My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)

[nosmokes]

It just amazes me that we're all in this raft in the white water and we don't get together and paddle like the yeoman says we're gonna end up in the drink or on the rocks.This a brand new river and it's a bad one and the old paddling in circles method simply ain't gonna work.I don't what part of crisis is not understood.Will we hafta wait until there are mile long breadlines in America before the power elite figures out that the status quo don't go no mo?
--###--



original-nytimes

My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)

By JACK HEDIN
Published: March 1, 2008

Rushford, Minn.

IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.

But consumers who would like to be able to buy local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’ markets, but also in the produce aisle of their supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the federal government works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.

As a small organic vegetable producer in southern Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to expand production to meet regional demand have been severely hampered by the Agriculture Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve looked into the politics behind those restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this is precisely the outcome that the program’s backers in California and Florida have in mind: they want to snuff out the local competition before it even gets started.

Last year, knowing that my own 100 acres wouldn’t be enough to meet demand, I rented 25 acres on two nearby corn farms. I plowed under the alfalfa hay that was established there, and planted watermelons, tomatoes and vegetables for natural-food stores and a community-supported agriculture program.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[NMDemDist2]

1. I read this last week

what a crock eh??

:banghead:

K&N

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I shop a mom-pop grocery

that's been in town since 1920. They still feature locally produced produce AND organic, grass fed meats and stuff. They even sell beefalo and elk. Its one of the best grocery stores in town.

[hedgehog]

3. Ahem.

Barack Obama's Plan

Ensure Economic Opportunity For Family Farmers
Strong Safety Net for Family Farmers: Obama will fight for farm programs that provide family farmers with stability and predictability. Obama will implement a $250,000 payment limitation so that we help family farmers — not large corporate agribusiness. Obama will close the loopholes that allow mega farms to get around the limits by subdividing their operations into multiple paper corporations.

Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Obama is a strong supporter of a packer ban. When meatpackers own livestock they can manipulate prices and discriminate against independent farmers. Obama will strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections to ensure independent farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices.

Regulate CAFOs: Obama's Environmental Protection Agency will strictly regulate pollution from large CAFOs, with fines for those that violate tough standards. Obama also supports meaningful local control.

Establish Country of Origin Labeling: Obama supports immediate implementation of the Country of Origin Labeling law so that American producers can distinguish their products from imported ones.

Encourage Organic and Local Agriculture: Obama will help organic farmers afford to certify their crops and reform crop insurance to not penalize organic farmers. He also will promote regional food systems.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/

[Mike03]

4. Thank you for posting this--hadn't heard a thing about it. NT

[hedgehog]

8. I've posted it about six or seven times so I'm feeling like a pest about it

but I'm dedicated to organic farming methods, so I think this is important.

[prairierose]

16. hedgehog, thanks for posting this...

I hope that you will keep posting this kind of information. It is important for people to know about this and hopefully contact their congresscritter about this subject.

[Two Americas]

23. yes!

Small farmers do not have much of a voice in congress. All eaters should be helping them by writing and talking to their reps about farming and food issues. many reps have an agriculture liaison, and they are probably the most neglected staffers and may well welcome your call.

Points -

1. COLA. This is "country of origin" labeling, and is a very important thing to help small growers and the local food movement. "We want to now where our food is grown" should be the talking point.

2. Caps on subsidies. Almost all of the ag budget goes to giant corporate farms. A cap on subsidies to any one farm frees up desperately needed resources for struggling small family farms, and works against corruption and the consolidation of control over our food supply into the hands of a few corporations. As it is now, most small family farms get little or no help.

3. Reallocation of subsidies. As it is, most subsidies go to row crops - corn, wheat, soy - and cotton. we should not be subsidizing cotton in my opinion, as it is one of the most destructive of all agriculture to the environment, and takes funds away from food production. The subsidy of corn is an indirect subsidy to the meat industry, and now - heaven help us - a subsidy to Wall Street and the energy corporations because of the ethanol craze. We should move some of the funds to fruit and vegetable production.

4. Research and development funding. Safe food and sustainable agriculture depend upon the research infrastructure. The ag colleges around the country are the best in the world, and were originally chartered as land grant colleges for the purpose of pronoting sustainable agriculture and safe food for the benefit of the public.

5. Corporations OUT! Corporations are influencing USDA and FDA policies, food trade policies, and academic research. This is the fox in the henhouse. Our food supply is a vital public resource, not an investment opportunity. Get corporate influence OUT of public agricultural policy.

