Havana homegrown; Inside Cuba's urban agriculture revolution

True but the USDA's pro-corporate policies are a major obstacle to local independent sustainable agriculture (see my post below). Independent sustainable agriculture is prevalent in parts of the north east where sub-urban sprawl has chopped up farmland preventing it from being easily being concerted and centralized by a corporation. The BIG Agricultural business model requires large uninterrupted tracts of land

It will always be that way unless you can get Wickard v. Filburn overturned. No matter how much you write to the USDA, they are always going to be pro-corporate and formulate policy to benefit corporate Agricultural companies like Monsanto. Why?

Well while the totality of independent individual farms may make up the majority of agricultural activity in U.S., the USDA looks at it from a: one individual farmer vs. corporate agriculture perspective.

Compared to ONE individual farmer corporate farming.
1. produces a lot more produce.
2. Makes a lot more money
3. Generates a lot more economic activity and potential tax revenue (even though its usually not tapped into.)

4. Most importantly Corporate agricultural has millions of dollars to buy high-price professional lobbyists to lobby for favorable policy at the expense of the individual farmer who has no-one representing their interests. Administrative agencies like the USDA are lobbyied (and even more than congress and there is less oversight of the lobbying process) when contemplating and formulating new rules and regulations.

The result is absurd and obnoxious regulations that compliance of which is just a drop in the bucket for corporate agriculture but is too expensive for the small, local farmers to comply with, forcing them out of business.

It’s a textbook example of Corporatism where the government and corporations cooperate to screw over small business owners such as farmers.

The only way to stop it would be to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, and get the USDA out of the business of micro-managing local farms to implement pro-corporate policies.

Afterwards, if desired, every state would have its own Department of Agriculture to formulate agricultural policy . It's conceivable that states like Missouri, where Monsanto is domiciled, would have their State DA formulate pro-corporate farming policies.

However in other states, such as those in the North East, where sub-urban sprawl and urbanization, have chopped up farming land and prevented the concentration and centralization of farms into the hands of corporations, the policies would be pro-individual farms and could give rise to the agricultural model in the above video.

You're not telling me something I don't already know. That is why I am involved in organizations fightng them and bringing awareness.

Dialog is an effective way to educate and spread awareness; I am counting on other people reading this thread besides just me and you.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy. The Supreme Court's decision states that the parties had stipulated as to the economic conditions leading to passage of the legislation:
The parties have stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry......The wheat industry has been a problem industry for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions, annual exports of wheat and flour from the United States during the ten-year period ending in 1940 averaged less than 10 percent of total production, while, during the 1920s, they averaged more than 25 percent. The decline in the export trade has left a large surplus in production which, in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains in recent years, caused congestion in a number of markets; tied up railroad cars, and caused elevators in some instances to turn away grains, and railroads to institute embargoes to prevent further congestion. Many countries, both importing and exporting, have sought to modify the impact of the world market conditions on their own economy. Importing countries have taken measures to stimulate production and self-sufficiency. The four large exporting countries of Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States have all undertaken various programs for the relief of growers. Such measures have been designed, in part at least, to protect the domestic price received by producers. Such plans have generally evolved towards control by the central government. In the absence of regulation, the price of wheat in the United States would be much affected by world conditions. During 1941, producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel, as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel.

Thank you for the information!

Jan I just wrote a long e mail to Obama regarding mining and land lease for cattle which are becoming polluted with heavy metals these strip miners leave in their wake. It does not matter that they reclaim the land they still are killing us softly. I also wrote about mega agri business doing the same thing. And how could anyone let miners and cattle ranchers back up to each other out west in land lease situations. Dumb and dumber. also copied both my senators and my congressman

Great, I hope you get a response. Let us know.

You might be interested in this post I featured a while back on the Cuban sugar industry: http://current.com/news/92368741_the-collapse-of-the-cuban-sugar-industry.htm

The industry is in dire straits because of lack of investment, inefficiency and poor management. And this goes without mentioning the Coffee industry, which has declined close to 90% in the last few years...

Thats what I'm talking about, we normalize relations, spur investment in their sugar industry for our need for bio fuel, Spur investment in tourism. Its a win win. Thos Cuban Exiles living in South Fla can join the real world in 2010 instead of living in 1963.
Cigars anyone?
Plantains & bananas
And a host of other agricultural products