470704 Tue Dec 18 13:54:14 -0800 2007 22 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 3219649 There is much discussion going on amongst food bloggers here in OZ about the "ethics" of food. SOLE food (Sustainable, Organic, Local or Ethical) is becoming more and more of an an acceptable was to shop/consume/eat. What was once the bastion of the inner city urban hippie, is now much more mainstream. Hell, even 86 y/o Auntie Jean is buying only SOLE lamb, these days! Restaurants are now even listing the supplier of ingredients on menus. I've been doing the SOLE thing in the 'burbs, to see how easy it is. And it IS easy. Just ask some questions and be a more informed consumer. You CAN provided an ethical, local meal for 2 parents and 5 kids that WILL be consumed. So, Does anyone here buy/consume/prep along these principles? Saving the World, one dish at a time, or trendy "Movement of the Month"? What say all of you?? Tue Dec 18 13:54:14 -0800 2007 86137 purple goddess 1 3219688 nothing I am interested in trying. We buy prime aged beef from wherever it comes from, we fire up the smoker every weekend, and use pork from wherever it is sourced, we eat crab legs from Alaska weekly, and I am not interested in paying a premium price for organic food, which in a couple of side to side comparisons I have tried vs. non-organics I saw no difference between the items. Buying only local products would not work for our lifestyle & living in the upper midwest, no seafood, avocados, pineapple, imported olive oil, tequila, oranges, lemons, limes, etc. would be available. I do shop at local mom and pop ethnic stores, and meat market, but I really do not care where they are sourcing their items as long as they are of high quality. In the summer we do support or local farmers, for fresh veggies, & to try to keep the local economy going, and because of personal relationships with the owners. We live in the country, but drive about 1000 miles per week in our suv to get to work, and run errands. One persons idea of what is or isnt ethical can differ from another persons. Tue Dec 18 14:02:31 -0800 2007 3219649 26725 swsidejim 2 3220585 There is a choice. It's not buying into the idea that the locavore/SOLE movement is a way to feed the world. It works for those of us with time, money and access to those products, but there are people who still must be fed, who will never have that luxury. Personal lifestyle preferences shouldn't drive global decision making. Sarah Murray of the Financial Times writes that "feeding the world’s 6.6 billion people, more than half of whom now live in cities, is not possible without mass production." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/opinion/14murray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Food is a major part of the global economy and it involves far more than whether it was raised biodynamically at a local farm. As we begin to factor in energy costs, labor, and environmental impact, this might mean choosing products with far-off origins because the methods used to raise or process them are more environmentally sustainable than the local equivalent. She argues that we're going to have to press the large food companies "to find safer, healthier and more environmentally sustainable methods." There is a difference between supporting local farmers in your area and a system that has tripled global grain production since the 70s, moving closer to eradicating world hunger. Tue Dec 18 19:16:39 -0800 2007 3220329 32444 MakingSense 3 3221027 That piece by Sarah Murray was one great big straw man. "For a start, consider the relative efficiency of different forms of haulage..." Sure, freighter ships are efficient. But guess what's carrying the food from the farm to the ships and from the docks to the market? Trucks. And those trucks are marginally more efficient than the trucks bringing food to the farmers' market, and far less efficient than those enterprising organic farmers who are relying on biodiesel for transport. "The trouble is, the distance food is transported is not necessarily an accurate measure of its environmental impact....transportation emerges as just one piece of the carbon dioxide jigsaw puzzle." Exactly. Which is why local food must always be considered within the context of Sustainable and Organic. "count the energy used by harvesting and milking equipment, farm vehicles, feedstock and chemical fertilizer manufacture, hothouses and processing factories" If written by a sensible individual, this argument would be an indictment of industrialized farming which relies heavily on these energy-intensive practices. In an awesome display of sophistry, Murray criticizes organic farmers by citing those production methods that they have rejected. "Take the potato chip, for instance." Wait a second, she's using a potato chip as an example to criticize the SOLE movement? Is she out of her mind? "Should we not consider supporting an African farmer for whom supplying Western markets with produce has