6. Fair trade. Local family farmers cannot possibly compete with countries that have little or no food inspection (Mexico, which is now the main source of our so-called "organic" produce, which is not only not organic but is poorly inspected at all,) that use slave labor and have no environmental regulation (China) or that dump food on the US market and violate trade agreements with impunity (China again.)

Favoring China and Mexico and other countries that are not adhering to safety, workers' rights, and environmental standards of any kind also punishes our trading partners who do play by the rules, such as New Zealand.

7. Restore safety inspection budgets. Food safety budgets have been slashed to the bone all over the country. This is a ticking time bomb. We must restore the funding and get the food safety inspectors back on the job.

8. Farming is "open source." Life is not a commodity to be bought and sold. Patents on life forms, copyrights on varieties, and other attempts by corporations to control our food through privatization are extremely dangerous.

Those are a few important issues to keep in mind when talking to your reps.

[Dorian Gray]

33. Yes...

thanks for posting it. It's very interesting. I try to buy locally, and it's relatively easy here because we have a weekend market at the corner of our street. I would love to see this take off a bit more.... especially becoming more available in our supermarkets!

[Tashca]

11. Short on specifics...

I am glad you posted this. I had not seen this either.

I am curious......he mentions labels country of origin. How about labels for genetically modified foods??....or labeling something as could contain GM ingredients. I am way more interested in that.

Also in the helping Organic Farmers.....How??....I know Joe Biden proposed helping subsidize the farmer in the three year transition period. I think this is the biggest impediment for transition to Organic...I personally know several farmers who would consider turning to Organic if they didn't have to take such a financial hit in this three year transition period..

These two issues alone could go very far in revitalizing rural communities. Smaller family farms could utilize these tools in adding profit to their bottom lines much easier than a large corporate farms. I would like to read more about any proposals in these areas.

[hedgehog]

13. There was a longer article posted sometime in the fall

indicating that he wants the Agriculture Department to assist farmers to get organic certification. I'm just amazed and glad to see any politician familiar with this concept.

[Tashca]

14. I am too

When Joe came out with his proposals I was surprised.....

I would like to see specifics if they are out there. I will look.

I know Agricultural policies are not the most exciting thing to debate on TV.....but our food supply is a big issue with me. I am sixth generation off the farm in this area. Multinationals are deeply entrenched in the Ag dept. It will take a massive effort to ever get these types of things done. Allowing food to not have labeling for GMO's was a huge mistake and a very big win for International Ag Business.

The National Organic Standards are great.....there just needs to be some taxpayer help to get us to turn that direction. I think it will snowball once it is set in motion.

[Two Americas]

22. comments

Obama will implement a $250,000 payment limitation so that we help family farmers...

This is an idea that has been floating around for a while - Harkin or maybe that excellent rep from the Toledo Ohio area (can't remember her name) may have originated this idea. It was in Edwards' platform, and was not part of Obama's platform a month ago, but I am glad to see it there now.

A cap on subsidies to any one farm will have a tremendous positive effect, IMHO. Bravo. This one item may be enough to swing me to support his candidacy.

...packer ban...

Another excellent policy and an important reform. Again, this was in Edwards' platform and not Obama's a month ago, but better late than never.

...strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections...

Excellent.

Regulate CAFOs...

Necessary and important reform.

Establish Country of Origin Labeling

Number one on the list of needs for small farmers. Again, bravo.

These policies are so important, that I am not going to carp over the fact that they are recent policy changes by Obama and are taken word for word from Edwards' platform. That's OK. So long as we get the job done, right? and a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." So bravo, Obama.

I had written Obama off because of his weak agriculture and rural policies. Thank you for bringing these to my attention.

Canvassers in rural areas, should Obama be the candidate in the general -

Dem candidates have been a tough sell in farm country over the last few cycles. Become familiar with those policy areas listed above and keep them front and center. They are very strong - other than Edwards platform they are the strongest ag positions in recent years from any Democratic candidate. This makes Obama viable in "red" areas. And please don't forget that the reddest of red rural farm areas are still often 40%-45% Dem, and they are some of the strongest Dems you will find anywhere. They probably own guns, as that is part of the rural tradition, and they may attend a local community church, as that is an important part of rural community life. If either of those bother you, best to stick to working the suburban neighborhoods. So leave the city slicker prejudices behind when you canvass farm country. :)

When did Obama become a farmer? :)

[lonestarnot]

5. We are in some deep doo doo.

[Mike03]

6. My DU friend, I think that people are so overwhelmed that they

cannot deal with every horrible reality that we face at this moment. For some bizarre reason, the food that we eat has been left out of the equation by a lot of people.

