I have received a lot of response from the “Economist” articles referenced in “Two Sides of the Story.” I have trouble, I think, saying exactly what I think for fear of alienating or pissing someone off. This very problem was discussed on NPR as the reason John Kerry never had a chance and Bush has us where we are today. Hopefully the new Democrats can get out of this wishy-washy habit. Guest writer Dan Olson has no problem saying exactly what he thinks- enjoy!

Dan Olson writes:

I personally think the author is a jerk masquerading as someone who is highly intelligent.

He/she/it (let’s just call the writer George for lack of an actual name) starts by trivializing the notion of voting with your dollars as something folks with attention spans that are too short for the dull (but obviously morally superior) exercise of political advocacy do. Let’s shop to save the world. Yippee!!!

George then goes on to point out problems with things like fair trade, local, and organics – concluding that THEREFORE – shopping with your dollars is NOT the answer, political advocacy is.

How bizarre.

First off, no one who actually cares about these issues would say that blind adherence to labels like organic, fair trade, or even local, which 1) all must be evaluated relative to a specific context and 2) are under constant attack from lobbying and industry groups who try and water them down, is the shield we need to hide behind until the world’s problems are solved. That said, there are real and tangible benefits from purchasing organics, fair trade, and local foods.

Organics: George basically says that all farming is bad – so chemically intensive “higher yield” farming is obviously preferred to “lower yield” organic farming because we need to farm (read destroy) less land to produce the world’s food. This argument is so simplistic as to make me throw up the organic banana I just ate. Since when does mono-culture agriculture that obliterates local ecology while being 100% reliant on non-renewable fossil fuels, cancer causing chemicals, and genetically engineered seeds sound like the “preferred” option? When George throws out a few cute one liners to over simplify a much more complex issue. Watch the movie “The Future of Food” for a thorough debunking of the myths that conventional agriculture based on petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides is a good thing for the world. And what really annoys me about George is that there are legitimate challenges to the “preferred” status of organic foods, but he doesn’t seem to understand what they are so why is he writing this article?

Fairtrade: Again, I think George is confused. How do people like him become writers and get published in the Economist? Maybe we should all drop our jobs and become famous Georges. The idea behind fair trade is simple – why should a coffee bean grower in Guatemala be starving to death while the company selling his beans to rich folks like us makes another billion dollars in profit. If we’re going to participate in global food production and distribution systems, we need to create more financial equity throughout the growing, distributing, and retail chains. Would George disagree with this? So what’s his beef? Sure, right now more of the premium we pay for Fairtrade probably pads the pockets of the rich guys than increases the farmer’s wealth. But guess what… the farmer is still getting paid more and the solution to the premium skimming is not to abandon the effort but to ensure distributors and retails put MORE money back in the farmer’s pockets. Call it Even Fairer Trade. Then George wants to switch gears and talk about the macroeconomics of agricultural commodities pricing. Again – the oversimplification is intense. Since I’ve already thrown up my banana, I guess I’ll have to lose my organic yogurt too. How, in three sentences, can George sum up the complexity and problems of agricultural commodities pricing. Does he really think that if we could JUST STOP BUYING FAIR TRADE coffee the blind hand of the market would gently guide farmers in the “developing” world towards less abundant and economically self-enriching agricultural commodities? George is the KING of oversimplifying and distorting issues, only to deduce some brilliant sound byte from his completely myopic perception of reality.

When it comes to the local food discussion George borders on being an asshole through his distortions and oversimplifications. Why do we want local food? So we have a working landscape that can provide nourishment for our communities (not condos for rich people to vacation in). That’s the starting point. Next, we don’t want our carrots being shipped 1500 miles when they could be driven 10 or even grown in the backyard. What’s up with the supermarket vs. farmers market distance thing and vehicle miles? George says most people live closer to a supermarket than to a farmer’s market, therefore they’ll drive less to get their conventional food that was shipped 1500 miles at the supermarket. But George my boy, that assumes local food can only be sold at an outdoor tented farmers market. Guess what? The supermarket could also sell local produce, if they chose to. [and they’ll only choose to when shoppers “vote” with their dollars and buy local elsewhere]. And the lamb thing…. oh i’m getting a headache. If lamb grown in New Zealand is less energy intensive than lamb grown in England (even including transportation demands) the take home isn’t “buy New Zealand lamb and local food is bad,” it’s “DON’T BY ##$%^@^ LAMB” if you live in England. That’s the type of example that is downright distorting and I think it’s time for someone to take George’s pen away.

And the funny thing is, I think I actually like George. His intent by writing this article was to remind us all that IN ADDITION to buying better things (like organic, fair trade, and local) we ALSO need to be vocally engaged (thanks Ben) in the political discourse that shapes significant policies and either levels or unfairly tilts the playing field for common-sense, healthy, and sustainable agriculture. My only problem is he didn’t say IN ADDITION TO, he said INSTEAD OF. And therein lies the rub. What a jerk. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

dan olson
smartsprocket, inc.

post office box 3104
durango, co 81302
307.699.0555 (m)

dan@smartsprocket.com
www.smartsprocket.com