I'm deeply skeptical of efforts to account for the "real cost" of regenerative farming by increasing the price of regeneratively farmed goods. I think they are misguided, which feels like a weird thing to say. It's a new perspective to me, and I'm still adjusting to it. But here's my most direct argument for this case: If we reward farms that engage in regenerative farming with higher price premiums for their products, then these products become more expensive (obviously). This means they will always be luxury goods. The person that can't afford rent is never going to choose them. If we want a society of regenerative farms, we need the food of the poorest person to be regeneratively grown. How can we achieve this? I think there needs to be an "exploitation" tax put on foods farmed intensively and at scale. There needs to be punishment in the market for exploitation to reclaim the margin gained by that exploitation. I'm honestly not sure if monetary policy can solve this problem because I see the monetization of our relationships as a key mechanism for maintaining exploitation.
You’ve raised such an important point, and it’s one I wrestle with a lot. The idea that regenerative food should only be accessible to those who can pay a premium is a real concern. If we want real systemic change, it can’t just be a “luxury” for the few-it needs to be the baseline for everyone, especially those most vulnerable.
I agree that simply raising prices and hoping the market sorts it out doesn’t address the deeper inequalities. Your suggestion of shifting the cost burden-by taxing exploitative practices rather than rewarding “better” ones with higher prices-makes a lot of sense. It would flip the script and create a stronger incentive for everyone to farm more responsibly, not just those who can find a niche market.
I’m also not sure monetary policy alone can solve it, but I do think conversations like this are vital for pushing the debate forward. Thanks for sharing your evolving perspective so honestly-it’s exactly the kind of questioning we need if we want a fairer, more sustainable food system.
This is a great comment! I like how you articulate these ideas and the "real cost" component.
Helen and I engaged with this question in the podcast episode she mentioned.
I think part of what we are all feeling (and I have a lot of trouble fully articulating) is how entangled food is with commerce/"the economy" now. We speak of food in economic terms. But, ultimately, it's one of the most profoundly accessible raw materials there is. Except right now it's not because we've collectively become convinced that we don't know enough, don't have access to land, etc.
Even a small return to foraging and hunting and fishing for our individual and household food would bring a return to a producer mindset and empower us individually and on the community level to know that we can feed ourselves.
I know this is super complex and layered. I don't mean to simply it. I'm grateful Helen continues to explore and write about many different facets of this topic. Thanks for your comment DrMycoForestry!
Anything that intervenes in pricing, whether through subsidy (in the case of the Indian farmers) or a punitive "tax" on methods of production is nothing but a sticking plaster because as soon as that intervention is removed (usually through change of government) the whole thing collapses.
If the cost of production of regenerative food is *at the moment* more expensive than other means of production then it will have a price premium at present. Wishing that this is different is to hobble regenerative farmers with a guilt (for want of a better word) and will probably reduce the number of farmers making the switch to regenerative methods.
Do you agree that any policy position can change from government to government?
Should I not pursue a policy position simply because other parties / people disagree?
That seems like a good way to have no impact on the political conversation.
Also, how does addressing how our society operates and trying to make it better hobble the regenerative farmers with guilt when we're trying to make their livelihood more secure?
Yes, of course and no it doesn't. However policies that attempt to fix prices are disastrous when reversed. If you want more farmers killing themselves when they suddenly find they are now bankrupted by a change in Government policy (IHT anyone?) then fix prices.
It's a sticking plaster, not a resolution of the issue.
"We’re all fighting battles nobody sees. Farming carries generations of trauma that don’t fit neatly into a social media post." - Helen Freeman.
Everyone should read the Unsettling of America by Wendell Berry. Many of you already have.
And read this at least twice: 'I think part of what we are all feeling (and I have a lot of trouble fully articulating) is how entangled food is with commerce/"the economy" now.' - Liz Reitzig.
We can't have it both ways. If you want to everything to be convenient and shop at Walmart for everything you need, farming becomes inextricably linked to to big business. Only when people re-invest in commerce that supports local and regional producers and encourages them to operate lower energy systems will we be able to decouple farming from long-haul diesel, Walmart purchasing methods and degraded soil. Obviously this is an absurd over-simplification--but we just can't have our cake and eat it to.
Absolutely agree there’s so much complexity and history behind every meal, and it rarely gets the attention it deserves. The entanglement of food, commerce, and identity is something I think about constantly, especially as someone who’s seen firsthand how hard it is for small producers to survive in a system built for scale and convenience.
You’re right: we can’t expect to support local, regenerative farming while also defaulting to the easiest, cheapest options. Real change means making intentional choices as consumers and as a society, even when it’s inconvenient. Wendell Berry’s work is a great reminder of what we lose when we separate ourselves from the land and the people who work it.
Thanks so much for adding to this conversation and for encouraging others to look deeper. It’s not simple, but these are exactly the kinds of exchanges we need if we want to move things forward.
Surely true cost accounting means regeneratively produced food costs relatively LESS not more?
Since the cost to the environment of the chemical input, transport, labour conditions etc of the "conventionally" produced food are calculated, labelled up, and added as a surcharge?
Jennifer, thank you for catching that. I didn’t even notice! Spelling has always been a bit of a challenge for me (just my dyslexic brain reminding me I’m human). I appreciate your eye for detail and your kindness in pointing it out.
