10 Crisis in the Food System The Farm Crisis! Nettie Wiebe Learning Objectives Through this chapter, you ean: 1. Gain a critical understanding of the key forces that have changed farming and food production in Canada 2. Evaluate the advantages and dangers posed by the transition from family farming to corporate dominance in the food system 3. Articulate the primary causes of the farm crisis 4. Name some ecological and social advantages of small-scale farming Introduction: Images of Farming ‘A summer drive through the countryside in much of settled Canada offers a picturesque and reassuring view, The landscape is dotted with farmsteeds, and herds of cattle and even. the occasional flock of sheep can be spotted, along with 2 variety of field and horticul:ual crops. The practised eye might observe some abandoned farms, clusters of grain bins without buildings nearby, or nearly empty villages, espe- cially on the Prairies. But for the most part, farm- ing country’ looks as if itis doing just fine. ‘These impressions are reinforced by any food-product advertising that links food to its sources. The key images connecting food to farm- ing in the popular imagination are rustic, serene, and healthy. Wholesome healthy food, whether butter, burgers, lettuce, or breakfast cereal, is claimed to come from grandpa and grandma’: family farm where you are apt to see chickens running in the yard, apples hanging from trees in the garden, ot golden wheat waving in the praitie wind. The farming folk are hard-working, hearty, + and honest. The countryside might be rugged in places, but it mostly benign and welcoming. The publicity directed at farmers themselves, however, has an entirely different tone. The prevalent advertising for fain products such as chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and farm inachinery is overwhelmingly focused on their awesome power and efficacy. The images tend to be masculine and victorious, portraying, ‘wiping out the ‘enemy’ weeds or pests and get- ting the job done. Chemical names include Avenge, Achieve, Fulfill, Fortress, Leader, Liberty, ~156 Part Ill Crises and Challenges in the Food System Pinnacle, Sharpshooter, and Touchdown. To farmers who often feel oppressed and financially insecure, chemical companies matket promises cof power and profit. ‘The story of agriculture and farming in Canada is a story of change and movement. From the immigrant farmers for the most part displacing hunter-gatherer food systems (Hurt 1987) to the current high-tech, high-input, corporate-controlled agriculture in tum dis- placing family farming,* the food system has changed more fundamentally than most sectors of our society and economy. These changes have largely been driven by technology, trade, urban- ization, and the politics of agriculture. People and jobs have moved from rural to urban areas, reducing the social, economic, and political importance of rural populations. And the polit~ jeal and economic power within the sector has shifted from che fazily farm and rural commun- ity to corporate agribusiness and international markets. “This chapter examines the values and forces driving some of the key changes that have ‘occurred in Canadian agriculture, focusing on what these changes have done to the femily fara. I begin with an overview of the trade and technology agendas that have moved food pro- duction from small family-owned businesses to corporate enterprises. Far from beneliting family farms, increases in food production and trade, greater efficiencies, and more investments have led to higher debt loads, lower net earn- ings, and a shrinking, aging farming population. Understanding the causes and outcomes of the crisis in farming explored in this chapter can help us see how to stem and reverse many of the other crises in our current food system, in the final section of this chapter I argue for a funda- mental reorientation of food production—food sovereignty, This initiative moves control over food-producing resources and markets back into local domains, where the primary respon- sibility for and control over food is in the hands of small-scale growers and those who put this food on our tables. Redesigning Canadian Farming; External Forces ‘The industriaization of farming, which began more than two centuries ago in Western econ- omies, gained velocity and momentum as horses were replaced by tractors in many parts of Notth America. This trend began in the decades following the First World War, with particularly rapid changes occurring during ‘and immediately afier the Second World War (Olmstead and Rhode 2001; Winson 1985). As im other sectors, replacing animal power with engines increased the speed, power, and out- put of farm operations exponentially. A team of horses could cultivate a few acres in a day of hard work; tractors raised that limit dramatic- ally with far fewer person-hours required, and made larger farms possible. Exchanging the hay and grain that fed horses for tractor fuel hhad several other effects on the farm. What was essentially solar power was displaced by oil, increasing greenhouse gases and making food production vulnerable to the risks inherent in dependence on non-renewable resources.? Also, the breeding and feeding of draft horses was agricultural work, mostly done on the farm. By contrast, tractors ate designed and built in industrial plants, and the oil that rans them is extracted and refined by oil companies. The cost of purchasing these sources of power made larger farms necessary. A more subtle cost of technological advances is farmers’ loss of self-reliance as farming increasingly depends on the industrial corporate sector for key inputs This shift has had dramatic effects on family farming, rural communities, the environment, and roral cultures, as discussed below. ‘The changes that came with the adoption of engine-driven farm equipment were rapidly augmented by the widespread introduction of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Thesetechnological advancesfun- damentally changed farming and food produc- tion methods, For example, planting farm-savedseed or seed acquired through purchase or exchange within farming communities had been the normn since the beginning of cultivated crop production; new technologies and regulatory regimes changed those practices. Seed is increas- ingly purchased from seed companies, who own patent rights to the new varieties, Plant breeders’ rights legislation enacted in Canada in 1990 curtailed farmers’ rights to sell seeds to each other and gave powerful new profit-protection tools t0 seed development companies. New, stricter versions of that legislation—introduced twice in Canada in recent years but pushed back each time by farmer and citizen outery—would largely extinguish farmers’ abilities to save and reuse their seeds (Canadian Organte Growers 2005). Hybridization, long used in breeding ‘com, is now being expanded to canola and other crops; farmers must purchase new hybrid seed each year, because subsequent generations of the seed lose their ‘hybrid vigour. The most recent shift to genetically modified (GM) seeds and theit patented genes, which began with the commercialization of Roundup Ready canola in 1996, has eliminated the option to save or trade seeds altogether for farmers who use this seed, The purchase of GM seeds (mostly canola, cor, and soybeans, in Canada) comes with a technology-use agreement prohibiting: the planting of seeds harvested from these crops. New seed must be purchased from the patent- holding corporation every year. ‘Much of the touted efficiency of high-input, imensive agriculture stems from its ability to produce a uniform, standardized product with greater speed and in higher volume than would be possible on smaller-scale diversified farms. Industrial production demands standardization. But food comes from living organisms, and bio logical diversity can be forced into uniformity only with a great deal of control and manipula tion, The drive to achieve massive production of uniform product, whether pigs or tomatoes, can be successful only if genetic diversity is sup- pressed or eliminated, growing, environments are artificially controlled, and all inputs such as 10 Crisis inthe Food System 157 feed or fertilizer are standardized and uniform, In short, the natural diversity of living, interacting conganismns has to be ruthlessly thwarted to achieve the industrial uniformity desited for the shelves of the supermarket. In contrast, small- scale farmers can work within more natural contexts and enhance the diversity of the food they produce. They seldom have the capacity to impose the sirict controls of industeal-scale operations, even if they should wish to do so. ‘The introduction of chemicals to the farm has driven major changes in on-farm practices and in the way food is produced. The prom- ise of greater control and higher productivity, coupled with little critique about environmental {impacts or long-term outcomes for biodiversity, non-targeted species, soils, and water, bas won the day. Canadian farming now relies very heav- {ly on chemical interventions to control diseases in livestock, poultry, and crops of every variety The use of broad-spectrum and targeted herbi- cides, slong with fungicides and insecticides, is an integral part of conventional farming, The sprayer has become as essential for crop and horticultural operations as the seeding and har- ‘vesting implements, The push for higher yields requites increasing use of chemical fertilizers, so that Canadian farmers are using 36 per cent more fertilizer today than they did 20 years ago (AAFC 1998: table 2.12; Statistics Canada CANSIM 001-0065 and 001-0068). Nationwide, Canadian farmers now apply just over three rmegatonnes pet year. Pesticide purchases are up sixfold between 1971 and 2005, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AARC), and fertilizer purchases are up about three and one-half times (Qualman, 2011). Farmers have become so reliant on chemical inputs that many can no longer conceive of farming without them. When we converted our own prairle grain and cattle farm from conven- tional to organic production more than & dec- ade ago, many of our farming neighbours and peers expressed skepticism that it would even be possible to grow crops without che use of chemicals158 Partill_ Crises and Challenges inthe Food System The key objective for redesigning food production, as articulated in much of the infor- ‘mation, advertising, and agriculture policy dir- ectives, is to increase efficiency and maximize production and thereby enhance profitability. Canadian farms have certainly become steadily more efficient as measured by output per farm, farmer, hour, animal, and acre. With the use of sophisticated technologies such as auto- matic steering global positioning systems for tractors, robotic railking machines, and com- puterized feed ration mixers, productivity has risen while the number of farms and farmers has declined. In the 20 years between 1989 and 2009 the production of Canada's com, wheat, barley, canola, soybeans, and other major greins increased by 24 per cent (Statistics Canada 2010e). Canada has increased production of beef cattle by 28 per cent over the same period iatisties Canada 2010i) while hog produc- tion has doubled (AAFC 2005). In dollar terms, Canadian. farm production (not counting sup- port program payments) has nearly doubled fn two decades: $3855 billion in 2010 versus $20.3 billion in 1990 (Statistics Canada 2010a; ‘AAFC 20108). ‘The drive to greater efficiency and produe- tivity, which in very simple terms are labour expended and volumes produced, has neces- sarily led to greater specialization. Instead of producing a variety of plants and animals, efficiency and productivity dictate that only those products which can be, produced with the highest yields or fastest gain should be grown in any one operation. Not only is it too labour-intensive to have’a variety of production systems on one farm, but also neither econ omies of scale nor adequate investment in new technologies is likely to be achieved in any one of those endeavours. A few chickens, @ pen with a half-dozen pigs, and a small dairy herd along with field crops and gardens—the kind of ‘imixed? family farm that I grew up on—cannot compete on price in any one of those products. Intensive chicken or hog operations housing tens of thousands of birds or thousands of pigs have lower costs per pound of meat raised. Thus we see the end of the mixed farm and the growing trends towards large-scale operations and monocultures. ‘Abandoning or being forced out of mixed farming hes changed the life of farming fam- ilies, The increased use of technology has light- ened the physical labour demanded by farming and changed the nature of the work. The sheer range of skills and knowledge required for rais- {ng a variety of animals and crops is no longer demanded. However, new skills for operat- ing equipment, mixing chemicals, advanced accounting, navigating government programs, and nmning computers ate now required along with the general traditional knowledge about soils and climate conditions. As well, producing, fewer products on larger farms has undermined on-farm food self-sufficiency. Prairie farm fam- ilies that produce thousands of tonnes of canola or barley are as reliant on the grocery store for food as any household living in an inner-city apartinent. ‘Technology advances have made many of the changes in farming possible. But the rate of uptake and the usage of new technologies is a function of the values, politics, and culture of a society. The shift in Canadian agriculture away from small-scale, family farms to large-scale, intensive, high-input operations bespeaks a change in bow food and farming is viewed and valued. Viewing the growing of food primar- ily as the production of commodities for profit and trade, rather than as an essential ingredi- ent in nurturing people, catapults agriculture into the marketplace on a par with other com- modities. The pressures for competitiveness and increased market share militate against small-scale, diverse, ecologically and culeur- ally sensitive farming practices in favour of concentrated industrial operations raaximiz- ing the production of standardized producss. ‘This focus on maximizing production, lower- ing price per unit, and increasing market share reflects and enhances the global neo-liberal trade agenda.10 Crisisinthe Food System 159 Although Canada has been an exporter of | grains and other foods for a long time, the trade agreements opened anew era. The rate of export growth increased dramatically and Canadian, d Policy Changes: Trade-Driven Agriculture When the first farming settlers arrived in Canada early in the seventeenth century, they concentrated on subsistence agriculture, but even then fishing for export on the Grand Banks neat Newfoundland was already under- way, Vast food-producing resources of fertile land, fresh water, and well-stocked fisheries coupled with sparse populations resulted in a pattern of surplus food production. Much of western Canada wes settled with the express purpose of developing agriculture for export ‘out of the region or across the ocean. Thus growing more food than we need for our own consuinption and exporting the surplus is not anew phenomenon, However, the more recent shift to growing food primacy for export while importing food from other countries to meet our own needs has changed the focus of agticulture policy and pur- agri-food exports quadrupled following the 1989 implementation of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 imple- mentation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the 1995 implementation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. These pacts have been followed by the implementation of numerous other bilat- eral and multilateral investors’ rights and trade agreements that are aimed at gaining greater market access and erasing whatever barriers to tuade in foodstuffs remain. Current negotiations on a trade agreement with the European Union entail even more measures, such as further cur- tailing farmers’ rights to save and reuse seeds (Boehm 2010) Individual farmers do not trade in the global marketplace. They are excluded by the scope, risks, expertise, and power required. Nor, for Pose. The inclusion of agriculture in the General the most part, do nations trade. Agricultural Agreement on Tarifis and Trade negotiations in trade is largely given over to ageibusiness cor- a s. the 1980s made this changed perspective offi porations operating in multiple jurisdictions. ce . cial and global. This move was welcomed by Thus, it is not Canada versus Brazil versus the ig ie food-exporting countries such as Canada and United States when it comes to international Ga le the United States and advocated by agribusiness agricultural trade, but rather Cargill Canada, eet E corporations. But it proved to be contentious as Cargill Brazil, and Cargill US ‘competing’ against iat i | many countries balked at the risks of putting each other to make a sale, he such a key sector under the control of external One exception within this. transnational- a | markets. Farmers and peasants protested the controlled wading system has been the a ‘ ‘extreme dangers the liberalization of agriculture Canadian Wheat Board (CwB)—the western ie Fi tuade posed for local markets, rural livelthoods, Canadian farmers’ collective marketing agency. oa : cultures, and environments (Via Campesine The CwB markets wheat and barley on farm- ee 1996). However, the forces pushing for the lib- ers’ behalf, Although this impediment to the a ee eralization of trade in agricultural goods pre- transnational grain-marketing corporations has B ‘vailed. Agricultural goods have become one of been repeatedly challenged at trade negotiation Be tables, it has been successfully defended there (Magnan 2011; Pugh and McLaughlin 2007). the key commodities in the globel marketplace, ae although this trade remains subject to an array i of concessions, exceptions, qualifications, and distortions, The new trade policies signalled the changing place of food and farming and the attendant displacement of farmers, both here in Canada and elsewhere However, if current domesti¢ policy changes aimed at destroying the CWB are enacted, the prairie grain trade will also be controlled by a handful of global corporate giants. The only other sectors of Canadian food production160 Partill_ Crises and Challenges in the Food System that operate as exceptions to the dominant liberalized trade rules are poultry, egg, and dairy farms. Canadian farmers collectively secured their domestic market for these prod- ucts with a legislated supply management system that matches production to the needs of that market. Under this system farmers are rewarded for the discipline of limiting their production with the assurance that their pro- duction costs are met by the prices they receive. This is possible only because of negotiated trade restrictions prohibiting the importation of cheaper products, which would undercut the domestic prices based on production costs and displace Canadian products, It is noteworthy that supply-management farms maintain high productivity, adopt new technological advances, and produce high-quality foods without being subjected to the global market forces. Furthermore, these farms are among the few in Canada that despite increasing in size continue to operate as family farms, successfully managing generational transfers, attracting younger fartn- crs, and gamering viable farm incomes. Under the neo-liberal policy agenda, Canadian agriculture is subsumed under trade policy whose key goal is to increase both the volume and value of exports.. Ensuring that Canadians enjoy food security, that farmers prosper, or that food-producing resources are protected and enhanced may figure as subsidi- ary interests in agriculture policy, but these are overridden by the primary goal of increas- ing production, global market share, and trade. This goal is being successfully met. Over the past two decades, Canadian governments and. transnational agribusiness corporations have set aggressive food-export targets, and they have met them—nearly quadrupling our agti-food exports between 1989 to 2009 (AAFC 2010c; AAFC 20102). Canadian agricultural trade policy is developed in concert with transnational agri- business corporations whose interests in increasing trade ate clearly linked to their own. profitability and global market power, Corporate profitability is a function of buying products at the lowest price," processing and transporting them, and then selling them into the highest- paying market available. So, with the exception of intellectual property rights, where patent hholders profit from the restrictions imposed, agriculture clauses in ade agreements have focused almost exclusively on deregulating the indystry and removing domestic restrictions on exporting or importing food. ‘The overarching goal for Canadian agri- culture, as set cut by governments and indus- try organizations, is to increase production, competitiveness, exports, and market share. ‘Agriculture policies and trade agreements are shaped to achieve this goal. The project has been a brilliant success on all these counts. As Agriculture Canada boasts: ‘Almost 45 per cent of [Canada] domestic food and agricultural production . . . is exported either directly as primary products or, indirectly a5 part of pro- cessed products. In 2008 we exported $42.8 billion (Cdn) worth of food and agriculture around the world! We were also the 4th largest exporter in the world! (aazc 20104) ‘These statistics, highlighting the achieve- ments of growth and competitiveness in the agriculture industry, might evoke the skeptical ‘question: What crisis? Down on the Farm: Growing More, Losing Ground The phenomenal growth in investment, productivity, and trade in agriculture is mir rored by an equally dramatic decline in the fortmes of family farms in Canada, As the ‘agricultural industry’ is doing better and bet- ter, its primary stakeholders, farmers, are doing a | | )= worse and worse. Export success, for example, has not benefited farmers. Infact, as Figure 10.1 ilustrates, net farm income has fallen as ~ agriculture exporis have risen, To understand the apparent paradox of “higher productivity and more trade resulting in lower farm incomes, we must consider how the structural changes in agriculture marginal- ize and exploit small and medium-sized farms to the advantage of intensive, large-scale produc- “tion and corporate profit. A complex array of interrelated factors could be named, but the most destructive ones are the cost-price squeeze, [5 (higher mput costs coupled with lower farm- | product prices), overweening corporate power ‘within the food system, and hostile agriculture policies that aid and abet the forces undermin- Be? ing family farming and Tocal food systems. 