What’s Wrong with Our Food System?

It’s a question my colleagues and I are concerned about every day and happily are finding solutions for in our own way.  (BTW if you’re interested in being part of the solution-building, I encourage you to join us at our first Food Systems Summit this June.)

GOOD’s and Oxfam Australia’s infographic points out two shameful statistics:

  • 1 in 7 people go to bed hungry – 1 billion people worldwide.
  • 80% of the world’s hungry are directly involved in food production.

It begs the question: how is this seeming incongruity a reality?

Yes, we all agree that climate change, food prices, waste and cuts in hunger aid are culpable here, but frankly I am tired of pointing fingers without thinking about our own involvement.

This is where my inspiration, Wendell Berry, comes in and once again speaks eloquently about the problems in our food systems in his 2012 Jefferson Lecture at the National Endowment for the Humanities.

He reminds us that there are more insidious factors at play – our cultural realities have become so ingrained in our American way of thinking, that in order to change they must be completely upended.

Here’s what he explains in 6 simple bullets:

We have taken the farmer out of the farm. Berry uses the very personal example of his grandfather, who lost an economic battle with the American Tobacco Company owned by James Duke, to illustrate that large agribusiness forgets the farmer.  When agriculture is turned only into something that generates profit – as in efficiency at all cost to grow the bottom line – it doesn’t allow for a “stable, reasonably thriving population of farmers and…the continuing fertility of their farms.” People make food systems work and we have lost sight of that.

We have divorced ourselves from our land. “If farmers come under adversity from high costs and low prices, then they must either increase demands upon the land or decrease their care for it, or they must sell out and move to town, and this is supposed to involve no ecological or economic or social cost. Or if there are such costs, then they are rated as ‘the price of progress’ or ‘creative destruction.’’ There is always a “cost”, perhaps not always visible at the time, when farmers have to leave their land. Clearly, when we look around us today, these costs are too much to bear – with serious implications for our economy, environment, communities, and health.

We think in silos, versus systemically. Why must the environment be sacrificed at the cost of the economy? Why must we risk public health for economic gain? To paraphrase Berry, we never ask: “why we are willing to do permanent ecological and cultural damage ‘to strengthen the economy?’” It does not have to be either-or. When we stop believing only in the economic silo and look at the whole, where we include the environment, our health, and the happiness of our community, we can start to see different answers to our problems.

We confuse ownership with the right to degradation. Flooding, pollution, disease, soil erosion. In large part, corporate land ownership has led to land destruction. More dangerous, corporate land-owners have assumed the “right to destroy.” What happens to communities when this right is acted upon?

We have lost our sense of scale. Berry says: “When people succeed in profiting on a large scale, they succeed for themselves. When they fail, they fail for many others, sometimes for us all. A large failure is worse than a small one, and this has the sound of an axiom, but how many believe it?” Consolidation and conglomeration have created a Big Food world that is so pervasive and so powerful. When it fails, the results are tragic and epidemic.

We are dependent on industrial technology. “All of current agricultural changes have depended upon industrial technologies, processes, and products, which have depended upon fossil fuels – the production and consumption of which have been, and are still, unimaginably damaging to land, water, air, plants, animals, and humans. And the cycle of obsolescence and innovation, goaded by crazes of fashion, has given the corporate economy a controlling share of everybody’s income.”

Depressing, right? Important to remember, though.  I’ll leave you with hopeful words from Mr. Berry:

“A positive cause, still little noticed by high officials and the media, is the by now well-established effort to build or rebuild local economies, starting with economies of food. This effort to connect cities with their surrounding rural landscapes has the advantage of being both attractive and necessary. It rests exactly upon the recognition of human limits and the necessity of human scale. Its purpose, to the extent possible, is to bring producers and consumers, causes and effects, back within the bounds of neighborhood, which is to say the effective reach of imagination, sympathy, affection, and all else that neighborhood implies. An economy genuinely local and neighborly offers to localities a measure of security that they cannot derive from a national or a global economy controlled by people who, by principle, have no local commitment.”

How do you think we can change our ways to create healthy, fair and sustainable food systems?

Posted in Economic, Environmental, Health, Social | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Can Regional Food Systems Solve Unequal Food Access Challenges?

Yesterday’s list included three-seed bread, tomatillos and maple yogurt.

Living in Burlington, Vermont makes food shopping relatively easy for me. In two minutes, I was at the local food co-op where I was able to meet my family’s food needs and desires. In addition to the co-op, if I want to diversify my market trips, there are summer and winter farmers’ markets, an abundance of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) opportunities, ethnic markets, supermarkets, small corner stores, bakeries, healthy food markets and discount food stores, all within close range. This is the local food Mecca that people frequently conjure up when they imagine Vermont, with maple syrup and artisan cheese available on every street corner. Owning a car and having adequate financial resources makes just about anything accessible.

Flash back to last week.

