End of agriculture? Although I would wholeheartedly agree with Steven Blank's assertion ("Millennial Musings," winter 2000) that "it is unlikely that Americans will notice as the percentage [of imported food] goes to 100 [percent]," I totally disagree with his conclusions that "mutually dependent nations do not fight." As a resident of Northern California rice country, Blank should know first-hand the enormous trade barriers that prevent long-grain California rice from being exported to Japan and the outrageous protectionism that is extended to the small and beleaguered Japanese agricultural sector. In Asia, Europe and elsewhere, clearly the lessons of two world wars have taught many industrialized nations that, in fact, beneficial trade relations and peace accords don't mean much when one's borders are being breached. If anything, many industrialized nations have instead realized the importance of at least limited self-sufficiency and have taken measures to ensure that domestic agriculture will survive, even in instances where farms are small and are, therefore, not able to utilize economies of scale. As long as the food keeps coming and is cheap, no thought is given to the country of origin. But if food production continues to be "farmed out" to countries such as Mexico and other low-cost producers, our dependency on the whims of our trading partners may eventually rival that of our experience with the OPEC nations during the late '70s and early '80s. Truly it is one thing to have clothes, shoes and soccer balls manufactured in a foreign country, but as for me, I would rather spend my tax dollars subsidizing the American farmer, confident in his ability to not only provide sustenance for me and my family but also provide good stewardship of natural resources and ensure our continued independence, stability and prosperity. Wade Schwark '92 via e-mail It's telling that the same issue of UC Davis Magazine features articles on "The End of American Agriculture" and on corporate support of university research. We should ask, Must markets necessarily be global, if it means destroying American agriculture? Even if researchers are able to maintain independent basic research under corporate sponsorship, should the financial benefits override concerns regarding the commercial application of their work? Corporate giants like Monsanto and Novartis that seek relationships with university researchers are agents of the very globalization that is destroying agriculturists in America and elsewhere. And while university researchers who develop genetically modified crops may have beneficial intentions, it's foolish to believe that their work will be used in any way other than to extract maximum profit. Controlling food is not an issue to take lightly. Doug Johnson San Francisco via e-mail Steven Blank's scenario of the demise of American agriculture is based on the assumption that increased competition from foreign countries will increase the supply of commodities to the point that global prices will not generate a profit for high-cost American producers. This scenario is so frightening that the underlying assumptions must be questioned. First of all, it is improbable that foreign countries overall will be able to increase their export capacity to the point that they will drive American producers out of business. Every foreign country has its unique production and infrastructure constraints, and many foreign countries are plagued by intractable internal dysfunction. I am also not convinced that the international ocean shipping industry can expand enough to accommodate the increased trade that Mr. Blank envisions. Mr. Blank's scenario is also flawed in that it is based on only one of the two components of price--supply. Americans are not the only people who consume global commodities, and it is reasonable to assume that growing foreign populations will demand more food as well as a greater variety of foods. If supply and demand interact to produce a global price that returns a satisfactory profit to American producers then the fact that American producers have a cost disadvantage becomes irrelevant. The real danger to American producers comes from our government's practice of allowing countries to export their products to the United States while not fighting vigorously enough when these same countries erect barriers to our exports. Americans may benefit from lower prices, but as a nation we suffer by unfairly losing our productive resource pool. I must also comment on Mr. Blank's assertion that "once land is developed into a higher use, it does not come back into agriculture." Although reclaiming developed land for agriculture has not yet happened, it doesn't stand to reason that it never will. I personally look forward to the day when a Southern California strip mall is demolished and crops are planted in its place. Larry Minckler, M.S. '85 Paso Robles Steven Blank responds: Like Mr. Minckler, I would like to see more agriculture and fewer strip malls in Southern California, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the real world people make economic decisions based on what is best for them and, in agricultural production, people are voluntarily leaving, not only in California but across the country. The brief "Millennial Musings" touched only the surface of my 200-page book and the detailed analyses and explanations in it of the economic trends that have American producers in a "profit squeeze." Those trends are readily apparent in the data in the "U.S. Census of Agriculture" and elsewhere. The most likely solution to American farmers' profitability problem is continued technological advances that improve our productivity and thus reduce our costs per unit. The work of universities like UC Davis produces those advances. The irony of the situation is that technological advances are the source of our profit squeeze. Our advances are adopted by farmers around the world, thus making other nations competitors in the global market and increasing total supplies to the point that real prices are pushed down. I am glad that Mr. Minckler and others are thinking about the many issues involved. I believe that new solutions to the problems must come from within agriculture because external solutions have not worked thus far.