Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Farm policy

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marimike6@cs.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Farm policy
  • Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:34:34 EST

Here's an interesting op-ed from the pages of today's New York Times:

Think Globally, Eat Locally

By JENNIFER WILKINS

Published: December 18, 2004



Ithaca, N.Y. — WHEN Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human
services, announced this month that he was resigning, he made an unexpected
comment:
"For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked
our food supply, because it is so easy to do." He added, "We are importing a
lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."

Unexpected, but right. The United States is importing more and more food, and
not just from the Middle East (which actually accounts for only 0.4 percent
of our food imports). Tomatoes from Mexico, grapes from Chile and beef from
Brazil are standard fare on American tables. The Department of Agriculture
reports that in 2005, our nation will fail to record an agricultural surplus
for the
first time in 50 years, demonstrating our rising dependency on foreign
agricultural production and distribution systems that may not be safe.

Yet few of these imports are examined to ensure they meet American health
and safety standards. This year, the Food and Drug Administration will
inspect
about 100,000 of the nearly five million shipments of food crossing our
borders, and distribution is so rapid that tainted food can reach consumers
nationwide before officials realize there is a problem. The increasing
control of the
global food supply by a few corporations has made such tampering even more
tempting for a terrorist who wants to have a big impact.

You might think that the solution is obvious: we should rely on our domestic
food supply. Unfortunately, when it comes to food security, our
vulnerabilities at home rival those we face abroad. The federal government's
encouragement
of consolidation in agriculture diminishes the security of our food supply.

Since the 1950's, American agricultural policies have been grounded in the
belief that farms should produce as much food as possible for the least cost.
These policies have led to a landscape of fewer but bigger farms that
specialize
in a decreasing number of commodities that are destined for fewer processors
and packers.

From 1993 to 2000, 33,000 farms with annual sales of less than $100,000
disappeared. Meanwhile, very large farms play a larger role in the United
States:
farms generating more than $500,000 a year are only 3.3 percent of all farms
but use 20.3 percent of America's farmland and account for 61.9 percent of
all
sales. The 10 largest food companies account for more than half of all
products on supermarket shelves. Imagine what might happen to our food supply
if a
widespread contamination by a food-borne disease, accidental or intentional,
were to strike even one of those megafarms or food companies.

The increasing power of food processors means that the farmer no longer
controls the quality of the food system. About 85 percent of all vegetables
destined for freezing and canning are grown under contract, with processors
dictating
variety, quantity, quality, delivery date and even price. If American farmers
cannot produce the cheapest food, the processors turn to foreign countries,
where there is greater potential for contamination, whether because of less
strict inspection procedures or because of fewer protections against
bioterrorism.

The combination of cheap food from overseas and the consolidation of
domestic production compromises America's ability to feed itself. A food
system in
which control of the critical elements is concentrated in few hands can and
will
fall victim to terrorism or accidents.

The solution to these insecurities is to establish community-based food
systems that include many small farmers and a diversity of products. Such
systems
make large-scale contamination impossible, even for determined bioterrorists.
Far more people have contact with the Mexican lettuce at the supermarket, for
example, than with the locally grown lettuce at the farmers' market.

But is it possible for farmers' markets to feed a growing country and provide
the range of produce we demand? The answer is yes. With some exceptions, like
coffee and chocolate, American farmers can easily meet demand. They've also
had great success in marketing directly to the consumer: the number of
farmers'
markets has increased to 3,100 in 2002 from approximately 1,700 in 1994.

But creating this system of agriculture would require a shift in policy. We
should encourage smaller, diversified farms, a reallocation of farmland from
feed grains to food crops, and local food processing. And the change in the
cabinet, at both the department of health and human services and the
department of
agriculture, is an opportune moment for a such a change in policy.

It would be reassuring to one day hear a new secretary of health and human
services report that a terrorist attack on our food system would be next to
impossible because it is a complex network of farmers, processors and
consumers
integrated into communities nationwide. Strengthening local food systems and
supporting policies that shorten the distance between producers and consumers
will reduce the points of vulnerability and make America truly food-secure.


Jennifer Wilkins is a food and society policy fellow in the Division of
Nutritional Sciences at Cornell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/opinion/18wilkins.html?th



  • [permaculture] Farm policy, Marimike6, 12/18/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page