true, but it's not at all germane to my point, which is that

> scaling up applies pressures to production methods which tend to reduce the

> quality of the resulting products. The pressure is inescapable even if

> there's a tiny bit of wiggle room in the result.

I can't understand your point without concrete examples. I know that

large-scale productions currently use poor methods, but if a certain company is

selling a product at a high premium because of distinct features of its process,

and the demand grows, the company needs to retain the selling points of its

product to keep selling it.

I think the value OV offers to its farmers of increasing sales volume by

getting the products in stores and guaranteeing consistent sales outweighs any

overhead costs. It is actually quite obvious that it does, or else farmers

would

choose not to deal with them, no?

> Pasteurization is necessary for large-scale dairy operations;

> ultra-pasteurization further increases traditionally-measured market

> efficiency by extending shelf life and decreasing the cost of goods

> transportation. Raw dairy, which can't really be handled the same way at

> all, is at the opposite end of the scale.

Yes, but pasteurization is by far sufficient to get cream through a store

shelf to last a while in a consumer's fridge. Ultrapasteurization is all about

consumer satisfaction, IMO-- UP cream lasts for at least a month after its

opened, which is great if you use it for coffee.

Chris

_____

January 9, 2004

Chris-

>So I consider increased nutrition a

>benefit-- but I value *efficient* nutrition, not just good nutrition, so I'm

>not going to pay, say, a 20% increase in price for a 5% increase in

>nutritional value. People in Japan must think like this, no?

You may consider increased nutrition an efficiency bonus, but market

efficiency is virtually evaluated that way, because the vast majority of

consumers place no meaningful premium on nutritional value. As to what

people in Japan think, I don't know why specifically they value freshness

in milk so highly (taste, perhaps?) but they do, and there's been a great

deal of pressure to curtail the " inefficiency " that introduces into their

system.

>As far as I can tell, this growing awareness has been met with a

>proliferation of grass-fed products in health food stores.

It depends what you mean by a proliferation. I've seen grass-fed products

appear in some stores -- and then disappear in some of those. Also,

compare the nutritional quality of a mass-scale grass-fed product, like,

say, the raw grass-fed milk you can get in California (Claravale? I forget)

with the stuff you can get from smaller operations like Amish farms. I

don't mean to suggest that Amish farmers are guarantors of quality (far

from it in some cases) but the difference between the best that niche

producers have to offer and the best that mass-market producers have to

offer is striking, with few if any exceptions.

>I personally would rather buy direct

>from a farmer, because I can better evaluate the farming techniques, can

>usually

>save money, and the farmer gets more money. But farmers can only survive

>like this when there is a large local market of very knowledgeable consumers

>willing to drive to a farm.

This is quite true, but it's not at all germane to my point, which is that

scaling up applies pressures to production methods which tend to reduce the

quality of the resulting products. The pressure is inescapable even if

there's a tiny bit of wiggle room in the result.

Economies of scale are achieved by standardization and reduction of

labor. At least with present and immediately foreseeable agricultural

technologies, optimal nutrition is achieved by increasing labor and

decreasing standardization -- by not treating all soils with the same or

one of a few different standardized industrially produced fertilizers, for

example, but by creating a self-sustaining biodynamic localized

ecosystem. In such cases, the added value of a regionally or nationally

known brand name due to PR spending and whatnot and the overhead of

large-scale food transportation, standardized packaging, etc., is not paid

for from savings due to economies of scale, but must simply add to the

sticker price of the consumer products being sold, which makes them even

less competitive with SAD crap than they'd otherwise be.

>I think their butter is a good product. But in what way can you show that

>ultrapasteurized cream is a result of the size of Organic Valley's company,

>rather than their ignorance of its supposed negative effects?

Pasteurization is necessary for large-scale dairy operations;

ultra-pasteurization further increases traditionally-measured market

efficiency by extending shelf life and decreasing the cost of goods

transportation. Raw dairy, which can't really be handled the same way at

all, is at the opposite end of the scale.

