Willie Nelson's recent article urging Republicans to consider the needs of family farmers was like a good song: it sounded nice, and was full of memorable romantic imagery. The reality, though, is a bit more prosaic.
For example, Nelson begins by saying that "industrial agriculture uses" the slogan "feeding the world" to "justify its existence." It's hard to imagine a justification more powerful than that, if the slogan is true--and it is. American industrial farming does feed the world. But Nelson argues that the focus should be on "feeding all of us, rather than feeding corporate interests. People, not profits, should come first."
What does that mean, exactly? Are family farmers not motivated by profit? Do they just give away their food? Of course not. Like anyone else, family farmers deserve to be paid for their labor. If Nelson's point is that corporate farming gets tons of unfair handouts and subsidies from taxpayers, he's certainly right about that. But is he arguing that farmers shouldn't get subsidies? Far from it. He urged the government to "stabilize rising production costs and uncertain market prices"--meaning, subsidize the purchase of inputs and restrict prices, as the government already does through programs that make it illegal to charge low prices. (That's right--under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and similar laws, it's illegal to decrease food prices in many cases.)
Throughout his article, Nelson suggests that "family farms" are the kind of hardy, self-reliant Jeffersonian small-acreage yeoman citizens that have so long been a fixture of the American romantic imagination. But it's always been, and still remains, imagination. While most small farms are family farms, most family farms are not small farms. Most of what go by that name are big agribusiness concerns that enjoy access to the kinds of subsidies that people think go to small concerns. Even Jefferson, who created this mythology, ran his era's equivalent of Big Ag: with a workforce of hundreds of slaves scattered over thousands of acres on several farms, not just Monticello--and Jefferson enjoyed using the most cutting-edge agricultural technology of his day. He even won an international scientific reputation for inventing a new kind of plow.
But Nelson opposes high-tech agribusiness, not because it doesn't produce a lot of food for a hungry world, but for the opposite reason: because "industrial agriculture displaces the people who farm and steward the land." No doubt small-scale farms take care of the land, but statistics show that the high-efficiency methods of industrial agriculture are, acre for acre, better for the environment. They use less per harvest-pound in fossil fuel, not to mention human labor, than do the "organic" methods Nelson applauds. And the idea that big ag "produces cheap food that damages our health" is just false. Agribusiness produces food that is nutritious and safe--while organic farming is not only no healthier, but it may actually be worse for you. For one thing, plants grown without pesticides are forced to find their own ways to fight off pest infestation. They do it through their own defensive chemicals, which are bad for us, and by making smaller and fewer fruits.
This last point is essential. Nelson blithely seems to minimize the importance of producing "cheap food." But in a world where millions still go hungry, humanity's first priority should be finding ways to make more, and cheaper food. Americans are fortunate enough to worry about the epidemic of obesity. The rest of the world can only wish it had such problems. Even if it were true that food produced by big ag weren't as good for you as "organic"--which is not the case--it would still be preferable to feed the hungry now, and worry about their cholesterol later.
The romantic image of the hardy independent farmer is very compelling. And certainly corporate farms, like other corporate interests, have access to unfair forms of corporate welfare that actually reduce production and squeeze out entrepreneurial farmers who don't have the political influence to obtain similar favors from Uncle Sam. But the solution to that problem isn't Nelson's vague notion of a "democratic food system." It's to stop the Robin Hood redistribution schemes which Nelson actually endorses. If agribusiness out-competes small farmers economically, it's because agribusiness produces more of what people need at lower cost. That's a good thing. What Nelson disdains as our "industrial agriculture system" is an industry that supports a world population vastly larger than anything organic farming could ever support.
And it's because of big ag's tremendous success in producing more, cheaper food at lower cost, that banks are more willing to extend credit to those farmers over the risky, niche-market farmers Nelson lauds. If I were a banker, I'd certainly be more likely to lend to a large, successful corporation with a proven track record than to a small, less-efficient family farmer whose market is largely based on such marketing gimmicks as the "local food" movement or "farm to fork" sloganeering. If small farms can't compete for credit against big farms, that's generally because the latter have outcompeted the former--and that is as it should be. If consumers choose the products of these large, mechanized farms over the produce of old-fashioned small farms--because it's cheaper and more plentiful--then more power to them, even if that means the end of the yeoman farmer ethos. Call that "squeezing out" if you like, but Americans shouldn't be forced to support any business that can't compete fairly. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize family farms out of a romantic appeal to the myth of the small farmer, any more than they should be forced to subsidize buggy whip makers who can't compete against car manufacturers and complain that they're being "squeezed out" by "big auto." Of course, if small family farms really are better--if as Nelson claims, they are "the ones who will actually feed the world"--then they have nothing to fear. They should be able to compete without the government interference that Nelson's asking for.
Again, there's no denying that one of the keys to big ag's success is the amount of corporate welfare Congress dishes out every few years in its Agriculture Bills. But the injustices and economic distortions those cause should be combatted by ending those handouts--not by demanding a whole new round of handouts for the small-scale farmer--handouts Nelson euphemizes as "policies that promote access to land, credit and fair markets." In practice these general terms mean forcing banks to make overly risky loans, guaranteed by taxpayer bailouts, and price controls that illegalize cheap food. Nelson claims that "More people than ever are seeking out family farm food." That's doubtful--the "local food" movement is mostly a boutique market that serves people lucky enough that they can afford to indulge in such aesthetic preferences, rather than the world's poor, who need whatever nourishment they can get now, and don't care if it's grown by a robot. But if it is true, then why the demand for government to step on and "help"? If demand is really outstripping supply, then these farms should be able to survive on their own.
What we don't need are government policies that aim to "stabilize" the "uncertain market prices"--that is, allow government bureaucrats and agricultural cartels to force food prices up in order to benefit farmers at the expense of consumers. Nor do we need government programs to "increase access to the credit that farmers need" and haven't been able to earn. Risky government lending means bailouts in the end. Nor do we need government to manage "healthy competition"--that word "healthy" typically means, enabling small, less-efficient businesses that can't compete economically to use the government to ban competition and keep prices up. And we don't need government to "ensure that farmers and farmworkers earn a living wage"-which, again, means forcing food prices up in a world where people are going hungry and need whatever food they can get at the lowest possible price.
Most of all, we don't need any more quaint, vague romanticism about "a food and agriculture system that works for people." The hard reality is that hungry people need food now--and they need it cheaply and plentifully. The mythology of the Jeffersonian farmer is a lovely, enticing vision. But it can't feed humanity. What we need isn't some "people not profits" folk song--what we need his a humane agricultural policy, which allows the best competitors to succeed by making more, better, low cost food.
Comments policy