2 ms·

Industrial food has hidden costs. It depletes non renewal resources. When you pay for pesticide laden food grown with fossil fuels, you are paying for it in ano

Industrial food has hidden costs. It depletes non renewal resources. When you pay for pesticide laden food grown with fossil fuels, you are paying for it in another way by way of taxes. It creates billion dollar industries that don’t really need to exist in the first place. It destroys habitat and marine life with shipping containers plying up and down causing untold damage. It creates futures markets and commodity markets in Wall Street. You pay. You pay by way of taxes and the cherry on top is inequalities in society and destruction of the only habitable planet we have for now. Example: California grows 45 billion dollars worth of food..the food economy is worthy about 350 billion. We grew food and exported during drought. We exported water thirsty almonds to Middle East and China during a drought..so we exported water when Californians were asked to ration water and our water bills went up. And we paid the cost with no benefit to California. The beneficiary of a scarce resource..water..was those who imported Californian Ag produce at a discount when they should be paying more for it. Not only did we pay..we lost. When Ag workers expose themselves to pesticides, they end up on welfare or Medicare..more than $ cost, we have created a whole new class of vulnerable poor people. Pay more for your food. That’s what I say..stop destroying the planet for whatever pieces of genetic material you leave behind in your children. Do it out of self interest. Not altruism.

pdonis 7y ago
None of the problems you describe (to the extent they are problems--for example, futures and commodities markets are natural features of any market and serve useful purposes, though many people ignorant of basic economics don't recognize that) are problems of "industrial food". They are problems of bad government. Furthermore, even if all of those problems of bad government were magically solved, it wouldn't change the fact that people won't buy things they can't afford. If you can't make the kind of food you prefer cheaper, most people won't buy it, because they can't. They're going to get the best deal they can for what they can afford to spend. Moralizing won't change that.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  That would be exploitation of human beings and nature. I am not moralizing at all. I am being rational. A moralizing stance would be wishing starvation and ill health and disease due to poor nutrition upon those who hold positions like yourself.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > That would be exploitation of human beings and nature. What would be? Figuring out how to produce healthy food more cheaply? That sounds like progress to me. > I am not moralizing at all Sure you are. You think food being cheap is "what fuels many of the woes of the world." That's moralizing. You don't get to dictate to other people how much they should spend for food. > A moralizing stance would be wishing starvation and ill health and disease due to poor nutrition upon those who hold positions like yourself. You are wishing starvation and ill health and disease upon everyone who can't afford to "make a stand" (your words) and pay what you think they should pay for food, since you offer them no alternative if they can't afford it.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      1. Ahh..now I see what you mean. How do you think food becomes ‘cheap’? Fresh fruit is more expensive than a bottle of soda. Organic food is more expensive than conventionally grown. Local food is more expensive than imported food. Why do you think that is? Perhaps ‘cheap’ doesn’t equal good? Less land, more food. Less people in Ag. How do you think one can magically end up with cheap quality food? Explain to me? 2. I am not moralizing. I am telling you what is happening in my industry. I am a farmer. I know why food is cheap and am under no illusions about why food is cheap. 3. I am not wishing starvation et al upon people, but that would be the moralizing label you gave me that I refuse to accept. People are willing to pay more for a smart phone or a new pair of sneakers. They won’t starve to death because they paid for food what it is worth. Cheap food is for poor people. When people who can afford to pay a little more refuse to do so, society and said poor people labouring in the fields end to subsidising those who leech off those who create value in the form of healthy food. You get what you pay for...no such thing as quality for cheap rates. On the other hand, this has convinced me to take a moralizing stance. Why do people who won’t pay for quality food from hard labour deserve good food? Perhaps they do indeed deserve what they pay for..

pdonis 7y ago

None of the problems you describe (to the extent they are problems--for example, futures and commodities markets are natural features of any market and serve useful purposes, though many people ignorant of basic economics don't recognize that) are problems of "industrial food". They are problems of bad government. Furthermore, even if all of those problems of bad government were magically solved, it wouldn't change the fact that people won't buy things they can't afford. If you can't make the kind of food you prefer cheaper, most people won't buy it, because they can't. They're going to get the best deal they can for what they can afford to spend. Moralizing won't change that.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
That would be exploitation of human beings and nature. I am not moralizing at all. I am being rational. A moralizing stance would be wishing starvation and ill health and disease due to poor nutrition upon those who hold positions like yourself.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > That would be exploitation of human beings and nature. What would be? Figuring out how to produce healthy food more cheaply? That sounds like progress to me. > I am not moralizing at all Sure you are. You think food being cheap is "what fuels many of the woes of the world." That's moralizing. You don't get to dictate to other people how much they should spend for food. > A moralizing stance would be wishing starvation and ill health and disease due to poor nutrition upon those who hold positions like yourself. You are wishing starvation and ill health and disease upon everyone who can't afford to "make a stand" (your words) and pay what you think they should pay for food, since you offer them no alternative if they can't afford it.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    1. Ahh..now I see what you mean. How do you think food becomes ‘cheap’? Fresh fruit is more expensive than a bottle of soda. Organic food is more expensive than conventionally grown. Local food is more expensive than imported food. Why do you think that is? Perhaps ‘cheap’ doesn’t equal good? Less land, more food. Less people in Ag. How do you think one can magically end up with cheap quality food? Explain to me? 2. I am not moralizing. I am telling you what is happening in my industry. I am a farmer. I know why food is cheap and am under no illusions about why food is cheap. 3. I am not wishing starvation et al upon people, but that would be the moralizing label you gave me that I refuse to accept. People are willing to pay more for a smart phone or a new pair of sneakers. They won’t starve to death because they paid for food what it is worth. Cheap food is for poor people. When people who can afford to pay a little more refuse to do so, society and said poor people labouring in the fields end to subsidising those who leech off those who create value in the form of healthy food. You get what you pay for...no such thing as quality for cheap rates. On the other hand, this has convinced me to take a moralizing stance. Why do people who won’t pay for quality food from hard labour deserve good food? Perhaps they do indeed deserve what they pay for..