Sustainability in the Balance
A Series on Social Issues in Sustainable Agriculture
What Do We Want to Sustain?
Developing a Comprehensive Vision of Sustainable Agriculture
by Patricia Allen and Carolyn Sachs
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture
University of California, Santa Cruz
Issue Paper #2, June 1991
Introduction
Only a few years ago sustainable agriculture was considered
peripheral to conventional agriculture and its institutional
framework. Today, however, sustainability programs and efforts have
been initiated all over the world and sustainability has become a
major theme of many groups, including local and national agricultural
research institutions, farmer associations, policy makers, and
nongovernmental citizens organizations. This institutionalization is
manifest in a number of ways &endash; new books and journals devoted
to sustainability; sustainable agriculture research and education
programs in many agricultural universities and governmental agencies;
organic food laws and certification programs; legislative initiatives
that mandate various changes toward sustainability; increased popular
consciousness about food safety; and higher sales of organic
produce.
Yet we shouldn't let this widespread progress convince us that it
is time to close off discussion on the meaning of sustainable
agriculture. Too many key questions remain at the core of the
sustainability debate. The most fundamental of these is, "Who and
what do we want to sustain?"1 Those within the sustainability
movement answer this and related questions differently, based on
their various positions in the food and agriculture system.
Currently, there are many diverse goals and ideas included in the
term "sustainable agriculture."2
This diversity presents an opportunity. As a relatively new
concept, sustainable agriculture does not yet reflect a coherent
vision of what is possible and preferable in agricultural production
and distribution. This emerging discourse on sustainable agriculture
thus represents a chance for a fundamental paradigm shift in the way
we think about food and agriculture and an opening to develop a
comprehensive vision of sustainability. It is important to continue
to discuss sustainability's meaning in this context because, "In
adopting certain categories for social inquiry we also adopt a
certain view of the social world, of its problem areas and of its
fixed points, of the actions it makes available and ways in which
their results are constrained."3 Thus, the language of sustainable
agriculture has a direct effect on our form of practical response and
action in sustainable agriculture. How we conceptualize
sustainability today will determine the extent to which sustainable
agriculture will differ from conventional agriculture in the
future.
In this paper we consider ways to broaden how we conceive of
sustainable agriculture. We begin by exploring dominant sustainable
agriculture viewpoints in the U.S., looking at:
• problems addressed;
• causes for problems identified;
• vision of sustainable agriculture; and
• recommended sustainability strategies.
We find there is contention over which sorts of problems can
legitimately be called sustainability problems, and there are
differing viewpoints on the causes of nonsustainable agriculture.
There are disagreements over the vision of sustainable agriculture,
primarily over who should be the beneficiaries of sustainability. And
there is debate over which strategies and practices will be most
effective for developing sustainable agriculture. After discussing
these viewpoints we offer our ideas on how we can begin to
reformulate sustainable agriculture.
Scope of Sustainability Problems
Sustainable agriculture arose as a critique of and an alternative
to conventional agriculture. A focus on agricultural sustainability
first emerged in the U.S. during the energy crisis of the 1970s as
people began to recognize the petroleum dependence of industrialized
agriculture. The movement grew in response to the farm crisis of the
1980s and an increasing awareness of agriculturally related
environmental problems. The primary problems cited in dominant
discourse on sustainable agriculture relate to these crises. "Notable
among these problems are the contamination of the environment by
pesticides, plant nutrients, and sediments; loss of soil and
degradation of soil quality; vulnerability to shortages of
nonrenewable resources, such as fossil energy; and most recently the
low farm income resulting from depressed commodity prices in the face
of high production costs."4 Some would add concerns about pesticides'
effects on consumer and worker health and on wildlife as problems
leading to demands for agricultural sustainability.5 In sustainable
agricultural science, the main problem addressed is that of the
environment and conservation's role in maintaining profits: "There is
a growing awareness about the need to adopt more sustainable and
integrated systems of agricultural production that depend less on
chemical and other energy-based inputs. Such systems can often
maintain yields, lower the cost of inputs, increase farm profits, and
reduce ecological problems."6
While all sustainability advocates address the importance of
preserving the environment and natural resources, social issues are
less often cited as sustainability problems. For example, although
many (but by no means all) sustainability advocates are concerned
with preserving family farms, the larger issue of systemic economic
concentration in food and agriculture (including processors,
distributors, manufacturers, and retailers) is rarely addressed.
