Where do the Jetsons get their kale?

Farmers worldwide are caught between cheap and efficient large-scale operations that raze the earth, and expensive small-scale practices that regenerate instead of damage. Is there a realistic compromise?

|
MICHAEL BUHOLZER/KEYSTONE/AP
Farmers aboard tractors form the word “Dialog” (German for dialogue) during a protest rally in Winikon, Switzerland, March 25.

Were there any farmers in "The Jetsons"? OK, I realize, shockingly, the 1960s cartoon has not turned out to be the most accurate predictor of the future of humankind. But this week, the Monitor considers a future that, in some ways, might seem stranger than flying cars and robot maids. Do we really need farmers?

In their cover story, Erika Page, Whitney Eulich, and Srishti Jaswal chronicle the farmer protests that have erupted around the world. But beneath the portrait of farmers in crisis is a question: Are the tractor-borne demonstrations we've seen typical advocacy, or farming's last gasp? 

That might seem an overstatement, and perhaps it is. But not by as great a margin as you might think. Of course, cultivation of food will continue for as long as humans put fork to mouth. But who will do it, and how?

Today's farmers are tilting against two powerful trends: 

1. Farming on a massive, corporate scale is vastly more efficient than small-scale farming and therefore provides much cheaper food.

2. Most farming remains devastatingly awful for the planet.

Both trends gained speed in the postwar era and are interlinked. Large agricultural operations have played an essential role in producing food on the scale needed to feed humanity. This has saved millions from hunger and starvation. 

But it has also accelerated practices that pillage the Earth: Pesticides poison ecosystems, massive amounts of water are used, soil is sucked of its nutrients, and animals live in inhumane conditions.

The irony is that farming, done with sustainable practices, can do the opposite. It can perpetually renew the Earth and its ecosystems. At this moment, we're caught in between: relying on corporate farming and the bad practices that grew out of the postwar world, but recognizing the environmental cost and wanting to do something. 

This is a double whammy for small farmers. Most rely on techniques that are destructive to the environment, and those need to change. But these farmers live on much finer margins and have fewer lobbyists than corporate farms. Many might want to do the right thing, but it's financially impossible, and nations can pick up only so much of the tab. 

Which leads us back to the question: Do we need farmers? 

Our cover story speaks elegantly of the nobility of farming, not to mention the benefits of noncorporate food. For example, flour tortillas that don't taste like carpet. Some farmers have gotten out ahead of the trends and carved out a niche in which they use sustainable practices to meet local demand.

But the whole profession is facing a reckoning. How can the world wean farming off its old ways while maintaining the output needed to feed humanity? Small farmers are being forced to answer that question first, and the answer is not really about this subsidy or that regulation, but about the nature of the enterprise itself. The Earth is demanding a change. Where small farmers go from here will give us a glimpse of how these problems will be solved. And whether they will someday be able to sell George Jetson his space kale.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Where do the Jetsons get their kale?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editors/2024/0506/Where-do-the-Jetsons-get-their-kale
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe