I can accept your points, but we do seem to be addressing different
issues. At least one of the reasons for the existence of an
agricultural "sector" (e.g. agriculturalists, farms, production
agriculture) is to serve the 97% of society who are not
agriculturalists. It would seem rational that a government "of the
people, by the people, and for the people" (I too am American) would
design a system that best served stated objectives - including (but
not limited to) FEEDING THE PEOPLE.
It follows then that
*If* the only advantge of bigness (your point) is that it is easier to
regulate - e.g. it DOESN'T do a better job of feeding the people (in
amount, quality, reliability or whatever) - AND
*If* in the interests of achieving easier regulation, a great deal of
societal, community, and environmental harm is done,
*THEN* a) let the government be honest about the intentions of it's
cheap food policy, and let it be clear that the people being driven
from the land are not "inefficient" or otherwise unworthy as economic
competitors but rather, that they get in the way of regulation, and
b) sounds to me like it is time to reconsider the
cost:benefit equation which has heretofore motivated the cheap food
policy.
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933