While the dominant discourse on sustainable agriculture raises
important problems, there is a tendency to overlook issues such as
hunger, poverty, gender subordination, and racial oppression &endash;
problems that also contribute to a lack of sustainability in food and
agricultural systems. In general, we find that problems identified in
dominant U.S. sustainability perspectives are usually framed without
questioning the current economic and social structure within food and
agriculture systems.
Causes of Nonsustainability
Although the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) explicitly recognizes the link between socioeconomic and
agroecological problems,7 the causes of nonsustainable agriculture
are often not discussed in scientific texts on sustainability. Family
farm and food safety advocates do, however, provide explanations of
the problems they identify. Wes Jackson, for example, criticizes
corporate agriculture for the concomitant destruction of the
environment and the family farm and blames the lack of an ecological
approach for an agriculture characterized by soil loss, fossil fuel
dependence, and heavy chemical use.8 Another advocate of family
farms, Marty Strange, suggests that "the most serious environmental
problems in agriculture are those caused by technologies that make
large-scale farming possible, and that sever the rewards of farming
from the rewards of stewardship and husbandry."9 In the same
tradition, Wendell Berry decries the industrialization and
mechanization of corporate agriculture and asserts that the current
U.S agricultural system is unsustainable because of the continual
attempt to get the highest possible production with the smallest
number of workers.10 Particularly important for Berry is the erosion
of cultural values associated with family farming, such as hard work,
respect for place, respect for nature, and commitment to home and
community. Food safety advocates cite the failure of government to
adequately regulate pesticides11 and lack of consumer awareness as
primary causes of food contamination.
We wonder, though, if these causes cited for nonsustainability,
such as corporate agriculture, inadequate government regulation, and
loss of respect for nature, do not themselves need to be explained.
Why has corporate agriculture superseded family farming? Why isn't an
ecological approach standard in agricultural research? Why are
environmental regulations insufficient or poorly enforced? In our
view, there is a need to examine the relationship between the logic
of current political economic structures and the causes of
agricultural nonsustainability to find the answers to such questions.
What role, for example, does the current mode of agricultural
production, based on maximizing short-term profits and foreign
exchange, play in causing agricultural problems? We must also examine
the connection between nonsustainability and present power and
decision-making structures at levels ranging from the individual farm
to national policies. Who makes decisions in food and agriculture and
who do they represent? Answering these types of questions will help
us clarify the root causes of sustainability problems in
agriculture.
Dominant Visions for Sustainable Agriculture
The general vision of scientists and activists for sustainable
agriculture is one which reduces environmental degradation, preserves
or restores the family farm, and removes contaminants from human
consumption. For example, the goals of the California-based Committee
for Sustainable Agriculture are: "To achieve a safe food supply and a
cleaner environment . . . [so that] . . . family farms and
rural communities may thrive, toxic byproducts be eliminated, and
agricultural employees and consumers may be reassured about this
major sector of their lives."12 This vision is usually considered
achievable within our current socioeconomic systems. For example, in
the National Research Council's report on alternative agriculture,
"alternative" refers to biological and technological alternatives,
but does not address alter- native social or economic arrangements.13
The authors state that, "Successful alternative farmers do what all
good managers do &endash; they apply management skills and
information to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and maintain
production levels." For organic food producers and distributors the
vision is larger market shares and profits necessary in order to
participate in the agricultural industry under current economic
conditions. Thus we find that the visions currently prominent in
sustainability discourse are primarily concerned with techniques to
achieve resource conservation, food safety, and profitability rather
than including broader social visions. One sustainable agriculture
leader stated, "The fundamental social responsibility of organic
agriculture is improving the health of the soil. . . ."14
Those focused on the global context, however, present a broader
vision of agricultural sustainability. One version of a universal
definition for sustainable agriculture is "an agriculture that can
evolve indefinitely toward greater human utility, greater efficiency
of resource use, and a balance with the environment that is favorable
both to humans and to most other species."15 The FAO of the United
Nations states that "sustainable agriculture should involve the
successful management of resources for agriculture to satisfy
changing human needs while maintaining or enhancing the quality of
the environment and conserving natural resources."7
Clearly, in envisioning a sustainable agriculture it makes all of
the difference whether the goal is to sustain the current world
economic order, an individual nation's agricultural economy, a
middle-class American's life, a farm family's right to retain
ownership of their land and other means of production, or an
Ethiopian woman's life. Unless we clearly specify who or what we want
to sustain, sustainability advocates risk prescribing future visions
that do not consider social inequities and therefore reproduce
domination based on class, gender, and race. But how do workers,
women, and people of color fit into dominant sustainable agriculture
visions?
Workers and the Poor
Dominant sustainability discourses generally do not analyze the
different interests and classes that participate in the food and
agriculture system. An example can be found in the first challenge
set forth in the Asilomar Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture*,
which is to "promote and sustain healthy rural communities."12
Justification for the promotion of rural communities is: "Healthy
rural communities are attractive and equitable for farmers, farm
workers, and their families. The continuation of traditional values
and farming wisdom depends on a stable, multi-generational
population." Thus, although the Asilomar Declaration recognizes
corporate land ownership as problematic, it does not address the
different interests of farmers and farm workers in general. It
recognizes no inherent problem with an economy based upon land owners
who hire landless laborers, and advocates maintaining the existing
structure of land tenure. This statement also implies that current
rural values, which include the patriarchal family and Christian
religious beliefs, are ideals we should advocate and preserve.
Similar perspectives are reflected by the National Research
Council and the U.S. federal sustainable agriculture research
program, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
(formerly Low Input Sustainable Agriculture [LISA]). For
example, where the National Research Council discusses labor on
alternative farms, labor is viewed only as a cost of
production. There is no discussion of who the workers are, their
working conditions, or their wages. In the same vein, SARE addresses
socioeconomic issues primarily in terms of the economic viability of
farms, and largely avoids discussion of antagonisms between corporate
agriculture, family farms, and farm labor. Those focused on food
safety, however, show greater interest in the welfare of the farm
worker when they point out that pesticide use in agriculture poses a
greater risk to field workers than it does to consumers.
Still, where food issues are discussed in the context of
sustainability, they usually focus on safety and pay little attention
to accessibility. Yet Bill Liebhardt, director of the University of
California's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program,
points out that we must ". . . eliminate the very idea of hunger in a
state where agriculture is still the largest industry."16 This is
true in the larger scope as well: worldwide at least 500 million
people (20 million of whom live in the U.S.) do not have regular
access to sufficient food.17 Kate Clancy, a professor long active in
sustainable agriculture, asks, "Is agriculture sustainable if it
doesn't encompass issues of social justice like hunger?"18 Yet
visions that include factors central to workers and the poor, such as
who should have a right to eat or access to land, are not presented
in dominant sustainability discourse.
Women
In most cases, traditional gender roles are assumed in discussions
of sustainable agriculture, whether women are included or simply
overlooked. Populist visions of sustainable agriculture see the
family farm as the ideal organizational structure for sustainable
agriculture, but generally do not discuss gender roles within the
farm family. An exception is Berry, who explicitly discusses
differences between men and women on farms and suggests that both
women and men suffer when nurturing is the sole purview of women.19
However, he advocates a return to traditional values associated with
the home without questioning the patriarchal privilege that underlies
many of these values.
The fact that family farms are based on patriarchal relations is
not regarded as a problem by the sustainable agriculture movement,
yet on the majority of family farms men control land, capital, and
women's labor.20 While farm women are resisting their roles as "farm
wives" and insisting on wider decision-making roles and access to
land, in most sustainability discourse, women's demands for change
have not been incorporated. Often farmers continue to be referred to
using masculine pronouns, which fails to acknowledge women's roles in
agricultural production, except as they support the male farmer. In
the food safety movement women are often targeted specifically for
the part they can play in developing this aspect of agricultural
sustainability. In this way traditional gender roles are not
questioned, since women are appealed to in their capacity as food
purchasers and child care providers and men are excluded. In general,
dominant visions for agricultural sustainability do not correct the
problem of gender inequities.
People of Color
Race and ethnicity issues are rarely mentioned in sustainability
discourse. To some extent, this results from the absence of people of
color from decision-making positions in Western agriculture. People
of color have been integral to the functioning of American
agriculture, but in subordinate roles. African-Americans, Hispanics,
and Asian-Americans have historically and currently provide much of
the labor in U.S. agriculture, but are much less likely than
European-Americans to be farm owners. Even in California, an
extremely ethnically diverse state, only 9.2 percent of farm
operators are ethnic minorities; this proportion is inverted among
farmworkers, 75 percent of whom are ethnic minorities.21 Farmworkers
have received few of the benefits of profitable and abundant
agriculture; compared to farm owners, they have much lower incomes,
live under worse conditions, have less control over the production
process, are more often exposed to pesticides, and have higher
incidences of health problems related to pesticide use.
It is significant that the impetus for low-input agriculture was
generated in part by the level of public distress about farmers
losing their land during the 1980s, when the crisis affected mostly
European-American farmers and affluent customers. In contrast, little
concern has been raised in sustainability discourse about the nearly
complete separation of African-American farmers from their land. In
1920 one in seven U.S. farms was black-operated, but in this century
the number of farms owned by blacks has declined 94 percent.22 In
addition, the call for a return to traditional rural values fails to
challenge racist attitudes historically prevalent in much of the
rural U.S. The dominant vision of sustainability in the U.S. does not
address racial inequalities prevalent in agriculture.
Strategies for Achieving Sustainability
Strategies suggested for achieving sustainability are, of course,
intimately linked with the problems perceived, causes attributed, and
visions projected. For the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture,
sustainable agriculture can be achieved " . . . through dissemination
of information about farming, food processing and marketing
techniques that conserve and replenish soil resources, and decrease
the use of toxic and synthetic chemicals. By working toward these
ecologically benign technologies [sustainability will
result]."12
This statement describes the major strategies employed in the
effort toward sustainable agriculture &endash; providing more
information to farmers and consumers through better communication,
gathering more knowledge about agroecological processes, and
developing better technology. Less often, but occasionally mentioned
are establishing policy reforms to increase pesticide regulations or
limit corporate farming, developing bioregional communities to
localize food production and consumption, and reinvigorating
traditional values. While some of these we consider antithetical to
sustainability (e.g., some rural values) or unrealistic (e.g.,
bioregionalism), others are no doubt essential components in the move
to sustainable agriculture. We argue not with their inclusion in a
package of strategies for sustainability, but with the emphasis
placed upon them to
the exclusion of other strategies.
For example, a primary emphasis has been placed on developing
profitable alternative production techniques and systems through
science. This is seen both in Western agriculture and in development
programs for impoverished countries. Historically in the U.S.,
agricultural science has been called upon to resolve major
socioeconomic and ecological crises in agriculture, such as with the
scientifically based land-grant colleges, the Cooperative Extension
Service and the Soil Conservation Service. In these instances,
science has sanctioned the highly capitalized, chemical-intensive
agricultural system in the U.S. and is being uncritically called upon
to sanction low-input systems as well. It is clear, however, that
neither science nor new technologies can by themselves solve larger
food and agriculture problems, as witnessed by the problems
associated with the scientifically based Green Revolution. In
addition to the universal sustainability issue of how agricultural
products are produced, one scientist proposes that we also address
the questions of what and for whom agricultural products are
produced.23
Yet dominant sustainability discourses tend to rely on technology
as the solution &endash; that if the right technologies were
developed, sustainability would result. For example, the Asilomar
Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture states that, "Given
scientifically validated techniques, farmers will adopt sustainable
agriculture practices."12 In this perspective, an agricultural
production system that is both profitable and environmentally sound
will be achieved as less environmentally damaging technologies are
developed and substituted for existing chemical technologies. This
does not examine the overarching structural forces that have
contributed to the adoption of resource-intensive farming
practices.
Technologies and social relations are inseparably linked, both in
terms of their inspiration and their consequences. In agricultural
research universities we do not have the Baconian model of the
atomistic scientist pursuing "pure knowledge." Instead, research is
often driven by economics and politics; entrepreneurs demand
marketable technologies and these are in turn produced. The
development of chemical vs. cultural pest management techniques, for
example, is not accidental. If agricultural requirements can be
responded to profitably, they will be.24 But maximizing profits
depends upon repeated sales of inputs, not products that can be
reproduced by the farmers or are self-reproducing under proper
environmental conditions.
How Can We Begin To Reformulate Sustainable Agriculture?
In sum, from sustainability perspectives that currently dominate
discussions we glean a vision of sustainable agriculture that:
• narrowly frames sustainability problems;
• is not searching for primary causes of nonsustaina-
bility;
• envisions a future agricultural system that main- tains the
social status quo; and
• plans to create a sustainable agricultural system through
better technology and more effective
communication.
In our view, this vision's perspective is too partial and
fragmented. If we do not go farther in challenging the structures and
assumptions that have led to sustainability problems, we place
ourselves at the risk of reproducing these problems and generating
only very marginal improvements. Achieving a truly sustainable food
and agricultural system requires a broader vision and new strategies
for both analysis and implementation.
Developing this system will require concentrated thinking,
innovative actions, and a deep commitment on the part of many people.
As a start, we suggest several ways in which we can begin down the
path toward a sustainable agricultural system.
Base sustainability upon meeting basic needs.
In fundamental terms, sustainable agriculture is a struggle over
life and death. Third World poor people's movements see this quite
clearly, but this perspective is not obvious in the West. Our concept
of sustainable agriculture, therefore, is based, first and foremost,
upon fulfilling basic human needs. We consider these needs to be
consumptive (food, water, fuel); protective (clothing, shelter); and
regenerative (dignity, self-determination, freedom from
exploitation). It is not just a question of intergenerational equity,
so often discussed, but also of intragenerational equity. That is,
these conditions should be met both for generations to come and for
those who are here now. Thus, sustainable agriculture would maintain
the resource base and provide the means for everyone to secure
adequate amounts of nutritious, safe food and fiber. This in turn is
predicated upon the development of non-exploitive relations in terms
of race, class, gender, species, and nation. Characteristics such as
these must be built into standard visions for sustainability if it is
to be a meaningful departure from conventional agriculture.
Use appropriate units of analysis in studying how to develop
agricultural sustainability.
The existing global division of labor and global market by
definition create a global economy and society. Therefore only a
global unit of analysis can offer the beginning of a framework for
explanation and solution. We need to conceptualize agriculture in a
way that includes not only the production process itself, but all of
the related backward and forward linkages, i.e., the whole of the
food and agricultural system. That is, there is a need to move beyond
the nearly singular focus on production to include the relations
among production, distribution, consumption, and exchange. In this
way we can move beyond the present farm-centric focus for
sustainability efforts and consider the entire food and agricultural
system as the unit of analysis, from which point specific components
are studied as appropriate. Since achieving sustainability means
addressing the basic premises, social and political structures, and
processes at the root of agriculture's nonsustainable aspects,
researchers need to examine structural problems and possibilities for
sustainability.
Develop comprehensive strategies.
Structural transformations of the food and agricultural system,
not only new technologies or marginal policy reforms, are necessary
to achieve sustainability. This is because the causes of
nonsustainability include the social and economic problems, not only
a lack of proper technology or insufficient information. The
environmental crisis cannot be understood outside of this context,
since the structure of agricultural production, exchange, and
consumption &endash; the concentration of land, resources, unequal
terms of trade, etc. &endash; has contributed to the degradation of
environmental quality. Ending social inequality and poverty &endash;
at a global level &endash; is therefore a precondition for solving
environmental and social problems in agriculture. Without the
resolution of social equity issues, the structures of domination that
led to environmental degradation in the first place will be
reproduced.
Recognize the basis and effect of particular interests and seek
common interests.
The abandoning of particular interests at some level is crucial
for achieving sustainability. Sustainability groups, whether focused
on food safety, family farms, agricultural science, or other concerns
are, of necessity, involved in day-to-day struggles for
sustainability within their own spheres. For example, organic farmers
are concerned about their family's health and their net income,
consumers want safe food at an affordable price, and family farm
activists want to preserve their traditional rural way of life. These
interests in turn lead each group to define its own criteria for a
sustainable agriculture. In the process of these daily struggles, the
interests of the most disadvantaged groups in society fall through
the cracks and the poor, women, and people of color remain invisible
and continue to be exploited. We must become aware of the broader
contradictions among sustainability groups and struggle to find
common ground.
Broaden representation in key decision-making systems.
Individual perspectives, based on background and experiences, play
a crucial role in what people see as problems and solutions. Yet
agricultural policy makers, farm group leaders, development planners,
and researchers and educators are overwhelmingly male and European
American. In the scientific community, for example, women and people
of color, and therefore their viewpoints, have been virtually absent.
Of U.S. agricultural researchers, 99 percent are Caucasian and 96
percent are male.25 While women and people of color have contributed
enormously to agriculture, they have historically been excluded from
access to land, capital, and decision-making processes in the food
and agricultural system. Even the new World Sustainable Agriculture
Association does not appear to include women as directors, staff, or
spokespeople.26 It is essential that we increase the participation of
underrepresented groups in order to develop a broader range of
possibilities for transforming the global food system. An
agricultural system cannot be sustainable unless it rests upon
equitable access to resources and power.
Recognize that we have an active role to play in
producing sustainability.
People produce their concepts and possibilities. Each of us
&endash; whatever role we play in food and agriculture &endash; needs
to examine aspects of our daily life that can be forces for or
against sustainability. Thus, an understanding of the global food
system must not dissuade us from taking action, but inform our
actions in influencing international and national policies as well as
initiating grassroots, local efforts for sustainability. Sustainable
agriculture remains a contested concept &endash; it can lead to a
food and agricultural system that serves the privileged few or one
that transforms existing social relations and ecological conditions
in the global food and agricultural system. We must all recognize
that we make decisions every day to use our abilities, positions, and
resources to either keep things the same or transform them.
Conclusion
Sustainable agriculture constitutes an important, progressive
alternative to conventional agriculture. But while the sustainability
movement has raised important issues that have begun to change some
aspects of agriculture, it needs a broader perspective in order to
avoid reproducing many of the problems of conventional agriculture.
What we find missing from the current discussion is an attempt to
improve food and agricultural systems for all people, regardless of
class, race, gender, or national origin. Advocating the preservation
of family farms, for example, can mean retaining the uneven race,
gender, and class divisions that have historically existed in
agriculture. The call for communities based on the Western nuclear
family economy does not expand the sustainability vision to project
how farm workers, people of color, women, and Third World people
could benefit from an alternative form of agriculture. Similarly,
advocating food safety, certainly a worthwhile objective, tends to
exclude issues of corporate control of the food system, ability to
pay for high-quality food, or most importantly, access to food at all
for many people. And biological and physical agricultural science,
while important in providing agronomic and technical alternatives for
agricultural problems, are not equipped to deal with deep causes and
corresponding solutions to agricultural sustainability problems. To
proceed with achieving agricultural sustainability, discourse and
action must include an analysis that exposes the root causes of
nonsustainability, a comprehensive vision of sustainable agriculture,
and appropriate strategies for its achievement.
1. Allen, P. and D. Van Dusen. 1990. Sustainability in the
Balance: Raising Fundamental Issues. Santa Cruz: University of
California.
2. Allen, P., D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy, and S.R. Gliessman.
Integrating Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues in Sustainable
Agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6:34-39.
3.O'Neill, Onora. 1986. Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty,
Justice, and Development. London: Allen and Unwin.
4. Lockeretz, William. 1988. Open Questions in Sustainable
Agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
3:174-181.
5. Carter, Harold O. 1989. Agricultural Sustainability: An
Overview and Research Assessment. California Agriculture
43 (3): 16-18.
6. Edwards, Clive A., Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden, Robert H. Miller
and Gar House. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, Iowa:
Soil and Water Conservation Society.
7. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1989. Sustainable
Agriculture Production: Implications for International Research. FAO
Research and Technology Paper 4. Rome, Italy.
8. Jackson, Wes. 1984. A Search for the Unifying Concept for
Sustainable Agriculture. In Meeting the Expectations of the Land. Wes
Jackson, Wendell Berry, Bruce Coleman, eds. San Francisco: North
Point Press.
9. Strange, Marty. 1988. Family Farming: A New Economic Vision.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
10. Berry, Wendell. 1984. Whose Head is the Farmer Using? Whose
Head is Using the Farmer? In Meeting the Expectations of the Land.
Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry and Bruce Coleman, eds. San Francisco:
North Point Press.
11. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1989. Intolerable Risk:
Pesticides in Our Children's Food. Washington, D.C.: National
Resources Defense Council.
12. Committee for Sustainable Agriculture. 1990. Asilomar
Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture, January 12.
13. National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
14. Gershuny, Grace and Thomas Forster. 1992. Does Organic Mean
Socially Responsible? A Conversation. Organic Farmer 3 (1): 7-11.
15. Harwood, Richard R. 1990. A History of Sustainable
Agriculture. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Clive A. Edwards,
Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden, Robert Miller and Gar House, eds. Ankeny
Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
16. Liebhardt, Bill. Hungry in California. Sustainable Agriculture
News 4 (1): 1.
17. United Nations World Food Council. 1990. The Global State of
Hunger and Malnutrition.
18. Clancy, Katherine L. 1992. A New Vision for Agriculture in the
1990s. Organic Farmer 3 (1): 17-18.
19. Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and
Agriculture. New York: Avon Books.
20. Sachs, Carolyn E. 1983. Invisible Farmers: Women in
Agricultural Production. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowan and Allanheld.
21. Vaupel, Suzanne. 1988. Minorities and Women in California
Agriculture. University of California Agricultural Issues Paper No.
88-2. Davis: University of California.
22. Belden, Joseph N. 1986. Dirt Rich, Dirt Poor: America's Food
and Farm Crisis. New York: Routledge and Paul.
23. Altieri, Miguel A. 1988. Beyond Agroecology: Making
Sustainable Agriculture Part of a Political Agenda. American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture 3:142-143.
24. Bird, Elizabeth. 1988. Why "Modern" Agriculture is
Environmentally Unsustainable: Implications for the Politics of the
Sustainable Agriculture Movement in the U.S. In Global Perspectives
on Agroecology and Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Patricia Allen
and Debra Van Dusen, eds. Santa Cruz: University of California.
25. Busch, Lawrence and William B. Lacy. 1983. Science,
Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.
26. Gershuny, Grace (ed.). Grassroots Gleanings. Organic
Farmer
3 (1): 33.
