The Poverty of Sustainability: An Analysis of Current Positions

Patricia L. Allen and Carolyn E. Sachs

Patricia Mien is senior analyst with the Agroecology Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Her work
concentrates on the political economic aspects of sustainability issues in food and agricultural systems. Her edited
book, Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability, will be published this spring by John Wiley
& Sons.

Carolyn Sachs is associate professor of rural sociology and women's studies at Penn State University. Her research
focuses on women in agriculture, rural women, and sustainable agriculture. She is currently working on a book on
rural women and feminist issues.

ABSTRACT A short time ago the idea of sustainable agriculture was accepted only at the extreme margins of the U. S.
agricultural systems. Although sustainability has now become a major theme of many U. S. agricultural groups, there
remains much !ruder-explored terrain in the meaning of sustainable agriculture. A thorough examination of who and what
we want to sustain and how we can sustain them is critical if sustainable agriculture is to be a practical improvement over
conventional agriculture. In order to begin this effort, this article analyzes contemporary sustainable agriculture discourse
and suggests alternatives for r econceptualizing sustainable agriculture. In particuIar we look at three arenas of sustainable
discourse--familyfarmlrural community preservation,food safety, and agricuItural science--and address issues of class,
race/ethnicity, and gender found in current sustainability positions. We find that while advocates of sustainability have
succeeded in pushing agricultural researchers and policy makers to address environmental issues, we need to go much
farther both in theory and practice in order to deal with equally important issues of social equity.

1. Introduction the sustainability concept. The paper is organized into

Sustainable agriculture has quickly become a'banner
under which diverse agricultural interests have been
assembling. Only a few short years ago sustainable
agriculture was considered a radical notion, spoken of
primarily by those peripheral to the agricultural system.
Today, however, it has become a major theme of many U.
S. groups, including state and federal agricultural re-
search institutions, farmer associations, and policymakers.
This institutionalization of sustainable agriculture has
also been demonstrated by the proliferation of texts
produced by scientists (e.g.,Edwards et al., 1990,Francis
et al., 1990, National Research Council, 1989). These
developments have led to an increasingly vociferous and
volatile debate about the meaning of sustainable agricul-
ture and its goals. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the theoretical bases of the discourses dominant in sus-
tainable agriculture discussions. Our goal is to establish
a foundation for a broad and inclusive reformulation of
three sections: a description of sustainability discourse,
an analysis of that discourse, and a proposed
reconceptualization of sustainable agriculture, based upon
critical perspectives of snstainability.X
2. Description Of Current Discourse
The sustainable agriculture movement has gained mo-
mentum through the efforts of many diverse advocacy
groups that have pushed the agricultural agenda toward
a concern with sustainability. 2 This has been a long and
highly charged struggle, the basis of which can be found
in several different philosophical perspectives. We can
identify five primary themes reflected in the promotion
of a sustainable agriculture platform: environmental
conservation, family farm preservation, food safety, ag-
ricultural science, and radical agricultural transforma-
tion. In addition to environmental conservation, which is
seen as universally important, three aspects appear to
29
 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - FALL 1992
have had the greatest impact on the current sustainable
agriculture movement, programs, and policies.3 These
are: (1) preservation of family farms and raral communi-
ties, (2) concerns about food safety, and (3) maintenance
of profits through technological innovation. While other
themes, such as global food provision, labor issues, and
humane animal treatment, have been raised by some
sustainability groups, these have not yet been integrated
into what we see as the dominant sustainability efforts.
Each of the three dominant perspectives is represented in
the platforms of different groups and writers; our de-
scription and subsequent analysis is based upon written
and oral "texts" that exemplify the sustainability per-
spectives. In the following section we will describe these
three perspectives and discuss them along two dimen-
sions: causes of nonsustainability and vision of sustain-
able agriculture. Each perspective provides a different
sense of why the problems in agriculture exist, i.e., the
cause of nonsustainability. Each also offers a different
vision of a sustainable agriculture, including who is to
benefit from achieving agricultural sustainability.
2.1 Rural Community Preservation
Proponents of the preservation of rural life argue
that environmental sustainability can best be achieved on
family farms. Wendell Berry, Marty Strange, and Wes
Jackson are the most renowned advocates of this position.
Various organiT:~fiOusthroughout the country such as the
Land Institute in Kansas, the Center for Rural Affairs in
Nebraska, the National Family Farm Coalition in Washing-
ton, DC, and the Committee for Sustainable Agriculture in
Califomiapromote family farms within stablerural commu-
nities as a primary path to sustainable agriculture.
For those concerned with the preservation of the
family farm, there are four primary reasons cited for the
development of nonsustainable agricultural systems: the
industrialization of agriculture, the loss of traditional
values, increasing corporate ownership of agricultural
fLrms, and the lack of an ecological approach in farm
production. Wes Jackson criticizes corporate agriculture
for the concomitant destruction of the environment and
the family farm. For Jackson (1984), the lack of an
ecological approach has led to an unsustainable agricul-
ture that is characterized by soil loss, fossil fuel depen-
dence, and chemical dependence. In the same tradition,
Wendell Berry decries the industrialization and mecha-
nization of corporate agriculture. From Berry's (1984)
perspective, our current agricultural system is
unsustainable because of the continual attempt to get the
highest possible production with the smallest number of
workers. Particularly important for Berry is the erosion
of cultural values associated with family farming, such
as hard work, respect for place, respect for nature, and
commitment to home and community. His concern is that
corporate agriculture is deslxoying the "ideal" or good
farmer through the de-skilling of labor and the simplifi-
cation of decision-making. Corporate agriculture is also
30
viewed as the perpetrator of"community-killing agricul-
ture" (Berry, 1977:41). Another advocate of family farms,
Marty Strange, suggests that "the most serious environ-
mental problems i n agriculture are those caused by
technologies that make large-scale farming possible, and
that sever the rewards of farming from the rewards of
stewardship and husbandry" (1988:206).
Advocates of the family farm envision sustainable
agriculture as the production of food on family farms, the
preservation of rural communities, and a continuation of
rural values. The locus of their concern is primarily with
farmers and rural communities in the U. S. The position
of U. S. farmers is usually not situated in the context of
the global food system and changes by other actors in the
food system, such as food processors, distributors, or
consumers, are rarely advocated. Strategies for change
include limiting corporate land ownership, providing
farmers with information about sustainable agricultural
practices, and teaching urban people the value of agricul-
ture and rural life.
2.2 Safe Food Advocacy
A second important political force in sustainable
agriculture discourse are the proponents of safe or or-
ganic food. Organizations such as American for Safe
Food, Rodale Press, and organic farmer certification
programs are advocates for consumers and organic farm-
ers. Their concern with food safety and consumer health
leads them to focus on the provision of toxin-free food to
consumers.
Safe food proponents explain that our current food
production system is not sustainable because it reties on
pesticides and other toxic chemicals that destroy the envi-
ronment and endanger human health. The primary causes
atnibuted to this situation are the failure of government to
adequately regulate pesticides (Natural Resources Defense
Council, 1989) and lack of consumer a w ~ .
The food safety agenda envisions a food system that
produces a safe food supply and increases sales for the
organic foods industry. Their goal is to reduce the wide-
spread use of pesticides in agriculture (Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, 1989). The locus of concern is
primarily with U. S. consumers and strategies for change
emphasize the connection of consumers to farmers and
food distributors. For example, Americans for Safe Food
suggest that advocates for safe food "meet with con-
sumer affairs directors oflocul supermarkets and owners
of natural food stores. Urge them to offer contaminant-
free foods and to label the colorings, waxes, drugs, and
pesticides used in or on foods, or to post signs and
provide pamphlets with this information" (Americans
for Safe Food, no date). Similarly, the National Re-
sources Defense Counci1(1989) suggests that consumers
write to corporate managers requesting their supermar-
kets to sell organically grown produce and help the
supermarket make direct contact with organic growers. 4

2.3 Technological Innovation
The third major arena of activity in sustainable
agriculture is within the agricultural science establishment.
Federal and state programs, such as the federal Low-Input
Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Program, 5 the California
Sustainable Agriculture ~ h and Education Program
(SAREP), the Sustainable Agriculture Program at Ohio
State University, Agro-ecology at the University of Illinois,
and the Leopold Center at the University of Iowa, focus on
scientific and technical solutions as the main strategy for
developing sustainable agriculture.
Of the three sustainable agriculture groups, techno-
logical innovators are least likely to offer an analysis of
why our current agricultural system is unsustainable.
Until recently, many agricultural institutions had as-
sumed a defensive posture toward sustainable agricul-
ture. Then, faced with both economic and environmental
problems and increased pressure from advocacy groups
to address these issues, agricultural science establish-
merits have developed programs on sustainable agricul-
ture (although these programs receive only a small frac-
tion of the federal and state funding for agricultural
research and extension). In this context, their emphasis
has been primarily on developing alternative production
techniques and systems. No overall analysis of the rea-
sons for nonsustainability in agriculture is sought.
Proponents of technical solutions to agricultural
sustainability envision an environmentally sound agri-
cultural system that is both profitable and productive.
These sustainable agricultural systems are to be achieved
through scientific research. For example, the goal of the
University of California's SAREP program is to "focus
existing scientific information and to support new basic
and applied scientific research in order to provide the
knowledge and education required for the development and
adoption of agricultmal practices that are more economi-
cally viable and environmentally sensitive" 0Aebhardt,
1988). This is not intended to be conventional agricultural
science, however. In SAREP activities great emphasis is
placed on transcending the reductionist and disciplinary
characteristics of agricultural research in order to develop
sustainable agriculture approaches.
3. Analysis of Current Discourse
These three themes - - rural community preservation,
safe food advocacy, and technological innovation - -
clearly raise a number of important issues about
sustainability and have presented an effective challenge
to the current agricultural structure. Yet we need to go
farther in order to understand the causes of
nonsustainability and envision a future agricultural sys-
tem that addresses pressing social issues, specifically
those relating to class, race/ethnicity, and gender.6
3.1 Causes of Nonsustainability
The activities and literature reflective of the domi-
nant sustainability themes would be slrengthened by
Alien and Sachs: The Poverty of Sustainability
more analysis of the reasons for problems in agricultural
sustainability. For example, the causes attributed, such
as corporate agriculture, not enough government regula-
tion, loss of respect for nature, seem rather, to be effects
of the current political economic organization of agricul-
ture, the purpose of which is primarily to produce profits,
incidentally to produce food. The attribution of cause is
of course critical to the development of solutions. If the
cause of nonsustainability is undertheorized, recom-
mended sustainability strategies may not be sufficiently
effective for developing sustainable agriculture.
An example of this is the tendency toward techno-
logical determinism-- that if the right technologies were
developed, sustainability would result. For example, the
Committee for Sustainable Agriculture's "Asilomar
Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture," produced by a
national group ofU. S. sustainability experts, states that,
"Given scientifically validated techniques, farmers will
adopt sustainable agrieulturalpractices" (CSA, 1990:1). 7
One gets the sense that the farmer only needs more informa-
tion and that there are no overarching slructural forces
conlributing to the persistence of resource-intensive farm-
ing practices. A siroilar approach is reflected ill the perspec-
tive that the industrizliTod countries can show impoverished
counlries how to make their agriculture sustainable (CSA,
1990:1). This ignores the global dimensions and logic of the
world food system. Often environmental degradation in the
Third World is the direct result of the needs of F'LrStWorld
capital to maximize profits by lowering costs of production
and extenmlizing environmental costs. Simplyrecommend-
ing "better technology" fails to address the forces that have
led to the developmentproblems of Third World agicdture.
In addition to cause being attributed to the lack of
"good" technology, another recurrent theme is that con-
sumers undervalue sustainably produced food. One goal
of the Asilomar Declaration is to "Inspire the public to
value safe and healthful food" (CSA, 1990:1). The focus
on teaching consumers to value organic food Can be seen
as a type of blame-the-victim approach. That is, attribut-
ing cause to problems with consumers' attitudes and
choices does not examine the logic of production and
marketing of nonorganic food. It also assumes the con-
samer can pay for organic food (estimated to add $1000
per year to an average American family's food budget).
This is not to say, of course, that consumer education
does not hold the possibility of empowering the con-
sumer to question the food industry, but this is not the
central focus of most sustainability efforts.
As these examples demonstrate, a more thorough
analysis of the causes behind and operational structures
of nonsustainable agriculture is essential for articulating
reasoned, effective sustainability recommendations and
actions.
3.2 Vision of Sustainable Agriculture
In general, current sustainability discourse does not
include a vision of the future rectification of what are the
31
AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUF_~ - FALL 1992
primary axes of social domination: class, race/ethnicity,
and gender.
Class. Literature on the three sustainability themes
approaches equity or class issues in different ways.
Writings concerned with the preservation of rural com-
munities do not include an analysis of the different
interests and classes that exist in rural communities. An
example of the absence of this analysis is the first
challenge set forth in the "Asilomar Declaration for
Sustainable Agriculture," which is to ''promote and sus-
tain healthy rural communities." Justification for the
promotion of rural communities is: "Healthy rural com-
muuities are atWactive and equitable for farmers, farm
workers, and their families. The continuation of tradi-
tional values and fanning wisdom depends on stable,
multi-generational population." This statement assumes
the necessity of present relations of production and does
not examine their exploitative characteristics. Although
the Asilomar Declaration recognizes corporate land
ownership as problematic, it does not address the differ-
ent interest of farmers and farmworkers in general. It
recognizes no inherent problem with an economy based
upon land owners who hire landless laborers, and advo-
cates maintenance of the existing structure of landed
elites. 8 The major emphasis is the preservation of family
farms, and the implication is that farmworkers will
benefit equally from the vital rural communities ex-
pected to result. This statement also implies that current
rural values, which include the patriarchal family and
Christian religious beliefs, are at least functional norms,
ff not ideals, we should advocate and preserve.
Information from the food safety approach primarily
emphasizes the standpoint of the consumer. However, their
use of the term "consumer" often glosses over class differ-
ences. The fact that the demand for organic food is largely
from the upper-middle class and thatpeoplein lower classes
cannot afford organic produce is seldom discusseA.Issues of
consumer health raised by groups such as Americans for
Safe Food and the Natural Resources Defense Council do,
however, recognize that chemicals pose the most immediate
and toxic dangers to field workers. 9
Technological innovation texts also largely ignore
issues of class and social equity. The National Research
Council's (1989) report on alternative agriculture indi-
cates a lack of interest in other than technical production
factors. In this report "alternative" refers to only biologi-
cal and technological alternatives to conventional agri-
cultural practices, not also to alternative social and eco-
nomic arrangements. Although at one point the report
states that alternative agriculture is appropriate for both
small and large farms, there is no further discussion of
how the structural organization of agriculture is related
to sustainability. For example, where the National Re-
search Council discusses farm labor on alternative farms,
labor is viewed only as a cost of production. In one case
study, the report explains that more labor is required for
alternative agriculture because ofrepeatedirrigation and
32
tillage for weed control. There is, however, no discussion
of who the workers are, what their working conditions
might be, or the relation of agricultural workers' wages
to those in other industries. In addition, the U. S. federal
sustainable agriculture research program addresses so-
cioeconomic issues primarily in terms of the economic
viability of farms, largely ignoring antagonisms among
agribusinesses, family farms, and farm labor. Overall,
there is an absence of discussion of the welfare of farm
workers under conditions of alternative agriculture.
Race/Ethnicity. Discussion of race/ethnicity issues
is also absent in sustainability discourse. Family farm
texts rarely discuss the fact that although African-Ameri-
cans, Lafinos, and Asians have historically provided much
of the labor in U. S. agriculture, ethnic minorities are much
more likely to be farm workers than farm owners. 10
Farmworkers not only receive fewer of the economic ben-
efits of farming than do farm owners, but also have higher
incidences of health problems related to pesticide use. And,
despite the disadvantaged positions of people of color in U.
S. agriculture, advocates for the preservation of rural com-
munities rarely mention the racial composition or tensions
within these communities. Their call for a return to tradi-
tionalrural values fails to challenge racist attitudes that have
historically existed in the rural U. S. and that, even after the
Civil War, continued discrimination against (if not subjuga-
tion) of people of color.
Proponents of safe food are more likely to address
racial or ethnic differences in consumers or producers.
Still, food safety is largely a political concern of Euro-
pean-Americans, upper-middle class people who have
the ability to pay higher prices for organic food. A fairly
recent issue of California magazine is devoted to the
subject of the "clean food revolution." The issue notes
that "average Californians... are questioning pesticide
use. As the introduction proclaims, "people just like you
are doing something about it" (California, 1990:5). Ex-
actly who "people just like you" are is not described, but
aEuropean-American, well-dressed, heterosexual couple
is pictured on the cover carefully feeding fresh produce
to their young child. Greater attention could be paid to
the fact that many of the people exposed to pesticide
poisonings are African-American, Latinos, or Asian,
especially where organic food advocates discuss farm
worker of pesticide poisouings.
Scientists have virtually no discussion of race in
their discourses on sustainable agriculture. This may
only be due to the fact that 99 percent ofU. S. agricultural
researchers are white (Busch andLacy, 1983). Although
historically Black land grant universities (1890s) have
been long-time innovators in low-input agriculture, due
to the limited resources of their clients, voices of minor-
ity scientists (or even concerned white scientists in 1890s
universities) are rarely heard in most sustainable agricul-
ture discourse.11
Gender. Traditional gender roles are given implicit
justification in many discussions of sustainable agricul-

ture. The family farm is heralded as the ideal organization,
with little recognition of or critique of the historically
patriarchal character of family farms. Wendell Berry (1977)
stands out from others such as Jackson and Strange, who do
not mention gender relations. Berry explicitly discusses
differences between men and women on farms; yet he also
fails to acknowledge cases that show the subordination of
womenon the farm. Thisis an important oversight, for while
Berry sees the connection between "tmsustainable agricul-
ture" and the exploitation ofpeople and the earth, he does not
discuss the connections these have with exploitation of
women by men. In sum, he advocates traditional values
associated with the home, without questioning patriarchal
privileges that tmditionaUy accompanied many of these
values. 12
Organic food proponents are concerned with con-
sumer health and target their informational programs to
food purchasers, who are predominantly women. But
although women have been the leaders in the food safety
movement, their importance is noted mainly in their role
as mothers. The group Mothers and Others for Pesticide
Limits has targeted mothers for building public support
for organic produce, with considerable s u c c e s s . 13 Yet,
even this group essentializes women's roles in reproduc-
tion by suggesting that only in their roles as mothers will
women be concerned with consumer health, specifically,
of their own children. We need to recognize that men and
women without children also have a stake in the health of
society's children.
Finally, proponents of agricultural technological
innovation also appear to neglect gender issues in their
discussion of sustainable agriculture. Proceedings from
recent conferences on sustainable agricultural systems for
agricultural researchers exemplify the lack of attention to
women. Although oneconferenceagenda focusedprimarily
on the U. S., the four references to women and farming are
all concerned with women in Africa; no reference is made to
women in farming in the United States. Indeed, the Ameri-
can farmer is generally assumed to be a man; the use of
gender-neutral pronouns is rare. In a proceedings section on
"Broadening the Profile for Sustainability" Harwood ( 1990:
12) emphasizes the "interrelatedness of all paris of a farming
system, including the farmer and h/s family [italics added]."
Language of this sort, like the lack of attention to racial
issues in the agriculturalresearch community, may continue
simply because 96 percent of agricultural scientists are male
(Busch and Lacy, 1983) and their "client" groups tend also
to be male.
3.3 Summary
What we find missing in the three "schools" of
sustainability discourse is an attempt to improve food
and agricultural systems for all people, regardless of
class, race/ethuicity, or gender. The problem is that the
term "sustainable" might be interpreted quite literally,
that is, to sustain (maintain) agricultural production, as it
exists, within the current social order.
Allen and Sachs: The Poverty of Sustainability
Advocates for the preservation of family farms and
rural communities rarely criticize the uneven race, gen-
der, and class divisions that have historically existed in
agriculture. Although they recognize the exploitative
relations that have characterized much of corporate ag-
riculture, they generally fail to note the inequities asso-
ciated with family farm agriculture. They call for com-
munities based on the rural nuclear family household
economy, without expanding that vision to project how
farmworkers, African-Americans, Latinos, and women,
as well as European-American men farmowners might
benefit from an alternative social organization of agri-
culture.
Food safety advocates envision a food supply that
does not contain pesticides and that is safe for consum-
ers, but do not often address issues of corporate con~ol
of the food system or economic accessibility to high
quality food. Their vision for the future could go beyond
the availability of high-cost organic produce.
Proponents of agricultural technology as the solu-
tion for sustainable agriculture envision an agricultural
production system that is both profitable and environ-
mentally sound. In their view of the future, new tech-
nologies will be substituted for existing chemical tech-
nologies with no need to alter the social organization of
agriculture. Their inattention to the uneven benefits of
new technologies is surprising, given the abundance of
critiques of Green Revolution technologies.
Combining these visions into one yields a future
agricultural system that:
•is organized into family farm units of produc-
tion
•produces pesticide-free food for those who can
afford it
•provides environmentally benign technologies
for commercial farmers in the developed
and developing countries.
Despite its claim to be "alternative," this vision
serves more to maintain the status quo than to provide
real alternatives that would improve the long term socio-
economic and public health conditions for all people. In
particular, the current vision does not go far enough in
challenging structures of inequity and exploitation that
remain in our current food and agricultural system.
4. Reformulation Of Sustainable Agriculture
Our perspective is that a transformation of attitudes,
practices, and power-relations that underlie the structure
of the food and agricultural system, not just technical or
marginal reforms, is necessary to achieve sustainability.
This viewpoint is developed in another sustainability
theme that has been emerging along with the three
discussed above, although it has not yet been integrated
into sustainability programs. This perspective, exempli-
fied by groups such as the International Alliance for
Sustainable Agriculture, the New World Agriculture
Group, the Pesticide Action Network, and the United
33
AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - FALL 1992
Farm Workers, and the work of those such as Altieri
(1988), Buttel and Gillespie (1988), Redelift (1987), and
Thrupp (1989) suggests a more far-reaching analysis of
sustainability. In this perspective the explanation of
nonsustainability is found in the social and economic
organization of society in general, replicated and rein-
forced in agriculture. For example, the environmental
crisis associated with agriculture cannot be understood
outside of this context. The environmental problem is
that agricultural goods have been produced for profit
rather than for human needs. Structures and attitudes that
are simply profit-oriented ignore or deny fundamentally-
related discriminatory or exploitative practices toward
people and the environment. For a real sustainable agri-
culture, the goal of agriculture should be to produce for
human needs, with respect for human beings, in the
process, stewarding both people and our natural re-
sources. In this light, Altieri proposes that we develop a
socially equitable agricultural system by addressing the
questions of what is produced, how it is produced, and
for whom it is produced. For the new sustainability
advocates, it is the current social structure of agriculture
- - most notably the concentration of ownership of land,
resources, and especially, power over the production
process - - that has contributed to the degradation of
environmental quality. The resolution of social inequal-
ity and poverty, therefore, is a precondition for solving
environmentalproblems in agriculture. Without the reso-
lution of social equity issues, the slructures of domina-
tion that led to environmental degradation in the first
place will be reproduced.
In challenging dominant themes in agricultural
sustainability discourse our objective is to help develop
the concept of sustainability into one that will be mean-
ingful for improving the lives of all people. In our view,
a sustainable food and agricultural system is one that
reproduces the social and environmental conditions of
production and reproduction. Our concept of sustainable
agriculture, therefore, is based upon fulfillment first and
foremost of basic human needs. We consider these needs
to be consumptive (food, water, fuel); protective (cloth-
ing, shelter), and regenerative (dignity, self-determina-
tion). Thus, in addition to maintaining the ecological
conditions of production, our vision of sustainable agri-
culture is based upon three precepts:
1. Provision of adeq~tate amounts of healthy
food and fiber for everyone who requires it
production for need, not only for effective demand.
2. Non-exploitative relations in terms of race,
etlmicity, class, gender, and species.
3. Equal access to decision-making for those
involved in all aspects of the food and agricultural
system.
Characteristics such as these must be built into
standard conceptualizations of sustainability if it is to be
a meaningful departure from conventional agriculture in
other than environmental terms.
34
5. Conclusion
It is clear that, except for environmental conservation,
there is as yet no satisfactory unifying theme for sustain-
able agriculture. While advocates of sustainability have
succeeded in pushing agricultural researchers and
policymakers to address environmental issues, we sug-
gest that the criticism of conventional agriculture must
also include social equity issues. Our objective in this
paper has been to provide a critique of the critics of
conventional agriculture in order to forestall the
ascendance of a new agricultural complacency. This is
needed in order to develop the concept of sustainability
into one that will be useful for preventing the accelerated
immiseration of the world's most needy. Thus, the title of
this paper, "The Poverty of Sustainability," is meant to
suggest the insufficiency of the theories upon which the
sustainability movement is premised and the failure of
the movement to address poverty issues, understood as
issues of relative impoverishment and under-empower-
ment. What we need is a restructuring of society, not a
preservation of past inequitable social relations. This
will require the elimination of social relations of exploi-
tation, not only of external nature, but also of other
human beings. The task before us is not to wonder if this
should be our goal, but only to determine how we can
achieve it.
Notes
1. We use the term "discourse" to refer to a body of
statements that claim to produce a truth that matters,
yet are not amenable to proof.
2. Our conceptualization of agriculture includes not only
the production process itself, but all of the related
backward and forward linkages, i.e., the whole of
the food and agricultural system.
3. In this paper we are examining the three slrands of
thought dominant within the food and agricultural
community. Excluded from this analysis are general
environmental organizations, which have histori-
cally had an adversarial relationship with agricul-
ture. Writings of radical agriculturalists are dis-
cussed in the final section of the paper.
4. As the demand for organic produce has increased,
organic food distributors are adopting the business
strategies of the larger food industry. A recent article
in a journal for the organic foods industry asks, "In
an age when marketing is reaching new heights of
sophistication, how are retailers building sales of
organic products?" (Snyder, 1990)
5. This Im3gram was w.namedin the 1990 farm bill to Sustain-
able Agricullme Research and Education (SARE).
6. According to current sociological theory, these are the
major divisions upon which systems of social strati-
fication are based.
7. The Asilomar Declaration was produced at a 1990
session organized by the Committee for Sustainable
Agriculture. The goals of this California-based group

are: "To achieve a safe food supply and a cleaner
environment through dissemination of information
about farming, food processing and marketing tech-
niques that conserve and replenish soil resources, and
decrease the use of toxic and synthetic chemicals. By
working toward these ecologically benign technolo-
gies, family farms and rural communities may thrive,
toxic byproducts be eliminated, and agricultural em-
ployees and consumers may be reassured about this
major sector of their lives." (CSA, 1989)
8. Marry Strange is an exception in this regard. He criticizes
the inheritance pattem of family farms and proposes
strategies to provide people from nonpropertied fami-
lies with access to farmland ownership.
9. Risks for field workers have increased as the number
of cases and acute toxicity and illness due to pesti-
cide poisoning has more than doubledbetween 1975
and 1985. A brochure published by Americans for
SafeFood states: "chemicals not only harm consum-
ers, but also endanger farmers and the environment.
Pesticides and drugs cause poisonings, birth defects,
and cancer among farmers, farmworkers, and their
families." In their book, Pesticide Alert, Mott and
Snyder emphasize consumer health but also note
that pesticide residues on food pose greater risks for
field workers than consumers.
10. It is significant that the impetus for low-input agriculture
was generated in part by the level of public distress
about farmers losing their land during the 1980s when
the crisis affectedmostlyEuropean-American farmers.
In contrast, the governmentfacilitated the separation of
African-American farmersfrom theirland in the earlier
part of this century, dispossessing them of three-quar-
ters of their farmland.
11. A notable exception is Booker T. Whafley of Tuskegee
Institute.
12. Berry (1990a) proudly maintains that his wife types
his manuscripts on an old typewriter, failing to
acknowledge that he gets final credit for their joint
output. In response to feminist critics of that claim,
Berry (1990b) argues that he does not exploit his
wife, and criticizes feminists for failing to see that
the capitalist economyis more exploitative of women
than the household economy.
13. Based on therelxa%"Intolerable Ri.~k:Pesticides in Our
Children's Food," Mothers and Others directed amedia
campaign focusing on the danger of Alar in apples.
References
Altieri,Miguel A. 1988. "Beyond Agroecology:Making Sus-
tainableAgriculturePart of aPoliticalAgenda."American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3: 142-143.
Americans for Safe Food. No date. Pamphlet.
Berry, Wendell. 1990a. "Why I Won't Buy a Computer."
Utne Reader (March/April): 52.
Berry, Wendell. 1990b. What Are People For? San
Francisco: North Point Press.
Allen and Sachs: The Poverty of Sustainability
Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Cul-
ture and Agriculture. New York.
Berry, Wendell. 1984. "Whose Head is the Farmer Us-
ing? Whose Head is Using the Farmer?" Pp. 19-30
in Meeting the Expectations of the Land, eds. Wes
Jackson, Wendell Berry and Bruce Colman. San
Francisco: North Point Press.
Buttel, Frederick H. and Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr. 1988.
"AgriculturalResearch and Development and the Ap-
propriation of Progressive Symbols: Some Observa-
tions on thePolitics of Ecological Agriculture." Ithaca:
Cornell University Deparlment of Rural Sociology.
'q'he Clean Revolution." California (June, 1990): 5.
Committee for Sustainable Agricultm'e. 1990. Asilomar
Declaration for Sustainable Agriculture, January 12.
Committee for Sustainable Agriculture. 1989. Organic
Food Matters.
Edwards, Clive A., Rattan Lal, Patrick Madden, Robert
H. Miller and Gar House. 1990. Sustainable Agri-
cultural Systems. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
Francis, Charles A., Cornelia Buffer Flora, and Larry D.
King. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate
Zones. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Harwood, Richard. 1990. "A History of Sustainable
Agriculture." Pp. 3-19 in Sustainable Agricultural
Systems, (eds.) Clive A. Edwards, Rattan Lal, Patrick
Madden, Robert H. Miller and Gar House. Ankeny,
Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Jackson, Wes. 1984. "A Search for the Unifying Concept
for Sustainable Agriculture." Pp. 208-230 in Meet-
ing the Expectations of the Land, (eds.) Wes Jack-
son, Wendell Berry, Bruce Colman. San Francisco:
North Point Press.
Liebhardt, William C. 1988. "Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program." Presentation to
California Department of Food and Agriculture
Board Meeting, October 6.
Mott, Lawrie and Karen Snyder. 1987. Pesticide Alert.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
McCullagh, James C. 1989. "A Mother's Crusade."
Organic Gardening 36 (4): 32-37.
National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agricul-
ture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Natural Resources Defense Council. 1989. Intolerable
Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food. Washing-
ton, DC: National Resources Defense Council.
Redclift, Michael. 1987. Sustainable Development: Ex-
ploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge.
Snyder, Tammy. 1990. "Creativity, Credibility Build
Organic Sales." Organic Times (Spring): 1.
Strange, Mart),. 1988. Family Farming: A New Eco-
nomic Vision. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Thrupp, Lori Ann. 1989. "Politics of the Sustainable
Development Crusade: From Elite Protectionism
to Social Justice in Third World Resource Issues."
Unpublished Manuscript.
35