Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Main Dish

Cloves to Home

Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon chew the fat on their 100-mile diet

By Kate Sheppard
24 Apr 2007
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Two years ago, Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon set out to see if it was still possible, in these hyper-globalized times, to live off food grown in your own 'hood. The pair made a pact to dine on dishes culled from within a 100-mile radius of their Vancouver, B.C., home for an entire year. Their personal experiment quickly evolved into a movement, and now Smith, a freelance journalist who writes regularly for Reader's Digest, and MacKinnon, a nonfiction author, have turned that movement into a book.

Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon
Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon.
The 100-mile diet began as a way to reduce dependence on the fossil fuels sucked up by the conventional food system, which sees food travel an average of at least 1,500 miles from farm to plate. But it quickly became just as much an exploration of community, seasons, and flavor -- and a source of understanding about just how far removed we are from the food we eat.

Sure, there was the period of time before the dining duo found locally milled flour, putting them on an accidental Atkins diet. And there was that whole other chicken-and-egg question -- even if the chickens were local, was their feed? But in the end, they say, the year amounted to the most varied food-fest they'd ever had.

Their book, Plenty, hits U.S. shelves on April 24; it's already out in Canada, under the more direct title The 100-Mile Diet (the publishers feared it would come off as a weight-loss guide in the U.S. under that title). Grist caught up with Smith and MacKinnon by phone on the second day of their Canadian book tour.




question What surprised you the most in the course of your 100-mile diet?

answer Smith: One surprise was things you couldn't get, which turned out to be wheat for us, but it would be different wherever you're living. I just imagined because bread and pasta are such a staple, [wheat] must be grown everywhere. But it turned out that historically it had been grown on the West Coast, but because of specialization of agriculture they decided that the prairies in the Midwest would be the wheat place, and where we [live] is the dairy place. So all of these decisions have been made, and the average person isn't aware of the effect they have on what kind of food you can get locally.

MacKinnon: I think one of the things that really surprised both of us was just how good a year of eating it ended up being. I think a lot of people, including us at the start, thought that it would be kind of boring and repetitive, and that we'd be eating the same thing day in and day out, the same short list of vegetables. But it turned out to be the most varied year of eating that either one of us has ever had.

question I liked reading about the chicken dilemma, where you were going to get eggs from a local farm but realized those chickens probably ate feed bused from miles and miles away. How did you make decisions about these complex situations?

answer Smith: We hadn't even considered the depth of the whole chicken dilemma. So we really had to confront those issues as we went along and make decisions as they came. Some things we would reject and others we'd have to be like, "Well, if we want to eat eggs, the best ones are the ones at the UBC farm, which is biking distance from our home. The chickens were born there and raised there and they eat lots of the grass that grows there and the bugs on the ground there." We decided that we would eat those eggs, because we were informed of every aspect of the production of that food.

MacKinnon: We just tried to do the best we could.

question Were there any specific moments that really told the story of how difficult it is to buy local, or how far we are removed from a local system of eating?

answer MacKinnon: I think fisheries were one of the more shocking areas. We live right on the ocean, and at the mouth of one of the world's great salmon-producing rivers, yet it was unbelievably difficult to find genuinely local seafood. There was this sort of dawning awareness of just how overwhelmingly fished-out some parts of the coast have become. We did eventually find one fisherman we could go to and we always knew where the stuff had come from, and knew that it had been fished in a sustainable way. But it was a pretty hard realization.

question What did you find the most frustrating?

answer Smith: I'd say it was definitely the system itself, and realizing what the downfalls of the industrial food system really are. What really frustrated me is the labeling of food, in grocery stores. At best what they'll say is the state they're from. But if you're from, say, California or Texas, that could still be from almost 1,000 miles away. Or even with fish and seafood, it's very often not labeled at all, so people don't even have a way of finding out where it came from.

question In Britain, food chains are talking about developing a food mileage labeling system. Do you guys see that as a possibility to raise more awareness?

answer MacKinnon: I think what we'll see over the next 10 years or so is that local food will impact the food system in the same ways that organic food has over the last 10 years or so. We've heard ideas like in the U.K., people have talked about getting grocery-store chains to set aside a portion of a store or parking lot as spaces for micro-farmers' markets. There's already talk in Vancouver about much more efficient ways to ship produce from local farms to local grocery chains. So we're right at the very beginning, but there's so much room for innovation that I don't have any doubt that five years from now it's going to be 20 times easier to eat locally.

question You went into this as near-vegans, as you described it. How have your thoughts changed about conscientious or sustainable eating and what that means?

answer Smith: I still prefer to eat vegetarian, so this last year we planted beans in our garden, since that's something we'd had a lot of trouble finding. Now we have dry pinto beans we grew ourselves. I do occasionally eat local organic meat [now] because I have talked to the farmers and had my confidence restored in that side of the food system. I would eat that kind of meat, but I would never go to a restaurant and say, "I'll have the beef stir-fry."

MacKinnon: The most powerful thing about eating locally is just the degree of awareness that you have about the food that you're eating. If people are eating locally and sourcing food from places they have a good awareness of, they make much more sophisticated choices about the ethics of the food they're eating. We even found with some vegetable growers that they weren't necessarily organic, but when they told us exactly what they applied and when, we decided we could live with that and feel confident about the food. So, it's the same with meat. People can pick the point on the spectrum where they're comfortable or uncomfortable eating meat and dairy products.

question The main criticism of this project and one of the main criticisms of the local food movement in general is that this is some sort of left-wing ideal, and isn't feasible for most people. How do you respond to that?

answer MacKinnon: I find that argument pretty strange. I mean, you look through most of human history, buying your food off of the land base around you has been the primary way that we've eaten. If we go back even one generation, you find that the people who were canning, doing home cooking, and growing kitchen gardens were primarily not the bourgeois. It was the everyday person. In fact, I think we should find the idea very odd that the way the average person in society should eat is buying products with a laundry list of chemicals attached to them that are coming from halfway around the world. I think we need to wake up to the idea that that model is brand-new and pretty strange when you take a look at it.

question What were some of the long-distance treats you were excited to reintroduce?

answer MacKinnon: Oh, beer.

Smith: Less-than-glamorous things. Even rice was something we couldn't get, and that was the foundation of many former meals.

MacKinnon: It's nice to be able to have a beer and a chunk of chocolate every once in a while. Even foods that are handier, like buying dry pasta instead of having to make it from scratch every time with local flour. Things like olives, lemons, olive oil -- a little bit of those sorts of things are back in the cupboards, but the list of things that never came back is much, much longer.

question What was the first meal you ate when you finished the diet?

answer Smith: The very first meal when officially we could have had anything we wanted, James just still made ...

MacKinnon: Potatoes and eggs.

Smith: Yeah, at home, with all the local food we already had, because that's what I wanted. But then we went out for Indian food that night.

MacKinnon: It really did start to feel like the new normal for us. So it never really ended.

question It's one thing to change your personal habits or convince a few other people to change theirs. What's your thinking about how we can change the way North America as a whole, or the world, eats?

answer Smith: For me the most exciting thing, and it's happening on its own, is the explosion of farmers' markets. For the first time this year, Vancouver had a winter farmers' market, and they actually had to turn customers away because the space they booked wasn't large enough. So I think that's a really promising direction for local eating, because that is where shoppers can connect directly with the farmers.

MacKinnon: Eating is one area where consumer choice really does have a particularly powerful effect. I mean, as we saw with organics, a group of consumers are making different choices and are able to really drive revolutionary change throughout the food system. I think by buying locally you have that same capacity. As the demand for local food grows, it just automatically pushes the food system and the farmers to start operating in a different way. And policy and infrastructure changes follow that.

I'm not always a 100 percent believer in consumer power having the capacity to drive significant change, but this really is [an example] where that is the case.



Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Kate Sheppard is Grist's editorial intern.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (13 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

100-mile range food

I think this is the best thing to come down the pike since Oatmeal. Congratulations to the authors, and I'll be recommending their book to the subscribers of my little paper, Gadfly.
--Jack Foster

Local meat vs non-local beans

Sounds like an interesting and important book.  My one criticism would be my concern with approving local meat, dairy and eggs. Even if it's local, it's still an inefficient way to get protein.  And also, cows still emmit greenhouse gases such as methane and ammonia, even if they're free range.  They emmit less on grass-fed diets, true, but a significant amount of methane is still coming out of them.  The UN estimates that 18% of greenhouse gases comes from livestock.  So I would argue that it is more sustainable and climate-friendly to eat beans, nuts and other plant-based sources of protein that may have come from further away than it is to have local meat. And of course you have the whole slaughter issue...

I'm lucky peanuts are local to me!

The Principle of Chickens

Hey, all:

Wow, I wish I had known about this book before Earth Day!  I harp on sustainability ALL the time, including at Earth Day, including sustainable agriculture.  Pointing out the principles described in the book would have helped.  

It appears there are many motives for anyone deciding to eat local, but it has mostly to do with sustainability, and not the ethics of meat vs. vegetarianism.  One can eat nothing but either extreme and still do it sustainably if the means are present.  And one can be a vegan and still be horrendously wasteful from the embodied energy viewpoint.  E.g., if you HAVE to have saffron from Iran, know you are adding previously sequestered carbon to the atmosphere at a frightening rate.  

The quandary of chickens and their feed can ultimately be overcome by ensuring that over time we get the chickens (and everything else) on the same 100-mile regimen!  Sometimes it can't all happen in the blink of an eye.  

This sounds like a very useful book.  Thanks!

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!  

support your local carnivore

Even if it's local, it's still an inefficient way to get protein.  And also, cows still emmit greenhouse gases such as methane and ammonia, even if they're free range.

Isn't one of the keys to biodynamic agriculture keeping foraging animals on-site to provide more rapid nutrient cycling and other ecosystem services? Isn't biodynamic agriculture the only truly local agriculture?

Also, from an ecosystem science standpoint, isn't the carbon being "emitted" by grazing cows simply carbon that is already more-or-less present in the pool of cycling carbon? Little, if any "fossil" fuels were used in the local production of grass to feed the cattle, especially when compared with industrial feedlot systems that must import most, if not all of their feed, which represents a much larger fossil fuel footprint. Most especially grains, which generally require big tractors and lots of petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticide inputs. It seems to me that growing livestock on local forage, which requires very little in fossil fuel inputs, is unlikely to add much net carbon to the global carbon cycle. If anything, when conducted properly, grazing husbandry should result in more sequestered carbon due to soil building.

Any ecosystem ecologists care to chime in?

Methane Distractions

Hey, GMunger:

Yes, you are correct, of course.  The farms of the rather recent human past were far more self-contained, self-sufficient, Carbon-neutral, and reflect the local approach we should strive for.  

The big item is the distraction created by the junk-science, anthropogenic climate change denier  flacks--namely that cattle are to blame for green house gases.  On that basis, I am surprised some revisionist historian hasn't claimed this is why the buffalo were wiped out.  As a related distraction, there were ads in the 90s proclaiming that increasing atmospheric CO2 would be a huge benefit to a host of activities.   Such is the nature of a factoid, manufactured by politicians, bidnessmen, and marketing types.    

As I alluded, sequestered Carbon is really the only permanent driver in climate change, and fossil fuels are THE source of the very long term trend of which we are seeing the start.   The terrestrial Carbon cycle shifts over long periods of time, but it is the net addition of previously sequestered Carbon that is doing us in.  Sustainable agriculture is one of the most critical changes, and it overlaps greatly with two other critical areas, energy and transportation.

I do imagine that over time, there is little net change in sequestering of Carbon with cattle grazing, rather soil-building is more a product of vegetative growth, which exists with or without grazers in many terrestrial ecosystems.

The overriding fact remains, we cannot continue to transport cold water in the form of fruits, vegetables, and meats halfway around the world sustainably.  Just a simple examination of the emergy involved clearly and adundantly reveals this.  Local is vastly better on many counts. I look forward to reading the book.  

David

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

   

I wonder

These 2 are very inspirational. I am curious to know if they looked beyond cultivated produce/food.  There is a veritable bounty of native/wild edible perennial foods everywhere in natural ecosystems.  And you can re-create these types of ecosystems in your own space following the ideas of agroforestry and some good guide books.  
Still reminiscing on the delights of a colt's foot saute.


Vancouver -- Nowhereville, Canada


Big deal -- 100 miles from Vancouver there's nothing but open spaces and farms!

Try doing it from LA or New York where it's all oil refineries and tract housing!

Beef vs. Beans & Greenhouse Gasses

First, amc89 I think you raise a very good point - that local beef may have a greater impact than well traveled beans.  As folks are discussing, many factors could swing the equation in one direction or the other: are the beans from 400 or 4000 miles away?  How is the cow fed/feed grown & transported?  And so on.  

I want to chime in on methane's role in this balance, which SustainableGreen began to address.  The figures I cite below are from John Houghton's "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing" 3rd ed. (highly recommended)  Houghton is former chairman of the IPCC's Scientific Assessment Working Group.  Junk science is a significant impediment to mainstream understanding, yet here's what Houghton has to say about methane:

  1. Atmospheric methane concentration has more than doubled since 1800.

  2. The concentration of methane (CH4) is far less than that of CO2: just under 2 ppm vs. 370 ppm respectively, yet...

  3. CH4 is still a factor because each molecule has 8 x the heat-trapping effect of a CO2 molecule.  The good news is that they degrade in 12 years, much quicker than CO2.

