Coping with food crises: Lessons from the American Dust Bowl on balancing local food,agro technology,social welfare,and government regulation agendas in food and farming systems

This paper examines four broad policy and public responses to the American Dust Bowl in the 1930s as a way of exploring how society today could address our own “food crisis”. More particularly, in the Dust Bowl some argued that solutions would be found by engineers and farmers who would develop new ways of watering dry fields. A second group believed that inappropriate political and economic incentives had led to bad farming practices prior to the drought and this contributed to wide-spread erosion. To this group, the best solutions included governmental regulation of farm practices. A third group focused on the welfare of individuals, arguing that creating a social safety net to protect marginalized families was the highest priority. Finally, there were commentators who advocated for a smaller scale, ecological, and holistic approach to farming. Today, the same four perspectives are present in debates about how to maintain global food security in light of population growth, high energy prices and climate change. Exploring the similarity of the discourses between today's food crisis and the one that hit American society 80 years ago reveals that advocates of the four different camps are motivated by very different principles. Briefly, proponents of technological solutions base many of their arguments on the assumption that human ingenuity is capable of producing extremely productive food systems. The managerial arguments, by contrast, are based on the idea that the natural environment can be rationally and efficiently managed using scientific principles. The social welfare narrative seeks to create a more equitable food system. Finally, the ecological and holistic narrative argues that diverse, small scale and local food systems are a prerequisite for long term sustainability. The primary contribution of this paper, therefore, is to expose these deeply held ontological tensions as a way of arguing that policy makers today must de-politicise arguments and use the principles embedded in all four narratives when designing programmes to ensure that the 21st century does not face a repeat of the crisis of the 1930s.