coulna' said it better myself. And if I did, I'd be widely accused of being "negative."
More soon.

Stonyfield Farm wanted to be big so now they are. But that comes with a price. In fact, one could say that the price of being big was such a major transformation for Stonyfield that the origional company died. This happens often; it's especially happened with those early socially responsible companies (Ben & Jerry's is another one, Earth's Best Baby Food . . .). Somewhere along the line owners decide to take a risk to grow the company by offering "blue sky" stock. Once the company goes public, it must continue to grow. If it's successful, it's noticed/coveted by a large company that wants to reach the "green" niche and at that point it's all over. Now it's not only a few companies, it's the whole organic "industry" that is caught up in the grow-at-any-cost dynamic of our current economy. So importing freeze-dried organic milk from the other side of the Earth, regardless of how un-Earth friendly it may be is expected, no one blinks an eye. Our food system needs to be regionalized, localized when ever possible. Instead of one or two organic yogurt makers, each region should have its own. It's the only thing that makes sense, long-term. It's a shame that creative entrepreneurs like Gary Hirshberg, Ben Cohen, etc. didn't, instead, take on apprentices who would be taught the skills and eventually, when the time was right, loaned some investment capital to start their own independent company in their community. It could have happened that way, but the dominant system won out.

Organic is a value at its heart. It was supposed to mean more than just inputs. Again, appropriate scale is the key. At some  point being big becomes a liability. We need to learn to recognize when that is and then exercise the will to stop at that point.

is a very good book on this subject

   My question is can we really feed the world organically, and what does that mean?  Or are we merely advocating "niche" food for a very few middle class American consumers?

   If we want local food to feed New York City, what does local mean?  How much land is required, where is that land going to come from?

   It seems to me that we are talking about two seperate issues.  One is the laudable desire to rid the earth of as many poisons and excess chemicals as possible.

   The other is the desire by people to live "locally".  Reading articles like this, and thinking about it, I wonder if this option is possible for more than a very few?

   And what does that mean in terms of something we advocate?

patrick

As someone who has dairy farmed in Vermont for 30 years, the last five years organically, I would like to say that the 100 or so organic small dairy farms, would not be here, because my co-op (OrganicValley) supplies Stonyfield with organic milk produced in Vermont. I certainly can understand the concern with these big corporations getting into organic, but the fact is, under our present system, all those small organic organic farms that the general public wants to see, would not be there without Stonyfield buying our organic milk.

As far as I know Stonyfield, is not buying milk powder from New Zealand, although they did look into it.

With or without corporate control of the food economy?

If corporations shifted from mass producing food to mass production of renwable energy powered organic farming devices, organic fertilizer cycle systems, and greenhouses that actually harvest energy to heat, cool, and power buildings they are attached to.

Well then mass production of food products using chemicals and international shipping would become obsolete.  Small farm markets in every shopping center would supply fresh food.

And even commodity food products could be farmed profitably by small producers, without the huge energy, chemical, and capital costs of present agribizz corporate farming.

The multilayers of shipping,distribution,lobbyist corruption,and monopoly  ownership in the present food production system leave farmers broke, consumers choked with toxins, and taxpayers with huge long term national debt funding agribizz corporate welfare.

There is a better way.  Here's another project needing billionaire philanthropist support.  Integrated local renewable energy and organic agriculture, food and energy independence.

Regional areas all independent and free of corporate control over food and energy but then participating in larger commerce and power grids by choice.  Halliburtons of this world are trying to gobble up all regional power companies and agribizz has already done that to most farming.  

It's the "Iraqification" of the US economy.  They'll do for US what they did for Iraqis.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

organic as a concept was over-hyped from the beginning but I still buy it because it's better than most alternatives. That being said, only largescale corrections in externalities offer any serious hope at addressing our environmental problems, which is what economists are advocating and why I urge you to take a look at my article on the 4 E's of environmental protection- everything else is simply working on the margins and not going to matter all that much in the long-run.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

   Are we beginning to seperate the two?  Should we?
(I have no access to the money WWI wants for its reports, so have no comment on the reliability of their information, pretty opening paragraph, useless otherwise!!)

   If we decide we can feed the world organically, then what role does local farming play in this?  How realistic is it going to be, or is it just that niche I was talking about.

   Have any local advocates tried to eat only locally?

   (I would have to give up coffee and tea to name a few, and am not particularly interested in doing so).

   Even if we talk about buying local farm goods, will those farms make their own machinery?  Or use none?  Mine their own ore?

   One of my primary interests is global warming, and I don't (at this time) see how the concept of "local" (which isn't very local) plays much of a part in stopping global warming.  (We are talking about a fairly small time framer here.)

   But I could be wrong.  If anyone can make the case, please do so.

patrick  

is the average distance a "typical" American meal travels to a typical American's plate, three meals a day.  1500 miles times 3 meals a day times 300 million Americans.... that's 1,350,000,000,000 miles.  Every day.

That's a lot of planes, trains and automobiles.

They will have to rip chocolate & coffee from my dead, cold vice-like grip.... but I believe that if I eat "mostly local" I:

Spare the environment many hundreds or thousands of food-miles (and related CO2, etc),

Put money in the pocket of a small business owner and a neighbor,

Re-connect with the seasons, and feel a deeper appreciation for the bounty provided by sun, soil, water, and TLC (thereby fostering an even more urgent care for the environment, weather, etc).

Can we feed the world this way?  I'm not sure, but I don't see why not.  I'm not so concerned with feeding the world, anyway - I'd rather provide them the tools they need to feed themselves.  After all, give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

You're being silly. Few advocate eating "only local." What people like me advocate is that you support your local foodshed as much as possible, and choose carefully from the global supermarket. I can't grow coffee beans in the NC mountains, so if I'm going to drink coffee, I can seek out purveyors with responsible buying practices. Supporting strong local foodsheds,whether one lives in New York or Appalachia or China, builds robust local economies and helps us tread more lightly on the earth. I wish the U.S., Chinese, and other national governments -- as well as the supranational institutions like the IMF, UN, and World Banks -- would stop devoting so many resources to facilitating global flows of goods and capital. The game is rigged in that direction; meanwhile local foodsheds wither, rural areas depopulate (who, in the end, is going to feed us?), and fossil fuels go up in smoke at an alarming rate.

because the first half of what you write above is entirely sensible- but then unfortunately, you fall back on the typical "bash the big institutions for facilitating the global flows of goods"- um,...sorry but the Chinese, Indians, and other poor countries are very happy that those goods are being sent arounnd the world- if you believe like I do that everyone has a right to a middle class life there is NO WAY to accomplish this without greater economic integration. I wish people (whom I would characterize as on the left as yourself) would take some more time to differentiate their opposition to things like excess pollution, poor labor rights, etc. instead of making broad sweeping remarks that come off as anti-globalization.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

...that was close.

As usual a shining,progressive voice of reason!

It doesn't need to be all or nothing.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

So how do you resolve your agreement with localization of food production and globalization of everything else? I don't fully understand how the two can be compatible, when arguing either for or against globalization.

  Dear John,

     I said I cannot afford the cost of the article at WorldWatch Institute.  Do you think the world is only for rich people?  But thanks for the insult!!

  Dear Tom,

     I always supported local farms when I was in the US.  

     My criticism of the local argument then, is that if often looks like nothing other than protectionism.

     I have asked before (no one ever answers), let me try again.  Some of the poorest nations (poorer than India or China) see food exports as their only hope of gaining the capital needed to rise out of poverty.

     How can we combine protecting our local farming industry with addressing their needs?

Dear Kaela,

     Thanks for you honesty when you say you're not concerned with feeding the world.  I understand this point of view (and suspect others share it, but are unwilling to admit it!).

     Let me suggest that since global warming is a global problem, you need to be concerned with how the rest of the world develops and feeds itself, if you want to prevent global warming.

     A bit of (hopefully enlightened) self interest to the discussion.

Dear Jason,

     From, the left, I agree with you in principle, so don't blame it on leftists!!  I regard the people you regard as leftists as rightists, like yourself, so there!! (grin).

     The details, though, are another matter.

patrick

let's have full free trade- no tariffs, quotas, or subsidies of any kind and then let people buy what they want wherever they want- we would find that many items would still be bought locally- especially many food items- and we would save tons of money, poor people around the world would have new markets, and efficient producers (read: good for the environment) would get the most business.

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

it has to be local OR global. The problem is with the kind of globalization that's happening now, the global capitalist market that serves corporations and profits first, with people and the land (local people/places everywhere) way, way down on the list of priorities. Trade, global or otherwise, should benefit people and places not at the expense of other people and places. Growing food for export, while people and communities suffer, is the way our current economic system "works". People will do what they have to do for money. But the system sucks. It does not work for the majority of people and it sucks the life blood out of communities and the Earth.

It makes sense to produce locally/regionally as much of what we need on a daily basis, especially with regard to food, as possible, using trade to fill in the gaps.

As far as bringing everyone in the world to "middle class", I'm not sure about that. The middle class in this country is fast diminishing as the disparity between the rich and everyone else increases. I'm not sure the planet can support however many billions of people living a middle class lifestyle.  How many planets would that take, anyway? (The whole ecological footprint thing). I know this subject has been discussed in other places on Grist but I truely believe that those of us fortunate enough to live a middle class (or higher) lifestyle will be called upon to downsize because of the finite planet thing. (And I know this includes me).

Kmp is right on!

Can organics feed the world? Over time, I believe it could. After all, what did people do before the so-called "green revolution"? which, as you probably know, came about because US corporations asked the government's help in finding peace-time uses for chemicals developed during WWII. You could say, well, what about all those pesky insects and diseases? A major part of the problem has to do with the large scale of agribus farms and the total lack of diversity. When you plant many different crops and intersperse them with certain flowers and herbs you create a more natural environment with checks and balances for critters and diseases. Not to mention seed diversity etc., etc. Anyway, the "green revolution" was supposed to solve world hunger. Unfortunately it only made things worse. Now corporations want us to buy into biotechnology as the next big thing to feed the world. We're going from the frying pan into the fire. You can't just come up with one or two solutions and expect them to work everywhere. Each place is unique and solutions will differ. It's not simple. And I believe the place to begin looking for solutions is at the local level and then moving outward (rather than the other way around).

...the four bucks to buy the "Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?" PDF. Did you consider searching for such info from no-charge sources? A quick Google on "organic farming feed world" brought back 7+ million results.

This is why I wonder if you're really interested in getting answers to the questions you ask or if you like arguing for the sake of arguing.

The world is sacred, and I am part of it.

   Dear SMLowry,

       It is certainly true that unless we find four other worlds quick, we can't afford to exactly replicate the American middle class lifestyle.

       But, we also can't stop people from wishing to live in such a lifestyle, nor from wanting to.  Certainly not until AFTER we have established a different example.

       Jason is 100% right on this one (and I have also said it before, so you have the left and the right agreeing for once!).  People in the rest of the world will not give up their dreams of a better life.

       What Americans CAN do is

       1)  Offer an alternative dream (but this means walking the walk).

       2)  Provide technological assistance to help other people develop sustainability (and us) in a way that weakens the tipping point.

       Meanwhile, what about organic/local?  If organic can feed the world, what is the place of supporting local vs. global in the scheme of food and other things.

       It seems to me that we need to be careful of not taking an ostrich approach.

       Local cannot mean ignoring global issues (like global warming).

       Local cannot mean merely buying the same goods from a different retailer, regardless of source.

      (For instance, is it better to buy coffee from a local retailer (big name brand) than to buy fair trade organic coffee from Starbucks?  If anyone thinks so, please make the case).

      I will disagree with Jason on tariffs.  I think that developing countries have a right to protect their developing industries from the ravenous global monsters that already exist in the developed world.

patrick

Patrick,
There is one reason I can think of to buy the Folgers from the mom & pop store rather than the organic fair trade from Starchucks, and I'm not sure it's a good enough one to actually do it (on the rare occasions when we have coffee, it's generally both, organic fair trade from a locally-owned health food store, although the coffee itself still comes from far, far away).

Anyhow, the reason:  Money spent at local stores increases the likelihood that those stores will not go out of business or sell out to Osco/Alberston's/Safeway/Stop & Shop/etc.  For social reasons I believe in local businesses--more money in the local economy, less in the corporate pocket, better employment opportunities locally keeping the community a place you want to live, all that.  But from an environmental perspective, the big stores have a very hard time selling locally-produced goods, because their way of doing business inherently revolves around lots and lots of the same things being available all the time, which is impossible without globalization.  so aside from the social issues, there's a direct environmental benefit to maintaining the vitality of local businesses, and that is to provide a market for local farmers who might have a few truckloads of produce rather than a few hundred thousand.

I will add, though, that our nearest grocery store is a ginormous chain (Stop & Shop), and they actually have a fairly presentable selection of locally grown produce during the summer.  Some of it's organic, too!  So, this argument doesn't always work.

But with free trade, cheap oil, and cheap labor, it is easier and cheaper to grow food and deliver it from half the world away. Plus convenience does not play into the hypothetical situation either. Many people will find it inconvenient to make it to a local farmer's market. And large supermarkets have a tougher time dealing with many local, inconsistent growers, they would much rather deal with one far away.

So by saying let's have global trade, and hope that the people will buy local is kind of like saying let's hope that I will get a good suntan in Wisconsin in October. It's not impossible, but the chances of that are pretty slim.

I absolutely agree with everything you said.
Organic feeding the world -- not large scale but rather local/regional organic feeding the world. Local creates the world. I'm not saying there should be no trade in food at all. There may come a time when circumstances are such that long-distance trade in anything is either virtually impossible or too expensive, but I hope not. Still, I think that it is possible, with effort and creativity and teaching skills, etc., that organics can feed the world because communities can make it work. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying I believe it's possible. I also believe that there will come a time when it will be an imperative.
I'm definitely not advocating an ostrich approach. I know too much for that.
Re: coffee. I would suggest that you ask your local store to source in some organic fair trade coffee.

If we tax fuel with a carbon tax or raise the price due to global warming policy (as most economists believe we should) then this addresses the first issue you raise

We should support farmers who produce food cheaper than us- how else are they supposed to develop? there are not sufficient domestic markets in most developing countries

So according to you because people are too lazy to go to farmer's markets we should give in to protectionism and distort the entire global trading system- that's terrifying!!

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

I am not sure how anti-globalization I am. However, it seems to me that you implied in your post that it's nearly impossible to be pro-local and pro-global. That was my original question to you.

So, to get this straight, you are pro-local unless the locals cannot grow or produce at a cheaper rate than their global competition. If the global competition can produce at a cheaper rate to create a final product, which is comparable or cheaper than the local product, then you are pro-global. That's actually together pro-global, since pro-local would require that you would seek out local products to support the local economy, even if they are more expensive.

yes and yes..i buy local food that costs more because it tastes better and i want to support local farmers- and i really enjoy farmers markets- many other people do- to the extent that this sustains local farmers and they can sell to stores, schools, restaurants- whatever- then i am all for local production- i just don't want to force anyone to have the same values and preferences as me- that's undemocratic- it others want to go to costco and buy food that's their choice- if local organic is so much better than we have to educate people and change their preferences, not enact trade protectionism that ultimately harms everyone

J.S.

Assistant Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies

    When I was in America, I almost never went to supermarkets (after about 1993) and loved my local farmers markets.

    So, I do support local.

    But since we are not going to eliminate global trade (who is giving up coffee and chocolate), let's make room for agricultural imports by the poorest nations, which for some may be their only way out of poverty.

    (Of course, we could just give them the money tp build a sustainable society, but that would be unAmerican, and besides we spent it all on polluting Iraq and Afghanistan).

patrick

PS: SMLowry, Thanks! my local markets (in Beijing) don't sell enough coffee to source it, and since I don't go to the giant chains, I am not sure what else is available.  I won't tell you what kind of swill I drink...