Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Our Next President Could Learn a Lot From Willie Nelson
What a weekend to be hanging with the guys from Farm Aid: historic financial meltdown, plus, breaking news -- ignored by virtually all big media -- that by the beginning of this year the food price crisis had pushed 75 million more people into hunger and that as many more could join them by year's end. That would be 150 million more hungry people in a world of food plenty!
For me this crisis has felt like one of the most egregious human rights disasters ever. While we're told that big agribusiness will save us, it's a system centralizing their control of our food system that got us here.
So it's been my honor to be asked to join Willie Nelson, Dave Matthews, John Mellencamp, and Neil Young --as well Maine farmer Brenna Chase and Duwan Grant from The Food Project -- at a pre-concert Farm Aid press meeting. Together, we'll show that sustainable, local family farming isn't "quaint." It disperses power, protects the soul and water, and can help avert climate catastrophe. If family farms are not our future, we have no future.
See the concert on on DirectTV's The 101 Network or online here on Saturday, starting at 4pm.
There's a lot that should be said, and there's not time to say it all. But below are talking points I've worked up to prep myself for the Farm Aid press event. Please: read them, let me know what you think, and pass them on -- especially to anyone who might think that Farm Aid is old news.
My thanks to Mark Schultz of the Land Stewardship Project and John Crabtree and the good people of the Center for Rural Affairs for their great ongoing work and their assistance in preparing me for this event.
"Keep on rockin' in the free world!"
WHAT ALL AMERICANS NEED KNOW ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THEIR FOOD
We hear it's a food crisis but ours is really a democracy crisis. Democracy is about people having their say, but how many regular citizens would say "yes" to a farm system that so tilts the playing field that our best farmers -- family farmers -- are driven under while the price of food climbs?Farm Aid can help us turn the week's scary lesson about what happens to us when financial power is concentrated and unaccountable into a loud wake-up call: Concentrated, unaccountable food power may even be worse, and only family farming can reverse it.
What does concentrated power look like? In agriculture, it is -- to pick one example -- three giant corporations controlling most of the world's grain trade; in food, just ten corporations controlling half the products on supermarket shelves. If that were healthy, our economy and our people would be, too. But one in nine private health dollars goes to treat food-related illness.
A system consolidating agribusiness control -- and subsidized by tax dollars -- is pushing under 10,000 U.S. farms a year, while it erodes soil and pollutes water. It results in over three-fourths of our food dollars now going to everybody but the farmer.
The good news? We know how to fix it.
* Family farms are typically more productive than the biggest
operations, and are more effective in protecting topsoil, groundwater,
and communities; not to mention farmers.
* More and more farmers
are creating farmer-owned marketing cooperatives that keep vastly more
of the return from farming in rural communities.
* Though President Bush's science advisor Nina Fedoroff claims that
organic farming could support "maybe half" the current world
population, in fact, if organic farming went worldwide food
availability could increase by 50 percent, reports a 2007 University of
Michigan study.
* Family farms make economic sense, community sense, and ecological
sense, so they're gaining where smart families, communities, and states
see the writing on the wall. They're relinking farm and city; farmer
and eater. The most recent Minnesota farm census, for example, recorded
a gain in the number of new farms.
Family farmers are our future, without them we don't have a future.
- Posted in



14 Comments so far
Show AllAnd Willie Nelson supports INDUSTRIAL HEMP to get America the FUCK off of dependence on foreign oil ! Ralph Nader has learned from Willie Nelson. Has Mccain or Obama? Yeah right !
Maybe if the future president is a good student, Willie will let him have a toke from his private stock of marijuana because Willie definately believes in that too! :<))
Poet
Sioux Rose
What struck me here is the parallel between so few industrial giants determining how food is produced and what ends up on our supermarket shelves, with a similar consolidation of our media. Both trends are related in that they shore up power to a few who then wield phenomenal influence on all aspects of our lives. The media through the "magic" hypnotic spell cast by top-tier advertising experts determines what we WILL want and then big agri seeks to deliver it. Noting in advance what trends will be supported, they simply fill these "foods" with enough chemicals to keep them shelf lifed into perpetuity, while the Wall St hucksters betting on commodities futures to drive up costs, these numbers later used in the global tally that is gamed like any big sport, with inane rules of (tariffs) engagement. A few giants in the ring, the rest of us, lucky to get some crumbs... democracy, what a concept!
