My mother's family hails from rural Ohio; they own land that was once a family farm in Jefferson County, right on the border with West Virginia. Even during its most active days, the farm was by no means industrial. However, they had plenty of tractors, seeds, and various fertilizers. The current emptiness of the land always seemed confusing to me when it was combined with the discussion I heard of the poverty of the surrounding area. If people are hungry, why not grow food? That's what the land is for, right? While this post won't focus on rural poverty (which is still an important issue!), it does have to do with the accessibility of food. Despite the food desert, I'm fairly certain that my family periodically receives a small check in exchange for the dormant land. But why this land, in this community? Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on the details of the selection process. But I have downloaded the Farm Service Agency's 2015 report of crop acreage data in the US. Our federal government keeps a detailed record of how many farms the country has, how big they are, and what they're growing.
And just what are they growing? Here's where the calorie and nutrient math of our country gets a little more skewed. One half of the farmland in the US is dedicated to growing corn and soy (the latter is grown mainly to restore nutrients into the soil for growing more corn). The Washington Post has an interesting article discussing the crops that are and are not subsidized. On one hand, the subsidies are designed to help farmers, but do they help society? In what ways, and by whose measure? My background in economics isn't super strong, but I find the discussion of so-called "specialty crops" to be fascinating. Because our food system has been designed to favor "commodity crops", there simply isn't market demand to support an increase in the production of these crops. A change in the funding must be paired with changes in the food processing and distribution methods, and even more changes down the line.
Finally, I want to turn our attention to non-food crops, often leftover subsidized corn and soy. This can include crops which eventually eat, but are unable to do so in their freshly-picked state. For example, number two corn is one of the most planted crops in the country, despite being unfit for direct human consumption. Though corn is one of the most calorie-dense foods we've domesticated, we've found a way to further concentrate its energy content into high fructose corn syrup, feedstocks for animals, and the wide array of processed treats that they make up. However, some crops are grown with no intention of human consumption. Another possible for the corn we grow is to be ethanol, processed to allow it to be burned in combustion engines. Not only is there no nutritional benefit, but its use also serves to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Maybe this was implied, but I'm not a huge supporter of ethanol production.
I'd like to introduce a second category of food-grown-but-not-for-food: biomaterials. These materials go into a variety of consumer products, often replacing plastics synthesized using fossil fuels. Crops can also be grown to replace other crops. For example, companies are searching for alternate sources of natural rubber, as the rubber we currently used is grown in plantations where rainforests once stood. Obviously, full recycling is the ideal solution, but recycled polymers are often of a lower quality than the initial product. Here's a quick NPR story on corporate sustainability more generally. (Full disclosure: I worked down the hall from Debbie, the soy bean innovator, this summer; she's really cool.) This leads us to another question: is corporate sustainability attainable, or is it simply an oxymoron? If we're already dedicating farm land to growing soy, it's important to grow a market for it in tandem. However, if the market for soy is destroyed, it would free farmers to grow food for people to eat.
Though I've asked a lot of questions throughout, I'll close with the ones listed earlier and a few more! Feel free to respond to these, or with any other thoughts you have.
- Should the United States government continue to subsidize domestic crops? If so, who should be writing the program, and how should its success be measured? Ultimately, who should decide what crops grown in the United States?
- As college students, is it possible for us to enact policy changes? How can we use this privilege effectively, and how should we? Will policy changes yield positive results?
- Share your thoughts on corporate sustainability. Is this productive? Is this possible? If we are to continue to exist within a capitalistic framework, is there a way we can reduce waste and pollution in industry?
