"Food Sovereignty:" Re-Inventing Our Relationship To The Vermont Landscape

By Linda Setchell

“The year that will really worry me is the year our milk production takes a real dive.”

- Steve Kerr, Vermont's Secretary of Agriculture on the loss of 6% of Vermont's dairy farms in 2004

“Our vision is for a Vermont local food system which is self-reliant and based on reverence for the earth. It builds living soils, which nurture animals and people with wholesome, natural products, supporting healthy, thriving farms and communities. These communities in turn work to encourage and support current and future farmers, continuing our Vermont heritage. This abundant and generous way of life celebrates our diversity and interdependence.”

- Rural Vermont's Vision for Vermont Agriculture in 2015

Rural Vermont's Vision for Vermont Agriculture is representative of a burgeoning grassroots movement that is challenging the state's entrenched views that milk production is the priority and the marketplace will prevail. As with most paradigm shifts, world views are colliding both within institutions and individuals as the realization takes hold that the chemically-dependent agriculture of the 20th century is not only environmentally destructive it's also economically unsustainable.

In Vermont and around the world there has been a steady decline in the number of farmers and the amount of topsoil, as well as a decline in the overall health of our communities both economically and environmentally. Much of this loss can be attributed to the increasing corporate control of the food supply, whether it is consolidation of processing facilities into the hands of a few, the dumping of cheap commodities or the subsidizing of factory farming at the federal level. In Vermont we have seen an 81% decline in the number of dairy farms in the state between 1964 and 2004. And yet the state's Secretary of Agriculture's bottom line for determining the success or failure of Vermont agriculture is milk production. This misplaced priority is damaging not only to our agricultural sector, but also to the economic, social and environmental health of Vermont's communities.

In an interview with the Rutland Herald in March of this year, Steve Kerr stated, “Consolidation is a fact of life.” He was referencing the trend in Vermont where small farms go under and larger farms expand, swallowing up their neighbors who cannot survive in the present agricultural economy.

However, his acceptance of this trend fails to recognize the contributions small family farms make to Vermont's economy. Nor does it account for the unfair milk prices farmers are receiving for their product. The price for milk is controlled by a few players at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and is not based on supply and demand factors. The U.S. has been importing milk for a few years. Yet Kerr, along with others at the federal level have been promoting herd buyout programs to keep the production of milk low.

However, there is a blackhole in this equation and many farmers and others in the dairy industry point to the monopolistic practices of a few corporations such as Dairy Farmers of America who are buying up processing plants across the country, creating huge profits at the top while simultaneously lowering prices farmers receive for their milk.

This type of corporate profit skimming is taking place around the world. In developing countries, free trade agreements and structural adjustment programs have allowed for the dumping of cheap grain imports, undercutting the prices local farmers receive for their corn, rice and other crops. This in turn has forced hundreds of thousands of farmers off their land and into cities, dramatically increasing hunger and poverty rates as these people no longer have access to land to grow their own food.

Despite this trend, a worldwide resistance is growing to combat the ever increasing corporate control of the food supply. Led by Via Campesina, an organization made up of millions of peasant and family farmers around the world, the farmer-led resistance has witnessed success in recent years.

In 1996, peasant farmers, family farmers, farm workers and others converged to create a set of principles now known as Food Sovereignty. The purpose was to challenge the corporate take over of the food supply being fueled by free trade agreements, structural adjustment programs and corrupt governments. As defined by Via Campesina, food sovereignty:

is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets… Food sovereignty does not negate trade, but rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of people to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production.

In recent years, this message has put a stop to WTO negotiations on agriculture and free trade agreements such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

In Vermont, non-profit organizations, individuals and small businesses are taking the lead when it comes to challenging the consolidation model. The Intervale, a farm incubator program in Burlington has launched a Success on Farms Program to help farmers improve their economic viability over a five-year period. Working one-on-one with farmers, the program leads farm families through a rigorous self-evaluation process to determine where they can cut waste and increase profits.

Vermont now has the most farmers markets per capita of any state in the country, many of which were started by individuals who saw a need for local food in their communities. Parents and school officials in communities around the state have begun reaching out to local farms to procure fresh, locally grown food for school lunches. And while climate makes this a challenging task, these schools, nonetheless are committed to both supporting their local farmers and providing the next generation of Vermonters with fresh, healthy food.

Presently only 6% of Vermonter's food dollars are spent on Vermont grown food. Meanwhile the state recently worked with Cabot Creamery to organize a 3-day marketing expo of Vermont products and tourism in Manhattan. Strictly Business, Central Vermont's Business Monthly noted, “The goal [of the event is to] introduce and remind some of the country's wealthiest people where and how they can spend some of their disposable income.”

While it is useful to spend some time and energy building Vermont's tourist industry and niche marketing, this should not come at the expense of promoting local food in the state of Vermont. This strategy seems shortsighted in the face of ever increasing oil prices. Estimates that peak oil is either gone or just around the corner, means that farmers' share of every food dollar will only decrease.

In 2001 the Locally Grown Collaborative formed to develop a “buy local” marketing campaign for Vermont. Many of the groups involved in the Collaborative, including NOFA VT, Vermont Fresh Network and Vital Communities were already operating buy local efforts based on building relationships between the farmer and the consumer. After a year of focus groups and message development the Collaborative concluded that a key factor in selling local food is to put the farmer's face on the product. As they sought funding to launch a creative marketing campaign, the state jumped in and began its own Buy Local effort. Thus far efforts on the part of the state have been minimal. After a summer of visiting different communities across Vermont, I have yet to run into the Agency's navy and white Buy Local message anywhere other than my local farmer's market. If the state lacks resources to run a highly effective marketing campaign, perhaps an easier solution would be to start with a state procurement policy that requires state-run cafeterias and eateries to purchase Vermont grown products when available.

While connecting Vermonters with local food can contribute to increased farm viability, the foundation for keeping Vermont's family farmers in business as well as creating a space for the next generation to come into farming can be found in providing all farmers a fair price for their product. The Class I price per hundredweight of milk for July 2005 was $17.14. While this price is allowing farmers to break even, it does little to help those who have debt pay it off and nor is guaranteed to stay this high. And this is where the problem arises. Despite the same amount of input costs, there is no guarantee that farmers will receive a fair price for their milk.

The same is not true of organic milk for those farmers who sell to Organic Valley, a brand that is owned and operated by organic farmers. Founded in 1993 by eight organic farmers, they price their products so as to pay themselves a fair and sustainable price for their work. As a result, the farmers who produce organic milk, juice, eggs, meat and produce can rely on a stable, living wage to stay in business in their home regions.

The dairy sector alone has seen a dramatic increase in the number of organic farms during the past few years. In 2002 there were 59 organic dairy farms in the state, today there are 93 farms producing milk using organic methods. In many cases farmers were led to the organic sector because of the fair price paid for milk.

Nay-sayers will comment that the state has no control over milk pricing. However, there are multiple ways in which the state can take action to keep dairy farms in business. First and foremost is supporting an in-state milk processing plant. Right now most Vermont milk is shipped out of state to processing facilities in New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts (fluid milk only, some milk for cheese processing stays in state.)

In 2004 Dairy Farmers of Vermont asked the state for $500,000 seed money to purchase the old Springfield bottling plant. The Senate earmarked money for the project, but the Republican-led House and Governor Douglas eliminated the funding from the final budget. Ironically enough the same year, the Douglas Administration gave $350,000 to help the ski areas with advertising costs.

While skiing brings in lots of money to the state in the winter, pasture-land, red barns and black and white Holsteins make the state an attractive tourist destination the rest of the year. Yet Vermont spends little on agricultural development. In 2005 it was less than $100,000.

As family farms go out of business, the views that attract tourists to the state are disappearing. Without stewardship by farmers, these areas quickly transform into forested land. Many farmers feel the state is not doing enough to support existing farmers or encourage the next generation to start farming. UVM's Center for Sustainable Agriculture created a Vermont New Farmer Network project a few years ago, however the state has since cut funding for the program.

It is true that dairy contributes the majority of agricultural revenue to the state each year. It is also true that large dairy farms are an efficient way of producing milk, (although it is questionable as to whether they are the economically and environmentally sustainable in the longrun.) However, the loss of small farms across the state is not inevitable as grassroots efforts have demonstrated in recent years. Instead of bowing down to the wishes and whims of corporate agribusiness, Steve Kerr and the Douglas Administration should begin supporting existing local efforts to create an economically vibrant agricultural economy that is founded on keeping farms in business.

Linda Setchell is the Program Director for Rural Vermont, where she works with farmers to build a Vermont agricultural sector founded on living soils, thriving farms and healthy communities.