provided a vital source of income " The best thing we can do for African farmers is to stop dumping cheap, industrially grown, American grains in Africa thus deflating the local food prices and driving farmers into poverty. "Yet feeding the world’s 6.6 billion people, more than half of whom now live in cities, is not possible without mass production." That's a bold statement with absolutely no proof to back it up. The industrial approach of maximizing caloric output per acre of land is ill-suited to feed the world. It pays no attention to either the long-term viability of production or the nutritional value of food calories. A system of food production that is entirely dependent on limited oil-reserves is hardly ideal for feeding future generations. A system of food production that creates a world population that is more likely to die from overeating than malnutrition is clearly flawed. Organic agriculture is more productive then industrial agriculture in terms of nutritional density per acre, and more efficient in terms of the amount of non-renewable energy required to yield a calorie of food. If sustainable agriculture were given a fraction of the R&D invested into industrial agriculture, these advantages would become even more pronounced. Simply put, this is an op-ed written by somebody who just doesn't *get* it. It's not even original - Pete Singer made all of these points in "The Way We Eat" 18 months ago. Tue Dec 18 23:14:53 -0800 2007 3220585 10793 Morton the Mousse 4 3222007 This is a brief piece urging readers to simply examine a subject from a broader point of view. Obviously, in such a short space, it's impossible for Murray to lay out "proof to back it up" but it would be even more difficult to defend the broad generalizations about agriculture, transportation, and economic systems that you use with no substantiation. Food is no longer solely that which is on our own tables. It has a global impact and financial writers such as Murray have been raising new questions about the broader implications of everything that goes into its production and delivery. The general public still forms many of its perceptions from the popular media, and a lot of that from the food sector of that media, which may give a distorted view of the overall picture. Murray's article just raises questions that some may never have considered. They're worth thinking about. No one has the answers. Murray "gets" something different than you get. Professionally, she comes at this from a different perspective and the point of this article is that we may want to reexamine our broader thinking. The locavore/SOLE movement does that for personal consumption. Why is it hard to do that in a broader sense as the world shifts its methods of global food production? Wed Dec 19 09:29:06 -0800 2007 3221027 32444 MakingSense 5 3222314 My point is that Murray's entire argument is flawed, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the locavore movement. She is really examining localism as it is depicted by the popular media, and as it is understood by the public at large - a movement that is fixated on food miles. If localism was only about food miles her argument would mean something. But true localism is intrinsically tied to sustainable methods of production and distribution. Murray does not seem to understand that Sustainable, Organic and Ethical are all central tenets of the locavore movement. I'm happy to expound upon any of the points I made if you feel they require further explanation. Cite the argument and I'll provide the evidence. Wed Dec 19 10:53:06 -0800 2007 3222007 10793 Morton the Mousse 6 3224104 Murray's commentary appeared in a popular media outlet only because the questions she raises are starting to be asked in the popular media after a period during which many began to assume that if food came from a nearby small organic farm it was necessarily more beneficial in every way. Since this idea was gaining success in the developed world, many had begun to argue that the system would work for the entire world. It would be nice if it would one day, but we're a long way from that. Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/world/africa/10rice.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 You should not take this as an attack on locavores. The localism that currently works so well for a privileged few isn't functioning in much of the world. Murray understands that well because her professional view is beyond her own local market. This doesn't mean that you're wrong, just that your perspective is different. Murray used the concept of carbon footprint because it raises questions about many products, including food, which have led economists and those from other fields to begin studying the broader impacts of production and transportation on more than just the products themselves but on the ripple effects throughout the environment and global economy. It's about much more than food miles and about a great deal more than the locavore movement. Wed Dec 19 21:08:12 -0800 2007 3222314 32444 MakingSense 2 3221016 I understand having a preference for the intensive marbling of corn-fed prime beef. However, when it comes to pork there is no question that pasture raised pigs just taste better. Do yourself a favor and see if you can find a local farmer who is raising pigs on a healthy diet of vegetables and acorns. It's not important that they're certified organic, but they should be raising their animals the old fashioned way without feedlots and drugs. Try a bit of that pork in the smoker - that slow grown, healthy, well fed pork that our ancestors were smoking up for generations before ranching became industrialized. It's the pork the best chefs in the world use in their restaurants and the top Italian and Spanish butchers use for their ham and prosciutto. Don't do it for the environment, don't do it for the pig, do it for yourself. I eat slow food because tastes better. Deliciousness first, ethics second. Tue Dec 18 23:01:56 -0800 2007 3219688 10793 Morton the Mousse 3 3221187 There is no comparison between the pork chops we get from the farmers market/farms and the ones we've gotten from Whole Foods, even when they are organic and humanely certified. The ones from the farmers markets aren't necessarily certified but they have the practices. Many small farmers have foregone that certification because it's too much work/money to get. The taste difference is not just true for meats. Anything fresh off the trees that is picked for immediate eating is far better than anything picked for transport--I know it's stating the obvious but so many people don't think about it. My SIL went on and on about how great the produce was in Frace. It was the first time she'd ever had produce from a farmers market and not from Safeway. She didn't realize France wasn't the factor. Wed Dec 19 04:28:53 -0800 2007 3221016 39874 chowser 3 3221377 Upon your recommendation I will attempt to source some pork from one of the local farmers out by me. Anything for better bbq. Wed Dec 19 06:27:15 -0800 2007 3221016 26725 swsidejim 1 3220149 SLOW Food, which originated in Italy isn't so focused on organic or the latest food scares but focuses mainly on getting people back in the kitchen and to the table. Slowing down to prepare good meals and taking the time to enjoy your food. They do also hope to preserve some "heirloom" foods that are disappearing in the large industrial farming areas. Some of the other organizations seem more politically focused and less concerned with just enjoying food. I have had several excellent meals with the Slow Food Boston convivium. They introduced us to Chez Henri which has become a regular stop when visiting friends in Cambridge. Tue Dec 18 16:37:39 -0800 2007 3219649 136117 vonwotan 1 3220280 It is surprising what you can find that is locally produced if you look and it throws money often to little locally owned businesses. Often it is less expensive as well since these places don't put money into advertising budgets. A lot of the time locally produced means fresher and tastier too since the food is not sitting for days or weeks in warehouses or in transit. I bought some organic lettuce at the farmers market for $1.25 a week ago. The last of it today was fresher than the conventionally grown lettuce I bought at the supermarket on Sunday for $1.49. Living in Calif, it is easier to make local selections with the abundance of produce. Will you be changing your name to 'green' goddess? Tue Dec 18 17:27:53 -0800 2007 3219649 10264 rworange 1 3220390 1. Sustainable: "Sustainable" has to do with the long-term use of land, soil, soil nutrients, water, and other environmental goods and services. 2. Organic: a personal choioce if you fear personal and/or environmental pollution from the use of inorganic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. 3. Local: Two reasons to support local: support local producers and/or reduce your carbon footprint. Good to go on the first part; unfortunately, buying local can lead to a bigger and deeper C footprint. 4. Ethical: From the standpoint of large animals or small-scale producers? This issue was initially flagged to get people to not buy goods produced in sweatshops often using child labor. At the larger and more food-related scale, we need to buy goods that enhance rather than exploit the well-being of producers in the third world. Tue Dec 18 18:12:31 -0800 2007 3219649 36661 Sam Fujisaka 2 3220422 I think the second part of the third point is extremely valid and certainly misleads a large segment of the population (myself included). There are so many factors that contribute to the "carbon footprint" of a piece of produce you're buying that it's difficult to know which one is larger, of which distance from farm to market is but a small variable in. Tue Dec 18 18:21:48 -0800 2007 3220390 10980 Blueicus 3 3220478 I agree--you can't just look for a sound bite way to live and need to get into the details. My BIL was complaining that we don't