  4. Lastly back to the cows: on p.43 he estimates that cattle's annual CH4 contribution is 90 million tons, whereas the entire coal, natural gas, and petroleum industry emits 100 million tons CH4 (not CO2).

So cow farts are no joke.  CO2 is the main culprit, but  methane can't be dismissed.  I might feel good about occasionally eating cow IF it were from a small scale farm, thoroughly local, and organic, but most cows have significant CO2 hoofprints as well.

As for solutions, I LOVE that the authors planted their own beans!  Gardening is rewarding, sustainable, radical, and fun.  We should stop mowing our lawns and sow gardens in their place.  I look forward to the book, the rest of the discussion, and to trying out the 100 mile diet this summer!

Thought-provoking

The 100-mile diet concept is intriguing. If it provokes thought about pros and cons of following similar practice, then it manages to raise awareness, which is a kind of success. I like the points that DTW makes. Its not always necessarily better for the environment to buy everything local. It makes sense to look closer at details an make informed more choices.

Positive change begins with each of us
Livestock and Landuse

What hasn't been mentioned with the whole livestock issue is that, in addition to livestock farming creating a lot of GHGs, it also uses up a lot of resources (land - clearing of forests etc, water). It is just not possible for everyone on this planet to have a diet incorporating 'sustainable', locally grown livestock products (meat, dairy etc) at a level currently enjoyed in the West - hence the ideal is unsustainable! One of the reason for the initial industrialisation of livestock farming was to meet the growing demand for its products, by producing them in a more efficient way.

What is needed, in addition to local food is a big jump back down the foodchain to a more plant based diet.

It is important to note that significant proportions of the Earth System need to be left alone by us, in order for the system to be able to self-regulate (google Gaia Theory). What is needed is for a reduction in the amount of land currently used for farming globally (especially in sensitive areas such as the tropical forests) - this requires a reduction in livestock. However, as with GHGs, this will be no easy task - livestock production is currently set to double by 2050, much in the same manner that GHG emissions are.

"I find it helpful to think of the three deadly C's. Cars, cattle and chain saws." - James Lovelock

Kudos to Alisa & James...

They're not alone. I would commend to you Coming Home to Eat by Gary Paul Nabhan (NY: Norton, 2002), who spent a year eating local foods from an even smaller radius in the Arizona desert, and limited himself to food items that are native to Arizona. Or This Organic Life by Joan Dye Gussow (Chelsea Green, 2001), who grows close to 100% of her own produce in upstate New York, and no, she doesn't live in the country, but in town. Novelist Barbara Kingsolver and her family just came out with a new book about eating locally and being as self-sufficient foodwise as possible (they make their own pasta, cheese, and yogurt). The message we need to carry away from all these inspiring stories is it's really not that hard. Like every other kind of sustainable choice, if we each did as much as we can (and revise that upward periodically), the changes could be very dramatic, in our lives, those of our communities, and for the planet.

UN Report

We focus so much on carbon, but there's other greenhouse gases that result in changes to the climate.  Here's more info about the UN report mentioning the frightening amount of methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia and other greenhouse gases put into the environment by livestock:

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization detailed the widespread and significant environmental problems posed by animal agribusiness in a 2006 report, Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options. The report examined how animal agribusiness is a major contributor to global climate change--generating even more greenhouse gases than cars--and causes massive land and water degradation on a global scale.

Link-  
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/ ...

A question

The comment by David, (or SustainableGreen, if you prefer), brought up a question that has been in my mind for some time.  Namely, how does the population of cattle, (and other domesticated ruminants), in the U.S. today compare with the population of bison, (and other wild ruminants ), in this country before 1860?  As a follow-up, how do the methane emissions of domesticated ruminants compare to those of their wild cousins?  Does anybody have any data on this?

Let the jaguars return!

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular



From the Archives
The Elephant in the Room, by Michelle Nijhuis. Hammer Simwinga provides alternatives to African poaching.
Places in the Heart, by Michelle Nijhuis. Interviews with the 2007 winners of the Goldman Prize.
Mirth Day. A batch of Grist Earth Day cards for your sending pleasure.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks