Answering these types of questions will help us clarify the root causes of sustainability problems in agriculture.The general vision of scientists and activists for sustainable agriculture is one which reduces environmental degradation, preserves or restores the family farm, and removes contaminants from human consumption. For example, the goals of the California- based Committee for Sustainable Agriculture are: “To achieve a safe food supply and a cleaner environment . . . [so that] . . . family farms and rural communities may thrive, toxic byproducts be eliminated, and agricultural employees and consumers may be reassured about this major sector of their lives.” This vision is usually considered achievable within our current socioeconomic systems. For example, in the National Research Council’s report on alternative agriculture, “alternative” refers to biological and technological alternatives, but does not address alter- native social or economic arrangements.The authors state that, “Successful alternative farmers do what all good managers do – they apply management skills and information to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and maintain production levels.” For organic food producers and distributors the vision is larger market shares and profits necessary in order to participate in the agricultural industry under current economic conditions. Thus we find that the visions currently prominent in sustainability discourse are primarily concerned with techniques to achieve resource conservation, food safety, and profitability rather than including broader social visions. One sustainable agriculture leader stated, “The fundamental social responsibility of organic agriculture is improving the health of the soil. . . .” Those focused on the global context, however, present a broader vision of agricultural sustainability.
One version of a universal definition for sustainable agriculture is “an agriculture that can evolve indefinitely toward greater human utility, greater efficiency of resource use, and a balance with the environment that is favorable both to humans and to most other species.” The FAO of the United Nations states that “sustainable agriculture should involve the successful management of resources for agriculture to satisfy changing human needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environment and conserving natural resources.” Clearly,rolling bench in envisioning a sustainable agriculture it makes all of the difference whether the goal is to sustain the current world economic order, an individual nation’s agricultural economy, a middle-class American’s life, a farm family’s right to retain owner- ship of their land and other means of production, or an Ethiopian woman’s life. Unless we clearly specify who or what we want to sustain, sustainability advocates risk prescribing future visions that do not consider social inequities and therefore reproduce domination based on class, gender, and race. But how do workers, women, and people of color fit into dominant sustainable agriculture visions?Dominant sustainability discourses generally do not analyze the different interests and classes that participate in the food and agriculture system. An example can be found in the first challenge set forth in the Asilomar Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture*, which is to “promote and sustain healthy rural communities.” Justification for the promotion of rural communities is: “Healthy rural communities are attractive and equitable for farmers, farm workers, and their families. The continuation of traditional values and farming wisdom depends on a stable, multi-generational population.” Thus, although the Asilomar Declaration recognizes corporate land ownership as problematic, it does not address the different interests of farmers and farm workers in general.
It recognizes no inherent problem with an economy based upon land owners who hire landless laborers, and advocates maintaining the existing structure of land tenure. This statement also implies that current rural values, which include the patriarchal family and Christian religious beliefs, are ideals we should advocate and preserve. Similar perspectives are reflected by the National Research Council and the U.S. federal sustainable agriculture research program, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education . For example, where the National Research Council discusses labor on alternative farms, labor is viewed only as a cost of production. There is no discussion of who the workers are, their working conditions, or their wages. In the same vein, SARE addresses socioeconomic issues primarily in terms of the economic viability of farms, and largely avoids discussion of antagonisms between corporate agriculture, family farms, and farm labor. Those focused on food safety, however, show greater interest in the welfare of the farm worker when they point out that pesticide use in agriculture poses a greater risk to field workers than it does to consumers. Still, where food issues are discussed in the context of sustainability, they usually focus on safety and pay little attention to accessibility. Yet Bill Liebhardt, director of the University of California’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, points out that we must “. . . eliminate the very idea of hunger in a state where agriculture is still the largest industry.”This is true in the larger scope as well: worldwide at least 500 million people do not have regular access to sufficient food.Kate Clancy, a professor long active in sustainable agriculture, asks, “Is agriculture sustainable if it doesn’t encompass issues of social justice like hunger?” Yet visions that include factors central to workers and the poor, such as who should have a right to eat or access to land, are not presented in dominant sustainability discourse.
