Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: First paragraphs: In my two previous Economic Pamphleteer columns, I have suggested that the current political turmoil in Washington, D.C., creates an environment conducive to radical change in government policies. Those columns focused on government policies affecting economic opportunities and access to farmland for sustainable farmers. I argued that U.S. farm policies should focus on long-run domestic food security, and that land use and production for exports or biofuels should be regulated as industrial, not agricultural. This column advocates policy changes to ensure that everyone has access not only to enough food but also to “good food,” defined as wholesome, nutritious, culturally appropriate, and sustainably produced food. Changes in community development policies will be addressed in my next column. Current farm and food policies are defended politically as providing food security by making food more affordable for more people. Current government programs absorb much of the economic risks for large-scale, specialized agri-food businesses, which are alleged to be more economically efficient. Without government price supports, subsidies, access to capital, and tax credits—and the lax regulation of food quality, worker safety, environmental protection, and antitrust violations—today’s industrial food system would be too risky for economic feasibility. The implicit assumption is that the efficiencies of large, industrial operations will be passed on to consumers through lower food prices, making food more affordable. The incomes of those unable to buy enough food to meet their basic needs will be supplemented with government payments. . . .
Author: John Ikerd
Institution: University of Missouri
Language: English
Subfield: Safety Research
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDGs: No poverty, Zero hunger
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $500
OpenAlex ID: W7127975612