The industrialization of agriculture has faced resistance in the U.S. since at least the early 1900s. The rise of organic agriculture in the 1940s, of sustainable agriculture in the 1990s, local foods in the early 2000s, and regenerative agriculture in the 2020s were all responses to growing concerns about the environmental, socioeconomic, and public-health consequences of industrial agriculture. One by one, each movement has been co-opted by industrial agriculture. With growing concerns about increasingly volatile weather, market prices, and input costs, “resilient agriculture” could be the next challenge to industrial agriculture. The co-optation is likely to continue, unless there is a fundamental change in strategies for chal­lenging industrial agriculture and whatever its descendants may be in the era of high-tech farm­ing. First, mainstream producers, processors, or retailers have waited for farmers to develop niche markets for organic, sustainable, local, regenera­tive, or other anti-industrial products. When a niche becomes large enough to become a signifi­cant source of corporate profit, they find ways to rede­fine the concept to accommodate their indus­trial production systems. They then make the redefined product more conveniently available at prices that are unprofitable for authentic organic, sustainable, local, or regenerative producers and capture the market. . . .

First paragraphs: This is the final installment in a series of Economic Pamphleteer columns advocating radical changes in government policies. Previous columns have made the case for changing policies that affect farming and food production. This column focuses on additional policy changes needed to revitalize communities—both rural and urban. When I began writing this series, it seemed as if the current political turmoil had created an opportunity for changes that would not have been possible earlier. With growing cultural division and social dissent, it appears we are nearing a time when radical changes in government policies will no longer be optional but necessary. Anything less may be too little, too late. I concluded my previous columns with policy proposals to empower people to create more sustainable agri-food systems locally, within their communities. People in like-minded food com­munities could then form networks to create bio­regional, national, and global sustainable food systems. Over the years, I have become convinced that community-based food networks are the key to creating sustainable food systems. I believe the same is true for economies and societies. Authentic sustainability begins with committed individuals but grows within and among caring communities. Government policies can not create sustainable communities, but radical changes in community development policies could replace current obstacles with opportunities. . . .

First paragraphs: This is the final installment in a series of Economic Pamphleteer columns advocating radical changes in government policies. Previous columns have made the case for changing policies that affect farming and food production. This column focuses on additional policy changes needed to revitalize communities—both rural and urban. When I began writing this series, it seemed as if the current political turmoil had created an opportunity for changes that would not have been possible earlier. With growing cultural division and social dissent, it appears we are nearing a time when radical changes in government policies will no longer be optional but necessary. Anything less may be too little, too late. I concluded my previous columns with policy proposals to empower people to create more sustainable agri-food systems locally, within their communities. People in like-minded food com­munities could then form networks to create bio­regional, national, and global sustainable food systems. Over the years, I have become convinced that community-based food networks are the key to creating sustainable food systems. I believe the same is true for economies and societies. Authentic sustainability begins with committed individuals but grows within and among caring communities. Government policies can not create sustainable communities, but radical changes in community development policies could replace current obstacles with opportunities. . . .

First paragraphs: In my two previous Economic Pamphleteer columns, I have suggested that the current political turmoil in Washington, D.C., creates an environment conducive to radical change in gov­ernment policies. Those columns focused on government policies affecting economic oppor­tunities and access to farmland for sustainable farmers. I argued that U.S. farm policies should focus on long-run domestic food security, and that land use and production for exports or biofuels should be regulated as industrial, not agricultural. This column advocates policy changes to ensure that everyone has access not only to enough food but also to “good food,” defined as wholesome, nutritious, culturally appropriate, and sustainably produced food. Changes in community develop­ment policies will be addressed in my next column. Current farm and food policies are defended politically as providing food security by making food more affordable for more people. Current government programs absorb much of the eco­nomic risks for large-scale, specialized agri-food businesses, which are alleged to be more economi­cally efficient. Without government price supports, subsidies, access to capital, and tax credits—and the lax regulation of food quality, worker safety, environmental protection, and antitrust viola­tions—today’s industrial food system would be too risky for economic feasibility. The implicit assump­tion is that the efficiencies of large, industrial oper­ations will be passed on to consumers through lower food prices, making food more affordable. The incomes of those unable to buy enough food to meet their basic needs will be supplemented with government payments. . . .