I was in a small, rural Vermont community talking with residents about food options at their local, independently-owned grocery store. Because selection is limited, they drive to a larger supermarket regularly, but it’s not so bad since it’s just 19 miles up the road, they said. Just 19 miles! I didn’t know that “just” could go with that distance when it comes to food shopping. But, they seem to take it in stride. It reminded me of a conversation I had a couple of years ago with somebody from another Vermont community. She told me that she and her friends loaded into the car and drove two hours each month to go food shopping at a discount store.

Having to go some distance to access healthy, affordable food is not a problem unique to Vermont. According to a 2009 USDA report, 23.5 million people live in low-income areas that are more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store, many of whom have limited transportation options.

I am repeatedly struck by the fact that there are such unequal food access opportunities across our beautiful, agricultural state. I am reminded that I am completely spoiled and so privileged. And of course, access is not all about location. While Vermont leads the country in per capita expenditures on local food, nearly 15% of our neighbors are food insecure. When resources are limited, access to healthy, affordable food is not so easy, no matter where you live.

Back to the flashback: I was talking with these folks in the rural community because we are working on a project to figure out how to get more healthy, regionally produced, affordable food into remote or underserved food marketplaces (for more information on this northeastern U.S. project, Enhancing Food Security in the Northeast with Regional Food Systems), and we wanted to know what kind of food they want, but can’t get.

Understanding their desires is the easy part; the real challenge is solving the problem when the causes are so systemic. Distributors delivering food to these communities are few and far between, so options in the stores are limited. The storeowners frequently say they have limited space and can’t always count on the shoppers to purchase the healthy foods they make available. The food shoppers say, “if only the healthy food was more affordable, then I would buy it.” Bottom line, the food system in these communities, and across our country, is often broken, and the consequences can be huge.

Many creative solutions have emerged to address this endemic problem. Farmers’ markets are flourishing across the country, as are community gardens and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms that incorporate options for lower-income families, youth agriculture programs, and more.

But the problems persist. At UVM’s Center for Sustainable Agriculture we’ve been thinking about the ways that different food system sectors might contribute answers.  We recently interviewed farmers to learn more about the unique roles they play in addressing food insecurity. Next, we are planning to talk to other food system stakeholders, such as food aggregators and distributors, to get their take on the matter.

Lots of people wonder whether the best solution to this seemingly intractable problem comes from trying to work within the dominant food system to make change, or establishing alternative approaches, such as mobile farmers’ markets, to meet the needs.

What’s your thought?

 

Posted in Economic, Health, Social | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Local foodie and global activist: A statement of belief from a food worshipper

Guest blog post from Irit Tamir, Senior Advocacy and Collaborations Advisor for Oxfam America’s US Regional Office. Tamir will be a speaker at our June 2012 Public Conference “The Necessary (r)evolution for Sustainable Food Systems.”

I am a foodie. I love to shop for food, and I spend most of my Sunday afternoons preparing food for the following week. Spirituality for me has never been in a house of worship but rather on a farm. I’ve written before aboutLand’s Sake farm in Weston, MA. I belong to their CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and enjoy every moment I am there. The braided onions hanging from the vegetable stand, the heirloom tomatoes in various shapes and colors with all their imperfections, the bouquets of sunflowers and nasturtiums—it is bursting with life.

Land’s Sake is not the only CSA I belong to; in the winter, I also belong to Enterprise Farm, which sources locally for as long as it can, then slowly sources down the Eastern Coast as necessary. For my milk, eggs, dairy, and meat I participate in Farmers to You, a delivery service that sources from small farms in Vermont. This year I joined a grain CSA at WheatBerry Farm. I pick up my share once a year in Amherst, MA and receive about 50 pounds of local grain. When I can, I buy local—because I like investing in my local economy and getting food soon after it has been picked or produced.

But, while my buying practices are predominantly local, I know they never can be entirely. Let’s face it; I am not giving up my coffee, or tea, or daily banana—and we don’t grow any of these crops in the North. That’s why it is important for all of us to understand that while we can and should support local and regional food systems, we are also part of a global food system—and that that food system needs major reforms.

Oxfam has been working on hunger issues for decades, and our recent international GROW campaign is all about building a better food system—one that will meet the needs of a growing population while empowering poor people to earn a living and feed their families. To name just a few of our initiatives: we’ve been working to reform food aid,change corporate practice in its sourcing policies,invest in small holder producers, and ensure that companies and growers use good labor practices(1.4 million farmworkers in the US!) in food supply chains.

Whether you’re a local hero or not, we all have to realize that we live in a global food system. While we can and should support our local farmers and farmworkers, we are also intricately connected to the rice farmer in Vietnam, the tea plantation worker in Malaysia or the coffee bean producer in South America. And, with nearly one billion people—or one in seven—estimated as being undernourished, our food system is not making the cut.

Governments, food and beverage companies, retailers, farmers, and consumers all have a role to play in reforming our food system. Oxfam has been engaging at all these levels. If we’re ever going to feed nine billion people by 2050, we’ll have to start making some big changes right away.

Irit Tamir is the senior advisor for advocacy and collaborations for the US Regional Office of Oxfam America. She works on campaigns for Oxfam’s Decent Work and Gulf Coast Programs and also works on corporate collaborations. She is an attorney with an LLM in international law and 15 years of experience in government relations, human rights, and legislative advocacy for nonprofits.

