Relationship farming

This Mother Jones article by Michael Pollan ranges a bit too far for my taste, at times, into anti-capitalist/anti-globalist rhetoric, but there are some good points, too.

The article profiles Joel Salatin, a self-described “Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic farmer” who sees himself as the Martin Luther nailing a challenge on the door of 21st Century agriculture. His vision is to persuade people to opt out of our over-industrialized food production and distribution infrastructure and instead start buying locally — eating food for which we know the provenance.

Joel believes that the only meaningful guarantee of integrity is when buyers and sellers can look one another in the eye, something few of us ever take the trouble to do. “Don’t you find it odd that people will put more work into choosing their mechanic or house contractor than they will into choosing the person who grows their food?”

There are a couple of interesting objective facts in the piece about the economics of farming. One is that selling directly to consumers allow farmers to pocket “the 92 cents of a consumer’s food dollar that now typically winds up in the pockets of processors, middlemen, and retailers.”

It’s amazing to me that farmers typically only receive 8 cents for every dollar we spend on food.

I also think this is an important insight:

When you think about it, it is odd that something as important to our health and general well-being as food is so often sold strictly on the basis of price. Look at any supermarket ad in the newspaper and all you will find in it are quantities — pounds and dollars; qualities of any kind are nowhere to be found.

There was a time not too long ago when the cost of feeding ourselves exceeded the cost of almost everything else. Hunter-gatherers, for instance, devote considerable resources to ensuring they’ll have enough to eat.

So modern humans are an anomaly in this regard. One could even argue that the resources we now expend on luxuries and tchotchkes, on leisure activities and modern healthcare, represent resources we once would have devoted to feeding ourselves.

Perhaps, as this article suggests, the pendulum is now swinging the other way. Perhaps people are starting to look for other qualities in their foodstuffs than just low prices, and as part of that are beginning to allocate a greater portion of their resources on procuring food.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I don’t think it’s a change everyone will want to make (dare I predict that one day people will be demanding tax breaks for buying organic? lol)

But as the article suggests, people are drawn to the idea, and not just upper middle class people.

Speaking of organic

Here’s a review of a new book, We Want Real Food, by Graham Harvey, which examines the effect of the depletion of soil nutrients on the nutritional quality of our food.

To some extent, we’re able to compensate by taking vitamin supplements, but as I suggested in this post, that’s not an ideal answer, either. In the long run, we need to convert mainstream agriculture to more organic-style practices. No question about it.

Food and conscience

I buy and eat organic almost exclusively, and have been for about 20 years now. I will do without, in other areas, in order to be able to afford it.

I considered getting into organic growing back in the 80s, when organic was just catching on.

My new novel’s protagonist has chucked everything to start over as an organic farmer.

So yeah, I support the organic food paradigm. But it doesn’t surprise me that as a social experiment, it’s gotten a little shady around the edges.

In Slate, the aptly named Field Maloney looks at how Whole Foods plays loose with its “why organic” in-store spin and writes

When the Department of Agriculture established the guidelines for organic food in 1990, it blew a huge opportunity. The USDA—under heavy agribusiness lobbying—adopted an abstract set of restrictions for organic agriculture and left “local” out of the formula. What passes for organic farming today has strayed far from what the shaggy utopians who got the movement going back in the ’60s and ’70s had in mind.

Well I was sitting in the living rooms of those shaggy utopians. Their biggest worry: if they didn’t bring in the feds, agribusiness would hijack the “organic” moniker and corrupt it.

They gambled that federal control would protect their business model, and ceded control.

C’est la vie.

It’s naive to think that attempts to script virtuous outcomes won’t, from time to time, lead to less-than-virtuous results. (For another example, look at the questions raised about Fair Trade coffee in this Reason article).

Yet Maloney’s observations are weak for being overly narrow. In Rochester, for instance, people are banding together in cooperatives for the sole reason of giving direct patronage to local organic growers (email me, btw, if you’re from around here and want to know more). Unless we’re an anomaly, which I doubt, that’s happening all over.

Furthermore, as much fun as it is to decry that “five or six big California farms dominate the whole industry,” that’s still a lot of acreage that isn’t getting pesticides dumped on it regularly.

Not to mention the fact that the organics mindset has dragged even conventional farming partway to the dance, ushering in more responsible use of pesticide (e.g. integrated pest management, where you spray only when you actually observe pest damage, instead of prophylacticly).

Bottom line: we’re still better off with organic growing that without it.