I think we are in agreementrv. It is unuus
it is unusual in that the movement to sasve the family farm did start
primarily with the non-farm community- a little out of the urban
organic/healthy food sector and a little out of the 60's/70's back to the
land romantics. This got reinforced several times with the farm crisis
where many who over extended, betting on land infaltion, got caught on the
wrong side of the credit crunch- like the stock market crash. In fact one
of the central argument on saving the family farm is that when large
consolidation occurs big "agribiz" will control production both in quality
and price and we who eat will be at the mercy of these large producers-
It is interesting that such an argument is being advanced- sort of like
keep them small and not working with a central voice/control because then
they will control the food supply- sounds pretty "anti union" to me.
So, in many ways the family farm movement is a dr. doolittle
"push-me-pull-you type of a situation. What is even more interesting is
that the movement currently is not being fueld by the farmers- not only are
the adocates, in many instances, non farmers, but the fuhnding comes from
sources outside of the farm community- remnants of the civil rights
movement. I think that this is not quite as prevalent in South and Central
America- It would be int4eresting to understand where the capital is coming
from which is supporting this idea and the distgribution of parties who
receive this capital. I would not be surprised if we have a domestic
equivalent of a USAID situation>l~?
situation where the majority of the $$ comes from outside sources and goes
to persons other than those in the local community
as they used to say on tv verrrrry interesting, nicht wahr?!
tom abeles
tabeles@tmn.com