The implications for a local food economy are obvious. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that the increasingly problematic energy inputs used by the commodity growers will soon make a more diverse crop acreage for a more local market a more attractive option for these growers.
Case studies in the local multiplier effect are the most convincing data I've seen in favor of the argument for government creating incentives for locally-owned businesses, and food business in particular. As directed by the 2008 Farm Bill, the USDA subsidizes a decidedly non-local commodity agriculture (corn, soy, wheat), driving down the price of food made from these crops, which narrows the growers' profit margins, which inflates the size of the typical acreage.
As an alternative, why not subsidize or at least create a few incentives for growing and distributing crops that result in healthier people and healthier economies? This alternative is increasingly going to be the only possible option. We will have the energy crisis to thank for that. Already, we are seeing the size of the average farm in Indiana is decreasing.
Sure, the more local model of agriculture and food economy is more labor intensive. That is the trade-off: less reliance on oil to grow food, more reliance on human sweat. Of course, this is a welcome trade-off because this means more jobs in rural areas and the potential to revitalize rural economies.
Posts
