Even though I hate statistics, I'm going to point out a few that both Gary Nabhan and Mark Winne discussed at the local foods conference last week:
- 46% of our carbon footprint is because of food (processing, shipping, etc.)
- Texas is 2nd in agricultural production
- Texas is 2nd to last in hunger ratings
- Subsidies are increasing every year, and so is the dependency upon them
- Farms are increasingly going out of business or merging to form megafarms
- The current average age of farmers is 62, an average that is only getting older
It's obvious our current food system is not working properly, but the most shocking revelation is that there actually are food system programs that work, and work well. The local farmer I buy from (PaiDom) announced that he was having to scale back his consumer network because he has reached max production for the amount of buyers he has. He is so profitable that he is now exporting his business model to other local farmers so they can relieve his exponentially growing consumer base. He said he can now afford to focus on further diversifying what he produces from his land simply because he enjoys providing more for his customers and wants to better understand his land. It's a beautiful relationship. So what is this profitable, effective business solution to our current failing food system?
CSA, or Community Supported Agriculture.
I was skeptical at first: how could a production model so old that it dates back to the agrarian days of our past undo a system deeply embedded in and dependent upon globalization and nationalized distribution? The answer comes from our economic models. As Nabhan pointed out, our mass consumption economic models are currently at or passing maximized profitability. We simply cannot continue to use current max consumption models because it is becoming increasingly costly to consume. In other words, and also very simplified, it's the law of diminishing returns. We've hit that maximum yield. How do we know CSAs are the answer? Let's look at the big food giant SYSCO, who initiated a corporation-wide overhaul of their production and distribution network. They've found that breaking their large distribution centers down into many smaller ones is much more cost effective, especially considering fuel. If relocalization sounds crazy and non-capitalist-friendly, then why is such a huge food corporation taking steps to do just that? Maybe there is merit to this new system. After all, if my farmer can go from working for an insurance company to starting a farm and turning almost too large of a profit in less than a few decades, then why can't this system work for everyone?
Through a network of local producers, farmers markets, urban agriculture, community kitchens, local food restaurants, and even grocery stores, it is possible to get cheap, healthy, organic, local food to the tables of everyone. With this system, farming returns to an honorable and profitable profession as the market for local food grows. With this system, the community can help and give back to the poor and the needy through food banks with on-sight agriculture (South Plains Food Bank GRUB program). CSAs breed a sense of community, promote health and agricultural education, preserve and support the knowledge and profits of farming, and dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the food we eat. Plus, what we eat comes from our land by our hands.
What a beautiful concept. The same air, sun, rain, and soil that graces my presence everyday is what grows my food, supports my community, and becomes a part of me.
I challenge you:
Find a producer in your area.
Find out how to buy from him.
http://www.localharvest.org/
6 comments:
Very nice... keep it up.
I'm curious as to what exactly is cheaper about dividing it up into smaller farms. Is it purely a transportation issue? If so that could easily change with different fuels in the future.
I'm not sure that a change in fuel used will change the fact that shipment costs money. In addition to fuel cost you have the wages of the drivers, the amount taken off the top by the distributor, and any losses due to spoiling.
How often do you guess that a farmer's production goes out of state (or across state) to a distribution and collection facility only to be shipped back to a nearby town?
Thanks for my first comments!
Austin, regardless of fuels, farmers can earn more for their produce if the system supported local agriculture. Basically subsidies are designed to fight falling commodity prices, conglomerating smaller farms drives down the price of the commodity and increases how much you earn from subsidies ... that's the negative feed back system. So, this CSA solution focuses on farmers controlling the prices of their products so they can increase the value of their product. Transportation is also a big cost, along with the environmental costs of large scale production, as well as food safety concerns. In summary, relocalization fights the issue at the root of the problem, crashing food prices.
Charles, I would love to find a statistic that shows how much of our production leaves the state. My guess is around 5% of what we produce doesn't go to a processing facility out of state that then get's national distribution. I'll have to dig around and find out. And you have to think of all the money that could be made and jobs created if processing was relocalized, too.
Thanks for the conversation guys!
I'm not understanding how its a negative feedback system. A negative feedback system is a system that re-establishes a certain value. Think of an ac unit. Thats a great negative feedback system. It's a system that is designed to maintain a certain temperature (value.) If this is actually what you mean, then I look at it as a very good thing for consumers, as a standard, expected price for food is a very nice thing to have when you are tight on money and having to make a budget.
Regardless of semantics I'm still not quite understanding why localization is better for the economy. Let me state this plainly: I completely understand why you would want to encourage it for ecological and nutritional reasons, but what we are talking about right now is economics.
What I am getting from your most recent comment is that farmers will make more money because they can price fix their products above the subsidy line. While this may make farmers more money, it would devastate the lower class and significantly hurt the middle class. I realize that you end your paragraph on "crashing food prices," but I don't understand how farmers will make more money off charging less.
On the last paragraph about localizing distribution I also must be misunderstanding something, because I keep getting the impression of what you are wanting to do is raise food prices. If you localized food distribution, and it did create jobs (which I also think it would) then you have to pay them, and thusly food prices will have to go up as someone has to pay for that. I don't doubt that local farmers can make money, but if you look at the one we know, Pai Dom, they aren't making money by charging less than walmart or the grocery stores. I'm just reminded of last spring where food prices went crazy and everyone was extremely concerned. Especially in our economic crisis the last thing we need is food prices going up.
Let me end this comment on the note that I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand more about what you are saying. Also perhaps I might bring new angles you haven't thought of before? I'm excited to hear more about this. <3
I'll take a crack at answering:
The negative feedback system
I think that the best way to explain would be with a hypothetical. Let's take small farmer #1, we'll call him Jim. Jim sells his produce to a distributor and pulls a decent living wage. A few of Jim's neighbors sold off to a corporation who is also selling to Jim's distributor. The corporation can produce as much food as the distributor wants, driving down prices and forcing Jim to offer his produce for less or sell off to the corporation as well. Consumers do not see any benefit from this because the distributor's prices vary more on packaging and shipping than the cost of produce.
This is all simplifying the process a lot, of course, and I am trying to explain a condition that may not be any more clear to me than it is to you.
Localizing Food
Just a short note on the benefits of localizing food distribution: I believe part of the idea is that you produce what your local market demands. The price for food wouldn't necessarily have to change, but the margin on food produced would be much greater by cutting out on over-production.
Produce less, just as much as is required, sell it for the same, and make more money because you didn't waste anything.
Post a Comment