Re: POLITICS Want local? No you don't, say feds & big agribusiness

[Guest guest]

-

>

>> That’s unfortunate, because small producers will have to expand on a

>> significant scale across the nation if local foods are to continue to

>> enter the mainstream as the public demands

Actually, I think it would probably be much better if the _number_ of

small farms expanded significantly, rather than presently-small farms

expanding and eventually turning into the next generation of mega-

farms, but the larger point of the op-ed certainly stands: farm

subsidies are long overdue for reform.

-

[Guest guest]

Those were the author's words, not mine...

What I see emerging in my area, though, are the ups & downs, the local color of

dealing

with individual growers & ranchers. Sometimes this is fun. Other times, it

becomes

frustrating. For example, I deal with one lady I would call " flaky. " Not only

flaky, but

sometimes pushy & self-promoting. You can imagine this combo doesn't wash with

some

people. What has shaped our expectations? The gleaming impersonal supermarket.

There are lots of things we all hate about going there - I love going to the

farmers' market

& hate going back into the store, if only for certain things. But the nice

stuff is - what you

get is what you get; you get a receipt where you can review what you paid; and

you can

get in & out without a lot of chatter. Sometimes, I love interacting with the

farmers - I

definitely can't ask questions & expect good answers in the grocery store. But

my " flaky

lady " has been accused of over-charging people.

Why do I stick with the flaky lady? Well, I don't, totally...but I take most of

her antics in

stride. One of the worst aspects of our dehumanized, industrial ag system is

the

impersonalization. But on some days, I wish things were smooth & easy.

As far as what you said...a grower's co-op with a good front person, someone who

is

organized and deals well with the public, might be a better compromise than

super-sized

farms. I'm not sure exactly what the author meant here. Did he mean they would

" expand " by adopting something that looks more like industrial agriculture? Or

did he

mean they would " expand " by banding together to defend themselves against a

larger

corporation? Some kind of grower's co-op or conglomerate, where everyone has to

come

to a consensus on matters of commerce?

What are the advantages of distributed, small growers? They get to choose their

own

methods. They get to feed their families, find what works best for them, sell

what their

customers demand. There are many intangible benefits...they get to form rural

America

and communities again. They get to respect the environment by finding ways that

are

kind to everyone. That's not a requirement, but it's possible.

But what are the advantages of larger-scale agriculture for the consumer? The

consumer

gets the produce they expect, probably at a more consistent price. The consumer

feels

detached from the relationship with the farmer, so maybe s/he feels the freedom

to stop

buying whenever. Mostly we think of the benefits in terms of consistency,

detachment,

regularity, and low prices.

I'd bet the author was thinking pretty narrow-mindedly, though, like: how can we

meet

consumers' expectations shaped by the supermarket? Nevermind that some of us

are

changing our expectations for other reasons. I think the author couldn't fathom

enough

small farmers acting coordinatedly to survive the competition & serve the

masses. I don't

know if I can envision the wider population opening up to this idea unless they

change

their expectations about the way this food & how it's brought to them will

" look. " I've

changed my attitude - in order to get what I want, with the assurance of how

it's grown,

or the animal is treated, I have given up a lot of convenience & detachment for

greater

intimacy & trouble.

>

> -

>

> >

> >> That's unfortunate, because small producers will have to expand on a

> >> significant scale across the nation if local foods are to continue to

> >> enter the mainstream as the public demands

>

> Actually, I think it would probably be much better if the _number_ of

> small farms expanded significantly, rather than presently-small farms

> expanding and eventually turning into the next generation of mega-

> farms, but the larger point of the op-ed certainly stands: farm

> subsidies are long overdue for reform.

>

> -

>