Absolutely. Look at the travesty that happened in the pork industry when Smithfield put tens of thousands of pork farmers out of business in Virginia and North Carolina, then sold it all to China. The same is happening with crops in large parts of many Midwest and other states. Certain well known people have purchased these large farming acreages then sold them to foreign entities. This should be illegal. Americans must maintain ownership and control of our land and our food sources.
2 Likes
I agree more transparency and disclosure about farming practices needs to be a priority. I also share many same thoughts in my proposed policy change regarding the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
Read more here:
4 Likes
I am fully in support of electrofarming and further study on how this can benefit the growth of our crops but also protect from natural pests. Copper is the game changer in this topic. Thank you for sharing this topic!
3 Likes
I love this. Also, make gardening classes mandatory in all elementary schools and permaculture practices taught in middle and high schools. Children nowadays cannot even identify a tree in their front yard. If they learn about the natural world and how nature regenerates by planting seeds, working with the soil and cultivating land, it will serve them well in their adult lives 
4 Likes
I love everything you have outlined here. I have given this area a great deal of thought. A couple of nuances that I would to your excellent explanation and recommendations are specifically adding “cottage industry” as a classification to USDA inspection grades. This grade of produce would come with minimal or no USDA required inspections, could only be sold in let’s say a 500 mile radius of where it is produced, but would have no restrictions on whether or not it could be sold in local supermarkets or served in local restaurants. This classification would have the added benefit of boosting smaller area economies. It would also notably be possible to ensure that only fully inspected products labelled appropriately are served in facilities with vulnerable populations like nursing homes, hospitals and daycares.
2 Likes
interesting, thank you
1 Like
Also, BAN CHEMTRAILS! They pollute and diminsh our soil.
3 Likes
While we are at it… let’s enforce the Robinson-Patman Act so small grocery stores can compete on price with larger stores. I want to start an all organic grocery store but can’t compete with the large markets that sells less healthy options.
But … I’d be happy if we just could stop the glyphosate in our food supply.
3 Likes
There are numerous post on GMO crops and federal subsidies, but I havent seen any mention of GMO Dwarf Wheat versus ancient wheats.
GMO dwarf wheats were developed to feed the world’s exponential population growth. Introduced in the 1950’s, dwarf wheats grow faster and produce more seeds than ancient grains. Wheat strains grown before the 1950’s are twice as tall and more susceptible to weather relates damages. From 1950 to 1980, US wheat production more than doubled from about a billion bushels per year to 2.5 billion bushels. Today, 99% of all wheat based food products use GMO dwarf wheats.
There is a direct correlation to the rise of gluten intolerance disorders to the use of GMO wheats. The correlation between to the rise in obesity to the use of GMO wheats is startling. Besides these two health issues, there is also an impact on Federal subsidies as farm yields increased, more subsidies were sent to farmers to “not” plant crops to moderate supply and avoid price drops.
My suggestion is to stop subsidies to leave fields dormant, but encourage planting native ancient grains. The longer growing cycle and risk of weather damage can be offset with planting a greater amount of crops on the 19 million acres of land the federal government subsidizes farmers not to plant.
I can’t say that transitioning to ancient grains will be an economic improvement, but it is proven, using ancient grains can Make America Healthy Again.
2 Likes
In this regard, the work of the Land Institute is very important relating to the potentials of perennial grains…
You use the word “punish” with regard to conventional gmo chemical crop farmers. I am in a farm family. I grew up helping my grandfather row crop the entire farm. He’s no longer living, but he remained old school in his practices. He cultivated, and we all “walked the beans” and hoed out the weeds, while every other farmer we knew jumped on the chemical round up wagon. Discussions about modern chemical industrialized farming practices vs. Traditional methods between neighbors have gone off and on for years, but less and less so between big acre farmers. Conventional farmers were ILL incentivised to adopt and remain in the chemical gmo model. Even if they are not blamed for picking that apple so to speak, They chose ease and convenience and money over health, people, and environment and priciple. And most I know have never looked back. The vast majority are not suffering or conflicted about their decision. They either believe the Big Ag rhetoric and propaganda, or lie to themselves until they can dismiss the truth. I have never met a gmo farmer in my area that grew a conscience after going gmo. And I’ve talked to a lot. Any that concede any regret or acknowledgment that their methods are WRONG, immediately defend them by claiming it’s too expensive to farm any other way, and will say SOMETHING to the effect of “who wants to go back to fighting weeds?”
They are all mercenaries doing whatever big ag suggests. yes men all. You either have a functioning conscience, or you don’t. And I can tell you for a fact, THEY DON’T. Anyone who does will make moves to transition at least a field or 2 and try an alternative method and look for alternative markets, or ways of extracting themselves even partially from chemical models. I know of no one in my immediate area who’s done any of the sort in 30 years. These guys are set in their ways and won’t change unless their methods and materials are outlawed and/or they are incentivised to change. BOTH are necessary.
As a side note, The implement market has always traditionally been good at coming up with solutions to problems like weeds without spraying. And my grandfathers generation designed and built their own implements if they weren’t affordable or already produced. The only reason not much ingenuity exists is there’s no NEED or call for inventions and alternative equipment to spraying weeds with an entire megolithic industry this dominant. Some alternative equipment exists, such as weed zappers and flamers, but What implement manufacturer is going to spring for R & D for something only a handful of farmers want, and couldn’t afford even if they did?
Sorry to throw Conventional farmers under the bus, but not sorry. They lack compunction, creativity, principles, consciences, and generally are not bothered by any ethical/moral delimas or shortfalls even if they acknowledge it’s wrong, they will not turn loose of subsidies or EASE to risk doing anything else. They’ve locked in. It’s a race to the bottom line. That’s all they care about. And that’s the politest way to describe it. I don’t have any sympathy for conventional farmers. They aren’t FARMERS which is a noble term that in my opinion INCLUDES STEWARDSHIP! They are climate controlled equipment drivers only, if it’s not already automated. They don’t FARM anything. Many don’t touch dirt, not seeds, not bags, not even steering wheels. Everything is automated. They oversee computer screens and satillite guided frakenseeds being placed in dead media, not soil, which is green not because they’re healthy, but because their hopped up on synthetic anhydrous nitrogen. Which they can’t and don’t contain toxic runoffs, pollens and chemical pollution from reaching their neighbors, rivers and streams. To the point that these forever chemicals that can be directly traced to the chemical companies products, they have oversaturated the ground which has always filtered out contamination prior, that they persist in almost every water table in America.
Massive overhaul necessary.
3 Likes
I understand this sentiment, and have myself been drawn into this dichotomy at times. But I have come to realize that such divisions undermine us all. You write "Any that concede any regret or acknowledgment that their methods are WRONG, immediately defend them by claiming it’s too expensive to farm any other way, and will say SOMETHING to the effect of “who wants to go back to fighting weeds?” " Yup – they are wrong, like people who say eating processed foods are healthy. But the truth is working its way through – and will continue to. We must reverse subsidies for industrial ag – but not as a Sri Lanka style system shock. Those farmers’ practices will shift over time, but the most powerful tools will be 1) phasing out monoculture subsidies, and 2) shifting consumer awareness. The consumer-farmer awareness battle is our front line. As attitudes (awareness) in both camps improve, people will orient toward self interest, and evaporating subsidies will erase the favored economic treatment that has enabled this horrible situation to exist. I thank you for being forthright – I know well what we are up against, but we need to convert the large farms as allies and not declare war on their business models, however destructive. We didn’t get here overnight, and it will take some time to reverse not just subsidies and regulations that favor large producers, but the attitudes and mistaken assumptions that undergird them.
1 Like
I wholeheartedly agree with solutions posted here. What I want to add is something that MOST are not aware of/see here:
homepage here:
The science is real and world changing. It works across the Ag Food spectrum. IMHO, if our technology was made available to growers of any kind, they could become profitable again.
I can answer any questions posted here.
1 Like
I like the weening off subsidies entirely, and I like incentives to correct WRONG practices, but don’t they do some caning in Shri Lanka? Can we do a little caning? As a treat! MAKE CANING GREAT AGAIN! 
3 Likes
I’m looking at it from the standpoint of let’s QUICKLY get to the banning of gmo’s, the long list of chemicals, and subsidies. Overnight, or in stages, but QUICKLY. Coupled with incentives to transition away from gmo’s. Where is it written in stone that these mercenary “farmers” MUST be rewarded, protected, retained, or cajoled? It’s not possible to “farm” thousands of acres by a single farmer without making the gmo compromise. Thereby, impose the bans on gmo’s, chemicals, subsidies IN CONJUNCTION with incentives. Let the big ag farmers that want to adapt and continue, ADAPT. They won’t be able to carry on as usual without selling off acres. THEY DON’T LOSE in this scenario, but what it DOES do is free up rural acres long out of reach by those who WOULD otherwise farm those acres CLEANLY. Which would also repopulate these rural areas with people again, revitalizing small towns, recharge community, and provide more local options and access to fresh food, rather than dependence on industrialized food and transport. RESET THE RULES TO RIGHTEOUS, FAIR, AND RESPONSIBLE. LET THOSE THAT WANT TO STICK AROUND, DO SO. LET THOSE THAT DON’T, SELL OFF THE RESOURCE TO THOSE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO FARM RESPONSIBLY.
And keep in mind, no farmer that has to sell off some or all of his land is going to lose anything other than a sense of misplaced pride. So let’s redirect sympathy and empathy back to those on the receiving end of those without choices consuming these diabolical industries products. Let’s keep appropriate priorities of protections where they belong. Farmers are 1 in an equation of many, in this case billions of consumers. They will ALWAYS be 1 in an equation of many. And what’s specifically missing so far, so often in these discussions, all due respect is RESPONSIBILITY. And these mercenary farmers are free from the burden so many others have to bear because they’ve absolved themselves from carrying any of that weight
for decades.
Less emotional or otherwise consideration for the entrenched interests and farmers themselves. They come out of this ok even if changes were sweeping and overnight. Change the rules. Let the markets adapt and form, and build the bridges with incentives alone! Those that want to stay and keep going, will. Those that don’t, won’t. And good riddance. THEY’RE IN THE WRONG FIELD, and line of work. Simple as.
3 Likes
Caning as in sugar cane? The US does a lot of sugar beets, but not a lot of caning. Beetings, yes! Canings, no. 
1 Like
This is awesome.
However in the Willamette valley Oregon due to drought small farmers who wants produced vegetables and fruits are no longer producing food crops they are producing export crops drought resistant crops like filbert and grass seed how do you bring water to the farmers to grow food for America instead of exports?
The creeks and streams that once supported agriculture can no longer be used during the growing season Wells are running dry this isn’t just an Oregon problem but what can be done to help the small farmers who no longer have the ability to irrigate what can be done to help them?
It’s too bad Farmers who’s Wells have ran dry can’t use the winter flow of water from there creeks and streams to rehydrate and fill up the old Wells so that in the summertime they can use those Wells to irrigate bringing back food crops that benefit their areas locally instead of being forced to sell export crops that are drought resistant in order to survive as small farmers.
Sorry about my lack of punctuation and grammar
2 Likes
Joel Salatin is a big proponent of building holding ponds for exactly this purpose…
Thanks for commenting!
2 Likes
To transform current food policies into a model that promotes equitable access and treats food as a basic human right rather than a commodity, we can consider a holistic, sustainable framework. Here’s a structured approach, covering each component in detail with pros, cons, additional solutions, and practical tips to create a post-capitalist food system that meets everyone’s needs.
Key Policy Enhancements
- Direct Food Redistribution Programs
• Pros: Reduces food waste, provides immediate relief, and utilizes surplus effectively.
• Cons: Logistical challenges, food quality concerns, and reliance on donations.
• Solutions:
• Establish government-managed, community-led redistribution services, creating stable distribution networks beyond corporate donations.
• Introduce local quality standards and monitoring systems to ensure food remains fresh and nutritious.
- Localized Food Hubs and Co-ops
• Pros: Strengthens local economies, increases food access in food deserts, supports sustainable practices.
• Cons: High startup costs, limited reach in rural areas, potential for price fluctuations.
• Solutions:
• Fund government-supported, community-owned co-ops operating on a “pay what you can” model to eliminate financial barriers.
• Use grants or low-interest loans to reduce initial costs, and consider “mobile markets” to reach underserved areas.
- Emergency Food Access Programs
• Pros: Rapid crisis response, reduces hunger spikes, improves community resilience.
• Cons: Funding instability, complex coordination, risk of dependency on emergency resources.
• Solutions:
• Establish permanent community pantries as a staple food source, guaranteeing free access in crises and beyond.
• Create a centralized coordination platform, allowing for efficient distribution and accountability.
- Universal Basic Food Access
• Pros: Ensures nutritional security, reduces hunger regardless of income, promotes health.
• Cons: High cost, potential for misuse, complex logistics.
• Solutions:
• Implement a “Public Food Allocation Program” funded by taxes, providing all citizens with a monthly food allotment.
• Partner with local stores and co-ops to simplify logistics, tracking usage and ensuring accountability.
- Investment in Local and Urban Agriculture
• Pros: Increases local food production, builds community engagement, lowers environmental impact.
• Cons: Urban space limitations, high startup costs, limited crop diversity.
• Solutions:
• Support rooftop and vertical farms for maximized yield in cities, using public funds for setup and operation.
• Promote volunteer-run urban gardens, where community labor helps provide fresh produce.
Transitioning to a Non-Capitalist, Equitable Food System
This approach would minimize profit motives and prioritize food as a universal right, emphasizing collective ownership, shared responsibility, and sustainability. Here are broader strategies to achieve this transformation.
General Strategies for Transition
- Food Sovereignty Policy
• Enable communities to manage their own food resources, fostering local production and decision-making without reliance on larger market forces.
- Basic Income Model for Food Access
• Implement a model similar to universal basic income, where all individuals have free or subsidized access to essential foods, removing the need for purchase.
- Free Public Markets
• Establish publicly funded markets where farmers can distribute food directly to consumers for free or at low cost, creating social engagement opportunities and free access to food.
- Invest in Regenerative Agriculture as a Public Good
• Support regenerative practices to preserve the environment and increase long-term food security, sharing these resources publicly rather than treating them as marketable goods.
- Redefining Food Economics
• Transition from treating food as a commodity to viewing it as a necessary public service. Allocate subsidies toward universal food access, focusing on health and sustainability over profit.
- Cultural Shift and Food Education
• Educate communities on food rights and sustainable practices, fostering support for policies that promote equitable food access.
Final Summary
By adopting these policies and solutions, we can redefine food as a public right rather than a market item. This approach emphasizes community-led initiatives, local resilience, environmental stewardship, and equitable food distribution. These changes are not only beneficial for local economies and sustainability but also align with a vision of social justice and human rights, where every individual’s basic needs are met free from profit-driven systems.
This framework is thorough and covers multiple facets essential for transforming food systems to be free, equitable, and accessible. However, some areas can be expanded upon or refined for a more comprehensive approach. Here’s an evaluation with suggested expansions and any missing elements that could further enrich the policy.
Suggested Expansions for Greater Detail and Impact
- Community and Cultural Integration
• Expansion: A more profound focus on the social and cultural elements that shape food practices. This would involve initiatives to recognize traditional and indigenous agricultural knowledge, honor local food traditions, and support culturally relevant food education.
• Why It Matters: Integrating cultural values and community traditions strengthens community bonds and creates a resilient system where food is seen as part of cultural identity, not just sustenance.
• Implementation Suggestions:
• Partner with local organizations and cultural groups to ensure food programs respect and reflect local traditions.
• Create public food education campaigns that include traditional knowledge, especially from indigenous and local farming practices.
- Food System Education and Skill-Building Programs
• Expansion: Introduce comprehensive, hands-on food system education for all ages. This would teach essential skills like gardening, food preservation, nutritional cooking, and seed-saving.
• Why It Matters: Education promotes self-sufficiency and empowers people to actively engage with their food sources, reducing reliance on market-based systems.
• Implementation Suggestions:
• Integrate gardening and sustainable agriculture programs into school curriculums and community centers.
• Offer free workshops and public seminars on topics like home gardening, composting, and community farming.
- Land Access and Redistribution
• Expansion: One significant barrier to local food production is land accessibility. Publicly funded initiatives could make more land available for community agriculture, focusing on underused urban spaces and vacant lots.
• Why It Matters: Accessible land allows for community-driven food production, especially in urban areas where land is often limited.
• Implementation Suggestions:
• Create community land trusts specifically for urban agriculture.
• Enact policies that allow individuals and groups to apply for land for farming, ensuring it’s affordable and accessible, possibly using tax incentives to encourage landowners to lease land to community farming groups.
- Transparent Supply Chains and Fair Trade Policies
• Expansion: Expand on how food is sourced and the labor involved. Implementing transparent, ethical supply chains ensures fair labor practices and equitable trade, which also enhances local economies.
• Why It Matters: Fair trade and transparency encourage ethical labor practices and support sustainable practices, aligning with a system free of exploitation and aligned with values of equality.
• Implementation Suggestions:
• Create labeling systems that highlight products grown and distributed within ethical supply chains.
• Enforce fair-trade requirements for all publicly supported food initiatives, ensuring labor fairness across every part of the supply chain.
- Decentralized Governance and Local Decision-Making
• Expansion: This would involve giving communities the power to make decisions about their food sources, policies, and distribution models. It could establish food councils or boards in different regions to manage and oversee these systems locally.
• Why It Matters: Local governance empowers communities, allows for policies that reflect local needs, and builds accountability.
• Implementation Suggestions:
• Develop regional food councils with elected members who represent their community’s food needs.
• Ensure these councils have the resources to enact decisions, like prioritizing land use for food production or setting local guidelines for food quality and sustainability.
Potential Missing Elements
- Technology and Innovation in Food Access
• Why It’s Needed: Technology can streamline food distribution, minimize waste, and improve efficiency. Including tech-driven approaches like digital marketplaces for local food, community-based apps for sharing surplus food, or even drone delivery in remote areas could strengthen the system.
• Suggested Programs:
• Develop digital platforms that connect surplus food directly with those in need, including mobile apps for real-time updates on available food at local hubs.
• Explore technology grants for community organizations to improve food distribution, particularly in rural or underserved areas.
- Addressing Climate Impact and Resilience
• Why It’s Needed: Climate change directly impacts food production. Policies should incorporate climate-resilient agricultural practices like drought-resistant crops, soil regeneration, and diversified farming.
• Suggested Programs:
• Prioritize climate-resilient farming in urban and rural areas, with funding for greenhouses and drought-resistant crops.
• Educate communities on climate-resilient food production, focusing on water conservation and biodiversity to withstand future environmental shifts.
- Focus on Mental Health and Well-being
• Why It’s Needed: Food security is connected to mental health. When people have reliable access to food, stress, and anxiety around food security decrease, improving overall mental health. Including mental health resources in food access programs would ensure holistic well-being.
• Suggested Programs:
• Pair food access centers with community health resources, such as mental health counseling or wellness programs.
• Offer programs on nutritional well-being, emphasizing the connection between diet, mental health, and resilience.
- Resource Allocation Transparency
• Why It’s Needed: Transparency in resource allocation, especially in publicly funded initiatives, builds trust and accountability. Clear, accessible records of how funds are distributed ensure public confidence in the system.
• Suggested Programs:
• Develop open-access reporting on all program funding and food distribution.
• Host regular community meetings or publish quarterly reports to keep the public informed.
- Global Solidarity and Food Rights Advocacy
• Why It’s Needed: Hunger is a global issue, and a system based on food as a human right could extend to international solidarity, encouraging similar policies worldwide.
• Suggested Programs:
• Partner with international organizations to support global food rights and promote policies that prioritize food accessibility on a global scale.
• Host international summits to share successful models, encourage best practices, and promote food as a universal right.
Summary of the Enhanced Policy Framework
To transition fully to a food system that is equitable, sustainable, and free of profit motives, the policy can be expanded with these additional elements:
-
Community and Cultural Integration: Respecting cultural traditions and empowering communities strengthens food security and enriches food systems.
-
Food System Education and Skill Building: Educating people on food systems, from gardening to preservation, creates a more self-sufficient society.
-
Land Access and Redistribution: Accessible, affordable land for food production ensures that everyone has a hand in growing and distributing food.
-
Transparent Supply Chains and Fair Trade Policies: Ethically sourced food supports labor rights, fair wages, and sustainable practices.
-
Decentralized Governance: Local decision-making ensures that food systems meet the specific needs of communities.
-
Technology and Innovation in Food Access: Leveraging technology can help minimize waste and improve food distribution efficiency.
-
Climate Impact and Resilience: Climate-resilient agriculture and education on sustainability strengthen food systems against future environmental changes.
-
Focus on Mental Health and Well-being: Addressing the mental health impact of food security can foster a healthier, happier society.
-
Resource Allocation Transparency: Transparent resource use and public reporting enhance trust and accountability.
-
Global Solidarity and Food Rights Advocacy: Promoting food as a human right worldwide aligns with universal access principles and strengthens global food security.
Each of these enhancements supports the broader vision of a system where food is a basic human right, not a commodity. Expanding on these ideas and integrating these missing elements could build a comprehensive, resilient, and equitable food system that serves all people.
I feel like there is way too much red tape and expense as a single milk cow owner. I literally have to pour out gallons of milk because I’m not licensed to sell. My cow has been tested and her milk is delicious but I cannot afford the expense and red tape it would take for just one cow. Laws need to be changed so if people want to buy raw milk they should be able to do so without having to find a large dairy Same with fresh eggs
3 Likes