I was sitting in my garden, reading the paper over morning coffee, when I was happy to see a few articles on local food in the Focus section of Saturday's Globe and Mail (July 7, 2012). There was an article about public agriculture—growing edibles in public spaces for public consumption—and a commentary by Margaret Wente about the dangers of locavorism.
The ideas in the commentary seemed contradictory and confused. Wente raved about the joys of seasonal, local produce, but claimed that local farming was unsustainable, contributed to food insecurity, and tied us to the land like serfs. She questioned the romanticization of farming and people's desire to "look in the eye the people who grow your vegetables," but insisted that she will continue to patronized the farmers' market because she loves the sense of community.
So which is it? In a word: neither. Wente, like so many who argue for or against an issue, is only considering the extremes. She equates the goals of local food advocates with a return to subsistence farming that would tie us to land and make us victim to the fickleness of climate and soil. She expresses seasonal harvests in terms of feast or famine—we either have so much it is wasted, or we have nothing to harvest. She claims that industrial scale agriculture is more efficient because farmers can specialize in crops suited to their land and trade them over long distances. She even contends (without evidence) that avoiding chemicals and genetically modified crops are responsible for poverty and food insecurity in Africa.
Some of these points are valid, but the argument runs thin.Can't we eat local or regional produce when in season, or least consume things grown as close to where we live as possible? Why buy fruit from Mexico when the same things are in season here? Supporting local agriculture doesn't preclude engaging in food trade entirely (the coffee I was drinking while reading the paper being a case in point). We can grow what works well and import the rest. Even when we import, getting things from halfway across the continent might be better than getting it from halfway around the world—it would be fresher, and might keep us a little more closely connected to the seasons and the land. Food is not like other commodities such as clothing or computers. It is perishable. More importantly, it is intimate.* Food comes from living matter, and we fully consume it by integrating it into our own biological makeup when we eat. As for Africa, it's complicated, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that production of export crops has not addressed poverty and that local production of locally adapted crops for local consumption improves food security in poverty-stricken regions.
What's wrong with the middle way? People on both sides of this debate seem to forget things like medium scale agriculture, regional farms that may be 400 miles away instead of on the other side of the planet, eating as local as possible without getting militant or ideological about it. I agree with Wente's point that "the farther we get from life on the land, the more we romanticize it."** I don't agree with her interpretation of the issue.She goes on to say how, because of our romanticization, we have become unrealistic in our views of agriculture. I would argue that our distancing from the realities of food production instead reinforces the importance of having farms nearby (or as near as practical) and of interacting with people who actually grow food. Even if you never go to a farmers' market or buy direct from a farm gate sale, having farms in the region where you live will expose you to some of the realities of agriculture. Thinking about and caring about agriculture doesn't require you to become a back-to-the-lander. After making all her arguments against the locavore movement, Wente closes her piece by saying that she will continue to go to the market because she loves the sense of community and fabulous seasonal produce, despite the inefficiencies. The point that is so often missed here is that efficiency is not the only thing of value in society, or even in the economy. That sense of connection, of community, and that awareness of the wonders of fresh seasonal food is important. Period. Do I think we should all be fed only from community gardens and CSAs?*** No. But that doesn't mean those things aren't essential. They can provide great food, but their real value may just be in the community that is built in the spaces between the efficiencies.
_______________
The ideas in the commentary seemed contradictory and confused. Wente raved about the joys of seasonal, local produce, but claimed that local farming was unsustainable, contributed to food insecurity, and tied us to the land like serfs. She questioned the romanticization of farming and people's desire to "look in the eye the people who grow your vegetables," but insisted that she will continue to patronized the farmers' market because she loves the sense of community.
So which is it? In a word: neither. Wente, like so many who argue for or against an issue, is only considering the extremes. She equates the goals of local food advocates with a return to subsistence farming that would tie us to land and make us victim to the fickleness of climate and soil. She expresses seasonal harvests in terms of feast or famine—we either have so much it is wasted, or we have nothing to harvest. She claims that industrial scale agriculture is more efficient because farmers can specialize in crops suited to their land and trade them over long distances. She even contends (without evidence) that avoiding chemicals and genetically modified crops are responsible for poverty and food insecurity in Africa.
Some of these points are valid, but the argument runs thin.Can't we eat local or regional produce when in season, or least consume things grown as close to where we live as possible? Why buy fruit from Mexico when the same things are in season here? Supporting local agriculture doesn't preclude engaging in food trade entirely (the coffee I was drinking while reading the paper being a case in point). We can grow what works well and import the rest. Even when we import, getting things from halfway across the continent might be better than getting it from halfway around the world—it would be fresher, and might keep us a little more closely connected to the seasons and the land. Food is not like other commodities such as clothing or computers. It is perishable. More importantly, it is intimate.* Food comes from living matter, and we fully consume it by integrating it into our own biological makeup when we eat. As for Africa, it's complicated, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that production of export crops has not addressed poverty and that local production of locally adapted crops for local consumption improves food security in poverty-stricken regions.
What's wrong with the middle way? People on both sides of this debate seem to forget things like medium scale agriculture, regional farms that may be 400 miles away instead of on the other side of the planet, eating as local as possible without getting militant or ideological about it. I agree with Wente's point that "the farther we get from life on the land, the more we romanticize it."** I don't agree with her interpretation of the issue.She goes on to say how, because of our romanticization, we have become unrealistic in our views of agriculture. I would argue that our distancing from the realities of food production instead reinforces the importance of having farms nearby (or as near as practical) and of interacting with people who actually grow food. Even if you never go to a farmers' market or buy direct from a farm gate sale, having farms in the region where you live will expose you to some of the realities of agriculture. Thinking about and caring about agriculture doesn't require you to become a back-to-the-lander. After making all her arguments against the locavore movement, Wente closes her piece by saying that she will continue to go to the market because she loves the sense of community and fabulous seasonal produce, despite the inefficiencies. The point that is so often missed here is that efficiency is not the only thing of value in society, or even in the economy. That sense of connection, of community, and that awareness of the wonders of fresh seasonal food is important. Period. Do I think we should all be fed only from community gardens and CSAs?*** No. But that doesn't mean those things aren't essential. They can provide great food, but their real value may just be in the community that is built in the spaces between the efficiencies.
_______________
*Food was first called "the intimate commodity" by Tony Winson in his 1993 book by the same title.
**This relates to the phenomenon of distancing that I am addressing in my PhD dissertation.
***CSA is community supported agriculture, a system in which consumers pay up front for a share of the season's harvest.
1 comment:
I have come to realize that anything written by Margaret Wente can generally be summed up as 'hogwash'. I was almost offended by your giving the link to her article - unsubstantiated arguments, floundering observations... your writing is far more introspective, engaging and genuine, Karen - I would have likely been far less diplomatic by declaring her (Wente's) article as heresy :) It makes me wonder how you are able to maintain composure (or at least, seem to) when you are surrounded by people in an industry which is so disjointed from 'real' living and 'healthy' eating that they have forgotten what food really is. Keep your wits about, and keep writing!
dt
Post a Comment