Yeah the racketeers do try to replicate their approaches across both space and time, so their rackets are easy to recognize and predict. It's possible to avoid their influence - grow your own food or contract with your local gardeners. This approach is extensible - later you can contract for local production of all materials, and biofuels, energy, shelter, education, everything.
The University of Michigan study of organic farming pushed the concept of cover crops for out of season soil building. Sadly, that is difficult in short-season cropping areas like Minnesota where I farm. In order to use this system, I would have to plant earlier maturing plant varieties thereby losing significant yield potential. Planting late means harvesting later even with lower yielding short-season varieties. Chances then increase for an early frost to cause devastation and/or having to expend more energy to dry grain for storage.
I think the current congress has already learned from Willie but not in a good way. Willie Nelson lost a golf course and a bunch of other real estate because he couldn't pay his financial obligations.
I was living in Minnesota during the years that so many faming families lost their farms. We had moved from Minneapolis to a rural farming area--it was the "Back to the Earth" years and we wanted a few acres to garden, keep a few chickens, and such. We were surrounded by small farms and large fields of peas and sweet corn which was under contract to Green Giant. We were a young family and money was of course tight, but we did what many rural folks used to do back then, attend farm auctions to find used equipment. You'd get to see all your neighbors, eat hotdogs in the open air, and all-in-all have a really fun-filled day.
But then it turned ugly. It was just absolutely heart breaking, and to this day I almost break into tears when I remember those years. Hundreds of farmers were selling their farms, not because they wanted to sell or could even imagine anything other than farm life, but because after owning the farm that their parents and perhaps even grandparents had carefully tended, they could no longer finance their operation. They would hold an auction, but there were so many auctions during those years, and with no new small farmers just starting out, who wanted their old stuff? The only things that sold well were the big rigs that got them into trouble in the first place--the big rigs that they had bought on credit because they had been told that they needed to expand and modernize their operations if they wanted to save their farms.
Years later I was working with a woman one night and we got to talking about our past and she said that she and her husband had been ranchers in South Dakota, but that they had lost their ranch and had to "move into town". She explained that so many small ranchers were losing their ranches that there was a term for it--you wouldn't say, for instance, "Did you hear that so-and-so lost their ranch?", you'd say, "Did you hear that so-and-so had to move into town". And she said there was a shame connected to the loss, as though you had made poor choices and were only getting your just reward. Well I was surprised, but why should I have been? It was my Minnesota story all over again, but this time it was small ranchers in South Dakota. But the big eye-opener for me was how she had said that the ranchers were ashamed when they had to move into town. Remembering back to my Minnesota years, I realized that the farmers had also taken the blame for their loss and were ashamed that they had lost their farms.
Now compare this to the corporate farmers, their lobbyists in Washington, and their crookster politicians who pass bill after bill that favors corporate farms over the small family farm. Do they feel any shame? Why not at all! You'd think that God and Mother Nature herself prefers to see our earth divided into huge tracts that are spread with artificial fertilizers, sprayed with herbicides, planted with a single crop that is sprayed with pesticides, harvested with huge machinery or using under-paid farm workers, packaged so expensively that packaging accounts for 1/3 of the energy costs of producing food, shipped thousands of miles to the final market, and then, thanks to subsidies not available to small local farms, sold at a price that is so cheap that much of it ends up in landfills.
Best wishes at Farm Aid, Francis. Thanks to you and all those who are speaking out for a return of family farms.
Merry ( mainelyorganic@yahoo.com ), a woman in my permaculture gardening group, is writing a book which she hopes to soon have published: "Homegrown Community: The Maine Example". I asked her if she might have anything from her book that she would like to share with the people at the Farm Aid gathering. She sent me an email with these excerpts from her book:
"Opening our minds, our wallets, and our policies to support local agriculture is no longer a luxury for the informed, well-heeled, and activist few. The availability of safe local food depends upon us. American health is undermined by foods that are nutritionally deficient, harvested half-ripe, and over-processed. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides poison our soil, water, air, and bodies. Global warming, water emergencies, and increasing food contamination threaten the global food supply. Falling oil supplies combine with rising oil costs to fuel the fires of scarcity. It is in our own self-interest to learn about and befriend local farmers. I’m grateful that local agriculture provides such a pleasant, tasty, wholesome alternative, not a stringent sacrifice...
Many of us want to convert our fears about peak fuel, global warming, and American overuse of global resources which threaten our future into motivation to create an alternative, sustainable future. We know we must make changes in lifestyle but don’t know how to move outside the role of “consumer” into which corporate America has boxed us. We are hungry for the inspiration to replace fear with hope. We can find that inspiration among our neighboring farmers and gardeners...the synergy of local farms, gardens, markets, and forms of governance create a viable, vibrant community...
Together, we can celebrate family farmers. They grow healthy families, local economy, and resilient communities alongside their crops and livestock. With local agriculture, true homeland security takes root. We become self-sustaining, dependent only on local resources that we can husband and harvest sustainably. Thus, we become less vulnerable to global shortages, contamination, wars, or terrorism. When a community grows organically, it sets roots in fertile soil. It becomes resilient, able to weather the storms that are certain to come. The soil and the environment flourish rather than wither under the husbandry of corporate farms. Family farms contribute to global healing, not global warming...
We can discover and perhaps join a new tribe: “Locavores.” These are the people who seek out local foods. They enjoy growing some of their own food at home and sourcing the rest from local farms. They complete the community circle. In cooperation with their local farmers and Mother Nature they create a cycle that is self-sustaining and resilient. Eventually, they will contribute to reduced dependence on oil for the packaging and transport of food. Locavores use the power of their purse-strings to help reestablish global equity and peace. They cooperate with nature to reestablish the health of our planet...These members of the local food community—farmers, gardeners, and consumers acting in concert—are the true heroes of the 21st century...
As farmers and consumers share in the cultivation of our heritage, our fields, and our gardens, we are discovering that, together, we are also cultivating community. We are feeding and enriching each other, thereby nurturing social justice. We are forming consumer and farmer cooperatives, strengthening the ties that bind us to one another. Farms are turning to Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) left and right. Over backyard fences, we are sharing food and garden lore with our immediate neighbors. At the farmstands and farmers’ markets we are meeting our slightly more distant neighbors. As we learn more about our interdependence, we are creating numerous organizations and events supportive of local farmers. Community is springing up everywhere around food. A MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association) bumper sticker reads “Local Farms, Healthy Communities.” Our state recognizes this connection with a new “Support Local Agriculture” license plate.
My car, like many others in Maine, sports a bumper sticker that asks, “Who’s Your Farmer?” MOFGA prints these stickers, because it believes it is as important for us to know our farmer as to know our doctor or lawyer. Welcome to a whole new paradigm:
"Your farmer is an important professional in your life."
Sioux Rose
GANDY DANCER: Thank you for sharing that moving story, and its parallel to ranchers. One could say the same thing about Ma & Pa small retail stores and even restaurants. Wallmart is the big fish eating all the little ones, and perhaps fast food has in many places taken away the "need" for other more down-to-earth restaurants. It's a cancer, this growing so big you cannot fall/fail, as is being proven as erroneous as the strategy to enable wealth to mostly aggregate at the TOP of the pyramid, thus creating an unstable structure, which could in the long run be the good news... its toppling onto US, where symbolically we become the slaves carrying those heavy slates upwards (taking on the debt burden) is the short term (I hope) tough part.
Sioux Rose
PS: I just realized the same "School of thought, or business operational instructions" applies to media: where big conglomerates have eaten up all the little broadcast stations, local newspapers, etc... soon the US will be "ONE NATION under OIL, INC."
The "Shill":
In the "old days", small towns as well as the busy big cities had "card masters" who would set up a "three card Monte" or "shell game" table on any street corner. The 'master' would gain people's confidence with the "legitimacy of his game" by using a "shill". Usually a child, sweet and innocent looking, or a "girl" (very virgin looking), or "old man/woman", who would "play the game and win". This would build the confidence of the "onlookers" who, when they saw the "shill" win would be encouraged to take their own chances---and they always lost. Later ----"off stage"-- the "game master" and the "shills" would split the take---because the shill was working with the master.
Willie Nelson has never been anything but the shill for the "masters"-----playing concerts for the "family farmers" and "raising aid money" for the most heavily government subsidized industry in the system, that by nature are the largest polluters of the environment as well. The "Family Farmer" has never been anything but a player on the commodities market, and feeding the family or the others was and still is secondary. I grew up on a ranch and we always had a "truck garden" where we sold/traded locally what we did not eat ourselves---including meat, if we ate beef it was when one of our animals broke a leg" cause yo don't eat your cash crop"---it's that simple.
"Organic produce" is higher priced at the local Super Market, and the standards for verification are almost non existent. If you find toxic chemicals in/on your broccoli that you purchased at the super market chain in your neighborhood you have little or no recourse for redress, and you most likely will not get your purchase price returned---as a result of false advertising.
The only answer is locally produced (usually your own yard) and very closely supervised "produce production"---including your meat/fish.
None of these measures are effective unless the population controls it's numbers, and this is not occurring on a very large scale anywhere on earth.
The problems that this country are facing are reflected in the rest of the world, and this country "being a world leader and all"----is leading in the wrong direction. They do not control their numbers and so they are always scrambling for a way to feed all those little children that "Jesus loves so much"----but does not feed cause he's so busy elsewhere---you know---saving all those souls.
Hunger is just another tool used by a few to control the many, and the USA is a world leader there as well.
Several years ago a friend of mine made an excellent suggestion to her local Ag. Extension Agent. SHE pointed out that the most agriculturally productive nation on the planet had (at the time ) 12 million hungry children each day, and almost as many elderly. Her idea was a sound one. Since the Ag. Dept PAID (and still does) farmers to let their land "lay fallow" that is not grow certain crops, they would be paid "compensation". Her idea was to raise food crops on these "fallow lands" and distribute the food to hungry Americans. She was told that the "Feds" would never allow it since the food that already goes to feed the hungry is bought on the open market with the money people donate for the hungry. In other words, it would compete with the commodities market and they could not allow this. So the people who donate their money to feed the hungry in the USA, do so paying full commodities prices----no wholesale when we feed those hungry Americans, or the world either.
Try not to forget also that Willie was a huge proponent of Marijuana use for many years. Until the made public his debt to the IRS for 16M in back taxes, after a "weed bust". Then he almost immediately appeared on TV Commercials as a proponent for the Reagan's (Nancy and Ron) just say NO " program failure"----saying that "The Marijuana sold today is ten times stronger than the Marijuana sold in the years past"--so just say no--a huge pile of "feces" that people ate up with spoons---cause Willie the Outlaw said it........on TV---- and "ya know its against the law to say stuff on TV that ain't true". Willie has been busted several more times since then for "Weed"----I'm sure it's that "old fashion weed"---the weaker stuff, ya know?
America seems to be doomed to failure at its own hands----as a result of its own absolute stupidity, and the deep need for "HEROS".
The "Organic Farmer" coming to the rescue is just another one of many.
Putting the production of food into the hands of a few is just as foolish as putting the control of $700 Billion in "bad debt" into the hands of a few ---in fact the very ones who created the problem---just a few---in the first place.
Then you know ---those Americans are not famous for learning from their mistakes are they?
NativeSon is misinformed about farm subsidies and about Willie Nelson, making arguments directly opposite to the facts. As I show below, NativeSon is a de facto shill for corporate agribusiness, which, unlike family farmers, is in fact a “most heavily government subsidized industry.” The false information he presents is the same as that we find in mainstream media, for example, in the Washington Post’s expose series on farm subsidies. In fact, “farm” subsidies were invented as a shill to secretly protect giant multinational agribusinesses at the expense of farmers and America as a whole.
In Roosevelt’s New Deal, price floors and supply management were enacted on the down side, and price ceilings and strategic reserves on the top side. This kept farm prices above costs and prevented food prices from skyrocketing during shortages. Under these policies, America made a decent profit on exports of farm products. Banking committees were behind some of this, as Willie Nelson showed in his post of a 1983 Eddie Albert speech here at Common Dreams. It's in the archives and dated September 6, 2003. The title is "It's About America." Basically a living wage level of farm prices was used as a stimulus package. Unlike recent stimulus packages where the government borrows money and gives it to us, to be paid back later, (like giving us a credit card to run up some bills on,) the Steagall amendment built upon the powerful economic multiplier effect of diversified family farm agriculture.
