Food, Inc. is a dynamic documentary in that it's namesake reveals America's subsurface exploitation in production agriculture that has created a broader consumer health crisis. While much of the documentary focuses on this through its exploration of corporate food companies business models, their role in the supply and demand of consumerism, the subsequent nutritional value of their products, and how farmers and the American people are undercut by big business in a gravely detrimental way.
While the documentary presents jaw-dropping exposes of the food stocking our supermarket shelves, its focus is largely on the Midwest and its hold on wheat, corn, soybean, and livestock harvest. However, there are many states who specialize in "salad bowl" agriculture. That is, agriculture oriented around micro-nutrient harvests--as opposed to the macro-nutrient wheat, corn, soybean production. Florida and California are some of the best examples of salad bowl ag, both of whom produce tomatoes, citrus, and strawberries. How then is the context and corruption implied to these states who are not necessarily controlled by the iron fist of Monsanto?
In Florida's case, the abundant land of central, south, and northeast Florida is controlled by long-time landowners, who identify as farmers. Their deep-routed connection to the State Legislator, either as a function of cronyism or through agriculture's industrial domination in rural areas, affords farmers with large tracts of land a direct line to the Capitol. This opens the door for channeling politics that paves the way for agricultural, but more specifically land owner, interests through the legislature. Since we've defined the power structure at work here, the next part articulates the relationship between farmer/land owners and land use and growth management.
With their hold on abundant, undeveloped land, farmers can (and do) follow one of two routes (usually). One path, is they syphon off huge tracts of land to unsustainable developers, who more interested in the bottom line--maximum units per area--than creating growth management friendly developments geared toward posterity and environmental sustainability. In other words, farmers sell their huge properties to developers that construct massive, sprawling developments. In most cases, these transactions take place in counties or municipalities with a weak central government and little-to-no planning staff to veto or amend the developments. Even still, like the relationship at play at the state-level, the farmer's tie to local politics is even stronger. This has been the path for most development in the state of Florida. Little by little, the Everglades periphery region (sugar production) is being sliced and diced and developed in this way. Examples include, sector plans in east Collier County (Ave Maria) and St. Joe Paper Company of the panhandle and north Florida.
Path two, follows slightly differently, but the result is the same. This time, the farmers and/or developers over these large tracts of land to the state at a discounted price. The State enters into a contract to purchase the property in 10- 20-years from the contract date. This allows the developer to drive up the value of the land to their benefit, much like speculation, and charge the state for more money than the land may be worth, which ultimately hurts taxpayers. Its possible for the deal to never go through with the state, and either the owner will retain the property or they'll sell to a developer who follows the same pattern as the former scenario. Both of these perpetuate a climate of cronyism politics, unsustainable land use and development patterns, and work against the tenures of growth management that the State implemented, and since revoked (2011 GM Act). Florida's now topsy-turvy growth management policy is dictated by private land owners, big farmers, and developers, whose control extends beyond the built environment to power politics.
Hi Jamie,
ReplyDeleteMy opinion to your question on "How then is the context and corruption implied to these states who are not necessarily controlled by the iron fist of Monsanto?” I would say through GMO labeling. For example, back in 2012, California created Proposition 37, which required mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Also, prop 37 forbidden labeling or advertising such food as "natural".
However, adversaries contended that prop 37 is a deceiving, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Most of these are adversaries are members of huge corporations that used GMOs in there food products, such as Monsanto, Pepsico, Coca Cola, Kellogg, and etc. Therefore, prop 37 failed to pass, because corporate agribusinesses raised enough money to fight against the prop 37.
All in all, this is how believe the salad bowl states are still controlled by large corporations such as Monsanto, especially California due to prop 37.