by Joe Brewer, Rockridge Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Members of Congress are drawing battle lines in the upcoming debate about the farm bill. Ongoing activities focus on subsidies and commodity crops. This frames the discussion in economic terms that evoke “free trade” and the natural market frame. Framing food in economic terms like commodities and subsidies misses the human concerns in the debate.
Government has a Moral Mission
As legislators explore subsidy structures in this important piece of legislation, it is necessary to consider the role of government in shaping food policy. Progressives recognize that government has a moral mission. We care about the well-being of people and take our responsibilities to act on that care very seriously. This is why we call upon our elected officials to provide protection from harm and empower people with opportunities to live healthy and happy lives.
This moral mission affects us intimately in our daily lives through the food that we eat. We should take care that it doesn’t get lost in the economic jargon flying across the aisle on the House and Senate floor.
Framing Food as a Product of Industry
Many terms used in the food debate come from the idea of natural markets. This notion that markets are natural systems is implicit in statements like that of conservative columnist George Will. He calls subsidies “market-distorting entitlements keyed to particular commodities.” He would have us believe market prices are determined by the laws of thermodynamics and not through collective agreements about the rules of trade – the civic laws imposed by government.
We often talk about food production as if it were simply another commodity of the industrial machinery. The legislative term for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice is commodity crops. Government assistance to the factory farms growing these crops is called a subsidy. Fruits and vegetables are referred to as specialty crops. These technical terms evoke a sense that farming is an industrial process where raw materials (soil, fertilizer, sunlight, and water) are converted into processed materials for food consumption. Farmers are producers in this web of concepts.
These frames and metaphors direct attention away from the role of government.
Feeding People for the Good of All
Discussions about markets and industrial production do not center around the impacts of policies on people and the environment. The farm bill will impact where our food comes from and what kinds of food are made available to us. It will impact the natural environment we leave to future generations. We do not want these decisions to be based on a market that is blind to health and well-being. The market, as it is currently configured, is incapable of seeing beyond the profit motive. It will only recognize the values we imbue it with.
We care about the food we eat. Parents are deeply aware of the morality associated with food. It is wrong to malnourish children such that they are inflicted with obesity and diabetes. The right thing to do is to feed them healthy foods that provide everything the body needs to thrive. Framing food as an industrial product leads to policies that make this more difficult.
And it goes well beyond the home. The obesity and diabetes epidemics spread indirect costs across society. We have a shared interest in protecting the common good. As legislators debate the technical intricacies of policy, don’t lose track of this goal. It is the moral mission of government to ensure that the common good – not special interests of the few – is represented by the federal agenda.
Farm and food policies should be guided by their impacts on communities, not their impacts on commodities.
Further Reading:
