From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:03 PST
Subject: Re: COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600150:cdp:1678600162:000:3689
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan 23 22:03:00 1993


>Once again, I have to ask Dale why he thinks that such a system is so
>different from the current one, and more specifically, why he thinks
>that a CSA-type system would not just evolve (as ours has) into
>something like the present one. 
 
From a purely human side, i.e. leaving out the possibility of greater
friendliness to the environment, there are two benefits to a CSA.
 
Benefit #1.  The farmer is much more likely to get a fair wage for
his or her labors.  Currently, most of the price of the food produced
by the farmer goes to the middle man: the processors, the transportation
folks, the wholesalers and the supermarkets.  None of these folks actually
add wealth to society in the form of producing a valuable good, yet they
sure do make it hard for the farmer to make ends meet.
 
Benefit #2.  The consumer has much greater guarantees about the quality,
the nutritional value, and the knowledge of pesticide use on the food.
I was just reading about Mexican agriculture in reference to NAFTA.
(I plan to upload some articles on NAFTA soon).  It turns out that the
Mexicans regularly use DDT and human feces on their vegetable crops.
While this may be an extreme example, the point is just that the consumer
has very little knowledge about the food which is purchased at the
local supermarket.  However, if the consumer was a member of CSA, he
or she could personally inspect the farming practices on that CSA.
 
Regarding your concern as to whether there are guarantees that this
system won't evolve into what we currently have, I can only say that
there are no guarantees in life.  However, the more consumers and
farmers become convinced that arrangements like these will benefit
both of them, the more likely that CSA's will continue.
 
>What would be different in the (utopian) future, when all farms were
>small scale, intensive, sustainable, socially just, world conscious,
>ecocentric operations ?
 
I wish you all would quit minimizing these ideas as "utopian".  This
makes it seem like all we do is wish for things to be different in
some far off and distant land.  I am of the belief that the "status
quo" is in serious trouble, and I don't think I am alone in thinking
this way.  Ross Perot, Jerry Brown, and host of other presidential
candidates tapped into this deep worry about the future that very many
of us share.  Even Clinton, in his acceptance speech, seemed to share
this concern.  In fact, over the last four years, the only person who
seemed to think everything was okay was George Bush, and look where
that got him!  Believe me, I hope all of you who think western civilization
is on a continuously upward and brighter path are right.  It will sure
save a lot of trouble and pain.
 
However, there are some of us who know that history is not kind to
civilizations.  They all eventually fall.  Whether ours falls in ten
years or a hundred, I believe we must begin to lay the foundations of
a peaceful, sustainable and socially just society which will be able
to replace the current one when it falls.  If we can plant only a few
seeds in the minds of a few children who will be able use this knowledge
to build a peaceful world in the midst of certain chaos, it will be worth
it.  If we can manage keep a few rivers clean and the portions of the
ozone in tact so our children have a chance to live healthy lives, it
will be worth it.  If we can teach peace and not war, so that a few of
our children can live without the threat of violent deaths, it will be
worth it.
 
No, I am not interested in any distant far off and never to be achieved
"utopia".  I want justice now!  I want justice for our children and a
clean world for them to inhabit.
 
Dale