(Please note this blog post is republished from its original source. It was originally posted on April 26, 2012, on the Oxfam America website). 

Posted in Social | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Major Cause of Obesity? Less Time in the Kitchen

Since the 1960s, even though men have increased their time spent cooking slightly,  women have decreased their daily cooking time by more than 33% to about an hour.  During that same time period, obesity rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed. More than two-thirds of us are now overweight and a third of us are obese.

What you may not know, or believe, is cooking – or the lack thereof – plays a role in our obesity epidemic.

The University of Vermont’s recent study of time use and obesity in single women, ages 31-50, concluded that cooking actually may help curb obesity.

Being the primary cook in a household is associated with having a BMI 1.72 points lower, as compared to non-cooks. And, every additional 10 minutes spent cooking (and cleaning up!), decreases BMI by 0.13 points.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the average American woman is 5 feet, 3.8 inches tall and weighs 164.7 pounds. Her BMI is 28.4, closer to obese than a healthy weight. If that average woman is the primary cook and spends an hour cooking, she has a BMI of 25.8, weighs almost 15 pounds less than the average, and is closer to being at a healthy weight.

(Of course, cooking is only a proxy. It is likely that cooks who spend time in the kitchen are actually preparing food, not only heating up convenience foods or take-out, which has been shown to contain more calories and saturated fats than home-prepared foods.)

Our charge is clear: we need to learn to cook and we need to teach our children to cook.

We are seeing a resurgence in cooking as curriculum –From Alice Waters’ Edible Schoolyard project in California to Family Cook Productions in New York City, cooking is finding its way back into schools.  And adult programs are expanding.  From Cooking for Life to Cooking Matters, free and low cost classes are being offered by non-profits and land grant university extension personnel.

So, lobby to bring back cooking education as a public health class, and reposition it as something you do for your health, not as a chore.

Our lives depend on it.

Posted in Health, Social | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

When Science Fiction Becomes Reality: Zilmax in Our Beef, Bellies and Universities

Photo Credit: Miller Mobley for The Chronicle Review.

Margaret Atwood’s book, Oryx and Crake, is a bleak futuristic tale of environmental disaster, walled universities for the rich, and biotechnology gone haywire. It paints a horrifying picture of what happens when larger-than-life, soul-less industries overpower smaller systems.

Unfortunately, in the case of our food system, truth is stranger than fiction. And, in some ways we are propelling, sometimes hurtling, toward a bleaker future, particularly when it comes to what we eat every day.

I registered the same shock reading Atwood’s novel as I did reading “Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?” (Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2012), which details the close relationship between animal scientists and pharmaceutical companies.

Imagine eating beef laced with the likes of beta-adrenergic agonists, or a growth-enhancing drug called Zilmax. Scary, but it’s sadly true and very real. Beef isn’t just what’s for dinner anymore.

The question of whom animal scientists are serving is of critical importance to our health, our economy and our environment, particularly in light of rBST (dairy), ractopamine (pig growth hormone) and now beef. If an animal scientist is only working for the financial gain of the industry that hired him, the public is at risk. (Incidentally, on the crop side, it is at least as incestuous, but probably more so as it is easier to hide, and we don’t seem to react to “Jack-in-the-beanstalk”-sized as we do “Schwarzeneggerian” steer.)

From my vantage point, it seems that the public, land-grant colleges and universities are losing their way. With less money coming from the federal and state level, universities are looking to alumni and other donors, many of whom are in private business, to fund research and other academic activities and initiatives. With tuition prices hitting a ceiling, research faculty are oftentimes sent searching for funding outside of the institution. And on top of all this, there is an enormous proliferation of pressure to patent and gather market royalties. That produces a dangerous situation in which academics are beholden to industry, not the public.

An excerpt from the article underscores this point:

Many professors said they worried that their academic freedom would be limited by the companies supporting their research. Some learned from experience that their trepidation was justified. Allen Williams, the former professor of animal science, says that in the late 1990s, a company stopped him from presenting his research on its pregnancy test for dairy cows. The company had given him a grant to test the product and was trying to win government approval to sell it, but Williams’ study suggested that the test didn’t work. He says he was preparing to present the results at a conference when his department head told him to pull the abstract. He has argued that he should be able to present his findings because he worked at a public university financed by taxpayers. His argument went nowhere.

Does this mean that objective research is a thing of the past? What can a consumer do to avoid Zilmax in her hamburger? What do you do about the thousands of good-for-the-bottom-line, bad-for-the-greater-good activities going on in labs across the nation and world? Write to one’s congressman?  What good will it do if the federal government isn’t providing funding, or your congressman’s re-election depends on corporate money? Write to your university? Perhaps, but they are trying to survive right now and research money is extremely hard to come by. At the same time, corporate funds enable valuable research that would not otherwise happen.

There are many questions – and one clear answer: We, the eaters, need to foment change with our forks, and ask that faculty be beholden to the best interests of their research, not to industry.

Read the article and let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Posted in Economic, Environmental, Health | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment