Being based in Northern California, I am lucky to be located at the epicenter of the sustainable agriculture and Slow Food movements in the U.S.; it means very tasty cuisine all year round. I was intrigued by the recent 12 principles for a healthy food and agricultural system disseminated by some of the luminaries in the Bay Area.
Below is my commentary on the 12 principles, followed by some closing thoughts.
- Forms the foundation of secure and prosperous societies, healthy communities, and healthy people.
- Provides access to affordable, nutritious food to everyone.
- Prevents the exploitation of farmers, workers, and natural resources; the domination of genomes and markets; and the cruel treatment of animals, by any nation, corporation or individual.
- Upholds the dignity, safety, and quality of life for all who work to feed us.
- Commits resources to teach children the skills and knowledge essential to food production, preparation, nutrition, and enjoyment.
- Protects the finite resources of productive soils, fresh water, and biological diversity.
- Strives to remove fossil fuel from every link in the food chain and replace it with renewable resources and energy.
- Originates from a biological rather than an industrial framework.
- Fosters diversity in all its relevant forms: diversity of domestic and wild species; diversity of foods, flavors and traditions; diversity of ownership.
- Requires a national dialog concerning technologies used in production, and allows regions to adopt their own respective guidelines on such matters.
- Enforces transparency so that citizens know how their food is produced, where it comes from, and what it contains.
- Promotes economic structures and supports programs to nurture the development of just and sustainable regional farm and food networks.
Not sure this is correct; there are many very prosperous regions in which agriculture does not play a central role and food has to be imported (e.g. Japan, Singapore, and much of the Northeastern U.S.).
This is primarily an issue of making sure everyone has a stable income, and it is not really an agricultural issue (although bringing farmers markets to underserved communities is a great development).
The intent here is clear, but without spelling out what "exploitation" means it's hard to know what to make of this. What is the domination of genomes and markets? I don't even understand that.
"Dignity" and "quality of life" are even vaguer than the notion of exploitation.
This seems pretty straight-forward and commendable.
Again, pretty vague.
This is pretty clear and also commendable, even if not feasible at this point.
Not sure what either of these terms mean in practice.
This would seem to go well with No. 4 above -- the education component.
I'm pretty sure this already exists.
This is interesting but at what level of detail? Should labeling requirements include all of the inputs, the wages, the micro-nutrients? I don't know the answer. Labeling is not only expensive, but also too much information can easily overload consumers.
How do we define regions and what does "just" mean?
There is nothing directly in these principles about agricultural subsidies or water subsidies, which are probably the two greatest drivers of unsustainable agricultural practices. There is also no mention of eating lower on the food chain, which saves tremendous resources and is the most obvious way to help the agricultural system transition to one that is much less resource intensive.
It is always preferable to focus on the root causes of problems, but unfortunately the creators of this document didn't accomplish that. That's a shame because I think their intentions are laudable and they certainly have significant political and cultural clout. Hopefully in the future, they can direct their energies in a more targeted manner.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 8:16 am
03 Sep 2008
Problem is, they don't fit into our dominant worldviews. Neither Democrats or Republicans get them; nor the left nor the right.
Each of the principles could be the subject of a college seminar, with a lengthy reading list.
In contrast to some others, Jason seems to be open to learning more - which I think is the intelligent thing to do. There is so much to the food issue, so many good writers. For example: Michael Pollan, Wendell Berry, Gene Logsdon, Angelo Pelligrini, Marion Nestle,
A good first step is to be open to new things, not to try to force them into an existing philosophy. Give stinging-nettle soup a try.
If you're in Northern California, splurge on a fancy meal at Chez Panisse (Berkeley) or Flea Street Cafe (Menlo Park) to see how good local food can be.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:29 am
03 Sep 2008
Reminding the human race that water and food deserve top placement on our priority lists isn't a bad thing. I have to applaud Slow Food even if I might niggle a bit on the details.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
EnviroFan Posted 11:13 am
03 Sep 2008
Let's make this place better.
Permalink
MichaelDimock Posted 9:04 am
05 Sep 2008
Jason comments on each principle, but I will focus on only two to highlight my critique of his critique. First, regards the first principle: to say that many regions are prosperous without agriculture or food playing a central role is simply absurd. It like saying cities have no connection to agriculture. Cities exist because of agriculture. Every human life in every point on earth is based on food and most every on agriculture. Without food and agriculture, we are all dead within a matter of weeks. Japan has some of the most protectionist agriculture policy in the world because it understands the need for food security. The northeast US is home to some of the most innovative efforts in the nation to rebuild local food systems. Singapore is very vulnerable because it cannot feed itself. Jason's oversight reflects the reason why this statement is the first principle in the document. The average citizen, even the most educated among us, has lost touch with reality around food and agriculture.
