Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] What's wrong in "Thanksgiving's Hidden Costs"

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] What's wrong in "Thanksgiving's Hidden Costs"
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:30:21 -0700


Thank you for your time and good points, Pat. I noted the article's
"solutions" were limited to government action, not to be against all
government. You've said you don't expect good government policies anytime
soon, and I agree, and that's the reason for my questioning of that article's
"solutiions". There's plenty we can do while waiting for government to repent
and reform itself. And in fact, you and I are both already becoming part of
that alternative solution: grow your own, buy what we can't grow from other
locals, become more self reliant as a community. It's a small step, but it
works and it doesn't wait on government to reform itself. Maybe it's too
simple and too obvious for most people to see. Or it's too much trouble for
others to actually practice what they preach.

Like that article, we can go on endlessly about all that's wrong with
agribusiness and what they put on supermarket shelves. The thing is, we don't
have to buy all that stuff. Don't want MSG, hydrogenated oils, GM soy,
hormone-laced meat, milk and milk products, don't want to support Cargill and
Monsanto? Don't buy it.

Realistically of course we can't grow all we need individually and that's why
we need communities of people specializing, locally and regionally. We don't
have to eat all the junk that travels an average of 1,500 miles to our tables
and waste all the fossil fuels burned in producing and transporting it. And
we don't need voting to do this, don't need laws, lobbyists, grants or
foundation funding to to this. I can't grow apples here but I can get them
from an organic grower a couple hour's drive from here and they keep well. I
can get a few hard to find items from so-called organic stores at higher
prices, but don't need to spend much of the food budget on those items. We
can grow many kinds of greens, root crops, and other foods we like, and swap
with neighbors. Or hit farmers' markets in nearby towns while we try to start
one here. This avoids MSG, hydrogenated oils, GM soy, hormone-laced meat,
milk and milk products, and Cargill and Monsanto. And most of all it's
affordable. We spend no more than conventional food buyers. Though a few
organic items cost more, we offset that by producing some seasonal foods and
good keepers ourselves. We'd do even better if we had more local growers
right here to work with, and we will eventually.

What few realize is, if the local food movement grows enough it will take a
bite out of agribusiness where it hurts most - marketing. No law, no company
can force us to eat what we don't want. This is the Achilles Heel of
agribusiness. We vote with our feet and our purse. No government policies can
protect the profits of agribusiness if they can't sell enough of what they
produce.

paul@largocreekfarms.com
http://medicinehill.net
many online resources for sustainable food production and living

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 11/27/2004 at 7:16 AM Pat Meadows wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:17:42 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>
>>In Thanksgiving's Hidden Costs http://www.alternet.org/story/20556/ the
>writer states:
>>
>>There are paths to a better way: muscular antitrust measures to break up
>corporate control over food; subsidy reform that shifts payments
>(currently $15-20 billion a year) from large-scale agribusiness to
>ecologically sustainable diversified farms; aggressive regulation (and
>enforcement) of the meat industry's shoddy food safety practices and
>mistreatment of its workers; a serious reduction in the 500,000 tons of
>toxic pesticides dumped on our food each year; and major public investment
>in community food security projects that link together small local
>producers and consumers to supply healthy, affordable, sustainably
>produced food (the USDA ladled out just $4.6 million for such efforts last
>year).
>>
>>There are many other promising trends afloat – movements to expand
>farmers' markets, serve organic foods in schools, and to encourage
>institutions like schools and hospitals to purchase local organic food
>whenever possible.
>>
>>-------- and I disagree completely with all those solutions. After a
>good, hard-hitting analysis of what's wrong with our food systems, the
>writer allows the solutions to be limited to government action. That's
>the same government, by the way, that created all these problems in the
>first place.
>>
>>Anyone care to outline the only solution that can possibly work? If not,
>I WILL.
>>
>
>I don't really have time for this at present.... darn.
>I'll answer this once, then bow out of this discussion. I
>truly don't have time at present to do this...sorry.
>
>The fact that you have evidently experienced bad government
>does *not* make *all* government bad. The fact that you
>believe all government is bad doesn't make it so, either.
>
>There is nothing wrong with government action in the right
>direction, i.e., aiding the people instead of crushing them.
>
>I'd like, for instance, to see government assistance to
>small family farmers: government policy has almost killed
>them all off, a little assistance to the few survivors would
>be very welcome at this point. We cannot expect this now,
>but maybe in the future...
>
>There are functions that *cannot* be performed by
>individuals, especially in a market-driven society, and for
>that reason, throughout history people have banded together
>in societies and established governments and written laws.
>The governments and laws have a proper function, a use. In
>a democracy, the people rule.
>
>When people have not established a democratic government,
>then inevitably oligarchs have taken power, as is happening
>now in the USA. Then the rule is by the rich and powerful,
>not by the people.
>
>Those are the *only* two realistic alternatives: rule by
>the people in a democracy, rule by the rich and powerful in
>an oligarchy. There is no realism to the argument that - if
>government disappeared - all people would magically become
>good and wise and charitable: it's nonsense, as abundantly
>proved throughout history. Fairy-land, the land of dragons
>and elves and magic, is more realistic than to believe that.
>
>Personally, I'd welcome a change in our government such that
>it would work to conserve the environment, decentralize and
>strengthen local food security, etc. I don't expect it, but
>I'd welcome it. Such a change, I point out, would in no way
>preclude action by individuals, but reinforce and aid such
>actions.
>
>For a model of government action that has done just exactly
>that, you need to look no further than Cuba and what they
>have done since the collapse of the USSR (combined with the
>blockade by the USA) abruptly stopped their imports of food
>(and almost everything else). They have become the world's
>leader in organic local food production, growing food
>throughout their cities, as well as rural areas. If you
>want to find out about this, you only need to Google on
>'organoponicos'. There's a wealth of information available.
>
>Pat
>--
>Coming soon: www.containerseeds.com - vegetable, herb,
>and edible flower seeds especially selected for successful
>container growing. To be notified when we open, or subscribe
>to our monthly newsletter, visit: http://www.containerseeds.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page