Localization
Beet the System!
What serves the common good is neither the dominance of nationalization nor privatization, but increased localization- control of the economy by local communities rather than by either big government or big business (Wicks).
Without prosperous local economies, the people have no power and the land no voice (Wendell Berry).
Localization is one of the most meaningful acts of resistance against corporate globalization. If the main problem with corporate globalization is that corporations have usurped the people's power, then localization works to actively take that power back. As corporate globalization disempowers democracy by giving power to unelected rulers and making sacrifices for the many at the expense of the few, localization re-empowers democracy by reducing corporate domination and responding to the needs of the community before the needs of profit-hungry CEOs.
If people are not directly connected to a community through a means other than business investment, then people are not committed to the community. And if people are not committed to the community, then they don't have the interests of the community members and the community's land in mind. Therefore, when decision making power in communities is held by people who do not live in the community or are not elected by community members, then, chances are, the wellbeing of the community is not the highest priority of the decision maker. This means that when we allow our stores, schools, and restaurants to be taken over by large companies, we are putting our communities at risk. According to Wendell Berry, there is quite a "difference between a small local business that must share the fate of the local community and a large absentee corporation that is set up to escape the fate of the local community by ruining the local community" (30).
Example: Localizing a Supermarket
For example, if the local supermarket is bought out or out-competed by a large, national corporation, chances are this supermarket can't buy from smaller, local distributors and farmers because they're not as convenient for the corporate buyers- they don't have the correct insurance (which is expensive) that the supermarket requires, or the produce isn't prepared the way it needs, or the system of distribution is inconvenient for the supermarket, or the supermarket isn't willing to pay the price that the local farmer/distributor demands because it's used to getting cheap market prices from large companies that aren't reflective of the costs of labor to produce the food (due to subsides to large farms and gasoline companies). Instead, the corporations have deals with large distributors that provide them with price cuts that increase the revenue of the corporation, which is its top priority.
Instead of remaining in the community, which is mainly where the profit would remain if the store were locally owned, the profit for this corporation gets sent off to the corporate chair and the people who invest in the corporation. And it's safe to say that most, if not all, of these profit recipients have no connection to the community other than through the profit-making supermarket, which is probably only one supermarket among many in lots of different communities that is owned by the corporation.
So while the supermarket is walking away with profit that is being sent out of the community, local farmers and distributors are struggling to survive because they are unable to find a market for their produce because the supermarket won't buy their goods and the people won't buy their goods because they are buying from the supermarket instead.
Meanwhile, as the people support the supermarket, they are providing more and more support to the corporation that controls the supermarket, which means that they are giving away their power to influence how the supermarket is run to people who aren't directly members of their community. Ultimately, they are creating more distance between themselves, the consumer, and the producer, which also means that they are losing the ability to know where and how things were made. Once we lose this ability, we start contributing to the system that harms the earth and destroys communities.
If people wanted to localize this supermarket, they could take a couple of different steps. One step would be to question where the food in the supermarket is being produced. Is any of the food coming from the local dairy up the road? How about the potato farmer? Or the bread baker? If not, why? Consumers could talk with the supermarket manager to see if it would be possible to support local growers. Maybe the corporation hasn't acted to supply local food because people haven't expressed demand for it. By bringing production back to the community, community members will be the recipients of its actions, and will therefore make more conscious choices based on how their actions affect the environment and the people with whom they are living- "[a] community committed to self-reliance will be mindful not to foul its own nest. Self-reliance therefore is a tool for ecological protection and restoration" (Barstow 49).
Another step for a conscious consumer would be to question the management of the supermarket in general. How do the community members feel about supporting a corporate-controlled system? Are there alternatives to this store? Is there a locally-run supermarket in the area that people could choose to support? How about a co-operative, where the customers have a direct opportunity to be part of running the store? Or how about local farm stands, farmers markets, or Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), all three of which provide direct support to local farmers. If these options aren't available yet, would it be possible to create them? Would it be possible to boycott the corporate store and replace it with a locally run alternative? Would it be possible to encourage people to buy only food from the corporate supermarket that they can't purchase directly from farmers? People who are aware of the significance of localization could share their knowledge with their community members and support them in reconsidering some of their consumer habits.
Benefits to Corporate Ownership?
Surely there are some benefits of having a corporate run store- there may be a wider selection of produce (as a result of constant importation of produce from other countries), or some good deals that are a result of the deals that the corporation gets from having an economy of scale and receiving subsidies from the government, or maybe the corporate-run store provides more jobs than a smaller, locally run store. In the end, after knowing more about the reality of corporate globalization and its impact on the earth and communities (provided that communities have access to this information), each community needs to question its priorities.
Also, the idea of localization does not mean that a community entirely cuts off its relationship with the outside world. As Michael H. Shuman says,
Going local does not mean walling off the outside world. It means nurturing locally owned businesses that use local resources sustainably, employ local workers at decent wages, and serve primarily local consumers. It means becoming more self-sufficient, and less dependent on imports. Control moves from the boardroom of distant corporations and back to the community, where it belongs (Shuman 6).
The example of the supermarket can be applied to lots of other situations too, such as the difference between independent stores and restaurants versus chains, or who runs radio and television programs, or who manages the dining services at schools (which is the issue that this website addresses). Although we can't shut down the corporate controlled system right away, we can at least look around at our communities and actively question what may have become the status quo.
One of the biggest impacts of localization is that it creates an opportunity for people to shorten the distance between producer and consumer, a distance which, over time, has disconnected us from the earth and from each other. If every community were to start by taking care of its community first- making sure that it's providing quality jobs for its people, making sure that it has a responsible relationship with the environment, creating opportunities for culture to flourish- and then from there, establishing fair trade relationships with other communities, I can only imagine what the world would be like. It's like that bumpersticker, 'Think globally, Act locally' (a term originated by Rene Dubos). If we have the wellbeing of all people on this amazing earth in mind while we work to develop our own communities, the people and land that we interact with every day, then we would be on our way to a sustainable world.
One of the most successful localization movements that is taking place in many parts of the world is the local foods movement. Because food is such a necessary and integral part of life, it is a foundational place to start.
When people use the phrase 'Buy Local Food,' what exactly do they mean by 'local'? From my involvement with the campaign, I have come to an understanding of varying degrees of 'local that make sense to me.
The short answer to the question is, 'As local as possible, and then fairly traded.' The longer explanation breaks up the idea of local into the varying degrees of locality.
The most ideal degree of locality is to buy as directly as possible from your neighbors, whether they're located in your town or a couple of towns over. When you buy food this locally, you are most directly supporting your local community economically and socially, you are conserving the most energy from an environmental perspective, and you are creating an opportunity for yourself to be able to have a direct connection with the producer from which you are purchasing food (since the farm is easy to get to).
If there are no farmers in your town or the towns closest to you, the next best option is to buy as locally as possible within your bioregion. For example, if you live in northern Massachusetts, and there are no farms in your immediate area, as far as mileage goes it may be just as local to buy food from Vermont or Connecticut farms as it is to buy food from Massachusetts' farms (think in terms of circle radii to determine distances, similar to the image to the left). Geopolitical boundaries should not necessarily be guidelines for purchasing local food.
This goes for cities as well. Obviously cities can't sustain themselves agriculturally, and are required to purchase food from farms that are a significant distance away. All they can do is buy food from farms as close as possible, whether that means their food comes from an hour away or four hours away.
Once it gets to the point of buying between states, a system that supports the fuller intention behind buying local food is fair trade. Fair trade generally refers to a system of trade that provides people in developing countries a fair price for goods, generally by buying directly from farmers and working to cut out middlemen. The system can be applied within a country too for local food buying, where communities cooperate so that people who need food are able to buy it for a fair price directly from farmers, farmer cooperatives or distributors that support local and (preferably) small farmers. When it becomes an issue of needing to buy from other countries (i.e. bananas and coffee), the fair trade system is still a good guideline.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF LOCAL FOOD
One of the most obvious reasons to buy local food is for the environmental impact. The global food system that we have created offers seemingly unlimited options, and most of us don't realize that these 'unlimited' options are often dependent on the exploitation of the earth's natural resources.
It has been estimated that a typical food item travels between 1,200 and 1,500 miles to get from farm to fork, a distance that is "50 percent further than it did in 1979" (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xiii). This means that for 1,200 to 1,500 miles, our food is dependent on energy for fueling the truck or plane that carries it, as well as the energy that goes into refrigeration on the truck or plane. Not to mention there's the energy that it takes to run the processing and packaging plants and the energy that goes into advertising. According to Laura B. DeLind, "[n]ot only does the system use 10-15 calories of energy to deliver one calorie of food, but processing, packaging, transportation, and marketing account for 75-85 percent of the energy consumed" (Barstow 68). An example of the difference in energy of a packaged food good versus a non-packaged food good is that, "[a] frozen carton of peas requires 2.5 times as much energy as fresh peas, while an aluminum can of peas uses 4.5 times as much" (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xiv).
Where does all of this energy come from? Most of it is either gas or oil (both of which, at this point, we all know are not renewable resources) or electric (hydroelectric=huge dams, coal, or nuclear power). One sustainable solution for addressing this problem would be replacing some of these non-renewable forms of energy with renewable sources, such as solar and wind, biodiesel or hydrogen fuel cells. The most sustainable solution, though, would be to cut back on so much unnecessary energy use instead of attempting to use technological fixes (aka, grow local, buy local).
An additional form of energy that is used all throughout the food system is human energy. On all sides of the industry, human energy, whether it's manual labor or creative energy, is utilized- in running the farms, working in the processing/packaging plants, driving the trucks and flying the planes, and working in the advertisement and marketing business. Just think of where our society would be if all of this energy were put into working toward creating more sustainable lifestyles.
Another way to think about all of the energy that goes into supporting our well-traveled food items is to consider the money that is invested into all of the different aspects of production. All of the money that goes into the food industry actually represents the natural resources that are consumed as well as all of the human energy that is exerted. According to The Eco-Foods Guide,
In 1981, the Rodale Institute did a very thorough study of the US food system. At that time it estimated, based on US Department of Agriculture figures that, "Americans paid almost $16 billion in 1980 to move their food around." In the 20-plus years hence, that figure can only have grown. Some more fun facts on transport from that study: "The 4 million trucks (used primarily to transport food) travel annually 45 billion miles, a distance equal to 242 trips to the sun! Food trucks burn up $5.5 billion worth of fuel each year, expel over four million tons of pollutants into the air, and cause millions of dollars of damage to public highways" (55).
Considering that this study was conducted over 25 years ago, and that it only takes into account the money that goes into the transportation aspect of the process, I can only imagine the total amount of money invested in our environmentally destructive food industry.
Aside from the energy that it takes to manage the food industry, a whole lot of raw materials are consumed. For instance, there's all of the plastic, cardboard, paper, Styrofoam, and foil that packages food to preserve it and keep it as fresh as possible. This means that the industry is dependent even moreso on oil, trees, and metals. We are dependent on taking these materials from the earth, and we are also dependent on putting them somewhere when we're done with them. "More and more land must be devoted to burying this huge amount of waste [packaging], because it is produced on a scale that natural processes cannot possibly absorb. Much of the packaging is non biodegradable plastic, and even paper cannot break down in dense, poorly aerated landfills" (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xiv). In many parts of the country (not to mention the world), it is rare that a lot of the packaging materials are recyclable, and not likely that most people who can recycle actually do recycle. In any case, recycling is ultimately not the best solution. Of course it's important and helpful, but it still takes more energy to recycle products than it does not to use them in the first place.
When these materials that go into packaging food are used and tossed, it creates waste- a byproduct of the system. Similarly, there's a waste byproduct of pollution that results from all of the trucks and planes and factories involved in the system. This pollution gets into the soil, the water, and the air, which contributes to growing greenhouse gases. "In the US, for example, transporting food within the nation's borders accounts for over 20 percent of all commodity transport, and results in at least 120 million tones of CO2 emissions every year" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing").
Another dimension of the environmental impacts of the globalized food system is that it tends to rely upon farming techniques that deplete the soils, pollute the air and water, poison our food and the earth, upset the balance of predators for pests, and rely on monoculturalization of crops which reduces biodiversity and encourages the use of genetically modified organisms. According to Helena Norberg-Hodge,
The global system demands centralized collection of tremendous quantities of single crops, leading to the creation of huge monocultures. Monocultures, in turn, require massive inputs of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. These practices systematically eliminate biodiversity from farmland, and lead to soil erosion, eutrophication of water ways, and the poisoning of surrounding ecosystems (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing").
In many cases, local farmers tend not to use these same techniques, especially if they have smaller farms. "Local food systems encourage farmers to diversify their production, thereby making it easier to farm organically. Intercropping and rotations can replace dangerous pesticides, while on-farm waste like manure and crop residues can replace chemical fertilizers" (Norberg-Hodge, "Case"). Many of the inputs needed for large monoculture farms are expensive, so it can be more cost-efficient for farmers to diversify. Diversification also provides a safety net for farmers because severe weather conditions (droughts, unanticipated frosts) or pest infestations are more likely to wipe out an entire crop if it's a monoculture, and less likely to wipe out all of the crops on a more diverse farm.
Smaller, local farms also can choose to produce food inspired by priorities other than how well it will sell in the world market. "Vegetable varieties can be chosen for their suitability to local conditions and for their taste and nutritional value, rather than their ability to withstand the rigors of long distance transport or their conformity to supermarket standards- the cucumbers need not be perfectly straight, nor the apples perfectly round" (Norberg-Hodge, "Globalisation").
Also, smaller farms may be more productive than large monoculture farms. "The productivity of industrial agriculture is largely a myth, propagated for years by the beneficiaries of this type of agriculture. Study after study, carried out in diverse locations all over the world, shows that small-scale, diversified agricultural systems almost always have a higher total output per unit of land than large-scale monocultures" (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xxviii). Smaller farms can produce 200-1000% more food per unit/area than large monoculture farms because they tend to use the benefits of intercropping and make more of the smaller pieces of land with which they have to work.
One more connection between local food and environmental impacts is the issue of land preservation. In many areas, farmland contributes to a rural landscape. People like to live in and also visit places where farmland defines the character of the land. If the farmers who own this land are not supported, then they will be forced to sell their land, and, chances are, it will be bought by developers for houses, offices, or stores. Aside from their forthright beauty, farmland serves as habitats for plants and animals and refuges for people, which wouldn't exist in the same way if the land were developed.
