You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.
—Dwight D. Eisenhower (From an address at Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, September 25, 1956)
The population of the planet is 7 billion and growing. One of the most urgent issues facing the world today is how to feed 7 billion people. People worldwide do a surprisingly good job, considering how quickly the population jumped to this huge number—and yet there are still millions who are hungry.1 How can more and more people be fed? And is it possible to do it and still retain ideals of food quality? That is the key issue: the world needs to produce more, but the means of producing more raises other issues. (And in some areas, it’s necessary to produce more food on less land, as growing cities and sprawling suburbs consume once-productive farmland.)
Some of the major issues, such as the sustainability of using corn to feed beef cattle, have already been covered. But corn’s importance means there are battles on many fronts.
Unfortunately, solving one problem sometimes creates another—an endless dance of step forward, then step back, or maybe step to the side. The ability to control weeds and insects has dramatically increased yields of corn. This lowers the price not only of corn, but also of everything dependent on corn. However, some people are concerned about the effects of the methods used to control weeds and insects today. There are also questions regarding the genetic manipulation of corn—though corn is by no means the only crop being manipulated—and, in fact, genetic manipulation is not even limited to plants. Increasing numbers of animals are being genetically engineered,2 and the objective of stem-cell research is learning how to alter genes in humans in the hope of eliminating diseases and traits deemed undesirable.3
In many of the issues under discussion, reliable information is often hard to obtain, causing panic in a populace that does not always know how to determine which concerns are legitimate and which are unfounded. Laws are passed by people who don’t always understand farming (as reflected in Eisenhower’s comment, above) but are responding to pressure from whatever lobbyist has an issue with some aspect of the work, which often complicates things for farmers and sometimes creates new problems for the entire food system.
However, the issues surrounding corn are deeper and wider than just the food system. There is a degree to which corn supports the entire economy—and not just the American economy. Japan, for example, has built seaports and grain elevators on American soil that are solely dedicated to obtaining enough corn to feed Japan’s livestock, since they don’t have enough land to grow the grain they need. Japan’s Zen-Noh Grain Corporation buys nearly 1.5 billion bushels of corn every year from the United States.4 But even that is not as impressive as the U.S. dependence on corn. It is, as former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz noted, the basis of our affluence. It underlies so much of our economy and is part of so many things in our lives, it is impossible to imagine doing without it.
The whole world depends on corn to a certain extent. Despite the fact that corn is grown worldwide, massive amounts are exported from the top corn-growing countries, with the United States still the biggest exporter.5 Some suggest that, because corn grows more quickly than other cereal grains, it could possibly become the most important crop in the twenty-first century. There are already many nations where corn is the principal foodstuff.6 That puts the United States in the difficult position of weighing our nation’s needs, and the needs of our country’s farmers, against the needs of people around the world. The government’s decision in 2012 to go on converting corn to ethanol, despite the drought that reduced the amount of corn available for export, drew fire from overseas critics.7
But large-scale geopolitical issues are beyond the scope of this book, other than to note their existence in order to create awareness that what happens in the Midwest has far-reaching consequences. There are enough things to discuss without leaving the Heartland—from agricultural practices and paradigms to the aging of the current farm population.
Fortunately, hope does not follow too far behind these discussions, because so many people are working on solutions. In at least one regard, almost everyone in agriculture is on the same side. University of Wisconsin agronomy professor William Tracy states emphatically, “I haven’t met a farmer, conventional or organic, who doesn’t want to do the right thing.” University of Minnesota researcher Carmen Fernholz, who is himself a full-time organic farmer, notes that conventional farmers love their land just as much as organic farmers do and try to do what is best for the soil and the farm. “They’ve simply adopted a different paradigm. They believe that what they’re doing is good, and if high yield is the goal, they’re succeeding.”
People in agriculture may be on the same side, but that doesn’t mean they’re all on the same page. And opinions about paradigms are not the only considerations. From market forces to government mandates, many factors affect the direction in which farming will go or will be allowed to go. Also, given the importance of some of the issues, the general population demonstrates surprisingly little interest. “Society is disinvesting in higher education on the whole,” Tracy states, “but it is disinvesting faster for agricultural research. Research in the public sector has declined over the last twenty years. There have been long-term cuts in support to agricultural universities. Agricultural research is funded by block grants from states, and those have been reduced. Applied agricultural research is being taken over by big companies, because society doesn’t want to pay for it. Money is a big factor. As corn continues to increase in bushels per acre, it becomes more valuable, and companies want to do more research on corn. If the public is unhappy with big companies doing the research, the public needs to fund university research.”
One hopes to feed the world; another hopes to offer better-quality food. Is it possible to do both? According to Fernholz, the answer is “probably not. Organic farming is more labor intensive. You have to have more crops, including crops that you can’t sell but grow just to replenish the soil. Without chemicals, you have to deal with weeds physically, hoeing or plowing between rows of crops. We would need more farmers just to meet needs locally. That said, if we could get even 10% of the research dollars that go toward conventional practices, we might be able to get to a place where we can feed the U.S.—and then maybe we could try to teach the rest of the world how to feed itself.”
Fernholz notes that organic farming is not easy, but he thinks it’s definitely worth pursuing. “For me, a big advantage to organic farming is that I can choose to not be exposed to chemicals. That may be an entirely psychological advantage, but I figure even safe chemicals might be able to create toxicity in time. Even if we find that that’s not true, I still feel better not being around chemicals. I also like the fact that organic farming allows me to be a lot more creative.
“Other than choices regarding chemicals, there are two main differences between organic and conventional farming,” Fernholz continues. “Organic farming requires a more robust crop rotation, and there is vastly more paperwork. As an organic farmer, you have to keep records of everything: where you got the seed, where you planted it, where you stored it, who carried it to market, where you sold it. Every year, an inspector comes to check both the paperwork and the fields. It’s a tremendous amount of work. However, aside from feeling that you are producing a better product, there is also the benefit of being able to get premium prices if you do that work.”
Therein lies another of the issues of relying on organic food, besides not having enough farmers. It does cost the consumer more, and not all consumers can afford those premium prices. That said, those who can and do afford the higher prices are encouraging organic farming practices by purchasing organic foods, which is a good thing. Of course, there is another way to increase the amount of organic farming: become a farmer. Organizations are being formed that provide programs designed to help people decide if they want to farm and to train them in the skills they’ll need to make it work. (For example, see details on the nonprofit organization The Land Connection, later in this chapter.) Plus, organic producers are generally eager to share their knowledge. One doesn’t have to think in terms of thousands of acres. “Our idea was to have a farm that one family could operate,” Fernholz notes. “Just 300 or 400 acres is a manageable size for a single-family organic farm.”
William Tracy observes, “Corn is going in the direction where it is producing huge yields with no plateau in sight. I think it is biologically possible to go over 400 bushels per acre—but at what cost? The arguments revolving around corn are all very complex.” Tracy offers more details:
Organic farming requires rotation, which agronomists see as a good thing, but it won’t work with the current model. We could match current yields per acre using organic methods, but we’d have so many fewer acres of corn being grown, because organic farming requires rotation. It would dramatically reduce the amount of corn we’re producing. If we go to organic, we need more workers—and we need to pay them. More workers for less corn means costs go up. Organic farmers understand that, but they think the extra quality is worth the extra effort and higher cost.
Estimates say that we need to double food production in the next decade, so less corn doesn’t seem like an option. We use corn for everything because we can get huge amounts of it for very cheap. The only way a farmer can make more money is more acres or more yield per acre, because raising corn prices reduces demand for corn. If farmers stopped growing corn, land prices in some states would drop and local economies would collapse. Corn is dominant, and it will likely become more so in the future.
I don’t know how the current economy could move to all organic. There would be a lot of displacement and prices for everything would increase. Many would see that as correcting a broken system, but the economic adjustment would be painful. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do organic farming. I’m developing sweet corn under organic conditions, but I’m also working on conventional corn that tastes better and has higher yields. We call it “wow corn,” because most people say “wow” when they first taste it. We are also trying to improve disease resistance, but using traditional breeding methods. This is where better funding of agricultural research would help.