-

January 9, 2004

---Chris/: I may be getting in on the tail end of this but what

do you intend to pay for seasonal production costs? For example fowl

lay few eggs under " natural " conditions during cold winter days.

Therefore there's probably 1/3 as many eggs or even 1/10 as many eggs

as in the summer months. How about buying eggs for $8/ dozen in the

winter and $8/3 per dozen in the summer? Dennis

In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >So I consider increased nutrition a

> >benefit-- but I value *efficient* nutrition, not just good

nutrition, so I'm

> >not going to pay, say, a 20% increase in price for a 5% increase in

> >nutritional value. People in Japan must think like this, no?

>

> You may consider increased nutrition an efficiency bonus, but

market

> efficiency is virtually evaluated that way, because the vast

majority of

> consumers place no meaningful premium on nutritional value. As to

what

> people in Japan think, I don't know why specifically they value

freshness

> in milk so highly (taste, perhaps?) but they do, and there's been a

great

> deal of pressure to curtail the " inefficiency " that introduces into

their

> system.

>

> >As far as I can tell, this growing awareness has been met with a

> >proliferation of grass-fed products in health food stores.

>

> It depends what you mean by a proliferation. I've seen grass-fed

products

> appear in some stores -- and then disappear in some of those.

Also,

> compare the nutritional quality of a mass-scale grass-fed product,

like,

> say, the raw grass-fed milk you can get in California (Claravale? I

forget)

> with the stuff you can get from smaller operations like Amish

farms. I

> don't mean to suggest that Amish farmers are guarantors of quality

(far

> from it in some cases) but the difference between the best that

niche

> producers have to offer and the best that mass-market producers

have to

> offer is striking, with few if any exceptions.

>

> >I personally would rather buy direct

> >from a farmer, because I can better evaluate the farming

techniques, can

> >usually

> >save money, and the farmer gets more money. But farmers can only

survive

> >like this when there is a large local market of very knowledgeable

consumers

> >willing to drive to a farm.

>

> This is quite true, but it's not at all germane to my point, which

is that

> scaling up applies pressures to production methods which tend to

reduce the

> quality of the resulting products.

<><<><><<><<>Scaling up wouldn't have to reduce quality. It has to

do with ingredients and employee training/attitude too. Dennis

January 10, 2004

In a message dated 1/10/04 2:48:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> But why is this question even being asked? Why is it so important to

> justify consolidation and megacorporations in the domain of food? What

> exactly is our priority here, optimal nutrition or concentrated corporate

> profits?

What do you mean by " our " priority? My priority is getting good milk. I

don't care what the size of the farm is-- if large farms are inherently

producing

worse milk nutritionally, then I will by default never buy from large farms

based on my value of good nutrition. So the point is immaterial.

What do you propose to do to enact your vision of what other people should be

eating and drinking or how other people should be using their own property?

How do you propose to achieve this vision without violence?

You are right that the point is somewhat moot, but I think so for a different

reason: if I act on my values when I purchase foods, and I encourage others

to share my values, then companies who innovate a way to provide the product we

want on a large scale will do so; if they can't, they won't. So it becomes

moot, because, if you're right, we will necessarily see an economy that

reflects the dynamics you insist are innate.

> >I think the value OV offers to its farmers of increasing sales volume by

> >getting the products in stores and guaranteeing consistent sales outweighs

> >any

> >overhead costs. It is actually quite obvious that it does, or else

> >farmers would

> >choose not to deal with them, no?

>

> No, it's not quite obvious at all. It's just one of those seemingly

> common-sensical fallacies. First, consider the basic choices an

> OV-affiliated farm has: go it alone, go with OV, or go with a

> megacorp. The megacorp will pay so little the farm might well lose

> money. So by comparison, OV is a substantial step up, and an option which

> allows them to sell a comparatively better product (though I do wonder

> whether ultrapasteurization (which, BTW, allows OV to compensate for some

> of the unavoidable overhead they have to pay for) might not outweigh any

> nutritional benefits of partial grass-feeding). So given the options an OV

> farmer might be aware of, the choice makes reasonably good sense. But how

> well do you think an OV farmer is doing (at least on a per-cow basis)

> compared to the Amish farmer I get my dairy from? I guarantee you, the

> 100% grass-fed farmer I patronize is making much more per cow. And here's

> the key reason: that Amish farmer is producing hugely superior dairy. OV

> is garbage. It might be good by comparison to mass-market stuff, but

> that's it. OV cows get a lot of grain (including, I think, soy, though I'm

> not positive on that) and a lot of it is ultrapasteurized. Take away the

> grains (and legumes) and/or the ultrapasteurization, and OV dairy will cost

> a lot more to bring to market.

If the farmer had the wherewithal or regional market to operate as the Amish

farmer, then he would, no? So, given *the situation he's in*, going with OV

must be the best choice for him, thus, offering him an advantage over the other

available options.

Chris

______

January 10, 2004

Chris-

>Sure, but consumers can, of course, change their preferences.

Of course, but there will ALWAYS be pressure in the other

direction. Profit will ALWAYS push at least some producers to cut corners

and to try to spin high-margin foods (e.g. refined carbs) as healthy, and

therefore the war will never be over.

>If it were left to the market then, in Japan, fresh milk would remain an

>option, because there would be a market for it.

What exactly do you mean by " the market " ? Does " the market " include PR

campaigns? Custom-made research? A corrupt and/or ignorant

press? Because those are all tools used freely by self-interested agents

seeking to maximize their profits, and they will always have an effect on

what the market demands. Japan's milk freshness system is one of those

comparatively unprofitable (and relatively) traditional food arrangements

that have repeatedly fallen victim to modern agribusiness.

>I don't think there's enough large grass-fed milk operations to judge. I've

>also never had the opportunity to try Claravale milk.

Then compare Natural By Nature with Ronnybrook, both of which might be

available in your area. They're both pasteurized, but Ronnybrook is a

smaller operation which yields better dairy.

>Considering the increased awareness of grass-fed products is brand new, I

>don't see how you can judge how the market has been able to respond to it

>yet.

I look at how size affects ALL markets depending on whether quality can be

maintained while aiming for economies of scale. It's not hard to

extrapolate to dairy.

>I can't understand your point without concrete examples. I know that

>large-scale productions currently use poor methods, but if a certain

>company is

>selling a product at a high premium because of distinct features of its

>process,

>and the demand grows, the company needs to retain the selling points of its

>product to keep selling it.

the selling point is " grass-fed " . " Grass-fed from Jersey or

Guernsey cows on high-fertility soil with various measures taken to improve

the soil etc. etc. etc. " is never going to succeed as a mass market selling

point. Selling points have to be buzz words, single

factors. " Hormone-free " , " organic " , " grass-fed " , etc. And producers (of

any goods) will always try to maximize the perception of the selling point

while minimizing the cost. Hence we get " grass-fed " meat that's actually

grain finished; hence we got the huge battle over what constituted

" organic " farming, with the result that the term became very watered down

when it went mainstream.

Look, grass-fed biodynamic farming can be quite profitable -- but only on a

small scale. It simply doesn't lend itself to consolidation. Modern

agribusiness isn't necessarily more efficient or more profitable than

traditional agriculture when considered in toto (in fact, if you account

for pollution, nutrition, the damage to soil fertility, degenerative

disease, etc.) it isn't even close. What it is efficient at is allowing

concentration and consolidation. One producer can cram vastly more cows

into one space and thus acquire vastly more of the available proceeds and

profits.

You want examples? Look at milk.

Conventional milk producers are often (always?) losing money nowadays on

milk because the megacorporations which handle the vast majority of the

milk supply pay them so little. Conventional milk has become a

commodity. Even when economies of scale are applied (cramming loads of

cows into confined spaces, feeding them cheap, durable grains produced

elsewhere and transported to the cows, etc.) milk is still not especially

profitable, but because those few megaproducers can grow so large, they can

still make a lot of money, at the expense of all those family farms which

used to be part of the backbone of this country.