All of this was based on the well known fact that farm commodities lack price responsiveness on both supply and demand sides, and do not self correct under free markets, causing farm economies to otherwise (without price floors, etc.) usually lose money on exports. See Daryll E. Ray, “price responsiveness.”
Corporations, especially the farm output complex, (those buying commodities from farmers,) fought against this, seeking special welfare benefits for themselves at the expense of farmers and the American economy as a whole, the Committee for Economic Development, for example, as cited by Albert in the piece. First they won a simple lowering of price supports, lowering their costs to buy farm commodities and lowering the profits America made on exporting these items. As this sent America toward another Great Depression (and fostered world poverty, since it lowered world farm prices,) farmers rose up in protest. According to Willis Rowel in “Mad as Hell: A Behind the Scenes Story of the NFO,” National Farmers Organization members brought thousands of Sears catalogs and tossed them disgustedly into an enormous pile at a large rally in the 1960s. A representative from Sears had been a leader behind a CED report calling for the elimination of one third of U.S. farmers (called “excess resources” in the report) within five years (cf Albert). (Note: in effect this was also a protest against the root causes of what became decades of dumping and the current world food crisis.)
Agribusiness turned to the Brannan plan of “farm” subsidies to continue lowering U.S. and world farm prices well below production costs. As agribusiness reaped huge profits, farmers were compensated with subsidies covering a large part of their further losses, America lost hundreds of billions on exports (in 2008 dollars) and farming countries world wide lost trillions. Farmers were blamed for the welfare, as they are today in mainstream media, among progressives, and from NativeSon, even though it added up to significant net reductions in their incomes. For example, corn, wheat, cotton, rice, barley, oats, and soybeans (commodities in these programs) lost money in the market vs full costs almost all the time 1981-2006), and subsidies did not make up all of the losses. Meanwhile individual agribusinesses reaped multibillion dollar gains off of U.S. farmers (domestic & export), and America’s (export) massive market losses. Some shill! (Some pig:” Charlotte)
NativeSon is also wrong about being paid “to let ... land ‘lay fallow.’” Under the New Deal programs farmers were required to reduce production to match supply. The government had net gains, not net costs, from the pre subsidy programs, an estimated 13 million in the black 1942-1952, for example. Supply management is standard business practice, but in agriculture government help is needed to implement it. We’ve seen major reductions by car companies this year for example. During the Great depression some industries cut back 60% or more and therefore had losses much smaller than those of agriculture.
Paying for voluntary supply reductions was an unneeded pro-corporate method for damaging farm supply management programs. Finally, NativeSon is wrong that supply management has continued for the commodities I’ve listed above. It was weakened under Reagan (1985) and ended under Freedom to Farm (part of Republican “Contract for America”).
Farm Aid has long supported a return to non subsidy farm programs where America makes a profit and we don't dump on the world, programs with price floors, supply management, price ceilings and commodity reserves, like those of the National Family Farm Coalition. You can see this in documents from the Farm Aid funded 1980s United Farmer and Rancher Congress. See A Legacy of Crisis: Farmer Solutions, Corporate Resistance and Farm Bill Basics: Formula for Prosperity and Fairness, both by George Naylor and others, now online at "inmotion" magazine.
That is a very impressive response but pointless without citations. Please provide those citations ----and I need not remind you that citations are imperative to making your point---without them you sound like a "shill" for Uncle Sam.
As for the control of Commodities----there never has been an open field for production except in writing from the same sources that contribute the propaganda.
But Government control of commodities is as old as "governments".
As for Mr. Nelson, he nor any others in his position are ever expected to do anything that does not serve their own purposes----selling his music along with "his memories" is his only motive: or perhaps you would like to mention the number of acres he presently has in cotton, soy, corn, wheat, or---------his annual production of these crops/commodities.
Bush and company are going to need some "writers with your skills" so you might consider sending some applications---along with the above "master piece" for consideration.
In the past when I've put a lot of links in comments here my remarks got sent into limbo because the links looked like spam, but you can google "Brad Wilson" "Common Dreams" and "farm bill" and find a few direct links.
Bush's farm bill is online at USDA. Go to nffc.org to get a rebuttal along the lines I am arguing it, or In Motion Magazine, or iatp. No, I'm not on Bush's team. Uncle Sam? I don't understand all of these challenges.
A Willie Nelson piece from years past has been re posted at Common Dreams, "It's about America," 9/24/08. That has more info. on some of my points. A key source on corporate influence is the CED's "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture," 1962. References for that and to other points made by me, Eddie Albert in the Willie Nelson piece can be found in footnotes to Mark Ritchie's fairly brief online pdf booklet "Crisis by Design," which can be found at iatp or via google with his name and the title. The same for George Naylor's (et al) writing, "Legacy of Crisis" and other items linked at In Motion Magazine online. They're from the Farm Aid funded Farmer and Rancher Congress.
Search Daryll E. Ray and "The Legacy of the Wallaces," for a longer piece on the agricultural market economics behind this or for a short piece, "It's Price Responsiveness!" or "Are the five oft-cited reasons for farm programs actually symptoms of a more basic reason." His pdf booklet, online at APAC under publications is "Rethinking US Agricultural Policy" and contains more source material.
A standard world wide web address for USDA ERS commodity cost data finishes with ers. usda.gov/ Data/ CostsAndReturns/ testpick. htm, but remove the spaces I put in here to fool the anti spam machine (as I really want to get these sources posted right away). That and other ERS data are where my 1981-2006 data come from. But you can see the losses at this link.
I also use USDA's online pdf booklet "Crop Production: Historical Track Records," April 2007 for data to estimate the massive losses I claim. So I use the (almost) full cost figures from ERS above (and they change how they figure some years back, so I use the larger fuller cost or full economic cost figures), prices (either from ERS, same link, or the Track Record booklet), Yields (same ERS link). To my knowledge (and in my opinion), while USDA and other government entities often look at export volume and value and trade deficits and surpluses, there has never been a study of whether or not, in spite of those figures, we make profits from farm exports. I also use standard government online export data. USDA ERS has info on economic Multipliers, and Eddie Albert refers to the figures on this that were used historically as this stuff went though the banking committees. On that see also Charles Walters, "Unforgiven," a book Dennis Kucinich cited during the 2004 Iowa caucuses. I use a GDP deflator to put things in (first in 2000 now translating to) 2007 dollars. I use USDA data on farm subsidies (see the Agriculture.
If you take a couple hundred billion, which I get on U.S. losses (below zero) on a group of main program commodities 1981-2006, and then consider larger factors (such as 1. that price floors and prices were lowered starting way back in 1953, which adds up big in 2007 dollars; 2. a fair-trade/living-wage price above zero add much more; 3. economic multipliers; 4. world exports or even world production, with world prices dragged down historically by the dominant world exporter and price setter, the U.S.) I find it pretty easy to get well into the trillions or double digit trillions on impacts.
It has been quite hard to find matching sets of data to answer all of the questions I've been askin. I hope to publish this with footnotes (and with help!) prior to the next farm bill, which I suspect might be an emergency bill before the current one expires. At the moment I'm moving from one house to another and I've recently bought a computer that is 12 years newer and uses different software, so it's hard to pull together everything.
nffc.org explains a lot of how the commodity title proposals I'm advocating shake out, in their farm bill section, or search nffc and "Food from Family Farms Act."
The online government report by Wayne Rassmussen and others, "HISTORY OF AGRICULTURAL PRICE-SUPPORT AND ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS, 1933-84" goes over the history of set asides in a more technical way, if the Mark Ritchie and George Naylor information does not convince you. The "Soil Bank" was an example of a move to paid but voluntary supply management. Those who agree with me criticize that as the wrong way to go.
The part about dramatic industrial supply management by corporations in the Great Depression comes from a chart, (I believe, in one of the earlier chapters) of "George Peek and the Fight for Farm Parity," by Gilbert Fite. APAC article, Daryll E. Ray column 316, "Agribusinesses practice inventory management." is also relevant. All things Considered has a transcript online of "Clunker to Cruiser, Ford Posts Quarterly Profit" 4-24-08 which tells about how Ford cut back on supply. I believe they were followed by GM.