Grig writes:
...Over the last fifty or sixty years the agricultural sector has become of declining importance in the economies of developed countries; at the same time the gap between farm and non-farm incomes has grown larger. Most governments have attempted to give some form of support to farmers to try to diminish this gap, or at least to prevent farm incomes falling further behind non-farm incomes, prompted partly by the power of the farm vote, partly by the feeling that this gap, which exists in developed and developing countries, is inequitable. Yet few of these policies have been successful in closing the gap. There are many reasons for this but three deserve attention.
First, in the developed countries consumer incomes are high, and most needs for food and drink are satisfied. As a result little of any increased income is spent upon food, and so the farmer' market is increasing very slowly.
Grigg elucidates a gap between the cost of production and the demand for food stuffs at prices that would raise the incomes of agricultural producers in developed countries. My idea is that there is the possibility that food can be produced and marketed in ways that allow for for this gap to be closed - for some. Food I think, in a land of plenty with a rich material tradition, can be materially marketed in all the same ways as other material goods - like clothes and cars. Some clothing has a greater cultural draw, some cars too, so these goods fetch higher prices compared to other similar items. It is a cultural matter of branding, marketing, consumer perception, status, and iconography. I am suggesting that farmer's incomes in the united states, some of them, could be raised if food producers could market their products in similar ways.
Organic agriculture, and American local small-holder farms, are the start of this trend I think. Small farms in affluent areas, like outside of Lexington, Mass., that sell locally raised seasonal food stuffs, or the fruit stand near my home in San Diego that sells local strawberries year round, can charge more for their products. There is a cultural connection that makes customers more comfortable spending a relatively larger portion of their income for comestibles from these places. In some instances locally produced food engenders a sense of community, so people feel okay paying more. Other times, produce marked as organic or sustainable promotes a moral connection around food; people feel they are doing good, for themselves, their families, the environment, etc. Again people are willing to pay a little extra. What these two things have in common, and what is important for the rest of our discussion, is how a "sense of community" and a "sense of doing good" are cultural constructions. They are abstracts that are being marketed by some producers to increase sales and raise profits.
Some brands of processed food-stuffs already have a greater market draw. Everyone has seen the rise in popularity of extra-virgin olive oil in the United States. Correspondingly, most have taken note of the brands of olive oil and vinegars that considerably more expensive than the others. These products exist on a spectrum of culturally constituted variable demand based on perceived quality and classiness. Their bottles are tailored by marketing experts to evoke emotional responses, and differentiate their message from competitors. For these products, their variable prices are representational of variable perceptions and appreciations of the amount of skill and time that has gone into crafting the products. These products, industrially produced or not, pass themselves off as artisanal. The increased price reflects an appreciation of how the consumer is paying for more than the material product - the food - but the labor that went into it and the application of a concept to the food. Artisanality is another culturally constituted abstract used to market some food products; it is one that today commonly, but not exclusively, is used to invoke a sense that this food product was created in a 'traditional' manner or from a traditional place where local knowledge made this product better. It makes you think that this Tuscan olive oil has been produced this way for hundreds, if not thousands, of years and is better because it was made by the right set of sun-tanned hands, and it is thusly more desirable.
I will not spend time discussing the demand or perceived attractiveness of 'the traditional.' This isn't the time for that. It is important to recognize that 'the traditional' is a cultural abstract that is marketable. Right now, some food producers have the ability to frame consumer perception of their produce as possessing or engendering of cultural abstracts that make their yields more desirable. They can sell them for more. The same cultural perceptions that allow them to sell their produce for more is also limiting however. So far I have identified three abstracts that can be endowed to food products that can make their demand more elastic and can raise prices - community, doing good, and tradition. Those, I think, are the big three of food-product marketing strategies that are open to agricultural producers (not secondary processing companies, restaurants, etc.)
I think that it is possible to create more. If consumers pay more for labor, can food production be manipulated so labor and craftsmanship be appreciable factors when buying a tomato, as well as tomato sauce? Can small urban, or proximally rural, producers make the Mercedes of Chickens? Can there be brands of potatoes? Can people shop at certain produce boutiques like they shop at clothing boutiques? It would take a radical cultural re-evaluation of the place of food, the concept of food-production, nature, and farming, but I think it is possible. People already choose whether they want to buy clothes at WalMart or at Sacs, or at the place on Michigan Avenue. Some people also already choose to buy food at Super WalMarts, and some people buy food at Fox & Obel. The produce however, while varying in quality or organicism from place to place is not branded. Increased prices are attributed to the branding of the market in which you buy it; cannot farmers do the same?
I am not sure exactly how this could happen yet. Since it is labor that is often paid more for, it might call for a greater level of vertical integration in small scale farming. A semi-urban farm that sells its own products primarily or off-site is an example of this.
It is also possible that it could be done through precise and blatant information flows. What I mean by this, is that most people don't know which farm made what they are eating, or they don't pay attention. People don't know who made their onion; they do know who made their eggs and milk, but sometimes don't really look at the brand. If quality could be ensured (a big if in agriculture) knowing who made something constitutes precise and blatant information. This information constitutes a name, a brand, and you can charge more for it.
Vertical urban farms, currently seen as too expensive to be a viable source of food in the contemporary system, could fill this niche. Their ability to divorce agricultural production from soil and environmental variability would allow for these producers to create a consistent, controllable, quality product and to build a brand out of it. This would be ridiculous departure from current cultural perceptions of how man, food, nature, and consumerism intertwine. However far fetched though, it seems inevitable that someone in the post industrial West will try this, and if the market is selected or created appropriately they will make a lot of money.
As I said, I am suggesting a radical cultural and material departure. I do not do so lightly, but I think some of the possible positive benefits are interesting. Independent producers that, one way or another, can make food cool and name-brands marketable will generate more income for the information that they are selling along with their food. Depending on how well this is done, small scale agricultural production might expand to meet new demand. I don't know how the USDA would treat them, but they may not qualify nor want subsidies. The food market internationally (to however small a degree at first) would be re-calibrated. "Name brand producers" would tend to be smaller for exclusivity. Those farmers of the current order would either shift to name brand focus, or re-configure to fit the new political economic structure of food production for food security, etc.
Basically, this is a suggestion for a massive cultural and economic liberalization of the food market. It would give cultural incentive for consumers in developed economies to spend higher percentages of their incomes on food of all types. This would change everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment