Group items tagged

One economist's view on the 'local food movement'. He explores whether local food is really more efficient. Views along the same lines as this one are pretty common among many economists.

I've been looking for a good defense against the local food system, though something more in-depth would be interesting. This brief analysis shows the other extreme, a situation in which ALL food was produced as "locally" and "organically" as possible. It seems that the local food movement could expand further to increase local food production (and therefore fresher, better quality) while still gaining economic benefits (since it is indeed better quality) as well as environmental ones. However, an increase in local food also may cause social stratification, as it could increase the gap between people who can and can't afford local, organic, fair trade, etc. I'm duly aware that the majority of the people at the PSU farmers market every weekend are equally well-endowed as I.

This story provided a helpful context around genetically modified foods. Ira, from Science Friday, interviewed people in the academic, private (monsanto), scientific, social, and charitable (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) participants in the discussion surrounding genetically modified foods. I am someone who intrinsically thinks genetically modified foods are a good idea, though I do take issue with what are rumored to be the current regulatory practices. This story discusses the realities of the problems facing genetically modified foods and some of the research trying to deduce appropriate solutions.

An article run recently in the Portland Tribune details the price disparity between the local fruit of farmers markets and the local fruit sold at other shops throughout Portland. On one end are the sometimes obscene prices of farmers markets, tailoring to a predominantly wealthy white clientele, and on the other, you have prices at fruit stand shops that are for a blue collar society, sold at often over half the cost of farmers markets. A strange economic situation underlies the difference. Are Portland's own renowned farmers markets, cherished by so many, tailoring exclusively to rich white folks?

I think this is an important topic to address, however after reading the article I still agree with one of the comments another reader posted at the end of the article: "Many assumptions are made in this article about "local" produce. I would have asked some additional questions such as "What is your definition of locally produced?" Also, what are the labor practices on these farms? Of course I would choose $.89/pound over $1.50/pound unless that means the farmer is paying low wages to workers. What agricultural practices are these farmers using? We have an unrealistic idea of the true cost of food because of decades of subsidies and genetic modification. I'm willing to pay more to purchase beautiful, fresh, non-gmo, organically produced food by workers receiving a living wage. I'm willing to support small farmers and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the hand that grows it. It is true, many farmers markets are more expensive than traditional grocery stores and other outlets but they are offering much more than just a grocery shopping experience. It's a social, community building event." I also posted a response to the article: "I would like to second "local4food"'s comment. There's a bigger problem at hand here. We really shouldnt be focusing on getting the best deal for our food when we already have such a warped idea of the true cost of food. As someone who has both lived and worked on farms and grown a good deal of my own food, there's no way I can look at a bag of tomatoes and not think they're work $3 per pound... at least! Food is such an amazing resource. Shopping at farmers' markets makes me pay more attention to the amount food I buy and be more mindful of how much its really worth to me. I feel better too, knowing that the people who provide me with it are receiving the minimum compensation for their work. We should treat those who feed us with the upmost respect, not like measly vendors who ought to compete themselves nearly out of bus

An interesting new academic journal, related to a lot of the issues brought up in the symposium this year. Looks to be pretty pro-agrarian. Peer reviewed, legitimate sources with a cause. Could have interesting stuff in the future. "Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development! JAFSCD is an international, online, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on agriculture and food systems and bridges the interests of development professionals (including activist farmers and businesspeople), educators, consultants, and the academic community. While kindred journals focus on critical sustainable food production practices, community food security, and the sociology and political economy of food and agriculture, there has not been a journal supporting the community of practice that is rapidly integrating and evolving around these issues. We look forward to fostering an applied research literature where these interests meet - and may sometimes collide - and the nascent field of agriculture and food systems as a whole advances."

Recent stats suggest general food shopping patterns that do not, shall we say, reflect the prevalent sentiment expressed by participants in last week's Symposium. One trend, for instance, is that food is now frequently purchased in big-box and convenience stores: "Amazon.com and other online retailers carry basics, from mouthwash to large bags of dog food. Target and Wal-Mart have a full grocery lineup at certain stores, and though there are few locally, both discounters are set on expanding into more urban markets. Convenience stores -- seeing double-digit sales growth in recent years -- are stocking salads and whole fruit."

A follow up to the post I made earlier in the semester about the food safety bill. As far as I can tell, it has been passed. This article highlights an important variation to the bill (from the October version) though; exemptions for small farms and those who sell directly at farmers markets. My original posting was in response to scare propaganda claiming that the food safety bill would outlaw small farming and farmers markets, so this new variation definitely changes things. The other side of the issue is covered here as well though, which questions if this will be the most effective solution, or just an opportunity for loopholes. Come on PoliSci majors, a little insight here?

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

Not totally environmental, but it definitely relates to the symposium. I feel like we talked about ethics and economics a lot more than safety, but here is a compelling look at another issue in today's food system. Complete with photo gallery: http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/From-Field-to-Fork-The-foreign-and-domestic-food-chain

Another interesting food topic. Sign the petition to say "I support the Food Revolution. America's kids need better food at school and better health prospects. We need to keep cooking skills alive." Jamie hopes to bring this to the White House and show Michelle Obama how much support is behind the Food Revolution.

An article about walmart's attempt to buy more local produce and educate small farmers. This is a new aspect of their sustainability goals that they are trying to focus on now.

