Transforming Food System Discussed
Published: Friday, July 8, 2022
Transforming the food system?
While that goal may sound out of reach for most entities, even the U.S. government, that is exactly what the U.S. Department of Agriculture intends to do with its June 1 announcement of a Food System Transformation framework.
That announcement was front-page news in the Exchange's June 10 issue but has had very little follow-through in the weeks since. Yet, if executed as planned, the impact on farmers and the agricultural system would be significant. USDA plans to invest up to $2.1 billion in programs and initiatives that will make the food system "more distributed and local" and "fairer, more competitive, more resilient."
Are these worthwhile goals? Is the current food system broken? Does this framework from the Biden administration invest taxpayer money in the right ways, or is it an example of government throwing money at a problem and hoping for a solution? These are the questions the Exchange put to two local stakeholders.
The Exchange asked those questions to retired Michigan State University Extension educator Maury Kaercher, who lives in Kalamazoo County, and Ben Hartman, who runs a small vegetable farm in Elkhart County.
The goals of USDA's Food System Transformation framework include:
• Building a more resilient food supply chain that provides more market options for consumers and producers while reducing carbon pollution;
• Creating a fairer food system that combats market dominance and helps producers and consumers gain more power in the marketplace by creating new, more and better local market options.
• Making nutritious food more accessible and affordable to consumers; and
• Emphasizing equity.
Regarding the last goal, USDA wants to help underserved communities that do not have "a fair shot to economic opportunity." The framework that the Biden administration is proposing would create more economic opportunities for these communities and allow them to retain more of the wealth created there.
Both Kaercher and Hartman believe there is room under agriculture's umbrella for all types of farming and farm sizes.
"Everyone has a part to play in improving the food system," Hartman said, noting that large-scale farms are best suited for grain production while smaller farms tend to be more nimble and able to pivot.
However, Hartman pointed out that 70 percent of U.S. farm subsidies are collected by just 10 percent of the farms, and those 10 percent tend to be large-scale operations. He would like to see government support distributed more equitably among farms of all sizes, and he applauds USDA for directing resources to small farms.
"There is some truth that farm subsidies have historically overlooked small farms and urban farms," Hartman said. "It is nice to see that there is attention being paid to those of us who are on farms less than 10,000 acres in size, because we exist, too. I think it is time to expand the number and reach of small farms, because we're missing out on what small farms have to offer. And I think there is a lot that small farms can offer their communities and our food system."
Hartman grows lettuce, kale, tomatoes and other vegetables on 1.5 acres on the north side of Goshen. He sells produce year-round and has 10 wholesale accounts and 20 CSA (community supported agriculture) accounts.
Hartman grew up on a 500-acre corn and soybean farm in LaGrange County. He still helps out on that family farm but doesn't earn any income from it. He said that small-size farm is the kind that he says is being squeezed out due to an economic model that favors large-scale agriculture.
While Hartman believes government support for small farms is long overdue, Kaercher is skeptical of the motives of the policymakers.
"My feeling is that politicians are way too good at throwing words out and don't have any idea how they're going to make them right, how they're going to make them work," he said. "They don't have a clue."
Kaercher said that government money often comes with a long list of regulations.
"Do those words—fair, more competitive, resilient—require more government input, more regulations? They do as far as I'm concerned, because the only way you can make it fair and more competitive is to put rules and regulations on a return for your investment if you do certain farming practices."
Kaercher, who is 77, said that U.S. agriculture, even with its faults, is the best food production system in the world. He is skeptical of programs that would undermine our current system.
As he noted, "you ain't going to feed this world without big ag."
Hartman said he considers himself a "big tent" type of thinker, and believes farms of all sizes are needed to feed the world. However, he said small and urban farms serve their communities in ways that large farms cannot. For example, small farms provided food to their local communities when there were supply chain disruptions due to the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Still, there were many gaps in the system and an increase in food insecurity.
"We have to admit that had we had a more distributive food system, it could have solved some of those problems faster and more efficiently," Hartman said.
He said small farmers are better able to use climate-smart growing practices, and have the capacity to produce food with less waste.
In Hartman's situation, all of his produce is purchased by restaurants and grocers within a 1.5-mile radius of his farm. If one of his buyers were to cancel a contract, he feels confident that he could pivot and find another buyer.
Hartman's small farm, known as Claybottom Farm, utilizes intensive production methods. Because all of his customers are local, the farm has lower transportation costs than most traditional farms.
Hartman envisions a food system of the future that will be more distributed and local.
According to the administration's framework for transforming the food system, food insecurity is a growing problem in this country. The plan unveiled last month would create new and expanded markets for a diversity of growers while helping consumers gain access to healthy foods.
USDA plans to increase funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative by $155 million. This funding would provide grants and loans to entities that offer healthy food in communities that are underserved. There is also a $50 million initiative to support access for senior citizens at farmers markets, $40 million in a program to increase fresh fruit and vegetable consumption for those with nutrient-deficient diets, $25 million to support SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) technology improvements, and $100 million to create a new Healthy Food Incentive Fund.
For producers, USDA notes that, on average, just 14 cents of every dollar spent on food goes to the farmer. The department blames this on increased consolidation in the marketplace. Creating a fairer food system means giving farmers more marketing options for their crops. The plan incudes $300 million in funding to help farmers transition to organic production and $75 million to support urban agriculture.
Hartman has tried to sell his crops to a well-known commercial grocery chain but with little success.
"They said we would love to have your tomatoes, kale and lettuce," Hartman said. "You would just need to drive them to our warehouse in Indianapolis. We'd bar-code it and then distribute it to our stores. I said, 'Couldn't I just send you a list of what we have every week and you can pick from the list and I'll deliver it?' They said, no, we have to work through our warehousing system. Anyhow, that's to say that small farms have been shut out of very logical marketplaces for food."
Hartman said local communities need more local farms to supply the food they need.
"What if there were a thousand small farms in Goshen instead of a handful?" Hartman asked. "What if we had easy access to the places where most people in Goshen are buying their food?"
Like Hartman, Kaercher believes there is a place for all farms. However, he says farms like Hartman's are an exception. He said most small fruit and vegetable farms are not economically sustainable.
"I do believe the farmers markets have a place, but if you took the average person who goes to the farmers market and sells product, and you think they're making a living on it, you've got to have a different calculator than I've got," Kaercher said.
The former Extension educator and cattleman explained that most farms have grown in size so they could survive and pay for the cost of new technology.
"It's a good thing I kept my day job, is what I used to say when I had the cows."
In addition to working as the Extension director in St. Joseph County (Mich.), Kaercher also served as director of the Michigan Sheep Assn. for 10 years. He is now retired and living in the Kalamazoo area with his wife Nancy. Kaercher's only agricultural activity at the moment is growing and selling sweet corn from three-fourths of an acre.
There are some aspects of USDA's framework that Kaercher welcomes. He agrees that the processing sector needs diversification and would like to see more regional meatpackers in the food system.
It is important to note that the administration's new proposal is a significant departure from previous farm policy. As Kaercher pointed out, in a capitalistic system, farmers had to get bigger to survive. He believes capitalism given us the best food system in the world. However, he said capitalism isn't always fair.
The Biden administration wants to bring fairness to the food system. Government support will be directed to help those in underserved communities and those living in food deserts.
"It's fool's gold, in my opinion, to think that we can revert back and translate the food system and make it better, safer and cheaper than what we have in this country," Kaercher said. "There's no other country doing that today, regardless. So, if you decide that the government is going to make that happen, the only way they can do that is to create more regulation."
Kaercher resists the idea that wholesale changes are needed in U.S. farm policy. He said the U.S. has a "great" food system.
At one time, Hartman's Clay Bottom Farm was a USDA-certified organic operation. However, he dropped the USDA certification for two reasons, one of which was high production costs. The other reason was that his customers said the organic label wasn't important to them anymore.
He said the paperwork involved with the USDA program was "cumbersome," and agrees with Kaercher's point regarding government regulations.
Despite this, he believes action is needed to help small farmers and remove barriers for entry. Farm numbers continue to dwindle. He said the best way to slow that trend is to help small and niche farmers get a start.
"We have reached a place where we have large-scale and corporate-size farms, and small, highly entrepreneurial farms, and there is very little left in the middle," he said.
Regarding the capitalism, Hartman pointed out that roughly 20 percent of U.S. farm income comes from government payments. He said that level of support wouldn't be needed if farms could survive on their own.
"We have to be honest about that," Hartman said. "Agriculture does receive a lot of help. I'm not saying it's all a bad thing, but we have to be honest about 20 percent coming from government payments."
Return to Top of Page