How people would die if we ended the “evil corporate” food production and back to all organic family farming system where it was only small family run farms. And if we also eliminated supermarkets and went to a small shop system?
Could we produce and distrubute the necessary amount of food for everyone?
[QUOTE=ted_baskerville@yahoo.com]
How people would die if we ended the “evil corporate” food production and back to all organic family farming system where it was only small family run farms. And if we also eliminated supermarkets and went to a small shop system?
Could we produce and distrubute the necessary amount of food for everyone?
[/QUOTE]
IF all land that’s currently managed by corporations was being farmed by families in an efficient and highly productive manner (which could be organic) and
IF food collection centers were close enough to the farms to get to market quickly and
IF a variety of products were planted everywhere as opposed to growing particular vegetables in certain locales
THEN, I don’t see any reason why more people would die of malnutrition than already do.
Of course, those are some big IFs, and I’ve no doubt missed a lot of others.
One of the big problems with this is that many foodstuffs only grow in certain locales. Given the standards you set, say “bye-bye” to citrus, New England! 
People are definitely going to die if I can’t get my fucking oranges.
Well, I did say they were big “ifs.”
Why can’t I ship my organically grown oranges north in refridgerated cars? It’s still “Organic”, if not quite so crucnhy granola as only eating locally grown foods.
With that in mind, I’d say food prices would do odd things (on the one hand, less efficient growth, on the other, agribusiness rips off farmers in ways organic farming doesn’t), but we’d ultimately still be able to feed everyone.
Because the quantity grown by your small family farm isn’t enough to fill a quarter of a railroad car, much less 50 of them.
Essentially, distribution costs weigh in heavily against the small-unit shipper. That’s the big problem you will have.
[QUOTE=JohnT]
Because the quantity grown by your small family farm isn’t enough to fill a quarter of a railroad car, much less 50 of them.
Essentially, distribution costs weigh in heavily against the small-unit shipper. That’s the big problem you will have.
[/QUOTE]
So? That just means there’s room in the market for someone to buy up carloads of oranges from many small producers and ship them north to a distributor.
Yes, but the operating costs for the distributor vastly increases with the number of individual shippees. Instead of one account to track, they now have 500. Instead of 3 invoices, there are now 500. Instead of 3 sales guys, they now have 20. And so on, and so on, up and down the chain.
By the way, are we banning supermarkets and food warehousing as well? That matters a lot too - if you ship an entire towns worth of produce to “Kroger”, you might be OK. Not good, but OK. However, if you have to arrange to sell your produce to each individual mom 'n pop grocer (you broke up Krogers 'cause you wanna give the corner grocery a “fair chance” too, right? 
), then the shipping problem gets exponentially worse, meaning that the supply chain gets even more constricted.
While it’s slightly tangential, it’s related.
Did you know that for the last 40 years or so the WHO (I think) has had an ongoing project for genetic engineering rice to keep up with worldwide demand by allowing it to grow in diverse climates?
[QUOTE=JohnT]
Yes, but the operating costs for the distributor vastly increases with the number of individual shippees. Instead of one account to track, they now have 500. Instead of 3 invoices, there are now 500. Instead of 3 sales guys, they now have 20. And so on, and so on, up and down the chain.
[/quote]
Even so, isn’t that a cost issue? I don’t get how that influences the amount of food produced.
Let’s imagine the OP’s scenario: those refridgerated oranges can still reach distant markets, but perhaps are less competitive due to the costs of shipping. Is enough local produce grown (perhaps different types of food better suited to New England) to replace oranges in the diets of the non-wealthy? That’s the question. The rich will be able to afford the increased costs of shipping, but it has no effect on the nutritional health of those unable to afford the increased shipping. If they don’t eat oranges, they’ll eat something else.
Some of the side-effects would be changes in the diets of people and perhaps migration of populations far away from food sources (I’m thinking of the far north, like Alaska and Nunavut, here), but the cost of the distantly shipped food item is a different problem from the existence of sufficient calories, vitamins, and nutrients to feed everyone.
Would the OP’s scenario be a good idea? I really doubt it.
It doesn’t strike me as a particularly compelling arguement to avoid organically grown or family farm grown foods, myself. I think I’ll hie down to the Farmer’s Market later this week, in fact. 
Why does organic farming have to be on a Momma and Poppa scale ?
[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
So? That just means there’s room in the market for someone to buy up carloads of oranges from many small producers and ship them north to a distributor.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what all the small family French farmers do: group together in a “commune” and use economies of scale.
