Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Food Miles is a Crock


Shalmanese

Recommended Posts

I'm really fascinated that this seems to be such a North American-centric thread.  Where are the europeans?  the australians?  the asians?....

I'm wondering how many of the posters on this thread who are debunking the food miles myth try to find other ways to make a difference to the planet or approach eating ethically?  Do you walk to the grocery store?  Buy meat from a traceable source?  Support your local grocer and not the big scary chain?  Or is this all part of the 'don't like being lectured to buy a lunatic leftie' argument too?

In my (comparatively limited) experience of Europe, the food distribution systems seem to be organized differently, making it more convenient to shop locally, if not always to buy locally produced items.

Where I live in Jersey, I'm one of the few who has the option to walk to the (big chain, locally owned franchise) grocer, which I do if I'm buying lightweight items.

If I want to buy anything from a local butcher/baker/fishmonger/produce vendor, not to mention my town's seasonal greenmarket, I have to drive. There is no other option. If there were convenient mass transit to such places, I'd use it, but suburban America wasn't built that way.

Thank God for tea! What would the world do without tea? How did it exist? I am glad I was not born before tea!

- Sydney Smith, English clergyman & essayist, 1771-1845

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't able to find any good figures for containerised shipping but I did manage to find this graph which shows the Ton-Miles per Gallon for Truck, Rail and Barge shipping.

Now assume that the typical surburban family drives a 25 Miles Per Gallon vehicle, lives 2.5 miles from their nearest supermarket and buys 20 pounds of groceries in the average shopping trip. So on one round trip, they will travel 5 miles and use 0.2 gallons of petrol to transport 0.01 tons of groceries. Going with the 514 Ton-Miles per Gallon for inland barges, that same barge could move 0.01 tons of groceries 10,000 miles for the same amount of fuel. Even if you assume container ships are the same efficiency as inland barges, you could move that 20 pounds of groceries exactly halfway around the world by ship for the same amount of fuel as it takes for you to go to the store and back. If you buy 40 pounds of groceries rather than 20, then it's a quarter of the way around the world. If you live 5 miles instead of 2.5 miles, then it's once around the world. If you drive a SUV which gets 12.5MPG and you live 5 miles away, then it's twice around the world. You can fiddle around with the numbers all you like but the conclusion seems inescapable, where your food comes from is less significant than how you choose to get it.

...

But how the goods get from the farm to the market is also an important consideration. Your typical farmers market has many small farmers from within a 100 mile or so radius individually shipping in small amounts of good via cars and small trucks. Lets say the average farmer ships in 500 pounds of produce from 50 miles away in a 10MPG truck. This means they consume 5 gallons of fuel to ship 1/4 of a ton.

Now the prototypical "lamb from New Zealand" and "Cherries from Chile" were probably moved via truck to the nearest port in huge containers and then shipped via sea to one of the US ports before being trucked to a central distribution centre and then on to the local supermarket. Even if you assume the goods travel 5000 miles by barge and 500 miles by truck, it would still only take 4.5 gallons of fuel to transport that same 1/4 ton. If you happen to be living in a port city (Every large city except Chicago), then the distance from the port to your supermarket is even closer and even less fuel would be used.

Now, does this on the face of it means that eating locally is crap? Of course not, all of the previous reasons to do with freshness, seasonality and supporting local farmers are still valid. But what is total crap is the idea that somehow eating locally is good for the environment through the decrease in carbon emissions from shipping. While the idea has immediate intuitive appeal, if you peer at the actual numbers, the reality is that modern containerized shipping and distribution has become so efficient that it's only really the last few miles that are important.

You might want to include the cost/energy consumption required to keep those cherries and that lamb in reasonably good/sanitary shape, i.e., refrigeration, humidity control, etc, both while on the ship and after the ship reaches the port (and is unloaded by longshoremen or cranes or whatever, another cost) and is transported further by train and/or truck, unloaded again, unwrapped or whatever, for which more labor is required and so on. I don't know much about various grains but it's my impression that they usually require humidity controls, etc., to prevent molding, etc., so perhaps some fuel or energy use is required to keep grains in good and safe condition during storage and transport. I suspect there is also some energy consumption in, for instance, treating greens before they're packaged in plastic as ready to eat salad greens (aren't they washed in chlorinated water, bagged w/carbon dioxide for longer shelf life or something like that?). Any or all of those would increase the real cost of the product/food and if necessary to enable the food to be transported over long distances, it could reasonably be included in the "foodmile" cost.

