Yeah, custom harvesting has been around for quite a while, and it's a lucrative business. They head down to Oklahoma early in the summer and work their way north. We have a custom outfit do our harvesting for us. We used to do it ourselves, but nowadays it's hard to find enough people to run the combines, grain carts and trucks. Plus, combines are $450,000 machines, which suck balls making payments on when you only use them two months out of the year. And I fucking hate maintaining trucks. Having a custom crew do it is slightly more expensive, but it gets done faster and the rest of us have more time to manage shit.
Michael Moore gave a speech on our campus for the 04 campaign. Aside from his usual shenanigans, like throwing Ramen noodles and clean underwear at us hoping to "get our slacker butts off the couches", he randomly went on a tangent railing against all the evil Corporations located in Cincinnati (GE, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Chiquita etc). I remember a guy behind me yelling basically the same thing. If it wasn't for those greedy multinational half of the crowd wouldn't have had cushy middle class upbringing with parents that could afford to send them to college where Michael Moore could come speak. I think Dcc pointed it out first and it's really my feelings as well. While we all aren't saints, including corporations, but these companies are made up of thousands upon thousands of Americans just working for a living. They provide workers with a decent living and they provide products and services that makes customers lives better. We should really stick it to these sick fucks and tax them 190% to make em learn a lessen for doin what they did!
We kind of have this problem in our area. There are a few large farming operations around here that are hard to compete with when it comes to buying land. Makes it difficult for the 1500-3000 acre farmers who want to expand their operations.
Okay, what's your reason for believing this? I'll tell you my reason for thinking the FDA is not impotent; I worked for a large pharmaceutical company that is trying to get approval for a cancer drug. You know how difficult that is? It takes about $500 million to $1.5 billion to produce a drug, and 7-13 years of double-blind studies and statistics to get approval...if you're really lucky. No offense towards you specifically, but I'm always curious why Canadians who don't work in, or know anything about a specific industry criticize large and complex US government entities. I can't think of anything stricter and more difficult to get approval from than the FDA. This is quite a reasonable position, and I mostly agree. You certainly shouldn't put your faith in government, and shouldn't just eat everything off store shelves. I was merely responding to the lunatic tinfoil hat theories that "half the foods in American grocery stores cause people to be sick!" or "breads have carcinogens". That's just bullshit.
One of the biggest reasons I try to do as much local farmers market shopping as I can is the genetic engineering that has been done to a number of foods to extend their longevity on the shelf, and protect them better from shipping. Probably nothing speaks out to this more than a tomato. I remember the "good old days" when tomatoes were so soft and red and ripe that you could hardly cut them to put them in a sandwich. Smash cut to today were they've been genetically altered to be tougher to withstand shipping without bruising, and they are more fibrous and less tasty. Let them ripen all you like, but they'll never be as good as they once were. All so that they stay fresher on the shelf, and get there unbruised. I have a local farmer who grows good old fashioned squishy red tomatoes, and they are a huge improvement over the "improved" tomato of today.
Really? Pesticides have been known to cause all sorts of nasty fucking problems which range from renal failure, endocrine disruption, to all sorts of other neurological problems. I don't really know where to even point you to evidence because it's all over the place. Look at what happened with DDT despite it being labeled "safe" back in the day. When you take into account that a good portion of food comes from third world countries which do not have the benefit of the FDA, what then? Even then methyl bromide is still used in California on fruits despite being banned by treaties. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ScienceForums/forum05/I-52.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ScienceFo ... 5/I-52.htm</a> That's the link for potassium bromate which is used in bromated flour which is still allowed to be used in the US. It's a fucked up situation for sure with no easy solution. I don't claim to have the solution, but that's why I'm going to school, to maybe learn to fix these sorts of issues.
Please don't confuse bureaucracy with safety. I fully agree that a government-implemented system likely has enough red tape to drive anyone trying to maneuver through it crazy. The FDA, like anything, is susceptible to politics. If a big company like, say, Motesano wants something approved and four small family farms oppose it, who will likely win? The reality is that safety may or may not be on the top of the list. Also, you are talking about pharmaceuticals...I'm talking about foods and pesticides. I saw a documentary two weeks ago addressing the obesity crisis in the States. The FDA put on a big presentation about how to live healthfully, and it involved a dancing Shrek puppet and no clear indication of what people SHOULD be eating. The former Surgeon General Richard Carmona said that his reports and speeches were censored by the government so that their content wouldn't upset the lobbies. If Canadians are confused about how America handles it's large multinationals, maybe it's because - from a distance - the large multinationals run the show. Again, it depends. If people call this AND this "food" then what foods do or do not contain harmful chemicals becomes blurred.
98% of the farmers around here, including myself, handle pesticides and other chemicals on a regular basis, every year, all fucking summer long. I take safety precautions, but I sure as hell don't wear a respirator or a chem suit. That being said, health problems due to chemicals are non-existant around here. Retired farmers included. Take that for what it is.
I think it is kind of a double edged sword. Yeah, instead of getting the seasonal sweet corn from the family around the corner like I did growing up I can get it year round. I miss the old timey tradition but not really. I've enjoyed growing a few things myself and will probably grow more in the future because it is a fun and useful hobby. On the other hand I grew up in a house where my dad always put huge emphasis on scientific advancements, as he was a kid mesmerized by the space race and later a huge follower of Ayn Rand. So I always had a good dose of "there is no god, man's the shit" growing up. So I was never one that protested genetic engineering when it comes to animals or food. The ability to create plants that are resistant to weather extremes, parasites, bruising, and disease, HELPS US. It gives us the ability to have a standard of living where anyone can eat to their hearts content (why is it easier to blame these companies than it is the fat asses that have no self control?). Im curious to see how these animaless meat producing science labs change the scope of things. That is if they ever become viable on a large scale. Lord knows the first few products won't be nearly as good as a Porterhouse right from the cow but then again more people will have more access to a bigger variety of choice.
I'll pass, thanks. Better Off Ted, Season 1, Episode 2, for those of you that didn't get the reference.
I don't understand why this debate becomes so crazy. Isn't it as simple as high quality/high price vs. low quality/low price with Farmer's markets and such providing the former and big corporations providing the latter? How is this any different from any other product on the market? Also, I can't believe farm subsidies haven't been brought up yet. A large reason many farmers are successful is because of the ridiculous subsidies they get. America should be farming even less than it does now. Lastly, Dcc, attributing diseases to the food supply chain is ridiculous. Diseases like autism and ADD have gone up in prevalence because of changes in diagnosis technique; Alzheimers because we are living longer. Now, these reasons may be wrong, but they should be our starting point. Pointing to the food supply chains should not be the starting point. On a slight aside, I can't wait for hippies to have to confront the dilemma of synthetic meat. On the one hand they should like it because it is more humane, but on the other most of the them are all "eek! genetic engineering=bad!!" I can't wait for this stuff to come out, though I do have the concern that Netdata brought up about how most engineering has shelf-life, not quality as the goal. It would be ideal if the market here could also bifurcate into high quality/high price vs. low quality/low price so people can decide for themselves.
Please provide citations for this. While what you are saying is, to a degree, true, they do not represent the sole and only reason for the increases. Just go look at Mad Cow disease for an example. There IS no starting point... it's all interrelated. And food is what you are made out of, what can be more important than that?
Ugh, I'd rather just have it stricken from the record. I was debating with myself over leaving it in anyway as you are right, there is no starting point. I do stand by what I said on the diseases dcc specifically mentioned. I feel like that is self-evident...ADD and autism weren't diagnosed before, and now they are (often excessively, I know), so that has to be a factor. To what extent, I admit ignorance. Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the last sentence in terms of how it relates to my post.
Sorry dude, that's bullshit. Subsidies are based on your yield, and they aren't that fucking great. Don't get me wrong, they sure help, but no one is dancing to the bank with their government check in one hand and their dick in the other. Suggesting that farmers are successful because of government subsidies is fucking ludicrous. And why do people have such contempt for subsidizing agriculture anyway? At least that way your tax money is going to something worthwhile. Don't you think it's important to support the people who bust their asses so you can have reasonably priced food? I may be biased, but I sure as fuck think so.
This post displays an ignorance of basic economics. On the margin, subsidies will keep farmers in business who don't deserve to be in business. This is an economic inevitability. You're also ignoring opportunity costs. Keeping a farmer in business via subsidies takes away profit from a farmer in another country who could be profiting if the market were fair. Subsidies give American farmers an undeserved market advantage, and so, are inefficient. Also, every industry involves ass-busting, not just farming. Your biases are skewing you from making an accurate assessment.
In addition to the economic argument above by dubya: Probably because it promotes overproduction of certain types of food that we would be better off not producing in such large numbers. It pushes the prices of foods that contain, say, corn syrup below their natural level, lowering their price relative to healthier alternatives. Thus, it makes many unhealthy foods more attractive. Moreover, they're based on a moral principle ("We need to support American farmers! It's vitally important that they are able to exist at their current levels.") that many of us find curious at best, and possibly wrongheaded. I have nothing against farmers, but what makes them special? If you apply the same reasoning to say, carpenters or janitors, fewer people will find it as convincing, yet we regularly swallow this line about farmers (or auto workers). There are (at least, potentially) decent economic cases to be made for subsidies in certain cases (positive externalities, infant industries, etc.), but it's hard to see why we are particularly concerned with the case of the corn farmer. Maybe you can convince me. I'm all ears. But I'm also doubtful.
Can someone explain to me why people who are posting in the against-going-off-the-grid camp are so freaking ENRAGED at those who choose to make attempts to be healthier and/or more ethical in their own, personal lives? I just popped in here for the first time today and was kind of shocked at all the anger. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the few people who wrote about supporting "bypassing the man" were attacking those that utilize corporations, just the corporations themselves. Yet the majority of the posts against taking that into consideration are along the lines of GAHH YOU FUCKING IDIOT. I HATE YOU SO MUCH. Why the hell do you care so much about what food they eat or where they shop? It doesn't affect you whatsoever. Get over it. (It's especially funny coming from the people who are against that lifestyle because they say they're always telling other people how to live their lives, and then immediately continue on to attack someone else's lifestyle that doesn't agree with theirs.) I don't get how this topic, of all topics, turned out to be so emotional. I'm not very passionate about either side of the argument. I lean towards hippie tendencies, but I'm definitely not "anti-corporation" or fighting against The Man, and I don't give a shit if people are all about big business or growing soy beans in their backyard. (Although I do think the extreme at either end is stupid.) I think it's a "pick your battles" kind of thing, and a lot of what I do or do not do is based on financial limitations. I'd love to eat organic/non genetically messed with foods because I'd like to generally limit my intake of chemicals, and veggies that are allowed to grow naturally are a whole lot tastier. They're freaking expensive, though, so I'll only buy them if they're on sale and close enough to their non-organic equivalent. (And being of those broke ass people who can't afford organic food, I also understand the importance of having less expensive alternatives.) I'd love to buy clothes that weren't made by children going blind in a warehouse in Thailand, but, uh, I can't afford couture clothing. I like supporting local businesses over corporations, but I can't do it often. I've probably heard something upsetting about most of the big stores I shop at, and sometimes I stop shopping there (or won't start), but most of the time I just look the other way or else I won't have anywhere to buy things. And I like things. I have my little ways of doing the "reduce, reuse, recycle" thing. I know I'm not saving the world with my canvas shopping bags or whatever, but I do like doing the little things that I have the means to do. I do them because I like treating myself well, and because I think it's important to keep the consequences in mind of what I do and how they effect people and the world outside of my own little bubble. That being said, I do what I can, and don't beat myself (or others) up too much for going in one direction or the other. Unless it's about shopping at Walmart, then I totally judge, and it's all because of this site. I've never been in one (not for political reasons, just because I've never had one nearby and just went to Target for my cheap-department-store goods) and always imagine that they're only full of people like this:
Like I said, subsidies are based on your yield. If you're not worth a shit at producing, you don't get shit. Trust me, there aren't any farmers who "don't deserve to be in business" that are sticking around because of subsidies. American farmers are among the most efficient in the world. Subsidies don't have that significant of an impact on production. I'm not sure if you understood the point of my post.
You are misunderstanding his argument. First, suppose that given his current costs, a farmer were to have a net profit of -$2 per bushel of wheat. Suppose, then, that there was a $3 per bushel subsidy. Now the farmer has a net profit of $1, and wheat becomes a profitable venture (possibly not when taking opportunity cost into account, but ignore that for now). The subsidy has made a farmer undertake what is a net-unproductive activity (money-losing production of wheat). "Yield" is irrelevant to this argument. This producer previously would have stopped making wheat, and maybe stopped farming altogether. This is what DTF was referring to. As for opportunity costs, he's suggesting that 1) the subsidies encourage farmers to produce some crops, and not others, and 2) the money that goes to farmers might be more usefully employed elsewhere. Again, the relative efficiency of the American farmer compared to other farmers is not the crux of the point. You can't seriously be suggesting that subsidies do not encourage increased production. That's why they exist. It's the entire purpose of a subsidy, rightly or wrongly.
Darling, when one suspects elitism on the Internet it must simply be stamped out immediately with pointedly enraged fervor. How dare other people extoll the virtues of a lifestyle that you do not yourself lead? It means that they think you're doing it wrong, and they're subtly pointing fingers at your shortcomings. This is not to be tolerated. Not in Real America. Grumble, grumble...goddamned hippies. But seriously, no one is railing against corporations. Well, maybe that one guy. However, I have seen several alarming posts that tiptoed pretty damn near to advocating widespread worship at the altar of Big Pharma/Big Business, and that extreme is equally retarded. Corporations have certainly played an important role in the formation of modern society, and corporations employ my parents and by proxy feed me/clothe me/educate me. YAY, woo, let's have a parade. They also sometimes make poor choices that affect me, the consumer, negatively. Not cool. I prioritize certain interests of mine (eating healthfully and supporting sustainable ag, not patronizing certain big businesses that do not conform to certain ethical standards that I consider to be a bare minumim, etc.) and lead a lifestyle that supports those priorities. Some people do not. I'd obviously like for everyone to agree with my priorities and lead their own lives accordingly, but whatever. This is reality. A discussion about how my priorities affect my purchasing decisions/lifestyle doesn't need nearly this amount of vitriol, but I think some people are seriously pissed about not being able to dictate the proper level of prioritization in the lifestyle choices of others.