------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Mon, 14 Nov 94 9:18:43 EST
>From: "Raymond Meyer" <rmeyer@usaid.gov>
To: ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA
Subject: re: Re: further to the "40,000"
Thanks for your observations. Additional points might be the rather
tremendous long distance transportation subsidies which definitely favor
large farmers. If the gov't programs take some of the risk out of the
"large" crops the transportation subsidy makes it impossible for the small
farmer to compete. Transportation isn't scale neutral.
e.g. a bridge here in the Washington D.C. area has to be replaced. Over 80%
of the damage is due to trucks. Cost of replacement is $1 billion +/-. That
amounts to a $100 million a year subsidy to the trucking industry for one
bridge. Multiply by hundreds of bridges and highways and the subsidy easily
reaches tens of billions per year - dominantly in favor of "large". Local
production etc. definitely makes sense. In addition, is the environmental
costs (air quality et.al.) of long-distance transportation which is also not
costed correctly.
I don't know where I got this but it isn't original with me:
We confuse requirement with purpose. Profit is a requirement but not a
purpose. We must eat to live -- BUT, if we live to eat - there is a
distortion.
Again, thanks - keep the dialogue going - Ray
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