Over the last few months I have attended several public events in the Kootenay region that have focussed on economic development. Invariably, local food and agriculture is part of the conversation. As I listen to comments, I hear several implicit and sometimes explicit assumptions made about local food and agriculture that need more careful consideration.
1) Local agriculture means local food.
This is a big assumption and one that is most questionable in my mind. Farmers are business people. Unless there is some agreement, through a Community Supported Agriculture initiative for example, I see no reason why farmers won’t continue to sell their products to the highest bidder, wherever they might be located. Food will move from one locale to another, based on market factors, other things being equal.
2) Local food will be less expensive.
Food is energy. As long as we have enough economic and political stability to have functioning markets, food prices will follow energy and the overall food “market” prices.
3) Local agriculture will result in local food security.
Agriculture is always vulnerable to disease, pests, weather, drought, and markets. All crop failures are “local” in the region where they happen, and we are not immune to these disasters.
4) We can expand the agricultural industry under current market conditions.
This will be very difficult. High land values, insufficient returns, lack of access to land and water, lack of skills, insufficient interest in “food” farming – among other things – all stand in the way of expanded agriculture. Strategies such as community supported agriculture, farm gate sales, etc. can help, but many farmers aren’t interested in that form of marketing.
5) Growing local food is ecologically sound.
If BC is only 50% self sufficient in food, and if we maintain our current diet, tens of thousands of hectares currently in grass and trees will have to be opened up to cultivation, and much of it would have to be irrigated. That change would have significant ecological consequence, even with organic or other so called “environmentally friendly” farming methods.
6) Local e.g., "100 mile diet," is the best strategy
Not all areas of the province, or even Western Canada, have equivalent resources in terms of land, climate, and water. The lower mainland and the Okanagan are well off. But what do the folks in Prince George and area do for a full range of food? The best of our lands are well suited for growing fruits and vegetables. Wouldn’t we be better off to grow fruit and vegetables here and buy or trade grain (by rail with peak oil) with the Prairies?
These assumptions and the questions they raise are by no means specific to the Kootenay region. You can find them in many "locales" where food, economy, and community sustainability are being talked about. You'll see them showing up in the food discussion taking place at CITinfoResource.com, or – to cite another region – in the conversation online at Sustainable Food Vancouver Island on Facebook.
Is it about food security?
Although many local food initiatives use the term food security, the need for basic nutrition – think of Somolia or Haiti – is not the issue either now or likely in the future. We do not have a problem with basic nutrition; in fact more of us die from eating too much than too little. We are rich and as long as food is available somewhere in the world, it will be ours, albeit at a higher price when peak oil unfolds.
We have always seemed quite willing to eat well while others go hungry while they watch "our" export food grow in their back yard. I see no evidence that we are inclined to move up the moral ladder to higher ground, especially if we have a crisis. Even if we did move up the moral ladder, or lost import options as a result of oil prices, economic or political instability etc. we are nowhere near having a basic food security problem. When I look at the consumption figures in Canada, it’s pretty clear that by changing our food lifestyle to include less processed grain in the form of meat, dairy, etc., and growing some of our own in our back and front yards, and if we reduced the amount of food we waste, we could be awash in food – especially grain – in one growing season (although we would likely have to develop "adjustment" programs for our dairy, beef and pork farmers, and put more dollars into CIDA to address the international consequences).
Or is it about protecting our "food lifestyle?"
More troubling to me is that some of the comments I hear seem to be about protecting our “food lifestyle,” a lifestyle based on the broadest range of possible choices. This food lifestyle is also highly energy consumptive and very injurious to the environment, land, and farmers in our own country and around the world.
More troubling to me is that some of the comments I hear seem to be about protecting our “food lifestyle,” a lifestyle based on the broadest range of possible choices. This food lifestyle is also highly energy consumptive and very injurious to the environment, land, and farmers in our own country and around the world.
We also seem to want to make sure that we can also have that lifestyle as cheaply as possible. It's more than food lifestyle, it's really lifestyle and food's role in it. Food for many is about status, entertainment, and convenience. Those values are a long way from a value set that would rebuild food and agriculture based on food as an integral part of lifestyle – hobby (gardening), social experience (community gardening, processing), social value (making sure everyone has enough), insurance (investment in food production in case things do go really sideways), and a more general focus on building more resilient regional economies.
Looking in the mirror
Perhaps the food conversation needs to shift focus? Maybe we should be talking less about farmers and agriculture, and more about our personal food lifestyle. This may turn us towards altering our food consumption choices and producing our own food. We need to look in the mirror; we need to look more critically at what is in our shopping carts; and we need to look at our own back (or front) yards, rather than looking across the fence at what farmers are, or are not, growing. That may be a much shorter and more feasible path to food self sufficiency and resiliency.
About the author:
GEORGE PENFOLD is the Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economicsat Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. In 2005 the Real Estate Foundation of BC contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region.
©Real Estate Foundation of BC/ 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.
GEORGE PENFOLD is the Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economicsat Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. In 2005 the Real Estate Foundation of BC contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region.
©Real Estate Foundation of BC/ 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae74f02b-3ab3-4e07-9f90-4b89c05a8caf)
George, I will be meeting with a local transitions group soon - interesting how our interests converge! Happy birthday. Geoff
ReplyDelete