| The Campaign for Economic
Justice seeks fairness for family farmers
A year ago, CAC established the Campaign for Economic Justice in response to the vision of CAC Board Member Francis Bradley, a southwestern Indiana family farmer. Francis Bradley is a person who is trying hard to make a real difference in this state and across the nation for family farmers and other people who are seeking economic justice, and the Campaign for Economic Justice is a manifestation of his dream.
A vision of economic justice Along with board members Al Tolbert and Nancy Griffin, Francis Bradley has pushed for an economic justice campaign that seeks to reward family farmers for the work and commodities they produce with a fair return for their efforts. In an essay he wrote on the subject of economic justice in May of this year, Francis stated: "Any business, in order to survive and prosper, must have the ability to equalize the return-to-equity and the cost of borrowed capital required to produce that return. The family farm cannot be an exception to this rule." Bradley sees the denial of economic justice to farmers as instructive to the denial of economic justice to other people in our current global economy. He concluded his essay by saying, "Economic justice is the primary policy requirement of an economic system which will provide true economic opportunity for all people. Economic justice should become the focal point of the ongoing political debate. Family farms should have a voice in the determination of an economic policy which would serve all farmers in an equal manner and not be based upon units of production nor upon equity owned." The National Commission on Small Farms This vision of economic justice is being espoused by CAC at a time when the fate of the small- to medium-size family owned and operated farm hangs in the balance. In fact, last year the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman established a National Commission on Small Farms. In January, that commission published A Time to Act which contained the following conclusions: "Today, we have 300,000 fewer farmers than in 1979, and farmers are receiving 13 percent less for every consumer dollar. Four firms now control over 80 percent of the beef market. About 94 percent of the nation’s farms are small farms, but they receive only 41 percent of all farm receipts." "Like most major industries, the ownership and control over agricultural assets is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Farmers have little to no control over setting the price for their products." "The recent passage of the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act was a watershed event in the history of Federal farm policy. It signals the reduction and eventual elimination of government intervention in commodity markets as a means to provide income and price stability for the farming sector." "Today, we have 300,000 fewer farmers than in 1979, and farmers are receiving 13 percent less for every consumer dollar. Four firms now control over 80 percent of the beef market."— National Commission on Small Farms At the conclusion of its work, the commission made recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The eight recommendations ask the USDA to take various actions to support small farms. The public value of small farms The commission also found strong evidence for widespread public benefits from small-scale farming. "The dominant belief in agriculture is that large farms are more efficient than small farms. However, Professor Willis L. Peterson from the University of Minnesota found that factors other than size influence the unit costs in agriculture. Peterson asserts that ‘small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger commercial operations. In fact, there is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases.’ "Small farms contribute more than farm production to our society. Small farms embody a diversity of ownership, cropping systems, landscapes, biological organization, culture, and traditions. . . . Decentralized land ownership produces more equitable economic opportunity for people in rural communities, and offers self-employment and business management opportunities." In Indiana CAC is trying to get the state of Indiana to respond to the economic, social and environmental justice goals established by the National Commission on Family Farms, and to the economic justice vision of CAC leaders such as Bradley, by working to educate the public and to raise these issues with governmental leaders. Agri-Industry advocates take aim at state’s confined feeding regulations As agri-industry advocates work to promote factory hog farms in states like Indiana, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management is writing regulations to address industrial hog operations. Meaningful regulations are necessary to prevent the environmental, public health and economic problems caused by massive factory hog farms. The crafting of regulations was mandated by 1997 legislation authored by Rep. Dale Grubb (D-Covington) and supported vigorously by Rep. Markt Lytle (D-Madison). Both have been faced with the spectre of hog factories in their districts. Both have skillfully and intelligently represented their constituents on this issue in the face of aggressive opposition. IDEM was also prodded to begin the rule making process by signed petitions submitted by the Hoosier Environmental Council. IDEM formed a committee consisting of agri-industry representatives, real farmers and environmental interests. Agri-industry is represented by the Indiana Pork Producers Association, Farm Bureau and, to a certain extent, Purdue University. Real farmers are represented by the Farmers Union and the Indiana Campaign for Family Farms. Environmental interests are represented by the Hoosier Environmental Council. IDEM seems reluctant at this stage to add CAC and the Sierra Club to the committee. The 1997 legislation, as passed, presents something of a dilemma in the context of farms vs. agri-industry. It makes no distinction between a hog operation of 600 sows and one with 5,000 or more sows, despite the increased environmental and public health impacts of large operations. This has allowed the Pork Producers Association to argue for weak regulations so as not to burden small farmers. The reality of the situation is that weak regulations are not the key to helping legitimate hog farmers stay in business over the long term. Weak regulations will only make it easier for agri-industry to gain more of a foothold in Indiana. The result, as in other states, is that the hog factories take control of the market and force legitimate hog farmers out of business. The rule that is now under development focuses on the massive cesspools that have caused excessive ground water and air pollution in other states, and the problems associated with reduced property values, manure piles and the application of hog waste to agricultural land as fertilizer. The application rate of hog waste from hog factories on fields is a key to keeping the size of these operations under control. However, the agri-industry lobby, headed by the Pork Producers Association and Farm Bureau, are arguing for making such language in the rule very nebulous. They want to avoid soil and other tests to keep costs down and, of course, it appears they want free reign to carry on detrimental practices without fear of enforcement. For its part, IDEM seems to want to avoid court cases. The agency up to this point has taken a prescriptive approach that details what is expected of hog factories. CAC generally has supported IDEM’s approach so far and has offered comments to protect public health and property values. In other states, people living near hog factories have complained about fits of nausea, exacerbated asthma problems, increased sinus and allergy symptoms, chronic bronchitis and other respiratory ailments. The Food and Drug Administration is concerned with the factory hog approach because of the overuse of antibiotics which can create super bacteria that cannot be controlled. To address immediate concerns about odor and health problems from hog factories, CAC has urged IDEM to adopt a setback of one mile between hog factories and homes, schools, churches and businesses. The agri-industry lobby has urged IDEM to adopt the insufficient setback of 250 feet for all contingencies. CAC members can call John Hamilton, the Commissioner of IDEM, and Gov. Frank O’Bannon and urge them to adopt a setback of one mile for hog factories from homes, churches, schools, and businesses. In addition, please urge them to insert language in the rule that guarantees manure will be applied in proper amounts to avoid water contamination and fish kills. Commissioner Hamilton can be reached at 317-233-6645; or, write Commissioner Hamilton at: 100 N. Senate; PO Box 6016, Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015. Gov. Frank O’Bannon can be reached at 317-232-4567; or, write Gov. O’Bannon at Statehouse; Indianapolis, IN 46204. Go to Family Farm Issues Index
| CAC Home Page
| Table of Contents | Issues Index |
|