Marie, thank you for doing the research and breaking this stuff down! Many of the issues we have been discussing make a lot more sense. To be honest, I am not sure how I could answer the question of should we subsidize domestic crops and what we can do as college students because I don't know much about the process of changing those policies. But I think you raise the very relevant question of given that we are in this capitalist framework how can we still work towards sustainability. It is important to think of the problems in the capitalist system but at the end of the day that is still the system we are in and that probably won't be changing anytime soon. I think efforts like the ones mentioned in the NPR interview are important even if corporate sustainability doesn't completely make sense. I think for us as students with the privilege of attending college it is hard to say right now how I could go about effecting policy changes but I think the place to start is by doing things like what you are doing right now: bringing awareness to these issues and spreading the word so a demand for systematic change is created.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I’m not really sure the best solution because there are so many facets to these issues. I really liked the NPR mini interview as I think it pointed to some of the levels that are interwoven within this issue. I agree that I think much of what big businesses are doing is a “band-aid” for the problem. I am however unsure how one could have these companies, that have such a heavy “for profit” influence, act in a way that doesn’t make money. Although I don’t think it is right that companies are able to do this, I’m unsure what a fix would be with out a huge rewriting of the way business is conducted in this country. I think this would also have to involve a lot of government influence, which, as we have seen is not the best solution, through the funding given to politicians via food corporations. And, we’ve also seen the problem the problem with too little influence, historically with the meat packing industry described in The Jungle. Due to this I’m unsure the perfect balance to strike especially with the clear desire to not completely change the system. I think this also relates to the change in our cultures value system, as we are no longer, in the spot we were during the great depression when the government needed to pump up the job and economic status. Since our time has changed the system needs to as well and, yet, I’m unsure what the best solution is at this moment… All of this to say I love learning about all of this innovative idea’s and am interested to see what is a “band-aid” and what is a solution.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this information, Marie. This is not a topic that I know very much about, but it is so crucial to understand how these farm subsidies are influencing what is grown in our country and what isn't. I think one of the key solutions to this issue is the diversification of subsidy distribution. As I understand it, the majority of subsidy funds are paid to commercial farms that are already making high profits, which makes little sense in a program that was originally intended to prevent/alleviate farmer poverty. I think a wider variety of crops should be subsidized by the government and not just big cash crops like corn and soy. I think this would provide farmers with a bigger incentive to plant a wide array of crops which would, theoretically, increase the production and availability of more types of produce. This diversification might also break up some of the depleting effects of monocultures on our soil systems. I find it ludicrous that such a massive amount of land is being used to farm crops that are not intended for human consumption, especially when we consider the levels of food insecurity in the United States. I remember being really shocked when I learned that people didn't eat the corn that surrounded the area in central Illinois where I grew up and that the corn was used to feed livestock (even though corn is not part of a cows natural diet which is another issue entirely). It can feel really daunting to figure out how we might go about making our voices heard in this issue but I know for myself, the first step is becoming better informed so I appreciate Marie getting us started. I am particularly suspicious of the lack of transparency in the 2014 farm bill that prevents the distribution of subsidies from being public information. This is something that we, as taxpayers, might want to make a priority when contacting our representatives about this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis post was informative.Thank you Marie! I did not know much about farm subsidies so I enjoyed this opportunity to fill a gap in my knowledge. Reading your post about farm subsidies caused me to think about the idea of private property in general. Shifts in farm subsidies to more nutritious and healthy foods I believe could make difference in our system, but the idea of our government (which is so intertwined with the capitalist system) determining what food we grow, how much, and when makes me uncomfortable. When discussing the development of farms, the food industry, and subsidies I think it is imperative to consider how the land these farms were established on was stolen. Our food industry was founded on the exploitation, colonization, forced labor, murder, and destruction of other cultures, peoples, and societies. Government control or corporate control of land and food production is thus something that makes me uncomfortable because it is so intertwined with the exploitative capitalist system. Is it possible for corporations or subsidies (two things created within the capitalist system) to work against the same systems that gives them life? I think to extent making policy changes or changing corporate policies can make a difference however I think massive changes and resistance from more removed from/ outside government and business have to be developed and mobilized. I think the development of CSAs and the support of organic farming are examples of such modes of resistance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Marie, for doing some research to find articles that attempt to break down this really complicated system into understandable terms! As the Grist article mentions, the idea of the public helping to absorb some of the risks inherent in farming sounds like a good idea, one that would ultimately lead to better food security and nutrition for all. Obviously and unfortunately, that hasn't been the outcome.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to speculate as to why, it would lead me to your third question about capitalism--or rather, what we like to call "capitalism" when we are looking for systems to blame for the suffering and dysfunction in our culture. But aren't subsidies essentially socialistic, not capitalistic, in nature? And yet, the way that they operate actually builds wealth for a few large corporations who support the farming of subsidized crops (through selling seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment) at the expense of ecosystems and human health.