40-7 30 25 20 15 161 10. Crisis in the Food System Cost-Price Squeeze Canadian farmers have been and continue to be willing adopters of new technologies. These include ever larger and increasingly complex (and expensive) machinery, new seed varieties, tipdates to and new inventions of chemicals, antibiotics, animal health and growth prod- ‘ucts and. sophisticated computerized farm management and accounting. systems. All of these items are manufactured externally to the farm and are costly purchases. Higher yields, better production and growth rates, and labour savings are all incentives for making these expenditures, The financial problems on many farms stem from the imbalance between the cost of these technical advances and inputs and the 35 |.{-& Aarifood exports : © Realized net income from the markets Figure 10.1. Canadian Agri-Food Exports and Realized Net Income from the Markets: 1970-2010 ‘Source NEU Union Famer Math V0, vo 2.162 Partlll Crises and Challenges in the Food Systom remuneration recelved from selling the farms’ products. While the prices paid for inputs con- tinually rise, the farm-gate price of many of the key products has either remained stagnant or fallen, For example, over the past 50 years, farm- ‘input prices have increased nearly twice as fast as farm-product prices (e.g, fenilizer and chemical prices have gone up twice as much as com and. feeder-calf prices) (AAFC 2009: 115). Prices for grains, livestock, potatoes, and other farm prod- ‘ucts are well below even the most efficient farm- ex’ costs of production. This is the cost-price squeeze that is eliminating many family farms. Writing about agriculture policy, US economist Richard Levins says: ‘The shortest possible economic history of . . . agriculture during the twentieth century would be this: non-fermers learning how to make money from farming’ (Levins 2000: 8). This quip sums up the past 25 years of Canadian farm- ing. From 1985 to 2010, Canadian farmers, employing world-leading productivity and eff- ciency, managed to produce and sell $723 bil- lion worth (government payments excluded) of grains, livestock, potatoes, vegetables, mill, and other farm products—nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in gross revenue, But over that same period, farmers’ net farm income (again, government payments excluded) was Tess than zero, All of the money farmers gener- ated as gross revenue, the entite three-quarters of a trillion, was captured by the agribusiness transnational corporations that sell farmers fuel chemicals, fertilizer, veterinary drugs, machin- ery, technology, and other products and supplies (Qualman 2011: 26). To survive financially, ‘most farm families have been forced to rely on off-farm income, taxpayer-funded farm-support programs, and borrowed money. The cost~price squeeze has reached an excruciating intensity Downsides of Trade Dependence Most non-farming people hear about variable ‘weather and its effects, such as droughts, floods, or early frosts, reducing the quality and quantity of harvests. However, the weather risks are paralleled by growing uncertainty about markets and fluctuating prices. While farm- ers can buy crop insurance to help them sur- vive weather-related yield losses, farmers have few tools to deal with market risks. Price fluc- tuations are considered useful ‘price signals’ for farmers to use in their production decisions. But as more Canadian products nove into a global marketplace, the vicissitudes of global demand and pricing can come home to roost on the farm with dire results. For example, when the United States closed its border to Canadian beef in 2003 due to the discovery of a cow in Alberta with bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE), the farm-gate price for prairie beef cattle plunameted, throwing many cate farmers and ranchers into a financial crisis (NFU 2008) ‘With the exception of the supply-managed sec- tors, marketing uncertainties and product price ffuctuations have to be absorbed on the fart. ‘As the BSE example shows, greater reliance onoffshoremarkeis, even anearby market suchas the United States, increases the risks for farmers. The underside ofthe glowing agricultural export numbers and increased reliance on exports is the higher risks that farmers face in these markets. As well, in the global agricultural marketplace Canadian farmers are competing with growers who produce in more favourable climates using, low-cost farm labour and production systems and, in some cases, with government-subsidized producers. All these factors contribute to low and declining farm-gate prices. Sized to Succeed? In the face of this economic reality, governments. and agricultural economists advise farm fam- ilies to make up for the lower margins by mak- ing the farms bigger and producing more. This advice is based on the view that economies of scale deliver efficiencies that can compensate for lower prices. Canadian farmers have complied. Whether it is potato farms in Prince, Edward Island, orchards in British Columbia’ Okanagan,Valley or greenhouses in Essex County in southwestern Ontario, every kind of farm has imereased in size. Whereas a large cow-calf operation might have had 100 cows a generation ago, today 300-cow operations are not uncom- ‘mon. Feedlots are even larger; several single- location feedlots in Canada boast throughput of 100,000, 200,000, or more cattle per year. Grain_and oilseed farms, especially in west- em Canada, routinely encompass thousands of acres, with some very large farms covering 10,000 or 20,000 acres or more. Farms with $1 million or more of annual revenues produce 40 per cent of Canadian food. Those million-dollar-plus farms make up just 3 per cent of fans overall (AAFC 2009: 105). Thus, approximately 7500 production units produce 40 per cent of Canadian food output. The focus on expanding and intensifying production has worked—but not for family farms. While some of these large operations, such as the intensive hog bams, are owned by individuals or communally oon Hutterite colonies, most of the large intensive operations ate owned by outside investors and rely on hired labour and management, These Investor and management structures are charac- teristic of industrial plonts, not family farms, Perverse Programming The productivity of large-scale operations succeeds in driving down prices per unit and driving out smaller-scale producers. For ‘example, intensive hog operations in the Prairie region have succeeded in displacing virwually all family-farm hog production—two-thirds of Canada’s independent family-farm hog produ- cers have been forced to cease production over the past 14 years.