I try to buy locally and I belong to a local food cooperative. I can buy some fish and seafood locally (at one time I could buy only tuna, halibut and crab in season from fishermen, now I can buy more relatively local seafood from a new local fish market). I have a friend who has enough land to grow quite a bit of fruit, I sometimes help her prune fruit trees, pick fruit and she's given me both fresh and dried fruit. My fairly small yard isn't well suited to growing much, but I have a few blueberry bushes, and I've grown potatoes and greens. I try to buy and eat seasonally and locally but can't say I always manage it. I do like citrus, and no citrus grows within a 100 mile radius where I live in OR but I buy it anyway.

I'm glad Fat Guy mentioned NY apples as I remember very good apples from when I lived in NY (just as I remember picking some great strawberries at a U-Pick place on LI, some excellent peaches and great corn--also on LI) and as far as I knew, NY had never stopped growing great apples. Hood River. OR, is also known for its apples (and other fruit) but there's a huge, huge, number of apple varieties and some do better in NY, some in OR. My mother lives in NY part of the year and it irritates her that she sometimes cannot find NY apples in the supermarket in the fall--only WA apples.

It's been sad to see the decline in the number of dairies and cheese makers in NY (what is wrong with those politicians in Albany, anyway?)--IMO NY had some of the best sharp and extra sharp cheddar in the US. I can still find some occasionally, but it's much more difficult then it was, say 20 years ago. I think cheese is an example of a food that can benefit from being made locally--because of the possibility of variety. I can find some good (not cheap, but good) soft goat cheeses within 60 miles of where I live. The area was once home to quite a few dairies and creameries (Tillamook cheese is what's left of a much more extensive dairy region)--because the land isn't really suitable for growing, say, wheat or corn. But cows and goats seem do well. Also peacocks although no one seems to eat them.

The US subsidizes agriculture in CA (and WA and OR and probably a few other states) through subsidized water, i.e., the Bureau of Reclamation. Eastern WA and Eastern OR would probably not have the extensive agriculture they do without massive federal dam and irrigation programs (i.e., subsidized water and electricity) dating from the 1930's. A quote I remember from book about US industrial agriculture stated that, we subsidize farmers in CA so they can grow alfalfa "cheaply" enough that they can undersell the farmer in TN who can grow the same crop without irrigation. So there is some question as to whether or not the type of massive agricultural concentration seen in parts of (for example) CA would exist or could continue to exist without the kind of subsidies past and present it receives (and probably favorable tax treatment) and thus some question as to whether or not that kind of agriculture would exist or seem to be as efficient without the subsidies.

Former Sen. Moynihan and another Senator used to annually publish information that indicated how much each state got back in terms of assistance, projects, etc., per dollar paid in federal taxes. I don't know if any elected rep or other person has continued that excellent tradition. I didn't read it every year, but I do remember reading that (at least one year) NJ got the least back (considerably less than a dollar), NM got quite a bit more. So residents of some states might be getting more of food bang for their subsidizing buck then others . If in fact the import of out of season food is benefiting from similar favorable tax treatment or subsidies, then that would be a cost that should be added to compute the total actual "food mile" cost.

As other people have pointed out, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. For 6 years, I did most of my errands on foot. I used a car for major shopping, about once a month. Now I live further from the center of town (more of a stretched out oval then a center) so sometimes I drive and sometimes walk (in good weather, it's a 3 mile walk each way) or I park and walk about 1/2 mile-1 mile total to do errands, including buying food. The local Farmers' market is open from May to October, that's when I shop there. I freeze some of what I buy. Most of the rest of what I buy is from the food co-op but I also go to a supermarket for a few things. The nearest Costco is close to 70 miles away, so I go there only occasionally and as part of a business trip--or a friend picks up stuff for me when she goes. I see nothing wrong with buying some food at Costco although the only produce I've bought is pistachio nuts.

I try to put as many of my food dollars as possible into local foods (good local foods). I haven't had a yen for "fresh" cherries in the winter (I do have sour cherries from this summer in the freezer) so I haven't had to make that choice--but like I said, I do buy citrus and it's coming from CA, FL or Mexico.

It's been interesting for me to find and try recipes that make use of in season produce or that preserved foods (dried fruits, frozen veg or fruit, etc.). It's been interesting for me to learn (by reading local newspapers, gardening articles, etc.) that some foods were much more widespread then I had thought. I had not realized, for instance, that there are some varieties of apples that do quite well in the south until I read an article about a man who has spent years collecting apple varieties that do well there so they're not lost. Reading Edna Lewis' "A Taste of Country Cooking" made me aware of how many more types of produce, etc., grew in VA then I had realized. A trip to a small farmers' market in Annandale, VA, during a visit to my sister's provided more information about how wide a variety of produce can be grown in VA.

My point is that while people living in a more agrarian society may have gone without part of the year, there was also a much greater variety of produce seasonally available (and some of which could be preserved) then many people see now in their supermarket. Different regions had different varieties, partly due to some outstanding work by farmers, geniuses like Luther Burbank and agricultural scientists (agricultural stations, land grant schools) and and partly due to the ability of some types of plants, like grapes, to flourish over a broad range, settlers found grapes growing in a wide variety of climates (from the south to the prairies and further). So some types of produce, that many now get only from a nonlocal source, were at one time available locally, at least in in season--and were a fresher, quite possibly tastier, product (and the money spent stayed in the area). That kind of change doesn't seem like progress to me.

Sorry about the length of the post, but these seem like important issues.

SH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Economist has a feature story this week on the perils of "Ethical Food". It covers a good bit of the food-mile discussion, but also talks about organic vs. conventional and "Fairtrade".

http://www.economist.com/business/displays...tory_id=8380592

Key quote: "What should a shopper do? All food choices involve trade-offs. Even if organic farming does consume a little less energy and produce a little less pollution, that must be offset against lower yields and greater land use. Fairtrade food may help some poor farmers, but may also harm others; and even if local food reduces transport emissions, it also reduces potential for economic development. Buying all three types of food can be seen as an anti-corporate protest, yet big companies already sell organic and Fairtrade food, and local sourcing coupled with supermarkets' efficient logistics may yet prove to be the greenest way to move food around."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are issues worth pondering, SH, but again, they're not as pat as some make them out to be.

As for energy consumption in transport: The same fuel that provides the motive power for the vehicle also provides the power for the various support systems, including refrigeration, ice production and climate control (if any), so all that is already factored into the fuel cost per ton-mile. The labor costs you list are probably still not enough to make the long-distance transport cost as significant as the short-distance transport cost the consumer pays to get to and from the retail store. Living near the retailer probably does a lot more to reduce total energy consumption than living near the food source.

The whole issue of subsidized water is another matter. From what I understand, an acre of land devoted to homes uses less water than the same acre devoted to farming, so if I follow this logic, moving most of the population of the Northeast and Midwest to California's Central Valley and returning the land they vacated to agricultural use might be the best way to resolve this issue!

How many different New York State cheesemakers used to sell their wares in Empire State food stores? I'm curious to know, because I don't seem to have much trouble finding New York State cheddar (which is among the best in the country, although I think that Oregon's Tillamook and Vermont's Cabot are equal or better) in Philadelphia-area supermarkets, although the overwhelming bulk of it is either store brand or is sold by three producers: Kraft, Herkimer County Cheese Company or Cabot (via their ownership of McAdam).

The issue of local variety is also a live one: it's true that a lot of agricultural regions used to support a wider variety of crops than they do today when industrial-scale farming is prevalent. I think that is a more valid reason to buy local than the environmental argument. But the argument from variety runs both ways too: how many of you out there can honestly say that you could find bok choy anywhere, say, 25 or 30 years ago? Or that you knew what it was? The same mobility that allows peoples to move here from all over the world allows the foods they know to follow them, too, and both those migration streams have enriched our country and our culture immensely. Without global-scale trade and travel -- burning all that fuel -- we wouldn't have had this enrichment.

Sandy Smith, Exile on Oxford Circle, Philadelphia

"95% of success in life is showing up." --Woody Allen

My foodblogs: 1 | 2 | 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us note, before going any further, that the line between agrarian and urban society was crossed the moment we figured out, thousands of years ago, how to produce more food than we needed for our own (personal or family/kin group) survival.  This inevitably requires that some -- nay, much -- of the food production take place well away from the locus of consumption.  To an extent, this whole argument is merely one over degrees of separation.

