We read glowing reports and articles about "Sustainable Agriculture." It is difficult to create an awareness of the potential harm because the verbiage and slogans used sound so benevolent. The reality is that foodshed regulations will give environmental groups and government agencies control over all means of production of the food consumed by the American people. Through increased taxation and regulation, American citizens will be stripped of their wealth and property and all resources will be redistributed as government sees fit.

The new agricultural system has these changes and more:

1. Each community will grow its own food on individual and/or community-owned farms that form a boundary around the community.
   
2. All farming will be sustainable and eco-friendly. Organic farming will be certified and monitored by a farm stakeholder committee. This will ensure that food labelled “Organic” is authentic.
   
3. Constant measurements will be taken to guarantee that the sustainability and eco-friendly BMPs (best management practices) parameters are maintained.
   
4. Organic farming will be productive without the use of pesticides or unnatural fertilizers.
   
5. Industrial farming will no longer be allowed to damage the earth.
   
6. Importing foreign food products will be reduced in order to increase local production and help the local economy.

This sure sounds good—but is it really a win-win situation? Let’s take a close look at the points raised. After all, there are usually more than one side to an issue. The first point actually raises several issues:

1. Each community will grow its own food on individual and/or community-owned farms that form a boundary around the community.

We need definitions to understand what this says.

“Each community” of course refers to a “sustainable community.” Washington State University School of Architecture has a definitive description of “sustainable community.”

“A sustainable community is one which provides all of its own needs for air, water, land (or food and fiber), and energy resources within the confines of its own site.” ¹

Obviously, creating and maintaining a “sustainable community” has implications that stretch beyond a system of “sustainable agriculture.”

Here is the University’s graphic—it is quite intuitive:

The circle around the community is generally referred to as an “Urban Growth Boundary”^1a (UGB) or a “Utility Service Area.”

Here is an easy to understand definition from the State of Minnesota:

“A UGB is an established line beyond which urban services such as public sewer and water and transportation improvements will not occur.”

It sounds wonderful until you stop to think about what this will do to property values outside of the UGB. Who would buy property where power, road maintenance, and modern conveniences are not permitted? That’s right—nobody!

The free market system is replaced by an official policy that promotes a system of sustainable communities/agriculture. The new system will create a shortage of desirable real estate. As you know, a shortage, created naturally or by government edict, will destroy the average income earner’s ability to own a parcel of land.

“Community owned farms” are also referenced here. The USDA provides an interesting definition. In bureaucratic speak—government double talk—a “community owned farm” is CSA—”Community Supported Agriculture.”

In basic terms, CSA consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes:

• Legally or spiritually the community's farm,
• Growers and consumers provide mutual support and share the risks and benefits of food production.²

What this means exactly will be determined by the bureaucrat who wrote it. I venture to say that “spiritual ownership” of a private farm is a concept that best fits a plot on Twilight Zone.

Another point to consider is the concept that farms will form a boundary around the community. This is often referred as the “foodshed”³ or “foodcircle.”⁴ The concept is confirmed in the graphic from the Washington State University program. Oh—I forgot to mention that they named their process “A Comprehensive Urban Regenerative Process.” Remember that EVERYTHING consumed in the community is produced in the community. So the concept of a “foodshed” or “foodcircle” fits right in. Local governments across the country are adopting this concept.

The bull's eye from Clackamas County, Oregon⁵ is a fair indicator of its general acceptance. The urban center is surrounded by the Metropolitan Foodshed. Food produced in the “foodshed” is intended to be consumed in the “urban center.”

The outer ring is the Foundation Lands Woodshed. This is where “Value-Added Forestry”⁶ products will be produced. Do you see the point? A “value-added tax” system is being introduced. For instance; the price for agricultural products grown or produced outside the “foodshed” does not include the full cost of the “food mile.”

What are “food mile” costs? I don’t know all of the cost associated with the “food mile” concept, but see the “food mile” poster: (Footnote⁷ provides a link to the information relating to it.)

Some, but not all of the external costs are: transportation, soil degradation, irrigation-related groundwater depletion, and pesticide and fertilizer misuse.⁸

These costs will ultimately be calculated by a “governance” system. Note that “governance” is not government, it is: “the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits on the behaviour of individuals, organizations and companies."⁹

The “institutions” that set the rules will be a collection of “stakeholders.” Stakeholders are those who are recognized as having a degree of responsibility for determining the cost of a “food mile” and local government entities. The true cost, after factoring in ecological damage to the earth, will include “social justice.”¹⁰

What is “social justice?” Here is a quick rundown. It involves:

• progressive taxation,
• income redistribution,
• property redistribution,
• equality of opportunity, and
• equality of outcome.

More broadly speaking social justice can be defined as the system of justice predicated on the central dispensation of "rights" to various groups at various times. These rights are granted in accordance with the policies and procedures thought necessary to advance the central authorities latest iteration of “common good.” This is in contrast to the uniquely American notion of equal rights.

Equal rights require the establishment of a judicial system that protects individual rights. Equal rights support true diversity — a respect for the independence and unalienable rights of the individual and genuine tolerance for individuality. Equal justice puts a checkmate on mob rule. 

In summary:

Foodshed Regulations will give these environmental groups and government agencies control over all means of production of the food consumed by the American people. This combines a Marxist system of justice with a fascist system of economics. It is control of all means of production through abolition of private property. In the name of “Social Justice” all food production, distribution, and consumption will be controlled by government. Through increased taxation and regulation, American citizens will be stripped of their wealth and property and all resources will be redistributed as government sees fit.

When this happened in Russia under Stalin, eleven million people who were seen as resisting socialism were intentionally starved to death. (Look up 'Kulaks' on Google.)

Food, or lack thereof, can be the ultimate weapon and the ultimate control.

Thus far we have only responded to the first item defining “sustainable agriculture.” It has consumed the space currently available and involves a number of rabbit trails we have had to go down.

We don’t want to overburden you with this initial effort, so we will take the advice of a nine year old nephew. He asked his mother a simple question about the birds and bees and she referred him to his father. Dad, being a proper father, informed his son about things as completely as he could. Sometime later, Mom asked the boy if his Dad answered his question. The boy responded, “He sure did! I think I got a lot more than I really wanted to know.”

Here’s the link to a tri-fold brochure you can print and share with friends and others who need to know and care:
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/acr_sustainable_farming_brochure.pdf

I have uploaded a video presentation titled: The Art of Transitioning Society at: http://www.vimeo.com/7602634. In the presentation I include a segment that explains “sustainable agriculture” in greater detail than the tri-fold brochure. The remaining subject matter of the presentation focuses on “local globalization,” which has been dubbed “glocalization.”

I uploaded the following text with the video. It is a descriptive intro in an effort to entice individuals with varying interest to watch the video:

• “Are you aware that “food citizenship” is on the horizon?
  
• Are you aware that your behavior will very likely positively or negatively affect your "food citizenship?"
  
• Are you a "locavore?"
  
• If not, why haven't you made the commitment?
  
• Are you paying the full cost associated with your “food miles?”
  
• Will your “foodshed” be sufficient to put a “sustainable and nutritionally adequate diet” on your table?
  
• Are you pro-permaculture?”

These are but a few of the pressing questions regarding society’s new paradigm. Social change is happening—don’t be caught off guard—your place in the new modern society depends on it.

If you would like a copy of the DVD The Art of Transitioning Society, please send me your mailing address plus $3.00 for material and mailing. My mailing address is: 1129 1st Avenue, Pleasant Grove, Alabama 35127.

Thanks,
Don Casey