The biggest question I have is what standards they are using to make their judgments on what is "local", "sustainable", or such like. Local is within state borders, but will Wal-Marts on the borders of states be subject to that same criteria, and unable to access markets just a few miles away? I tried to dig through their website, but as of yet have found mostly press releases... Just some thoughts relating this to the symposium - I'd welcome comments, I'm just trying to figure out what this could lead to: For all those who attended the symposium (particularly the banquet), this timing couldn't have been better. Last night the VP of Bon Appetit said that "when Wal-Mart says change, people change". Wal-Mart is also an expert at driving prices down, even on luxury items. If the high price of specialty local or organic foods are indeed bifurcating the market, and keeping lower incomes out of the alternative food movement, Wal-Mart is a force that can change that. That said, Wal-Mart is also very good at driving down prices at the expense of the producer. While many of the people behind Wal-Mart support the alternative food movement, sometimes very directly, this could be the economic equivalent of getting hugged to tightly by a gorilla. Its size could crush a lot of aspects of the alternative food movement (like independent producers). And if there is a serious drive to cut costs, migrant labor exploitation and other cost-cutters could become pretty serious. It is all about what Wal-Mart is actually measuring... Either way, this will be a good one to watch, in my opinion. The Wal-Mart fortune has actually been pretty supportive of environmental agriculture and community issues for longer than most people think. They've been demonized, fairly, for a lot of issues related to the destruction of local economic communities and such, but here is one organization that has been largely supported off the Wal-Mart fortune: http://www.icfdn.org/abo

I found this discussion very applicable to Environmental studies symposium.  It discusses not only why Americans do not eat healthy as well as how much energy americans waste by throwing away foods.  Annually America throws away as much energy in food as Switzerland uses for all energy purposes.

A succinct introduction to the idea of permaculture and why we need it. For those ENVS students who dont yet already know: There's a group of students working on putting in a permaculture garden/food forest on a plot of land right next to campus. If you're interested, read this for background and email me (jhuggins@lclark.edu) so I can tell you when and where our next meeting will be.

Well, sounds like we have a discussion going here! If you want, Julia, we can talk at length about it, but it's gonna be difficult to talk if skeptics are dismissed as not knowing what permaculture really is. If the heart of permaculture is "the idea that agriculture should harmonize with natural cycles," a Julie Guthman or a Bob Goldman or a JDP would probably say sounds good, what what sort of harmonization with what sorts of natural cycles? This is inspirational, but too vague to adequately describe the details of any agricultural technique -- a whole host of techniques far different from permaculture could make the same claim. And perhaps our difference concerns permaculture not as an agricultural technique (which Julie appeared to endorse in her brief remarks), but its e.g. class, religious, and political dimensions, so we'd probably need to broaden our discussion to include its full dimensionality. ENVS represents an inclusive approach: it's not the ecological dimension alone, nor other dimensions; it's as many dimensions as are significant. Others on this thread may or may not be interested in permaculture, but in general it's worth a broader conversation between faculty and students on proposed solutions to our ecological problems. We want to make sure that there's a healthy give and take and a healthy respect, which may lead to a broader understanding of why certain solutions don't necessarily enthrall all of us. (Anyone ready to reform the tax code, as Julie strongly recommended as one of her "ecological" solutions??)

Like Julia, my response is too long for Diigo (perhaps this a function we should write to them about changing?), but I've posted it as a Google Site (also like Julia): https://sites.google.com/site/envs220diigopermaculture/

This brief article shows how global food prices (like cereal grains) are on the rise, while commodity prices (like oil) are actually falling. It also touches on connections between global climate change and food production.

This article discusses the possibility that food additives and chemicals have played a leading role in the increase of ADHD in children ages four to 17 in the United States. It cites several studies that indicate diet in a large role of ADHD development. "One study found that the depletion of zinc and copper in children was more prevalent in children with ADHD. Another study found that one particular dye acts as a 'central excitatory agent able to induce hyperkinetic behavior.'"

Rice is responsible for feeding half the world, or more than 3.5 billion people. And along its path from paddy to plate, it influences (and is influenced by) a ton of things. This reminds me of other studies we've read that follow one particular item from a diverse range of perspectives. Fun read for an international food perspective very much rooted in the East - perhaps something to chew on for next years symposium?

Interesting blog post that suggests we'll see an increase in global food insecurity and a like "uptick of government enforcement in the area of agricultural commodities." 

This article on research is related to our last ENVS 220 lab. The article does not address environmental justice in relation to minorities or socioeconomic status, yet it warns of communities and populations potentially exposed to unsafe levels of pollutants beyond their control, a reminder that environmental injustice can occur in any demographic. This also relates to the Pamela R. Davidson reading in that the study referenced in this article sounds suspiciously like one that Davidson might call into question. It is likely that many of the ambiguities she highlights were not taken fully into account. Thats not to say we shouldn't be concerned, however, and this article brings up an important point: should we really have to "vote with our dollars" to protect ourselves from potentially harmful chemicals, especially when the harmful practices themselves have damaged our ability to vote by warping our perspective on the real cost/value of food?

Got the time to read an 81 page report from the USDA Economic Research Service? Perhaps not, but it could be worth the time. An information/research heavy look into the economics of a variety of food systems. Given the argument that sustainable agriculture won't be truly embraced until it can feasibly compete with industrial agriculture models, the information here could be very interesting. I've only just started to dive in, but so far its promising, as government reports go.

Also, for the record, two things worth checking out: there is a report summary, and a full report, though the summary offers little surprising information. There is also a case study on blueberries specific to Portland.

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry