Budiansky and local food
Stephen Budiansky's two essays on the `locavore' movement, one in the New York Times and one on his blog, have received quite a bit of attention already. They are remarkably fine rants not least because Steve (an old friend) is not some pontificator. He actually grows a lots of his own food on his small farm in Virginia. He knows what he is talking about. And yet, like me, he concludes that
eating food from a long way off is often the single best thing you can do for the environment, as counterintuitive as that sounds
Steve has three strands to his argument. The first, much the same as I argue in The Rational Optimist, is that
Without modern farming, we literally would have already cut down every acre of rainforest just to grow the staple food crops that feed the world.
The second, whose detailed calculations are new to me, is that
The real energy hog, it turns out, is not industrial agriculture at all, but you and me. Home preparation and storage account for 32 percent of all energy use in our food system, the largest component by far...
Agriculture, on the other hand, accounts for just 2 percent of our nation’s energy usage; that energy is mainly devoted to running farm machinery and manufacturing fertilizer. In return for that quite modest energy investment, we have fed hundreds of millions of people, liberated tens of millions from backbreaking manual labor and spared hundreds of millions of acres for nature preserves, forests and parks that otherwise would have come under the plow.
Budiansky's third argument is the one I want to look at in more detail. He says:
we're told that food security depends on local self-reliance. But the locavores have it exactly backwards on this point. Nothing is more vulnerable than self-reliance: one storm that destroys the crop one year, one local outbreak of an insect pest or blight — and if you have no other source to shift to the result is famine. This was the story throughout human history before modern transportation and commerce networks.
One of the most haunting facts I came across in researching my book is that until the last two centuries it was cheaper to move people than food. Local food meant local starvation unless you could move.
In 1692-1694, during the reign of Louis XIV, a devastating famine afflicted France and people surged across the country in search of food. Around 15% of all French people starved to death.
Yet look at this graph, published by John Hearfield last year:
Notice that in London the price of bread spikes in 1693 but not by all that much. It was the same in Germany: a modest spike in price, but no great leap. Expensive transport meant that affordable British and German loaves could not alleviate French hunger.
Today, by contrast, a poor harvest in Russia is going to lead to imports, not starvation, and you can already feel the impact of that demand for imports in world wheat prices. If speculators are guessing that there is more of this to come and are bidding up wheat prices further, then good for them. They are accelerating the planting of more wheat, the substitution of other grains and so on -- they are thus lowering the eventual peak in prices.
Twice, while being interviewed about my book I have been told by the interviewer that it is a bad thing that I can buy green beans from Africa `because the food should be kept in Africa to feed people there'. The sheer ignorance of this statement, let alone its patronising tone, left me open-mouthed on both occasions. Think how many calories of wheat an African bean exporter can afford to buy for the price he receives for the few calories in his beans. He is growing the most valuable crop he can so that he can afford to import things of greater value to him than surplus beans.
Distant food is efficient, sustainable, safe and moral.
Comments (34)
I have yet to meet a locavore (nice word by the way :-) who tries to eradicate world food trading. Of course it's good that we have a great variety, can move it quickly around and keep it fresh for long times. But not every of the good aspects are worth some of the the bad aspects. Global food trading is NOT entirely "efficient, sustainable, safe and moral." because the apparent differences in monetary strength create inequalities in food access. Last time I checked, pretty much all of world food trade was profit- not charity driven.
The "African bean exporter" you mention isn't exactly a small farmer who buys wheat from the profits of the beans. It's probably a western corporation, that channels the money to itself, not the farmer. If the money YOU pay (or at least a noticeable portion of it), does reach the person actually working to grow the food, then yeah, no problem. But that's sadly not standard, but niche. How much of world food trading is certified as FairTrade? In any case, the other part might be labeled "UnfairTrade"...
And: Don't cut scales off graphs. It distorts the information.
I've always wondered about the impact of home preparation on energy usage. Does this mean that microwave meals are actually the green option?
If so, it would certainly represent a dilemma for the chattering classes.
Great follow-up to the Budiansky. I think what the last commenter missed was the far more nefarious aspect of global food trade and that is protectionism.
Africa has suffered a great deak from the developed nations policies of blocking their products to protect their falsely elevated interal markets. Lord only knows how many people have starved thanks to policies like these. Liberate these places, buy their food. We all have a hand in the multi-decade disaster of these policies and countless people have died in third world countries as a consequence.
