The definition of a fair price for food – and who determines that price – is elusive. There’s fair to consumers, fair to processors and retailers, and fair to farmers. When one pushes back, the other one feels it.
Take consumers, for example. When they push back against prices, retailers squeeze processors.
In turn, processors squeeze farmers.
Being at the end of this scenario, and having nowhere else to turn, farmers then squeeze governments. They respond with support and bailouts.
And who do governments squeeze?
Well, they squeeze taxpayers, also known as consumers, who started the ball rolling in the first place. It’s a vicious, endless circle that society tolerates because it thinks farmers can somehow produce food for next to nothing.
Optimists believe consumers might pay extra for food with additional benefits. Indeed, that’s what farmers have been hoping for, as researchers keep finding new magic in conventional foods, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and fish. Some of the compounds in these foods and others are linked to disease prevention, even without further processing or any other enhancements whatsoever.
So, if these foods are being marketed as “health” foods, and fetch a premium for innovative processors and retailers, isn't it fair that farmers also get a bigger share for being innovative?
I think so. Stories of farmers receiving pennies for products that sold for dollars are known far and wide – and going forward, they must be deemed unacceptable. The “crisis of immorality,” as recent University of Guelph doctoral honoree Jack Wilkinson calls it, must be expelled from agriculture if the sector is going to move ahead.
There’s no question farming has what it takes to be a leading-edge sector. As a profession, farmers believe in research.
But if there’s too much pressure, there won’t have enough money to invest in the kind of new technologies that can help make farms viable, and as efficient as possible. Technology also helps keep prices as low as consumers, retailers and processors demand.
At the time the recession dug in, consumers had just started warming up to the idea of showing more support for farmers, and interest in the origins of their food. But for the most part, retailers weren’t using that opportunity to command a premium for locally grown food.
Why not?
A case can be made that in many instances, local food is better. Indeed, local food is usually fresher. You can monitor nearby growing practices, if you’re inclined to do so, and actually talk to those who grow the produce you purchase. You can also decide whether you think local farmers are paying a fair price for labor.
Supporting local farmers is like supporting local soccer teams – they’re part of the community. They give back. They shop at local stores. And they stock local shelves, when given the chance to do so.
You can’t have a food chain, let alone a value chain, without farmers’ participation, determination and inventiveness. For their efforts, they deserve, and need, a fair share of the food dollar.
This commentary is for informational purposes only. The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com. This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone. Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.