Alphabet City Discussion Two: Eat Local
Climate-wise, can it actually sustain itself around the entire country?
Eat local: a buzzword with increasing cache in major centres. In Canada, that means Toronto and Vancouver, where both climate and population can support local eating habits through much of the year. But what about the rest of the country, from Edmonton and Winnipeg to Yellowknife and northern Quebec, where the climate is harsh and farming nearly impossible under the new paradigm of eating locally? Can “eat local” have any lasting meaning or value in those places?
More on “eat local,” here.
Do we even have enough farmers?
We live and work in a society that not only doesn?t know about the production of food, it doesn’t want to. Where are the new farmers? The answer is, there isn?t any. Land is expensive, and the sons and daughters of our farmers are moving to the cities. If the younger generation is replaced at all, it’s often by small-scale producers, more environmental activist than farmer, who grow organic for a small customer-base. Their produce will never appear in the larger supermarkets where most people shop, and can afford to shop, and where eating local won’t be appearing on the shelves anytime soon.
More on losing farmers, here.
The FarmCity... the new urban future for eating local?
So, how can we expect food production to become part of our future urban areas? In FOOD, Chris Hardwicke examines the notion of a Farm City, where skyscrapers house both people and greenhouse agriculture. As humans increasingly become urban-dwelling creatures, could this be the new future of “eat local,” where stockbrokers tend to their millions by day and their tomatoes by night?
More on the FarmCity, here, here, and here.
Or should we just scrap the whole thing and stick to the path we’re on?
There’s nothing historically new about importing food, but where once only the most exotic goods were moved across trade routes, today, we bring our basic staples in from foreign lands. That may be a worrying trend (can a nation sustain itself without a strong agricultural base?), but the reality is that more people have access to a steady supply of food than ever before in history. For the vast majority of Canadians, worrying over where our next meal is coming from is a foreign concept.
Eating locally has spawned plenty of ideas and ideals, but does it really have a practical future? And do we even need it? There are many opinions and options that can and have been discussed, what are yours?
Comments (21 comments)
Chris Ellis: I eat global: I really think eating local is nothing but a new trends that is marred, like all good-at-first-ideas, by marketers itching to sell something new. Yes, eating local seems to be the realm of hipsters at the farmers market and all the power to them. Overall this is not a discussion of what is better for society or for urban living, but will be a movement decided upon by our good friend Adam Smith and his invisible hand. This food costs too much for what it is and will therefore disappear. The only time when eating local, creating local, and being local is accepted is during times of high economic stress. Just look at England or Canada during WWII; people invested in their own time in the local economies because there was nothing else. Anytime there is a cheaper option, the good idea, no matter how good, will fail. September 26, 2007 20:22 EST
Laura Reinsborough: Growing food locally is not difficult. It can occur in the spaces between buildings, under and between our toes, amidst the concrete of the city. As a community arts facilitator and environmental educator, I'm committed to creatively seeking out the fertile spaces where we live.
As a result, a new project has fallen into my lap where we harvest fruit and other produce from the gardens of a historic house in Toronto. It's called not far from the tree and it's documented at http://notfarfromthetree.wordpress.com.
This is nothing new and has been done artistically around the world (e.g., http://fallenfruit.org) but takes on new meaning given the cries against expensive and elitist local food trends (as noted in the previous comment). Urban scavenging is a real force against food globalization (which is different from inter-regional food trading), the ability to harvest food that otherwise decomposes under our noses. September 26, 2007 20:39 EST
Pat T: I agree with Mr. Ellis to a point: cheaper will win. The invisible hand gets the job done. Also, my favourite breakfast beverage is orange juice, and I refuse to stop drinking citrus just because I'm a sub-Arctic Canadian.
