Yesterday (2009.01.21) I had the pleasure of attending a seminar hosted by the Organic Horticulture Business-Education Alliance (OHBA). It was attended by approximately 150 Green Industry Professionals, and the two Major-League speakers were Arden Andersen, author of Real Medicine Real Health, and Jeff Lowenfels, author of The Soil Foodweb. Both gave great lectures; however, I would like to expound a little on Dr. Andersen's lecture.
I agree with Dr. Andersen, that the sad state of nutrition and health has far-reaching consequences. However, I wish to challenge some of Dr. Andersen's conclusions, the first being that the "nutritional content of the food is the responsibility of the farmer".
I submit that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. Now, I acknowledge that some of us are less susceptible to government disinformation than others, but in the end, we are indeed responsible for ourselves. By acknowledging that we are responsible for our own nutrition, we, the consumers, place market pressure on the producers to meet our demand.
This is the essence of any grassroots campaign. This is exactly why the movement is growing. This is why there were 150 attendees instead of 20. The movement isn't growing because farmers suddenly began to change their wicked ways. The movement is growing because the word is spreading! Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Andersen, the OHBA and others, the word is spreading among the consumers. This results in increased demand! Agenda-driven disinformation stands in the way of consumer education, and therefore inhibits the natural workings of the free market. It is our acknowledging our individual responsibilities that will bring about change, not shifting the responsibility to the producer.
This is not to say that pressure should not be placed on the producers. In fact, according to Say's Law, production inherently creates demand. But as long as the state's interventionist policies distort the risk/reward ratio, there is only so much the producer will be willing to change. Restated: state intervention in the market distorts producers' decisions, as I discuss below, and provides them an irresistible incentive to foist a nutrient-deficient product on an unsuspecting consumer base.
This could not happen in a free market, where consumer demand corrects producer errors as a natural matter of course. If, for instance, I produce a jack-in-the-box that is painted with lead paint, and my neighbor produces one that is painted with non-lead paint, then the market will put me out of business. No governmental agency is actually needed, by the way, to raise consumer awareness. Voluntarily-formed organizations, such as the OHBA, do that job quite effectively in free markets!
The second conclusion I wish to challenge is that the blame for the current state of affairs is to be laid at the feet of agriculture. Now I may be accused of splitting hairs, but when it comes to solving problems, I believe that our energies should be properly focused. "Agriculture" is not a homogeneous group. There are farmers, and there are large agricultural corporations. Large corporations pool resources and use a corrupt legislature and an inherently corrupt bureaucracy to eliminate resistance to profits. I would go so far as to say that the culprit is not only he government bureaucracy, but the entire state apparatus. If state intervention were eliminated from the marketplace, large agricultural corporations could not wield their influence in government to push for legislation and regulations that benefit them and their bottom line.
This is another example of the Economic Law of Unintended Consequences. It is with the best of intentions that we institute our governmental agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education--yet before we know it, wealthy and influential corporate interests are having their way at the expense of the rest of us! This is basically the definition of corporate socialism.
Unholy alliances between the State Bureaucracy and Big Business are not how free markets work. In free markets, the state is not allowed to intervene, and therefore such mycorrhizal relationships, if you will, cannot emerge in the marketplace.
Which brings me to my third challenge: blaming profit. To quote Dr. Andersen again, "It is profit, pure and simple." Actually, it is not quite so simple. We all seek profit, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. We may not like to admit it, but it is something we should not be ashamed of at all! Profit is nothing more than the natural human desire to make our little corner a little more comfortable for ourselves and those we love. (This is not, by the way, the same as greed, which is the desire for profit by any means.)
In an unrestricted free market, the desire for profit is tempered by the risk of failure. Business are always looking for ways to manage or minimize risk, so when a business becomes large enough to throw money around in Washington, why there is a whole sty full of bureaucracies just waiting to grease the wheels of profit. Here is where our problem lies.
We cannot change human nature, but we can restore the restrictions of runaway greed by working to sever the ties between Big Business and the State. In short, removing government from the equation.
I agree with Dr. Andersen, that the sad state of nutrition and health has far-reaching consequences. However, I wish to challenge some of Dr. Andersen's conclusions, the first being that the "nutritional content of the food is the responsibility of the farmer".
I submit that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. Now, I acknowledge that some of us are less susceptible to government disinformation than others, but in the end, we are indeed responsible for ourselves. By acknowledging that we are responsible for our own nutrition, we, the consumers, place market pressure on the producers to meet our demand.
This is the essence of any grassroots campaign. This is exactly why the movement is growing. This is why there were 150 attendees instead of 20. The movement isn't growing because farmers suddenly began to change their wicked ways. The movement is growing because the word is spreading! Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Andersen, the OHBA and others, the word is spreading among the consumers. This results in increased demand! Agenda-driven disinformation stands in the way of consumer education, and therefore inhibits the natural workings of the free market. It is our acknowledging our individual responsibilities that will bring about change, not shifting the responsibility to the producer.
This is not to say that pressure should not be placed on the producers. In fact, according to Say's Law, production inherently creates demand. But as long as the state's interventionist policies distort the risk/reward ratio, there is only so much the producer will be willing to change. Restated: state intervention in the market distorts producers' decisions, as I discuss below, and provides them an irresistible incentive to foist a nutrient-deficient product on an unsuspecting consumer base.
This could not happen in a free market, where consumer demand corrects producer errors as a natural matter of course. If, for instance, I produce a jack-in-the-box that is painted with lead paint, and my neighbor produces one that is painted with non-lead paint, then the market will put me out of business. No governmental agency is actually needed, by the way, to raise consumer awareness. Voluntarily-formed organizations, such as the OHBA, do that job quite effectively in free markets!
The second conclusion I wish to challenge is that the blame for the current state of affairs is to be laid at the feet of agriculture. Now I may be accused of splitting hairs, but when it comes to solving problems, I believe that our energies should be properly focused. "Agriculture" is not a homogeneous group. There are farmers, and there are large agricultural corporations. Large corporations pool resources and use a corrupt legislature and an inherently corrupt bureaucracy to eliminate resistance to profits. I would go so far as to say that the culprit is not only he government bureaucracy, but the entire state apparatus. If state intervention were eliminated from the marketplace, large agricultural corporations could not wield their influence in government to push for legislation and regulations that benefit them and their bottom line.
This is another example of the Economic Law of Unintended Consequences. It is with the best of intentions that we institute our governmental agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education--yet before we know it, wealthy and influential corporate interests are having their way at the expense of the rest of us! This is basically the definition of corporate socialism.
Unholy alliances between the State Bureaucracy and Big Business are not how free markets work. In free markets, the state is not allowed to intervene, and therefore such mycorrhizal relationships, if you will, cannot emerge in the marketplace.
Which brings me to my third challenge: blaming profit. To quote Dr. Andersen again, "It is profit, pure and simple." Actually, it is not quite so simple. We all seek profit, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. We may not like to admit it, but it is something we should not be ashamed of at all! Profit is nothing more than the natural human desire to make our little corner a little more comfortable for ourselves and those we love. (This is not, by the way, the same as greed, which is the desire for profit by any means.)
In an unrestricted free market, the desire for profit is tempered by the risk of failure. Business are always looking for ways to manage or minimize risk, so when a business becomes large enough to throw money around in Washington, why there is a whole sty full of bureaucracies just waiting to grease the wheels of profit. Here is where our problem lies.
We cannot change human nature, but we can restore the restrictions of runaway greed by working to sever the ties between Big Business and the State. In short, removing government from the equation.