grow everything locally, that we should have the technology to be able to put up green houses to produce what we need. The idea of eating local but not the spirit... Tue Dec 18 18:43:46 -0800 2007 3220422 39874 chowser 2 3220545 "Good to go on the first part; unfortunately, buying local can lead to a bigger and deeper C footprint" Sam, my man, Can you expound on this further, or direct me somewhere, where I might learn more? Tue Dec 18 19:04:42 -0800 2007 3220390 86137 purple goddess 2 3221005 Local has a larger carbon footprint when taken out of the context of SOLE. Foods that happen to be locally grown but are not sustainable, organic, or ethical defy the spirit of the locavore movement. However, a local farmer using good land stewardship and driving to the farmers' market in a biodiesel fueled truck is as sustainable as it gets. Tue Dec 18 22:54:20 -0800 2007 3220390 10793 Morton the Mousse 1 3220510 see, the thing is, I'm finding it IS actually cheaper than "fast food".. convincing my step kids is a bit of a hurdle, but going to the local farmers market for tommies and onions and asparagus and other yummy things in season really is cheaper. So, it makes good fiscal sense for us.. it's not something we're going to have to pay thru the nose to adopt. I don't buy into the crap about "I was going to buy organic, ethical rice from a co-op in Thailand, but I was worried about its air miles"... I just refuse to pay $$$ for crap. Tomatoes from Venuzuela?? Oranges from Cali?? I live 200kms from the best orange producing region in the world. WHY should I fork out $$$ for imported goods that taste like crap. I don't WANT to buy asparagus out of season, I want good, wholesome, FRESH ingredients. Tue Dec 18 18:53:57 -0800 2007 3219649 86137 purple goddess 2 3222127 I want good, wholesome, FRESH ingredients too - but I live in Nebraska. And dammit, I am not living on squash, potatoes, canned beans, and apples all winter. I am not going to avoid all ocean fish because they can't be caught off the coast of Nebraska... Also, 50% of the adults in my house are in professional school and living off loans. We try to eat local/organic/etc. when it is practical for our appetites and budgets, but following the "locavore" movement isn't always feasible or practical for our circumstances. I would suspect many that scoff at the movement have the same problem - not all of us live in California or Florida and have year-round access to quality local fresh produce! Wed Dec 19 10:02:28 -0800 2007 3220510 72401 jnstarla 3 3222328 Sustainability is about degrees, not extremes. Eating "local/organic/etc. when it is practical for our appetites and budgets" is fantastic. Wed Dec 19 10:56:03 -0800 2007 3222127 10793 Morton the Mousse 3 3222447 Jnstarla: I would respectfully suggest that you're misinterpreting the concept. The growing popular characterization of locavores as doctrinaire extremists deliberately limiting themselves in order to hew to some written-in-stone party line is incorrect, not to mention laughable. It may interest you to know that simply by saying "We try to eat local/organic/etc. when it is practical for our appetites and budgets," you have already aligned yourself with the vast majority of folks involved in this concept. It's as simple as passing by the tomatoes in the supermarket's produce section in January...not because of "carbon footprint" or "food miles" or any such thing, but for the simple reason that JANUARY TOMATOES ARE NASTY. Many of us who have adopted some locavore principles in how we buy and prepare food are doing so for the simple reason that the food tastes better! Wed Dec 19 11:25:50 -0800 2007 3222127 17548 BarmyFotheringayPhipps 4 3223157 Hear!! hear!!!! And this is the point that's often debated. Doin' what you can, on a budget (I have 5 kids), within the confines of seasonal produce. I gotta drive to the supermarket, so why not drive 2 kms further, to the farmers market, and get good stuff, in season, CHEAPER that SlaveWays or Coles can sell it to me. I support the local producer, I get good, cheap food THAT TASTES BETTER!! (However, here in OZ, January tomatoes are luscious, it's the June/July ones that are naaaaaaaaasty ;)) Wed Dec 19 14:33:05 -0800 2007 3222447 86137 purple goddess 5 3223451 I was speaking more of 100% adherence to the "plan" - we definitely are not at that level. :) We have some friends that are MILITANT about eating only organic, but they are both fully employed and they have a lot of disposable income. I am probably reacting to lectures I have received from them about how we are polluting our bodies with poisons and not getting all the enzymes we could be from our food. So be it; they are unwilling to support us in their chose lifestyle, so we'll stick with ours! :) But BarmyForthingayPhipps is right too - we're not eating grocery store tomatoes in January, because they are disgusting. (Thank god for our frozen summer stash of heirloom tomatoes...) Wed Dec 19 16:23:43 -0800 2007 3223157 72401 jnstarla