First paragraphs: In my previous Economic Pamphleteer column, I made the case for fundamental changes in farm and food policies. I admitted that my policy proposals in the past have been too radical to be considered relevant in farm bill debates. However, recent changes in the federal budgeting process and the current political turmoil in Washington, D.C., create an environment conducive to radical change in farm, food, and rural development poli­cies. My previous column focused on programs that would share the risks with farmers who want to start new, or transition to, ecologically and socially sustainable farming systems. This column focuses on policy changes to make farmland accessible and affordable for farmers beginning or transitioning to sustainable farming operations. Ways to change the U.S. supplemental food assistance programs will be addressed in my next columns. It takes time, as well as intelligence and com­mitment, to learn how to manage a farm sustain­ably because sustainable farming depends more on intensive management and less on purchased inputs, off-farm technology, and financial capital. It also takes time to heal and restore health and pro­ductivity to soils that have been degraded and depleted by industrial farming practices. So, long-term land tenure will be necessary to facilitate the transition from industrial to sustainable agriculture, through either ownership or long-term leases. . . .

First paragraphs: Over the past decade, I have written numerous columns and articles advocating transforma­tional changes in farm policies (Ikerd, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2022). I have freely admitted that my propo­sals have been too radical to be considered relevant in previous farm bill debates. However, I think public support is growing for radical changes in both farm and food policies. Furthermore, the current bureaucratic chaos in Washington, D.C., may provide an opportune political environment for radical change. It is time to truly start thinking “outside the box”—in this case, outside the box of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The inclusion of farm and food policies in the 2025 federal budget reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025,” provides opportunities to change the way farm and food assistance policies are funded and administered. The bill didn’t change previous funding priorities. It provides increased funding for industrial commodity producers, reduced funding for food assistance programs, community develop­ment, and local foods, and redirects climate change funding to subsidize conservation practices for commodity producers. However, funding agri-food programs through the regular budgeting process, rather than a separate “farm bill,” weakens the grip of the industrial agricultural establishment on farm and food policies. . . .

First paragraphs: During the late 1990s, it appeared to some of us that by the 2020s the industrial food system might be largely replaced by a sustainable food system (Ikerd, 2008). By then it was clear that the industrial food system was not ecologically, socially, or even economically sustainable. The number of farmers markets was doubling every 10 years (Sauer et al., 2022), and organic food sales, growing even faster, doubling every three to four years (Greene, 2014). In less than 50 years, the local food systems of the 1940s had been replaced by the industrial food systems of the 1990s. It seemed logical that by the mid-2020s, the industrial food systems might be replaced by more sustain­able systems of food production and distribution. That now seems highly unlikely, if not impossible. Nevertheless, the sustainable agri-food move­ment has persisted despite minimal support from government programs and passive-aggressive opposition from the “industrial agricultural estab­lishment .”[1] A special issue of this journal in 2016, entitled Short Supply Chains, featured articles focus­ing on potential alternatives to industrial food systems (Hilchey, 2016). However, the articles revealed more challenges than successes. In an Economic Pamphleteer column in 2020, I ques­tioned whether the local food movement was just another food fad or the food system of the future (Ikerd, 2020). Large agri-food corporations had co-opted the organic food movement, and the growth in farmers markets, community supported agricul­ture operations (CSAs), and other local food op­tions had seemingly slowed or leveled out. . . .

First paragraph: We are in a time of change, but not the kind of change that is constant in life. Some might call it a time of crisis, when our decisions today will fundamentally reshape the future, for better or worse. Others might say we are “living in interesting times,” a phrase claimed to be a Chinese curse by a 19th-century English diplomat. A more accurate description might be a time of unpredict¬able uncertainty when it is impossible even to esti¬mate the probability of what might happen next. Many in the sustainable/local food movement have suffered “economic whiplash” from changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s farm and food policies from one administration to the next (Held, 2025). Support for industrial com­modity producers has been consistent across administrations. However, support for organic farming, farming by minorities and women, local foods, environmental protection, and food assistance programs has shifted dramatically with each change in administration. Programs address­ing climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) were hallmarks of changes during the Biden administration. The new Trump admin­istration has prom­ised to eliminate all programs related to climate change and DEI programs, including those administered by the USDA. . . .

First paragraphs: In my previous column, I described the trans­for­mational changes I have seen in the past and expect to see in the future of American agriculture. Transformational change is not the usual incre­mental or adaptive change but is defined as “a dramatic evolution of some basic structure of the business itself—its strategy, culture, organiza­tion, physical structure, supply chain, or processes” (Harvard Business School Online, 2020, “Transfor­mational Change,” para. 1). I believe the changes in food systems, past and future, have been and will be just as transformational as the changes in agriculture. When I was growing up in the 1940s in rural Missouri, we had a local food system. Most of what we ate was grown, hunted, fished, or foraged on our farm. Most of the rest was grown and pro­cessed within about 50 miles of our farm. There were local meat processors and locker plants, dairy processing plants, fruit and vegetable can­neries, and even local flour mills. Coffee, tea, spices, some canned and packaged foods, and occa­sional bana­nas and oranges came from elsewhere. My best guess is that at least 75% of what we ate in the 1940s was homegrown or grown and processed locally. . .

First paragraphs: On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a 40-year-old Court decision that had made it easier for the federal government to enforce regulations that protect the environment, public health, workers, and consumers from eco­nomic exploitation. The six-to-three majority ruling was widely considered a victory for corporate and conservative political interests that have worked for decades to weaken government regulations. The case has been called “the conservative-dominated court’s clearest and boldest repudiation yet of what critics of regulation call the administra­tive state” (Sherman, 2024a, para. 3). The same justices, by the same majority, stripped the Securi­ties and Exchange Commission of its primary means of fighting fraud by requiring jury trials for accused violators of SEC rules (Sherman, 2024b). In other words, the current Supreme Court has demonstrated a commitment to weakening the government’s ability to write and enforce rules and regulations. . . .

First paragraphs: The Harvard Business School defines trans­formational changes as “changes that are typically much grander in scope than incremental, adaptive changes. Very often, transformational change refers to a dramatic evolution of some basic structure of the business itself—its strategy, culture, organization, physical structure, supply chain, or processes” (Harvard Business School Online, 2020, “Transformational Change,” para. 1). I have lived and worked through a period of transforma­tional change in American agriculture. I was born in 1939 and raised on a small family farm in southwest Missouri. The only farm ma­chin­ery in our community during the early 1940s was a steam engine that powered a threshing ma­chine that moved from farm to farm at harvest time. Everything on the farm was done with horse power or human power. We milked cows by hand, picked corn by hand, and plowed fields and culti­vated crops with horse-drawn equipment. Like most farmers in the U.S. at the time, most farmers in our community milked a few cows, raised a few hogs and chickens, and grew at least enough feed grains and forages for their livestock. They used crop rotations and livestock manure to manage pests and maintain soil fertility. Neighboring farmers shared their horse power and human power at harvest times—as a matter of necessity. I recall silo-filling crews of up to 40 farmers. Our commu­nity may have been a few years behind some other areas, but this was pretty much the state of agricul­ture in the U.S. in the late 1940s. . . .

John Ikerd has contributed "Economic Pamphleteer" columns to the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development since its inaugural issue in 2010. His columns have provided economic perspectives on a wide variety of agricultural, food systems, and community development issues. He provides a perspective that comes from someone who has lived through the transition from small, independent family farms, local food systems, and vibrant rural and urban communities to a corporately controlled agriculture, a global food system, and economic and socially desolate rural and urban communities. His perspectives are also informed by spending the first half of his 30-year academic career as an advocate for the extractive, exploitative system of economic development that brought about these changes and in the years since as one of its most outspoken critics. He has been a relentless advocate for sustainable family farms, community-based food systems, and an economic and social renaissance of rural and urban communities. The next several columns will focus on John's unique perspectives on changes in farms, foods, and communities over the past 70 years and why understanding the past is relevant in planning and preparing for the future.

First paragraph: Corporations are not real people. This may seem obvious, but for more than a hundred years the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as legal persons with many of the same constitutional rights as real people (Torres-Spelliscy, 2014). Why does it matter? Because corporations can do things that real people can’t and yet are immune to legal liabilities that real people must consider. The lack of economic com­petitiveness in agri-food markets is one conse­quence of treating corporations as real people. So is the lack of government protection of farm and food workers from exploitation and the natural environment from extraction and pollution. Recent examples include concerns about corporate price gouging following the COVID-19 pandemic (Reich, 2022) and the weakening of the Environ­mental Protection Agency’s authority to restrict corporate pollution (Feldscher, 2022). . . .

First paragraph: Corporations are not real people. This may seem obvious, but for more than a hundred years the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as legal persons with many of the same constitutional rights as real people (Torres-Spelliscy, 2014). Why does it matter? Because corporations can do things that real people can’t and yet are immune to legal liabilities that real people must consider. The lack of economic com­petitiveness in agri-food markets is one conse­quence of treating corporations as real people. So is the lack of government protection of farm and food workers from exploitation and the natural environment from extraction and pollution. Recent examples include concerns about corporate price gouging following the COVID-19 pandemic (Reich, 2022) and the weakening of the Environ­mental Protection Agency’s authority to restrict corporate pollution (Feldscher, 2022). . . .

First paragraph: Why do industrial agricultural operations continue to displace smaller family farms in spite of their continued pollution of the natural environment and degradation of rural communi­ties? Large-scale, specialized agricultural operations, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (or CAFOs), persist because they have an economic advantage over smaller, diversified farming opera­tions. They have higher ecological and social costs but lower economic costs. This economic advan­tage is commonly referred to as economies of scale. In economic theory, there are two types of economies of scale. Internal economies of scale refer to differences in the costs of production associated with different sizes of production units. In animal agriculture, “scale” refers to the number of hogs, poultry, milk cows, or beef cattle in a single farming operation or production unit. In field crop and pasture-based animal production, scale refers to the acres of land in a single production unit. External economies of scale, on the other hand, refer to differences such as the costs of fertilizer or feed, or the cost of complying with government regulations, for different sizes of management units. Management units may include one or more production units under single man­agement or control (Ross, 2022). A single farm or production unit may comprise multiple parcels of land, but a farm management unit may comprise multiple farms that are managed as a single economic entity or unit. . . .

First paragraph: My purpose in sharing my long-run perspec­tives on farms, foods, and communities is not to dwell on the past—neither what was nor what could have been. The past is important only in so far as it helps us understand the realities of the present and possibilities for the future. There is a basic tendency for everything on earth to operate in cycles—physical, chemical, biological, economic, and social. Life on Earth is made possible by the biological recycling of finite quantities of chemical elements. Even the universe is thought to be circu­lar so that if we traveled far enough in one direc­tion we would eventually return to where we started. Whatever goes around eventually comes back around. So, the past provides potentially valuable insights into the future. . . .

It is often suggested that we vote with our dollars if we want to change the food system. A dollar spent is a vote for whatever we buy and a dollar not spent is a vote against whatever we don’t buy. Consumers are led to believe that the current food system exists only because they have voted for it with their dollars. They are told to boycott foods, agribusinesses, and production systems that don’t align with their social or ethical values. Those who have discretionary dollars to spend should vote with their dollars. Food producers respond to things that affect their bottom line. However, consumers haven’t gotten, and won’t get, the foods they need, or even want, by simply voting with their dollars. The “invisible hand” of economic theory just doesn’t work very well in today’s agri-food economy (Majaski, 2023). The current industrial food system doesn’t have the capacity to translate consumers’ food purchases into incentives for producers to provide the foods that consumers need or would even prefer. . . .