* But this has resulted in nei- ther profitability nor stability. The farm types that have been most aggressive and successful in expanding, such as grain and oilseed farms and hog farms, also suffer the largest farm losses (Statistics Canada 2009). Large farms are getting. billions of dollars in tax-funded farm-program payments in order to remain solvent. Based on 10 Cisisinthe Food System 163 Statistics Canada farm taxcfiler data from 2004 to 2008, approximately 64 per cent of program ayments—about $2.2 billion annually—went to the 27 per cent of Canadian farms with gross revenues over $250,000 per year (AAFC 2009: 105). The payment imbalance becomes even ‘more disproportionate when we consider the number of really big operations. Approximately 28 per cent of program payments—sbout $1 billion annually —went to the 5 per cent of Canadian farms with gross revenues over $1 million per year (Statistics Canada 2009) Canada’s largest farms are by far the largest recipients of publicly funded farm-support payments, presumably because they are the neediest, It may seem counter-intuitive that these large operations ate granted public money while family farms are suffering severe losses. However, because agriculture subsidy programs are primarily based on payrnent per unit of production, with very high caps on the total amount of program money any single operation can receive, the largest producers get the majority of the funds.’ Federal and ” provincial governments have increased caps on maximum payments to agricultural oper- ations; they now stand at $3 million per year, As this poliey of ‘backing the winners’ subsid- izes products that will be exported, it enhanices agribusiness profitability while in effect sub- sidizing foreign buyers of our pork, soybeans, wheat, and other farm products. A farther per. verse outcome for family farms is the added resources and incentives that these subsidies provide for further buyouts and displacernent of stall farms. Killer Debts To pay for rising input, machinery, and land costs, to expand operations, or to simply stay in farming, families are borrowing money. Canadian farm debt is increasing rapidly and now stands at about $6¢ billion Ie is rising by about $2.7 billion per year, and it has doubled in ‘the past 12 years. The debt loads on many farms164 Pare Crises and Challenges in the Food System make them very vulnerable to rises in interest tates—and contributes to a great deal of anxiety. The farm financial crisis of the 1980s was brought on by sharp increases in interest rates, which made farm debts unpayeble. Thousands of farm families saw generations of their work, history, and hopes disappear in the wake of fore- closures and forced sales (Pugh 1987). Family farms are even more vulnerable now than they were in the 1980s because the cur- rent ratio of debt to net income is higher. Inthe 1970s farm families bore $3.40 worth of debt for each dollar of net income. By the 1980s, the ratio had risen to $7.42 of debt for each dollar of net income. In the 1990s, for each dollar of net income, farmers carried $10.47 in debt. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, farm- exs were carrying more than $23 in debt for each dollar of net income. Because, in effect, farm families must borrow and risk seven times as much debt as in the 1970s, and three times as much as in the 1980s, they ate that much more ‘vulnerable to losing the farm if interest rates go up, prices go down, or they suller a bad crop year (Qualman 2011). Corporate Takeover ‘As farm families struggle to make ends meet, other parts of the food system are highly prof- itable. Farmers buy fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, antibiotics, seeds, and equipment from cor porations at the demanded prices. These inputs are sold by some of the world’ most powerful and profitable corporations: fuel by Exxon and Shell; fertilizer by Potash Corporation, Cargill, Mosaic, Yara, and Agrium; chemicals by Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont; and seeds by Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer. Farmers have virtually no bargaining power on any of those items. ‘The industrialization and globalization of agricultural trade has also been a bonanza for the agribusiness transnationals such as Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, and others who buy, process, market, and increasingly produce agricultural products, Although they tend to eschew the risks and low returns of actually producing raw foodstuffs, corporations are making some stra- tegic intrusions into production where upstream profitability can be enhanced. For example, beef processors are taking ownership of more of the cattle being finished in feedlots for slaughter in order to use this captive supply to depress the price of catile they have to buy for their pack- {ng plants. Farmers delivering cattle to the auc- tion ring have no choice but to sell atthe prices offered. With two beef packers, Cargill and XL Foods (Nilsson Brothers), owning almost 90 percent ofthe industry in Canada, their mar- kket power allows them to keep the prices low. So, while the price you are paying for ground ‘eet in the grocery store has more than doubled since 1988, the price farmers are getting paid for slaughter cattle and feeder calves has declined during that same period (NFU 2010), As cor- porate power becomes more concentrated, the handful of transnational agribusiness. firms that farmers rely on are able to extract all of the potential revenue from farming (Qualman 2001). As these corporate players are thousands of times bigger than the biggest family farm, the rmarket-power imbalance is overwhelming Policy Failure Although farm families cannot successfully challenge large corporate interests, government policies can rebalance the relative power and profitability of farmers vis-2-vis the large corpor- ate players in the system. Unfortunately, despite thetoric touting support for farmers, agriculture polices over the last three decades have done rich to undermine and erase family farming in ‘Canada, Program payments, the most obvious and public ‘aid to farmers, fail to secure small- and medium-scale farms, although they are clearly a crucial component of net farm income. As noted above, the money goes disproportionately. to large-scale operations when the payouts are based on production and revenues.But the government failure to Kmit corpor- ate power and regulate the industry to support family farming has had devastating effects on farming families and rural communities: Instead of instituting policies to achieve such goals, the government has created a regulatory frame- ‘work that is entirely and increasingly hostile to small-scale diversified farms. For example, the re-regulation of grain transportation in the lat- ter half of the 1990s, giving Canada’ two major railways leave to offer favourable rates to unit, trains (large blocks of cars) and abandon branch, lines, had a domino effect throughout the rural Prairies. Grain co-operatives and companies