The American government has a long and proud history of playing into the hands of various large interests, whether it be the railroads, the pharmaceutical companies, the automakers, or Big Ag. Despite its pledge to uphold the rights of the American people, it tends to spend more of its time and effort upholding the right of lobbyists to fleece the American people of their wealth and, in the case of the food companies, their health. 

But I’ve recently noticed a change in the government’s attitude towards the food industry as it stands now. In some cases, the established line is simply leaning more and more in explicit support of local models of distribution and production. In others, it is just on the border of actually denouncing the system as it stands now.

It all starts with Obama’s Rural Plan, which was released in 2007 during his campaigning in Iowa. Besides the usual promises of change and calls for action, the Rural Plan actually takes a very definitive stance against large-scale, industrial food producers. The plan outlines in great detail the steps Obama planned to take to loosen the stranglehold Big Ag has on the American food system, including closing loopholes in regulatory laws and actively stopping the growth of CAFOs by increasing the burden of regulations and reducing funding. The plan is also pro-small farmer and makes claims that the President would help small farmers meet organic certification requirements and otherwise become economically viable.

The USDA has been on board for a long time as well. A USDA document, published in 1999 and updated in 2007, Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms, points out clearly the conventional industrial agricultural system is partly or wholly responsible for many of the problems faced by American society. The document spells out just how the industrial food system has created environmental, social and economic problems for the country, while still acknowledging the benefits of cheap, bountiful food.

The USDA itself now has a program entitled “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” whose tagline, “every family needs a farmer, do you know yours?” mirrors the attitude of Farm to Table and locavores around the country. It’s a small program, but its focus is specifically on empowering small and regional family farmers, rather than large industrial operations. Much like the grassroots profood movement, the USDA’s program emphasizes local production, environmental awareness and stewardship, and a strong connection between the community and its farms.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

All this rhetoric is great for securing votes and funds, but what is the government actually doing to support small farmers? Empty promises from the government are expected. Is there any real financial backing behind any of this?

In fact, there is. Obama’s 2011 budget proposal, for example, called for $400 million in investments to support the creation of new supermarkets and farmers markets in underserved urban areas that lack access to fresh, real food. About 23 million Americans, most (83%) of them in low- or moderate- income areas, do not have easy access to fresh food. Their food choices consist mainly of fast food restaurants and convenience store items, both of which are dominated by highly processed food products that have probably seen most of the country on their long journey to the shelves. Obama’s proposed investment program is modeled on the Philadelphia Fresh Food Financing Initiative, which began in 2004 and has provided fresh food access to 400,000 people in the state. This program has also served as a model for other states as well. The national program is supported by the Food Trust and The Reinvestment Fund, both of which have proved effective partners in revitalizing community-food connections.

Admittedly, Obama’s National Healthy Food Financing Initiative will not solve all the problems associated with a long-distance industrial food system. It’s main focus in on providing access to fresh food, not necessarily local food or food produced by small, responsible farmers. But it is a step in the right direction. When people have no choice, when food always comes in a wrapper, they are divorced from their food. It becomes a commodity rather than a source of nourishment. And let’s keep in mind that Obama’s project provides investment for farmers markets as well as supermarkets. Imagine the reaction of a kid trying his first real, in season, locally grown strawberry after years in which his only experience of strawberries was a shake at the McDonald’s down the block. That’s a case for supporting local agriculture if ever there was one.

Additional government funding materializes in the form of the USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Grants, for those seeking to conduct research into sustainable farming methods and to teach these methods. The USDA also provides funding and technical support for starting and marketing farmers markets and a whole raft of other programs to bring communities closer to their sources of food. The financial backing is there, and the government is looking for ways to reach out to people. All we need to do is take advantage of it.

Going Beyond the Economics

The most important thing to be taken from all these government initiatives is that our voices are being heard. People with the power and the money are starting to take action. It is the slow, grinding, tentative action that has always characterized our government, but it is action nonetheless, and it should not be downplayed. It is important to reach out to meet our government’s gestures of support, if only to provide encouragement that they are doing what we’d asked, or at least trying. Furthermore, the simple fact that the USDA and the White House are questioning the established food system is significant.

The USDA document defining sustainable food asks, “Can sustainable and equitable food production be established when most consumers have so little connection to the natural processes that produce their food? What intrinsically American values have changed and will change with the decline of rural life and farmland ownership?” This is not an economically motivated question. This is a question about values, and it begins to suggest that, even for the USDA, there might be some considerations more important than the bottom line and gross production in determining how to run our food system. It suggests that it is worth our government’s time to not only provide access to real food, but also to cultivate community connections, to go beyond the fundamental concerns of health and money to the spiritual importance of food in our lives. It suggests that maybe our government is beginning to gain a glimmer of appreciation for a food culture that European governments have guarded for decades. And while the $5 million made available this month to small farmers to help market their products is nothing compared to the $35 billion set aside for large agribusinesses, it is being met with enthusiasm and optimism for more to come.

Even if the government wants to help the consumer, the small farmer, and the local butcher (and I sincerely believe it does), it must contend with the fact that Big Ag is well entrenched. These industrial farmers are people too, obviously, and while it is easy for us to sit at our desks and type up scathing criticisms that call into question the mental faculties of individuals who would sell sugar puffs in denatured milk to our children, we have to keep in mind that the food companies are part of this county’s food heritage as well now. They in fact grew out of it. Corn Flakes have become an American tradition, as has McDonald’s. The government has a responsibility to protect those companies as well, and the jobs they provide, so that when a transition occurs, it does not leave millions of Americans unemployed and resented by the new food culture. I feel that there is an ethical dimension to the issue, and there are guilty parties, but whether or not that is true, our government’s job is to make as smooth and painless a transition as possible, if it will in fact undertake to make any transition at all. And truthfully, a blameless transition is probably the only one that will stick.

Image Source: wallyg on Flickr