Given current western levels of obesity, I think it would be perfectly feasible to reduce production levels and still ensure survival.
jjimm, actually we in the UK have a problem with overproduction
The real problem is avoiding bankrupting farmers entirely, just in case we revert to a WWI or WWII situation
We appear to be moving towards paying them a ‘flat wage’ to act as ‘custodians’
To the orange people:
Argent Towers, that is NOT what you’re supposed to do with them!
All; the original centro european legend says that Saint Nicholas (feast, december 6th) brought oranges from Spain as Christmas presents for good children. There are records of oranges from Valencia being exported North via Barcelona as early as the XII century. I imagine they didn’t go refrigerated.
(No, I don’t have a web cite and I’m not about to wiki it so I can self-quote)
I’ve never understood the sentimental attitude people have towards agriculture, compared to other industires. Nobody’s suggesting we shut down the steel mills and go back to the days of the village blacksmith, are they?
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Why does organic farming have to be on a Momma and Poppa scale ?
[/QUOTE]
I wondered at that, as well. Everybody will NOT go “back to the land”–we’re mostly descended from folks who went urban to escape life on the farm. But the current system could be improved. In fact, there are already small improvements.
We have farmers’ markets here in Houston but even Kroger sells organic produce. More stores offer hormone-free beef, free-range chickens, etc. Organic, free-trade coffee, tea & chocolate can be found; very few of us would forego those crops just because they can’t be grown nearby. Prices are higher, but many will pay them–at least some of the time! If demand & production increased, costs would moderate.
It’s not an either/or situation. Tomatoes are the number 1 “home grown” crop, since so many “store bought” ones resemble hockey pucks. Strawberries shipped in from California were bred to travel well–not to taste good. (Pasadena, near Houston, was once known for its strawberries; now, it’s known for its refineries.) I never really liked blueberries until a warm-weather variety was developed. And I’ve NEVER tasted a really fresh raspberry. (Yet another reason to visit the Northwest.) At least we’ve got good citrus in Texas, even if it has to be trucked north.
But I’ll still succumb to Chilean cherries in January.
[QUOTE=ted_baskerville@yahoo.com]
How people would die if we ended the “evil corporate” food production and back to all organic family farming system where it was only small family run farms. And if we also eliminated supermarkets and went to a small shop system?
Could we produce and distrubute the necessary amount of food for everyone?
[/QUOTE]
You’re assuming that we already meet the “necessary” amount of food for everyone? People starve all over the world.
And, as FRDE stated, why must organic farming necessarily be small scale? And how do supermarkets play into this? I buy most of my organic produce at the Super Gigantor Mart in their “naturals” section.
[QUOTE=ted_baskerville@yahoo.com]
How people would die if we ended the “evil corporate” food production and back to all organic family farming system where it was only small family run farms. And if we also eliminated supermarkets and went to a small shop system?
[/QUOTE]
Billions.
All human beings die eventually.
However, if we did exterminate corporate agribusiness and return to small-scale farming, many of those deaths would be delayed. Life expectancy would increase quite a bit.
Currently, prices on almost all food items are determined by federal policy. The Ag Department offers price supports for some items, and drives down prices with subsidies on others. This happens because major ag corporations want it to happen.
One effect on this is the spread of unhealthy food. The best example is high-fructose corn syrup. It is very cheap–almost free–thanks to federal subsidies. Consequently the ag corporations can flood the market with cheap sodas, candy, processed desserts, and other unhealthy crap. This leads to obesity and many early deaths. Similarly, subsidies drive down the cost of unhealthy processed meat and cheese products.
If we exterminated the ag corporations and their favorite subsidies, the price balance would shift customers away from these processed items and towards natural fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Consequently, people would live longer, healthier lives.
It’s important to remember that people don’t drink Pepsi (for instance) because they like Pepsi. They drink Pepsi because the feds have decided that Pepsi should be cheap while carrot juice (for instance) should be expensive. Oddly enough, many people who claim to support free markets turn a blind eye to the massive subsidies for agribusiness and the subsequent effects on people’s diets.
So if we ended the evil corporate food production, people would live longer. As for ending the “back to all organic farming system where it was only small family run farms”, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying there; writing in correct English would help. I don’t know exactly where the food is going to come from if both the corporate farms and small farms are eliminated; perhaps you should put some more thought into that part of your scenario. As for eliminating supermarkets and going to a “small shop system” (whatever that is), I don’t know what effect that would have on life expectancy. It’s worth considering that France and most European countries have few supermarkets and many small shops, which are protected by government policy. Their life expectancy is typically longer than America’s.
Next question please.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Why does organic farming have to be on a Momma and Poppa scale ?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t, but that’s how the OP framed the question.