Local Organic Food for All: The Problem

I am back from a whirlwind business trip, into which I managed to cram as many meetings as possible. That didn't leave any time for posting on this blog, but it did include a fair amount of time spent waiting (for things such as airplanes and car services) and in transit, which allowed me to read, in its entirety, Mark Winne's book Closing the Food Gap. Mark Winne spent much of his professional career as an advocate for the poor and hungry seeking to establish community food system projects that would address poverty and hunger. I read Closing the Food Gap in the hopes that it would provide some answers, or at least insight, into the question of whether it is possible to feed all Americans using a locally-based organic food system.

The prevailing notion is that it is impossible to feed all Americans with an organic, local food system; an idea that began with Earl Butz, President Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, and the man who was instrumental in radically changing the face of the American food industry with his farm subsidy programs and his notion of "go big or get out". In fact, Earl Butz was credited with having said that "without the modern inputs of chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, herbicides we simply could not do the job of feeding America. Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry." This idea was adopted wholesale by the food industry which uses it as a means to justify not only its existence, but its methods of production.

The food industry is loudly proclaiming that Earl Butz's industrial farming methods are the only way in which we can feed all Americans, but hey aren't the only ones who seem to have taken up this call. Michael Pollan, a well-known advocate for local and organic food systems, seem to be inadvertantly reinforcing the food industry's claims. In his January 28, 2007 article Unhappy Meals, Michael Pollan encouraged Americans to pay more for their food, remarking that better food, from both a taste and nutritional standpoint, costs more because it has been produced less intensively and with more attention. He goes on to state "not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can: Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation."

I do agree that those of us who can afford to purchase local, organic food, even if it is more costly, should be doing so. We need to use our dollars to vote for healthier food that is better for the planet and supports local farmers, but where does that leave those who don't have the option to spend a premium purchasing local, organic food?

In 2006, there were approximately 26.3 million Americans enrolled in the Federal Food Stamp Program with $32.8 billion spent on food stamps. This works out to an average per person allotment of $94.04 per month and, assuming 3 meals a day for 30 days, gives the average food stamp recipient $1.05 per meal. As we repeatedly hear, the rates of obesity in America are increasing at an alarming rate, bringing with it increased incidents of high-blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease. Much of this, as we know, is due to the "American Diet", but it also linked to hunger and poverty in America. The problem, as Closing the Food Gap points out, is that poor communities, both urban and rural ones, are under served when it comes to supermarkets and other sources of affordable, nutritious food. Instead, fast-food venues are moving in to these communities and filling the gap in available food.

Stay tuned to this blog for part two of this discussion, providing some potential solutions...

Print Post