4 ms·

You've hit the problem on its head, but the solution is not to try and change people's behaviour on a large scale, but to incentivise based on the self-interest

You've hit the problem on its head, but the solution is not to try and change people's behaviour on a large scale, but to incentivise based on the self-interest you've mentioned. From the consumers perspective, there is little indication as to the quality of soil something has been grown in. But there must be an effect on the plant itself if it is grown in poor soil in the form of lower macro, trace minerals and other indicators of plant health detectable within the plant. Like the organic standards that cover production methods, we need an opt-in food quality standard. If plants were tested after production for indicators of plant health and labels could be put on vegetables indicating quality. Self-interest of the consumers buying higher quality foods would quickly incentivise farmers into increasing plant quality, which in turn will correct our soil.

KC8ZKF 9y ago
Or maybe we could just reduce or eliminate corn subsidies.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Where then would we get all the corn we need to dilute our gasoline with?
oldandtired 9y ago
I grew up in an area in which the major crop was sugar cane. Some years ago (15 or so), I was talking to my father about the fertility of the soil in the area. He passed onto me a conversation he had had with one of his farmer friends. He was told that the soil was totally infertile and was only there to hold up the cane. All nutrients came from fertiliser that they put into the soil. In this case, the results is sugar which you can't tell how good the plant is. There have been a number of farmers over the years in that area who did crop rotation and field resting. But they were far and few between. In other areas, they are using recycling methods to put organic matter back into their fields. However, this is not common, even though there are groups of farmers who see the benefit of these processes for themselves and the surrounding environment. Part of an education process that we undertake with our young people is for them to understand where food comes from, including when we have the opportunity to teach them gardening (vegetables), animal husbandry and the killing, dressing and butchering of animals for food (sheep and goats). Some take the lessons well, some do not. But they do start to understand where their food comes from. Too many people have no idea of what is needed to produce the food they consume. No idea. Testing foods can be quite simple. The taste of good quality well grown food (meat, vegetables, fruit, milk, eggs, etc.) is quite different to those that are grown in the common farming practices of today. I am currently enjoying eating 7-8 year old mutton and it is better than the best spring lamb that I have had. They ate and they wandered and were not stressed.
- dennis_jeeves 9y ago
  >I am currently enjoying eating 7-8 year old mutton and it is better than the best spring lamb that I have had. Where do you get this?
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    The sheep were originally given to me by people who just wanted to get rid of them, I still have a goat that was originally intended for someone else and I had been asked if I could look after it for a few weeks. The person who was to receive it moved into a nursing home and it was subsequently given to me. My 6 year old granddaughter has been keen to be involved with doing the goat, which I'll be doing later. If the weather is still cold when I get back from visiting my parents, I'll be looking at doing it then. In the meantime, he will be fattened up as much as possible. I have 2 acres just on the edge of town and for many years, we have run some level of stock on it. All of the various beasts have ended up in my freezer. The last lot I killed, dressed and butchered myself (with the help of a number of young people) out of necessity as no butcher would come in for just 3 sheep. As the sheep had little need to run anywhere and had luscious feed, they turned out to be so tender. I did try to source some more via the local butchers, but found that would be extremely expensive as most of the sheep are culled for lamb and not kept for wool in our region. If you ask around, you might find some appropriate beasts that you can get cheaply (whether that be steers, goat or sheep). Though you may find getting them to the abattoir and then to the butcher somewhat expensive.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> From the consumers perspective, there is little indication as to the quality of soil something has been grown in. But there must be an effect on the plant itself if it is grown in poor soil in the form of lower macro, trace minerals and other indicators of plant health detectable within the plant. The thing with putting everything in complex chains of economy is that important indicators can be easily masked, and stay invisible until it's too late. In this case, low soil quality will primarily affect yield. Which, between farming methods, subsidies, futures and other forms of economic magic, is completely invisible to the customer. > You've hit the problem on its head, but the solution is not to try and change people's behaviour on a large scale, but to incentivise based on the self-interest you've mentioned. Indeed. Unfortunately, the same problems extend on the meta-level. You need to incentivize important actors to incentivize people, based on the formers' self-interest. Like: > If plants were tested after production for indicators of plant health and labels could be put on vegetables indicating quality Try doing that, and you'll find plenty of opposition from actors who earn money on production not being evaluated for quality. Also, even if you set this up, you'll likely face an increase in food costs for the transition period in which the producers readjust. And that is a political no-go.
- AdamCraven 9y ago
  > Try doing that, and you'll find plenty of opposition from actors who earn money on production not being evaluated for quality. Also, even if you set this up, you'll likely face an increase in food costs for the transition period in which the producers readjust. And that is a political no-go. It has to start the same way organic food did - As a choice - Not something that is done across the board. That would never work for some of the reasons you've stated. Higher quality food would naturally be more expensive, there's no way around that. That cost needs to be passed on to the consumer and then the consumer can decide price vs likely better taste and higher nutrition quality.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I think to do this, one will need to heavily lean on regulatory support. In particular, law would be needed to force companies to provide accurate information about food quality, content and production process. Otherwise it'll end up exactly like organic food did - a mostly bullshit fad propagated by misinforming customers. I mean, lots of people are still willing to spend more money for better food, but the food needs to actually be verifiably better, not just differently marketed.
jonnathanson 9y ago
"If plants were tested after production for indicators of plant health and labels could be put on vegetables indicating quality" It's a fine idea until Monsanto, et al., find a way to subvert the standards and bend them into an anticompetitive regulatory mote via government lobbying. What we really need, as Step Zero in any plan for wholescale reformation of American society, is to reimpose and reinforce campaign finance restrictions and sever the direct financial ties between our big corporations and the politicians who serve them. Some readers may choose to see this as a line item on the progressive wish list. I see it as a necessary precondition to any attempted societal change whatsoever. Right now, the very heart of our issue is that the government no longer serves the people of this country; it serves moneyed interests, nakedly and shamelessly. Obligatory Star Trek reference: America has become Ferenginar. We think we're the Federation, but we're headed down the wrong path for that. We are effectively an oligarchy at this point, heading in the direction of totally dysfunctional kleptocracy. The "us vs them" mindset tearing us all apart right now is a symptom of political polarization, which the lobbyists would consider to be a feature and not a bug. Until our voices matter to politicians more than David and Charles Koch's billions, we're fucked. Nothing will change, and anything we try to change will be immediately corrupted and turned against us. The fox bought the whole damned henhouse.
- Infernal 9y ago
  > reimpose and reinforce campaign finance restrictions and sever the direct financial ties between our big corporations and the politicians who serve them. I don't disagree, but it seems to me that it is only possible to legislate such a thing when the problem such legislation would solve doesn't exist. I tend to prefer even less likely solutions, such as term limits, or diffusion and decentralization of one or both of the legislative bodies, but these solutions run up against the same problem as campaign finance reform - the people with the power to enact the change are the ones who benefit most from the status quo.

KC8ZKF 9y ago

Or maybe we could just reduce or eliminate corn subsidies.

sokoloff 9y ago
Where then would we get all the corn we need to dilute our gasoline with?

oldandtired 9y ago

I grew up in an area in which the major crop was sugar cane. Some years ago (15 or so), I was talking to my father about the fertility of the soil in the area. He passed onto me a conversation he had had with one of his farmer friends. He was told that the soil was totally infertile and was only there to hold up the cane. All nutrients came from fertiliser that they put into the soil. In this case, the results is sugar which you can't tell how good the plant is. There have been a number of farmers over the years in that area who did crop rotation and field resting. But they were far and few between. In other areas, they are using recycling methods to put organic matter back into their fields. However, this is not common, even though there are groups of farmers who see the benefit of these processes for themselves and the surrounding environment. Part of an education process that we undertake with our young people is for them to understand where food comes from, including when we have the opportunity to teach them gardening (vegetables), animal husbandry and the killing, dressing and butchering of animals for food (sheep and goats). Some take the lessons well, some do not. But they do start to understand where their food comes from. Too many people have no idea of what is needed to produce the food they consume. No idea. Testing foods can be quite simple. The taste of good quality well grown food (meat, vegetables, fruit, milk, eggs, etc.) is quite different to those that are grown in the common farming practices of today. I am currently enjoying eating 7-8 year old mutton and it is better than the best spring lamb that I have had. They ate and they wandered and were not stressed.

dennis_jeeves 9y ago
>I am currently enjoying eating 7-8 year old mutton and it is better than the best spring lamb that I have had. Where do you get this?
- oldandtired 9y ago
  The sheep were originally given to me by people who just wanted to get rid of them, I still have a goat that was originally intended for someone else and I had been asked if I could look after it for a few weeks. The person who was to receive it moved into a nursing home and it was subsequently given to me. My 6 year old granddaughter has been keen to be involved with doing the goat, which I'll be doing later. If the weather is still cold when I get back from visiting my parents, I'll be looking at doing it then. In the meantime, he will be fattened up as much as possible. I have 2 acres just on the edge of town and for many years, we have run some level of stock on it. All of the various beasts have ended up in my freezer. The last lot I killed, dressed and butchered myself (with the help of a number of young people) out of necessity as no butcher would come in for just 3 sheep. As the sheep had little need to run anywhere and had luscious feed, they turned out to be so tender. I did try to source some more via the local butchers, but found that would be extremely expensive as most of the sheep are culled for lamb and not kept for wool in our region. If you ask around, you might find some appropriate beasts that you can get cheaply (whether that be steers, goat or sheep). Though you may find getting them to the abattoir and then to the butcher somewhat expensive.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> From the consumers perspective, there is little indication as to the quality of soil something has been grown in. But there must be an effect on the plant itself if it is grown in poor soil in the form of lower macro, trace minerals and other indicators of plant health detectable within the plant. The thing with putting everything in complex chains of economy is that important indicators can be easily masked, and stay invisible until it's too late. In this case, low soil quality will primarily affect yield. Which, between farming methods, subsidies, futures and other forms of economic magic, is completely invisible to the customer. > You've hit the problem on its head, but the solution is not to try and change people's behaviour on a large scale, but to incentivise based on the self-interest you've mentioned. Indeed. Unfortunately, the same problems extend on the meta-level. You need to incentivize important actors to incentivize people, based on the formers' self-interest. Like: > If plants were tested after production for indicators of plant health and labels could be put on vegetables indicating quality Try doing that, and you'll find plenty of opposition from actors who earn money on production not being evaluated for quality. Also, even if you set this up, you'll likely face an increase in food costs for the transition period in which the producers readjust. And that is a political no-go.

AdamCraven 9y ago
> Try doing that, and you'll find plenty of opposition from actors who earn money on production not being evaluated for quality. Also, even if you set this up, you'll likely face an increase in food costs for the transition period in which the producers readjust. And that is a political no-go. It has to start the same way organic food did - As a choice - Not something that is done across the board. That would never work for some of the reasons you've stated. Higher quality food would naturally be more expensive, there's no way around that. That cost needs to be passed on to the consumer and then the consumer can decide price vs likely better taste and higher nutrition quality.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think to do this, one will need to heavily lean on regulatory support. In particular, law would be needed to force companies to provide accurate information about food quality, content and production process. Otherwise it'll end up exactly like organic food did - a mostly bullshit fad propagated by misinforming customers. I mean, lots of people are still willing to spend more money for better food, but the food needs to actually be verifiably better, not just differently marketed.

jonnathanson 9y ago

"If plants were tested after production for indicators of plant health and labels could be put on vegetables indicating quality" It's a fine idea until Monsanto, et al., find a way to subvert the standards and bend them into an anticompetitive regulatory mote via government lobbying. What we really need, as Step Zero in any plan for wholescale reformation of American society, is to reimpose and reinforce campaign finance restrictions and sever the direct financial ties between our big corporations and the politicians who serve them. Some readers may choose to see this as a line item on the progressive wish list. I see it as a necessary precondition to any attempted societal change whatsoever. Right now, the very heart of our issue is that the government no longer serves the people of this country; it serves moneyed interests, nakedly and shamelessly. Obligatory Star Trek reference: America has become Ferenginar. We think we're the Federation, but we're headed down the wrong path for that. We are effectively an oligarchy at this point, heading in the direction of totally dysfunctional kleptocracy. The "us vs them" mindset tearing us all apart right now is a symptom of political polarization, which the lobbyists would consider to be a feature and not a bug. Until our voices matter to politicians more than David and Charles Koch's billions, we're fucked. Nothing will change, and anything we try to change will be immediately corrupted and turned against us. The fox bought the whole damned henhouse.

Infernal 9y ago
> reimpose and reinforce campaign finance restrictions and sever the direct financial ties between our big corporations and the politicians who serve them. I don't disagree, but it seems to me that it is only possible to legislate such a thing when the problem such legislation would solve doesn't exist. I tend to prefer even less likely solutions, such as term limits, or diffusion and decentralization of one or both of the legislative bodies, but these solutions run up against the same problem as campaign finance reform - the people with the power to enact the change are the ones who benefit most from the status quo.