AGRICULTURE WHITE PAPER
KANSAS CATHOLIC BISHOPS
February 2002

A YEAR LATER

We called and they came.

Last year early in the legislative session the Kansas Catholic Conference sponsored a Rural Life Assembly at the Statehouse where we Bishops of Kansas released our 2001 Agriculture White Paper. From this initial call for sustained conversation on the question:  ìwhat kind of agriculture do we want anyway?î came a desire from many to be heard.

In developing a statement for 2002 we agreed to convene an Agriculture Summit in October 2001. Those who came, their diversity, and the quality of their remarks told us this was a forum long overdue.  We saw this gathering as only a beginning to the creative collaboration that will be required to write policy that will serve the common good in the State and in the country.

We are pleased with this beginning, and we know our present statement owes much to the heartfelt views expressed on that October day.

Many came to the table, in letter, in conversation, and in open hearing held in October 2001.  Many wrestled with the single question that concerned us a year ago:  what kind of agriculture do we want anyway?  Many helped open our eyes to just how complex this question really is.

After all that year of listening, it seems that many in the dialogue were working from an unspoken assumption.  When they heard us speak of the family farm, and a way of life, and sustainable agriculture, they assumed the Church was living in a by-gone time; was advocating something that was gone; was holding out for something that was no longer possible; was clearly not aware of the market forces at work in modern agriculture.

For the suggestion was that we were opposed to the concentration at work in the modern world of food and fiber: that we were temperamentally and constitutionally anti-big.

For the suggestion was that we were opposed to technological development: that we were anti-research (biotechnology research, in particular), and consequently anti-growth.

For the suggestion was that we were opposed to the working of the market place: that we were anti-hard science, anti-economics, and to be ranked with those who are hopelessly soft-science.
In point of fact, we do nothing more than favor the most efficient and human way of producing our food and fiber: one that respects both persons and nature.  We do nothing more than favor real choice: one that is not restricted to only the larger players.  We do nothing more than insist that there is more to human and agricultural life than economics: there is an ethical dimension to every economic choice.

We have no problem with alliances and corporations: no fundamental problem with big-as-big. Most of those growing our food and fiber are family farms in an extended and peculiarly modern sense. We do see drawbacks to this, however, when the farmer becomes the grower providing labor and capital only, when the farmer never becomes the major decision-maker. And we do have a problem with excessive concentration: when four or five firms control 60-80% of the processing and the packing and the milling in this country.

We have no problem with careful and continuing scientific research: with the constant reach for innovation. We are not opposed to creative technological application of that research. We are not anti-growth and anti-development. But we do see drawbacks to this, however, when it is not accompanied by an equally rigorous ethical research. And we do have a problem with allowing a simple dictum to govern our behavior: because we can do something, we should do something.

We have no problem with the independence of economic research and the activity of the market place: no fundamental problem with hard science. We do think, however, that the vaunted hardness is a mirage as often as not. And we do have a problem with those who would say that our social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors: we shall always refuse to accept the absolute primacy of the law of the market place over human labor.
In point of fact, we do insist that the agricultural problem is more than just a technical problem, more than just a fine-tuning of supply and demand.  And it is more than just a political problem, more than just an adroit forming of coalitions.  It is, at root, an ethical problem: a reading of who made the earth, and for whom it was made, and of what we, you and I, were to do with it on our pilgrimage back to our Maker.

Accordingly, we think it more necessary than ever for the independent farmer and the city dweller to find common ground for farm policy: one that nurtures flourishing rural communities, clean air and water, and safe and affordable food.

Accordingly, we think it more necessary than ever to scrap farm payments based on production. It baffles us why the system should continue to reward the grower who produces more and more bushels of major commodities. Price declines when the surplus grows, and the hapless taxpayer is tapped for a larger and larger share.

Accordingly, we think it necessary to shift payments from production and move them toward practice. We should give our farmers incentives based on practices that protect and restore water quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat: on practices that benefit not only the farmers, but also the country as a whole.

Accordingly, we think it necessary to urge our representatives to deflect program payments from going only to the largest and richest sectors of the economy. Strict payment limitations and a broad eligibility for participation can move payments away from the narrow focus of a few commodities. We could thus target a farm program that encourages diversified agriculture and regional food systems.
By moving our farm policy in this direction, we would encourage a renewed rural landscape that reflects the priorities of the country as a whole, and not just the special interests of commodities or the international trade concerns.  We would help maintain clean water and fertile soil, and allow our farmers to grow healthy and safe food.  And we would revitalize the bond between our urban and our rural communities.

The Bishops of the Province of Kansas

Most Rev. James P. Keleher, S.T.D.
Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, J.C.D., D.D.
Coadjutor Bishop of Wichita

Most Rev. George K. Fitzsimons, D.D.
Bishop of Salina

Most Rev. Ronald M. Gilmore, S.T.L., D.D.
Bishop of Dodge City