|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
'WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND IT IS US' |
Current rating: 0 |
by A.V. Krebs
(No verified email address) |
14 May 2002
Modified: 11:45:30 PM |
|
Mr. Krebs publishes The Agribusiness Examiner, which "Monitor[s] Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective." Excerpts will occassionally appear in these pages or you can subscribe to this free e-mail newsletter and read past issues at: http://www.ea1.com/tiller/agbiz/examiner1.html |
Pogo pretty much said it all when he warned "we have seen the enemy and it is us."
Certainly in this post-September 11 era that warning has gained new meaning. But for rural America and its farming communities recent history is replete with such examples of the inability to recognize who is the enemy and who is the ally.
As one has come to expect author and poet Wendell Berry poignantly and succinctly has brought to the forefront in his recent Progressive Magazine essay (see below) a point that this observer has long contended, that there exists in this country, and the world for that matter, a deep and abiding prejudice against farmers and their rural neighbors. For in our capitalistic and industrialized society we are constantly romanticizing "farming" and the rural landscape while denigrating the people who not only do the actual farming, but provide us with our cornucopia of food.
But in denouncing those who belittle the farmer we cannot forget the fact that, as Berry reminds us, "faith in industrial agriculture as an eternal pillar of human society is getting harder to maintain, not because of the attacks of its opponents but because of the increasingly manifest failures of industrial agriculture itself: massive soil erosion, soil degradation, pollution by toxic chemicals, pollution by animal factory wastes, depletion of aquifers, runaway subsidies, the spread of pests and diseases by the long-distance transportation of food, mad cow disease, indifferent cruelty to animals, the many human sufferings associated with agricultural depression, exploitation of `cheap' labor, the abuse of migrant workers. And now, after the catastrophes of September 11, the media have begun to notice what critics of industrial capitalism have always known: The corporate food supply is highly vulnerable to acts of biological warfare."
Unfortunately farmers themselves often buy into that "faith" by allowing themselves to be converted by corporate agribusiness's three great commandments: 1) substituting technology for labor and capital for efficiency, 2) standardizing the food supply through "factory farms" and assembly line food manufacturing, and 3) the creation of synthetic foods, such as is currently taking place with the introduction of genetic engineering.
By allowing themselves to become willing tools of the corporate agenda farmers have often times allowed themselves to sow their own seeds of self-destruction. Most farmers know what is best for their land, their environment and their communities, but in their desperate attempts to survive they have allowed themselves to take their eye off their ultimate objective and follow corporate agribusiness's latest siren call.
No better example of such seduction can be seen at the present time than in the ethanol controversy. While the Washington Post's editorial board so seldom knows what it is talking about when it comes to farm policy it certainly got it partially right in a recent editorial (see below) concerning that controversy and the present energy bill before the U.S. Congress.
Likewise, the furor that has been created in the media and Congress with the publication by the Environmental Working Group of farm subsidies is another case of farmers allowing themselves to be discredited in the public's consciousness by their supposed allies.
As Keith Mudd, a farmer near Monroe City, Missouri, reminded readers of THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER several months ago, "the Environmental Working Group argues that most of the subsidies go to the largest of farmers, who in turn use it to buy out their smaller neighbors.
"The truth is that all farmers, regardless of size, must use the subsidy just to raise the value received for their commodity above the cost of production. In most instances, the cost of production is covered and something is left over for living expenses. In practically no instance is anything left over that would be considered a return on investment (land and equity).
"As margins shrink, volume must increase to maintain a viable operation. As farm sizes have increased, smaller farmers often quit and seek off-farm employment rather than take on the additional risk to expand. In some cases, the smaller farmers are not financially able to take additional risk. If the Environmental Working Group's theory is correct, higher prices will cause the same results. . . . .
"Most problems on the farms of rural American can be traced to one fundamental cause. The underlying problem with farm income is concentration. As our input suppliers and the purchasers of our products consolidate, they acquire market power. This market power is leveraged against the farmer when he sells his crop. As an example, our current corn stocks as a percentage of use, in other words our leftovers, are at levels that would have been rewarded with $3 a bushel corn. But corn sells for less than $2 a bushel. Cargill and ADM have no serious competition in the marketplace and the government is willing to make up the difference in this minimum price scheme.
"Look somewhere else for a scapegoat; it is not the American farmer draining the United States Treasury. The real transfer of wealth is accumulating in Cargill and ADM's bank accounts," Mudd rightfully concludes.
But the EWG once again, with the publication of the subsidy list, has exhibited a basic ignorance of farm economics, an ignorance that is endemic to many of the organizations in the environmental movement.
For example, as starters, where was the environmental movement some 30 years ago when grassroots farm groups were attempting to target Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) land set-aside payments, which make those present subsidies that so worry the EWG look like pocket change ??? Where were these "environmentalists" when USDA not only denied Congressional attempts to publish the ASCS subsidies in the Congressional Record, but made it near impossible to exert any kind of accountability of to who and to where such payments were being made ???
On the latter point this editor speaks from some personal experience as in the early 1970's he sought as part of an almost lone campaign to examine the list of such payments at USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. After some cajoling he was finally allowed to view a computer printout county-by-county of the ASCS payments in a small room with a USDA employee sitting across the table from him, for a half-hour period of time and was instructed beforehand that he could take no written or audio notes.
Those who would have the media and the public focus on the "subsidy question" conveniently escape having to confront and thus work on the fundamental issue that farmers face today --- receiving a fair price for what they produce!!!!
It has become a matter of utmost importance, if not mandatory, for family farmers, both at the grassroots and within their own organizations to start publicly abusing not only their detractors and their so-called friends outside the farm community, but also their own fellow farmers of the myths that currently dominate the thinking of the public and their lawmakers when it comes to farm economics. Those myths were recently candidly stated by Keith Dittrich of the American Corn Growers Association:
"There are too many myths, falsehoods, lies, legends, fabrications, untruths, and fairy tales being perpetrated on America's farmers during this farm bill process," said Dittrich. "I want to identify the biggest three myths currently being used. It is important because these myths are being used as unqualified arguments to force lawmakers, and the nation's farmers, to settle for lower support rates.
"It is untrue that: * Lower price support rates (CCC loans) increase exports and, thence, increase farm profits, * Higher price supports result in over production, and * Lower price supports, cause lower production, and bring supply in balance with demand.
"There is no credible analytical or historical evidence to prove any of these myths to be true," explained Dittrich. "On the other hand, there is hard analytical and historical evidence to prove they are not true. The ACGA, along with several well known agricultural economists, upon review of concise, summarized history of important and interconnected statistics affecting U.S. crop farmers extending back to 1975, have proved, without a doubt, that all three of these myths are false."
Clearly, farmers at every opportunity need to denounce such myths and learn to stop offering such blatant corporate patronizing observations as the one made recently by an Illinois rancher, who in commenting on the news that McDonald's was importing and test marketing cheap Australian and New Zealand beef in their southeastern U.S. restaurants , told the Peoria (Illinois) Journal Star's Steve Tarter that while he regretted McDonald's decision he felt the impact would be minimal with import quotas remaining in force. "At first blush, it pulls at your heart strings. I'd like to see McDonald's keep using domestic product but the important thing is maintaining a set quantity of imported beef," he said.
Thus, as we consider the current plight today of not only agriculture, but of our country, and as we examine the articles below, Pogo's declaration becomes indeed manifestly clear, "we have seen the enemy and it is us."
Read more on this at: http://www.ea1.com/tiller/agbiz/156.htm
Mr. Krebs covers much which is very relevant in Champaign County, along with such nearby agribusiness giants as ADM. You won't find coverage like his in the local dominant media, who have all been bought off with extensive applications of ADM advertising money.
To subscribe to The Agribusiness Examiner:
http://www.ea1.com/tiller/agbiz/examiner1.html
Although Mr. Krebs has his differences with EWG, the EWG information below is an illustration of the problematic views that the public is beginning to form about agriculture in general, when it should be focusing on the systemic problems in American agriculture as a whole. Most farmers do NOT reap the large subsidies that those at the top of the lists below do, yet they are the ones held up as examples of why such payments are needed. Maybe with a needs-based welfare system, we can have a needs-based farm payments system, which would do needful farmers more good and cost the public less..
To see who is (and is not) reaping the rewards of the present broken system in Champaign County:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?stab=IL&county=17019
To search for subsidy recipients anywhere in Illinois:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/state.php?fips=17
To search for subsidy recipients anywhere in the U.S.:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/ |