If you want to see something remarkable that illustrates this very point, check out the BBC series "Connections," first episode of the first season. James Burke shows how the invention of the plow changed the course of society and human history in a fundamental way. Not having to engage the entire population of a community in the business of procuring food opened doors for specialization of skills, as some of the society's members were free to explore, experiment, and try new thngs... which led to basic innovations such as implements for cooking and food storage, new tools (beginning with those meant to augment and improve food preparation and such,) and many other basic inventions that were the earliest steps into the world of "technology." Later in the episode, Burke lays out a "breakdown of civilization" scenario when, due to some catastrophic event, our modern system of services breaks down, forcing a modern population to deal with the age-old problem of feeding itself. Fascinating stuff... it's not an alarmist type presentation of the possibility; it is, however, an illuminating look at just how distanced most of us are from the entire process of producing and distributing food.

Strangely enough, I can think of things that are more rewarding to do, personally, than spend my time on earth (needlessly) limiting my food sources to a hundred-mile radius, maintaining a garden and a wheat field, and canning/drying/preserving whatever foods come from this.

Karen (not barefoot, pregnant, or always in the kitchen or fields)

This gave e a giggle, as I seem to have spent a significant portion of my life doing just that... but I can't imagine that it's for everyone, that's for sure. I would also wager it would be *very* difficult in an urban environment... and even though many climates in the world are conducive to growing a wide variety of foodstuffs and supporting livestock, we would definitely give up choices. I seriously doubt I would be able to grow rice here in central Virginia with much success, and my garden was FAR less successful when I lived in central Florida than it has been here, in Tennessee, and in Mississippi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later in the episode, Burke lays out a "breakdown of civilization" scenario when, due to some catastrophic event, our modern system of services breaks down, forcing a modern population to deal with the age-old problem of feeding itself. 

There *are* places in the world where this has happened in modern times. It is happening in places at this very moment.

War.

Soils that have been depleted since pre-historic times unable to produce enough to eat.

Starvation, and one person killing another for a handful of food.

No easy solutions. Certainly no solutions "right there", easy to implement.

And what comes in (not enough, of course, ever, seemingly) to try to help *are* the products of industrialized agriculture, shipped halfway across the world quickly, not in boats moved by sail, and what comes in to help additionally are the developing ideas of modern (sigh, yes industrialized) agriculture studies by those who, when faced with a "nothing" in front of them in terms of soil and geography, try to find a "something" so that people who do live there can hopefully find a way to live.

There are no grocery stores or on-line shopping for these people to fall back upon. There is only the hopeful goodwill of others who do not live where they live.

It's only serendipity that any of us were not born to live in these unrelenting places.

.........................................................

Farming is hard work, Sunny, of a type suited not for everyone. . .as you say. I'm not suited for it, but have great respect for anyone who does manage to do it. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There *are* places in the world where this has happened in modern times. It is happening in places at this very moment.

**snip**

It's only serendipity that any of us were not born to live in these unrelenting places.

You're absolutely right. It's easy to forget that when we live in such a cushy, comfortable society.

Farming is hard work, Sunny, of a type suited not for everyone. . .as you say. I'm not suited for it, but have great respect for anyone who does manage to do it.  :wink:

It IS a hard life. I can't claim farmer status, either... we usually classify our little 6+ acres as a homestead, or during the really busy season, I feel better calling it a "farmette." :) The older I get, too, the more difficult some of the work becomes for me. We also have it real easy here because living out in a very rural area, I have neighbors with whom to barter, farmer's stands all over the place, and a farmer's market in the little town about 30 miles from here. Unlike the farmer's markets that are in the closest cities, it's *really* a local farmer's market... I was shocked at how much foreign or at least far-away stuff was sold at those places. I guess I still drive a fair bit, using gas, to get to the places I shop regularly, but again... we live so far out that it's 30 miles to the closest stop light, much less shopping of any sort!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole issue of subsidized water is another matter.  From what I understand, an acre of land devoted to homes uses less water than the same acre devoted to farming, so if I follow this logic, moving most of the population of the Northeast and Midwest to California's Central Valley and returning the land they vacated to agricultural use might be the best way to resolve this issue!

sandy, i agree with most of what you said, but this really stopped me cold. of course it would depend on the crop and the location, and i'm not aware of any statistics to argue one way or another, but based on my neighborhood and how often the lawns get watered, this seems highly doubtful. To say nothing of the fact that most farming acres lack flush toilets, washing machines, sinks, faucets, etc.

on the other hand, see you in Fresno!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

There's an op-ed in today's New York Times by James E. McWilliams titled "Food That Travels Well." The centerpiece of the op-ed is the Lincoln University study out of New Zealand, comparing total energy use for producing food in New Zealand and shipping it to England, versus producing it locally in England:

lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a very interesting piece, and really gets you thinking about how to be a responsible food purchaser/consumer. I think it comes down to having to do more research. Certainly, pasture-raised (no need for fertilizers, drugs, or feed), boat-shipped lamb may turn out to be less carbon-intensive than the lamb in Britain. For me, however, I can go to my local farmer, buy a whole, pasture-raised lamb, cut it up and freeze it, and never have to go to the supermarket for lamb for the next year. It gets you thinking--certainly less driving/shipping involved, but how do my/society's costs for the electricity for my two upright freezers, the vacuum sealer, the plastic bags for the sealer, etc. compare to having to drive to the store more often? Is air-shipped fish more carbon-intensive than me going out and catching my own in a local pond? Probably, but who knows. It certainly seems like this should be the case, and I do feel some guilt when I know a product has been air-shipped.

My vegetable garden is another example. I rarely buy vegetables from April to November. I have an abundance in my garden--so much so that we occasionally give veggies away to friends and neighbors. We use a drip irrigation system and no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. But how much does my garden lessen my "carbon footprint" compared to the supermarket when you factor in the cost of producing water here in Chicago, the cost of producing and shipping my beloved fish emulsion fertilizer and neem oil (from India, no less), the fuel for canning and freezing the surplus for winter? Mind you, our next step is to set up rain barrels to water from as much as nature will allow, so that will help lessen the footprint. Certainly my veggies taste much better than the supermarket and even somewhat better than the farmer's market because they are that much fresher.

I guess if you can make wholesale changes, like I have, I feel you really can lessen your carbon footprint, besides dramatically improving the quality of your food. Between all the "freezer meat" I have now (I buy beef, pork, lamb, and chickens farm-direct, so I drive three times a year to the farmers--I get chickens every time I pick up a large animal) and my garden I rarely go to the supermarket six months out of the year. When I do, it's easy enough to walk or bike, since I only need a small number of things. Once a month, I'll drive so as to pick up staples. I've been trying to remember to bring my own bags to reduce my reliance on plastic.

Because of how I'm now mainly getting my food, I guess I feel less "guilty" about buying air-shipped fish and similar things that seem like they are carbon-intensive. As a foodie living in Chicago, I'm certainly not going to give up basic things like lemons and limes or exotic spices and condiments. Although if I ever do get around to building that orangerie....but how much oil would it take to have my citrus so close at hand (building materials, heating/cooling costs)?

Edited by Anna Friedman Herlihy (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So theres been a lot of talk in the last few years of "food miles", eating locally and 100 mile diets. Some of the supposed benifits of eating locally is that you become more in tune with the seasons, you support your local community, you eat fresher food and just general all round feel goodness. ....

I prefer to do 100 yards or less. I walk out my back door and pick all our veggies we need, in the summer. In the winter, we have less choice (live in MA) ... we are working on a 4 season greenhouse to feed ourselves year round.

Greenbelts around urban and suburban cores is the only way to go along with edible yards and edible school yards, etc. This is not a pipedream, it has to be a priority or else its just a fantasy.

Its not enough to just say 100 miles.

Check out the Dervaes at Path To Freedom (self-sufficient urban permaculture) to see how we all should be doing it. There are no excuses and its not that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a wonderful idea but how does one accomplish it on a tight budget? What if you can't afford the luxury of spare space or are forced to share fridge/freezer space with a roommate? Or two?

I would love nothing more than to grow vegetables, freeze large cuts of pasture-raised meats and shop at farmers markets all the time but due to space & budget constraints, I really am unable to do so. I love shopping at the greenmarkets, I just can't plain afford it and the nearest greenmarket is about 1 hour away via train or car.

For some of us, it is something we want to do and would prefer to do but it is extremely difficult.

Edited by Gastro888 (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the Dervaes at Path To Freedom (self-sufficient urban permaculture) to see how we all should be doing it.  There are no excuses and its not that hard.

Who's this "we" and this "all"?

I didn't realize that a "we all" had been formed by consensus. And never in my life saw an "all" when it came to people or things, that actually made sense or even worked.