Unfortunately, the invisible hand is also a bit blind, ie to negative externalities that cost a lot. There are health care costs (public ie you pay in taxes for health care for the hamburgers that give you heart attacks; private - you pay for over-the-counter laxatives for the 'crappy' food you choose to eat), traffic costs from those fruit trucks clogging the highway, CO-2 emissions from transport etc. We've heard it all before; but until the full (or at least, fuller) social cost of consumer products is internalized and not swept into the public domain, the checkout-line prices for food will deceive. Is this an easy distortion to correct ? No. The economist who comes up with a formula to figure out the true welfare cost of producing food (or any good with associated externalities) will probably win the Nobel Prize. In the meantime I'll be at the supermarket, drinking Tropicana and feeling citrusy pangs of free-market guilt. September 27, 2007 08:33 EST
Laura Young, Holland Marsh Greenbelt Association: Hi there. I am so glad that this forum has opened up a discussion amongst Ontario's largest domestic market for fresh produce - the GTA. My name is Laura Young, my family has farmed the muck soils of Holland Marsh 20 minutes north of Toronto since the 1950's. The land is still in the family, and I've recently been pressing the Friends of the Greenbelt Association to educate the non-farming public about the history and importance of Holland Marsh to the Ontario fresh vegetable consumer, with no luck. (Long story, involving, in my opinion, the foundation being founded by winery and environmental groups funding their own projects and their patron politicians constituencies, but moving on...)
I'm very disappointed that this forum is not moderated by Ontario's agricultural sages; we're no longer an agricultural society and how do you know what you don't know? Please allow me to do something for you that may help to get to the crux of "local food matters in Ontario"- ask me questions and I will invite agricultural professors and association members and large scale farmers to answer your questions or relay their answers to you. You will likely be surprised at the answers, noting from comments above. May I dispel a couple of myths right off:
Eating "local food" is not a new trend. It is a(so far fairly misguided - have you seen Morris Panych's play Benevolence yet? Same principle, one may decide they're doing a good thing, but it's not necessarily what's needed) attempt to reverse the damage that the CAFTA and NAFTA rules have done to the local agricultural community. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs is mainly concerned with imports and exports, and not with Ontario citizens feeding themselves. Fresh fruit and vegetables were given just about the worst deal under NAFTA. Never before in the history of Ontario did we import the exact same things we grew locally. For example, one area where I know the figures, Holland Marsh (90% of York Region and Simcoe County fresh veggie production figures) has traditionally fed 2/3 of Ontario and 1/2 of Canada certain root vegetables and fresh greens. Out of over 308 million pounds of carrots produced in Ontario in 2006, over 200 million pounds came from Holland Marsh - and that's just one vegetable out of 40. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/hort/ctycarro05.htm Holland Marsh has the capacity to keep the GTA supplied with many local vegetables, herbs and medicinal plants (though not all kinds of crops grow on all soils, that's another undiscussed story to date...)
NAFTA and it's "free-market purism" ideology has encouraged grocers to buy out small grocery chains and governments to remove any rules that might "favour" local growers from selling fresh in season. So that previously American wholesalers that can supply these behemoth grocers year round were shut out during our local growing season, but now they're embraced. Consumers haven't noticed the difference because the shelves are still stocked and who really reads the little signs underneath the produce, especially when we're in a hurry?
The result is successful farmers in Holland Marsh these days are the ones that buy or rent huge swaths of land, plant the same crop for the big 3 Ontario grocers, package their own produce and export 40% of their crop, and rent or buy land in warmer climes so as to keep filling grocer contracts year round. Farmers markets are a great PR tool, but a joke at the scale of feeding the bulk of the population - can you imagine the President of Campbells Soup selling can by can at a farmers market? That's about as ridiculous as a farmer unloading thousands of pounds of vegetables carrot by carrot at a farmers market directly to customers. There's too much volume, even for contracts with universities and hospitals cafeterias to help much.
So while the Ontario Food Terminal used to be full on Ontario fresh fruit and vegetable growers, selling wares to local grocery buyers, now American wholesalers have taken over the bulk of sales and leisurely drive their Porsches and Ferraris into work while Ontario farmers are racing around on tractors 7 days a week. For all the talk by the "Big 3" about buying locally, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the produce being bought from American wholesalers.