So I wonder if it isn't capitalism to blame for our woes, but a deeper cultural and ethical crisis. If we operated according to Aldo Leopold's land ethic ("A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."), I think we'd have a very different culture that materially supported very different forms of agriculture, regardless of whether we called our economic system "capitalism" or "socialism."
Yes, absolutely, there are ways we can change our system and how our system operates. Political activism is one path. So is changing our lifestyles and our relationships. Both can ultimately change policy and the types of support available to farmers. The growing interest in local and organic foods over the past decade, for instance, has led to the creation of programs that provide support (both financial and educational) to specialty and organic crop growers.
And there's one direct way that you can subsidize the type of farming you value--join a CSA! Looking forward to talking more about all of this tomorrow.
As someone hoping to help run a “sustainable” (see environmentally responsible) business, I certainly want to believe that corporate sustainability is not only productive, but possible. I do not think that capitalism is going anywhere soon, regardless of what may or may not be better for the environment/food culture/whatever. So if we’re stuck with the system we’ve got, we might as well do our damnedest to work with it. I consider it closed-minded to think that business and the environment cannot work together to both their benefit, and too depressing to think that we shouldn’t even try. We need to work hard with children and people in our local communities to reconnect with nature through education and experience. If we can teach our children and ourselves to respect food and the planet we live on, we can begin to shift the cultural tides in favor of a society that values the environment at least as much as our economy. If we can work in small way to help the environment, who is to say that companies large and small can’t work in ways to help the environment too. I truly believe that a better global environment is within our reach, but it will not come without its cost to humanity. It takes time and energy to maintain our environment, time and energy atop yet more time and energy to undo the damage we have done. For every destructive act, humanity must collectively learn to give back twofold. Humanity can really sometimes seem like a virus or parasite on the planet earth, but just as we have helpful bacteria in our guts and in our soil, I believe that humanity too can evolve to form a symbolic relationship with our “body” (planet).
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that college students have the potential to deal with policy and create change. Now…will we actually do it? I am not sure. I say this with the idea that I could never accomplish something like running for congress but that’s where it all goes wrong. With these sort of topics I always have in the back of my mind that my peers will do it.
I know not everyone has that attitude but I am guilty of sometimes putting the responsibility on other people. Recently, I have seen more and more articles on passionate 20 something year olds running for congress and I find that admirable. I think that more and more young people are realizing that there is a place for them, now I just need to follow.
The concept of corporate responsibility is an interesting one; I don’t think that it is necessarily an oxymoron however it won’t fix all of our problems if suddenly every large-scale company turned sustainable. There have been conversations that companies are becoming eco/green certified or adapting new sustainable policies because it’s appealing and sexy to the consumer. But is that so bad? Yes they have the benefit of their company in mind but if they are reducing their carbon footprint then I think the demand for more “green” ways is a good thing!
I agree with Michael's stance on this subject. As a business major with a grounding in economics as well as an environmental passion and a desire to see conservation become more widely valued, I wholeheartedly believe that in this country sustainability will come only when the model becomes economically viable. While there are many good people who will choose to farm for the love of it or to counteract the social and economic disadvantages of a flawed system, a net effect will require greater participation and will occur when people being to see the payoffs as a "fair return" on their investments in the project. Economically speaking, that means that the farming endeavor will have to be at least as profitable as alternative investments of capital, time, worry, and so forth. Of course, I think part of that viability comes from a more widespread recognition of the value of such products (and thereby a willingness to pay for them) - a comprehension that is not currently enough of a part of our food culture. Today's food system has separated the end product from it's sources in a number of steps that progressively increase marginal cost and sometimes create an unrecognizable "food-like" substance.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that today's agricultural subsidies arose from goodwill intentions: price supports did in fact increase farmer's incomes to a livable wage and provided for conservation during industrialization; they also helped to support the economy on the whole for some time as farm wages cycled back into the economy as consumption. As agriculture has shifted to a bigger-is-always-better mentality, it does begin to seem absurd that preservation lands limiting the supply of commodity crops and thereby elevating prices should disproportionately benefit the holders of massive tracts of land and sometimes the corporations that hold those properties.