Beyond environmental effects, buying local food has a large social impact. When consumers buy local food, they are more directly supporting the livelihood of their neighbors- their local farmers. When we purchase food that has been intensely processed, packaged, and marketed, we pay for all of these aspects of production, whereas when we buy locally grown food, more money goes directly to the farmer. As John Ikerd (an agricultural economist and sustainable agriculture advocate) points out, "As a nation, we spend only about ten percent, or a dime out of each dollar, of our disposable income for farm produced food. Equally important, the farmer gets only a single penny out of that dime, while nine cents goes to the marketing and input firms. We now pay more for packaging and advertising than we pay the farmer to produce the food" (Barstow 38).
When we buy food from our neighbors, we are establishing a connection that does not exist when we buy all of our food from the grocery store, most of which has traveled 1,200 miles to get to us. If we buy food directly from the hands of the farmer at a farmer's market or through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), we are more actively establishing a connection- a connection between neighbors, a connection between producer and consumer, a connection that empowers the consumer to gain more awareness of where their food is coming from, how it is grown, and the energy that goes into our ability to eat it. Ultimately, a connection with the farmer who produces our food connects us more intimately with the earth herself, which in turn will inspire us to be more conscious about our actions. "Almost all consumers that have the opportunity to communicate directly with the farmers that produce their food make it clear that they prefer a reduction in the amount of chemicals in their food (Norberg-Hodge, "Globalisation"), and vice versa, "[n]earby farmers that sell to the shop- and who know the people who will be buying their produce- are far less likely to put toxic chemicals on their crops" (Norberg-Hodge, "Globalisation").
Aside from farm stands, markets, and CSAs, we can also buy locally grown food from local, independent stores, which still strengthens the connection between the consumer and the producer because chances are, the store owners/managers know where the food comes from and how it is grown, and is willing to share that information with their patrons. Although you don't necessarily get to meet the farmer in this case, it's possible that you drive by the farm where the food was grown, which will trigger awareness about where your food comes from, which, once again, ultimately reconnects us with the earth. Or, it's also possible to buy local food from the nearby chain grocery store, where, although you are not supporting an independent business, you are still supporting your neighbors who grow food and still establishing a stronger connection with the producer of the food and with the earth.
If you're not able to buy your food directly from the farmer or through CSA, when buying locally grown food, it's quite possible that you can still go visit the farm from which it came- perhaps you can talk with the farmer, see how the vegetables are grown, and observe how the animals are raised. This opportunity is not an option when our food comes from the other side of the country. "It is very difficult for a person in New York City to fly to Greely, Colorado in order to meet the guy who he is buying his meat from. Especially because of the fact that it is not a person, but a corporation. A corporation who has shown over and over again a total disregard for life (human and animal)" (Flint 186).
Another social benefit of buying local food is that the consumer supports, in many cases, sustainable jobs and sustainable lifestyles. For the most part, small-scale, local farmers use sustainable agriculture techniques, which means that their farming practices work with nature, instead of against it- crop diversity as opposed to monoculture, non-chemical based pesticides, natural fertilizers, more hands in the earth as opposed to all machines, etc. Since these techniques work with nature, they help to sustain the earth, making it so that the plot of land being farmed will be healthy for a long time. When we support local farmers, we are most often supporting jobs that promote a sustainable lifestyle.
Unfortunately, we have strayed away from supporting these farmers' livelihoods over the years. A large amount of farming in the US has switched over to large-scale, industrialized, monoculture farms- unsustainable farms that therefore provide unsustainable jobs. "In the US at the beginning of the century, 5,739,657 farmers worked an average of 147 acres; 39.2 percent of the population lived on their farms. Today, less than 2 percent of the US population lives on the farm. The average farm today is 487 acres. The number of farms lost from the beginning to the end of the century? 3,827,798" (Barstow 35). Instead of having small-scale, more sustainable farms where, for the most part, we buy food from our neighbors (which was more likely the case with the 5,739,657 farms), we have condensed our agricultural production into fewer, larger, less sustainable farms, where food travels great distances to get to the dinner table.
Small farms may also employ more people than large monoculture farms. One statistic suggests that
[I]n the UK, farms under 100 acres provide five times more jobs per acre than those over 500 acres. Moreover, wages paid to farm workers benefit local economies and communities far more than money paid for heavy equipment and the fuel to run it: the latter is almost immediately siphoned off to equipment manufacturers and oil companies, while wages paid to workers are spent locally (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing").
Compulsion for labor and ultimately economic "efficiency" has led us to replace human-power with machines, so that in many cases, our food has not been produced by the green thumb of a gardener who cares about the farm, but by the metal and diesel of a machine. Although machines are certainly helpful when used in balance, the overuse of machines leads to further separation between farmer and land. The jobs available at large agribusiness farms are unsustainable, due to their reliance on unsustainable farming techniques. Eventually, these jobs won't be available because the choice to farm in such a destructive way will no longer be an option.