that had located elevators in hundreds of com- ‘munities along these branch lines consolidated thelr operations. Functioning elevators in many communities were demolished in order to force grain into higher-throughput, centralized eleva- tots. This forced grain from railcars onto trucks, adding road cosis and greenhouse gas emis- sions to the equation. These regulatory changes have also had multiple on-farm effects. Along with making transportation one of the highest expenses for grain farms, the trucking require- ‘ments have forced farmers either to invest in larger trucks or to hire truckers to haul their grain, The policy changes did not offer any new revenue streams to compensate for these added expenses. Farmers were supposed to be able to share the benefits of these so-called efficiencies. ‘Canadian legislation sets the amounts Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways can charge farmers for transporting western grain. ‘These rates are fixed at levels that cover rail- way costs and allow for appropriate profits for the rail companies. Moreover, those regulated rates increase each year to account for infla- tion. In addition to this inflation-adjustment mechanism, however, a second mechanism—a costing review—is supposed to assess actual railway costs and to reduce rates as efficiency gains and other cost-saving measures lower the aewwal costs of moving grain. In effect, costing reviews are meant to ensure both that railways 10 Crsisin the Food System 165, continue to eam reasonable profits and that farmers shate in system-wide efficiency gains, The federal government has refused, however, to hold a costing review since 1992. Thus, farm- ers’ freight rates have increased year after year. A recent independent study (Travacon 2010) has calculated that the lack of such a review is costing western grain farmers an extra $200 million per yeas—money transferred from hard- pressed farm families to railway executives and shareholders. Regulations on meat processing offer another example of how policy undermines small-scale, local food production. Most local abattoixs in. Canada have gone out of business. Along with price competition from large corporate proces- sors selling through supermarkets and under cutting smaller operations, further impediments introduced as food-safety requirements make it virtually impossible for many to continue. Tn response to the food dangers inherent in large plants, many food-safety regulations have been imposed that are both inappropriate and unaffordable for smaller operations. By opt- ing for a ‘one size fits all regime, the Canadian, Food Inspection Agency has in fact harmed local butchers and taken away a market option for small-scale farmers. As these examples illustrate, hostile agriculture policies that increase costs and fail to enhance reventies harm the prospects ‘of making a living on the family farm. ‘The cost-price squeeze has meant that farmers’ net incomes from the marketplace have been negative in most of the first decade of the twenty-first century Farm families are caught in the tightening grip of the cost-price squeeze. Extraordinary commitment, adaptability, some government aid, and, most importantly, non- farm income, account for the survival of those families who continue in farming. Because the market fails to allow farmers to profit from pro- ducing food, off-farm income and farm-support payments now make up 100 per cent of most farm families’ net income. This is the reality for farm families in every part of the country, although not in every sector—supply-managed166 -Partlll_ Crises and Challenges in the Food System farms are consistently the exceptions. In general however, the investments in, labour for, and costs of growing food do not return enough for farmers to live on, so wages from other exaploy- ‘ment are needed to meet family living expenses. Sadly, working longer hours and doing ‘more jobs, along with getting the farm work done, hasn't been enough to save many farms. Agriculture census data indicate that Canada Jost 22 per cent of its-farins and farm families between 1986 and 2006 (Statistics Canada 1987, 2007). However, this number does not tell the whole story. It leaves out the troub- ling fact that many of the surviving farms are in a holding pattern with little likelthood of a long-term future, This situation is reflected in the statistics on young farmers, on whom that future depends. According to Statistics Canadas Census of Agriculture, in 1991 (the first year for which we have data), Canada had 77,910 young, farmers (those aged under 35). Fifteen years later, in 2006, we had just 29,920—a drop of 62 per cent. In 1991, there was a young farmer con one farm in every four; today, just one farm in eight supports a young farmer. Aspiring young farmers are faced with almost insurmountable obstacles. The hnigh debt loads required to start farming coupled with the lack-of potential net earnings to meet those debis makes it virtually impossible for people to enter farming. And itis obvious that an aging farm population that is not being replaced by the next generation of young, farmers spells the end of many family farms Rural Communities: Change and Decline ‘The aging farmer demographic affects not only the prospects of particular family farms, but also the dynamics, culture, and prospects of farming communities. The boarded-up build- ings along the main streets of towns and villages stand as stark testimony to both the economic ‘and the social losses of these communities. My own nearby village has declined from a thriving community, that in the 1940s boasted five grain elevators, stores, a church, an arena, a restau- rant, and a bank, to a nearly deserted site today where the collapsing roof of the church and its precariously tilting steeple graphically paint the picture of the fate of many such communities. Small-town businesses that rely on farm trade become unviable unless non-farming customers move into the area to make up for the ditnin- ished and aging farm populations. Without young families to use the services, the schools, sports arenas, and social organizations in many rural communities have become unsustainable Boarded-up hardware stotes, defunct arenas, and empty schoolyards illustrate the lack of youth and renewal in many towns and villages. Women in farming and rural women in general ate differentially affected by the decline of rural communities and the loss of young, people from these communities. AS primary family caregivers, women often invest energy in ‘maintaining the social and cultural life of their communities. The absence of young families and young women in rural cormmunities is felt especially acutely. Although rural families share with their urban counterparts the common experience of having their own children move away from home when they teach adulthood, the move away from rural areas represents not only that particular loss but also a more general one, While urban centres experience an influx of young people seeking jobs and education, the departure of most rural youth from their homes and communities leaves 4 gap that is unlikely to be filled with incoming young people. This means that the energy and forward-looking ‘dynamic of young people is permanently gone, It ‘makes the social life, such as community events and services that rely on buoyant community spirit and volunteer energy much more difficult to initiate and maintain, As women are often key initiators and volunteers for family-oriented community life and celebrations, the absence of young neighbours makes this social and cultural ‘work more challenging, if not impossible, in aging and dying rural communities.