In a world of large supermarkets, celebrity chefs, molecular gastronomy, chain restaurants, farmers' markets and row crop agriculture, the complexities of food production, acquisition and preparation often get reduced to the questions “What's in the fridge?” or “Do I want Arby's or Taco Bell?” It is a life where many people feel there is no time for “slow food.”  Understanding this cultural view can be important to reconciliation of political differences in the United States. Food is something we all share, but modern pressure on our lives in the context of the food supply chain may be something we share that is more significant politically.

Anyone who grows a garden understands the hard work involved in local food production. While some want to see the “face of the farmer” in community supported agriculture, many CSA operators are stressed to earn a living wage, have to recruit a large enough number of customers to pay the bills, and then scale production using interns (aka cheap labor), neighbors and family members to fill the weekly ration of food for customers. For many CSA operators, there is no health insurance, pension, clothing allowance or perquisites of any kind.

Like in any business, there is a price point for locally produced food, where if the produce becomes too expensive, people will source their food elsewhere. This keeps operating margins low for farmers. Talk to a CSA operator, and while they may publish instructions on how to use their products in a newsletter to members, they have little time to see what happens to the results of their labor outside the farm. Small farmers feel many of the same pressures on their lives as city dwellers do.

People who work in our industrial food system face a similar struggle to earn a living wage. As discounters like Target, Walmart and large supermarket chains take market share, they have driven unions from retail grocery stores, and eliminated jobs through technology. For example, the Universal Price Code has virtually eliminated the labor that used to be required to put price tags on merchandise, driving down the number of required employees. There are other examples that food supply chain employees feel the same pinch for wages as a farmer does.

The point is that if we pay a premium for a bunch of carrots, a dozen eggs or a bag of lettuce at a farmers' market, it is certain that the farmer is not receiving a premium wage and benefits package. Likewise, workers in the industrial food supply chain face the pressure of management to drive out costs and improve efficiency. This means breaking unions where they exist and keeping them out where they don't. It also means workers being subject to re-engineering of processes that may radically change the flow of food from field to table. For example, how is it cheaper to sell a can of organic black beans produced in China than one produced in the United States at my local grocery store?

Anyone who has bitten into a kernel of No. 2 field corn understands that industrial food production, while efficient, relies on technology beyond the ken of most citizens in the form of plant genetics, production equipment, and food processing and distribution. This creates consumer reliance that can be addictive.

Whatever criticisms there have been of our food system, it is where most Iowans' lives intersect and that creates a political opportunity. Whoever understands the role of the stress in people's lives around the food supply chain will be a political winner. While listening to Bob Vander Plaats and Tim Pawlenty speak in Iowa recently, it became clear that conservatives get this. Progressives need to catch up.