Although the amount of farmland in the US has decreased and most of the farmland that remains is being turned into monoculture, there is still hope for the small farmer. "In America, where all but 2% of the population has already been pulled off the land, the number of CSAs has climbed from only two in 1986 to 200 in 1992, and is closer to 1,000 today" (Norberg-Hodge, "Globalisation"). People are becoming aware of the importance of buying local food and acting on their impulse to support the local food economy. CSAs and farmer's markets are becoming (or, re-becoming) important parts of communities. They provide places for community members to come together to socialize and celebrate the bounty of the earth. Local farmers and distributors are able to make additional money by enticing people with sample servings of their products and selling processed goods, like jams and sauces. With continued support for local farmers comes the prosperity of the local farmers, as well as a more deeply rooted community.
NUTRITIONAL BENEFITS OF LOCAL FOOD
When we eat local food, we eat fresher food. Fresh food not only tastes better, but it's better for you too. For many of us, this seems obvious- if you've ever had the opportunity to eat greens fresh out of a garden, you know that they taste crisper, juicier, and more flavorful than any other greens you've ever had. This taste is partly due to all of the vitamins and minerals your body is receiving. Studies show that the fresher the food the more nutritional. Terra Brockman points out that, "[s]tudies show a steep decline in nutritional value from the moment produce is plucked from the field. If you eat it within 24 hours, you get significantly more vitamins and phytochemicals" (Barstow 67).
Conversely, the longer that food has been out of the field, the less taste it has. According to Cynthia Barstow,
If food travels, on the average, 1,300 miles from field to fork, that means 20 hours minimum spent on-road travel. All but the most dedicated of corn connoisseurs would accept that much flavor loss from picking to eating. (The sugar in corn begins to turn into starch as soon as it is picked. Corn right out of the field yields the sweetest flavor.) However, other factors, such as packaging and sorting, may extend that travel time to a few days. The sweetness of the corn has definitely been transformed into heavy starch at that point. And there goes the flavor (Barstow 56).
If you ask any chef in a gourmet restaurant whether he/she prefers to use local food over food that has traveled across the country, you bet he/she's going to say local. Although freezing and canning food can save some of the nutrition, these methods rely upon energy-intensive processes.
An interesting question that arises with local food is whether it's possible to solely eat local food throughout the year and maintain a balanced diet. Of course this answer is an easy "yes" if you live in California, but it gets a bit trickier if you live somewhere in the Northeast (not to mention desert regions). According to Joan Gussow and Jennifer Wilkins who created the Northeast Regional Food Guide,
With the exception of iron in the winter non-vegetarian diet, all diets provided at least 100 percent of the RDA for the macronutrients and for all the major or 'leader' vitamins and minerals...Indeed, the level of vitamin C and E, beta-carotene (and by implication the other carotenoids) are present in levels well above those recommended...In conclusion, consumers, and nutrition educators who teach them, should be confident that diets based on seasonally available foods in the Northeast can be both enjoyable and nutritionally complete (Barstow 72).
This type of diet certainly takes more effort because of all the necessary canning and preserving, and is not the solution for everyone, but it's good to know that it's an option.
One very significant health reason to eat local food is the situation with DDT (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane). Although DDT was banned from use in the US in 1972 (in part due to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring) we still manufacture it and send it off to other countries. These countries use DDT for agriculture and send it right back to us, raising the stakes for women to get breast cancer (Crinnion). The chance of consuming DDT drastically decreases through eating local food.
Another reason local food may be healthier is because smaller farmers tend to use more organic techniques, which benefits not only the earth and all of its inhabitants, but also human health. In a study done for the "Journal of Applied Nutrition," "the mineral content of organic apples, pear, potatoes, wheat, and sweet corn were compared to commercial varieties. Overall the organic foods showed much higher levels of nutrient minerals and much lower levels of heavy metals" (Crinnion). Some of the nutrients that were higher in the organic food include chromium, selenium, calcium, boron, lithium, and magnesium. Other studies show that the nutrient content of food grown in soils that are contaminated with pesticides have fewer nutrients, and also after food is sprayed with pesticides the amount of vitamins in the food notably decreases. There have also been tests that compare the amount of heavy metals in organic versus non-organic food. These metals include aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury. In all cases, it was shown that the content of heavy metals is less in organic food- aluminum (40% lower), cadmium, lead (29% lower) and mercury (25% lower) (Crinnion).
Although there is no entirely comprehensive evidence about the effect of pesticide residue on food (in part because we are all already so contaminated), a few cases are clearer than others. One of these cases is with women and breast cancer. "In the last few years there have been a series of studies, each building upon the other, looking at the level of DDT, DDE, and PCB in women, they have very clearly shown that chemical residues in the serum and fat cells of women greatly increase the risk of breast cancer" (Crinnion). Pregnant women present another similar case. If pregnant women eat food with a lot of pesticide residue on it, or milk/meat from hormone-injected cows, they pass these chemicals on to their babies. "Because these chemicals also become concentrated in breast milk due to their affinity for fatty substances, a baby can experience the heaviest exposure to contaminants in its life-time through breast feeding" (Flint). In general, studies show that children are more susceptible to damage from pesticides and hormones because their bodies are still developing.
If you think about it, it's very strange that most of our food is produced for the market whose goals are "monoculture production, mechanized harvesting, long-distance transport and long-term storage" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing"), as opposed to goals of freshness, taste, nutrition, and the health of the earth. Frequently I wonder if a lot of the food in the grocery store, with all of the preservatives, additives, genetically modified organisms, and pesticides, is really even food anymore. Helena Norberg-Hodge speaks to this issue:
Growing for faraway markets is eroding the nutritional quality of our food. Fruit and vegetable varieties are bred with characteristics to suit the global marketing system, and nutritional content is not one of them. For industrial foods, hardiness under monocultural growing conditions and the ability to transport and handle well are valued more highly than nutritional content. And because the vitamins in almost any food are gradually lost from the time of harvest, even 'fresh' foods from the industrial system are less nutritious if they have been harvested days or even weeks before reaching the kitchen table. Tomatoes, for example, are often picked green and hard so that they can survive mechanical harvesting and long-distance transport, and then ripened in rooms pumped full of ethylene gas, which artificially initiates ripening (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xiv).
On smaller farms, food is grown with the intention of feeding people within the local communities, not for traveling around the country, or the world for that matter. When farmers know the people for whom they are producing food, they are less likely to use techniques that prove harmful for human consumption.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF LOCAL FOOD
One of the less obvious, yet integral reasons for buying local food, is that it provides an opportunity to protest the extremely complicated influence of trade on the global food system.
In examining the power of trade on the food system, one of the first things you'll notice is that we import food that we produce or have the capability to produce, locally. For instance, take this story about apples:
Apples spend a lot of time crossing international borders instead of simply staying at home. Recent US imports of apples were 301.5 million pounds, 94 percent of which came from Canada, New Zealand and Chile. US exports during the same time period were 1.6 billion pounds. Growers complain of increased foreign competition, particularly from China, driving prices down...Washington state produces over half the nation's apples, nearly 60 percent...If you live in the Northwest region, you're in luck- you can eat apples locally from the number one producer state and feel good about it...If, however, you hail from the east, you may be spending a good portion of your apple-a-day dollar on transportation across 3,000 miles. New York state is the second largest apple producing state. Participants at a 1997 international conference on agriculture were told, "According to a recent report less than 4 percent of all the apples produced in New York state go to the New York City fresh and processed apple market, which is now primarily served by other states and countries" (Barstow 78).
If we spend so much energy trading and transporting the apples, it obviously costs money. Who's loosing this money? The farmer, of course. In the story about apples, "Red Delicious growers, for example, are receiving about 30 cents a pound for apples that cost up to 40 cents a pound to produce, though they sell for roughly $1 a pound in stores" (Barstow 78). In this case, the farmer isn't even breaking even for the costs of apples, not to mention making any profit.
How much food is the US actually importing? According to a 1999 report to the National Farmers Union, "[a]bout one-third of the vegetables consumed in this country are imported" (Barstow 53). Another statistic says, "[t]he US imports of fresh vegetables from fiscal year 2001 were valued at 2,476,462,000 and for fresh fruits was valued at $2,025,598,000" (Barstow 14). Why are we importing so much food? We know that it's not always because we can't produce it ourselves- look at the case of the apples. Is it because we want to provide jobs for people in other countries? This can't entirely be the answer because although we are providing jobs, most of the jobs offered are labor-intensive, low-paid, and unhealthy (exposure to pesticides, work with machines, etc). In many cases, farmers in other countries (particularly poorer countries) are sending out lots of food for a little bit of money instead of focusing on feeding their own families and communities and selling food only if there's surplus. Not to mention, while we are giving jobs away to people in other countries, we are creating impossible competition for farmers in this country because they can't compete with the costs of food from countries that have lower standards of living that can therefore produce food for much less.
How is all of this trading regulated in regard to the amount and kinds of pesticides used on the food? According to Cynthia Barstow,
US manufacturers exported more than 465 million pounds of pesticides in 1990, while more than 52 million pounds were banned, restricted or unregistered for use in the United States. We won't even begin to discuss the ethics involved. Instead, we will simply look at what happens to the food sprayed with these known killers. We import it- and eat it. This is referred to as "the boomerang effect," and it affects us in a big way (Barstow).
This means that some of the one-third imported vegetables from 1999 and the $2,025,598,000 worth of vegetables in 2001 were grown using pesticides that were banned in the US.
What exactly is going on here?
What's happening is that under the authority of free trade, countries are required to produce and trade a certain amount of goods in order to keep money flowing. Due to this commitment, global economic commitment takes precedence over social and environmental commitments of individual nations. This is what leads to a food system in which "identical products are criss-crossing the globe, with no other purpose than enriching the corporate middlemen that control the global food supply" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing"). It also leads to corporate dominance of the global food system.
