For
those of you who commented on the “The farm bill
died from lack of consensus building hard work” post, check out this article by Forbes. It explains how big of business farming really is. The article continues to explain the battle between large-scale scientific farms and small organic farms we see in small town or urban gardens. The article tends to favor large-scale farms by arguing they are more efficient and needed to sustain a growing population. Please comment on why you agree or disagree with this notion as well as what you think the government's role in agriculture should be.
I don't think there can be any argument against efficiency. That is the hallmark of large corporations, they are efficient or they don't last. However, there are other important aspects to farming than just efficiency. Sustainable farming practices often aren't favored by big farms because they are costly. However, these practices such as reduced use of pesticides can work on the small scale. As with most things, I believe a balance of both practices would be of the most benefit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Travis in regards to the strong backing of the efficiency argument. As nice as it would be to have a bunch of organic, small-scale, food operations that kept our public fed, it is just not realistic. These big corporations are indeed needed in order to keep our population satisfied. There is no doubt that we need to keep them in check though and make sure there are certain regulations in place to make people more comfortable with the products.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't see what all the fuss is about, and I don't think we are in need of dire change anytime soon. Sure urban farming is nice but like the article stated, it is definitely more expensive in many regards. That being said the people who back local farmers and locally grown produce have at least enough extra disposable income to do so. This in and of itself makes the people who are pro organic/local farming look like elitist which raises a whole other problem; inequality amongst consumers. We need to keep food affordable for all, while also slowly implementing policy that focuses on sustainability.
ReplyDeleteI think the author of this article pushes his criticism of smaller farms a little too far, to the point where he almost straw man's them. In his defense of corporate farming, he completely ignores the fact that non-renewable oil is an essential input in virtually every step of industrial farming. As the price of oil increases, so too will the cost of food. In order to be prepared for a future in which oil prices will rise, we need to diversify the way we invest in our foodstuffs, so that like a diversified retirement portfolio, we can hedge our bets against outside factors. Likewise, we need to invest in and plant different species, and different strains of different species, so that the foods themselves are diversified. Perhaps the biggest problem with GMOs is that they reduce the biodiversity of farming, and halt natural selection. The author's criticism of water use restrictions, is similarly narrow-minded- he notes that their primary purpose is "to save obscure fish species in the state's delta," but ignores that these species may be crucial building blocks of the delta and coastal ecosystem. This sounds like a pretty typical finance-centric anti-green piece, which views environmentalism not as an investment in future productivity, but as a present drag on the economy. Of course, this narrow view of economic issues is self-confirming, and accurate in the short fun, but discounts the radical changes which may occur because of our lack of conservation in the present. Many of these regulatory decisions could benefit from cost-benefit analysis, which enumerates exactly what the costs and benefits of particular actions are in the present and future. If I had to propose a single regulatory change to affect our food production system, I would support ending the corn subsidy, and possibly all food subsidies. Our country has developed an unhealthy obsession with corn, and we see it as a miracle crop. Virtually all of our livestock, from Cows and Chickens to Tillapia and Salmon are fed almost solely on corn, a crop which none of them are really meant to eat more than a little of. As a result all of our meat is more fatty than it should be, and can be produced and sold at prices that are lower than they should be, leading consumers to eat too much meat and too little of the other elements of a healthy diet, especially vegetables. In the end, these subsidies result in unnatural, unhealthy diets, which inflate our healthcare costs.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that this argument lies in efficiency vs. healthiness and at this point in time it is hard to argue against efficiency as the best option. It seems that large scale farms are being bashed by many people because of the practices that they implement towards both the land and animals. However, with a constantly growing population it seems very unlikely small urban or family farms could sustain the people for very long. Especially in America I feel we need to take advantage of our land and the opportunity to provide the world with food. Although I believe large scale farms are the best option, it seems that these family farms and green movements also have several good arguments about health. I think that there is room for both types of farming and both options should be considered and practiced.
ReplyDelete