Weed management: the broader context - Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds - page 504

Figure 11.1 Changes in the proportions ofAmerican consumers'food dollars
going to farm input suppliers,the farm sector,and the agricultural marketing
sector (including distribution),1910-90.(Redrawn from Smith,1992.)
the developing countries, where most of the increase in human population
occurs, more equitable distribution of resources, improvements in local food
production and distribution systems, and strengthened community resource
management skills offer the best opportunities for reducing hunger (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p.129).
Some critics have suggested that use of ecological weed management and
other sustainable agriculture strategies would lead to an unacceptable rise in
food prices. Smith's (1992) analysis of the American food system suggests that
this argument is wrong where agriculture follows an industrial model that
emphasizes food processing,long-range distribution,and consolidated retail-
ing.As shown in Figure 11.1,the farm sector in the USAnow receives less than
9% of each dollar a consumer spends on food. That is, only 9 cents of each
dollar goes for capital consumption, property taxes, wages for farm labor, and
net farm income. Input costs for producing crops and livestock (e.g., pesti-
cides, fertilizers, fuel, etc.) take more than 24% of each consumer food dollar,
and 67% of each food dollar goes to processors, packagers, advertisers, and
sellers. Since input costs are less in sustainable agricultural systems (Chase &
Duffy, 1991; Nguyen & Haynes, 1995; Hanson, Lichtenberg & Peters, 1997),
any increase in food prices resulting from a shift toward such systems would
presumably be due to higher costs in the farm sector. Even in the unlikely
event that ecological management methods doubled farm sector costs, costs
were fully passed on to consumers, and no savings occurred through reduced