In most cases, traditional gender roles are assumed in discussions of sustainable agriculture, whether women are included or simply overlooked. Populist visions of sustainable agriculture see the family farm as the ideal organizational structure for sustainable agriculture, but generally do not discuss gender roles within the farm family. An exception is Berry, who explicitly discusses differences between men and women on farms and suggests that both women and men suffer when nurturing is the sole purview of women.However, he advocates a return to traditional values associated with the home without questioning the patriarchal privilege that underlies many of these values. The fact that family farms are based on patriarchal relations is not regarded as a problem by the sustain- able agriculture movement, yet on the majority of family farms men control land, capital, and women’s labor.While farm women are resisting their roles as “farm wives” and insisting on wider decision-making roles and access to land, in most sustainability discourse, women’s demands for change have not been incorporated. Often farmers continue to be referred to using masculine pronouns, which fails to acknowledge women’s roles in agricultural production, except as they support the male farmer. In the food safety movement women are often targeted specifically for the part they can play in developing this aspect of agricultural sustainability. In this way traditional gender roles are not questioned, since women are appealed to in their capacity as food purchasers and child care providers and men are excluded. In general, dominant visions for agricultural sustainability do not correct the problem of gender inequities.To some extent, this results from the absence of people of color from decision- making positions in Western agriculture. People of color have been integral to the functioning of American agriculture, but in subordinate roles. African- Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans have historically and currently provide much of the labor in U.S. agriculture, but are much less likely than European-Americans to be farm owners. Even in California,roll bench an extremely ethnically diverse state, only 9.2 percent of farm operators are ethnic minorities; this proportion is inverted among farm workers, 75 percent of whom are ethnic minorities.Farm workers have received few of the benefits of profitable and abundant agriculture; compared to farm owners, they have much lower incomes, live under worse conditions, have less control over the production process, are more often exposed to pesticides, and have higher incidences of health problems related to pesticide use.
It is significant that the impetus for low-input agriculture was generated in part by the level of public distress about farmers losing their land during the 1980s, when the crisis affected mostly European- American farmers and affluent customers. In contrast, little concern has been raised in sustainability discourse about the nearly complete separation of African-American farmers from their land. In 1920 one in seven U.S. farms was black-operated, but in this century the number of farms owned by blacks has declined 94 percent.In addition, the call for a return to traditional rural values fails to challenge racist attitudes historically prevalent in much of the rural U.S. The dominant vision of sustainability in the U.S. does not address racial inequalities prevalent in agriculture.Strategies suggested for achieving sustainability are, of course, intimately linked with the problems perceived, causes attributed, and visions projected. For the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture, sustainable agriculture can be achieved “ . . . through dissemination of information about farming, food processing and marketing techniques that conserve and replenish soil resources, and decrease the use of toxic and synthetic chemicals. By working toward these ecologically benign technologies [sustainability will result].” This statement describes the major strategies employed in the effort toward sustainable agriculture – providing more information to farmers and consumers through better communication, gathering more knowledge about agroecological processes, and developing better technology. Less often, but occasionally mentioned are establishing policy reforms to increase pesticide regulations or limit corporate farming, developing bio-regional communities to localize food production and consumption, and reinvigorating traditional values. While some of these we consider antithetical to sustainability or unrealistic , others are no doubt essential components in the move to sustainable agriculture. We argue not with their inclusion in a package of strategies for sustainability, but with the emphasis placed upon them to the exclusion of other strategies. For example, a primary emphasis has been placed on developing profitable alternative production techniques and systems through science. This is seen both in Western agriculture and in development programs for impoverished countries. Historically in the U.S., agricultural science has been called upon to resolve major socioeconomic and ecological crises in agriculture, such as with the scientifically based land- grant colleges, the Cooperative Extension Service and the Soil Conservation Service. In these instances, science has sanctioned the highly capitalized, chemical-intensive agricultural system in the U.S. and is being uncritically called upon to sanction low-input systems as well.
It is clear, however, that neither science nor new technologies can by themselves solve larger food and agriculture problems, as witnessed by the problems associated with the scientifically based Green Revolution. In addition to the universal sustainability issue of how agricultural products are produced, one scientist proposes that we also address the questions of what and for whom agricultural products are produced.Yet dominant sustainability discourses tend to rely on technology as the solution – that if the right technologies were developed, sustainability would result. For example, the Asilomar Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture states that, “Given scientifically validated techniques, farmers will adopt sustain- able agriculture practices.” In this perspective, an agricultural production system that is both profitable and environmentally sound will be achieved as less environmentally damaging technologies are developed and substituted for existing chemical technologies. This does not examine the overarching structural forces that have contributed to the adoption of re- source-intensive farming practices. Technologies and social relations are inseparably linked, both in terms of their inspiration and their consequences. In agricultural research universities we do not have the Baconian model of the atomistic scientist pursuing “pure knowledge.” Instead, research is often driven by economics and politics; entrepreneurs demand marketable technologies and these are in turn produced. The development of chemical vs. cultural pest management techniques, for example, is not accidental. If agricultural requirements can be responded to profitably, they will be.But maximizing profits depends upon repeated sales of inputs, not products that can be reproduced by the farmers or are self-reproducing under proper environmental conditions.In our view, this vision’s perspective is too partial and fragmented. If we do not go farther in challenging the structures and assumptions that have led to sustainability problems, we place ourselves at the risk of reproducing these problems and generating only very marginal improvements. Achieving a truly sustainable food and agricultural system requires a broader vision and new strategies for both analysis and implementation. Developing this system will require concentrated thinking, innovative actions, and a deep commitment on the part of many people. As a start, we suggest several ways in which we can begin down the path toward a sustainable agricultural system.