Second, regards principle #8. Most agricultural economists today would recognize that the current food system in based on industrial thinking: specialization, efficiency, mechanization, and economies of scale. The industrial model or framework has worked very well at producing calories at low cost because it externalizes impacts on workers, the environment and human health and because it is heavily subsidized directly through farm bill payments and indirectly through subsidies to the oil industry. Principle #8 points out that food and agriculture actually emerge from biological processes that must be understood, respected, and fostered in order to achieve a sustainable system. Human efforts to create agricultural factories are, according to the Millennium Assessment and many other important scientific studies, a primary cause of ecological destruction. The soil is not a factory. Animals and humans are not machines. All are living things that require flows of resources and energy at the macro and micro level that are too often impeded by treating farms like factories. Erosion of top soil, drying uf of water supplies, desertification, the increasing pest pressures on farms, cancer rates among farmers and farmworkers are proof we have messed up too many natural systems. We have to use a biological framework to rethink the ways we produce food. Wes Jackson and Allan Savory, and many others around the world have done great work in this arena.
The 12 principles are food for thought to those just entering the arena of food systems. They are lessons learned by those who have worked for decades on the problems, and the 12 principles can always be improved. Please help us to do that by visiting http://www.fooddeclaration.org.
Michael Dimock
visit http://www.rocnetwork.org
visit http://www.fooddeclaration.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:26 am
06 Sep 2008
I critiqued what you all have laid out as your 12 principles and I'm glad that you are taking comments. Mine are in my piece- you don't focus on the root causes of problems.
Sorry you think my review is hollow- this is a blog post and it was just my initial thoughts- it wasn't meant to be a detailed analysis- that's for journals and magazines.
You say that my critique that a region can be prosperous without a strong agricultural base is absurd, when in fact it is accurate. Of course there needs to be a strong agricultural industry in the WORLD, but not every region needs one. That was my point. Places where it is hard to grow things can focus on other forms of production and then import food. This is basic and many countries around the world follow this model extremely successfully. You then go on to say something that is actually quite absurd:
"Japan has some of the most protectionist agriculture policy in the world because it understands the need for food security."
Japan's protectionism is a colossal waste of money and resources and this type of protectionism is what is derailing global trade and hurting poor people. And look what else Japan's quest for food security is doing: it is allowing the Japanese to decimate oceans in search of fish, continue whaling, and fight against many efforts to limit the destruction of the marine environment. If that is your model for sustainability then I was much too lenient in my critique.
Look around at the world's poorest countries and its richest- those dominated by agricultural production are the poorest while those with less people in agriculture are the wealthy- that's not a coincidence. Agriculture is important but the real drivers of wealth are high-tech production and services- they are also a lot better for the environment. I am a big supporter of sustainable agriculture but it is people with money who get food- that is the key economic insight that Amartya Sen observed more than 25 years ago.
All of the things that you rightly point out as problems with agriculture are driven largely by perverse subsidies, which is why I continue to point out that these should be the focus of the environmental community. Vague notions of justice and regionalism are NOT going to address these.
Thanks.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems.
Permalink
MichaelDimock Posted 9:13 am
06 Sep 2008
I am actually not prone to debate, which is rooted in the concept of verbal combat. I prefer dialog that allows all sides to uncover deeper understanding of the question at hand. In that spirit, I'd like to continue exploring with Jason some of the topics arising from our initial exchange.
The 12 principles are in fact an attempt to get the nation to focus on solving the root causes of health, social and environmental problems caused by food and agriculture in America. If Congress were to apply the 12 principles to USDA and FDA programs and investments, and if communities were to apply them to local food ordinances and related activities, the nation's food system would look very different.
The document and its principles rest on the important assumption that "mental models", or our beliefs about the world, shape perceptions and actions. The first principle is an attempt to remind us all that healthy food and agriculture are required for any healthy civilization.