Another thing that we're not discussing in local food movements - the amount of farmland we have left. How can we put farmers back on the land when there's no more fertile soil left? Mineral soils feed about 50 people per acre. Let's plant as much as we can in the cities, but what are the numbers of amount of urban food produced that don't need electricity vs. population? If anyone would like, I can give you a rough idea of how much fertile land we might have left in Ontario. After 35 years of building tract housing on our most valuable soils, OMAFRA has finally decided to take a count of whether we can feed ourselves going into the future in case of border shut down or natural disaster limiting our access to imported food. The finished count will probably be a wake-up call. We'll likely find we're taking the path of the Roman and Mayan societies - farmers moving to the city, abandoning the land, till society is so top heavy and reliant upon food imports that disasters that would have been minor become fatal.
One last note for now - over the last couple of days, I have noticed Holland Marsh root vegetables - under the name "Pier 27" and "Wolfart's Farms" being sold in Dominion for $1.97 for a 7 pound bag. There's not one sign provided courtesy of the Greenbelt Foundation (as they often provide funding for brochures and signs for Ontario wines at the LCBO) about the fact that these bags are just-picked produce from farms 20 minutes north of Toronto. If you see them, grab a bag. They'll keep for weeks in your crisper. They're "loss leaders", farmers aren't making money on them, but if they're not bought up, grocers will be able to say, "See? Torontonians don't want to buy local". What should have happened is that they should have accepted them loose so that customers could choose the amount they want.
Looking forward to discussions on this forum.
Laura Young
Holland Marsh Greenbelt Association September 27, 2007 21:54 EST
Laura Young: By the way, Pat T, drink your oj without guilt. I think the thing to concentrate on right now, for starters, is not importing what we can grow right here in Ontario. And extending the growing season without paving over agricultural land with hydroponic greenhouses that rely on electricity. I've been speaking to a green energy company about a large project to put solar panels on Holland Marsh warehouses and greenhouses. In event of a disaster that leaves us without food in cool or cold weather, HM can feed the GTA with root veggies even in the dead of winter. But only if the warehouses and greenhouses are off the power grid. Now that's food security. Urban foraging will help too.
When proponents of the Greenbelt talk about 1.8 million acres of greenbelt, we should ask, how much is actually agricultural land not roads, quarries, hamlets, hiking trails, escarpments and sown with wine grapes? And what kind of soil? Cattle pasture? Corn fields growing biofuels? Chicken farms? How much for fruit and vegetable growing? The best dairy farms in Simcoe County are not "greenbelted" and under pressure of urban development as municipal governance hungry to increase their tax base are left to be the guardians of land planning. We can't eat local food until we're sure we have local land to produce it. September 28, 2007 08:31 EST
adam: Hey Laura
I find it hilarious that we are talking about this. Except for the Calvinism of the whole movement it would mean that we would belike the settlers of the early eighteen century. Fresh fruit until September and then apples and carrots for the next nine months.
It would be back to the Babette Feast scene "I eat to live not to enjoy myself."
It is not surprising that the movement grew out of two place. England where eating tasteless food is the norm. ( THEY ARE STILL AFRAID OF GARLIC F'CHRI*T SAKE) and California where you can get fresh grown local produce all year long.
In a country with at least 7 non growning months this is a movement for the silver spoon enviromentalists.
September 29, 2007 07:02 EST
Laura Young: Adam,
I agree with you that England's food history has been pretty bland. Boiled - everything. That was the early north american food too - I have a Virginia recipe book from the late 1800's that consists mainly of very similar variations on bland veggies and meat. No wonder "ethnic" Italian restaurants were such a hit in Toronto when they came on the scene in the fifties. But I digress.
I have so much to relay to you about what's at stake here - yes, the "local food" movement has been taken up by wealthy and "mother nature" purists who seem to enjoy feeling guiltless while sloshing local wine at lavish "local food" events and hobnobing with political friends in power. (Teeth are knashing now as some these people are reading this I'm sure) But is this like the rich throwing $100 at the homeless as they step over them to allay their guilt about the reality in front of them?
