Integral to developing these understandings are questions such as: * Who benefits under the present system, who does not, and why or why not? * What types of social and economic structures are most conducive to sustainability at local, regional, national, and international levels? * Which social patterns, values, or cultural traditions have enhanced or limited sustainability? In the following sections we explore the degree to which agriculture benefits society as a whole. We begin with the premise that sustainability problems arise not only from how humans have treated the environment, but also from how people have treated each other. The scope of social issues in food and agriculture is vast; here we include: food distribution, control and concentration, income distribution, labor conditions, power and decision making, and research priorities. Food Distribution Issues In sustainable agriculture our tendency to focus on farm-level production and organic food marketing threatens to obscure consideration of how food must be equitably distributed once it has been produced. That feeding the world cannot be accomplished simply by producing enough has been well proven. Although conventional agriculture has done an excellent job of growing plenty of food, millions of people do not get enough to eat. Worldwide, at least 500 million people, mostly women and children, are chronically undernourished and many more do not have the right kinds of food for a healthy, active life.4 In a world which produces enough food to feed everyone, 40,000 people die every day of hunger and hunger-related causes.5 Although hunger is concentrated in the rural areas of impoverished countries, the problem is not just overseas. In the U.S., 30 million people suffer chronic undercon-sumption of adequate nutrients.6 Almost half of the hungry are children. In California--the wealthiest state in the worldUs wealthiest nation--1.4 million children are hungry or at risk of hunger.7 Children go hungry even in Cali-forniaUs Central Valley, a showcase of modern agricultural productivity. U.S. hunger also has a clear racial dimension--76% of the hungry are people of color.8 Proponents of chemical-intensive agriculture often criticize sustainable agriculture on the grounds that it ignores hunger problems. Although this criticism is leveled at production capacity rather than the more central issues of distribution, it nonetheless illustrates that sustainable agriculture needs to better address the task of making food accessible to everyone. With organic food prices estimated to be 25% to 50% higher than those for conventionally grown food,9 the decision to buy sustainably grown food may not currently be an option for many. In the U.S., poor people often pay higher prices for their food and spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food than do middle-income people. A study conducted in Los Angeles found that a low-income family spends 36% of its annual income on food as compared to 12% for a middle-income family.10 Sustainable agriculture must address problems of hunger and poverty if sustainably produced food is to be more than a privilege for the relatively affluent. Control and Concentration in Food and Agriculture The demise of the family farm has long been a concern within sustainable agriculture. It becomes harder and harder for many to make a living in agriculture as ownership of resources and control of decision making becomes concentrated among fewer and fewer people. The American food and agriculture system has become highly concentrated in both production and marketing, and the trend continues. Nearly half of U.S. land is farmland, over one billion acres.11 Only 4% of --- * Origin: [via Psychotronic BBS = Durham, NC = 919-286-4542]sustag- (1:3641/1) @PATH: 3641/1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (55) Thu 1 Dec 94 13:31 By: Lawrence F. London, Jr. To: All Re: 02:issue paper text (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @MSGID: 1:3641/223 0006aa3e @PID GIGO+ sn 175 at psybbs vsn 0.99 pl1 @SPLIT: 04 Dec 94 14:29:11 @3641/223 6797 02/06 ++++++++++ From: london@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu (Lawrence F. London, Jr.) @Subject: issue paper text (fwd) Date: 1 Dec 1994 18:31:14 -0000 @Sender: daemon@bigblue.oit.unc.edu @Message-Id: @Mime-Version: 1.0 @Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII landowners hold 47% of this farmland.12 In California, the nationUs largest agricultural producer, 3% of California farms control 60% of the market.13 Nationwide the figures are similar--7% of American farms received 60% of the net cash farm income in 1992.14 One study estimates that about 50,000 of the largest farms in the U.S. will account for 75% of agricultural production by the year 2000.15 Related to concentration of farming is concentration of marketing. In the U.S. two companies control 50% of grain exports; three companies slaughter nearly 80% of beef, four companies control nearly 85% of the cold cereal market and four companies mill nearly 60% of the flour.16 There is also a long-term trend toward larger and fewer grocery stores across the U.S.17 Supermarkets now dominate grocery retailing, accounting for 4 out of every 5 dollars spent in retail food stores.18 Ownership and control in U.S. agriculture also have distinct gender and racial biases. Of those who control U.S. farmland, only 4% are women.19 Women tend to own smaller farms--the average size of property held by men is one-third larger than that held by women.20 And although African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans have always provided much of the farm labor in U.S. agriculture, they are much less likely than European Americans to be farm operators. Although they comprise nearly 25% of the population,21 nonwhites operate a mere 2% of the farms in the U.S.22 Even in California, an ethnically diverse state where 43% of the population is nonwhite,23 less than 7% of farm operators are nonwhite.24 In contrast, CaliforniaUs farm labor force is composed almost exlcusively of ethnic minorities.25 These levels of concentration and types of discrimination have enormous implications for who has power in agriculture and who does not, for whose voices will be heard and whose will be silenced, and for who will make the policies that determine the food system for all Americans. Income Distribution in U.S. Agriculture Throughout the U.S., inequality in income distribution is growing. From 1973 to 1992, the average real income of the top one-fifth of U.S. families rose 19% while for the lowest one-fifth it fell by 12%.26 Uneven income distribution is also prevalent in the food and agriculture system--among rural citizens, between farmers and farm workers, among farmers, and between farmers and consumers. The economic picture in much of rural America is bleak, where wages are often too low to keep many families out of poverty. This is particularly true for ethnic minorities. In 1987, 57% of rural Hispanics and over 60% of rural Blacks earned below the poverty level for a family of four, while the rate for whites was lower at 40%.27 Irrespective of ethnicity, women are at an economic disadvantage to men in the rural work force. Worldwide, womenUs wages in agriculture are consistently lower than menUs, sometimes as little as 63% of the male wage for comparable work.28 In the U.S., despite two decades of affirmative action, rural women earn significantly less than rural men. In 1987 less than a third of rural men workers, but more than half of women workers had incomes below the poverty line for a family of four even though they worked the equivalent of a year-round, full-time job.29 One group most affected by this disparity is children. Today one-fourth of all rural American children live in poverty, 75% in a household with at least one working adult.30 Rural poverty does not necessarily mean farm poverty, however. Although farm household income has historically been lower than that of nonfarm households in the U.S., this is no longer generally the case. In 1990, compared to all U.S. households, farm operator households had annual incomes $1,604 higher, had $13,320 less in expenditures, and had $319,664 more net worth.31 Although farmers on the whole are better off economically than nonfarmers, these average figures mask significant differences among farmers. For example, of the 7% of U.S. farm operators who are financially vulnerable, almost half are small-scale farmers.32 The economic well-being of farm laborers, however, is uniformly dire. Throughout the world many of those living in the worst poverty are agricultural workers, and U.S. workers are no exception. Half of U.S. farm worker families have incomes below the poverty level, with the median family income between $7,500 and $10,000 a year.33 This is particularly striking in that it is the 1.5% of U.S. farms with the highest sales that employ over half of the farm labor.34 It is ironic that in California, the nationUs largest agricultural producer, some of the richest agricultural areas are home to some of the poorest people in the entire United States.35 In fact, increases in income