Last week at the Becker-Rose Café, Justine Vanden Heuvel stressed the disconnect between the average American and his food. Since the talk, I have come across the interesting case of Wickard v. Filburn, which, in my opinion, represents a symbolic, if not actual, turning point in the story of how Americans are connected with their food.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause, the Department of Agriculture had the power to create quotas for wheat growth and subsequently fine farmers who produced more then this quota. In 1941, an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, produced nearly twice the amount of wheat he was permitted to grow under new Federal law. However, Filburn did not produce this excess wheat so that he could sell it, but rather so he could consume it himself. Despite this discrepancy, Filburn was fined; eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court. In 1942, SCOTUS ruled that the price control instituted by the Department of Agriculture was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS reason that although Filburn was not selling the excess wheat, the production of the wheat affected the market price of wheat because Filburn no longer needed to purchase grain. This decision effectively rendered all farming under the control of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government can regulate wheat prices down to a single Ohio farmer’s activity, where is the line drawn? In some sense, this case contributed to the demise of sustainable farming and small family farms. As Jim Chen notes in The Story of Wickard v. Filburn: Agriculture, Aggregation, and Commerce, there now exists “but a vowel’s difference between the firm and the farm…”