The cost of over-cultivation

To the Editor:

“Thank God for Dwight Eisenhower,” my grandfather said, “without his Soil Bank Program I would have lost my farm.” He was talking about the 1956 program that compensated farmers for holding land out of production and planting a cover crop, which enhanced fertility. Disparaging this as “paying farmers not to grow,” Nixon ended it claiming to “unleash the American farmer,” thereby ushering in the demise of the family farm. Now we overproduce, particularly corn, supported by crop subsidy, which is insufficient to sustain small, independent family farms. The surplus corn produces high fructose corn syrup, which is unhealthy for people, and grain for cattle, which is unhealthy for them, all to dispose of the glut. Much American overproduction is exported as “Food for Peace,” made possible by the simultaneous destruction of foreign local agriculture. When someone from the State Department said that providing a country with food will make them more supportive of American policies, an astute reporter observed, “So we are using food as a weapon.”

What should we do? We should restore the strong, vital, resilient America agricultural system. Farmers care for the land, agriculture companies don't. Overcultivation destroys the land while careful, skilled management preserves it. “Food for Peace” makes countries vulnerable to American crop fluctuations, setting up destabilization if we cannot continue (or politically withhold) exports.

Governmental policy destroyed the family farm, and it can restore it. Land reform can bring the family farmer home. Supporting the farmer through a Soil Bank type program will restore a healthy agricultural system. When our agricultural system is strong, and when we promote independent agriculture around the world, we will all be better off.

Phil Nichols

Sonora