There's another point we all must accept. Africa WILL be selling you their goods, either through standardless arrangements with Chinese companies or through much better controlled western food companies and we will not prevent some of these products from reaching our plates. End 'fair trade' it only serves food industry people in the developed world, like myself, while forcing large sectors of the developing world to give up their trade and production advantages (the ability to do a good job at a much lower price).
Demanding developing nations be paid higher prices while not allowing them to participate in the wider market is dangerous and tantamount to emposing a levy on their exports in order that the can no longer afford to export into our markets. No wonder these countries are flipping us the bird and choosing to deal with China.
Cathryne, you make it sound as though making money is a bad thing: "pretty much all of world food trade was profit- not charity driven."
That people trade their labor for goods and services has been happening for several, several millenniums. It's a process that allows us to have what we humans want. Our species has moved from being hunter-gatherers needing lots of land, to being specialists needing much less land. And the big reason for this specialization was the invention of exchanging one thing for a different thing. No other animal on earth trades one thing for something else and trading certainly does not happen outside of the group. Trade is quite different from reciprocity, which is “you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch your back.” Trade involves things that are different. And trade has allowed all who do it to specialize and be better off.
Trading means that we no longer had to be good at a lot of skills; we only needed to do one thing. Of course, by doing only one thing we need to rely on others to do those other things. In his book The Rational Optimist, Ridley argues that self sufficiency is poverty and that interdependence is a good thing. “In truth, far from being unsustainable, the interdependence of the world through trade is the very thing that makes modern life as sustainable as it is...suppose your local wheat farmer tells you that last year’s rains means he will have to cut his flour delivery in half. You will have to go hungry.” Instead, you benefit from a global marketplace, “in which somebody somewhere has something to sell you so there are rarely shortages, only modest price fluctuations.”
In the foreword of his book, Ridley writes, “I find that my disagreement is mostly with reactionaries of all political colours: blue ones who dislike cultural change, red ones who dislike economic change and green ones who dislike technological change...(H)uman progress has, on balance, been a good thing...(The world) is richer, healthier, and kinder too, as much because of commerce as despite it.”
While cynics and pessimists may sound smarter, in the past they have been wrong about the future. Despite their Jeremiad warnings of deprivation and doom, worldwide we live longer; eat better, and on far less land than ever before. And, the trend is accelerating. “The Rational Optimist” is a fascinating read that overturns what you thought you knew.
-- Cathryne: "Last time I checked, pretty much all of world food trade was profit- not charity driven." --
I’m not sure how you want profit- vs. charity-driven to relate to "efficient, sustainable, safe and moral". Is it not equally possible that profit-driven trade will manifest these qualities, whilst charity-driven trade will not? In a similar vein, the idea of Free Trade Goods perhaps does exhibit such qualities, but again is this movement not best driven through consumer demand in the supermarkets?
"Last time I checked, pretty much all of world food trade was profit- not charity driven."
So what? We don't really care what the driver is do we? What is important is the impact, isn't it? I proudly work for a for-profit company as it enables me to put food on my table and a roof over my head. Also, we don't force our clients to buy from us or our suppliers to sell to us.
"if the money YOU pay (or at least a noticeable portion of it), does reach the person actually working to grow the food, then yeah, no problem."
Of course a noticeable portion of it reaches the person/-s growing the food, otherwise it's slavery for which there are laws in most countries. A poor African is probably a lot happier working for a salary for a Western company than not working at all. And trust me, I know from personal experience that the companies treating the workers the worst in developing countries are not the western ones but the locally owned ones, especially those owned by the governments. How many times have you visited factories or other working places in poor countries? Further, your statement seems to imply that the developing world needs more aid and less trade, which is (to put it mildly) somewhat at odds with the empirical observations. (Prolonged aid tends to maintain poor people in poverty while trade and profits tends to bring them out of poverty)
"How much of world food trading is certified as FairTrade? In any case, the other part might be labeled "UnfairTrade"..."
Well actually, a not insignificant part of the revenues from fair trade do not reach the people actually producing the food but are kept in the developed world (by retailers and by bureaucrats).
"Don't cut scales off graphs. It distorts the information."
Sadly the only statement in your post that makes any sort of sense
"A western corporation, that channels the money to itself, not the farmer..." Excuse me, but if a corporation is farming, doesn't that make the corporation and its shareholders farmers? And as for a noticeable portion of the money I spend... it depends on what work goes into the orange or bean I buy. Who's to say what portion goes to the tiller? Doesn't the trucker or the broker or the investor deserve their share? And what about the guy spraying water on the orange at the supermarket. He gets a nickel, too, right? The cash register person? That teenager deserves some money for college. This isn't about fairness, or rather, it's not about charity. That the corporation gets their profit, I get a cheaper bean, and more people get employed in agriculture producing higher yields... that sounds pretty fair.
My one problem about this sort of bashing of "locavores" is that implies some altruism on a locavore's part. Many of the local-food people just like the taste of local produce better. When producers ship food, they like it to arrive with a nice appearance, and that means growing peaches logged with water and devoid of flavor. Locally-farmed peaches have more sugar, and less water, than those shipped from God-Knows-Where. I don't expect you to understand this sort of middle class hedonism, Matt; you did grow up on English food.
I have fixed the missing Y axis and labels. It was there, just hiding. Sorry.
Matt
@Timberati, Philip , Emil and Jeremy Kareken
I'm not promoting to abolish world trade. I'm arguing that based on the huge inequalities of wealth, the playing field for trading is hardly even and the regulations far from fair. There are huge disadvantages to our current style of world trade, most of them externalised to out-of-sight-out-of-mind places.
- land grabbing
- destruction of rainforest for palm oil and soy beans
- ensnaring farmers into licensing contracts where they are not allowed to re-seed their harvest and also have to buy fertilisers and herbi-/insecticides from the same company
- exporting of water in the form of fruits from dry countries
- generally exporting food from countries with starvation: we should PAY for the food being distributed locally in such cases
- speculation on food prices
We perceive mostly the pleasant advantages. In my view not all of them are justifiable in the face of some of the disadvantages. Result: I buy exotic fruits and vegetables, yes, but I don't by stuff that could have been produced here, when it wasn't.
What I perceive in this debate is a general, and alarming tendency to value "free markets" more than the wellfare of societies. Where the "free market" fails (and it does sometimes) to further the wellfare of societies, it should be tweaked until it does. More specifically, wherever greed is allowed to get the best of us, regulations should be made.
"Many of the local-food people just like the taste of local produce better"
Indeed. It's similar for organic food - people buy it both for taste and absence of unwelcome residues.
As for vulnerability, I suggest that we are setting ourselves up for a fall by limiting crop diversity. Low-input varieties might reward some attention, too.
Local/regional food is fine as long as it's compatible with that climate zone and is of reasonably good quality for the price. But, as others have pointed out, the quest for pure self-reliance is a trap. For instance, Oregon doesn't grow natural banana's or oranges and couldn't do it very well if it tried but both are a crucial part of a nutritious diet. So people in Oregon have to trade for those and many other things, that seems fair enough to me. I'm reminded of this every time I go to the store, natural/organic food market or not. But sometimes the "buy local" trends do get ridiculous. For example, the other day the liquor store clerk tried to sell me some Canadian whiskey that was bottled in Oregon, therefore it was "local" and really worth buying. I passed on it and bought some bourbon from Kentucky instead.
[...] (and a subsequent blog) criticising the “locavore” movement has attracted a lot of attention online. He has made some reasoned – if not necessarily original – observations about why [...]
[...] (and a subsequent blog) criticising the “locavore” movement has attracted a lot of attention online. He has made some reasoned – if not necessarily original – observations about why [...]
[...] (and a subsequent blog) criticising the “locavore” movement has attracted a lot of attention online. He has made some reasoned – if not necessarily original – observations about why [...]
[...] (and a subsequent blog) criticising the “locavore” movement has attracted a lot of attention online. He has made some reasoned – if not necessarily original – observations about why [...]
"Where the "free market" fails (and it does sometimes) to further the wellfare of societies, it should be tweaked until it does. More specifically, wherever greed is allowed to get the best of us, regulations should be made."
Cathryne, you are making a straw man when you see all of the problems you described as the failure of free markets. The poor countries remain poor because they are governed by corrupt governments and are not allowed to trade their production freely. The US and EU food subsidies (which are certainly not a product of a free market) have e.g. done tremendous harm on the sustainable food production in Africa. Regulations are influenced by interest groups and have unintended consequences which means that their impact is often to turn things worse rather than better.
Cathryne - "generally exporting food from countries with starvation: we should PAY for the food being distributed locally in such cases" - Why are you enforcing subsistence farming on cultures, willing them back into the dark ages? If Madagascar ships cocoa to the US, we should force them to eat chocolate just because they have a lower GDP?
-- Cathryne: Where the "free market" fails (and it does sometimes) to further the wellfare of societies, it should be tweaked until it does. --
Where there are problems, they are far more likely to be caused by corrupt or interfering governments or (as you put it) tweaking by well-meaning westerners. Far better I would say to do our best to discourage corruption and interference, get rid of any existing tweaks and just let the locals get on with living their lives. What is the market if not the people?
