When Wal-Mart announced plans to become the world's biggest purveyor of organically grown food last week, the polite applause from the enviro gallery grated on my ears. (Here's a spirited recent debate on Gristmill.) Even the New York Times editorial page could see through this move. While some greens cooed at at Wal-Mart's magnamity, the Grey Lady unleashed an appropriately cynical analysis:
There is no chance that Wal-Mart will be buying from small, local organic farmers. Instead, its market influence will speed up the rate at which organic farming comes to resemble conventional farming in scale, mechanization, processing and transportation. For many people, this is the very antithesis of what organic should be.... For "Wal-Mart" and "organic" to make sense in the same sentence, the company will have to commit itself to protecting the Agriculture Department standard that gives "organic" meaning.
I have no doubt that Wal-Mart's greenie admirers will hold the company's feet to the fire on that one. But the USDA's organic standards are already being drained of meaning. Rather than chide Goliath to behave nicely, enviros should consider helping David get his shit together. Check out what they're getting up to over in Birmingham, Ala.
This Birmingham Business Journal article discusses Grow Alabama, an innovative community-supported agriculture program uniting the efforts of up to 30 farms and 2000 combined acres surrounding Birmingham.
After years of providing vegetables to area consumers, Grow Alabama is adding grass-fed chicken, eggs, and dairy to the mix.
What I love about the program is that it provides a nexus for small farmers and consumers to unite in an age of tightly consolidated wholesalers and retailers. I can guarantee you that the milk, meat, and eggs proffered by Grow Alabama will be infinitely more healthful, delicious, and environmentally friendly than the factory-produced "organic" stuff that Wal-Mart is pushing.
Identifying, supporting, and rebuilding this type of effort should, I think, rise to the top of the green agenda.
Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Flat
Chris Schults Posted 3:48 am
15 May 2006
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
Heidi Posted 7:37 am
15 May 2006
I think this is exactly what is happening as the CSA movement gains speed. I have a small working share at a local CSA. I don't need an official stamp or label to tell me where it comes from, how it's grown, or how it gets to me. It's organic and local, and I can head down the road to see for myself how the chickens are getting on.
The best part about the CSA is that it is affordable. I can't possibly afford to shop at Whole Foods for all of our produce, but the CSA is reasonably priced even compared to non-organic grocery store prices. I hope that this aspect of CSAs will continue to draw more consumers to the idea; you don't even have to care a bit about the environment to enjoy low prices and vegetables that were picked 2 hours earlier.
I tell everyone I can about my CSA - I share vegetables and fruit, invite them to visit, show pictures. People inevitably get excited and express surprise that such an arrangement even exists. They assume the family farm is already dead! It's my personal agenda to show them differently.
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
Penfold007 Posted 9:17 am
15 May 2006
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 1:05 am
16 May 2006
Tom Princen wrote a great article (sorry just the abstract here) a few years back in which he laid out an argument about "shading and distancing" of environmental costs
As distance increases along dimensions of geography, culture, bargaining power, or agency, negative feedback loops are severed, stakeholders expand while decision making contracts, environmental problems are displaced, and shading and cost externalization increase. The likelihood of sustainable resource use increases as distance is lowered, as institutions locate decision authority in those who receive negative ecological feedback and who have the capacity and incentives to act on that feedback, and as the burden of proof for economic interventions shifts to the interveners.
Relevant to this discussion is that shading and distancing occurs NOT only through physical distance, but through a variety of other means as well. Geography is the most obvious form of distance, and is the one we can most easily relate to, but close proximity does not neccesarily translate to accountability.
I believe overemphasis on geographic distance as an indicator of accountability artificially limits solutions. By integrating a range measures of distance into discussions of sustainability we create support for "local" when it is appropriate (and accountable) without excluding other solutions when they are appropriate.
Permalink