The global food system is determined by particular economic priorities, so that instead of each region producing a diverse range of crops, all farmers are encouraged to specialize in one or two commodities that can be produced at the cheapest cost to be traded in the global market. Because of free trades influence on the global food system, large monoculture, and oftentimes corporate farms have a higher chance of surviving than smaller farms. Not only do these larger corporate farms prosper more than smaller farms because their top priority is to produce food as "efficiently" as possible for the free trade market, but they are also receiving subsidies from the government. Governments around the world support this vast corporate growth because they want to be associated with and benefit from 'successful' economically efficient businesses.
Ultimately, the money for farm subsidies comes from taxpayer dollars. According to the Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database, "taxpayers have spent more than $131 billion on federal farm programs over the past nine years [1995-2004]." This statistic might not be so shocking if we knew that most of this money were going to the small farmers who produce a variety of food to feed their communities, and farmers who can prove that they need the money in order to survive- but it's not. The money is mainly used to support farms based on how much land the farmers own and on how big their harvest is. "Of this country's two million farmers, fewer than one-fourth, or 482,206, received 84 percent of federal subsidy payments. That is $60.2 billion out of the total $71.5 billion from 1996 through 2000" (Becker). Another way to look at the situation is that "[t]wo-thirds of the nation's farmers get no subsidy payments whatsoever" ("Farm Subsidy Database"). Smaller farmers are receiving less money because they are not growing the 'right' things, which in the world's free market economy include items such as wheat, rice, corn, soybeans and cotton. Instead, they are growing the 'wrong' things- fruit, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc (the foods that can actually sustain a local community).
For example, corn is the 'most important' crop grown in the U.S. in terms of land area (around 78 million acres of corn have been planted in the past couple of years), and the corn industry is the biggest recipient of taxpayer money through government subsidies. The reason why such large monoculture farms are the recipients of government subsidies brings us back to the idea of free trade. Within free trade, each country is supposed to produce goods in which it has comparative advantage; goods that, compared to other countries, they can produce most efficiently. Because the US needs to maintain its comparative advantage in areas of agricultural production (wheat, corn, rice, etc), the government subsidizes farms that produce these goods so that farmers can demand a low market price (ultimately, a price that's lower than what the goods are worth). In other words, "[g]overnments have spent tremendous sums of taxpayers' money to prop up a costly food system which pretends to provide 'cheap' food" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing"). In fact, according to government figures, "[w]ith subsidy payments at a record high, nearly half of the net farm income in the United States comes from federal subsidies" (Becker).
If agricultural market prices around the world are being influenced by government subsidies, making the cost of goods artificially cheaper, then it's challenging for smaller farmers, especially those who are not receiving any aid, to compete. So not only are small farmers losing money through corporate middlemen, they are also losing the ability to compete at all due to a false lowering in the cost of food that comes from subsidies and food production in countries with lower costs of labor. Helena Norberg-Hodge provides a simple explanation of the corrupt global food economy:
In the United States, the real price of a market basket of food has increased about 3 per cent since 1984, while the farm value of that food has fallen by more than 35 percent. Today, only 21 cents of every dollar spent on domestically produced food in the US goes to farmers, the remaining 79 cents going to middlemen and marketers. With that 21 cents, farmers have to pay for inputs, farm labor, machinery, rent, and so on. Many are lucky to break even after a season of hard work (Norberg-Hodge, "From the Ground" xv).
Corporations have established their hold on the food system so strongly that, "[t]oday, just two companies, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, control 70 to 80 percent of the world's grain trade. One agribusiness, Philip Morris, gets ten cents out of every American food dollar- more than earned by all US farmers combined" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing"). Another example is that "[a] typical American supermarket sells 30,000 different items, half of which are produced by a mere ten corporations. And on the boards of these then corporations sit 138 people, a tiny group deciding what goes into our bodies. Now that's power!" (Barstow xi). Unfortunately, for most of us, when we sit down to the table to enjoy our dinners, large corporations are profiting off of us.
With our government subsidies, we are continuing to support corporate dominance of the food system and we are now also using it for research on how to expand on the free market food economy. As Helena Norberg-Hodge points out, these subsidies are contributing to the destructive and inequitable global food system:
In the last decade, vast sums of taxpayers' money have been spent on research for biotechnology- with the aim of allowing food to be transported even greater distances, survive even greater doses of pesticides, and ultimately to be produced without the troublesome need for farmers. The 'unfair advantage' these many subsidies give to large-scale producers and marketers is making it all but impossible for family farmers to compete with industrial agribusiness, for the small shopkeeper to compete with huge supermarkets, or for any small producer to compete with corporations that can be located wherever production costs are lowest (Norberg-Hodge, "Globalisation").
If all, or even some, of the farm subsidy money in the US (as well as all over the world), were spent on the development of local food systems as opposed to supporting monoculturalization and corporatiziation, "the cost of local food would decrease substantially, and its availability rapidly grow" (Norberg-Hodge, "Bringing"). Although there are some government officials working to provide more subsidy support to smaller farmers, agribusiness (the corporate farms) and farm lobby groups, the current beneficiaries of the subsidies are not going to let this get too far without a struggle.
As you can see, the benefits of buying locally grown food are vast, including environmental, social, nutritional, and economic. Cynthia Barstow sums it up nicely by saying, "[f]rom field to fork, each step away from the source adds a bit more cost, more energy, and potentially more chemicals. Shorten the distance, lessen the cost and waste, support your neighbor, and save valuable open agricultural land" (Barstow 51). If you want to re-empower yourself and your community in a corporate globalized world, buying locally grown food is one of the best places to start.
Localization:
Berry, Wendell. "The Idea of a Local Economy." The Orion Society. 2001. 11-33.
Shuman, Michael H. Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Age. New York: Routledge, 1998.
This book gives a good overview of a localization movement based on the idea of creating community corporations (where the local community holds stock in local businesses). It is more of a middle of the path liberal approach to localization.
Local Food:
Barstow, Cynthia. The Eco-Foods Guide. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2002.
This book serves as a great resource to unravel the vast complexities of the food system that we have created, from organic, to GMO's, to IPM, etc.
Becker, Elizabeth. "As House Prepares Farm Bill, Questions of Who Needs Help, and How Much." New York Times. September 9, 2001.
"The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS) at the University of Wisconsin." University of Wisconsin-Madison: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. 2004. Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin. April 2005 www.wisc.edu/cias
CIAS has been the leading research institution on this issue, and has key research briefs, case studies, as well as a PDF edition of "Something to Cheer About: National Trends and Prospects for Sustainable Agriculture Products in Food Service Operations of Colleges and Universities" which is a tremendous publication. CIAS' web site includes subsections for each of its research areas. Check out "College Food Project."
"Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture." 2002. April 2005 www.buylocalfood.com
CISA is an excellent example of a community organization that is working to strengthen the connection between farmer and consumer. The organization is based in Western Massachusetts and initiated a successful campaign in this area called "Be A Local Hero: Buy Locally Grown." CISA has been very supportive and helpful in Hampshire's effort to buy local food.
Crinnion, Walter J. (N.D.). "Are Organic Foods Really Healthier For You?" Alternative/Complementary Medicine Homepage. 1995. WellnessWeb Homepage. March 2005 http://lookwayup.com/free/organic.htm.
"Farm Subsidy Database." Environmental Working Group. November 2004. March 2005 http://www.ewg.org/farm/
"Food Routes: Where Does Your Food Come From?" The Food Routes Network. 2003. April 2005 www.foodroutes.org
The Food Routes Network's mission is to reconnect the components of the food system: from the seed to the table. Conducting national research, creating communication and educational aids, FRN works within a network of partners. FRN's website has an amazing list of resources.
The Global Food Banquet. Dir. John Ankele and Anne Macksoud. Videocassette. Maryknoll World Productions, 2003.
This is an excellent video which depicts the politics that threaten global food security, as well as shows the ways in which corporation control the food system.
Gorelick, Steven. "The Farm Crisis: How We Are Killing the Small Farmer." International Society for Ecology and Culture. February 2005 http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/case.html.
Halweil, Brian. Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket. Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 2004.
This book is a great overview of the local food campaign. It provides case studies from all over the world. (The Local Foods Initiative group at Hampshire brought the author of this book to speak at Hampshire).
"International Society for Ecology and Culture." International Society for Ecology and Culture. April 2005 http://www.isec.org.uk/localfood.html
This organization, which was founded by Helena Norberg-Hodge, proved to be one of my most important resources for my research. ISEC conducts a lot of research about globalization and food.
"Local Food Works." Soil Association. 2004. April 2005 http://www.localfoodworks.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/localfoodworks_index.htm
This organization's website has information about and links to many different aspects of local food. Most of its work is based in the UK, but some is international.
Magdoff, Fred, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. Buttel, eds. Hungry For Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000.
This book contains a variety of essays that address the controversial agribusiness industry.
"Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources." Mass.gov. 2001. April 2005 http://www.mass.gov/agr/
Norberg-Hodge, Helena. "The Case For Local Food." International Society for Ecology and Culture. February 2005 http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/case.html
Norberg-Hodge, Helena, Peter Goering, John Page. From the Ground Up: Rethinking Industrial Agriculture. New York: International Society for Ecology and Culture, 2001.
This book was produced by some of the leaders of ISEC (International Society for Ecology and Culture). It addresses problems that have arisen with the globalized, industrialized world food system. It offers alternatives/solutions to the problem.
Norberg-Hodge, Helena. "Reclaiming Our Future: Reclaiming Our Food." International Society for Ecology and Culture. February 2005 http://www.isec.org.uk/articles/case.html
Pollan, Michael. "Naturally." The New York Times. May 13, 2001.
"The Rural Coalition." Rural Coalition. 2005. April 2005 www.ruralco.org
The Rural Coalition, an Oxfam partner organization, is a network of diverse groups in the United States and Mexico committed to reforming the food system and promoting sustainable methods that support rural life.