5 ms·

We all need to eat. But we don't all need to eat food produced by small farms. We all need to wear clothes, but we don't all need hand-stitched wool coats. We a

We all need to eat. But we don't all need to eat food produced by small farms. We all need to wear clothes, but we don't all need hand-stitched wool coats. We all need shelter, but we don't all need bespoke architecture and locally sourced organic timber framing. I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree with it. I am not grateful to small farmers, at least, not especially. I suppose I'm glad that everyone is playing their part, but I feel this way about anyone contributing to our society. They sell nothing that I cannot get just as good and cheaper from large and industrial farms. I work on something that I would argue many people "need" in their life. But I don't expect anyone to be grateful to me. Of course they shouldn't. I'm doing my work for my own benefit, mostly. I think very little about the end users whose lives are made slightly easier by my work. I am certainly not doing my work out of a sense of altruism toward their well-being. I suspect that most farmers are the same. The production is too far removed from the consumption. This is not therapy, massage, teaching, or housekeeping. This is business. To the extent small farmers do think of me, I hope they realize that I would rather pay a dollar less for the same eggs, even if it means they don't get to keep working their ideal job. It's a little sad, but I have bills, and childcare, and rent to pay. Those things are no less important than the expenses of a farmer.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I primarily meant farmers in general, not small farmers (though that may have been an error, given the context). But you might want to re-think your position, because you can also be on the receiving end. That big egg grower? He may feed the chickens exotic chemicals if it means they lay more frequently, in order to produce your one-dollar-cheaper eggs. Those same chemicals may reach any females in your household, either through the eggs or the groundwater, and may do interesting things to their monthly cycles. And so on with other chemicals and other kinds of farmers. It might be worth a buck to support smaller farmers, presuming that they see their customers as human beings who can't be fed that stuff.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  If large farmers are using unsafe growing techniques, that is an issue for legislation and litigation, IMO. It's not something individual consumers ought to be required to signal about in their purchasing preferences. That being said, it seems your idea is a counterfactual. If it isn't, I'd love to know, but I don't see any evidence after brief searching that there are health benefits to eggs from small farms.
  - isodude 8y ago
    Actually no, it's a problem for you since you are eating what they are producing. By the time litigation is done you are already affected. We are not a microserice entity where each part _only_ needs to know their bit. Each person is expected to get by themselves which means that we need to care about how things are done. It's why we try hard to educate our kids to know how things work, but as was said, production is separated from consumption, which to me is a big hurdle.
- nradov 8y ago
  Which specific exotic chemicals have those effects?
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    Endocrine disruptors are used throughout agriculture[1]: > Food is a major mechanism by which people are exposed to pollutants. Diet is thought to account for up to 90% of a person's PCB and DDT body burden. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Routes_of_exposure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Routes_of_...
    - nradov 8y ago
      Farmers don't feed PCB and DDT to animals. Your exposure to those chemicals through food is based on ground and water concentrations where the animals are raised, not really in farming practices.
gdubs 8y ago
Industrialized agriculture has been a miracle for feeding billions of people, but also incredibly damaging to the planet. It’s also resulted in torturous conditions for animals in feedlots. Animals may not possess our intellect, but they certainly feel emotions... To me, it’s worth the extra dollar for the eggs if it supports a more sustainable model of farming. Food production is at the heart of our society, yet we’ve become distanced from it. The cheap clothes, the cheap food — they’re not actually cheap. We’ve just ignored the cost of the externalities. The polluted waterways, full of nitrogen from industrial farms; the antibiotics; the rising co2 levels from damaged pasture that no longer sequesters carbon, and the trucks and airplanes that ship out-of-season produce across the world...

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I primarily meant farmers in general, not small farmers (though that may have been an error, given the context). But you might want to re-think your position, because you can also be on the receiving end. That big egg grower? He may feed the chickens exotic chemicals if it means they lay more frequently, in order to produce your one-dollar-cheaper eggs. Those same chemicals may reach any females in your household, either through the eggs or the groundwater, and may do interesting things to their monthly cycles. And so on with other chemicals and other kinds of farmers. It might be worth a buck to support smaller farmers, presuming that they see their customers as human beings who can't be fed that stuff.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
If large farmers are using unsafe growing techniques, that is an issue for legislation and litigation, IMO. It's not something individual consumers ought to be required to signal about in their purchasing preferences. That being said, it seems your idea is a counterfactual. If it isn't, I'd love to know, but I don't see any evidence after brief searching that there are health benefits to eggs from small farms.
- isodude 8y ago
  Actually no, it's a problem for you since you are eating what they are producing. By the time litigation is done you are already affected. We are not a microserice entity where each part _only_ needs to know their bit. Each person is expected to get by themselves which means that we need to care about how things are done. It's why we try hard to educate our kids to know how things work, but as was said, production is separated from consumption, which to me is a big hurdle.
nradov 8y ago
Which specific exotic chemicals have those effects?
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  Endocrine disruptors are used throughout agriculture[1]: > Food is a major mechanism by which people are exposed to pollutants. Diet is thought to account for up to 90% of a person's PCB and DDT body burden. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Routes_of_exposure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Routes_of_...
  - nradov 8y ago
    Farmers don't feed PCB and DDT to animals. Your exposure to those chemicals through food is based on ground and water concentrations where the animals are raised, not really in farming practices.

gdubs 8y ago

Industrialized agriculture has been a miracle for feeding billions of people, but also incredibly damaging to the planet. It’s also resulted in torturous conditions for animals in feedlots. Animals may not possess our intellect, but they certainly feel emotions... To me, it’s worth the extra dollar for the eggs if it supports a more sustainable model of farming. Food production is at the heart of our society, yet we’ve become distanced from it. The cheap clothes, the cheap food — they’re not actually cheap. We’ve just ignored the cost of the externalities. The polluted waterways, full of nitrogen from industrial farms; the antibiotics; the rising co2 levels from damaged pasture that no longer sequesters carbon, and the trucks and airplanes that ship out-of-season produce across the world...