In response to this shift, I would like to see subsidies move into the hands of municipalities, whether funds are allocated by the federal government or derived from municipal taxes. I believe that more localized communities can aptly determine which crops to grow and thus make climate and terrior-appropriate decisions, as well as coming closer to serving the nutritional needs of the municipality. Such an effort would hopefully also reduce rural poverty and food deserts found in such communities. It also provides a sense of control and fairness to the process that seems to be lacking in the more recent farm bills, and I hope will foster a sense of land stewardship that is sometimes lacking in our culture.
Thanks for tying these loose ends, Marie. I was particularly struck by the question of corporate sustainability, which seems to be a microcosm of much greater issues/questions surrounding justice (environmental, social, economic etc.) For me, the debate runs circularly: if global capitalism is the source of much injustice by promoting “market values” of individualism, profit, and efficiency at the expense of caring for/about other people, values, knowledge etc., then the apparent solution is to abolish it completely and at its root (radically). But what do we do until “the revolution?” Do we ignore the undernourishment of our neighbors, rising sea levels, public health nightmares, and the like until we can figure a way to dismantle global capitalism? We might agree that doing something is better than nothing, but then we run into the problem of investing time and money into temporary solutions that may have been better spent seeking lasting, just change (what some might call “the revolution”). No path seems quite perfect. And my thoughts concerning corporate sustainability are the same. In the NPR piece you shared, Andrew Hoffman splits the environmentalist “camps” into the “dark green,” who find fault in corporate sustainability’s embrace of market values, and the “bright green,” who seek to leverage the existing power of corporations to mitigate climate change. I find both of these arguments simultaneously compelling and flawed. Aren’t more environmentally-friendly business practices preferable to those that are wasteful and pollutive? And isn’t this just a “Band-Aid?” Don’t corporations prioritize profit before “the common good?” And can’t great (dismantling capitalism) be the enemy of good? The answers to all of these questions seem to be (more or less) “yes.” This, then, begs infinitely more questions. Should we pursue the paths of both “camps?” Is a middle-ground logically, morally, practically possible?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the problem is the government. It's people in power that are corrupt by large companies who are headed by money grabbing capitalists. The problem is not based in other people deciding what to do with our food system, though this is part of the problem. The system in place of the government paying farmers to grow crops that the market doesn't demand is not even capitalism. It's not the marked determining price but more the wealthy, not even true capitalism. So the problem isn't even capitalism, just people. The people who are in charge is what needs to change and as informed individuals it is it responsibility to act on our civic duty of voting on who makes policies. I will be starting a responsible business which means that I do believe that business can be done in a responsible way. We can and should do something to change our food system so that it doesn't only benefit certain groups of people.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a wealth of information! Thanks for the info about subsidies in particular; while I've had a vague sense of their history and initial purpose, the links here helped clarify things a lot.
ReplyDeleteSomething that strikes me–that I just can't get over–is that as subsidies economically support monocultures of corn, soy, wheat, etc, the way we talk about the food system normalizes the growing of these commodity crops too: planting fruits and vegetables for human consumption is planting a "specialty" crop. I find this pretty ridiculous, but also telling of the way big ag works in the U.S. Even reading just a bit about the 2014 farm bill makes clear the prioritization of economics over (perhaps) anything else–the bill seems to deal more with money than the concept of crops as plants/food, or food as culture, or farmers as people in/with communities... and I bet it doesn't have much to say about the emotional or personal connections with food that the Pollen interview (from Emma's post) sheds light on. If crops themselves are seen more like commodities ("dead" components of an economic system), than like plants (living members of ecosystems/biotic communities), then I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation- of food- of plants- of agriculture. And this sort of objectification of living things/systems, taken for granted, would seem to me to make the potential for solutions quite limited in scope. Hm. That said, I appreciate the many solutions to specific problems that folks, such as Debbie (who does seem pretty cool :) ), are working on; and there are useful/helpful solutions developed from such a wide variety of vantage points (and political views). THAT said, I agree with Isabelle that there are many internal contradictions that arise when certain (esp corporate) institutions (that emerged from and continue to engage in exploitative and environmentally harmful practices) then try to become "green" or try to implement sustainability policies; I think there can be good work done here but it will (almost?) always be a band-aid. For my part, I am most interested in seeking out small-scale (but networking/connected) spaces/communities of resistance, that engage the questions we are working with on many levels, and that focus on people and/in living communities. Learning and relationship-building are always good places to start! (Sidebar: I also really appreciate Amy's comment; it's a helpful reframing of the use of words like "capitalism," which can be easy to throw around.)
