the pauper

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:27:21 -0500

dan barber does not seem to understand why agribusiness get all the breaks. there's a reason why lobbyists work and why big corporations use them. Like he mentioned, Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) and their peers will push for higher subsidies on corn and soy because they can use ground up corn + soy as feed. the other problem with his argument is that he makes the assumption that independent farmers will be better than agribusiness farms. let us pretend farm subsidies disappear. prices for things like purdue chicken (I'll call this Bad Food) go up to a point where prices are close enough and people can be swayed by tags like "no antibiotics" and "sustainable farming." (I'll call this Good Food.) Greater demand for the superior product will drive up the prices of Good Food vs. Bad Food. When potential small independent farmers see the higher prices for Good Food, more will enter the market. At this point, you can no longer account for the new producers of Good Food. All all small independent farmers of the same quality? Why does a fine dining restaurant use one purveyor versus another? The other thing that might happen is that an original independent farmer of Good Food will expand his operations because prices have gone up (thus gross revenue and gross profit). Can you safely say that current independent farmers who grow Good Food (sustainable, environmentally sound, etc), can maintain the same level of excellence at 2x, 4x, 8x the size?

Gothamist: Hot Sake - Food News You Can Use

the pauper