AGRIBUSINESS - FARMING WITHOUT CULTURE

Agribusiness is flourishing no wand with new technologies and factory-like systems promise to make Western nations even richer in the coming years as populations explode in places that are not blessed with fertile soils, favorable climates, masses of animals, and wealthy landowners. This is not agriculture! When viewed as a culture or special set of human relationships with Earth, agriculture weaves the elements of people, animals, plants, and land into a fabric of food production that will be passed intact to future generations. Agriculture does not abuse or destroy any of its crucial elements, for to do so would bring the end to all that agriculture holds up in human civilization.

As agribusiness gradually forces the elimination of agriculture as a special set of relationships, all people, and especially those who treasure ethics, must raise a cry of alarm that there is more to farming than profit. An agricultural production ethic must be embraced so that the culture and human relationships with Earth that produce food are once again restored to the land, the farmers and our partners, the animals.

  

Agriculture is an ancient relationship between humans and nature that provides sustenance and livelihood for all the generations we call civilization. The foundations of human organizations from family units to empires are based on the ability to produce food. Through most of history, interrelationships between animals and humans along with soils and climate have formed the cornerstones of agriculture.

The industrialization of food production and the emergence of agribusiness are ending the delicate balance among humans, other animals, and nature in modern farming systems. Machines, technologies, and the use of animals as commodities now produce incredible profits for a few powerful conglomerates. One half of the United States’ favorable balance of trade comes from the sale of agricultural products, technology, and services. If we measure success as financial, then farming and farm businesses as well as food processing and distribution are highly profitable enterprises.

The Value of Agriculture is the Export Potential

Farm animals contribute to the remarkable expansion of U.S. agribusiness in the second half of the twentieth century. Pointing to the record $60 billion of farm exports in 1996,U.S.Deputy Agriculture Secretary, Richard Rominger, declared: ‘‘In our most recent comparisons among 11 major industries, agriculture ranked number 1 as the leading positive contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade balance’’ (Rominger 1997). Farm animals traditionally represent half of U.S. farm exports.

Agriculture’s role in the U.S. favorable balance of trade has its downside. The record exports of 1996 have not kept pace with the predictions as the USDA reports the 1998 export number at $49 billion. In addition, the U.S. expected to increase its farm exports to $63 billion in 2000 and $84 billion by 2007 (USDA 1999).The basis for this anticipated increase was the expansion of trade to developing countries. In fact, the United States experienced its first trade deficit since the 1980s in agricultural products in August 2004. Exports in 2004 were $57.7 billion, far below the projected increases predicted in 1996. The export of red meat products was down 30 percent, while the import of poultry was up 40 percent from the previous year. (USDA Trade Update 2004).

The long-anticipated economic benefits of agricultural trade surpluses that stimulated the development of animal-confinement systems has not materialized in the past ten years. Anticipating record windfalls, agribusinesses are pushing a rapid expansion of the food production capacity in the United States, especially in the growth of intensive confinement livestock and poultry systems. When exports fell flat in 1998, hog prices dropped to record lows because there were too many hogs in the market. Poultry and cattle prices were also lower. Many smaller farmers closed their operations, causing several states to declare a farm crisis. The federal government provided some financial relief to farmers, but the payments were seldom enough to compensate for the full losses.

The farm crisis of 1998 underscored a basic flaw in contemporary agricultural policy. Agribusinesses, which specialize in animal confinement systems, are profitable when they sell buildings, equipment, feed, feeder pigs, and even provide financing to the farmers for installation costs. These businesses make money for their investors when they sell systems, no matter how low livestock and poultry prices go. Farmers and investors are lured to factory farm systems because the anticipated lucrative export markets seem to offer rich financial rewards. If exports are limited when other countries want to feed themselves or to ban U.S. food because they do not approve of our production methods, agribusinesses and the U.S. government spring into action to do whatever it takes to reopen the markets.

When food is viewed merely as an export commodity, many decisions are made that influence trade policy, agricultural methods, and the lives of many people. As an example, the World Food Summit in 1996 identified almost 800 million people, many in developing countries, who go hungry every day. Many of these developing countries want help from the developed nations so that they can become more self-sufficient in food production. Self-sufficiency is an evil concept among U.S. agribusinesses and is rejected by U.S. foreign policy.

A spokesperson for Cargill, Inc. articulated the business and government position: ‘‘what promotes food security? A combination of maximizing a country’s efficient food production potential while developing its other economic capabilities to generate the income that allows it to buy food from the global market” (Thrane 1999). In other words, countries will have food security when they earn enough income each year to buy U.S. food or they purchase U.S. manufactured industrial farming systems such as intensive-confinement livestock and poultry facilities.

The control of world food markets is a major prize in upcoming trade negotiations and in the race to use technology and industry-like production systems to create so-called cheap food for exports. One result is what is now termed a trade war between the United States and the European Union over Europe’s ban on U.S. beef treated with growth-promoting hormones (Schuff 1999). The Europeans believe that hormones are not good for the animals and are not thoroughly tested for food safety concerns. The U.S. claims that sound science has not demonstrated any food safety problems with the use of hormones and declares that the animal wellbeing issues are irrelevant according to WTO rules.

The trade wars between the U.S. and Europe illustrate two conflicting views of food production. If the Europeans are successful in banning a U.S. product for any reasons other than the absolute scientific proof that food is not safe, other issues such as environmental degradation or farm animal well-being can reduce U.S. agribusinesses’ trade advantages. This view was reflected by former U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter, in a speech to the International Poultry Exposition, where he warned the poultry industry that the Europeans will attempt to make ‘‘social issues’’ a permissible part of trade rules in the future. If the Europeans are successful, he declared, U.S. exports are in jeopardy (Thornton 1999).

Gary Thornton, editor of Broiler Industry, warns the poultry industry that a ‘‘new world order’’ with traces of ‘‘New Age’’ leanings may impose the discussion of environmental matters into trade negotiations. He writes: ‘‘We need to keep reminding our leaders that the interests of U.S. agricultural producers should not be sacrificed through treaties that favor producers in other economies—not even on the altar of the world environment’’ (Thornton 1999). Agribusinesses and their allied organizations push the opening of world markets with few restrictions through the auspices of the WTO. The April 6, 1999, issue of Inside US Trade quoted a letter to then-President Bill Clinton from fifty-nine major agricultural corporations and organizations pleading for trade negotiators to provide agribusinesses with access to the 96 percent of the world’s consumers who live outside the United States. Clearly, U.S. agriculture is focused on export markets.

Should we celebrate the lucrative export of U.S. products or services? The promotion of agricultural practices and food systems that will provide U.S. agribusinesses trade advantages, especially in developing countries, is a natural activity in a free market society. The agricultural contributions to a favorable balance of trade and the expansion of export markets should be good news for farmers and their rural communities. Problems develop when production techniques, industry-like technology, and corporation control eliminates small-scale farmers, ignores the environment, and treats animals as mere commodities, all because the United States has such a vital stake in dominating global markets.

Broader Vision of Agriculture Production

It is clear that something is wrong with our present vision of agriculture. If we accept corporate profits from exports as the only basis by which to judge the success of our food and fiber production systems, then we lose the opportunity to consider other factors that may be just as important. Here are a few examples. Do we really want to lose our small-scale and community-based farmers and the rural communities that support them? Are we comfortable losing farming as a valid opportunity for young people? Is it important that farmers have an adequate livelihood? Does the industrialization of agriculture match our values and our principles about food production? Should the protection of the environment be left out of agricultural management strategies? Is water and air pollution from excess animal waste the price we must pay to maintain the economic advantages of our farm exports? Can we accept the loss of farm lands to urban sprawl knowing that future generations will need the land to produce food and fiber?

Does it matter how animals are treated in intensive-confinement livestock and poultry systems? Should laying hens be condemned to tiny battery cages where they are unable to even spread their wings? Are we comfortable knowing that factory farm sows spend their lives in tiny crates on concrete-or metal-slatted floors where they must eat, sleep, eliminate, give birth and nurse their babies in the same small space? Should farm workers have the protections enjoyed by workers in other industrial systems? Do we have good reasons to examine public health and safety concerns associated with factory farm system? Is the ability of our future generations to grow or raise food important to us? Do we agree that our agricultural science institutions should be primarily concerned with technology that will improve U.S. trade advantages or should we be looking for more ecologically based production methods? Do consumers have a right to ask if their food is safe without the threat of lawsuits?

The answer to these questions and others is that food production must be viewed from a wider perspective than simply the profits that can be earned. Food is more than just the bargaining chip in a series of trade wars; it is an essential ingredient for life. We must look, therefore, at food production through a new lens that establishes a vision based on ethics, not just the bottom line.

Soul of Agriculture—the Process

The Soul of Agriculture: A Production Ethic for the 21st Century is a project that intends to widen our perspectives about the role and impact of agriculture in our society. Created in 1996 by The Center for Respect of Life and Environment (CRLE) and The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS), the Soul of Agriculture is a vehicle to open an ethics-based dialogue on food and fiber production in the United States. The Soul of Agriculture was first suggested by Fred Kirschenmann, a North Dakota organic farmer, at a CRLE board meeting in 1996. Kirschenmann based his proposal on The Spirit of the Soil, a book written by Paul Thompson about the need for a new production ethic in agriculture. Kirschenmann was struck with Thompson’s observations that there is a polarity between farmers and environmentalists about meeting society’s production needs while at the same time enhancing the natural world (Kirschenmann 1996).

The dilemma that Kirschenmann highlighted in his proposal for an agricultural ethics project is one of the major questions facing our society, although it is doubtful that few people ever think about it. If we employ farming methods that use industrial techniques without concern for the environment, social issues, people, and animals; our agricultural business sector will be highly profitable and, therefore, successful. As pointed out above, this is what the industry is calling for in our trade negotiations/trade wars. On the other hand, if we adopt farming methods that insure the ability of future generations to have access to food, protect the environment ,treat animals with respect, and establish social justice for farmers and farm workers, we may have to trade immediate financial gains for the long-term goal of a more sustainable and hospitable Earth in the next millennium.

This is not an easy choice, as illustrated by U.S. agribusinesses’ pleas to U.S. trade negotiators to be tough on all efforts to restrict the trade of agricultural products for any reason. Agricultural products, services and  are the great hopes as the U.S. corporate world increasingly competes with emerging societies in Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia. The scientific development of synthetic agricultural chemicals, intensive livestock and poultry systems, genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), and seed stock that cannot be reproduced will give U.S. agribusinesses a clear comparative advantage in world markets. That means more money in the stock market, more funds for baby boomer retirement funds, more money to endow universities, museums, animal protection organizations, and, in fact, more funds for most of the nonprofit world. Do we give up these revenues for our social and environmental values and principles?

In 1996, Kirschenmann believed that many people would opt for such a change. He pointed to a growing movement that some call an Ecological Revolution (intent on cooperating with the interconnected whole of nature) that will be replace the Copernican Revolution (preoccupied with dominating nature) (Kirschenmann 1996). His proposal to the CRLE board was the bold suggestion that the time was right for the social evolution of a new production ethic. One of the first problems with Kirschenmann’s proposal was the sponsorship of CRLE, an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States. It is clear that CRLE and The HSUS have specific agendas. As the largest animal protection organization in the United States,

The HSUS urges its members and other consumers to eat with conscience by: reducing the number of foods they eat that come from animals; refining their diet by choosing foods that come from animals raised more humanely and fruit and vegetables grown organically, sustainably, and locally; replacing animal-based foods with foods that don’t come from animals (Choosing a Humane Diet 1998). CRLE promotes The HSUS animal protection goals and sponsors a number of environmental education programs and projects on its own. The creation of a new agricultural ethics would require participation by many individuals and organizations who do not necessarily agree with The HSUS and CRLE, and yet Kirschenmann’s proposal for an agricultural ethics project needed to be funded and administered. A compromise solution was the separation of the funding and administrative work from the drafting process to write a production ethic statement.

A planning group began work in the fall of 1996 to organize the Soul of Agriculture process. Consisting of CRLE and HSUS staff and board members, and a few others who expressed an interest in the organizing work, the planning group created the structure for the Soul of Agriculture process. Roger Blobaum, a former candidate for Congress from Iowa and a long term agricultural consultant, was hired to monitor and nurture the project.

The planning group determined both the strategy and the desired outcome of the project. The end goal would be an agricultural production ethics statement that would guide farming practices and techniques in the twenty-first century. After much debate the planners agreed that the discussion would focus on production techniques ‘‘to the farm gate’’ with marginal attention given to markets and other agricultural matters. As the members expressed their individual concerns about contemporary farming methods in relation to social, environmental, and animal issues, it was clear that Soul of Agriculture should be about farming (Committee Minutes 1996).

The planning group agreed to a process format that would begin in 1997. A panel of twenty agricultural spokespersons who reflected a broad perspective of agricultural production would meet for three days to write the first draft of a Soul of Agriculture statement. A small committee headed by Kirschenmann nominated the twenty-person Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee intensely labored over a three day weekend in March of 1997 to create the base document for the Soul of Agriculture process. Each member of the committee brought a paper to the table that outlined what they hoped would be in the document.

The diversity of perspectives established a broad and sometimes contentious series of questions that guided the group in the final statement. Perhaps the most interesting exercise came when the participants wrote questions they wanted to ask others about agricultural production. Farmers stated what they wanted environmentalists to understand about their work, and environmentalists countered with what they hoped farmers would do to protect the natural world. By the end of the weekend there were a series of questions for farmers, community leaders, environmentalists, faith community members, and sustainable agriculture advocates. Then the entire group established an action agenda for each subgroup that would form the basis for a new set of ethics in agricultural production.

Brad De Vries of the Sustainable Action Coalition collected all of the notes, recordings, flip charts, and conclusions of the Drafting Committee and wrote a draft statement that reflected the weekend deliberations. The document, Vision Statement/Call to Action: Building a New Ethic of Production in Agriculture was submitted to the Drafting Committee for individual comment and editing in the summer of 1997. The edited version was then sent to more than two hundred people, who provided further suggestions.

The next step in the process was a national conference held in Minneapolis on November 14–16, 1997, to discuss the draft document and to establish a plan of action for the Soul of Agriculture process. Approximately two hundred people attended the event and heard a series of speakers and panel discussions about various aspects of the document, the U.S. agricultural situation, and the need to view agricultural production through a series of widely accepted ethical guidelines. One of the key moments in the conference came when the group broke into small discussion groups and seriously examined each section of the draft, Vision Statement/Call to Action. The final round of small-group discussions provided recommendations for the future of the Soul of Agriculture project. One of the clearest messages from the conference participants was that the search for agricultural production ethics is an ongoing process that will never reach a final conclusion because farming methods change every year.

There was almost unanimous consent that ‘‘ethics matter’’ when it comes to growing and raising food in contemporary agricultural production systems. The notes, suggestions, and written comments from the national conference were given to Stan Dundon of the Sustainable Agriculture and Research Program at the University of California at Davis for another editing process. Stan used the first draft as a guide and added the inputs from the conference participants to write a new Soul of Agriculture statement entitled: Creating a New Vision of Farming. The new document was printed and distributed to the conference participants along with the people who worked on the first draft. It is interesting to note that few commentators questioned the need for ethics in agriculture. Most clarified statements or suggested clearer text. When most of the comments had been collected and incorporated into the document, a third version of the production ethics statement was published in October 1998.

Soul of Agriculture: Creating a New Vision of Farming

The word agriculture implies relationships among people and the soil, animals, and nature. Agribusiness is an entirely different concept that views the use of soil, animals, and nature as way to make money. These rather simplistic definitions have created the biggest dilemma for most of the participants in the Soul of Agriculture process. It is difficult to build a case for a vision of farming that is not simply a way to make money when so many farmers are going broke and their rural communities are in decline.

One of the first principles that gained universal acceptance by the participants in the Soul of Agriculture process is that farmers must be able to achieve an adequate livelihood in a healthy agricultural system. It is a subtle yet vital distinction. A new vision of agriculture based on ethics does understand that farmers must make money. When advocates call for ethical guidelines for farming methods, they understand that the well-being of farmers is the only way to ensure that the guidelines will be put into practice. On the other side, the need for profits under the agribusiness model is never an excuse to ignore people, animals, and the environment.

Creating a New Vision of Farming acknowledges its origins to Paul Thompson’s ‘Spirit of Soil’ on its first page. It offers Thompson’s observations that industrial agriculture believes it operates on a set of ethical and religious ideals and traditional values. These are hard work, practicality, efficiency, and prosperity as evidence of God’s favor. The tension between these noble ideals and traditional values, and the evidence that our farm communities are in trouble, the environment is threatened, and animals are being mistreated, leads us to experience a ‘‘fractured soul’’ about contemporary agriculture. The Soul of Agriculture process questions the widely accepted view that industrial farming is based on ethics because it seems that agribusiness removes the cultural characteristics of agriculture.

If we define culture as relationships based on cohesive connections, then industrial farming cannot be called agriculture as stated above. The objective of agribusiness is the accumulation of financial rewards for stockholders and managers. This is why farm corporation spokes persons argue that the ‘‘environment’’ and ‘‘social issues’’ have no relevance in decisions about the trade of farm products. In this model it is not even important that farm workers, including contract farmers, make an adequate livelihood or that their communities are supported. A rural culture is not important in the industrial model for farming.

The Soul of Agriculture identifies values that are required for even the most modest definition of farm production ethics. It is interesting that some of these same values, as among them hard work, practicality, efficiency, and prosperity, are also found in industrial agriculture. The disparity is explained by the wide variety of opinions about why we farm. Are we growing or raising food and fiber to benefit people, or are we simply producing a steady revenue stream from the sale of commodities that are required by all peoples and animals? Industrial agriculture spokes persons argue that the demands of the market place and the fierce competition for global food markets take precedence over other values or concerns such as the ‘‘environment’’ or ‘‘social issues.’’

Another way to look at agriculture is to accept food production as a special and perhaps even sacred aspect of life on this Earth. Guided by a process that uses our basic values to identify ethical guidelines for farming, we could stipulate that production methods must protect the environment, ensure the well-being of farm animals, and enhance human life. We might even agree that we will hold sacred the ability of future generations to have access to good food. At the same time we could stipulate that farmers can adopt ethical standards and still have adequate livelihoods. Specifically, we will compensate farmers for whatever it costs to produce food in ways that meet our ethical standards.

The financial promises of producing so called industrial ‘‘cheap food’’ without concerns for the ‘‘environment’’ or ‘‘social issues’’ would then be irrelevant to farmers because their income would depend, in part, on their adoption of publicly supported ethical standards. An ethically based agriculture is often ridiculed by commentators who say the majority of consumers demand ‘‘cheap food’’ and would balk at spending more than the national average of 11 percent of their annual incomes for food (Marbery 1999).

Many consumers, however, are increasingly shopping at markets that feature foods that they consider healthier and, in many cases, closer to their personal values. Here are three examples of how ethical considerations can be a part of the agricultural marketplace.

(1) There is an increasing demand for organic food by consumers who want to support ecologically based farming methods.

(2) The humane treatment of farm animals has led to a growing market for free-range or pasture raised livestock and poultry.

(3) Local food systems such as farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture (CSA) projects are springing up all over the country, because consumers want to use their food-buying dollars to benefit their neighbors and communities. A new ethical vision of agriculture can be achieved.

Soul of Agriculture: Establishing Ethics

A new vision of farming based on widely held ethical standards requires a great amount of work on the part of many people. The Soul of Agriculture is a process to identify and clarify ethics based on carefully structured steps designed to solicit inputs from people of all backgrounds and opinions. There are four tasks assigned to anyone who participates in the Soul of Agriculture process.

1. Attain clarity and consensus on the goal values of farming and on the values involved in the means used in farming.

2. Clearly state and attain consensus on the ethical principles which can protect those values.

3. Depict attractive real and potential examples of model, institution, and practices that put those principles into action and make a better agriculture.

4. Face the painful questions that are obstacles to relevant groups and proposed actions to restore trust and cultivate active learning between groups (Dundon 1998).

First Task: Values

There are several types of values in agriculture. A basic value is what agriculture is all about, the production of sufficient, sustainable and healthy food and fiber. Other basic values refer to the tools of agriculture such as human dignity of labor, farmer well-being, beauty of the environment, and animal well-being. Goal values refer to the products of agriculture while tool values refer to the impact of farming tools or methods. Goal values connect farming with the maintenance of life and health for people on our Earth. Soul of Agriculture participants defined ‘‘sufficient’’ to mean accessible and affordable to all humans, and to all generations of humans. ‘‘Healthy’’ refers to food that is nutritious and also delightful so that people will want to eat it. It also refers to food that is nontoxic and safe. ‘‘Sustainable’’ food means perpetual continuation of the healthy and sufficient food.

Tool values are identified as the farmers’ use of tools, practices, and institutions that are ‘‘efficient in the use of resources, sustainable and safe’’ (Dundon 1998).While tool values may vary according to custom and locality, they are fundamental in creating an agriculture based on ethics. As an example, the term ‘‘efficiency’’ is often used to describe highly technical and synthetic chemically based cropping systems. These systems are not efficient, however, if they create serious environmental problems, or they eliminate the use of crop ground by future generations of farmers. Most people acknowledge the basic values for agriculture to produce food and fiber; the debates center on the tools, methods and institutions.

The Soul of Agriculture participants have a lot to say about the tools of agriculture. Most people are concerned about the role of the principal farming tool—the labor of farmers and farm workers. While all humans have a basic need to achieve a livelihood, there are other needs that are essential to the well-being of farmers or farm workers. People engaged in agriculture have their own values that will come first no matter how much they are tied to a community or business association.

Farmers and farm workers need an adequate family income, income security, health, and bearable levels of stress. Other needs are more local or individual, such as a relationship with a specific religious belief or the identification with a specific community or nationality. If these values are not met, farmers or farm workers refuse to work and find a more meaningful life in another situation. Another set of values concern farmers’ knowledge and caring that allow them to achieve excellence in their work. As an example, a farmer’s long-term knowledge about the specific soils and weather conditions on a farm is essential not only to excellent crop production but also the wise use of the land. Farmers’ caring saves wetlands or wildlife habitat that is beneficial in the control of unwanted insects or enhances the beauty of the community.

Farmers’ knowledge and caring about their communities may be essential to securing a market for their products and maintaining a healthy place to live for their families. Other values such as long-term and secure lives in places of safety, beauty, and productive environments are all secured through a farmer’s knowledge and caring. The traditional family farm is usually envisioned as a place where the long-term caring and understanding have created a home place for a successful and healthy agricultural enterprise.

A major place where tool values have an impact is the well-being of animals and other living species. Animals once were farmers’ partners in agricultural production, but today many farmers raise animals for food. Farmers know that knowledge and caring are the best ways to work with animals. In the last sixty years machines have mostly replaced animals as the essential source of power in agricultural production. At the same time farm animals are raised increasingly in massive intensive-confinement systems where appropriate care is limited to crowded shelter and unnatural food. Farmers have no opportunity to exhibit their long-term knowledge and care in these industry-like systems that are operated under agribusiness rules and often by non-farmer laborers.

Other living creatures also are a part of an agricultural value system. Insects, plants, and even species that live in the soil are all crucial to farming. Whether a farmer grows crops or raises animals, the remarkable diversity of a healthy ecological system is crucial for long-term success. It is a value for all of us to protect the ongoing vitality of nature in our agricultural landscape. It is useful in our farming practices. ‘‘But it is above all beautiful and it calls for a response of caring from the human heart’’ (Dundon 1998).

The values we cherish in our relations with animals and other living creatures are seriously degraded by industrial agricultural systems. This should not be a permanent situation. If we reevaluate our beliefs in terms of an expanded recognition of our values, we will recognize that the production of food can be done in harmony with what we hold both useful and sacred. A third value identified by the Soul of Agriculture process is the farmer to farmer relationships. Friendships are sacred values that are both useful and good in their own right. Love thy neighbor is a cherished belief in many religions. The collaborators recognize the importance of improving the cohesiveness among farmers if we are to achieve a new vision of farming.

Farmer-to-farmer relationships are another victim of industrial agriculture. Factory farms are often operated from corporate headquarters where the managers do not know their neighbors. Many intensive confinement operators antagonize their neighbors with the intense odors of confined animals and the inevitable environmental damage of too much manure polluting waterways. The value of farmer to farmer cooperation and friendship is made less important by machines and technical systems on a factory farm. The final value identified so far by Soul of Agriculture collaborators is the relationships between food producers and their customers. Participants identified the ‘‘human pleasure in being appreciated for a good product, the outcome of one’s intelligence, labor and caring.’’ It is also a useful value in that consumers can be more confident about the quality of their food and the protection of their environment if they have a personal and good relationship with their farmer neighbors. This is even true in a city where farmers become acquainted with their customers through CSAs or farmers’ markets. Our values form the basic building blocks to construct a new vision of farming. The next step is to use our values to establish principles that lead to ethics.

Second Task: Principles

We establish ethics by using our values to create principles that guide our visions and plans. It is natural for advocates of sustainable farming, environmentalists, and academics to articulate principles that spring from our reasoned dialogues and intellectual pursuits. Farmers have principles that must be translated to profitable enterprises in their pastures, crop fields, and orchards. The task for the Soul of Agriculture process is to envision new farming practices that work while meeting our values for people, animals, and the Earth.

Many collaborators comment that institutions and technologies of industrial agriculture have a crushing impact on farm families, rural communities, and the natural world. These structures often evolve as a way to ease labor or provide more profit for an individual farmer or company rather than meet a widely accepted standard for farm practices. In these cases the values are saving labor and making money. The principles that guide these practices seem like good ideas, but they are short-sighted when the total picture is in focus. A new vision of farming based on conscious principles will require new institutions and technologies.

These new structures will be consciously based on social and environmental as well as economic principles, the very concepts that agribusiness spokespersons warn us about. It is certainly possible that agricultural corporations can be a part of the new vision if they are willing to build new structures and methods based on broad ethical principles. The Soul of Agriculture process consistently identifies local decision making as the best way to achieve a new vision of farming. In spite of the best efforts of corporations to ignore local differences with the same fast food outlets, shopping malls, and entertainments, we all live in unique places. Carefully structured farming decisions will vary in all parts of the country.

Our vision of new farming assumes local inputs based on the ethical principles we all agree are good for people, animals and the Earth. Creating a New Vision of Farming outlines the thinking of the Soul of Agriculture collaborators to date. While it is not possible to list them all in this paper, here are some examples of principles that illustrate how ethics should guide agriculture. What are the principles that secure the ends of agriculture? Dedicating critical land, water, and other resources to farming is fitting in nature unless there are special ethical reasons not to farm at that location. Fertile places for agriculture should be permanent, as human needs will always have need for them. The conditions for farmers and farm workers must be rewarding and healthy. Economic conditions of farming must encourage the preservation of agricultural resources. Soils and the safety of crops must be protected.

What principles guide the means of agriculture? Farmers and farm workers should reap the rewards of their work according to their time, efforts, and responsibility; and in consideration of the needs of a decent human living. Continuity of time and place for farmers must be preserved and encouraged to secure the knowledge and caring needed for good farming. Whenever possible, local farm ownership and local owner management is a good moral policy. Social needs of farmers such as community, church, and schools must be preserved and protected. Farmers and their communities must be able to act ethically without retribution. ‘‘Futile individual heroism is not a moral principle’’ (Dundon 1998).

‘‘Animals and other living systems are sacred gifts of Creation, given for our use, not abuse. They are worthy in themselves of being treated with respect.’’  This sentiment is endorsed by most of the collaborators in the Soul of Agriculture process, including farmers who raise animals for food. Other statements include:

Any form of animal agriculture about whose animals we must say: ‘They would, from their birth on, have been better off dead’ is morally shameful. It is morally unacceptable to cause serious suffering to animals for trivial reasons. Freedom from inhumane pain and pathological stress should be sought for animals. Serious and long term suppression of animals’ freedom to express natural functions and movements is not justified by non-essential economic advantage. (Dundon 1998)

Soul of Agriculture participants acknowledge that farms are living systems in themselves that are also crucial to the local community. One principle boldly asserts that the public should share the cost of farmers’ efforts to preserve nature’s balance, variety, and elements of wild ness. Farmers have a moral obligation to share knowledge about production methods that are least harmful to nature. Solar, bio-intensive, and other regenerative technologies enjoy an ethical superiority due to their gentleness on the environment and their sustainability. Principles applied to farmer to farmer relationships call for friendship rather than competition. Collaboration in shared information, experience, and labor should be cultivated.

Farmers have a moral obligation to build communities of support for benign production alternatives such as organic, biological, ecological, and regenerative systems. Collaborative efforts by farmers to return the power of ethical decision making to farmers must be cultivated. Farmer-Community relations should be promoted by making decisions from the community rather than outside corporations. Collaborations within a community about environmental protection are more acceptable than coercive and distant mandates. Community policy should be adopted based on the needs of the urban center and the farms that surround it. Agricultural production should benefit the community first with benefits, economic gain, and employment possibilities.

Two key principles address the tensions that often exist between environmentalists and farmers. The first stipulates that a moral obligation exists to reduce harmful side effects of farming on the community. On the other hand, environmental policy makers must recognize that poverty and economic hardships to farmers are often the cause of environmental damage. Economic justice for farmers is a way to protect the environment.

The farmer-consumer relationships are receiving considerable attention from the Soul of Agriculture process because this appears to be an area of great weakness in the contemporary agricultural structure. The principles identified by the collaborators include the use of forms of marketing and purchasing to restore a friendship-like relationship between farmers and consumers. Institutions and practices that enhance consumer awareness of the nature and needs of farming and farmer awareness of consumer needs should be encouraged.

Free market forces as a means to produce and market food must be frequently guided and limited by the moral demands of justice and basic human needs as well as other values of the means and ends of farming. The free market must be kept as an instrument of human good. It is morally appropriate to guide free market forces by the communally determined needs of local consumers and local farmers. (Dundon 1998)

The identification of principles based on values is an ongoing process for the Soul of Agriculture. Individuals and organizations are encouraged to contribute and to write their own principles. The next task is the identification of models that embrace the values and principles that become ethics of agricultural production.

Third Task: Models

A new vision of farming based on widely held ethics must work for farmers and consumers. As a principle, the collaborators agreed that new institutions will be needed to form a new agriculture. As one person stated, ‘‘if we try to simply fix the present system, it is like putting new wine in old skins. What is needed is new wine in new skins.’’ Participants in the Soul of Agriculture process are asked to list the characteristics of a new agriculture based on the ethics identified by the first two tasks. Some of these lists are presented here for examples and potential models. The third task is the creative step that allows all of us to explore a new vision of agriculture based on our values and principles. What will farms look like in our new vision of agriculture? The general response to this question can be organized into five general topics.

The first is that the hallmark of the ‘‘new’’ farm will be diversity in crop selection, enterprises, cultures, and markets. The farms will use long range planning to integrate a variety of products that complement each other in closed nutrient cycles and increasing independence from off-farm sources of energy and nutrients. The farmers will increasingly use alternative energy sources such as solar in the place of diesel fuel and chemical inputs.

Second, animals on the new farm will be seen as helpers. Farm animals’ nutritional needs, natural activities, and manure will be an integral part of a farming operation. Waste products will become assets in other parts of the farm operation. Managed grazing will replace fossil-fuel-consuming grain-feeding programs. The new farm will allow animals to live natural lives, not just because the care of animals is a good business decision, but because it the right and respectful way to treat another living creature.

The third characteristic of the new farm is a new generation of farmers who know and care. The participants strongly recommend that farms be controlled largely by owner operators or farmers who live on the land they manage.

If farming is to become more diversified, then each aspect of the operation must be carefully monitored and managed by the person with the knowledge, ability, and care to do excellent work. These farmers will succeed because they cooperate with nature rather than spend a lot of time and money trying to overcome it. Fourth, farms will be places of beauty. A surprising conclusion of the Soul of Agriculture colleagues is the call for farms that are places of beauty that fit into the local landscape. ‘‘They will reflect the pride, hard work, and consciousness of nature of their owners, because they will be both homes and the public face of a family to the local community’’ (Dundon 1998). Every farm will have a place for nature as homes for wild plants and animals and for farm families to enjoy. The economic returns from farming must allow the preservation of places for nature.

Finally, the new farms will increasingly use ecological and biological farming methods. These methods will serve an increasingly supportive consumer market because they reflect good farming practices. This will be especially true when farmers and consumers establish face-to-face relationships in the market and in the community.

What will markets and communities look like in the new vision of farming? Two basic themes have emerged so far from the process. Markets will reflect the diversity and variety of farms that are liberated from the massive production of mono crops for agribusiness exports or factory farm systems. Farmers and consumers will increasingly share a common bond in food related political, social, and economic issues. The process has listed eight general categories as models for markets and communities in the new ethically based agriculture.

The first category is the consumer-sensitive niche market. The new farms will produce goods that meet consumer expectations and demands based on the diversity of people and place. The price of food will be based on what the consumer can spend and what the producer needs, including the costs of caring for the environment, animals, and people’s health.

Direct marketing is a second category of concern for our Soul of Agriculture colleagues. Direct marketing is beneficial to the new farm for several reasons. Producers and consumers will set the price based on mutually agreed upon goals such as quality, farmer livelihood, environmental and animal well-being concerns, and consumer income. The CSA movement is the present model for direct marketing that meets the needs and the ethics of farmers and consumers.

A third characteristic is the increasing growth of community focused farming. Production, processing, and control will be more local because consumers will want food from places they can visit or know about. Food choices will reflect regional preferences and growing conditions. Consumers will support their own communities by keeping their food buying dollars at home.

The fourth vision is community-owned farms. The models for this exist in some cohousing projects and community cooperatives. It is good public policy to make land available for food production in place of urban sprawl as a way to ensure food security for future residents.

The fifth category, called ‘‘local delights,’’ deserves a direct quotation:

Markets, restaurants and retail establishments will reflect the renaissance in local food as a pleasurable, central part of daily life. There will be a blossoming of ‘‘slow food’’ restaurants where food is not simply a way to fuel up the body at a drive-in window, but instead nourishes people, families, and neighborhoods. Such restaurants will become vital centers of neighborhoods and communities featuring the prize food produced by farmers known as friends and neighbors. Markets will do the same and respond to the health concerns of consumers. (Dundon 1998)

Sixth, farming will become more collaborative. Farmers will work together to share costs, labor, and expertise. While there will be some competitiveness in a free market economy, farmers will join to form community processing facilities, brokerage operations, and distribution systems. Community farmers will also make certain that young people have the ability to enter the noble profession of agriculture.

The seventh recommendation from the Soul of Agriculture process is a network of communities as a support for the new farms. Community networks can trade products that are unique to a special area and form associations for an export marketing approach that benefits both the home producer and the international buyer. Environmental, animal, and health concerns can be shared by a web of linked communities. Food security is enhanced when one region of the country helps others during times of disaster.

Finally, the Soul of Agriculture participants call for vigorous educational components in a new vision of farming. Schools’ curriculums will include specific information about where their food comes from, how farming is done and what consumers should know about food systems. Consumers will have the opportunity to visit farms, not as tourists, but as vital links in an agricultural system that is the pride of our communities and nation.

Fourth Task: Hard Questions and Actions

The Soul of Agriculture process engages people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Just like nature, this diversity brings strength to the whole. Our efforts to write an agricultural production ethics statement obviously have not brought unanimous agreements on everything; this is why it must be an ongoing process. The identification of values, principles, and models provides common ground for interested people to begin the dialogue. As an example mentioned above, environmental organizations are now taking a close look at farming practices, and especially alternatives to any systems that may lead to the degradation of water, land, and air. At the same time the environmentalists acknowledge that farmers need to achieve a livelihood and want to help farmers adopt ecologically sensitive practices.

Many farmers acknowledge their responsibilities to the environment as stewards of the land and seek production methods that are in harmony with nature. The key element is that farmers and environmentalists are communicating with each other and asking vital questions. The Soul of Agriculture project urges everyone to engage in the search for an ethical basis for agriculture. Some of this dialogue will happen by design at future conferences and collaborations.

Most of the discussion and the examination of our own values about agricultural production and the food we eat should happen in our daily lives. As stated above, the choices we make with our food purchasers, our investments, our community developments, and many other aspects of our lives directly impact the type of agriculture we have now and will have in the future. Adopting an ethical vision of food production is shared by some of the nation’s leading agricultural leaders. Richard Rominger, Former USDA Deputy Secretary, urged participants of the 'National Town Meeting for a Sustainable America' to support sustainable agriculture. He wrote:

You may not live on a farm. But we share this planet. You have the power to put your knowledge to work to protect it through the choices you make. The choices that you the consumer make to purchase sustainable agricultural products are a conscious one. This choice shows a commitment to and an investment in the environment, the community, and the future. (Rominger 1999)

As vital components of our national economy, agribusinesses should also be expected to adopt broader ethics in agricultural production. As stated above, the export of food, farm technology, and agricultural services is a large factor in our trade policies. Unfortunately, the benefits of this export agriculture and the industrial methods engineered to drive it are destroying a way of life. In his important study of the consolidation of food and agricultural systems, Dr. William Heffernan of the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri, details the most profound shift imaginable in the countryside. He writes: ‘‘Today, most rural economic development specialists discount agriculture as a contributor to rural development’’ (Heffernan 1999). Heffernan concludes with this statement:

The centralized food system that continues to emerge was never voted on by the people of this country, or for that matter, the people of the world. It is the product of deliberate decisions made by a very few powerful human actors. This is not the only system that could emerge. Is it not time to ask some critical questions about our food system and about what is in the best interest of this and future generations? (Heffernan 1999)

The Soul of Agriculture process urges all people to ask the essential questions about agriculture and food systems after careful examinations of their personal values time to adopt ethical standards for the structures and institutions that provide us food, clearly a vital element of our lives. It is time for all of us to restore culture to the practices of agriculture.

By Gary Valens in the book 'A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics'- Editors Paul Waldau and Kimberley Patton, Columbia University Press, New York, 2006, p. 568-582. Adapted and illustrated to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.