Contrast that with a labor-intensive grass-fed family farm which charges a

hefty premium for its products. I don't know about you, but I pay $10/lb

for raw grassfed butter. Grocery store butter is probably less than

$2/lb., though I'm not sure exactly. The farm family can make a nice

living, maybe even reach the upper middle class, but that's it. They're

never going to be super-rich, but as long as consumers are interested and

their farm doesn't get hit by a meteorite or something, they'll do just fine.

There are two factors at work here. First, where are you going to find

room to cut costs in order to allow for consolidation? All the

cost-cutting in conventional dairy comes at the expense of nutrition:

grain-feeding, universal antibiotics, confinement raising,

pasteurization. ALL those measures are profit-oriented, and all of them

have a deep impact on nutrition. There are only two ways to accommodate

consolidation: cut costs or raise the price of the final product. Since

the family provides a lot of the labor on the farm, what would you suggest,

eliminating family members? Or replacing farm hands with expensive

robotics? Ask any small farmer and he'll tell you that past a certain

point, you can't increase your profit by increasing your size (and in fact

you might go past the point of diminishing returns to the point of

increasing losses) without shifting production methods to those of modern

agribusiness.

But why is this question even being asked? Why is it so important to

justify consolidation and megacorporations in the domain of food? What

exactly is our priority here, optimal nutrition or concentrated corporate

profits? Which country is going to be healthier, both medically and

economically, one in which there are loads of small farms all over the

place producing high-quality sustainable meat and dairy products and

providing very comfortable incomes to loads of farm families (who then turn

around and buy all kinds of things from other people) or the one in which

dairy producers and other farmers are shackled to modern production methods

and fire sale prices for their products (which in turn leads them to

bankruptcy in record numbers), in which all the profits are concentrated

into the hands of a very few (who can't, BTW, consume as much and therefore

contribute as much to the economy as a large number of people would if that

money were spread around) and in which people are sickly and malnourished?

>I think the value OV offers to its farmers of increasing sales volume by

>getting the products in stores and guaranteeing consistent sales outweighs

>any

>overhead costs. It is actually quite obvious that it does, or else

>farmers would

>choose not to deal with them, no?

No, it's not quite obvious at all. It's just one of those seemingly

common-sensical fallacies. First, consider the basic choices an

OV-affiliated farm has: go it alone, go with OV, or go with a

megacorp. The megacorp will pay so little the farm might well lose

money. So by comparison, OV is a substantial step up, and an option which

allows them to sell a comparatively better product (though I do wonder

whether ultrapasteurization (which, BTW, allows OV to compensate for some

of the unavoidable overhead they have to pay for) might not outweigh any

nutritional benefits of partial grass-feeding). So given the options an OV

farmer might be aware of, the choice makes reasonably good sense. But how

well do you think an OV farmer is doing (at least on a per-cow basis)

compared to the Amish farmer I get my dairy from? I guarantee you, the

100% grass-fed farmer I patronize is making much more per cow. And here's

the key reason: that Amish farmer is producing hugely superior dairy. OV

is garbage. It might be good by comparison to mass-market stuff, but

that's it. OV cows get a lot of grain (including, I think, soy, though I'm

not positive on that) and a lot of it is ultrapasteurized. Take away the

grains (and legumes) and/or the ultrapasteurization, and OV dairy will cost

a lot more to bring to market.

>Ultrapasteurization is all about

>consumer satisfaction, IMO-- UP cream lasts for at least a month after its

>opened, which is great if you use it for coffee.

That's certainly one of the touted benefits, but ultrapasteurization also

allows producers to use cheaper, slower transportation to get their dairy

to market, which increases profits and/or reduces retail price. I

guarantee you that ultrapasteurizers are taking advantage of that. In

fact, as with most cost-reducing measures, the touted consumer benefit was

a PR mechanism to turn a cost-reducing measure into a selling point.

-

January 10, 2004

Excellent, eloquent post. Thanks!

Gene

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:46:58 -0500

Subject: Re: food from large corporations