Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Matt Cheselka <cheselka AT freestateproject.org>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:40:12 -0500 (CDT)


Hi Pat!

I'm so glad you've chimed in here. I sorta knew you would. ;)

> No, this is wrong. Consumers are not always in control.
> Consumers can buy only what is available to buy. When
> something is not available, consumers can't buy it.

I like to remember the situation in India when all (or most) of the
clothing was being made in and imported from England. The situation is
very similar to what we have now in the USA with food (althoug in India
I'd imagine it was much worse). They couldn't get "home spun" clothing
becuase it simply wasn't available. The people, under very wise guidance,
decided to take it upon themselves to make the "home spun" product
available. Now I don't know the details, but I'll bet it was downright
hard to do it! Probably many people suffered and I'll bet some even lost
their lives becuase of it. But overall it was a success. So the question
I ask myself is, "Ok, fella, are you gonna do something about it or are
you gonna just sit there and complain?" If I don't care much I'll
probably just continue to complain. But with food, one of my ultimate
goals is to be totally self-sufficient and what I can't get I'd like to
trade my stuff with other growers who have the stuff I want. Being vegans
helps with this quite a bit.

> When eating out, we do not have the choice of getting fresh or local or
> organic produce.

According to the USDA, about 45% of total food spending is done
"Away-From-Home" (USDA Food and Agriculture Policy, figure 2, page 19).
Wow, half of American's meals are not eaten in the home! If you don't
like what a restaurant is serving, don't go there and maybe tell them why.
If you choose to eat at a restaurant, you abdicate control of what that
restaurant offers. Despite what people think or are being told, no one is
being *forced* to eat at restaurants. It's cheaper to eat at home anyhow,
but it's true that it's more work.

As far as having to buy things from supermarkets I certainly agree with
you here, Pat. We're stuck with (meaning, we're abdicating control) a few
stinkers for the most part. That's why having stuff available at farmers
markets and other locations is so great: it's giving people another
(hopefully better!) choice! Of course this doesn't solve the "convenience
food" situation, but maybe it's similar to traditional and alternative
medicine: each has it's place, but one has been too dominant for too long.

> Also, consumers can only buy what they can afford. This is
> not 'being in control'. I would vastly prefer to buy
> organic food. I can't afford it. I'm not 'in control' of
> that situation either.

Actually, I think there are solutions to this if we put our (as veggie
growers *and* buyers) heads together. Part of the problem is that the
prices go up becuase of that "organic" label. I know there are other
reasons, but my observation is that people are willing to pay more for
"organic" just like they pay more for "Nike". I personally think it's
immoral for me to overcharge just becuase my spinach is organically grown.
I can't afford organically grown stuff sold in the stores either, which is
why I'm growing my own. Of course not everyone can do that, but I can
certainly grow enough for myself and several others. Maybe there are
other people like me who can do that, too.

My point is this: without us, companies couldn't make their profits. In
an extreme example, if we refused to buy any of our veggies from Safeway,
two things (I think there are only two!) would happen:

1. We would suffer quite a bit but maybe not to the point of
"giving in" (if an alternative system was in place, we
may not suffer much at all!)
2. Safeway would have to change how it sells things (in terms
of quality, variety, price, etc.) becuase it really does
want us (and *need* us) to buy from them

That's why I say that we hold the cards, but sadly we're laying down with
a stright flush. All the corporations can do is tell us what they have
and then wait for us to buy, or trick us into buying. It's really a shame
that we've put ourselves at the mercy of these corporations. Jeez, there
are 100 million plus adults in the USA alone! Maybe I'm being idealistic,
but I can't imagine that a few large companies has that kind of control
unless we give it to them! Sadly, that's what I think we've done.

With respect to community gardens, all I can say is that the problems you
mention have all been dealt with before. I watch enough TV to know that
community gardens are popping up all over the place and many of them are
in pretty terrible places. Even here, a few lawless thugs are no match
for several hundred or several thousand residents as long as those
residents are unwilling to abdicate control. Maybe putting into practice
the following would work: "the best way to eliminate your enemies is to
make them your friends".

> There are others who are unable to garden through illness or
> advanced age. They will never be able to garden, some can't
> even cook. They are nevertheless members of society.

That's why it's up to others (like us) to do that part for them. I'm
certainly willing to do this as long as I'm compensated somehow for it.

> Government isn't always bad. If our present government is
> bad, we should change it.

It's not necessarily that's government's bad, it's just that sometimes it
gets in the way and complicates things. Nose-sticking-in and
foot-stomping is annoying to me.

> Corporations (big businesses) necessarily only represent their own
> interests - not the interests of the citizenry.

I still say, though, that they're at *our* mercy and not the other way
around. Think about it (I'm simplifying here, but bear with me):

1. A corporation is only interested in making a profit
2. It makes a profit by selling a product for more than
what it makes the product
3. consumers/citizens buy the product
4. the purchase of that product creates a profit for the
corporation
5. the corporation is therefore *very* interested in the
consumer/citizen becuase it's the consumer/citizen
that allows the corporation to make a profit

Without us, corporations wouldn't exist.

> I would prefer, btw, to think of myself as a 'citizen'
> rather than a 'consumer' and I think any society that
> automatically thinks of its populace primarily as
> 'consumers' has some very major problems.

I agree -- the connotation of a mindless, anatimate "consumer" leaves a
bad taste in my mouth. Sadly, I think many large corporations think of us
this way and even more sadly this is what many Americans have become.

Which leads to issues of "Food Quality" and "French People". But this
email is way too long as it is, so I won't get into that now.

Whew!

Thanks, Pat. You've given me much to think about. As I said, I'm still
trying to wrap my head around all of this becuase it's such a *HUGE*
issue. Hopefully my small actions (growin' and sellin') will mirror all
the hot air I've blown out today! LOL!

BTW -- does anyone have a copy of "Fatal Harvest" I might be able to
borrow? I'd pay for the shipping.

Cheers,

Matt Cheselka
Cosmic Lettuce





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page