But I read every post that you make that I see, and appreciate every one of them. I know where you are coming from.

K & R

[bobbolink]

9. Maybe part of that reason is that some of us just need FOOD!

YOu can't be so picky when you're really desperate!

[Two Americas]

26. you are correct

This article promotes a two-tier food system - "good stuff" for the well to do at their little boutique farmers' markets, and junk for the rest of us. The author is whining because he is not getting federal subsidies for his very small scale ideologically driven hobby farm. NO fruit and vegetable growers get subsidies. What makes him special? I say "hobby" because his ignorance (or dishonesty) about agriculture as revealed in this article is shocking, and because no farmer in his right mind would rent this land for growing what he wants to grow, and then cry because he couldn't make a go of it. If he were a serious farmer, the federal government would help him BUY that land if he would make a commitment to it and to farming. The federal government would also help him with soil and water management, pest control, and with many other areas. And he whines about paying $8,000 a year for land. He has no idea the struggles that thousands of committed professional family farmers are going through and the prices they are paying for land. If he can't make a go of it growing watermelons on that piece of land, the maybe he needs to re-think his farming plan.

[nosmokes]

38. You're missing the point,

which is that the farm bill distorts the entire food system and environment and diet of the population w/ subsidies that are aimed at industrial agriculture, mostly in the form of cheap beef, not value for farmers producing healthy food.

[scarletwoman]

7. Sure sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union style of controlled agriculture, doesn't it?

The central government determines what you can plant and how much.

Our country is SO effed up!

rec'd,
sw

[SpiralHawk]

10. "Smirk." - Republicon corporate cronies

[Two Americas]

24. not true

The USDA does not tell people what they can grow, nor how much.

[knitter4democracy]

12. This is ridiculous. Keep food people want away from them?!

Our local farmers' markets take food stamps, and they're pretty darn busy on Saturday mornings. Our local CSA that I love is seriously hiking their prices for this summer, since all of their costs have gone up, but they didn't go as high as they were thinking of since they've grown every year and anticipate accepting more shares this summer, too. We're going to need to get another half a buffalo this summer, maybe even before that, and I know that my grocery looked into it and couldn't get them for some reason (not because the farmer wasn't willing to sell--it was some regulation that the store couldn't get an entire animal and butcher it on site, even though they have a butcher's counter and people who know how and all).

This is ridiculous. It's our food! We've turned over our food supply to multi-national corporations that don't give a crap about anything but their brand and their bottom line. We're eating GMOs like guinea pigs for Monsanto and ADM, we're eating antibiotics and pesticides and more every day, and those of us who would like to buy from better, safer places are having to do a lot of calling and driving around to do so.

We need an entirely re-vamped food policy in this country. We need to take back our food!

[Two Americas]

31. not really true

Where we are failing is in getting fresh produce to poor people, and to minority people. But then we are failing poor people in every way, and this has little if anything to do with agriculture. The USDA and the farmers themselves are not to blame.

The problem with CSA and "organic" - I put the word in quotation marks because it is all an illusion - is that they are privatized solutions to public policy issues, and are driven by libertarian political sentiments. This article is an attack - and an extremely misleading and misguided one - on the public agriculture infrastructure, and this is becoming a pattern from the alternative food industry as it swings further and further to the right. Ron Paul is one of the luminaries promoting this notion that the food industry should be completely de-regulated so we can do whatever we want to on the farm and in food sales.

CSA and organic take food safety and sustainable farming out of the realm of public regulation, and into the free market "choice" world, and that naturally enough is leading to a two-tier food system - the good stuff for those who can afford it and who have "choices" - with a collapsing public agriculture infrastructure struggling to feed the rest of the population. Providing choices for the special few has drastic and horrific effects on the poor people and on the working poor.

Ironically, while this author attacks the USDA - falsely - he expects the USDA to subsidize his little business for him, despite the fact that it is obviously very poorly planned and he has no concept of the realities farming nor of food marketing.

I cannot overstate this - organic and CSA are very dangerous and destructive.

People should be free to eat whatever they like, to run a hobby farm is that is their desire, or to associate with people in leisure time activities such as CSA. If they can afford to do these things, and enjoy them, more power to them. However, they do not have the right to impose that on the rest of us and to tear down and attack the public food safety and agriculture infrastructure by presenting nonsensical privatized solutions to social problems and as legitimate alternatives to public policy and resource management.

