But that does not mean that we have to accept ideas uncritically- in the
suppportive and not perjorative manner.
Let's look at a number of issues raised by Nat
1) export commodities- nat believes that these are critical in the world
food markets and need to be supported (not in price, necessarily). One
might want to look carefully at what the major expeorts of the US are-
Corn is one which is feed and not food corn and which supports the 5:1
conmversion of grain to meat.
Wheat is another. Now Venezuela used to be self suffienct andnow must
import grain from the world because its prime crop land is being used to
export crops such as pineapples and other commodities which place profits
in the hands of the land owners and forcing the small farmers to become
wage earners and into buying imported wheat
2) fossil fuels- as long as fossil fuels are subsidized, the international
transportation industry can provide below cost shipping.
Coupled with low wages in developing countires, we get aples from Chile
competing with Apples from Michigan in the midwestern markets
We can not create sustainable agriculture- both bio/physical and
socio/economic- here in the US without a policy which also promotes this
on an international scale. It takes too much out of the middle and leaves
less for both the producer and the consumer.
Lester Brown, from the World Watch Institute has presented an essay with
the question of Who will feed China. As China demands more FEED grains to
consume more meat, one must ask how long before the production for export
demand starts to create some interesting situations, even here in the US
Many who are involved in the sustainable ag arena are also invoved in the
larger issues of a sustainable world, which covers much more than food
production and socio/economic justice in ths singular but important
sector.
Thus, one must watch this large animal called US AG and who is at the
helm. A tentative movement which appears to be in the right direction is
just that "an appearance". It may be time to decentralize the USDA and
move that power out to where it was intended when the entire
infrastrcuture was created with extension, scs, ascs etc
with the internet, it might be advisable to turn the South Building into
low income housing and send all the bureaucrats into the field (perhpas
literally). Please remeber that the Dept of ag is part of the executive
branch of government and not an arm of congress and thus is not directly
responmsible to the citizens through their representatives in congress,
strange as it may seem.
Thus, it becomes entwined in the policies of the current administration,
including its foreign and commerce policies and is subjected to pressures
from the whitehouse with some checks by congress
cheers
tom abeles
tabeles@tmn.com