Most Americans hardly think about food and agriculture in a meaningful way anymore. If we were to all remember the importance of these related topics, policy would improve in this country. It is interesting to note that between 1900 and 1920, nearly 2 dozen major, groundbreaking bills were introduced and passed in the Congress related to assisting farmers, ranchers and rural communities. Now, we are lucky if the topic is discussed once in Congress during the five years between farm bills. We have lost focus on the fundamental need for healthy food and agriculture as the basis of national health.
The lack of focus is understandable given the apparent success of American agriculture. We have lots of cheap food so people perceive there is no problem, nothing to think or worry about. Unfortunately, the lack of concern hides that our food and agriculture are making us fat and ill in all areas of the country and poorer in rural communities. Humans and animals suffer unjustifiably. The water is dirtier and top soil less abundant. We can do better.
Jason's focus on the word "prosperous" in his comments on principle #1 is revealing. The principle actually says much more: Healthy food and agriculture "forms the foundation of secure and prosperous societies, healthy communities, and healthy people." The reduction of focus to "prosperity" reflects a bias toward economic analysis and reveals a fundamental cause of world problems: reductionist economic and scientific thinking. Most of us do not see the whole system and the interlinking dynamics that shape our lives.
The first principle is based on the logic that the healthier the food and agriculture, the healthier the environment surrounding the civilization and the healthier the people within it. Even if a nation is forced to import its food, that imported food should be healthy. In addition, the nation growing the food for them had better do it in a way that does not degrade its ability to keep producing and exporting or the importing nation will eventually suffer the consequences. It is all connected.
Export oriented agriculture is ubiquitous, but it is based on cheap oil and mass subsidies to producers that keep export prices low. Former Mexican corn farmers cross our border to work our fields because US corn production has destroyed their domestic market. Most economists would see that as a good thing. I see it as a problem with vast social, ecological, and health consequences that are at least if not more important than the economic "benefit."
The logic of market capitalism would say that the US is a more efficient corn producer. But it says that because the current measuring tool is rigged, it is insufficient. It does not account for the externalized impacts of that "efficiency". Let's factor in the financial impacts of atrazine, anhydrous ammonia, and nitrogen fertilizer on water and health in the midwest or the fisheries and tourism centers impacted by the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's factor in the impacts of air pollution and climate change from carbon-based fuel used in tractors, combines, trucks, and irrigation pumps. Let's factor in the loss of top soil due to the massive perennial monoculture that is corn and soybeans in a region that evolved a perennial polyculture that was the great plains. Let's factor in the cost of border patrols and the DEA's war on drug smuggling that have emerged in sync with rising poverty in rural Mexico. If those costs we added to the price of US corn, I doubt it would be less expensive than corn grown in smaller plots with more hand labor in Mexico.
I think we need to think much more holistically when we consider whether healthy food and agriculture does or does not "form the foundation of secure and prosperous societies, healthy communities, and healthy people."
Michael Dimock
visit http://www.rocnetwork.org
visit http://www.fooddeclaration.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:43 am
06 Sep 2008
1. Prosperity as economic analysis
I am definitely open to multiple dimensions of prosperity, which is precisely why I didn't use GDP- but again, I will make the claim- whatever your measure of prosperity, it is greater in developed/less agrarian societies than in less developed/more agrarian societies- and it's not a coincidence.
2. Most economists think it's a good thing that Mexicans come to U.S.....
First of all, the notion that it's U.S. corn imports that have put Mexicans out of work is patently FALSE (it's a nice story that floats around the internet and protectionist circles without a shred of evidence). There has been huge migration out of Mexico for decades, both before and after NAFTA. The details are too much for a blog post but the places where people immigrate from in Mexico are the poorest regions, cut off from infrastructure, education, and often with Spanish as their second language. What corn production is here is for subsistence and is therefore by definition not affected by the market price.
The fault lies mostly with the highly regressive and racist government of Mexico that treats the indigenous states like second-class citizens and routinely neglects their needs as they have done for 500 years. The areas in Mexico with the lowest levels of immigration are those that export to the U.S.
As to the larger issue of immigration, economists are actually extremely liberal on this count- as a rule economists favor very open immigration policies.
3. As to the issue of externalized effects now you're talking- in fact, you're using the terminology that economists have developed over decades. And this is exactly what I am getting at- subsidized agriculture that doesn't have to pay for its pollution (a passive subsidy) is the root cause of the problem. But nowhere in your principles do you really state this explicitly.
In summary, I think you are an environmental economist who doesn't yet realize it....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems.
Permalink