<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for An innovative Alabama CSA shows the way forward.]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Chris Schults http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/ Mon, 15 May 2006 03:48:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/1 The New Yorker

For another critical analysis of organic food, read this piece from The New Yorker. It specifically explores Whole Foods and Earthbound Farm, and includes some insights from Michael Pollan.

Look out! It's a media shower!

]]> The New Yorker

For another critical analysis of organic food, read this piece from The New Yorker. It specifically explores Whole Foods and Earthbound Farm, and includes some insights from Michael Pollan.

Look out! It's a media shower!

]]> Comment #2 by Heidi http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/ Mon, 15 May 2006 07:37:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/2 CSA

"Identifying, supporting, and rebuilding this type of effort should, I think, rise to the top of the green agenda."

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

]]> CSA

"Identifying, supporting, and rebuilding this type of effort should, I think, rise to the top of the green agenda."

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

]]> Comment #3 by Penfold007 http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/ Mon, 15 May 2006 09:17:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/3 Why local?

Tom, I have a pet peeve about local foods that maybe you can address.  It seems to me that the real meaning of "local" is "transparent": It's easier to get the skinny on a box of tomatoes you buy at the farmer's market than your ADM corn meal.  But it seems to me that resource efficiency isn't always achieved by localizing your food.  Economies of scale can make our food systems work with less fuel, fertilizer and pesticides if applied properly and there's a transparent chain of information from the field to the consumer.  I would think that some foods, like grains, are more sustainably farmed on the large scale centrally, while other foods are more appropriately grown locally, depending on where you live.  Shouldn't we be pushing for transparency in the Wal-Marts of the world, rather than localization?  I work in efficient light bulb distribution, and think its more efficient to have a well regulated, no-pollution manufacturing process associated with the bulbs than to try to put a factory in every county.

]]> Why local?

Tom, I have a pet peeve about local foods that maybe you can address.  It seems to me that the real meaning of "local" is "transparent": It's easier to get the skinny on a box of tomatoes you buy at the farmer's market than your ADM corn meal.  But it seems to me that resource efficiency isn't always achieved by localizing your food.  Economies of scale can make our food systems work with less fuel, fertilizer and pesticides if applied properly and there's a transparent chain of information from the field to the consumer.  I would think that some foods, like grains, are more sustainably farmed on the large scale centrally, while other foods are more appropriately grown locally, depending on where you live.  Shouldn't we be pushing for transparency in the Wal-Marts of the world, rather than localization?  I work in efficient light bulb distribution, and think its more efficient to have a well regulated, no-pollution manufacturing process associated with the bulbs than to try to put a factory in every county.

]]> Comment #4 by Kif Scheuer http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/ Tue, 16 May 2006 01:05:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/how-to-make-wal-marts-organic-push-not-matter/4 local doesn't have to be measured in miles

You're dead-on Penfold - local is about transparency. It's been on my plate to pass this on since the wal-mart story came out.

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.

]]> local doesn't have to be measured in miles

You're dead-on Penfold - local is about transparency. It's been on my plate to pass this on since the wal-mart story came out.

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.

]]>