There’s an article in the current Economist detailing the consequences, good and bad, of three movements to make food consumption more politically and environmentally sensitive. Organic, Fairtrade, and Local food are examined and the conclusions indicate that beyond making consumers feel greener (and occasionally annoyingly self satisfied) the movements may do more harm than good for people and the planet. You’re strongly encouraged to read the whole article, but here’s a summary of the major points:
Organic: The big argument here stems from the claim that organic is inherently better for the environment because it eschews pesticides and fertilizers in favor of traditional agricultural methods. But as Norman Bourlang, Nobel winning father of the ‘green revolution’ points out, it’s exactly those attributes that make organic foods bad for the environment. Specifically, the lower yields and decreased efficiency in organic farming require more land (approx three times as much) to produce the same amount of crops. Selling such items at a premium because of their putative environmental sensitivity actually just offers an incentive for more farmers to make the switch, thus eating up more land to produce the same amount of food. All this, as Bourlang puts it, “leaves less room for the rainforest.” As for health benefits to consumers, there is no evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organics are in any way nutritionally superior.
Fairtrade: Fairtrade is the practice of paying an above market price for a particular commodity to producers who meet various production and labor standards. The problem is that doing so amounts to a subsidy that stimulates overproduction and creates further downward pressure on the commodity in question, thus hurting other producers. Take Fairtrade coffee for example. Economists argue that coffee prices are low because the bean in overproduced. Low prices are usually a signal to producers to grow less or change crops, but by guaranteeing an above market price, Fairtrade actually induces MORE farmers to take up coffee by burying the price signal, thus leading to further over production. Most damning is the inefficiency of Fairtrade as a means of getting money to those it’s intended for, with a mere ten percent actually making in back to the producers. The rest of the enormous markup is simply pocketed by retailers who use the label to separate well meaning, but price insensitive customers from the rest of their lot.
Local: The main case for local is that it reduces food miles, the distance traveled from farm to consumer, thus reducing the ecological harms associated with transport. But in reality all food miles are not created equal, and the cited studies show that densely packed shipping containers and trucks can move food over great distances with less emissions per item than less efficient assemblies for local markets. Further, growing food where it’s most efficient rather than in every locality (mildly reminiscent of the backyard steel production and co-operatives of Mao’s Great Leap Forward), turns out to be not only more environmentally sensitive on the whole, but allows for desperately needed economic development in some of the neediest parts of the world.
I fully understand the draw of all these alternitives, if only because they’re alternatives. It’s not often that someone can be convinced that they’re helping to change the world by maintaining the status quo, so buying a Fairtrade blend or shopping locally seems like a step in the right direction. But the article makes a strong argument why simply feeling better about your purchases is not enough to bring about the desired underlying goals. Shoppers who buy organic, Fairtrade, and local, have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay more and look harder to have a positive effect on people and the planet. Sadly, the truly effective means of achieving these goals, a carbon tax, reform and opening of the trading system, and then end of agricultural tariffs and subsidies, especially the most egregious in American and Europe, won’t fit in your Whole Foods shopping cart.
January 2, 2007 at 7:24 am
This is an interesting line of thought. I don’t know much about the Fairtrade initiative, but organic is something we thought about and considered before starting to purchase there. Rather than hijacking your comments section, I wrote a response on my blog. Thanks for the food for thought. (I had to say it.)
January 3, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Haven’t had a chance to read through the Economist article yet, but I can see how the Economic vs. Environmental aspects can be contradictory, or whack-a-mole-ish. I especially appreciate your summarized criticism of Fairtrade initiatives.
The 3rd and final “E”, or Equity, that is commonly used in the base definition of sustainable is much harder to measure. When it comes to sustainable agriculture, I think there are certain values and benefits that somehow need to be figured into the overall equation.
For instance, I will try and find a link to a story (probably a year or 18 months old) about local food programs in Cuba (maybe Haiti?)… where agriculture is still a big industry but access to its products by the citizens that most need it is still very limited because of its export value, etc. The grassroots program highlighted has quickly established a network of small urban farms and co-ops on dozens of abandoned or other “ghetto” tracts of land that in turn offered an intensely local and diverse food surplus. I also believe that ownership and responsibility (and profits) is transfered to those neighborhoods, and it continues to work.
Another concept I think is valuable from local food movements is the idea that… well, take a person that grows something as little as an herb garden on their porch. I have half a dozen friends or relatives who have done exactly this in the past 2 or 3 years. Each of them talk about how they started cooking and experimenting much more, and they started entertaining guests and neighbors more with parties to show off their experiments that worked. They also all have too much of the herbs, and so they are giving it away as thoughtful and useful gifts. And each of them, separately, in one fashion or another, have philosophized that if more people did a simple herb garden (or tomato garden, or whatever), and enjoyed the same success… the impact on local “community” would be extremely positive.
Obviously, this is small and nostalgic and does little to solve the world’s hunger problems, but my belief in “sustainable food” is based on the value in re-establishing a connection to others and building trust. I think there is definitely importance in illuminating false illusions people have about the coffee they are buying or the cars they are driving, but it’s dangerous to erase from the comparative measurement any of the intangible social improvements that result from a “sustainable” movement.
January 3, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I don’t really see the economist’s argument against local food as having anything to do with people and their backyard gardens, and certainly any increase in social lubrication and improved cuisine that results is to be celebrated. Nor is it’s intent to shut down farmer’s markets as unsustainable and cruel. I think the intent is simply to demonstrate that if your chief reason for focusing your purchases on local food is that you believe that it is a more efficient and environmentally friendly means of large scale agricultural production, then you have been mis-informed.
Rather than attempting to remove social improvements from the equation, I think the argument against local food embraces this metric in acknowledging that the most efficient place to grow large amounts of particular types of foods may not be in the places that we’ve typically grown them. In fact, it may be in desperate and destitute parts of the world where the ability to export crops provides a sorely needed first rung on the economic development ladder. However, trade protectionism in all its forms, be they subsidies, tariffs, or mis-informed consumers simply trying to do the right thing, block these efforts and deny these very real and very lasting social benefits to the people who arguably need them most.
Whack a mole is a very appropriate metaphor in that it implies that every decision to stamp down one part of the problem will likely produce another issue elsewhere. I think the challenge is determining which moles are most worthy of being whacked first and which tools will really be necessary to go after the rest. I think the article makes a strong case that these three food movements are missing their stated and worthy targets, though they may certainly hit others square on the head.
January 26, 2007 at 5:27 am
this information helped me alot with my science case study for my GCSE’s
it was very interesting to find out orgainic food isnt as good as you thin it is
thanks
January 28, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Wow, never had this train of thought before.
Thanx!