If the government subsidizes only a few types of crops, that may lead to monocropping, which can cause many problems, including but not limited to: degraded soil quality, excessive pesticide use, reliance on GMO.
ReplyDeleteAs a college student studied biology and a future scientist, I learned the impacts of such activities on the earth as well as living organisms. For this reason, I believe that I am a very lucky person who understands “why” intensive, industrial way of producing crops can have harmful impacts on us as well as other living systems. Unfortunately, however, many people don’t have science backgrounds to understand the complicated scientific literature that are written exclusively for the scientific community. For this reason, I believe educating basic science to children (future leaders) is very important for modifying the current system.
Additionally, if possible, I also believe that people who understand the scientific mechanisms behind food production should decide what crops to grow in the US and how to grow them.
I do believe that by subsidizing domestic corps, we are helping contemporary farmers stay afloat, but I also believe it's one of the many flaws of our system. Farmers shouldn’t need taxpayer dollars just to be able to open and operate their own farmers. They should be able to make reasonable profits off their profession, yet who is willing to join the landscape of politics in order to make the needed changes? To deal with policies, unwilling people and stubborn laws is not how I envision growing old and gray. Yet, as college students I do think we definitely have developed the right tools to enact any change we want to see in the world, but I can’t help to believe that change begins with us. Not everyone is suited to work in appointed government offices, but by redefining our lifestyles and diet to be more consciously aware of our food, we can make some huge differences. Change the world one bite at a time by taking a bite out of what matters to you most. Food justice advocacy can be expressed through various disciples and though it might take time to make a difference, that’s the point. Take time, not necessarily slow down, but just take some time in your life to be the change you want to see.
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing such sound information, research, and pertinent questions to chew on. I had almost no prior knowledge of food subsidies in the states, and what I did know actually came from field courses and readings in Thailand (specifically Agro). As I have said before, and will certainly say again (I’m very concerned with people getting the wrong idea about how highly I value my own opinions, you see), I am no expert on this topic, but I do think it’s important that the government continues to support domestic crops via subsidies, at least for the time being. Obviously, the way the system works currently is not ideal and needs to move (as quickly as possible) far from monocropping, but farmers need the assistance. We are too removed from the trade/barter economy that would allow farming to support itself, and if a government is not going to help people out when they can’t necessarily fully help themselves, then what should it be doing? Ideally, the farmer and the consumer would be the only parties in conversation deciding what to grow, when, and how, but the bridge to such communication has been all but burned through corporate agriculture. If current agro-business had the only voice, that’s not good (I think I’m stubbornly in the “dark green” camp right now); the goal is primarily money, so big business will make the decisions that will earn them their largest yield.
ReplyDeleteIt’s difficult for me to feel autonomous and powerful as a college student, but we certainly can affect change, especially within our own spheres, if only we’d put in the work. For the past two years, Calli Brennan has been promoting, and enacting, her proposed solution for cafeteria leftovers: gathering and boxing meals for surrounding area students; Dylan Polcyn has, with the help of the current composting team, completely revamped the composting program so it reaches far more people; Quinby Hunter is making strides in the recycling movement to educate the masses. If they can do it with their busy lives as (K) students, we can certainly make the time. Maybe that looks like research polls to supplement a petition to the school, and maybe it’s something bigger! Anything is always better than nothing.