Personally I don't need excuses and really don't care if a thing is hard or not to do. But that "we" and that "all" (and yes, even the concept that I might need an excuse note) is quite disturbing.

:smile:

Edited by Carrot Top (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the Dervaes at Path To Freedom (self-sufficient urban permaculture) to see how we all should be doing it.  There are no excuses and its not that hard.

Hmm ... while I love your passion and commitment, I wonder if the "should" and "no excuses" strategy is going to be effective both for its tone, and that it tends to ignore personal choice and situations. It's hasn't worked too well for many things way less important than feeding people.

But, back to the topic: If this makes people make more thoughtful decisions about what they eat, and think about their food as something besides a pink package in a grocery store, terrific!

BTW, I've noticed that the "'eat local' people are full of hooey!" stories are coming from agricultural areas that stand to lose if people do, in fact, eat locally. Please, if I'm wrong about this, tell me! :smile:

Edited by FabulousFoodBabe (log)
"Oh, tuna. Tuna, tuna, tuna." -Andy Bernard, The Office
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I've noticed that the "'eat local' people are full of hooey!" stories are coming from agricultural areas that stand to lose if people do, in fact, eat locally.  Please, if I'm wrong about this, tell me!  :smile:

Specify the stories, Fabby, so we can see. I'll give it a shot. (Ha, ha, I just hit the wrong letter and wrote "shit" instead of "shot". A fine morning it is. :laugh: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, in these days of global capital, things are a bit more complex than simply shutting it all down. That would be quite a bit more destructive than any of Stalin's five year plans, causing the fatal starvation of many apartment-dwellers such as myself and Gastro to name a few.

Also, to say that "everyone" should do something as expensive, time-consuming, and privileged as growing one's own food is a fantasy that seems to work along classist guidelines that don't even conceive of or seem to take into consideration people who have less economic power (think extreme rightishness, :wink: ). It's not very helpful to trade in absolutes such as this.

That said, I think it's true that it would be better if we all do what we can and that what we choose to eat is a political decision and that eating alternatively might be subversive. It's also expensive and difficult, as the entire system as it is seems to be working quite against it (eg subsidy taxes that benefit conventional food that still must be paid, lack of adequate logistics in a lot of places, etc). Conventional food is here to stay and it does have some benefits along with its troubling problems. Perhaps if we could alter both the conventional food system using some of the preferable elements of alternative food and vice versa, the situation would undoubtedly be better. Mutatis mutandis, I think we could indeed create a better system that provides better food and nourishment to everyone (there, I said it :biggrin: ). In my opinion, it's getting better even now, in large part due to people committed to seriously discussing it and all its complexities in public forums such as this one.

josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutatis mutandis, I think we could indeed create a better system that provides better food and nourishment to everyone (there, I said it  :biggrin: ).  In my opinion, it's getting better even now, in large part due to people committed to seriously discussing it and all its complexities in public forums such as this one.

Mutatis mutandis of course. That's what I always say, and as a matter of fact I'm thinking of silk-screening it on t-shirts with colorful little veggies flying around the perimeter.

I'm not sure that the system is getting better for everyone. I'm willing to be persuaded though. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, in these days of global capital, things are a bit more complex than simply shutting it all down.  That would be quite a bit more destructive than any of Stalin's five year plans, causing the fatal starvation of many apartment-dwellers such as myself and Gastro to name a few.

Also, to say that "everyone" should do something as expensive, time-consuming, and privileged as growing one's own food is a fantasy that seems to work along classist guidelines that don't even conceive of or seem to take into consideration people who have less economic power (think extreme rightishness,  :wink: ).  It's not very helpful to trade in absolutes such as this.

That said, I think it's true that it would be better if we all do what we can and that what we choose to eat is a political decision and that eating alternatively might be subversive.  It's also expensive and difficult, as the entire system as it is seems to be working quite against it (eg subsidy taxes that benefit conventional food that still must be paid, lack of adequate logistics in a lot of places, etc).  Conventional food is here to stay and it does have some benefits along with its troubling problems.  Perhaps if we could alter both the conventional food system using some of the preferable elements of alternative food and vice versa, the situation would undoubtedly be better.  Mutatis mutandis, I think we could indeed create a better system that provides better food and nourishment to everyone (there, I said it  :biggrin: ).  In my opinion, it's getting better even now, in large part due to people committed to seriously discussing it and all its complexities in public forums such as this one.

- and other comments-

We each do what we feel we need to do. We are all adults. Obviously, my suggestions are merely that.

But the truth is, without a commitment to making it happen, it wont. Very simple. I pointed out the Dervaes because they DO it on 1/8th acre lot in the middle of LA - they produce something like 3 tons of food. Most of us do not need that much space or food (unless you are going to make money off it like they do).

The "should" comes from the reality of what it takes to eat local, over the long term.

If one does not feel committed to a sustainable and local food source then this simply doesn't apply to you. Fine by me.

I was obviously NOT talking to the person who is not oriented towards local foods nor self-sufficiency.

In that case, carry on, but you should have the sense to know that I am not telling you to eat local. Only telling you that sustainable local eating is a conscious commitment but one that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mutatis mutandis, I think we could indeed create a better system that provides better food and nourishment to everyone (there, I said it  :biggrin: ).  In my opinion, it's getting better even now, in large part due to people committed to seriously discussing it and all its complexities in public forums such as this one.

Mutatis mutandis of course. That's what I always say, and as a matter of fact I'm thinking of silk-screening it on t-shirts with colorful little veggies flying around the perimeter.

I'm not sure that the system is getting better for everyone. I'm willing to be persuaded though. :wink:

Can I get one of those shirts?

And I'm not so sure either, though I do think that it could happen. I'm also an idealist when it comes to the power of critical thinking and discussion to make things happen.

josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm not so sure either, though I do think that it could happen.  I'm also an idealist when it comes to the power of critical thinking and discussion to make things happen.

Keep hope alive, sister. (Edited to add: Or brother. Your username has a feminine ending which I'm not sure is required in all cases, which is the basis for my possibly erroneous initial assumption.)

We can and have changed the way we behave based on ideas time and time again, for good and for ill. In fact, there's a famous cliche about this:

"More powerful than mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."

Always be equally conscious, however, that the Law of Unintended Consequences has yet to be repealed.

Edited by MarketStEl (log)

Sandy Smith, Exile on Oxford Circle, Philadelphia

"95% of success in life is showing up." --Woody Allen

My foodblogs: 1 | 2 | 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to say that "everyone" should do something as expensive, time-consuming, and privileged as growing one's own food is a fantasy that seems to work along classist guidelines that don't even conceive of or seem to take into consideration people who have less economic power (think extreme rightishness,  :wink: ).  It's not very helpful to trade in absolutes such as this.

Take a trip to Boston, to a community garden there, and ask yourself what you see. Do you see rich white yuppies or do you see recent immigrants from all parts of the world?

I know first hand that the community gardens in Boston are a fantastic melting pot of people who are growing food for themselves. They have skills such as 1) actually knowing how, when, where, to plant 2) how to harvest their crops 3) how to cook it in the best and most delicious way for them, 4) how to grow it intensively in an inner-urban landscape (if they do not know this right away, they learn it over a couple of seasons).

As they work their community ground, they are not dithering over food miles or what Pollan said or what was written about it all in the NYT or what a food blogger opined. They only care that their garden grows, that idiot neighborhood vandals dont torment their plot, and whether their garden will be taken from them so that the city can have one more gas station or highrise luxury condo complex built.

Growing food is not classist unless you feel you are not part of that "class".

Growing food can be simply a part of what you have always done or it can be new and empowering.

Either way, its about what you PUT in your mouth rather than what you spout with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So seriously, if you don't have access to an empty plot, or enough space or sunshine to grow things indoors and you don't have easy access to a greenmarket, what should you do?

I'm not trying to be snide here but just trying to see if it's even possible to grow something under these conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make your trips to buy food efficient ones. Try not to waste what you buy.

If I took the time to grow/produce all my family's food, I wouldnt have the time to work on new diagnostic tests. Personally, I'm ok trading someone else's good growing, storage and transportation expertise (their contribution to my long life and good health) for my rather different ontribution to their long life and good health.

One item I notice many of us have difficulty with is fresh herbs. They dont last well, and they are sold in fairly large bunches, so many posters in other threads have bemoaned tossing them when they get slimy. Perhaps you can grow them at home. If you have enough light. It gets debatable if its worth it (purely from an energy use pov) if you have to use special lights or leave your lights on all the time.

et because.

Edited by Kouign Aman (log)

"You dont know everything in the world! You just know how to read!" -an ah-hah! moment for 6-yr old Miss O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...