My dad- as dads should- likes to keep me on my toes. Once a month or so I receive a magazine article or an email debunking my “liberal ideas.” He argues that the “organic” movement is ludicrous, has a brain full of arguments, from a geologist standpoint, that global warming is over-hyped, and is thrilled by the fact he never has to eat another piece of spinach. The problem (which is what I love about him) is that he’s incredibly smart, well read, and arguing with him, especially about politics, is like talking to the head of the Harvard debate team. Whether or not his arguments sway me, he is right in showing that there are always two sides (or more) to a story.

The other day he scribbled my address on an envelope and sent off a handful of articles about food politics from the December 9 Economist. The headline on the first was “Good Food? If you think you can make the planet better by clever shopping, think again. You might make it worse.” Tired and hungry, my first reaction was to toss the article across the kitchen counter and declare, “Argh, whatever, all he cares about (and the people who write for the Economist) is the bottom line- why can’t they ever think beyond that?” Bold subtitles like “Buy organic, destroy the rainforest” and “How green is your organic lettuce?” were hard to ignore and before I knew it I was two pages into a slew of arguments that did indeed challenge my idealistic views. While I was easily able to formulate a counter argument for all of them, the points were well taken and I was pleasantly surprised to find myself in total agreement with the author’s conclusions.

Voting with your trolley: Can you really change the world just by buying certain foods? and Good Food?
The Economist, December 9, 2006 (author unknown- oddly enough the author’s name is never found next to Economist articles)

How Green?
The basic premise of the Economist articles was that “ethical” food choices are controversial and don’t necessarily create the outcome we so piously promote. Critics of organic agriculture were sited who believe that producing the world’s current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land is currently cultivated, leaving little room for the rainforest. Others believe that the energy output used for organic agriculture is actually greater per ton of food produced because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by plowing. Ideas like preserving biodiversity and addressing the distribution of food (overall the world produces enough food but people are starving because they don’t have access to it) can counter these arguments, and “sustainable” practices less stringent than organic are possible solutions. But the authors are right, organic is not all it’s cracked up to be (and they didn’t event mention all the controversy over large-scale organic monoculture and organic certification losing its integrity).

Fair Enough
This scrutiny of Fairtrade was next. What’s wrong with paying poor farmers a premium for chocolate and coffee? The economic argument against Fairtrade goes like this: low prices for these commodities are because of surpluses in the market and should be a signal for producers to grow other crops. When a premium is paid, more producers enter the market, which drives down the cost of non-Fairtrade commodities and the non-Faritrade farmers (the majority) become even poorer. Another argument is that Fairtrade certification assumes that small cooperatives are the best way to organize labor and so large family firms that employ a lot more workers cannot be certified. So, a few get richer, most get poorer. Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Add to this the huge markup on trendy Fairtrade products (farmers only receive and average of 10% of the premium we pay- 25 cents on a $2.50 chocolate bar) and it’s easy to see from the outside that Fairtrade is a bit misguided and from the inside that it, like organics, has sold it’s soul. One could argue that even though Fairtrade certification is not perfect, at least it’s a start in the right direction, but you can’t argue that these points are not well taken.

Think globally, act locally?
The hottest trend in food activism is the local food movement which appeals in different ways to environmentalists, national farm lobbies, anti-corporate activists, and consumers who want to know where there food comes from. Reducing “food miles” is an oft-cited argument for eating local, but a mile traveled by a sport-utility vehicle carrying a bag of salad is not the same as a large truck full of groceries. “Food-ton miles” are more important. The dilemma is whether a shift away from supermarkets with central distribution depots, lean supply chains and large, full, trucks might actually increase the number of food miles overall traveled because things move around in smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles. As far as the global distribution of food, it can be argued that the overall energy use and stress on the environment can be less to import tomatoes from South America in the winter than to grow them in heated greenhouses closer to home. Finally, the emissions from flying food from the developing world need to weighed, from an economists point of view, with a boost to trade and development. Some economists go so far as to call the local food movement “protectionism” and criticize farm lobbies that campaign against imports under the guise of environmentalism.

After being at Terra Madre and hearing stories from producers from around the world- it is easy to find counter-arguments to the above issues. The problem globalization and giant agri-business has created is that many farmers in developing nations grow food for export they can’t afford to eat themselves while using up their land, cutting their mangrove forests, and buying seeds they can’t save. The argument to “let the market decide” and the idea of the free trade is ludicrous as long as US exporters are allowed to dump surpluses. US corn is cheaper in Mexico because of dumping and price fixing than corn grown by local growers- so they immigrate to Iowa to work on the farms that grow the corn. I know this is a simplistic way to look at things, but honestly, what’s wrong with the idea that the Mexicans make their money growing corn at home and some of our Iowa farms grow vegetables that will nourish Americans instead of making us fat?

As for the issue of whether to buy the tomatoes from a greenhouse or Latin America- the real solution (for the environment) is to buy local tomatoes in season and forego the rest. This is where the real issue lies- in that we are used to eating everything out of season and have created an unsustainable demand. Are we obligated to support developing nations by buying food out of season? We may help them in the short term, but if the long-term result is the demise of the environment we aren’t doing anyone any favors.

The “protectionism” argument is a tough one- you might as well be called a bigot. Here in Teton Valley, Idaho- a farming community settled by Mormons that historically was completely self-sustainable- we can’t buy local dairy, our organic produce in grocery stores comes from Los Angeles, and even though there are cows in the field, the only way to buy it is to get it packaged at the store under a national brand name. Meanwhile, farmland that isn’t growing houses or golf courses is probably growing seed potatoes or barley to be sold to giant agribusiness and shipped away. I can’t see what is wrong with trying to figure out ways for local communities here in the USA to feed themselves instead of selling food cheap to mega-distributors who process and ship the food around the world. And more importantly, from the Terra Madre view, the revival of local communities in developing nations does not mean making sure they have a McDonalds.

The idea of “virtuous globalization” helps me when I’m walking around dazed in the supermarket. Anything that can be grown or made locally (or at least in the USA) I choose over imports. Try to eat in season. Buy whole foods and bulk whenever possible and save your money to buy specialty items that support artisan producers and traditional processes like cheese, wine, oils, and specialty meats.

What should a shopper do?
“Food is central to the debate on the environment, development, trade and globalization- but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated. The idea of saving the world by shopping is appealing, but tackling climate change, boosting development and reforming the global trade system will require difficult political choices.” Real change, the Economist concludes and I agree, can only come about through difficult international policy changes like a global carbon tax, reform of the world trade system, abolition of agricultural tariffs and subsidies that coddle rich farmers and price the poor world out of the market. So far the world’s governments have failed to do this, but the good news is that the ethical food movement sends a signal that there is an appetite for change. The tough news is that if we want real change we must do more than shop- we must convince our politicians to put these items on the agenda and support only those who do.

Take Action
Want to get involved? Here are some food activist sites that can help find out how.

Organic Consumer’s Association

Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Sustainable Table