[knitter4democracy]

41. There's a reason why it's two-tier, though.

My stepmom's family ran a big grain farm in rural Michigan, and I spent many summers riding in tractors, picking rocks, and even rogueing corn. Grandpa did what the USDA encouraged--he grew bigger. The farm policies encourage big farms, and the bigger the farm, the more help it gets. The bigger the company, the more subsidies it gets. That's why ADM and other multinationals are taking over so many acres of good farmland and then hiring people to farm it--it helps their bottom line, and they've got the money to do it.

With the government encouraging bigger and bigger farms (hog farms have gotten ridiculous, for example), those families with the smaller farms have had to do something to make enough to keep going. One area they've discovered is the CSA, another is going organic, and another is switching to produce and selling at farmers' markets in the region. These farms don't get the huge subsidies, and they don't have the same lobbying capability as ADM or Monsanto. They're trying to keep their farm in the family and keep their land, and that's why they're moving into more of a niche market.

Small family farms are going under left and right in our area, a long-time farming area of Michigan with good precipitation and soil. I read of five farm auctions just last summer in our local weekly rag. The government's food policy did nothing to keep those farms farmland. Our state has a farmland trust that's helping, but the USDA's policies helped put those farms out of business--they weren't owned by a multi-national corporation, and they weren't big enough.

The best thing we could do is take back food policy from the multinational corporations that try to control it from the seed up. They have more money and influence, but we have more numbers. We need to fight for our rights to safe food and good food available to all.

Oh, and in Michigan, in order to get certified organic, your soil has to test pesticide and herbicide free for two years straight. In order to meet that definition, you can't have chemicals blowing onto your fields, so most organic farmers here have buffer land, wetlands or forest, to keep their soil organic. There's been a lot of research here into that (stepdad's a soil science researcher with Michigan State).

[Two Americas]

15. highly misleading

This article is absurd. I have personally been involved in converting many, many acres from corn to fruit over the years. The USDA in no way prevents or interferes with that. There are thousands of small family fruit growers and the problems of getting their produce into supermarkets have nothing whatsoever to do with the USDA, this is caused by corporate domination of the food supply and inadequate inspections and unfair and unenforced trade agreements.

What the author is complaining about is the withdrawal of a cash subsidy. He will not be growing corn, so he does not qualify for a corn subsidy. Either do any other fruit growers. So what?

Now, whether or not corn should be subsidized (I say "no") and whether or not fruits and vegetables should be subsidized (I say "yes") are separate issues.

[shugah]

18. i don't think the article is misleading

not complaining solely about "withdrawal of a cash subsidy"

from the article:
I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for the year on that acreage, he is also penalized the market value of the illicit crop, and runs the risk that those acres will be permanently ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables — if the farmer decides to grow another commodity crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)

In my case, that meant I paid my landlords $8,771 — for one season alone! And this was in a year when the high price of grain meant that only one of the government’s three crop-support programs was in effect; the total bill might be much worse in the future.

whether the USDA prevents or interferes (and all gov't agencies are suspect under these bush years) it is obvious that when one can go to the local farmers market and buy fresh local produce, one can also go to the nearest grocery store and buy - locally in season, but not locally grown produce (for a higher price, too, it might be noted).

[Two Americas]

21. very misleading

I work with fruit growers. No one familiar with the field could take the article seriously.

It is simply not true that the USDA "penalizes the market value of the illicit crop" whatever that means. Certainly the USDA does not see fruit as "illicit" so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

These are not "penalties" - row crops have been subsidized for a long time, fruits and vegetables have not. No one grows fruit with the expectation of getting subsidies, because there have not been any. Switching from a subsidized crop - corn - to a non-subsidized crop - watermelons - means, guess what? You are ineligible for the subsidy. So what? This particular person never was getting any subsidies. Much serious planning gos into any decisions that real farmers make. It is hard to imagine that anyone with even the slightest amount of knowledge or research would expect to receive a corn subsidy when he or she were not growing corn. This not secret or hidden information, and it is just one of thousands of variables that serious farmers keep up to speed on continually.

As far as "growing nothing at all" the idea behind that is to meet an important sustainability goal by subsidizing giving acreage a rest from cultivation.

The rent paid for the land has nothing to do with the USDA nor any prejudice against fruits and vegetables. The USDA does not set property values.

Family fruit growers are facing many challenges. False and misleading articles such as this do not help, and in fact can do much harm.

The author is either very ignorant and not really a farmer, by any serious definition of the word, or he is lying. It is that bad.

[shugah]

28. i see your point

in re-reading the (opinion) article with a more critical eye i see why you say misleading.

i don't think the author is ignorant, or lying - he is omitting some pertinent facts. the article, in a roundabout way, does only say that it is more lucrative to grow a subsidized crop, or nothing at all. it doesn't negate the senselessness of only being able to buy fresh produce at the farmers market, and not at the grocery store, but yes, perhaps he should have written a very different article - one that explained the challenges faced by small farmers who would like to grow and profit from non-subsidized crops.

[Two Americas]

29. thanks

It is more than omitting facts. He either is not a farmer, because no farmer would make these statements, or he is intentionally skewing the truth to promote an agenda. Nothing about his story makes any sense from a farming point of view.

It is true that row crops are subsidized and specialty crops - fruits nuts and vegetables - are not. But that does not make one lucrative and the other not lucrative. In fact, no one gets into farming hoping for it to be "lucrative" and all farmers are struggling. Expecting to be subsidized for growing warermelon in Minnesota, and renting land both suggest his lack of a serious commitment to farming. His suggestion that fresh produce is difficult to obtain in Minnesota or is somehow suppressed by the government are simply false.

It is not so that people are only able to buy fresh produce at farmer's markets. As with his other assertions, this one is so self-evidently false that it is a wonder anyone would entertain it. There is fresh produce in every supermarket in America year 'round - that is something of a problem and a mixed blessing in my opinion. People have come to expect every sort of fruit or vegetable regardless of season. That demand from the public requires that produce be brought in from the southern hemisphere.

The issue of local produce being available to people in supermarkets has to do with the distributors and brokers - the corporate tail that wags the farming dog and that sucks off 90% of the profits - and is not the fault of the farmer, and certainly not the fault of the USDA.

The author has no credibility, and the NYT has chronically been uncritical about what sorts of articles they accept and approve on the subject of agriculture. They will get a firestorm of criticism for running this one.

The problem with articles such as this is that they are very damaging to farmers. It is one thing to have an informed opinion about agriculture, it is another altogether to be promoting an agenda by misleading the public and misrepresenting farming. No one - trust me on this - no one with any sort of farming background or the slightest bit of knowledge about farming could possibly take anything about this article seriously.

The problem with these ideological approaches to farming, that always make the government the bad guy, is that they are essentially libertarian politically and assist the corporations in smashing up public support for public agricultural policy and regulation which is leading to de-funding and destruction of our once stellar public agricultural infrastructure. This is very dangerous, and is becoming the greatest threat to farming and food safety.

[shugah]

40. the corporate tail is in bed with the gov't

the best way to buy local produce is at the farmers market. not at the local grocery store.

"The issue of local produce being available to people in supermarkets has to do with the distributors and brokers - the corporate tail that wags the farming dog and that sucks off 90% of the profits - and is not the fault of the farmer, and certainly not the fault of the USDA.


the USDA has shown that it is not somehow above or immune to politics. i kind of have, in the past, relied on the USDA to make sure that i don't get food born illness from my hamburger and spinach. silly me! if you are convinced that the USDA has been in no way affected by the current loose standards of interpreting exactly how much protection to the consumer vs distributors and brokers their agency should responsibly oversee...

the author of the article has at least as much credibility as you or i at this point :shrug:

the problem with farming is that it is not ideological or partisan - it's just growing food. too bad the government or "the corporate tail that wags the farming dog and that sucks off 90% of the profits" don't get it?

[shugah]

17. kick!

[NotGivingUp]

19. Take our food back!!! NOW!!! k&r!!! n/t

[sutz12]

20. I know here in Washington...

there is a movement to increase locally grown produce in the school cafeterias.

I'm all for it. It's just crazy that we have to buy produce from South America because of some corporate a-holes.

We need to nurture our local farmers.

[Two Americas]

27. that is seasonal

Fruit does not come from South America the same time of year that fruit is in season here, because in the seasons are opposite ours in the southern hemisphere.

New Zealand is a progressive country with fair labor laws, good food safety inspection and they are a fair trade partner. Bringing fruit by boat from New Zealand is relatively fuel efficient. New Zealand apples this time of year are not a bad choice, in other words. Apples are of course out of season here now.

Back east our complaint is that our schools and stores are flooded with fruit from Washington, and I can't imagine that Washington schools do not have Washington produce - when it is in season, of course. This time of year it is not.

[Two Americas]

25. another false statement

"IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand."

This is nonsensical, especially coming from a "farmer" who is supposedly in Minnesota which is under extensive fruit cultivation and has an excellent state ag department and one of the best local food programs.

You can hardly go 20 miles anywhere in southern and eastern Minnesota without finding a farm with a market and roadside sales, and some of the best and most conscientious and progressive growers in the world are found there.

There is no shortage of produce for farmer's markets in Minnesota. There is a shortage of farmers at farmers markets, because it is difficult for them to make money there. They do much better to have consumers come to them, and the consumer does much better as well. Minnesota is dense with fruit and vegetable farms within easy reach of most of the population in the state.

Most farmers avoid farm markets, because they are forced to compete there with weekend gardeners and hobby farmers and inefficient and low quality farmers whose sales technique consists of price cutting.

If farmer's markets worked for farmers, there would be 100 times more farmers bringing produce to farmers markets. Farmer's markets work best for gardeners, and part-time and small time weekend hobby farmers. There is a shortage of people like that, because not very many people are affluent enough to farm as a hobby.

[bobbolink]

30. The more the truth comes out, the more obvious is the CLASS distinction here.

Food boutiques for the affluent, the rest of us gets what's left.

Why can't affluent liberals be concerned about the quality of food the rest of us get?

Why is it only about them?

And... of course..... I"ll be ripped apart for daring to ask the question.

[Two Americas]

32. extremely insightful

This is the most insightful comment I have read on this subject in a long time.

Farmers markets, CSA and "organic" satisfy the whims and tastes of a few people, and those people should certainly be free to indulge those whims and tastes if they so choose. However, we are enduring a relentless tidal wave of propaganda that seeks to impose these "solutions" onto the general public, and as you point out this will inevitably and seriously harm the less well off, and those suffering the most will bear the burden more than any. The feel-good ideologically driven alternative food movement is causing an erosion of public support for the public agricultural infrastructure, and it cannot be said strongly enough that this is highly dangerous and destructive.

Farmers are under assault from two directions - corporations increasing their dominance over our food supply and actively corrupting and destroying the public regulatory agencies, and the well-funded upscale suburban propaganda movement of CSA and organic and farmers markets that is promoting privatized solutions to social problems and seriously eroding public support for the existing public agricultural infrastructure.

The alternative food movement is driven by right wing zealots who seek first to cash in on a gullible public, and secondly to destroy government. The "liberal" variations on this merely have a veneer of fancy progressive rhetoric and liberal lifestyle choices to fool upscale people who are entirely ignorant about agriculture and who are obsessively focused on their own personal choices into parting with their bucks and into unwittingly supporting and promoting an extremely right wing political agenda.

Reading articles such as this, I am reminded of the Germanic hordes descending on Rome and destroying that which they did not understand in an ignorant and futile attempt to possess it.

[bobbolink]

34. It's just one more way for the affluent to look down on us mere plebes, and sneer.

Oh well, it's not a club I endevor to join.

I've seen too much of it.

[Two Americas]

36. it is seductive

It all sounds good, whether we are to imagine that we are saving the planet, or promoting safer and better food, or helping the poor and homeless. But there is a consistent theme - privatization at the expense of strong public policy, and that means at the expense of those outside of the small circle of favored ones, especially the homeless and desperately poor and forgotten people, the working poor and blue collar people, and in this case people who are hungry and the small struggling family farmers who are trying to keep them fed.

The combination of a new modern liberalism firmly based on libertarian free-market privatization schemes, and the weak and almost non-existent opposition of the party to the ongoing right wing coup and seizure of government for the benefit of th wealthy and powerful few, is leading us straight off the cliff, and as you effectively and reliably point out, it is those at the bottom of the ladder who are suffering first and the most. We must listen first to the "canary in the coal mine," and we must be willing to look in the mirror and be courageously self-critical if we are to develop the political will to stop the escalating crisis. The lives and well-being of millions of human beings are at stake, and that is not an exaggeration.

[bobbolink]

37. We canaries are chirping our heads off....

and for that, we get sarcastic sneers from those who say they are for "One America"; we get stalked and demeaned by those who call themselves liberal, but take great pleasure in silencing us; we are invisible to the rest.

What's the point?

[bobbolink]

39. "What Would Jesus Eat?" a book in the library....

I saw that just after I read this post of yours...

To me, I see little difference between the RW postulating on such stuff, and the "liberals" with their "whims and tastes", as you put it.

Same/same.

[alfredo]

35. The tobacco industry fought the small farmers when they tried to set

up coops for produce. Many wanted to get out from under the thumb of the tobacco companies.