The Goods Are Odd

Recently an outstanding report was released that addresses the societal costs of our current system of producing animals for food. It was put together over two and a half years by the Pew Charitable Trust’s Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. The confined operation model of the corporate meat industry is credited for the low price of animal protein in this country. At a time when food prices are at an all time high, and stagnant wages are stretched to cover the increasing cost of living, it may not seem realistic to call into question the production methods that make food so cheap.

However, taking a step back from the low prices reveals the true costs of the current food animal production processes. More and more we are becoming aware of the external costs of the things we consume. We are becoming more critical about what we are really paying for- what did the company have to do to save me money on this product and am I in fact going to pay the difference somewhere else?

According to the Commission’s report, Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) saves money by disregarding public health, environmental realities, animal welfare, and the economic well-being and quality of life of the communities in which they operate. While consumers benefit at the check-out line from these cost-cutting measures, we make up for the savings dealing with the problems these measures cause. Not to mention the distortion of price created by subsidies.

This Washington Post article (which links to the Commission’s full report) identifies…that the “economies of scale” used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs.

While the Commission limits its recommendations to those that are realistically achievable through the current system it is clear that the ultimate goal is to transition to a completely different system, based not on the guidelines of industry but of ecology.

It should be clear by now that arguments to maintain the status quo of the food animal production system in the interest of keeping down prices are untenable. It is clear that as prices go down, larger societal costs go up. As The Post states, the viability of the present system is suspect and the Commission’s report can make a clear case that, indeed, organic, local food systems would not only relieve problems in the three areas addressed by the report, but also have a positive impact on national and international food insecurity and rising costs. Because instead of relatively poor and sick people paying corporations low prices for industrially produced food we would have moderate income, healthy people buying food from their healthy, economically stable farmer neighbors.

This is the concept of food sovereignty, and it is gaining support and momentum, particularly because of its grassroots, low-income focus (rather than say the slow food movement which is more focused on foodies and people who are already familiar with and can afford or choose to buy into the local and organic systems)Food First, an established food think tank here in Oakland, provides a useful follow-up to the Commission’s statement in a explanation of their work in building local agri-foods systems:

Dismantling the industrial agri-foods complex at the local food system level must be accompanied by the construction of alternatives that suit the needs of small-scale producers and low-income consumers, worldwide. Farmers Forging Food Sovereignty focuses on farmer alternatives to corporate control over production and consumption. (more here)

Numerous examples of the viability of local food systems exist from the thriving farmer’s markets to this very local neighborhood micro-market in East New York. How food animal production would look on this scale is another question- it’s much more desirable to grow tomatoes on an empty city lot than process animals for meat. (Upddate: Meat CSA’s!) But a scaling down of the present system is clearly necessary and total-cost effective.