Locals Only?

In the past few years, a debate has developed over the benefits and drawbacks of eating local versus organic food. In some cases there need not be a conflict of choice between the two, particularly in California where the climate and soil favors cultivation of a large variety of crops, and where organic produce is readily available at local markets. But if a choice has to be made, I would favor local produce over imported organic produce. The cost of transport, which is currently externalized by the food industry, makes it such that eating imported organic produce has a significant impact on global warming. Though I disagree with the methods of production of factory farms, they nonetheless control the market and are more difficult to challenge through individual choice. The fight against factory farms is by necessity waged at the policy level with the Federal Government, particularly in regard to the Farm Bill.

In my decision to buy local produce, I had to ask myself what made local produce special, compared to other products. In other words, why do I insist on local organic produce, and not on local sustainably-manufactured goods? Probably because good soil and climate can’t be outsourced, whereas factories can, and, as I discussed in a previous post, our manufacturing industry has been almost entirely outsourced. In other words, aside from specialty products, it can be hard to come by local sustainably-manufactured goods. But what about other foodstuffs? Well, in some cases certain producers have created a brand identity based on tradition, to the extent that substitution won’t do. Cheese and wine often fall into this category because they are tied to place by their unique taste. Local water, weather patterns, etc. influence the development of the crops that the cows eat, and the growth cycles and sugar content of the grapes. These products also rely on certain methods and techniques of production that are seldom reproducible. As for produce in general, while peaches may taste different from field to field, tree to tree, or fruit to fruit, the price of a peach doesn’t vary much within each growing season, and has no added value beyond the cost of harvest labor. So while I will buy cheese imported from Europe (notwithstanding our happy California cows), I can wait for California strawberries, oranges, apples, etc. to come into season. And because California wine is as good as any in the world, due to our favorable climate, I see no need to imported wine from France. The rule for me is: if I can find a local substitute, I will.

Personally, I decided that I wouldn’t eat produce imported from, for example, Chile, and would instead eat locally, seasonally and organically, when possible. This is not as much of a sacrifice as some might imagine, given that I live next to the Salinas Valley, the so-called “Salad Bowl of America.” But for people who live in Maine, locally and seasonally means subsisting on blueberries, potatoes, apples, and maple syrup. In this case, it makes sense to adopt the “more local than . . .” rule where, for example, Maine continues to import peaches from Georgia and oranges from Florida, and does not import them out of season from Chile and Brazil, respectively. A problem arises when there are no “more local than . . .” markets available, and California, for example, must ship produce a few thousand miles across the continent. The problem is this: I pay the same price as someone from Maine for lettuce grown ten miles from my house. In other words, I (along with other people living close to the source of production) am subsidizing lettuce consumption in Maine. In my opinion, Mainers can pay a premium for what is rare to them, as I would be willing to pay more for Maine lobster, if I couldn’t get lobster off the coast of California.

While local consumers in the United States subsidize the transportation cost of produce for distant markets, consumers across the board don’t pay the true cost of labor to harvest crops. Farmers often employ farm labor contractors (FLCs) to oversee the workers who harvest their fields. Worker wages, paid either piece rate or hourly, are low to keep costs down for consumers and profits up for farmers, contractors, wholesale distributors, and restaurant and grocery chains. In addition, a majority of California’s agricultural workers have no health insurance and seldom visit the doctor, though they suffer from a variety of health problems, including obesity. Some of them are also subject to abuses by their employers and opportunists who provide housing, food, and rides at exorbitant rates, as is the case with tomato harvesters in Florida. In order to improve the quality of life of farm workers, we as consumers will have to pay more for the produce we buy. But, since we are the last point of the distribution chain, worker pay must be raised by growers and contractors, which depends on wholesalers, restaurants and grocery chains paying more for produce and either passing the price on to the consumer, or marginally reducing profits.

We also do not pay the true cost of water to grow our food. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 2000, irrigation accounted for 40% of total water withdrawals in the United States, and 65% of total water withdrawals, excluding thermoelectric power. The water farmers use is, in large part, subsidized by the Federal Government. Notwithstanding fraud, these subsidies increase grower profits while lowering the cost of produce for the consumer. If these subsidies were reduced, or eliminated, we would see a dramatic increase in food prices. While that is not a desirable outcome for the consumer, we cannot ignore that water subsidies create a wasteful attitude toward what is an increasingly rare resource. Some solutions to this problem include using reclaimed water on crops, repairing and replacing outdated or damaged irrigation infrastructure, and eliminating the lawn.

According to a study by Cristina Milesi of NASA’s Ames Research Center, the largest irrigated crop (in surface area) in the United States is the lawn, covering about 128,000 square kilometers in all. “Even conservatively,” Milesi says, “I estimate there are three times more acres of lawns in the U.S. than irrigated corn.” In spite of the lawn’s status as an icon of the American Dream, it is also an environmental nightmare; and while I respect the Scots and their kilts, I can’t forgive them for inventing golf, given it is the most water-intensive and environmentally destructive game on earth, converting large tracts of natural landscape into lawns. According to the USGS, in 2000, "Irrigation remained the largest use of freshwater in the United States." Irrigation of residential and commercial lawns, golf courses, cemeteries, and other landscaping made a significant contribution to this use. Consumers and businesses alike could significantly reduce their water consumption by simple removing their lawns, and related water intensive landscaping, and planting native vegetation that is adapted to and can survive natural climate cycles with little or no additional irrigation. Alternatively, domestic lawns can be converted into gardens, allowing households to grow their own food.


Resources:

Click here for David Lighthall’s article “The Poor Health of Farm Workers." Mr. Lighthall is the executive director of the California Institute of Rural Studies.
Click here for Barry Estabrook’s article “The Price of Tomatoes: Keeping Slavery Alive in Florida.”
The Environmental Working Group article, "Taking From the Taxpayers," provides more info on water subsidies and fraud.
Click here for more on Cristina Milesi’s satellite lawn research at NASA’s Ames Research Center.
For water use figures for 2000, visit the USGS website.