But what does "local food" mean to the rest of us? I've actually been meeting with people, organizations and political historians for over a year now to put a picture together. Let me try to start to relay what I've found by asking this question. If there's sudden and prolonged lack of access to food imports, what can people 24 floors up in the air in condos and apartments do to survive? How will their food needs be taken care of? What do you think? September 29, 2007 10:13 EST
John Dewar: Food security is not something that most people ever consider, but the lessons of history are quite stark in this regard. Any society or civilization that over shoots it's resource base collapses with devastating results. One example was England allowing millions in Ireland to starve to death when the potatoe crop failed. Another more recent example was the transition to cotton crops in Egypt and Sommalia in the mid 1950's which was a direct contributor to widespread famine and economic collapse in that region. Somalia continues to suffer and they now have no agricultural base. In Canada, the vast majority of our produce is imported and large Canadian farmers are gradually being squeezed out of existance. The family farm ceased to be feasible long ago. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not import some foods or to reduce exports drastically. What I am saying is that Canadian farmers need a tax break and access to local markets within a rational system that is not skewed by external market forces and unresponsive marketing boards.
Another thing, since we import well over 80% of the produce we consume and much of that come by jet airplane, we are increasing our vulnerability twofold. Remember 9-11 when all the flights were cancelled? Think that could not happen again under any other senario, be it natural disaster or terrorist scare?
Speaking of man-made natural disasters, jet exhaust has a critical impact on the atmosphere because the emmissions are above the clouds and cannot be "washed" out by rain which effectively sequesters carbon into the ground, lakes and oceans. Above the clouds, carbon particulate travels around the globe following the jet streams, trapping heat causing atmospheric instability. Global warming is a misnomer by the way, global extremes are what you actually get along with massive crop failures (like western Ontario this year)and infrastucture damage from tornados, hurricanes and drought. Yet somehow, most Canadians think everything is just fine and we really don't need to be able to feed ourselves, we can just go to the grocery store. Virtually no one in Canada is starving at this point, but food security in this country is mostly an illusion This would become quickly apparent if we are confronted with any major interrruption of the supply chain. Think it can't happen here? October 01, 2007 15:08 EST
Cameron: Does anyone really know what eating locally means.This is not a debate about trends. Nor is it about the right thing to do. Eating locally is about buying good produce, meats, cheese and wines from Canadian farmers who produce quality goods. Buy Canadian and let's start eating and stop talking October 02, 2007 20:25 EST
Mary Kainer: My husband and I have been trying to eat local and set a goal of about 75% (since we still want coffee, chocolate and the occasional citrus). Overall it has been a good experience and has got us in touch with local markets. The biggest problem comes with the few canned goods marked "product of Canada". I now understand that the food may not be local. I think labelling laws need to be changed and, given the interest in local foods, labelling information needs to be regionalized. October 04, 2007 01:37 EST
vicki: The crux of the matter is that people want to buy food CHEAP. Until we pay the full cost of growing food in a healthy sustainable fashion we will all be eating pesticide and hormone filled flesh and fibre.
I choose to buy locally produced food because it just tastes better. I would rather go with less and enjoy the fullsome pleasure of a locally grown melon or potato that is purchased with local dirt on it. The other thing is that fruit and vegetables rarely look perfect when grown in a sustainable fashion. Somehow city folk have forgotten what food should look like - very few of us are perfectly shaped and unblemished so why should our tomato be? But I digress from the topic. I cringe when I see shoppers buying berries in the dead of winter - organic or not. Savour the taste of the fruit in season and look forward to it when it comes around again. By all means buy those items that cannot be grown locally but gorge on those delights that can be. It blows my mind that someone will buy an apple from the US or New Zealand in apple season! October 04, 2007 05:44 EST
Larry Powell: I'm a bit puzzled by the bitterness that is spilling over against the eat local movement. There seems to be some strange notion that it is a creation of the rich or, as one writer put it "silver-spooned environmentalists!"
Well, I'm an evironmentalist, but definitely not of the silver-spooned variety! Yet I always eat local, where possible. And surely the "where possible" is the key.
