A Little Eggnog Gets Me Thinking About Why Farmers Don’t Charge Enough for Their Products
Friday, June 1, 2007 at 11:47PM I tried Ken Conrad’s eggnog recipe today…mmm good. So much tastier and appetizing and refreshing than how I remember store eggnog, which seemed to be too heavy on the cream, too sweet and, I suspect, had food coloring added as well.
As I was savoring my eggnog, I got to thinking about the widely varying egg prices people alluded to (on my posting of a couple days ago)-- $1 or $1.50 a dozen where Dave Milano lives in the East, $2 or $2.50 in my area of the Northeast, $3.50 for Linda Diane Feldt in the Midwest, and $4.50 to $7 a dozen on the California coast. Do I detect a trend here as we head west?
I’m sure there are geographic/demographic factors in all this. People in more densely populated wealthier areas are more accustomed to paying high prices for everything.
But there are two other related issues here that I’ve been thinking a lot about.
The first is the issue, or really challenge, of getting farmers who sell direct to consumers to think more in terms of what their customers are buying rather than what the farmers are selling.
As I’ve mentioned before, the New Hampshire farmer who sells me raw cow’s milk takes the approach Dave takes—that her milk should sell for $3 a gallon because that’s about what it sells for in the local grocery store and that’s what people are used to paying for it. Besides, they can’t afford much more. She hasn’t said so, but I suspect she thinks I’m a bit off the wall for insisting on paying her $5 a gallon.
Farmers may think they are selling raw milk, or eggs, but consumers going to the trouble of buying such products direct from the farm are likely buying much more than simple milk and eggs. This consumer is buying freshness, nutrition, insurance (that the milk and eggs aren’t contaminated by the poisons of the factory farm system), and, a sense of sticking it to the factory food system by taking my money elsewhere.
These are features business school professors refer to as “value added.” The eggs I buy from Clair in New Hampshire are more precious to me than those I might buy at Whole Foods.
Corporations understand this concept only too well. That is why Whole Foods can charge nearly $4 for eggs that it touts as having extra omega 3 and are organically raised. And why it is making a major case for selling “locally produced” products.
I would probably pay $5 or $6 a dozen for Clair’s eggs. Others in her area might, as well, if she provided ongoing information explaining how she feeds her chickens marigolds and sunflower seeds to help create a more nutritious yoke (or whatever it is she does to make her chickens lay such wonderful eggs), or perhaps an email newsletter that explained how she was giving the chickens extra care that was continually improving their egg quality.
The second issue relates to the whole concept of food being a low-priced item. Dave suggests that many people he knows can’t afford to spend much for food, so therefore he and others in his area can’t charge much for the food they produce. Well, maybe in his particular area that is true, but in much of the U.S., I don’t buy it.
The situation is comparable to that of gasoline. Everyone complains when the price of gasoline goes above $3 a gallon, but the reality is that most people don’t drive less when it goes above $3 a gallon. It’s not a matter of what people can afford, but what they choose to spend their money on—what their priorities are.
It’s the same with food. For most people, food is a small percentage of their total spending. People complain when food prices go up, but once again, it’s not a matter of not being able to afford it. Most people don’t value organic food or locally produced food. To them, food is food, and all that organic, locally-grown stuff is a lot of BS.
But Whole Foods has demonstrated clearly that a growing segment of people will pay more for food that seems to have “value added”—i.e. it’s organic, has no corn syrup, is made from whole foods…and is locally grown. And the steady growth in the number of farmers markets suggests that people are gradually becoming attuned to the value of locally produced foods.
So I would argue that it’s up to those growing and selling (or trying to sell) directly to consumers to educate people in their areas as to the added value of these locally produced products. A few farmers have done it quite well—people like Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures (who constantly talks about his “live” milk) and Joel Salatin.(who so elegantly captures the romanticism of the self-sustaining farm).
It’s not that most people can’t afford to spend more on food, it’s just that they need to understand that certain food is more valuable than other food, so that gradually more individuals come to put it higher on their priority lists—up there with the big-screen TVs, jet skis, and private school tuition.
Reader Comments (8)
I know many farmers who have 2 price structures, one for the suburbanites like me who seek them out, and a second, lower one, for their less fortunate neighbors. Perhaps you could consider something along those lines.
Many of us us the grocery store prices (organic) as a gauge for how much to pay farmers direct.
I'm convinced that had this country evolved into Jefferson's vision of an agrarian society composed of self-sustaining cells, that we would now have abundant, fair-priced, high-quality food for all (and would be a stronger country politically and economically!). That was not to be, and as you know, I blame the lust for power and money and the centralization (of everything) that that brought. Oh well... whatever the cause of our centralized systems, they are here to stay, and we must deal with the consequences.
One of centralization's uglier fruits is that it encourages a have/have-not society, a problem that seems to be growing these days (if one can believe the papers). Now while I'm not so soft as to fret about every poor person--many factors there of course--when the "system" is causative (which it is, in the sense that it traps people into supporting it) I do worry, systematically. I feel responsible for a systematic cure. Thus to my way of thinking, a systemic rise in food costs is undesirable, because it’s necessarily regressive.
Now if we could balance higher food prices with a simultaneous softening of our big systems (tax, regulatory, and consolidated business systems) I would sing a very different tune. Without big brother, regional economies would be free to thrive or fail under their own power and circumstance. Egg prices then would be market-driven in the true sense.
This is dreamy talk, to be sure, but America itself grew from a dream--a dream that ideas and ideals written into law could overcome the faults of men. Too big a dream, surely. But the practical outgrowths of it still linger, however abused they may be today, and they can be resurrected to our benefit. Limited government, the separation of powers, the rights of every individual—these things live quietly in the wings of the American stage, patiently waiting for a curtain call. That’s how we should think about the price of eggs.
I wound up combining one egg in a half cup of raw cow's milk, with a bit over a tablespoon of maple syrup, and turning on the blender for a minute.
Good luck!
I have the "high cost of high quality food" discussion with friends and neighbors all the time, with folks who clearly have discretionary income and are not starving (improving their homes with outdoor "living rooms" and outdoor kitchens - I won't hold my breath for an "outhouse" to show up though, LOL!, it's against the CCRs). In suburban coastal So CAL everything costs more, but I'm willing to bet that on a per person basis, I probably don't spend more on food than my neighbors, because I am also not buying nearly so many convenience foods, packaged snack foods, soda, take-out, etc. More of my food budget goes into raw ingredients and definitely more my dollars spent stay in SD county. But it has taken a few years to get to where I am on this journey and most of the folks I talk to who wring their hands over apparent costs haven't even taken a step of that journey. So it is an apples & oranges comparison.
Eating well on a strict budget seems to be a popular blog topic this week. Over at Weight of the Evidence, Regina Wilshire is blogging about her progress feeding her family well (low carb, too, which is often accused of being too expensive) on a food stamp budget challenge, $3 per person per day. http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/ Inspirational. It can be done, but not without some good organizating and budgeting skills, at least basic "real" cooking skills, and a good understanding of nutrition. Too few of the people who are relying on food stamps actually have those skills, I fear. Having good stores nearby helps, too, something lacking in many low income regions.
One commenter at Weight of the Evidence provided a great URL and mentioned the decline of gardening as a way to make food budget ends meet (that's what my parents did). It's a shame about the lack of food gardening. Community gardens in Europe are still popular, although I'm not sure if the younger generations are as keen on them as the older generations still are. And it can be easier than people might imagine, with Square Foot Gardening and container gardening techniques. Flat rooftops in urban areas are an option, too. Lack of basic gardening knowledge is just another sign of the disconnect with our food, just as lack of basic cooking skills is.