Local Food Production and Environmentalism
“The Food Miles Mistake� by Ronald Bailey is an enlightening look into the world of organic and local food production. There were many ideas that were brought to my mind; predominantly those of food production in greenhouses (in unsuitable climates), as well as facts regarding the environmental impact of different types of local food production. However, this report is extremely biased on some points. It fails to uncover points in this debate about the economic impact of local and non-local food production, and remains focused on the environmental aspect.
Bailey attempts to emphasize the importance of growing agricultural commodities in appropriate climates, “Kenyan cut rose growers emit 6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per 12,000 roses compared to the 35 tons of carbon dioxide emitted by their Dutch competitors. Kenyan roses grow in sunny fields whereas Dutch roses grow in heated greenhouses.� At the same time, Bailey does not recognize the possibility that although those rose fields in Kenya are more environmentally productive than the Dutch fields, they may be less economically productive. The Kenyan rose farms may be on land that could be arable for more locally relevant food crops, in order to help combat the food shortages in areas of Africa. The production of the roses in Kenya for export, may directly impact the ensuing food crises in that area.
In his article, Bailey does make it clear that the environmental impact of locally raising agricultural products in a less than favorable climate is vast. The difference between transportation versus greenhouses is logically presented in the rose example – 36 metric tons to 5 metric tons. But the question must be asked, what is more important in this day and age? Leading countries and corporations must take a proper stance upon environmental or economic productivity, in order to combat the problems created by both. Bailey does effectively demonstrate, unknowingly, that the two (environmental productivity and economic productivity) do not go hand in hand, “rich country subsidies amounting to more than $300 billion per year are severely distorting global agricultural production and trade. If the subsidies were removed, far more agricultural goods would be produced in and imported from developing countries, helping lift millions of people out of poverty.� It is entirely likely that the Kenyan roses are produced in Kenya because of subsidies from corporations and/or governments. I find it hard to believe that a farmer in Kenya, possibly faced with personal poverty or communal poverty will choose to produce roses when a local grain or other food staple would be more viable – in order to feed his family and community.
Conversely, Bailey’s points regarding the over-zealousness of some local food production supporters are relevant. It is notable in today’s society; of course I am speaking from a perspective of the United States, that some trains of environmentalism are devoid of logic in favor of green fervor. In some circumstances, it has become popular or trendy to support leftist policies on the environment. All possibilities must be considered in the environmental debate. It may be that green retailers are appealing to these trends by selling locally produced foods, even if they are less environmentally sound. This is far from where the environmental movement should be; it is a departure from the values that form the basis of environmentalism. However, I am in no way degrading these policies, it is obvious that sustainability is vital to the future of this planet (if it accounts for the livelihood of all persons).
To conclude, logical gaps in the production of agricultural commodities must be placed within societal discourse. We must not live under the façade of green or locally produced foods, if those foods are less productive than other methods. In opposition, sustainability is one of the most significant movements of our time, and should be appreciated for its moral high ground – all possibilities considered.
Comments
I was impressed by this position paper on that it raised many different ideas that before reading this, I would have not thought of. For example, when you said that maybe the Kenyan field of roses was not economically productive; that is a good point because Africa is known for its food shortages. Also you do not fully take one side or the other. You state very clearly that both the economic and environment perspectives need to intertwine for everything to work out smoothly. But to me, the environmental aspect should be in the lead. The most important goal for everyone on this planet should be environmental sustainability. This is the best example of karma, except for the reincarnation part, that I can think of. What we do now will greatly affect the next generation and that generation will most likely be our children. We should always be thinking about that. Another point is that without the world, we will not have an economy. If we get too caught up into our economic stability, we may start making irresponsible decisions that can have a devastating effect on the environment.
Now I am not saying completely forget about our economy. I know it is important. The environment and economic stability will always be on a teeter-totter together. I just think we should be leaning more on the environment side. Any decision that we make from now forward should have the future of the environment in mind. Some decisions might cost a little more doing it “green� or environmentally friendly, but that should not matter. Sustainability is key.
