Passages Sustainable Food and Farming Systems - PASA

Director’s Corner
Standing on the
Shoulders of Giants
By Brian Snyder,
Executive Director
If you have been following my recent
columns, you probably noticed that
I’ve been a bit grumpy lately. Maybe
“grumpy” is not the right word, but let’s
just call it my “persistent uneasiness” for
now, and I can assure you there are
plenty of good reasons for all of us to be
feeling this way.
There is otherwise much cause to be
celebrating right now, including the
achievement of twenty years of PASA as
an organization, and the growth of the
sustainable food movement in general, to
the point where sustainability itself is
now a mainstream idea. But there are
storm clouds just ahead that we would do
well not to ignore.
I’ve talked in various contexts about
an increasing, and in some ways necessary
divergence of worldviews that now dominates
our public discussions about food
and farming. I have likened that chasm to
the scientific dispute over whether the
Sun revolves around the Earth, or vice
versa, that once took about 300 years,
and not just a little violent persecution,
to resolve. In our case the central conflict
is over the role of nature in our farming
systems…is it a friend or foe
For PASA members, it’s almost
unthinkable that anyone would consider
nature as the enemy of farming, but
that’s pretty much the status quo attitude
with the dominant, industrial paradigm
that now governs most of our food production.
Nature always seems to get it
wrong, and must be supplemented with
various chemicals, trampled by ginormous
machinery and even manipulated
at the level of genetic structure in order to
make it do what we want. And then all
too often it adapts, and ends up dashing
our best intentions anyway…at least
that’s how the industrialists understand
the world.
Of course, we know different. We
know that the tendency to diversify and
adapt is exactly the thing that nature does
right, and that we would do well to emulate
it in that regard. We know that by
observing very carefully what happens on
our farms and in the different ecological
systems in which our farms are situated,
we can minimize the hazards and maximize
the benefits of our farming practices
to the economic, environmental and ethical
contexts in which we operate. We
know that within all life forms resides the
capacity not only to survive, but to prevail,
and even to heal when things do not
go as we had planned. We know that the
most successful farms will adhere to
nature, not try to defeat it.
But I have some bad news. With all
the progress we’ve seen over the past two
decades, we are not currently winning the
day. We are losing ground, and the reason,
I believe, is twofold.
First, we are aiming at a moving target.
Whether we are talking about economics,
the environment or the health
and welfare of our people — especially
when considered on a global scale —
things are getting worse, and by some
estimates, there is not much time to turn
the ship around. This is not a new idea to
PASA members, or anyone who has been
coming to our conferences over the years,
because a host of keynote speakers have
reminded us over and over again what’s
really at stake. And as full as the conference
center generally is, there are just not
enough farmers hearing this message
from us, or anywhere else.
The second, and to me more ominous
reason, is that the other side — that is,
the forces of industrialism that benefit
from the status quo — are getting more
organized in their efforts to avoid change,
or at least to resist change that will come
quickly enough to make a real difference.
I have written before about the formation
of an industry-led group called the
USFRA, which stands for the US Farmers
& Ranchers Alliance, that burst onto
the scene this past summer pledging to
spend $30M/year “to lead the dialogue
on how food is grown and raised in
America” according to Bob Stallman,
who chairs the USFRA and is also president
of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
As you would no doubt surmise, this
new group was formed to answer the criticisms
leveled at industrial farming coming
from within the sustainable food
system movement. You would also not be
surprised to find that the effort is largely
being funded by commodity checkoff
dollars — some of which are contributed
by our members — as well as hefty donations
from Monsanto and other corporate
players. So in other words, if you are
paying into a checkoff system, you are
potentially also helping to support messaging
that works against the marketing
of your own, sustainably-raised products.
This helps to reinforce the impression
many of our farmers get that the commodity
checkoff system is actually a legalized
form of organized crime.
And if that doesn’t get your attention,
maybe hearing about what the USFRA
advises farmers to say to consumers will.
In a training presentation acquired by
some friends and forwarded to me, I was
astounded to find that this new organization
is advising farmers to talk with the
public regarding just about everything
except for how they farm. One slide in
particular advises them to avoid what
they called “language landmines” and
technical “process-oriented” language.
That same slide is specific in recommending
that farmers not use words like
Technology, Innovation, GMOs, Antibiotics,
Hormones, Pesticides, Fertilizer and
Nitrogen. On another slide they talk
about ditching the technical talk and,
instead, using language that is more “natural,”
including words like preventing,
nurturing, resilient, healthy and — this is
the kicker — better tasting. They recommend
that farmers not talk about big,
lofty ideas like feeding the world anymore,
and also emphasize the need to adopt a
strategy of continuous improvement,
which is something they rather directly
continued on page 18
6