I've been trying to stay out of the continious debate about farming and profit on Sanet (Sustainable agriculture network) but i couldn't take it any longer. Here is my misguided attempt to add a constructive viewpoint to the discussion. The issue is: Is profit a necessary and dominant component of sustainable farming? ---- If a country passes laws which make sustainable farming impossible what happens? They eliminate profitable sustainable farmers. They do not eliminate sustainable farming, only the profit. True, not many people would be interested in sustainable farming, but people could continue to farm for other reasons. If you say profit has to be included in the definition of sustainable farming then each rule change or law can impact the definition of sustainable farming. Anything that impacted the profit could force farmers into unsustainable practices. They would be forced to change the definition of sustainable farming to restore profits. This isn't saying we should forget about profit, just that somewhere in the middle of this issue is where we want to be. Yes, we want to find ways to be profitable. Yes, we want to be clear what sustainable farming is and keep it separate from politics. Yes, we have to live in the present world and the farmer has bills to pay. Yes, we want to encourage economic rules that make sustainable farming possible. If we look at the history of farming here in America there are several very disturbing trends. One is the gradual elimination of small farms. The other is increased specialization and fewer diversified farms. Both of these trends are driven by a profit motive. Economic thinking has been selling the idea that bigger is more efficient and the cheapest product wins. Well... it has been winning and it is time we changed the rules not the definition of sustainable farming. ---- jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.xprt.net/~jko
