More on forbidden fruit

I covered the NYT Forbidden Fruit article in this post, and the opinion piece is being circulated with vigor on various blogs. Dan Owens, right in the Blog for Rural America also criticizes the f/v industry with gusto over the planting restriction on program crops.


Overall, this is an example of a classic flaw in market economies. When a firm or industry reaches a certain size, it begins to invest resources in preventing competition instead of furthering innovation. The fruit and vegetable industry is paying big bucks to lobbyists to keep the planting prohibition, thus discouraging competitor entry into their market (discouraging local foods is merely a side effect). The argument that fruits and vegetables "never got anything out of the farm bill" was always hogwash- they ensured almost no Midwesterners would ever compete with them. And now they're arguing for billions of dollars in government support in the next farm bill- but not to compensate for removing the planting prohibition. That's a deal they won't make. They want more money because the flood of fruit and vegetable from other countries has grown immensely since the last farm bill, and shows no sign of slowing down.

TK: Whether or not the planting restriction is in place in the next farm bill is an open question - the White House wants it out because of the WTO - and it is certainly open season on the f/v industry by at least some Midwest farm interests and also local food advocates. I don't recognize the f/v industry in the above paragraph. "Paying big bucks to lobbyists," looking for billions in support," "keeping out competition." I hope no self-respecting corn or cotton farmer getting a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year in government checks ever speaks those words about the f/v industry.