Posted by: Nate Miller | November 24, 2008 1:14 PM
In the article “The Food Miles Mistake,� Robert Bailey discusses the debate between shipping foods that are grown in favorable climates to locations of less favorable conditions versus eating local. Activists for local food argue that it is better for the planet because it cuts down on “unnecessary� greenhouse emissions that are created when food is shipped thousands of miles across the planet. They argue that these “food miles� are playing a role in climate change. However, others argue that the transportation of food from producer to sellers plays a minimal role in the over greenhouse gases emitted (in the US, a 2007 study found that it accounted for only 4% of emissions involved with food). Furthermore, the opponents say that the cost of growing food in a less favorable climate and being forced to use a heated greenhouse actually results in more emissions. For example, it is feasible “to grow bananas in Iceland, but Costa Rica really has the better climate for that activity.� Iceland’s climate would require the bananas to be produced in heated greenhouses; where as Costa Rica can grow them naturally under the sun. They argue that this process is much more environmentally as well as economically sound.
As the author of the position correctly stated, environmental sustainability and economic growth “do not go hand in hand.� Often times, they seem to be competing against each other. Until now, few people thought about the environment and focus was almost completely aimed at economic development. However, people are now starting to realize the importance of maintaining the environment. In fact, many people, including myself, will argue that environmental regulation should be the primary concern. Whether the food miles play a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions is irrelevant: they do play a role in creating them, and there are extremely simple measures that will reduce them. As the article suggests, consumers can eat foods that are in season, cut back on packaged and marketed food, plant their own garden, preserve foods themselves, and take a public bus or train to go to the grocery store. These are small sacrifices to make to help save the planet.
As the importance of “going green� continues, there are many “little things� that we all can do. Obviously recycling is an easy and important task, as it takes years for trash to decompose in landfills (1). Composting is another easy way to manage wastes (1). Using alternative forms of energy, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and bio-fuel will cut back on greenhouse emissions (1). “Green cleaning� is also an easy way to make a difference, since many of the chemicals in harsh, everyday cleaners are harmful to the environment (1). We can also use more environmentally friendly pesticides and buy organic (1). As Nate stated, “sustainability is key.�
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentally_friendly#Methods
Posted by: Lindsey Harper | November 24, 2008 11:32 PM
    I agree with the author’s main point about locally produced foods. Determining the method in which food should be grown is a complex decision. Ideally, there should be a combination of trade and environmentally friendly farming, however, in many countries this is impossible. With 1.6 million people facing food shortages and health problems in Kenya (1), effort should be put towards feeding starving populations before searching for environmentally friendly solutions. Producing food domestically provides work for the local population however trade is also needed. By offering trading with countries, opportunity cost can be minimized and resources can be maximized.
    I also agree with the author’s point about economic choices. The usage of greenhouses offers a variety of advantages. By using greenhouse growing techniques, many common infections and insects are kept at bay, avoiding the cost of expensive pesticides (2). Greenhouses also serve as a form of protection from the outside elements. If greenhouses were implemented, countries like Kenya could experience a year-round supply of tomatoes, which currently get damaged during the wet seasons (2).
    Finally, I agree with your position on subsidies. By artificially lowering the price of domestic commodities, foreign producers, especially developing nations, cannot compete in the given market. As a result, the efficiency of both foreign and domestic resources diminishes.
    As stated by the author, the argument of whether or not trade or greenhouse methods should be used for feeding nations is complicated. Because of each method’s problems and advantages, an answer can only be determined in a case-by-case manner. Food and fuel supplies are dwindling all over Kenya, leaving the poorest of Kenya's poor, such as those in Kibera, with nothing (3). For countries like Kenya, I think all efforts should be placed towards feeding their population, even if it means using a method of production that may not be the most environmentally friendly. For more developed nations with an already strong food infrastructure, efforts should be placed towards creating environmentally friendly food processing solutions.
1. Daniel Ooko - UN seeks $390 mln to assist 1.6 million people in Kenya - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/24/content_10407194.htm
2. African, East. "Kenya; Country Starts Greenhouse Tomato Farming." Africa News October 2 2007.
3. Dana, Hughes – “Hunger Grows in Kenya as Crisis Unfolds� ABC News - http://a.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4087703&page=1
Posted by: Ruben D'Sa | November 25, 2008 2:14 PM