Getting to Win-Win-Win

What happens when over 98% of the population does not farm or do farm labor but yet are completely dependent for their survival on the less than 2% of the population that does?  The first words that pop into my head are riskiness and dependency (& ignorance).  When a global economic system is shaken to the core, I wonder what the reverberations will be.  I hear about and see more and more people, at least in my little corner of the world, trying to plant and grow more of their own food.  That seems to be an excellent strategy to minimize risk and dependency, while increasing the pleasures of the palate with fresh-off-the-plant produce.  Other strategies people are using are supporting their locals farmers through a purchase of their seasonal bounty, usually in the form of a CSA.  While the harvest is never guaranteed, few farms will short their customers produce even when they do have crop losses.  So, shy of the farmer going out of business mid-season or a severe natural catastrophe, CSA customers will receive their share of the bounty.  The shareholders reduce their risk of not having access to good food and the farmer reduced her risk of not having a place to sell that food.  Other folks use barter, trade, and work-exchange to secure their food.  But what about folks that don't live near farmers, don't have time to trade, or enough money to exchange.  How do they ensure a steady supply of fresh, pure, healthy foods?

I hear this debate all the time, in fact it seems to be the defining debate of the so-called "good food" movement.  The crux of the question is this: how do food producers internalize the costs of production, such as environmental stewardship, fair labor practices, and economic returns that will sustain their families while simultaneously satisfying the need for good, healthy food to be more readily available to people of all economic situations and geographies?  I do not see these two needs as oppositional (or mutually exclusive).  If humanity has been able to reconcile other equally diametrical needs, such as the need for creativity and abstraction with the need for science and theory, or more basically, the need for fresh water distribution systems with the need to pay for them (achieved in many parts of the world, not all), we can figure out this food issue.  What seems to hinder the "movement" from progressing very far is that many are asking the wrong question, which is: How can farmers make their food more accessible while still earning enough to survive?  When I see this question framed in similar ways, I immediately think to myself, do we ask this of any other industry, sector, or businessperson?  Who out there (at least in this country) is demanding that land be given away for free or next to nothing so that housing can be more affordable to all?  Nobody.  Other than a few crazy libertarians, who is demanding the government stop taxation while at the same time providing free social services to those in need?  Nobody.  Why would well-meaning folks ever ask the same thing of our food producers?  Do they operate in some sort of non-capitalist third dimension, in which they don't have real costs of production, don't have to pay for labor, and don't need to earn a living?   Sadly, since so few of us farm or even know farmers, it is easy to delude ourselves in thinking that farmers are somehow outside of the capitalist economy, that they can survive on NEGATIVE RATES OF RETURN and give away the fruits of their labor for next to nothing.  Are doctors giving away their services for free?  Are home builders?  Are teachers?

In other industries, the government attempts to reign in on negative externalities through regulation.  Those industries then pass on that cost of regulation and the "internalization" of externalities by passing on the cost to its buyers.  Farmers rarely have any power to do this, often because the industry is so consolidated or vertically integrated that most profits go elsewhere.  If farmers are allowed to internalize these costs, food will be more expensive.  But the government can do something about this.  They can subsidize.  Imagine the government subsidizing the cost of health care so that farmers could provide it to their workers and themselves.  Imagine the government creating a legal, reasonable system for work visas so that farmers could find and maintain the skilled workforce that they need.  Imagine if farmers were subsidized to build healthy and green housing for their workers so they did not have to live in caves, tarps, and squalor.  Imagine if farmers were not subsidized to produce industrial commodities but instead were subsidized to produce healthy, nutrient-dense foods and were paid according to their land stewardship benefits.  If farmers and their good practices were subsidized, it would reduce their costs of production, resulting in more affordable food while simultaneously eliminating the negative externalities of production that the rest of us have to pay for (contaminated water, habitat destruction, air pollution, pesticide poisonings, cancer, etc.).

The other option is to subsidize the low-income eaters of this country.  First and foremost, minimum wage should be increased such that a family with two full-time working adults can afford the necessities of life.  Secondly, government could go a long way by creating incentives for healthy food retail in all sizes and shapes, from the small rural community to the block of a big city.  They could simultaneously limit the proliferation of fast food and liquor stores that peddle disease and addiction.  Thirdly, the government should continue to expand the amount of food stamps, WIC, and other programs that encourage the purchase and consumption of healthy foods while also supporting America's farmers.  Fourth, government could also make it easier to zone for and create community gardens while requiring multi-family and high-density housing developments to save space for food gardens.

It is only through creative, multi-pronged efforts that include government policy, regulation, subsidies, as well as the inclusion of the community, businesses, and workers, will we solve this seemingly intractible dilemma.  There are probably problems in this world that humans will not be able to solve.  This is not one of them.

Comments

[Carmelite]

"First and foremost, minimum wage should be increased such that a family with two full-time working adults can afford the necessities of life."

I listened to a talk by a Harvard professor recently about how much more difficult it is to gain entry to and remain part of the middle class than it was 20 years ago. Middle class, and even lower class families used to be able to sustain themselves reasonably well on one adult full-time income (most often this used to be the adult male in the household). My father tells stories of growing up quite poor in a 5 kid family in south Louisiana. His father worked full-time, and his mother stayed at home, and they were never lacking for food and got no government assistance. This situation would be hard to replicate today. Why? It's hard to pinpoint the exact causes, but it seems that American families spend so much more on housing (usually paying more than they otherwise would just to be in good school districts) and health care than they used to, that they have little to no wiggle room in their budgets.

Perhaps if we can get our health care and public schooling disasters somewhat straightened out, we wouldn't even need to subsidize low income eaters.

By the way, have you ever seen families using their food stamps to buy coca-cola and pringles? That's always pretty hard for me to watch:(

[Tana]

Woooo, a comment by one of my heroes, Peter Kaminsky! Wooooo! Lookit you, girl!

[peter kaminsky]

thanks for recommending Pig Perfect. check out my latest, written with the great argentine chef francis mallmann.

7 Fires:Grilling The Argentine Way