In reality, there are not simply two paradigms. A wide range of approaches exists even within organic farming. For example, there are those who use no chemicals and those who use government-approved, natural chemicals to kill bugs and weeds. Then there are those who are not interested in the rigors of organic farming but still hope for sustainable farming—use chemicals, but minimize them and adopt other practices that protect the land. Interestingly, the sustainable-farming proponents were the source of the no-till farming approach (in reaction to the deep tilling that led to the Dust Bowl) that is now advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency and practiced by most conventional farmers.8 There is a lot more exchanging of ideas than one might think—because so much is at stake. Going organic across the board may not be an option, but people are looking at what can be done to take advantage of “best practices” from all sides. (Because organic farming can have its own potential problems, from erosion due to deeper plowing, to the care that must be taken when using manure, generally filled with E. coli and salmonella bacteria, on food plants.) Even the government, which generally prefers giant farms because it’s less work to monitor them than it is to track hundreds of little farms, is now helping create outlets for organic foods, with the Department of Agriculture offering detailed information on developing local markets and even offering grants to help establish farmers’ markets. (Ideally, organic foods should be bought locally, because the more they travel, the likelier it becomes that they will, at some point, become damaged or contaminated.9 Of course, speaking of contamination, it’s hard not to think of the 2013 outbreak of hepatitis from the frozen organic berry mix that included fruit shipped from Turkey. The farther one gets from the original farmer, the harder it becomes to be certain about the food, even if it is organic.)
“Contamination is definitely one of the issues one must take into consideration with organic food,” Fernholz remarks, noting that contamination can take many forms. “The government now requires testing of at least 5 percent of organic corn, to make sure no GMO pollen has pollinated the crop. Of course, there are some applications where it really doesn’t matter if you use organic methods,” Fernholz continues. “Creating ethanol is a good use for conventionally grown corn.”
In fact, conventionally grown corn is ideal for ethanol, as there is more starch, though that doesn’t mean making ethanol is the best use of corn. Conventionally grown corn also offers higher yields. Even as discussions continue on the goals and methods of farming, and what to do with what is grown, researchers continue to try to improve corn, whether for organic or conventional uses.
University of Illinois corn researcher Dr. Stephen Moose says,
I really don’t see a limit to how much we can improve corn. Economically, there are limits, because most consumers want certain types of corn. But nutritionally, we haven’t even scratched the surface. We have some corns with more Vitamin A, some with Vitamin C. Protein has diminished in many types, because more starch is wanted. Of course, while we look for new things, we have to think about unintended consequences. Lowerprotein corn is not as good for animals—and it’s not as easy to make tortillas. But everything is geared now for the starchier corn, largely because it yields more, and because so much corn is going to producing biofuels.
Moose concludes, “The improvements we’ve made have benefitted people nationally and internationally. They have also played a part in foreign aid. Both the technologies and the abundance produced by our farms have enabled us to help people around the world. For these reasons, we want to keep our leadership position in researching corn.”
So what about biofuels? Ethanol production will probably not make much of a difference in our fuel independence, but it is keeping farms from going under. That is an advantage. However, the EPA requirements regarding ethanol production in years when corn production is down raises questions about the EPA’s priorities and their understanding of the marketplace. In February 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency was chastised by the D.C. Circuit Court for not being realistic in its projections or objective in its demands for ethanol production and use—a trend that will hurt consumers at the gasoline pump.10 Of course, the EPA is eager to have increasing amounts of corn turned into ethanol, in hopes of reducing greenhouse emissions.11 Unfortunately, in years when drought reduces the amount of corn, the EPA demands mean less corn to feed livestock, so less livestock can be raised. As a result, 2013 saw the price of chicken rise substantially.12 Ranchers were also hurt by the EPA requirements in 2013, and lawmakers tried to convince the EPA to relent, because the EPA is allowed to waive the ethanol requirements if diverting corn to ethanol would cause severe economic or environmental harm. In 2012–2013, it was economic. But the EPA did not waive the requirement.13 Of course, this is not just a local issue. Because so many countries import corn from the United States, the corn shortage affected prices and availability worldwide.14 This issue will likely arise again, since the one thing certain about the weather is that it can be unreliable, so one can’t assume that the same amount of corn will always be available.
Decisions regarding ethanol production also have an impact on consumers even in nondrought years. Jack Kennedy of the Chelsea Milling Company states that people in the American food industry are concerned about the increasing use of corn for ethanol. “Diverting corn to ethanol creation has an impact on corn used both as food and as feed. The number of acres available for farming is finite, so there are limits to how much we can grow. Also, the crop quality specifications needed for good ethanol production are different than for human consumption, so we can’t just switch between applications. We don’t want to get to a place where there isn’t enough high-quality corn for American consumers.”
Everyone acknowledges that pesticides and herbicides have helped boost yields dramatically. GE corn that is resistant to herbicides allows corn to be sprayed without killing the corn. The questions now being raised relate to consequences. Among the issues that most folks agree on is the problem of resistance among the weeds. While weeds can never actually become resistant to being ripped out of the ground by hand, the National Research Council now reports that at least nine species of weeds have developed resistance to the most commonly used herbicide.15 Unfortunately, driving big equipment over the land to pull out the weeds creates other problems. Carmen Fernholz notes, “Grasses, especially foxtail-types, and weeds grow more where land is compacted.” Again, there are no easy answers. If you can’t use a cultivator, weeding becomes a lot more work—an impossible amount of work on a large farm. The next step is not clear yet, but it is definitely being researched.
The GE corn known as Bt corn is resistant to the European corn borer, which is one of the most damaging of corn’s pests, causing an estimated $1 billion in losses per year. Reports regarding this corn, which was introduced in 1996, indicate that it has dramatically reduced corn borers throughout the upper Midwest. Because other crops (including sweet corn, potatoes, and green beans) are affected by corn borers, it is hoped that these reductions in borer populations will help these other crops, as well.16 With Bt corn, the EPA is taking a proactive approach to avoid, or at least postpone, the possibility of corn borers becoming resistant. It’s known as a structured refuge strategy. Farmers are required to plant a substantial amount of non-Bt corn in their fields, as a refuge for the corn borers. That way, there will always be lots of corn borers that don’t become resistant, because they haven’t been exposed to Bt corn. The Bt and non-Bt varieties need to be planted fairly close together, so when the corn-borer moths emerge from Bt plants, they are likely to mate with moths from non-Bt plants. Still, farmers and scientists are vigilant in checking for corn-borer resistance.17
Questions still arise regarding the safety of genetically modified corn. Because of developments in biotechnology, the government created formal policy in 1986 to make certain that new products created by biotechnology (including GMOs, also known as GE, or genetically engineered, organisms) are safe for the environment, for animals, and for humans. The regulation of biotechnology is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA).18 So it’s not as if these things are passing straight from the lab to the marketplace without being checked. Of course, your feelings about the efficiency of these government organizations will color your view of their reliability—but they’re saying GE organisms (plant and animal) are not a threat. In 2012, the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Anne Glover, also stated that GE/GM crops are safe. “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health, or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO foods than eating conventionally farmed food,” Glover said in an interview, adding that scientific evidence needed to play a key role in policy making.19
The National Research Council reports that GE crops benefit farmers and the environment. A report issued on April 13, 2010, relates that, in addition to higher yield, farmers are enjoying lower production costs. But the greatest benefit may be the decline in the use of insecticides and herbicides, thanks to GE crops, which has improved water quality in areas growing GE crops. (The report also notes that organic farmers are benefiting from being able to say they don’t have GE/GM crops.)20 That reduced use of chemicals was among the advantages that won over longtime opponent of GE/GM crops Mark Lynas. In January 2013, at the Oxford Farming Convention in Oxford, England, Lynas announced a complete about-face on a technology he had so long denounced, going so far as to join its defenders and emphasizing that the movement he helped start was in fact “explicitly an anti-science movement”:
I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment. As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.
I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.
I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.
I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.
So how much land worldwide was spared in the process thanks to these dramatic yield improvements, for which chemical inputs played a crucial role? The answer is 3 billion hectares, or the equivalent of two South Americas. There would have been no Amazon rain forest left today without this improvement in yields. Nor would there be any tigers in India or orangutans in Indonesia.
So where does the opposition come from? There seems to be a widespread assumption that modern technology equals more risk. Actually there are many very natural and organic ways to face illness and early death, as the debacle with Germany’s organic beansprouts proved in 2011.
We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe—over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food.21
All that said, many people are still concerned that the widespread acceptance of genetically modified foods could eventually have negative effects. However, among those who worry, far more are concerned about the reliance on single technologies or, even more worrisome, single varieties of corn. Carmen Fernholz points out, “Looking strictly at yield, GMO is terrific. It removes a lot of the weed and insect problems. There are the resistance issues, of course, but the most dangerous problem is having all your crops relying on one set of genes. Look what happened to the potato crop in Ireland. If everything is the same, one blight can knock it all out.” Indeed, when it comes to crops, diversity is the key to survival. In 1970, the United States experienced an epidemic of corn leaf blight, a blight that only affects one variety of corn, but that variety had been widely planted. As a result, the country experienced reduced yields.22 So the possibility of problems arising due to reliance on one or two varieties is not just hypothetical; it has already happened.
Because farmers in developing countries generally delight in experimenting with seeds, GE corn genes have begun to appear in places that don’t even allow the planting of GE corn, because the farmers have planted corn sent as food. When the GE corn matures, its pollen rises into the wind, as it is designed to do, and pollinates whatever corn it finds. A matter of concern is the fact that this has, in fact, happened in Oaxaca, Mexico, the birthplace of corn. While the corn in Oaxaca, like corn everywhere, has changed over the millennia, scientists worry about losing some of the earlier forms of corn that might still be present in the region.23
The concern that the United States might be creating a monoculture with the types of corn being planted is not unfounded, but it is also not being ignored. In the effort to keep corn hybrids viable, companies, research universities, governments, and seed banks have put a great deal of effort into collecting and preserving a wide range of corn varieties and races, in order to make certain there is always good genetic information to work with. These seed collections are needed to create new hybrids and to keep them strong. It’s not quite the same as widespread growing of a range of varieties or races, but it at least makes it less likely that a blight would develop that could wipe out all corn, because new, stable varieties will continue to be introduced into the gene pool.24 In addition, organizations such as Slow Food and Seed Savers are protecting heirloom varieties. Vigilance is needed, but there are ways to help, from supporting those who protect diversity to adding heirloom corn to one’s garden.
Though GM/GE corn has been deemed safe by scientists in the United States and the European Union, many countries have banned all GE crops. This is where market forces come into play, because even if GE corn is shown to be safe, if no one will buy it, that’s a problem. Even some liquor companies are refusing to make whiskey out of GE corn. Others, such as Japan, have instituted labeling laws, so that consumers themselves can make the choice.25 Perhaps it is understandable that people are worried about biotechnology, since they are surrounded with technology that is often changing more rapidly than they can adjust to it. One can hope that science either continues to support the safety of genetically engineered crops and puts these concerns to rest, or that research uncovers any potential dangers that have not yet been revealed—but, either way, one can hope that the decisions that are finally made are solidly anchored in science.
There are probably more potential solutions than there are issues at this point, every solution addressing some aspect of a problem but never all aspects. One thing that is certain is that people will continue to try to improve farming and wisely use resources. Another certainty is that people will continue to disagree on what that looks like.
One serious danger the country faces is the possibility of having too few farmers.
The vast majority of the Midwest’s farms are family owned, and many are being farmed by the third, fourth, or fifth generation of the same family. However, not everyone stays on the family farm. Today, an aging farm population reaching retirement age often finds itself with no one to do the farming. Many rent their land, letting others farm it—but what if there is no one to inherit the land when they’re gone?
Another trend is young people who want to start farming but find getting started difficult, because it is so expensive. Mike Temple from the Heritage Cooperative observes, “The vanishing of small and medium-sized farms is not a good thing. You can’t start with nothing. You need to be well financed, and you need the equipment.” There are families, like the Zimmermans in Ohio, helping young neighbors who are starting out, but not everyone has mentors like these.
Enter Terra Brockman, founder and executive director of The Land Connection (TLC). Brockman says the educational nonprofit organization is all about ensuring there will always be family farms providing good food to their communities in Illinois and across the Midwest. To achieve this vision, TLC offers an ambitious list of services, classes, and opportunities, all of which meet a different key need of those working to keep farming healthy in the region. For example, the organization offers training for people at various stages of their farming careers, from those just starting to think they might like to farm, to farmers beginning to get established, to experienced farmers who want advanced training or information about options for additional revenue streams.
“We have a great program called Central Illinois Farm Beginnings,” Brockman relates. “It’s a full-year, farmer-led program for anyone who wants to engage in sustainable, entrepreneurial farming. We help you develop a vision for your business, introduce you to a lot of sustainable farmers in the area, and then we teach you important skills that people don’t always think about when they think of farming, such as getting financing and developing marketing strategies. We also help you with the connections you’ll need, from USDA specialists to bankers to attorneys. There’s a lot more to farming these days than digging in the dirt, and we make sure people who want to farm are fully equipped to succeed.” The Land Connection works collaboratively with other organizations, such as Angelic Organics, Food Works, the Spence Farm Foundation, and the University of Illinois Extension, so Brockman has considerable resources and expertise at her disposal to help support the goal of creating successful farmers for the future.
Brockman is particularly excited right now about the farmland matching and farm transitions projects, where she matches up new, young farmers with retiring farmers who aren’t certain what to do with their land. “I feel we’re at a critical juncture,” Brockman states.
If land gets taken over by people or companies who don’t understand farming or don’t really care about the land, they can ruin it. Erosion, nutrient depletion, and uncontrolled weeds are just some of the problems that can be introduced. Some entities come in, use up the land and move on, and what’s left will take years to rebuild. We are blessed with such amazing land in this region, land that is so good for food production, we just want to protect and care for it, so that it will continue to support and feed us. The Land Connection is all about making sure the people who buy or rent the farms in this area understand how to farm, how to care for the land, so that it’s here for generations to come.
Of course, in addition to protecting the land, we don’t want to lose what these retiring farmers know. We’re all about relationships. We try to link up newcomers with experienced farmers. Having a mentor can make such a difference.
The website for The Land Connection is itself an important resource. On the site, the Midwest Farm Connection allows people to connect and meet needs, from young farmers who might want to rent land, to established farmers who need equipment, employees, or volunteers, or who are considering taking on interns. TLC also has a program of helping farmers who would like to transition to organic farming. If it will help ensure the future of farming, TLC is probably doing it—or knows someone who is.
Brockman is also interested in closing the gap between end users and farmers. She calls it “empowering consumers.” TLC offers farm tours, to expose nonfarmers to the country life, and helps small farmers reach their customer base. “Again, it’s all about relationships,” Brockman concludes.
The Land Connection may be more wide-ranging in its goals than some organizations, but it is far from being the only one geared toward training farmers or supporting farmers. Future Farmers of America (FFA) has been training young farmers since 1928. Numerous membership organizations assist farmers with marketing, educational, and financial opportunities, such as the National Corn Growers Association, American Corn Growers Association, and various state-level corn growers associations.
Other organizations are also involving themselves in closing the gap between consumers and farmers. This is important for the future of farming—and for the future of the human race. People need to know where their food comes from, and they need to appreciate the hard work and dedication that go into producing it. There is no food if there are no farmers.
There are real problems to be addressed, and there are no easy answers or quick fixes. Fortunately, the problems are not being ignored. Some debates will continue for years. Some will be settled by economic constraints. Misinformation and fear will continue to be part of the discussion, but there is hope that, as more people become aware of what goes into farming, better decisions can be made.
As for sustainable versus organic versus conventional, it is unlikely that any one answer will work for everyone. To a certain degree, all the approaches are needed. People who care about any aspect of these issues should support and promote those things that matter to them, but without condemning those who fill different needs. Everyone in agriculture is working to address some aspect of the many problems the country faces: feeding the increasingly large population, improving nutrition, limiting erosion, protecting biodiversity, reducing carbon footprints. Those who want to help need to support research—and need to look out for the interests of farmers. Ensuring food security (that is, that enough food will be there) and food safety is vital, but so is making sure farmers can earn a living. Helping out can take the form of promoting funding for agricultural research, investing in community-supported agriculture (CSA),26 joining an organization that helps or trains farmers, or something as simple as regularly dropping by a farmers’ market.
We’re all in this together, whether we want to be or not. The country’s economy, food system, and survival are tied up with farming—and, in the Midwest, particularly with corn farming. Finding balance, staying involved and informed, and being open to new ideas appear to be the most workable options.
Corn built the Midwest, and it sustains the Midwest, though its impact reaches far beyond the Midwest. Whatever else the future holds, whatever answers we find to current questions, it is fairly certain that corn will be at the center of the culture, economy, and foodways of the Midwest.
Still, as yet, while the clover is dying,
While the buds fall dead e’er the flowers are born,
With life intact, and with banners flying,
Green and beautiful stands the corn.
—from “The Fields of Corn,” by Ellen P. Allerton