market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Market Farming
List archive
Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?
- From: Pat Meadows <pat AT meadows.pair.com>
- To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:52:12 -0400
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:40:12 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
>
>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.
We personally actually don't eat at restaurants - very
rarely, anyway. Maybe once every six or seven months, maybe
less often. We can't afford to eat at restaurants. I was
just using for that an example - not a very good one, I
suppose.
<snip>
>
>Actually, I think there are solutions to this if we put our (as veggie
>growers *and* buyers) heads together.
If you and other veggie growers get together and find a way
to distribute your veggies more cheaply, or more
efficiently, or whatever: then you and the other veggie
growers are acting as producers while you do that. You are
*not* acting as consumers then, and you shouldn't kid
yourself that 'consumers are in control' because of this.
Likewise, if you and other veggie growers get together and
decide to put a price floor under your products (a) this is
illegal, I believe and (b) you aren't acting as consumers
then either.
<snip>
>
>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
It does not work, though. I can tell you from experience
that it does not work. Maybe theoretically it *should*
work, but it doesn't.
I believe you are making the assumption that certain things
you've heard and read are true: certain assumptions about
capitalism, free-market forces and so on.
There are economic and political forces acting upon us,
whether we like it or not.
Look, Matt, as a consumer I need to purchase a service
today: I need to have a tooth pulled, darn it. We need to
drive 100 miles (one way) to do so. All the oral surgeons
in our area seem to be on vacation this week. Therefore, I
don't have any more time to answer this. (This is not an
example of anything, it's true, sadly.)
>
>> 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.
Even worse are the results of lack of performance of the
proper duties of a government.
We cannot do for ourselves what a government can/should do
for us: prevent corporations from polluting the air we
breathe, for instance.
That's why people have banded together throughout history -
to get the benefit of a government of some sort or other.
We cannot defend ourselves from invasion - we therefore need
a military (well, maybe we don't but a heck of a lot of
people believe we do).
We cannot build highways for ourselves: we need a
government to do this.
When there is no government or too little government, the
poorer, weaker members of a society get screwed as power is
up for grabs by the strongest and they do indeed grab it -
as amply proven by history.
>> 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):
I believe you to be mistaken about this, but I've got to
stop writing now. Maybe someone else will address this part
of your posting.
Cheers,
Pat
--
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
-
[Market-farming] Root nematodes?,
bob111higgins, 04/13/2004
- [Market-farming] A Riddle: Thanks for all the info!, Matt Cheselka, 04/13/2004
- Re: [Market-farming] Root nematodes?, robert schuler, 04/14/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [Market-farming] Root nematodes?,
bob111higgins, 04/14/2004
-
[Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?,
Matt Cheselka, 04/14/2004
- RE: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?, Jill Bussiere, 04/14/2004
-
Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?,
Pat Meadows, 04/14/2004
-
Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?,
Matt Cheselka, 04/14/2004
- Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?, Pat Meadows, 04/15/2004
- Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?, Pat Meadows, 04/15/2004
-
Re: [Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?,
Matt Cheselka, 04/14/2004
-
[Market-farming] Globalization / Food Quality / What to do?,
Matt Cheselka, 04/14/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.