‘The cultural losses in rural communities, though most acutely experienced in those com- maunities, accrue to the whole country, Just as biological diversity is necessary for healthy and sustainable biological life, so cultural diversity contributes to making societies more adaptive and sustainable. The displacement of traditional farming knowledge and skills has practical con- sequences. So does the loss of the wisdom and cultural nuances that are developed by com- munities of people who share a unique physical place and have learned to grow food, create ‘meaning, and build social spaces adapted to and shaped by that particular place. Conclusion: Changing Menus and Relationships Farming does not have to be ecologically destructive and financially ruinous, Since the long-term sustainability of our food system affects us all, positive change is in our collective interest. Far more food could be grown and pur- chased locally. Prosperous, ecologically sound. family farms could produce healthy food, and eaters could know what they are eating and where it coines from. Public policy could sup- port and enhance small-scale farming, local food production, arid markets rather than shoring up transnational agribusiness, Al of this is possible. In this final section of the chapter I argue that the restoration, re-invigoration, and re-invention of small-scale family farming is at the crux of the solutions to many of the ecological, health, and social ills of our current food system. Mixed family farms can use resources in an integrated way that enhances diversity, works with natural biological cycles, and decreases pollution, For example, raising cattle as well as cropping land allows us to integrate hay crops {nto our crop rotations, adding fertility to soils, controlling weeds, and producing feed for the » animals, The cattle, while being fed to produce beef, generate manure which does the work of fertilizer. The hay rotation and manure eliminate 10 Crisis in the Food System “167 the need to bring in external chemical inputs that require fossil fuels both to manufacture and to transport. Where the waste products from intensive livestock operations create dangerous water, soil, and air pollution and require careful management, less concentrated animal waste on strall-scale integrated farms is, a welcome resource. This is only one example of the complex ecological services small-scale, ‘multipurpose, integrated food production offers In contrast to agricultural production that is owned by outside investors primarily interested in profits, family farmsare, as the name indicates, Jamily enterprises as well as business ones. Not only does the enterprise rely on family labour, management, and commitment, but its Iong- term success depends on cross-generational co-operation, Without generational transfers, either within or outside of the family, the indi- vidual farm disappears as a distinct entity. The tradition of retaining farms within families over ‘many generations has various roots and reasons, not the least of which is the valuable local knowledge about growing food and living well in a particular place, which takes generations to accumulate. Also, knowing that the livelihoods and well-being of one’ children and grandchil- dren depend on the condition of the farm is a great incentive to carefully enhance ecological resources for the next generation rather than depleting them for current profits Beyond the ecological benefits, family farms and local food production offer important bene- fits to everyone who eats. Many of the health and dietary problems caused by the current food sys- tem are explored in other chapters of tis volume. Solutions and improvements ate possible only if those who work for them have the power to effect changes. As long as agriculture is controlled by corporations and investors and regulated by govertiments to support corporate interests, the fundamental transformations that are needed for sustainable, healthy food production cannot be ‘taplemented. In order to ve-orient priorities and make the food system responsive to nutritional, caltural, enviténmental, and social needs, control168 —Partlll_ Crises and Challenges in the Food System 1. Diaz, Harry B, Joanne Jaffe, and Robert A personal and political exploration of Stirling, eds. 2003. Farm Communities at the rural communities and farm people whose Crossroads: Challenge and Resistance. Regina’ livelihoods are under intense economic and Canadian Plains Research Center cultural pressure Essays on the politics, economics, and. 3. Epp, Roger, and Dave Whitson, eds. 2001. culture of rural communities Wing of the Rural West: Cloblization, 2. Epp, Roger. 2008. We Are All Treaty People Governments, and the Transformation of Rural Prairie Essays. Fdmonton: University of Communities. Edmonton: University of of food-producing resources and markets must. Changing the role, purpose, and structure be handed back to local farmers, communities, of agriculture by feasserting the importance of and citizens, That is, food sovereignty must be ensuring that everyone has healthy, culturally achieved (Gee Chapter 21 in this volume). appropriate food produced in ecologically and But in order to get there we need to be ableto socially sustainable ways requires the engege- imagine and articulate new relationshipstofood, ment of a movement of citizens. Although the community, and ultimately the earth. Instead of number of family farms is declining, a growing the system where farmers are producing com- number of nou-farming people are engaging in rmodities that are transformed and transported actions that focus on food and farming issues, to distant markets, the relationships among from buying local food at farmers’ markets, to farmers, food, and eaters must be re-established. gardening, to social movement activism. More Food sovereignty begins from the position that eaters dre recognizing that family farming and citizens can and must be engaged in decisions local food are linked to esting well and hav- about a life-sustaining good—food—within an ing access to sustainably produced food from a ecological, social, and cultural context, It recog- known source. Solving the farm crisis requires nnizes that the growing, buying, preparing, and many major changes in the food system. Tt eating of food are embedded in social and eco- begins with a new understanding of the key role logical relationships, rather than primarily fune- of family farmers in solving many of the other tioning under market determinants crises in the food system. Discussion Questions 1, How have industrialization and liberalized trade benefited the agriculture industry? 2. What benefits and harms have industrialization, technical advances, and liberalized trade afforded family farms? 3. How is it possible that the agriculture industry is experiencing growth and enhanced profits. while family farms are suffering decline and financial losses? 4. Could Canadian agriculture policy support small-scale farming? If so, how? ‘5. What is the role of family farming in a sustainable food system? Further Reading Alberta Press. Alberta Press & Parkland Institute. Essays on the changes and prospects for agriculture, resource-, and tourism-dependent rural comraunities. Ervin, Alexander M., Cathy Holstlander, Darrin Qualiman, and Rick Sawa, eds 2003. Beyond Factory Farming: Corporate Hog Barns and the Threat to Public Health, The Environment, and Rural Communities. Saskatoon, SK: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative—Saskatchewan. Experts and activists present a critical analysis of the impact of intensive hog operations Wittman Hannah, Annette Aurélie Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, eds. 2010. Food Sovereignty Reconnecting Food, Nature and Communities. Notes 1. want to thank Darrin Qualiman for the key research and analysis he contributed to this chapter. The term family farm denotes a farming operation where the labour and managenient and much of the owmership investment i supplied by faily members. ‘Wendell Berry notes that fossilfuel-driven agriculture turns food production into an {industrial project based on a non-renewable source of energy that uses up ‘in our own time « the birthright and livelihood of posterity’ (2008: 59), References ‘Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), 1998, Fritzer Pring in Canada, june 2008. A Statsca Profil ofthe Pork Supply Chin December. Updated data by request. ——. 2009. An Overview ofthe Canadian Agriculture and ‘Agri-Food System: 2009. May —— 2010a. Mediu Term Out for Canadion ‘Aariuiure: International and Domest Maret. January. =. 20108. Canadas Farm Income Forecast or 2009 and 2010. February. 10. Ciisis in the Food System Halifax: Fernwood, Oakland: Food First, Cape Town: Pambazuka, Experts present in-depth analysis of key issues and trends in the global food system and explore the radical alternative ‘options that a food sovereignty framework affords. . Wittman, Hannah, Annette Aurélie Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, eds. 2011 Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems. Halifax: Brunswick. (Canadian authors explore the current state of the Canadian food system offering ways jn which adopting food sovereignty as the operative framework would resolve key problems Statistics Canada, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture, Cat, No. 93-358-XPB; Statistics Canada cANSiM table 003-0089; and Statistics Canada, ‘Hog Statistics,’ Cat No. 23-010, 28 October 2010 (Third quartet 2010), . Margin-based programs such as Agritavest pay on the basis of whole farm losses which advantages single commodity operations. Statistics Canad, Parm Debt Outstanding —Agriculture Economic Statistics, Cat, No, 21-014-X, Novernber 2010. 2010 value ‘of $64 billion isan estimate based upon the 2009 value of $62.7 bilion, —— 2010¢. Canadian Tade Highlight. (Agri-Food ‘iade Service). Avatble at as-sea.gr gece = 20104. Cena Brand International, Market Research in Key Expor Markets. Available at ‘marquecanadabrand age g.ca/esearchetades/ research-etudes-eng hin. Berry, Wendell. 2009. Energy in Agreutoure in Bring Ito ‘he Table: On Farming and Feed. Berkeley: Counterpoint. Boehm, Terry 2010. ‘Camada-Eu Trade Agreement Datuaging. Western Praducer, 29 April LI.470 Part ll Crises and Challenges in the Food System ‘Canadian Organic Growers. 2005, "A Response to the Proposed Amendments to Plant Breeders Rights Legislation and the Seed Sector Review”. Avatlable a worecog ca/documents/COGrespPBRseeds_ aol pat Envi, Alexander M., Cathy Hollander, Darrin Qualman, and Riek Saws, ed, 2003. Beyond Factory Farming: Corporate Hog Barns ana he Theat o Public Heath, The Environment, and Rural Commas Saskatoon, SK (Canadian Contre fax Policy Alerative—Seslatehewan. ‘Hur, 8 Doug, 1987, Indlan Agrcltwre in America: Prehistory tothe Present, Lawrence, KS: University of ansas Press Levies, Richard, 2000, Wierd Cochrane and the American analy Farm. Lincoin, NB: Univers of Nebraska Press. Magnan, Andie, 2011, The Limits of Farme-Conto: Food Sovereignty nd Conthets over the Canadian Whest oad. In Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just cand Sustainable Food Sytems, ed, Hannah Wittman, ‘Annette Avs Desmatais, and Nettie Wiebe. Halifox: Fernwood, 114-33. ‘National Fartaers Union NF). 2008. The Fara Cass ‘and the Cale Secor: Towards New Analysis and ‘New Solutions. Report by the National Farmers Union (Canada). 19 November "2010. Free Trade: IIe Working for Farmers? ‘Coraparing 1988 to 2010”, Union Farmer bantly 60:2. ‘Olmstead, Alan Land Paul W. ode, 2001. ‘Reshaping the Landscape: The Impact and Diffusion ofthe Tractor {n American Agriculture, 1910-1960" journal of Ecanomic History 61(3): 663-58 Pugh, Tey, and Darrell McLaughlin, eds. 2007. Our Board ‘Gur Business: Why Farmers Support the Canadian Wheat Board, Half: Fernwood, ugh, Temy ed. 1987. Fighting the Fam Crisis. Saskatoon, SK Fith House. (Qualian, Darin, 2001. The Farm Criss cd Corporate Power. Ottave: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, — "to ‘Advancing Agrcutare by Destoying Farms? “The State of Agriculture n Canada’. In Food Sovereignsy sn Canc: Creting ust are Sustainable Food Syste, Hannah Wittman, Annette Aurelie Desmarais, and Nettie ‘Wiebe, eds, Half: Fernwood Publishing, 20-42, ‘Sutistios Canada, 1987. Conus, Canada 1986, Agriculture ‘Cat No, 96-102, December. Ottawa: Ministry of ‘Supply and Services. 2007, 2006 Census of Agriculture: Farm Data ‘and Farm Operator Data’, Cat. No, 95-629-XWE, 16 March, Avllable at worrstatea ge-capub! 195-620-w/2007000/4123856-eng hun. 2009, Statics on income of Farm Fane, Cat No, 21-207-2.26 June 2010s. Farm Cash Recelpts—Agrculture Economic ‘Statics, Cat, No.21-O11-K. May 2010b, Farm Debt Outstanding Agriculture Economic Statsts. Cat. No. 21-014+-X. Novernbe, 20106, Agricultural Economic Stats. Cat 1No, 21-603-F. November 20104, Farm Income—Agrelzure Beonomic Statist. Cat. No. 21-010-X. November. ——. 2010e, caste Table 001-0017. "Estimated Aras Yield, Production, Average Farm Price and Total Fam Velue of principal Felé Crops, in imgerial Units, ‘Anal All CANIM tables avalable et www5.staca ‘e.cofeansim/s0Tangeeng, = 2010, canst Table 001-0065. "erie ‘Shipments to Canadian Agriculture Markets, by "Nutrient Content and Bertier Year, Anna 2010, cans Table 001-0068, Fertilizer Shipments to Canadian Agriculture and Export ‘Markes, by Product Type and Feiler Yet, (Camolative Data, Annual. =. 20108, cansng Table 001-0068. —— 20101, cavista Table 093-0026. Cattle and Caves, Farm and Meat Production, Annual (ead). 2010), CANSIM Table 003-0089. Hogs Statistics, ‘Number of Farms Reporting and Average Number of Hogs per Ferm, Quaciesly (Numbe’ 2010. ‘Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture. Cat. No. 93-358-XPB, 2010 "Hog Statistics. Cat No, 23-010. Third quarter 2010, 28 October. Travacon Research Limied. 2010. Estimating ‘Cantrbuttons Earned hy Raliways from Handing of Sacvory Grain and Grain Products 2007/2008 ‘and 2008/2009. Prepare forthe Canadian Wheat Board. ay ‘winson, Anthory. 1985, ‘The Uneven Development of (Conadian Agrlcutare: Faring inthe Maritimes and (Ontario. Canadian Journal of Soctology 10(4): 411-38. ‘Via Campesina, 1996, "Te Right to Produce and Access to Lane’. Avalable at worsevgeampesina org