AFBF advocacy has been Telling the Story - intent on marginalizing competitive claims related to organic, grassfed, antibiotics, GMO’s etc.    Amidst this discussion, AFBF advocacy implores consumers to get the straight scoop by talking directly to farmers.  Whereas this may sound completely rational from within the AFBF ideological bubble, from outside the bubble, it is received as elitist.  

Perhaps unbeknownst to AFBF advocacy, many consumers have indeed been speaking directly with organic farmers, grass farmers, biological farmers, CSA farmer, biodynamic farmers, non-GMO farmers; Farm-to-Table farmers etc.  Clearly, AFBF does not perceive alternative operators as “farmers”.   This narrative is integral to the protective nature (racket) that agriculture has devolved into.

What should we call each other when AFBF advocacy has questioned the legitimacy of most all competing forms of farming?  At the same time, AFBF advocacy is offended by almost every qualifier attached to the word farmer.   Choose from the list:  Agribusiness farmer; Conventional farmer;  Factory farmer; Industrial farmer; Chemical farmer; CAFO farmer; Family farmer.  

Internal to this are AFBF members who proclaim they too are participating in the same context as Farm-to-Table and Locally-Produced farmers.    There is a complete unwillingness or inability to recognize that, like all other sectors of our economy, agriculture should be functioning within a Free Market - that there are competing methods resulting in the natural need to identify each method.  In a free market, one group is not allowed to officially trademark the exclusive rights to the occupational title of “farmer”.  

It is understood that most farms are not Factory farms.  Equally understood is that most farms are Family farms.  Yet on many Family farms, the largest aggregate of labor is performed by employees.  This is a farm management decision, yes, but regardless, is readily recognized as being different from Family farms in which most if not all labor is performed by family members.  Does it matter?  In a Free Market, the consumer makes these observations and responds accordingly.  

Parsing this into it’s barest form, the most glaring differentiation between farming principles exists by answering this one question:  Is your farm product being sold in Commodity markets or Niche markets?  Hence, in it’s most raw form, we have Commodity farmers and Niche farmers.  

Why does anyone have to differentiate themselves by incorporating the type of farming they do?  For the same reason that the Green tractor people differentiate themselves from the Red - the reason  Chevy punctured holes in Ford truck beds - the reality that Tesla’s are nearly diametrically different than cars with internal combustion engines.  Failure to differentiate one business from another forces us all to produce the same widget.   Widgets are the low cost commodity.  If we make changes to the widget, we’d like the Free Market to decide if it likes the changes.  Innovation is incentivized with financial gain that the market may reward to businesses that offer something different.   The market decides legitimacy - not the head of one entity in cahoots with the governing body.