apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Monika 1 referenced this article in a previous thread.

It didn't surprise me at all because I see this frustration first hand when I deal with local farmers.

I used to deal with a pig farmer who raises heirloom pigs on land that has never had pesticides. He is the third generation. His pigs are free-range and are fed mostly on acorns and corn that he grows for them.

Is he organic? No. Why? Because the government has not deemed him organic. Why haven't they deemed him organic? Because he can't afford the process.

It's a tough world that doesn't often pay off for certain people. Even if you are doing the right thing.

In order to be able to continue raising his pigs, he had to supplement by selling chickens, something he never wanted to do nor could he afford to. But a local heavy-hitting chef actually paid for a large portion of the chicken processing facility to make it worth it.

Hmmm....interesting. Private subsidization of local food producers. May not get you a USDA Organic stamp, but it's something.

This subsidization of commodity crops is an out of control monster. Even the farmers around where I group up admit it. Farming, as they used to know it, has just been bred out of them.

I'm itching more and more to start my own business so that I can be part of something good. To take myself off the commodity grid so to speak.

even the farmers wehre I "grew" up admit it.

Sorry. To answer the question, "does the government actively discourage local food?" I would have to say that, in my limited observations, I guess, by making it expensive and a hassle to be a local food producer, they are certainly not encouraging it.

Again, I don't think it's as a simple as saying it's some sort of a conspiracy against goodness, I think it's the need for the government to streamline the food industry. By streamlining the industry, the job of Federal inspectors is black and white. By streamlining, the cost of commodities can be stabilized.

We don't have centuries of deep-seeded culinary traditions in America. We can't expect the government to be emotional about a perfect baguette, air dried sausages or unpasteurized cheese. Right Arnold? These things can and will easily be swept aside for industrialized sustenance supported by the government and deemed safe by the government for you to eat. If someone wants to think outside the box, well, it's going to be more expensive I guess, just like modern design.

This graphic says it all:

http://www.treehugger.com/pyramid.jpg

Hmm. I don't think it has to do with the government having to streamline the food industry. I think it has to do with the tremendous weight the lobbyists from the large agribusinesses yield in Washington, and everywhere else.

When dealing with local issues, instigating change on a local level can prove to be highly effective: USDA Nutrition Programs: Arizona Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. Reestablishing this program was a grassroots effort.

angorian, wowwowowow that's insane!

I don't know the facts and myths involved in the upper levels, regarding laws and regulations and typical dealings.

But in *this* particular case that was highlighted, the landowner DID receive a subsidy ($9k it seems) from the government, and THEN turned around to rent it out to the MN farmer. Vegetables and fruits aside, you just don't take money for what you SHOULD be doing and then rent it out to someone else / for something else.

As I said, it could be more complex than just fruits and vegetables, but I do not think the farmer was being discriminated for planting wholefoods at all. That's so not the point, IMO. If the landowner did NOT receive the subsidy, I doubt the MN farmer would have been fined. Instead, he's paying for the actions of the landowner.

Well come on, in this story the landlord farmer was Double dipping.  

He got Paid to grow corn, he then got paid by the renter farmer that grew the veggies.

The government is not discouraging the local farming in this case.  The Landlord Farmer is trying to pull a fast one and got caught.

So now here comes the Spin!  
"The Government is Discouraging Local produce"  

- That is just Plain BS!

I think the concern expressed here is summed up in the following:
"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..."
It's not really clear if the farmers renting the acreage were indeed subsidized for that part of their property or not, and I'm not quite sure from the piece what part of the $8,771 was repayment of the subsidy and what part was penalty.

The op-ed doesn't make clear whether the landowners were double-dipping by receiving a subsidy for a crop they didn't plant. It doesn't say whether the landowners gave up their subsidy that year or not.

The $8,771 the farmer paid the landowners was likely for a combination of the rent and the penalty for the "illicit" crop, since if the landowners had taken a subsidy that needed to be returned they would be the ones responsible for paying it back, not the farmer.

Subsidy means money!

A farmer can't grow corn every season or it kills the soil. By not growing anything or rotating crops, the soil is rejuvenated. Subsidies are given even when not growing the cash crop.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/alfalfa_on_etha.php

Alfalfa is a standard rotation for Corn. The Illicit crop was not a replenishment crop! It would tax the soil and not benefit the corn. That is a problem.

When you try and Steal, a penalty is appropriate!

You can't have your cake and eat it too! The landowners were Double dipping!

The story seems deliberately vague on some points. I think Sour apples are involved!

One thing about exclamation points is that they generally don't help with clarity.

The article simply doesn't state whether the landowners continued to take the subsidy when they decided to rent out the land for a non-subsidy crop, so an emphatic statement that they were "double dipping" is specious.

Well Shawn, you certainly noticed!

What you didnt notice in the article was that-

"...the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance with the commodity program."

Am I going out on a limb by saying the landlords were in the commodity program?

If they are IN the program,

they ARE subsidized!

I realize this is an older posting but I wanted to share this website in an appropriate place.

http://nrdc.org/health/foodmiles/default.asp