WEAK LINK

                  Last weekend we hosted another Rogue Food Conference here at the farm and I had the privilege of moderating  a fantastic panel that offered an epiphany moment.  When you get to my age, epiphany moments are pretty cool because you feel like you've seen it all and heard it all, so it has to be blockbusting to be a big informational discovery.

                  The panel was four people:   

                  Max Kane, founder of FarmMatch and guru of alternative food.

                  Steven Rofrano, co-founder of MASA ancient crunch tortilla chips.

                  David Stelzer, founder and CEO of Azure Standard.

                  Hunter Smith, NFL super bowl winner and now Indiana state legislator.

                  Here was my opening question:  What is the single weak link in real food adoption?  Before I give the punch line, let me set the context of my thinking.  With the power of the MAHA movement getting recognition in Washington D.C., we've all seen numerous initiatives aimed at helping conventional farmers transition to more ecological practices, getting consumers to eat better, and similar policy investments.

                  We're aware, for example, of the $700 million fund through the USDA to aid transitional farming.  A $50 billion grant program for rural health care is being vetted right now--grant requests are coming in.  Numerous smaller initiatives have been announced.

                  With this panel, I had the distinct privilege of having four gurus in the clean food space to speak directly into the weak link.  You see, the biggest tragedy of the human experience is being successful at the wrong thing.  As Stan Parsons, founder of Ranching for Profit schools said, "hitting the bull's eye of the wrong target."  We see that all the time.  Well-meaning, big-hearted help comes along but it doesn't do anything because it doesn't attack the critical weak link.

                  Okay, with that prep, here are the answers from the four:

                  Max:  Regulation.

                  Hunter:  Education

                  Stephen:  Distribution

                  David:  Midsize processing.

                  I was gobsmacked.  Not a single one of these in-the-trenches gurus said anything about money to help farmers transition.  Nothing about helping consumers buy better stuff.  In fact, money wasn't even mentioned.  That's the epiphany.

                  Dear folks, we constantly and mistakenly assume that all problems are financial.  But they aren't.  They're philosophical, policy, mental, entrepreneurial.  A dysfunctional system feeds the current food/farm paradigm.  Changing it isn't a money problem; it's a systems and philosophical problem.

                  Notice they didn't even say anything about the price of good food.  While all these issues affect price, throwing money at farmers and consumers doesn't fundamentally change anything about the inappropriate rules of the current food game.  Until the rules get changed, nothing about throwing money at a sector will move the needle.

                  I admit that I was expecting a financial answer; at least one.  But, nada.  Politically, this means that ALL the lobbying at the federal level to help this group and that group with grants, subsidies, and transitional incentives is hitting the bull's eye of the wrong target.  It's being successful at the wrong thing.  And that's tragic.  We're back to the idea I wrote about a few blogs back about the buckets.  The new power says:  "quit putting money in those buckets; here, put money in ours now."  I dare to ask:  "Why have any buckets?"

                  What do you think the weak link for is in real food adoption?