I said "free market" in quotation marks ;-) Of course our subsidies are on the far other end of "free". Abolishing them would do some real good in this world. But as I said, greed on our part prevents that.
@Jeremy: Does cacao grow in our regions (I live in central and northern Europe)? I specifically said, that I too want exotic stuff to be exported by southern countries. But I'd rather see them able to switch from exporting produce that grows here as well (such as potatoes and strawberries I find in my super markets), to also grow stuff they need and want. And, cynically speaking: We are forcing poor nation to do this and that to our liking all the time, maybe we should start forcing some good luck onto them?
Of what I have not any justification is the problem of water export. Esp. in some north African countries, aquifers are dried out to produce food for export. Ground water levels go down, the population is left with the problem.
Cathryne,
So how do you see increased aid helping these African countries? Especially since aid is mostly channelled through the corrupt government? For the last 20-30 years, the European countries have funnelled endless amounts of aid to Africa, all it has done is to make them even poorer. Also:
- wouldn't it be better if the Africans could decide themselves what they want to produce and export than someone telling them what they should do?
- I can't really see how you help the Africans by not buying what they produce, can you please elaborate on this?
I've been reading Obama's 'Audacity of hope', Mr Ridley seems to have pillaged some of his thinking.
1. Independence can lead to selfishness.
2. Living in reaction sounds weak (but inevitable for anyone not directing what happening). I begin to doubt whether 'reactionary', is really a criticism. Since it ends up being an argument supporting the status quo, for no decent reason. 'Those directing the future are right, because they direct the future'.
I think it's just a weak way to pull people down who don't have power.
Apart from that I've noticed some other similarities. But I've momentarily forgotten.
Regarding Kiva, I've looked up micro financing on wikipedia, and they have 2 arguments against it.
1. That the interest rates are so expensive, that it keeps third world entrepreneurs locked in poverty (plowing all their profit back to service their debt).
2. That elsewhere the interest rates are so low, they retard the development of local lending agencies who can't compete.
So there are rivals to Kiva, where you can offer an interest rate for a loan, and the applicant can accept or reject, in the hope of receiving a better offer. Which would seem to be less charitable and so not hinder development.
I want to know which Ridley thinks is strongest.
I'm just eating 2 peppered steaks from Asda. Yum. And £1.25.
I love world trade. Mooo!
>Abolishing [farm subsidies] would do some real good in this world. But as I said, greed on our part prevents that.
Greed? What people wanting to keep their jobs?!!!
Are Africans really being forced to grow Strawberries?
Or are they choosing to prosper?
@Anonymous
Maybe not greed alone, but certainly some level of decadency and refusal to give up power. How many people in US and EU are with their physical survival dependent on agriculture? 1, 2, 3% of the population? Not even those, since we have social well-fare (yes, that needs work, too). Would it be a humanitarian disaster for our farmers if we abolished subsidies and allowed poorer countries fair and equal access to world markets? It is on the other hand a very serious humanitarian problem, that they don't have that kind of access, because our politics and corporations cling to our subsidies.
@Emil:
"- wouldn't it be better if the Africans could decide themselves what they want to produce and export than someone telling them what they should do?"
Certainly, but "the customer/market demands..." is basically telling someone what to do right? There is little freedom, if their well-fare depends on fulfilling demands. Do you know the phrase: "freedom is never the freedom to do want you want, but to NOT do, what you don't want".
"- I can't really see how you help the Africans by not buying what they produce, can you please elaborate on this?"
Touche, you got me there. Partially ;-) I do buy their (for the xth time) produces that don't grow here. Even more so when I can be sure that the trade was fair, less so when I see a logo of a company who is known for exploitation, pollution and corruption. It's a fine line between not participating in unfair trade and not helping at least a bit. Shitty system that creates these conflicts :-(
@Anonymous
"I'm just eating 2 peppered steaks from Asda. Yum. And £1.25. I love world trade. Mooo!"
Great, there is a good chance that you have directly financed rainforest destruction, deportation of indigenous people from their heritage land or similar niceties of free global markets!
You sure you are not able to pay a bit more to a company/farmer, who you can be sure of NOT to do things to people and planet, that you wouldn't want being done to you?
Anyway, thanks for illustrating the greed and decadency yet again.
Cathryne,
"Would it be a humanitarian disaster for our farmers if we abolished subsidies and allowed poorer countries fair and equal access to world markets?"
Good to see that we agree on something :-) (But I still can't see how that is an argument against free markets, international trade and capitalism)
"Certainly, but "the customer/market demands..." is basically telling someone what to do right? There is little freedom, if their well-fare depends on fulfilling demands. Do you know the phrase: "freedom is never the freedom to do want you want, but to NOT do, what you don't want"."
1) the market demands a lot of different things and people/companies can decide which of these they want to (or not want to) supply
2) It would indeed be very nice if all of us could live in a world where we did not need to fulfil demands, but that's not going to happen, or is it? In fact, all of our well-fare depends on fulfilling demands - if I don't fulfil the demands of my superiors and my customers I will e.g. lose my job.
3) What you describe is a luxury that people in poor countries unfortunately do not have and will not have until they develop their economies through international trade and industrialisation.
"I do buy their (for the xth time) produces that don't grow here."
There are a number of objections to this:
1) if they have a comparative advantage in producing that produce, would it not be correct for them to be able to use that?
2) does that mean that you only buy strawberries (or any other produce) during the season in which they grow in the country you live in?
3) It is by no means certain that the produce of a country is the best food for the inhabitants in that country. By exporting some of what they produce they will be able to import what they need / want Export is in fact primarily a means to finance imports as the latter is what really counts and adds to our well being.
4) First you say that it will be good for poor countries to have access to world markets at equal terms and then you say that it would be good for them if we don't buy their products. I can't really understand the logic of this.
"Even more so when I can be sure that the trade was fair, less so when I see a logo of a company who is known for exploitation, pollution and corruption"
A stand-point I can fully accept (although we may have different definitions of what fairness is and how to measure it)
@Emil
"2) does that mean that you only buy strawberries (or any other produce) during the season in which they grow in the country you live in?"
Exactly! The goal is have them taste as much as possible like the ones from grandma's garden ;-) No way fruits, that have been picked early and transported long distances reach that.
"1) the market demands a lot of different things and people/companies can decide which of these they want to (or not want to) supply"
Since there is no inherent judgement whether a demand is justified/right/morally, no blind effort to fulfil needs to be made. History will judge soon enough, but maybe we should start by ourselves?
"4) ...and then you say that it would be good for them if we don't buy their products."
That's not what I said, as I was clearly advocating buying produce we don't have if there are certain guarantees that the money you pay for the product reaches the producer. The simple fact that a FairTrade label exists, is indication of the problems resulting from unfair trade.
@Emil:
"The poor countries remain poor because they are governed by corrupt governments and are not allowed to trade their production freely."
"For the last 20-30 years, the European countries have funnelled endless amounts of aid to Africa, all it has done is to make them even poorer."
What about the fact that Europeans pillaged the global South of its resources and people for centuries, and that these countries are now so indebted to the World Bank that they're paying more in interest than the original loans ever were? What about the 'Structural Adjustment Plans' that force poor countries to sell off their natural resources and public services to western corporations?
This isn't conspiracy theory - Joseph Stiglitz who is former chief economist of the World Bank and a Nobel Prize winner, has written a book detailing the role the IMF has played in stifling prosperity in the developing world. After climbing to the top, many of us in the West are trying to pull up the ladder. John Perkins has also written some excellent accounts of his work as an 'economic hitman'.
Sure corruption is a problem in Africa, but we too often fail to see the stealth colonialism that still exists today.
Great article by John Michael Greer on modern food production:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/two_agricultures_not_one
This blog post has been brought to you by Tyson Foods, Inc.
This blog post has been brought to you by Tyson Foods, Inc.
Cathryne is just one of those people who loves pointing fingers and talking about problems.
I think a good way to deal with the divide between the pessimists and optimists is just to make everyone identify themselves. This will lessen my feelings anger towards people who have beliefs that have been empirically shown to be counterproductive because I know what to expect from them.
click <a href=http://cheapreplicachanelbag.weebly.com>replica chanel bags</a> <a href=http://www.flickr.com/photos/64431871@N03/5865541199/>chanel tote bags</a> <a href=http://www.zimbio.com/Chanel+Bags/articles/W4Fjqpm9U-9/Chanel+Bags+2010>chanel bags 2010</a> for more <a href=http://cheapchanelknockoffbag.weebly.com>fake chanel bags</a> to your friends
Although raiding could be fun due to the challange and teanwork necessary, the complete idea of 'grind for far better gear so you can grind for much better gear' is cause #1 why raiding, in general, sucks.