I realize there are those dedicated people who eat local, no matter what and are prepared to sacrifice their favourite exotic dish to prove their point.
I may not go that far. But at least I realize there is nothing noble about eating wooden strawberries from California or tasteless tomatoes from Mexico, either. Especially when I can buy delicious ones from my neighbour at comparable or slightly higher prices.(Or grow them myself for even less!)
Local food is fresher, tastier and, I suspect, more nutritious also.
When faced with levels of childhood obesity and juvenile diabetes that have reached epidemic proportions,(aided and abetted by the fast-food craze) how can this be wrong?
The cynics might get some perverse satisfaction from patronizing environmentally brain-dead multi-national food corporations half a world away.
I do not.
Larry Powell
Roblin MB
October 04, 2007 20:18 EST
Paul Beingessner: I find this discussion interesting but not exactly profound. It's mosly urban people telling each other what to do or not to do.
The thing that will ultimately drive consumption patterns is energy costs and availability. When crude oil supply becomes less than demand and the price skyrockets, the cost of local food will be less than that of food imported half a world away, so that is what people will eat. Mind you, the cost of all food will go up, since food requires a lot of energy just to produce, let alone transport. Most of this discussion seems to be taking place with no acknowledgement that cheap oil is a finite resource and will end. At that point, people will find lots of ways to grow some of their own food, if they still remember how.
It would be sensible to start putting in place the systems that will be able to provide for our own food needs right now. We already subsidize agriculture, so why not begin to shift those subsidies toward supplying local demands?
We farm in Sask, and sell lamb and beef direct to customers, mostly in Regina. They buy it because it it good, and a good price, (cheaper than the supermarket because they are buying in bulk) and sometimes because they like the idea of supporting local producers. We also raise grains that largely are exported. We generally eat local, I guess, because we eat our own meat, our own potatoes, our own apples and plums (in season), our own garden veggies, and we preserve some fruits and veggies by freezing and canning. We still buy lots in the store, but we don't have to if we want to grow it. When my kids were small we ate very little that we didn't produce. And, no, it wasn't bland or tasteless. It was pretty darn good.
Most of us spend very little on food. Canadians spend a smaller percentage of their net income on food than any nation in the world (okay, we might be second) and a lot of that is spent in restaurants.
Buying locally produced food supports your neighbours and fellow citizens and has economic spin-offs that benefit your area, province and country. If it costs a small amount more, most people could just spend a little less at Macdonalds and come out even. So why would you not do it?
Interesting the comment that we couldn't feed large cities out of farmers' markets. Ever been to Turkey, or Cambodia or Vietnam or Peru or .....? Adam Smith would be the first to tell you it CAN be done, if you just have the demand and are willing to pay for it.
Paul Beingessner
Truax, Sask October 05, 2007 08:05 EST
The Walrus: Great comment. Everyone should stay tuned for the next discussion, which should provide a better platform for the discussion of food supply and cost\price.
Interestingly enough Alphabet City arranged a tour of the Ontario Food Terminal. Paul I think you may have enjoyed the discussion and the tour there. I am hoping to meld a bit of what was learned\talked about there with out next discussion.
I'd love to continue this discussion from room to room and see how if progresses. So please spread the word about this because I want everyone's two cents and keep on stirring the pot. October 05, 2007 09:23 EST
David: The only "invisible hand" that will supposedly win-out is the handful of money that's exploiting cheap labour in other countries in order to sell food cheaper here in Canada. Unfortunately for Mr. Ellis and Pat T, it won't win. First, the transportation costs are astronomical (oil is $100/barrel and rising) so they have to make up the difference through labour. How long the import business lasts in its current state depends on how far they can squeeze the workers (I hear the workers are already getting sick and dying). The second problem is that the product that they sell is not only watery tomatoes in December, but also watery tomatoes in September, when they are abundant here, and already available at a good price. And another mitigating factor is the product produced locally is almost always superior to the one trucked or shipped in from wherever. Even when local produce is preserved in jars and cans. If the locals knew and were educated on what they had available from the local market, they would see that there is already PLENTY. It is not a matter of being trendy or trying to preserve farms, or giving up your O.J., but simply taking advantage of what's already there and choosing local, fresher produce, over the bland produce imported from abroad. October 05, 2007 14:25 EST
Chris Ellis: David, the invisible hand works on the demand side of things, not the supply side. Suppliers will supply whatever we will buy, which will typically be the cheapest item. And you are right, when it oil gets to expensive the market will move toward another natural resting point. Its not about winning or losing.... nor better product... its about the general demand of the population and price. I'll be glad when oil get more expensive and more expensive. Transportation costs are things we fail to see everyday. October 05, 2007 15:50 EST
Laura Young, Holland Marsh Greenbelt Association: Paul, speaking farmer to farmer, I understand that developing and pre-industrialized countries feed themselves from farmers markets, or farmers having local direct access to consumers. They don't have corporations holding the noose on their food supply on the retail venue level that have displaced them.
I'm not sure what the situation is in Saskatchewan. But here in Ontario there are 3 big grocers that supply, for example, 3,600 calories worth of food for every man woman and child in the Greater Toronto Area. They've long displaced independant grocery stores that were supplied by local farmers, such as my family. That in turn has put a lot of Ontario farmers out of business. My own family still owns farmland but rents it out to others, and I live in Toronto.
There has been a "greenbelt" movement in Ontario that involved $25 million being given to a private agency, the "Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation" that largely has given grants to specific environmental agencies unfamiliar with agriculture, of which the staff are mainly hired from, and Niagara winery interests, which is a significant financial engine of "agriculture" in Ontario, due mostly to Bay St. types buying up wineries and grape land, and then applying their "free-market" skills to creating a Napa Valley of the North. http://www.bizniagara.com/business_news/Greenbelt_Dec_04.php
Food agriculture was an afterthought in this greenbelt creation, and a voice for the viability of farmers legislated into the Official Greenbelt Plan, 2005 was twice voted down in provincial parliament. So farmers have benefited from greenbelt grants only on the limited wisdom of this foundation. Some initiatives have been ok, but the Farmers Markets Ontario initiative is not about independant farmers being given back their historical place as in Turkey, Vietnam, Cambodia or Peru - it is about one ngo holding the monopoly to all the farmers markets, charging a fee for entry, setting the rules for participation...And since a Director of Farmers Markets Ontario is on the External Advisory Committee for deciding upon funding grants, what chance is there that he will vote to allow another farmers markets benefit for grant money he is in competition for? So while the stated mandate is one that puts life concerns first – clean air, water and access to local food, the economic model that facilitates the goals are based upon the economic system of the day – the winner takes all, free market monopoly.
Another initiative of this greenbelt foundation is Local Food Plus, which I personally find a great idea, (but am not sure why it couldn't be done through Foodland Ontario). They arrange for institutional food buyers in Ontario to buy local, and "certify" certain ethical farmers. But they haven't been able to break the Big 3 grocer juggernaut. And the Big 3 have been fighting back. It eventually comes down to an advertising war. The Weston family can certainly outspend Ontario taxpayers (who are funding all of these greenbelt foundation initiatives)and make it seem that they are supporting local businesses while in fact local food is a very small part of their fresh produce sales, and at the same time cut the prices they pay to farmers so that small farmers don't have a chance to make money.
October 10, 2007 07:38 EST
Laura Young: Chris, the "invisible hand of the market" absolutely affects the supply side. Look at the housing market. How many small bungalows can a young family find in Leaside, Toronto anymore? They're all being snapped up by developers who build monster houses and try to sell them for $1.3 million. And once a way of life is gone, it's gone. No one is going to point to a recently redeveloped street and say, let's just rip all those houses down and bring back the bungalows. The city of Toronto is not planning for neigbourhoods where a kid can throw a ball in his own backyard; it is planning to maximize tax revenue on every piece of property.
The same goes for the food industry. It's why my family no longer farms. We were shut out of our Ontario Food Terminal sales not by losing access to our space, but by being passed over by grocers who are being forced by the free market system to cut costs at all costs. In fact, it's no longer the same grocery buyers. It's just employees of large corporations who happen to deal in food.
Consumers can only demand what exists. What products exist have passed the requirement of being the cheapest, end of story. Large businesses provide quality as long as their competitors are able to supply it. Once they force their competitors out of business and have a monopoly, they determine the quality for the consumer. And the quality will be the cheapest piece of crap they can turn out without killing someone. Whoops, too late. We still buy from the same suppliers that gave us tainted spinach, etc, because they are the only large conglomerates that can supply the big 3 grocers in huge amounts (except for Holland Marsh, but HM farmers are exporting 60% of their produce to large grocers abroad and get no incentives to supply local).
How did we get here? And how do we get out of this madness? In creating modern economies, we listened to Adam Smith's advice (thanks for the reference, Paul) about wealth creation but forgot about his advice to temper pursuit of money with social conscience.
I'm going to quote writer David Korten, who states this much better than I. He boiled down the current collective money "wisdom" to an "Empire Prosperity Story". See if you've bought into the following myths:
1. Economic growth fills our lives with material abundance, lifts the poor from their misery, and creates the wealth needed to protect the environment.
2. Money is the measure of wealth and the proper arbiter of every choice and relationship.
3. Prosperity depends on freeing wealthy investors from taxes and regulations that limit their incentive and capacity to invest in creating the new jobs that enrich us all.
4. Unregulated markets allocate resources to their most productive and highest value use.
5. The wealthy deserve their riches because we all get richer as the benefits of the investments of those on top trickle down to the bottom.
5. Poverty is caused by welfare programs that strip the poor of motivation to become productive members of society willing to work hard at the jobs the market offers.
So this is the framework that's caused our local family farmers to be displaced, pollute our air and waters and decrease our food security. A campaign that encourages people to buy local but does not address this economic framework will not replace local family farmers, will not clean our air and water nor increase our food security. What will?
As Mr. Korten puts it, the "Earth Community Prosperity Story" will create a framework, or new set of beliefs around money that values life as a key economic growth indicator. That is,
1. Healthy children, families, communities, and ecological systems are the true measure of real wealth.
2. Mutual caring and support are the primary currency of healthy families and communities, and community is the key to economic security.
3. Real wealth is created by investing in the human capital of productive people, the social capital of caring relationships, and the natural capital of healthy ecosystems.
4. The end of poverty and the healing of the environment will come from reallocating material resources from rich to poor and from life-destructive to life-nurturing uses.
5. Markets have a vital role, but democratically accountable governments must secure community interests by assuring that everyone plays by basic rules that internalize costs, maintain equity, and favour human-scale local businesses that honour community values and serve community needs.
6. Economies must serve and be accountable to people, not the reverse.
The Empire Prosperity Story increases the wealth gap. The globalization of the Niagara wine industry benefited very few Canadians, but displaced many small winery owners and squeezed prices for grape growers by monopolizing the wholesale market. Overall, the Ontario GDP went up, but society, ordinary citizens, suffered. The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation staff have told me they are not interested in pointing out to the Ontario government that their policies are creating an insecure food state, as they do not want to upset their cash generator. (They've lost almost $1.5 million of taxpayers money on the stockmarket anyways, but that's besides the point...)
In any case, federal law trumps provincial law in most trade matters. And what is the goal of our federal agriculture minister? Let's get a hint - Currently Gerry Ritz, an Albertan, is in court to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board in favour of a "free-market system".
Alberta seems to be an incubator of free-market thought these days. For example, the Viterra Chair at the University of Regina scoffs at "food sovereignty" and is hacking away at every conference and newspaper article he can about the "dangers" of marketing boards. (Viterra is a stockholder owned Canadian grain corporation that happens to be in a position to benefit from a relaxing of federal food sovereignty) Food sovereignty simply means citizen control over natural resources rather than corporate control. See links for example of his statements: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/arts/story.html?id=10dda4ba-535a-4e84-9129-f19d38eb0bf8 (last line in article)
and http://www.fcpp.org/main/events_detail.php?EventID=172
Sure, some farmers are not happy with the marketing boards. But it's a type of "shock doctrine" as Naomi Klein writes about that takes advantage of a crisis of confidence to replace the players altogether instead of solving their problem as the federal government is doing to grain farmers. Since fruit and vegetables never had a marketing board, the government is simply neglecting to solve industry problems with the full realization that small family vegetable farmers are heading towards extinction, even while putting money into "buy local" campaigns. Governments would actually prefer that conglomerates take over family farms so as to extract more dollars out of the food industry. That is why citizens must push for governments and their fellow citizens to adopt the "Earth Community Prosperity Story". This will only be accomplished first at the community level, through independant market co-operatives, and citizens banding together to legally ban companies from exploiting community resources, including water, air, food and university research and resources that companies are trying to privatize for $. Eventually, these efforts can trickle upward to the federal level. October 10, 2007 10:09 EST
Llew Hinkes: The invisible hand of the market is what has led to all of the sprawl and pollution, so any response with that is just terrible.
Slow food is not meant to completely replace all foreign food items, there's no way most communities would be able to survive without importing certain items, but just to help supplant it. Why import an apple from New Zealand that needs to be frozen and preserved in wax when you could buy a locally grown one? October 11, 2007 08:55 EST
Rick Blechta: After years of not really thinking about the food we eat in our home, I finally began to realize that much of what we put into our mouths just didn't taste all that good.
Tomatoes are a good example. The majority of tomatoes sold in grocery supermarkets are just not very good. Why? Industrialization of the agricultural industry. A tomato was bred not for flavour and nutritional value, but for its tough skin, uniform size and ability to last for a long time. Bottom line? They're tasteless. Why bother eating them?
We used to be able to eat rare hamburgers once upon a time. Now we have e-coli to worry about. Most meat is full of antibiotics that are only given in case the animal gets sick, not because they are. We feed cattle on grain. Corn is really not part of a cow's diet. Left to their own devices, they'd eat grass. Result of corn in the diet? Thinned out intestinal membrane and the e-coli that's found normally only in a cow's gut can pass into the blood stream, and hence, into our guts. The results can be deadly.
I could go on and on.
I have chosen to eat locally as much as possible, simply because I want to know who's growing my food. No, Chris Ellis, it's not always cheaper (but you CAN get some great deals when harvesting is at its peak), but my feeling is you always get what you pay for. You're a young guy. Wait until you get older and your body starts to mess up. You might think differently.
Industrialized food is not better food. It's industrialized so that the companies can make more for less. The farther we get away from the land, the worse it is for us. The produce we're buying in our local supermarkets was often picked weeks before. How much nutrition is left in it by that time? When farms are sold, the land gets used for industry, new housing, big box stores. It's gone for good.
The more of our own local (i.e. Canadian) food production capability we lose, the more trouble we're in. Do I really need the option to eat asparagus at a low price year round? No. Will I have to go back to eating "a settler's diet" during the winter months? No. That, at least, is when it makes sense to buy imported food. Or you could preserve food.
The thing I find frightening is that most of the food in our stores is sourced from the same places year round. Why does my IGA sell asparagus from Peru in June, even when the local, great tasting and really fresh stuff is available all around us in Ontario? Because they have to support their sources of supply year round. That's silly and wasteful (of energy).
Bottom line is: if you're not getting the best nutrition from what you're eating (and the cheaper food almost always has poorer nutritional value), you're not spending your money wisely.
You can eat cheaply, Chris, I choose to eat well. October 18, 2007 11:29 EST
RickW: We live in an energy-intensive society. Indeed, many of us (if not most) would perish were we to be deprived of the energy we consume. The trick is to manufacture this energy in a sustainable manner.
Having said that, eating locally really needn't "deprive" us of variety. One comment mentioned citrus fruit and juices. With sustainable (and efficient) energy sources, oranges and lemons can be grown in the Arctic.
Or would this be considered some sort sort of "eco-blasphemy"......even while the use of energy to transport us at speeds faster than walking is not? October 20, 2007 10:59 EST