Comparing Approaches
Understanding a Complex Problem

People in the heartland of California are talking about our changing world and what it means to our California economy and quality of life. It seems no matter what direction the world takes those who rely on agriculture for a living will be affected, and will have to act in response. War and unrest create shortages of food and the need for massive food aid projects.

Famine and drought also create the need for food relief. Overpopulation places enormous stress on resources, and poverty makes it impossible for many people around the world to purchase the food they need. Yes, these problems affect life in California. That's why the people in the heartland of California are talking about America's role in the world and what's at stake for California agriculture.

People are talking about the changing leadership role of America in the world. Everyone of course is talking about terrorism and the Iraq War. We as Americans have some difficult choices to make, and we want to make the best possible choices for ourselves, our children and other people around the world. As America and Americans decide what role we want in the world, people in the heartland of California want to know what their options are and what changes they'll be required to face.

This issue book identifies three 'approaches' to America's role in the future of the world's food supply. Each 'approach' offers a different view of the problem. Each 'approach' then provides its own view of the best solutions. Some ideas can be easily mixed between 'approaches', but not all ideas can be mixed.

Each 'approach' has its own priorities, goals and agenda. As you read through them, note your own reactions to the ideas and actions presented. Note how they fit with your values and opinions. Note the trade-offs and complexities. Note the questions and concerns that come to mind.

Approach #1: Research, Development and
Education Are the Answer

Remember the old saying: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." Public and private research gives us the opportunity to be the world's best farming teachers. This approach believes in the power of knowledge. When research spreads to include global partners, the flow of ideas and innovations benefits everyone and leads to new and surprising breakthroughs. With increased study across the many areas in our higher education system, the challenges and opportunities in food production and access can be understood.

What Can Be Done?

• Increase domestic food-based RDE study through public funding and private grants, focusing on food science but including all higher education fields-designate 50% of these grants for international projects.
• Increase support for the Peace Corps, and give 'GI Bill'-type educational grants for successful Peace Corps service.
• Create agricultural research partnerships in every country in the world that wants to participate, and provide enough funding to establish an initial global research base, identifying key research goals in each climate area, country, and region.
• Conduct more research into food safety and make the reports available to the public in the US and around the world-simplify the language in the reports to make the information available to the general public.

In This View

• RDE is what we do best-it has revolutionized agriculture in the past and it can do so again.
  American and international farmers can all learn new techniques, increase productivity, reduce crop losses and be more environmentally sensitive through RDE.
• RDE can change the image of Americans from 'benevolent bully' to 'development partner'-the reputation of the US can be improved.

In Opposing Views

• There's already enough food in the world-the problem lies in access to affordable food when people are not allowed to grow their own.
• RDE that is funded by American taxpayers and private companies might not be trusted by international farmers or consumers, feeling American agriculture would benefit most.

A Likely Tradeoff?
The RDE needed for acceptance of science-based products may take many years, but the development of trust would make the investment of time and energy worthwhile.

Approach #2: Our Total Commitment Will End Hunger

Americans can decide to end hunger in this country and around the world. We are generous in our contributions to world hunger programs. This approach believes it's our responsibility to end hunger, because food is a 'human right.' A 'right' is different from a 'need'-rights deserve and require active and equal protection. A total commitment to ending hunger means that Americans and the world have decided to do whatever it takes to allow and encourage local and regional production of food whenever possible and then to provide food aid when needed.

What Can Be Done?

• Make food a human right in the United States and lead the world by example through domestic food programs to abolish hunger in America.
• Make military ships, planes and personnel available at public expense to transport private and religious food charity donations to hunger 'hot spots.'
• Manage the food supply by mandating local, regional and global food production targets and quotas, and by subsidizing farm production when prices decline below sustainable levels.
• Ratify participation by the US in the international agreement that food is a human right, and enforce international food rights through UN actions where governments disregard the right to food of their own citizens or of neighboring countries.

In This View

• Hunger and its associated problems could be ended permanently, and the US could lead in this humanitarian effort.
• Food production and distribution will become more efficient as more countries become 'food independent.'
• Farmers around the world would gain a new respect for their contributions to their people's health and welfare.

In Opposing Views

• A complex food management system would be required that would just become another huge, dysfunctional bureaucracy.
• National authority could be challenged when the UN is called to enforce food rights with economic penalties or military action.

A Likely Tradeoff?

The US would have to bear a large share of the cost for an expensive global system, but the humanitarian goals are important enough to make the cost worthwhile.

Approach #3: Open Competition Puts the Markets to Work

Open competition and free trade promises to increase prosperity around the world, while efficiently producing enough affordable food for all people in the long term. Free trade is the cheap and simple way to supply the quality, type and amount of food that people in various countries want. This approach believes in the promise of open markets where people are free to sell and buy food as they choose. The old 'food aid policy' has failed. This approach wants to put open and free markets to work-they'll get the job done.

What Can Be Done?

• Eliminate all US farm subsidies and trade barriers that interfere with food imports or exports in a totally open market.
• Change the World Trade Organization (WTO) so it works for the elimination of all agricultural tariffs and export subsidies, particularly among developed countries, and gives equal voting power in WTO decisions to all countries.
• Hold regular meetings of the developed countries to openly discuss free trade goals and food security needs in order to reduce the need for subsidies or tariffs.
• Provide training and startup loans for American farmers who need to switch crops or have to leave farming completely.

In This View

• Free trade is totally decentralized and requires no bureaucracy to function.
• On average, American consumers and many agricultural producers will benefit from increased, long-term global free trade in food products.
• A free market is an essential element of democracy. Encouraging its spread will help promote a primary American ideal around the world.

In Opposing Views

It just won't work, because the developed nations will continue to protect or support their own farmers, while they demand that developing countries open their own markets.

Many developing countries have little or no experience with a free market system, so their transition period may be long and painful.

A Likely Tradeoff?

Elimination of farm subsidies will cause a painful transition in many American communities and higher short-term food prices, but the long-term benefits will make it worthwhile.

top