One of my favorite sites, Grist.org, ran an article yesterday by farmer and writer Steph Larsen, entitled “When are we going to stop seeing farmers as rubes and hayseeds?”. She brings up an excellent discussion point, and I think it’s just the tip of the iceberg, because I think it goes beyond analyzing just the general public’s perception of farmers – it’s the attitude toward food in this country. Because the corporate-government machine has made food into a commodity, most people have adapted that mentality about it, too. In the movie Ratatouille, the main character, Remy, is told by his father, Django, “Food is fuel. You get picky about what you put in the tank, your engine is gonna die. Now shut up and eat your garbage.” Frankly, I think that too many people have adopted exactly that mentality regarding their diet. While I can appreciate the pragmatism and practicality of such an attitude, let’s not forget, these characters were, after all, rats. Not exactly a good role model on which to base our own eating habits. And yet, day in, day out, people flock to the dollar menu offered by fast food joints, trying to get the most garbage for their buck, seeking quantity over quality.
But there are folks out there who have recognized that perhaps quality is more important, and looking beyond what commercially-driven (and that does include government agencies) diet recommendations are in their best interest. They’ve seen Food, Inc. and perhaps read In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan. They’ve come to realize that they want real food, nutrient-dense and grown responsibly. To paraphrase Joel Salatin, they want better control over what they are feeding the population of beneficial bacteria in their gut, such that they will enjoy better health. Instead of eating low-quality garbage, and suffering detrimental health effects, they want to defy the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) standard of eating and take responsibility for their health. But where can they find the foods they need in order to do this?
Many have found that the answer is to adopt a “locavore” approach – sourcing as much of their food locally as possible, so that they know the face of the person producing food for them, and can establish a relationship of trust with them. In most cases, this means finding a small farmer in their area, someone who shares their commitment to responsible, sustainable food production, and is interested in producing quality rather than quantity. These farmers can come from a variety of backgrounds, and may or may not have grown up in a farming family, but they share in common an awakening: that they want to produce better food than what the industrial system is selling.
Now that sounds pretty intelligent to me. Not at all like a rube or a hayseed. It sounds to me as though someone in that position is bringing quite a bit to the table in terms of knowledge, which they may have acquired through formal education, or informally through their own personal mission of research. That’s the sort of person I want growing my food. I want someone who has a passion for using their knowledge to grow the best food possible, in terms of nutrition, animal welfare, and healing the land. And I want them to be able to keep doing it over the long haul.
And that’s where I think we as ecologically minded farmers need to examine our weaknesses: being able to do what we do for a sustained period. I think we can allow ourselves to become rubes if we aren’t careful. Something I’ve noticed in our relatively short time as farmers is that there is an attitude amongst many that “We aren’t in it for the money.” Really? Then may I suggest you get out of it? Here’s why.
I’m not suggesting that we should all be greedy. But if we continue to apologize for the need to make money, how exactly are we going to sustain these operations in the long run? How will our farms sustain themselves? If we have off-farm jobs being worked by one or more members of the family, and their paycheck is partially or fully subsidizing the farm operation when we are selling products from the farm, how is that sustainable in the long run? And let’s be honest – how is it any different than the industrial food model from which we are all trying to move away? If we don’t believe that the food we are producing is worth charging an honest price for, one that reflects our costs in producing it, then why not just resort back to the industrial food supply? And if we do believe that the food we are producing is worth it, then why aren’t we charging the honest price for it? The industrial system is subsidized by taxes, and we criticize it for that. Why would we carry the same principle over to what we want to be a sustainable model?
Those who sell at a loss can’t sustain it over time. Eventually, they will get out of the business, either by downsizing and only producing enough for their own families, or they will be forced out because their circumstances change and they are no longer able to subsidize the operation. But in the meantime, it’s damaging to those of us who are trying to maintain their operations over the long term, and as such, must charge a price the represents the true cost of producing that food. Those who undercharge, undermine, because it creates a perception that the food can be produced at a much lower cost, when in reality, they are simply not charging what they should.
I think that this a major reason that farmers end up being seen as rubes, because if they are losing money at what they do, then of course, they cannot afford the things that others can. And I’m not talking about luxuries – I’m talking about basic needs. Let’s take one example: someone with dental insurance and a salary to pay for the deductible takes for granted that they can go get their tooth fixed at a relatively reasonable cost if they happen to break it, but that may not be true for the farmer, who may have to walk around with a broken tooth, which just piles onto that hayseed perception. But it’s not because they want to look like the slack-jawed yocal – they may have just had to make the choice as to whether to feed their livestock or get their tooth fixed. They chose their animal’s needs over their own, and one result of that is that their customers still get the quality foods they want to eat. Maybe if those customers had paid the real cost of producing that food – which would include the costs of healthcare of the person raising it for them – the farmer wouldn’t have to suffer with that broken tooth. Or maybe they drive a run-down, rusty old pickup truck that seems almost comical in appearance, especially compared to that nice shiny Chevy 3500 diesel dually parked in your neighbor’s driveway. But vehicle payments suppose a steady income of a certain level, and as long as people expect to pay as little for their food as possible (while still wanting high quality) that’s what the farmer will have to drive.
I think that the perception of farmers is tightly bound to the perception of food in our country. Without changing the perceptions and ideas about food, how it should be grown, what it should cost, and why quality is important, the negative attitude toward those that farm will likely remain unchanged. That’s why it’s important to keep educating about why quality, non-industrially produced foods are vital to our personal and societal health. We continue to learn and seek knowledge here on our farm, and to share what we unearth with you through these pages on our site. We believe that we have not only the responsibility to grow good food, but also to provide information about what makes it better than what the industrial system produces, and why it therefore may cost more, or at least appear to on the surface. We hope that in doing so, we are helping to change the perception about food and farmers in our little corner of the world.
We hope you enjoy this blog and the antics of our farm. Please check out our fan page on Facebook and “like” it for special updates there, and if you use Twitter, by all means, please add us so we can tweet with you!
Related Images:
Leave a Reply