http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
So, I can’t make up my mind…is buying
local food good or bad? With the bashing
of large-scale food production in critical publicity sources like the
documentary Food, Inc. and the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma – not to mention
the criticism in many television news stories and even political campaigns – it
seems like the general public has been revealed to the evils of industrial food
production and the paradise that is local food.
I mean, nobody likes to see genetically engineered chickens and corn-fed
cows being processed in bloody, mechanized factories. But Steve Sexton of Freakonomics blog says
that, although large-scale food production isn’t perfect, local food production
is a lot worse.
In Sexton’s article, “The Inefficiency
of Local Food”, he argues that if food production was led by local smallholder
farms, the effects could harm the natural habitat, increase climate change, even
create more world hunger – all more so than with industrial food production. He reasons this by first saying that we have
the wrong assumption that local food production can be just as efficient as
industrial production. Using U.S.
agriculture as an example, he argues that since certain states, because of
their landscape and climate, are better at producing certain crops, it would be
extremely inefficient to try to grow all types of crops in one location. That would take more land and more chemicals,
and therefore create more carbon emissions than it does in the efficient industrial
food production system. Consequently,
inefficient local food production means a more expensive food production, which
means more expensive foods. In a world
where we are already having problems with feeding everybody, expensive local food
production would only increase world hunger.
And finally, the foods that would become more expensive to produce would
be region-specific foods, such as nutritious fruits and vegetables. This would definitely not help the fight
against obesity.
Now, I’m no economist, but the
argument that Steve Sexton makes against local food production does sound
reasonable. In an era where many people
are utterly condemning the industrial food production system for its negative
effects on the landscape environment, on the climate, on animals, and on our
health, it is important that we look at the negatives of a local food
production system. In the least, he is
giving us something to think about before we blaspheme all supermarkets and
swear on local farmers’ markets. In the
realm of environmental anthropology, food production systems have a significant
impact on both the environment and on humans.
The way humans manipulate and construct our landscapes (look at the huge
cornfields spanning all across America) for food production, as well as the way
we cultivate agricultural and animal products with carbon-producing machines
and factories, has a huge impact on the natural environment. In addition, food production is biologically
connected with humans because we eat everything that is produced. As the old saying goes, we are what we
eat! The types of foods that we eat have
a huge impact on our health and our lifestyle, and thus our culture.
Those are all interesting points, and they make a lot of sense. But at the same time I think that BOTH sides need to be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, the thought of eating something that you don’t know anything about how it got onto your plate is slightly scary. At the same time, having 7 billion people start their own local community gardens for total subsistence is completely impractical, would promote sprawl, and I agree would have a detrimental effect on our planet. I think that Sexton’s argument about local food that you give does highlight the negative effects, and I also think that trading crops are a good thing for optimizing economies and tummies. However, we can have a comparative advantage in corn in the Midwest without having to spray icky chemicals on the ground that could potentially get into people’s water. And we can know where our food is coming from without taking the chicken behind the barn before supper.
ReplyDeleteEating local, and participating in local food production, does not always have to mean planting all your own variety of crops and livestock. It can mean promoting a higher demand for more regional—and more in season—foods. It can mean buying American-based foods instead of importing your specialty foods from some exotic location. It can also mean choosing foods that you have the comparative advantage, landscape, and climate to grow while not necessarily participating in a market that demands foods that are hard to produce and transport. Take strawberries for example: obviously those do not grow everywhere, but someone might have an easier time running a commercial strawberry farm that does not require as many fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and should therefore try focus on that while someone else tries to mass-produce something their region specializes in. Local food production doesn’t have to be a bad thing as long as there is some sort of emphasis on trying to eliminate the harm done to the environment and to the food product you are producing. There should be a limit to the way corporate food producers try to maximize their output and cut their costs.
I know that that did not come anywhere close to solving your local versus not problem, but I hope it gave you some things to think about!
I think there is merit in this article for trying to balance the debate between factory-farmed and local food, as it is good to be critical of both sides of an issue. However, and Kelly Dawn already highlighted this, I think the author is using a very narrow and extreme definition of "local" to mean having ALL food produced on a local farm. Rather I think the local movement has been more about knowing where your food comes from and the impact it has on the environment. It's about changing the disconnect that people often have with their food and their local environment. I agree eating in-season is also a big change that locavores strive for that is ignored in the article. For example,eating locally can mean choosing to eat apples when they are locally in season and preserving them for the off-season, rather than buying apples that have been shipped halfway across the world all year round. This requires a change to many American's mindsets of having endless variety whenever and whereever we want, a mindset that greatly contributes to the growing problems of obesity and diabetes.
ReplyDeleteAs for the argument about the effects on the poor, I have recently seen many movements emerge to create local community gardens that give the poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables that they would otherwise not have access to, like if they live in a "food desert" where all there is is fast food and convenience stores. These programs also educate people about where their food comes from and how to prepare it, which helps them to make smarter food choices. Local, community-based projects like these could be the key to altering the pattern of increasing child obesity by breaching the disconnect from farm to plate.
I also only touched on a few of the issues up for discussion here- this is definitely a complex issue!