I'm deeply skeptical of efforts to account for the "real cost" of regenerative farming by increasing the price of regeneratively farmed goods. I think they are misguided, which feels like a weird thing to say. It's a new perspective to me, and I'm still adjusting to it. But here's my most direct argument for this case: If we reward farms that engage in regenerative farming with higher price premiums for their products, then these products become more expensive (obviously). This means they will always be luxury goods. The person that can't afford rent is never going to choose them. If we want a society of regenerative farms, we need the food of the poorest person to be regeneratively grown. How can we achieve this? I think there needs to be an "exploitation" tax put on foods farmed intensively and at scale. There needs to be punishment in the market for exploitation to reclaim the margin gained by that exploitation. I'm honestly not sure if monetary policy can solve this problem because I see the monetization of our relationships as a key mechanism for maintaining exploitation.
You’ve raised such an important point, and it’s one I wrestle with a lot. The idea that regenerative food should only be accessible to those who can pay a premium is a real concern. If we want real systemic change, it can’t just be a “luxury” for the few-it needs to be the baseline for everyone, especially those most vulnerable.
I agree that simply raising prices and hoping the market sorts it out doesn’t address the deeper inequalities. Your suggestion of shifting the cost burden-by taxing exploitative practices rather than rewarding “better” ones with higher prices-makes a lot of sense. It would flip the script and create a stronger incentive for everyone to farm more responsibly, not just those who can find a niche market.
I’m also not sure monetary policy alone can solve it, but I do think conversations like this are vital for pushing the debate forward. Thanks for sharing your evolving perspective so honestly-it’s exactly the kind of questioning we need if we want a fairer, more sustainable food system.
This is a great comment! I like how you articulate these ideas and the "real cost" component.
Helen and I engaged with this question in the podcast episode she mentioned.
I think part of what we are all feeling (and I have a lot of trouble fully articulating) is how entangled food is with commerce/"the economy" now. We speak of food in economic terms. But, ultimately, it's one of the most profoundly accessible raw materials there is. Except right now it's not because we've collectively become convinced that we don't know enough, don't have access to land, etc.
Even a small return to foraging and hunting and fishing for our individual and household food would bring a return to a producer mindset and empower us individually and on the community level to know that we can feed ourselves.
I know this is super complex and layered. I don't mean to simply it. I'm grateful Helen continues to explore and write about many different facets of this topic. Thanks for your comment DrMycoForestry!
Anything that intervenes in pricing, whether through subsidy (in the case of the Indian farmers) or a punitive "tax" on methods of production is nothing but a sticking plaster because as soon as that intervention is removed (usually through change of government) the whole thing collapses.
If the cost of production of regenerative food is *at the moment* more expensive than other means of production then it will have a price premium at present. Wishing that this is different is to hobble regenerative farmers with a guilt (for want of a better word) and will probably reduce the number of farmers making the switch to regenerative methods.
Do you agree that any policy position can change from government to government?
Should I not pursue a policy position simply because other parties / people disagree?
That seems like a good way to have no impact on the political conversation.
Also, how does addressing how our society operates and trying to make it better hobble the regenerative farmers with guilt when we're trying to make their livelihood more secure?
Yes, of course and no it doesn't. However policies that attempt to fix prices are disastrous when reversed. If you want more farmers killing themselves when they suddenly find they are now bankrupted by a change in Government policy (IHT anyone?) then fix prices.
It's a sticking plaster, not a resolution of the issue.
"We’re all fighting battles nobody sees. Farming carries generations of trauma that don’t fit neatly into a social media post." - Helen Freeman.
Everyone should read the Unsettling of America by Wendell Berry. Many of you already have.
And read this at least twice: 'I think part of what we are all feeling (and I have a lot of trouble fully articulating) is how entangled food is with commerce/"the economy" now.' - Liz Reitzig.
We can't have it both ways. If you want to everything to be convenient and shop at Walmart for everything you need, farming becomes inextricably linked to to big business. Only when people re-invest in commerce that supports local and regional producers and encourages them to operate lower energy systems will we be able to decouple farming from long-haul diesel, Walmart purchasing methods and degraded soil. Obviously this is an absurd over-simplification--but we just can't have our cake and eat it to.
Absolutely agree there’s so much complexity and history behind every meal, and it rarely gets the attention it deserves. The entanglement of food, commerce, and identity is something I think about constantly, especially as someone who’s seen firsthand how hard it is for small producers to survive in a system built for scale and convenience.
You’re right: we can’t expect to support local, regenerative farming while also defaulting to the easiest, cheapest options. Real change means making intentional choices as consumers and as a society, even when it’s inconvenient. Wendell Berry’s work is a great reminder of what we lose when we separate ourselves from the land and the people who work it.
Thanks so much for adding to this conversation and for encouraging others to look deeper. It’s not simple, but these are exactly the kinds of exchanges we need if we want to move things forward.
Surely true cost accounting means regeneratively produced food costs relatively LESS not more?
Since the cost to the environment of the chemical input, transport, labour conditions etc of the "conventionally" produced food are calculated, labelled up, and added as a surcharge?
I send you a message.
Thanks for all you do!
Borders ? Not boarders?
Jennifer, thank you for catching that. I didn’t even notice! Spelling has always been a bit of a challenge for me (just my dyslexic brain reminding me I’m human). I appreciate your eye for detail and your kindness in pointing it out.