Jan 14, 2010
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Bob Stallman, threw down the gauntlet
on Sunday in his annual speech to his industrial cronies. What got him
riled up? Not rising seed prices, superweeds, or the unpredictable
weather farmers face due to climate change. Instead, the focus of his speech was the critics of synthetic agriculture:
"Emotionally charged labels such as monoculture, factory farmer,
industrial food, and big ag threaten to fray our edges," he said. "A
line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with
consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want
to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule." His strong
remarks came following a letter signed by 47 scientists imploring the AFBF to enter into dialog about their denier position on climate change.
In addition to the havoc being wreaked on the environment, one of
the biggest trespasses of industrial agriculture has been the
elimination of millions of jobs, resulting in the emptying out of rural
communities worldwide. The repercussions of the loss of opportunity for
rural America has been tragic: many towns are now plagued by
dilapidated schools and poor health services, and a rising epidemic of
methamphetamine use and production has filled in where more beneficial
small businesses used to thrive.
This emptying out was never better cataloged than in John Steinbeck's great novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
Written in 1939 after Steinbeck had researched and reported for years
on the plight of the American farm worker during the early
industrialization of agriculture, he captured the phenomenon thusly:
And then the dispossessed were drawn west - from Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas families, tribes,
dusted out, tractored out. Carloads, caravans, homeless and hungry;
twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two
hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless
- restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do - to lift, to push, to
pull, to pick, to cut - anything, any burden to bear, for food.
As our Great Recession economy continues to shed jobs - an additional 85,000 were lost in December
holding the unemployment rate at 10% - we should be creating
opportunities in sustainable farming, the original, shovel-ready green
job. Reconsidering what it is to farm will require completely new
thinking about agriculture, combining the best of scientific knowledge
while finding a balance between scale and community. Unfortunately,
those who rely on the status quo of industrialized agriculture for
their bacon see farming as a linear pursuit with one end: bigger farms
using technical solutions - and thus fewer human actors.
Yet never before have we been so food insecure - 49 million
Americans are currently not eating three meals per day, and one billion
people in the world are hungry. The hungry cannot afford to eat -
because there is too much labor in the world and not enough jobs. We
claim to want to feed the world, but today's farmers don't even feed
themselves; they make commodity products to be shipped far away and
reformulated and sent back to their supermarket shelves. They do this
because we've told them to, with our tax dollars and purchasing power.
However, our system should not be about producing more food, but about
producing better food on a human scale and cutting out the processors
and the middlemen.
Stallman's arguments against this smaller approach to agriculture
ignores reality. There are still migrant workers doing backbreaking
labor on farms often subject to doing the same monotonous movements for
hours: picking tomatoes all day in the hot sun, or hand harvesting
cotton (a common occurrence in light of the epidemic of superweeds in
the south resistant to herbicides). By contrast, small farms are
usually owned and worked primarily by the farmer. In addition, small
farms are diversified to guarantee a profit through direct sales, and
to stave off risk if one crop fails - and this just so happens to be a
more worker-friendly (as the farmer gets to vary his/her work),
resource efficient and an environmentally-conscious way to farm, too.
American policy makers have historically cowered in the face of the
AFBF, but that organization is aging and old-fashioned. It's time for
politicians to see that another way is possible and that so much is at
stake, and it's time for new policies that reflect this knowledge. As
the AFBF goes kicking and screaming into the 2010's, it is worth
remembering that America's farmers (and most AFBF members) are on
average 57 years old. We will need more farmers no matter what, however
we hope to feed ourselves in the future, and newcomer farmers often do
not agree with the climate change-denying AFBF. Second, we just don't
know whether sustainable agriculture can feed the world, but we do know
that our current system has a 'use by' date, and that smaller,
diversified systems have better yields and better protect our natural
resources. Isn't it worth a try? It would be unethical to continue the
status quo knowing what we know about the nitrates heading downstream,
topsoil loss, the fluctuating price of a barrel of oil, and of course,
the fact that our children will die younger than we will because of
what they eat.
It is time to revalue the farming profession and rebuild our
communities again. It is time to break up the 10,000 acre farms into
one hundred plots, and plant young people in the countryside who can
use sustainable practices to rebuild the soil and bring it back to life.
Building a system that employs more farmers is not a step backwards,
it is an acknowledgment of our respect for nature and a guarantee
against future hunger. Perhaps we've lost Stallman's generation on this
front, both because industry has a strong hold on the AFBF and because
it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But farming is being
reconsidered and changed as more and more young people realize the
vital role they play in reinventing the food system and take up the
challenge of doing it from scratch.
Land is a resource for the common good, and only small farms can
rebuild what has been lost in rural America. This change will take the
conscious effort by policy makers to go against the laissez-faire
capitalism that has propelled us into industrial agriculture in the
first place.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Civil Eats
Paula Crossfield
Paula Crossfield is a founder and the Editor-at-large of Civil Eats. She is also a co-founder of the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Her reporting has been featured in The Nation, Gastronomica, Index Magazine, The New York Times.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Bob Stallman, threw down the gauntlet
on Sunday in his annual speech to his industrial cronies. What got him
riled up? Not rising seed prices, superweeds, or the unpredictable
weather farmers face due to climate change. Instead, the focus of his speech was the critics of synthetic agriculture:
"Emotionally charged labels such as monoculture, factory farmer,
industrial food, and big ag threaten to fray our edges," he said. "A
line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with
consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want
to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule." His strong
remarks came following a letter signed by 47 scientists imploring the AFBF to enter into dialog about their denier position on climate change.
In addition to the havoc being wreaked on the environment, one of
the biggest trespasses of industrial agriculture has been the
elimination of millions of jobs, resulting in the emptying out of rural
communities worldwide. The repercussions of the loss of opportunity for
rural America has been tragic: many towns are now plagued by
dilapidated schools and poor health services, and a rising epidemic of
methamphetamine use and production has filled in where more beneficial
small businesses used to thrive.
This emptying out was never better cataloged than in John Steinbeck's great novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
Written in 1939 after Steinbeck had researched and reported for years
on the plight of the American farm worker during the early
industrialization of agriculture, he captured the phenomenon thusly:
And then the dispossessed were drawn west - from Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas families, tribes,
dusted out, tractored out. Carloads, caravans, homeless and hungry;
twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two
hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless
- restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do - to lift, to push, to
pull, to pick, to cut - anything, any burden to bear, for food.
As our Great Recession economy continues to shed jobs - an additional 85,000 were lost in December
holding the unemployment rate at 10% - we should be creating
opportunities in sustainable farming, the original, shovel-ready green
job. Reconsidering what it is to farm will require completely new
thinking about agriculture, combining the best of scientific knowledge
while finding a balance between scale and community. Unfortunately,
those who rely on the status quo of industrialized agriculture for
their bacon see farming as a linear pursuit with one end: bigger farms
using technical solutions - and thus fewer human actors.
Yet never before have we been so food insecure - 49 million
Americans are currently not eating three meals per day, and one billion
people in the world are hungry. The hungry cannot afford to eat -
because there is too much labor in the world and not enough jobs. We
claim to want to feed the world, but today's farmers don't even feed
themselves; they make commodity products to be shipped far away and
reformulated and sent back to their supermarket shelves. They do this
because we've told them to, with our tax dollars and purchasing power.
However, our system should not be about producing more food, but about
producing better food on a human scale and cutting out the processors
and the middlemen.
Stallman's arguments against this smaller approach to agriculture
ignores reality. There are still migrant workers doing backbreaking
labor on farms often subject to doing the same monotonous movements for
hours: picking tomatoes all day in the hot sun, or hand harvesting
cotton (a common occurrence in light of the epidemic of superweeds in
the south resistant to herbicides). By contrast, small farms are
usually owned and worked primarily by the farmer. In addition, small
farms are diversified to guarantee a profit through direct sales, and
to stave off risk if one crop fails - and this just so happens to be a
more worker-friendly (as the farmer gets to vary his/her work),
resource efficient and an environmentally-conscious way to farm, too.
American policy makers have historically cowered in the face of the
AFBF, but that organization is aging and old-fashioned. It's time for
politicians to see that another way is possible and that so much is at
stake, and it's time for new policies that reflect this knowledge. As
the AFBF goes kicking and screaming into the 2010's, it is worth
remembering that America's farmers (and most AFBF members) are on
average 57 years old. We will need more farmers no matter what, however
we hope to feed ourselves in the future, and newcomer farmers often do
not agree with the climate change-denying AFBF. Second, we just don't
know whether sustainable agriculture can feed the world, but we do know
that our current system has a 'use by' date, and that smaller,
diversified systems have better yields and better protect our natural
resources. Isn't it worth a try? It would be unethical to continue the
status quo knowing what we know about the nitrates heading downstream,
topsoil loss, the fluctuating price of a barrel of oil, and of course,
the fact that our children will die younger than we will because of
what they eat.
It is time to revalue the farming profession and rebuild our
communities again. It is time to break up the 10,000 acre farms into
one hundred plots, and plant young people in the countryside who can
use sustainable practices to rebuild the soil and bring it back to life.
Building a system that employs more farmers is not a step backwards,
it is an acknowledgment of our respect for nature and a guarantee
against future hunger. Perhaps we've lost Stallman's generation on this
front, both because industry has a strong hold on the AFBF and because
it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But farming is being
reconsidered and changed as more and more young people realize the
vital role they play in reinventing the food system and take up the
challenge of doing it from scratch.
Land is a resource for the common good, and only small farms can
rebuild what has been lost in rural America. This change will take the
conscious effort by policy makers to go against the laissez-faire
capitalism that has propelled us into industrial agriculture in the
first place.
Paula Crossfield
Paula Crossfield is a founder and the Editor-at-large of Civil Eats. She is also a co-founder of the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Her reporting has been featured in The Nation, Gastronomica, Index Magazine, The New York Times.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Bob Stallman, threw down the gauntlet
on Sunday in his annual speech to his industrial cronies. What got him
riled up? Not rising seed prices, superweeds, or the unpredictable
weather farmers face due to climate change. Instead, the focus of his speech was the critics of synthetic agriculture:
"Emotionally charged labels such as monoculture, factory farmer,
industrial food, and big ag threaten to fray our edges," he said. "A
line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with
consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want
to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule." His strong
remarks came following a letter signed by 47 scientists imploring the AFBF to enter into dialog about their denier position on climate change.
In addition to the havoc being wreaked on the environment, one of
the biggest trespasses of industrial agriculture has been the
elimination of millions of jobs, resulting in the emptying out of rural
communities worldwide. The repercussions of the loss of opportunity for
rural America has been tragic: many towns are now plagued by
dilapidated schools and poor health services, and a rising epidemic of
methamphetamine use and production has filled in where more beneficial
small businesses used to thrive.
This emptying out was never better cataloged than in John Steinbeck's great novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
Written in 1939 after Steinbeck had researched and reported for years
on the plight of the American farm worker during the early
industrialization of agriculture, he captured the phenomenon thusly:
And then the dispossessed were drawn west - from Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas families, tribes,
dusted out, tractored out. Carloads, caravans, homeless and hungry;
twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two
hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless
- restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do - to lift, to push, to
pull, to pick, to cut - anything, any burden to bear, for food.
As our Great Recession economy continues to shed jobs - an additional 85,000 were lost in December
holding the unemployment rate at 10% - we should be creating
opportunities in sustainable farming, the original, shovel-ready green
job. Reconsidering what it is to farm will require completely new
thinking about agriculture, combining the best of scientific knowledge
while finding a balance between scale and community. Unfortunately,
those who rely on the status quo of industrialized agriculture for
their bacon see farming as a linear pursuit with one end: bigger farms
using technical solutions - and thus fewer human actors.
Yet never before have we been so food insecure - 49 million
Americans are currently not eating three meals per day, and one billion
people in the world are hungry. The hungry cannot afford to eat -
because there is too much labor in the world and not enough jobs. We
claim to want to feed the world, but today's farmers don't even feed
themselves; they make commodity products to be shipped far away and
reformulated and sent back to their supermarket shelves. They do this
because we've told them to, with our tax dollars and purchasing power.
However, our system should not be about producing more food, but about
producing better food on a human scale and cutting out the processors
and the middlemen.
Stallman's arguments against this smaller approach to agriculture
ignores reality. There are still migrant workers doing backbreaking
labor on farms often subject to doing the same monotonous movements for
hours: picking tomatoes all day in the hot sun, or hand harvesting
cotton (a common occurrence in light of the epidemic of superweeds in
the south resistant to herbicides). By contrast, small farms are
usually owned and worked primarily by the farmer. In addition, small
farms are diversified to guarantee a profit through direct sales, and
to stave off risk if one crop fails - and this just so happens to be a
more worker-friendly (as the farmer gets to vary his/her work),
resource efficient and an environmentally-conscious way to farm, too.
American policy makers have historically cowered in the face of the
AFBF, but that organization is aging and old-fashioned. It's time for
politicians to see that another way is possible and that so much is at
stake, and it's time for new policies that reflect this knowledge. As
the AFBF goes kicking and screaming into the 2010's, it is worth
remembering that America's farmers (and most AFBF members) are on
average 57 years old. We will need more farmers no matter what, however
we hope to feed ourselves in the future, and newcomer farmers often do
not agree with the climate change-denying AFBF. Second, we just don't
know whether sustainable agriculture can feed the world, but we do know
that our current system has a 'use by' date, and that smaller,
diversified systems have better yields and better protect our natural
resources. Isn't it worth a try? It would be unethical to continue the
status quo knowing what we know about the nitrates heading downstream,
topsoil loss, the fluctuating price of a barrel of oil, and of course,
the fact that our children will die younger than we will because of
what they eat.
It is time to revalue the farming profession and rebuild our
communities again. It is time to break up the 10,000 acre farms into
one hundred plots, and plant young people in the countryside who can
use sustainable practices to rebuild the soil and bring it back to life.
Building a system that employs more farmers is not a step backwards,
it is an acknowledgment of our respect for nature and a guarantee
against future hunger. Perhaps we've lost Stallman's generation on this
front, both because industry has a strong hold on the AFBF and because
it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But farming is being
reconsidered and changed as more and more young people realize the
vital role they play in reinventing the food system and take up the
challenge of doing it from scratch.
Land is a resource for the common good, and only small farms can
rebuild what has been lost in rural America. This change will take the
conscious effort by policy makers to go against the laissez-faire
capitalism that has propelled us into industrial agriculture in the
first place.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.