The Economic Argument For Local Food?
Decatur Metro | July 23, 2010Creative Loafing just put up a post on Fresh Loaf about a new University of Georgia’s Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development study, which asserts that if every Georgia household spent $10 on Georgia-grown produce that it would pump $1.9 billion a year back into the state economy.
Ah yes, the old “something for nothing” assumption.
Correct me if I’m wrong – and I know you will – but while I have been, and continue to be, a vocal and passionate supporter of local food, I can’t put much credence into a purely economic study. It may be a great PR piece, but while attempting to simplify the impact of locally grown and purchased produce on the state economy, it seems to undermine itself.
How?
Because it makes one unstated assumption: while Georgia would entirely devote itself to locally grown produce, no other states would. What happens if every other state does the same thing as Georgia? How adversely affected would the peach, peanut and Vidalia onion industry be if other states spent more money locally? Would these two behavioral patterns cancel out the other’s economic impact?
My point is NOT to defend corporate agriculture, but simply to suggest that the argument for more local food on the dinner plate must be more holistic, and that the case for it may actually be weakened when viewed in a vacuum of “economy”.
The impact of local food can’t be reduced to simple revenue. The argument just doesn’t play out. (Unless you currently live in a state with no agriculture economy. Even then, your actions will hurt the economies of the big exporting states.)
Local food is about supporting your neighbor instead of a corporate farm, which in turn supports improved working conditions on farms. It’s about health and taste. It’s about the impact on the environment. It’s about creating a food production model that’s a bit more flexible than the current version, which is solely reliant on a single variable – inexpensive energy – in order to keep feeding the population.
Local food is about a lot of things. A state’s economy may just not be one of them.
It’s about creating a food production model that’s a bit more flexible than the current version, which is solely reliant on a single variable – inexpensive energy – in order to keep feeding the population.
_______________
If this were true, you would not need to worry about “creating” a new food production model. It would come about naturally when energy prices rise. And since it is a near-universal belief that fossil fuels are not renewable/sustainable, then energy prices are absolutely certain to increase over time, correct? Eventually — many say soon — they’ll reach the tipping point, and it won’t be cost effective to grow something in California and ship it to Georgia (or Nevada, for that matter). Maybe it won’t be cost effective to ship a Vidialia onion to Atlanta.
As for this being about health and taste, local food is a sure loser, long term. As a movement, anyway. We get extreme amounts of pleasure from foods that can’t be grown here. Take them away, and the best local peanuts, pecans, etc., won’t make up the difference. And then you have things we can grow here but which taste like crap when grown in this climate. Think Chateau Elan wines. Anyone want a cellar full of that plonk, while Californians enjoy Stag’s Leap? I’ll take the non-local Cabernet, thank you. By the way, does any serious brewer use Georgia-grown hops? I think most come from Washington state.
Not to say local is bad. Often, it’s great. But that is hardly so in all cases. I for one am very glad that food can be grown thousdands of miles away and be sent here cost effectively. I hope it never ends.
Regarding your first paragraph, perhaps “creating” wasn’t the right word. How about “encouraging”?
Who’s to say the movement today isn’t natural? It may not be driven currently by more expensive energy, but by people’s dissatisfaction with many of the products shipped long distances and produced with synthetic fertilizers.
And I personally would rather have a food system in place for when oil prices rise that can fare the storm, rather than have a scramble to feed the population. I suppose it depends on how fast it all happens.
Regarding the other paragraph, I whole-hardedly agree with your opinion that local food is great is some but not all cases. Wine – as you mentioned – and coffee, along with many other items are best when grown in other climates. But I don’t envision a world where everyone only eats local food. There are plenty of opportunities where we can grow, harvest and consume a food locally today, that we aren’t. That’s the stuff we should focus on. IF we ever get to a point where someone would be faced with giving up coffee, that will be a purely economic decision based on the cost of energy.
Here’s a stat I’d like to know:
If someone goes to Publix or Kroger and spends $100 on one week worth of groceries/supplies for a family of four (a typical mixture of produce, meats, bread, packaged foods and dry goods), how many dollars of that purchase is spent, on average, on items grown or produced in Georgia?
DM, I like and agree with all of your points. But, you’ve got to remember that making the economic development case for something is what convinces a whole host of people, including state officials and representatives, that a particular path is the right one for the state. I’m sure Georgia Organics and the other report sponsors are well aware of this. Don’t be surprised if the report is used to make requests for funding through the state legislature during the next session.
An excellent point JC.
Ultimately, what an initiative is truly about and how it must interact with real world hurdles will often clash. But I still worry that the other side of this particular coin is too obvious not to invoke criticism from skeptical lawmakers, thereby ultimately hurting any longer term effort.
I’m not sure how Georgia Organics would feel about my criticism, but I’d hope they’d see it as constructive.
Well, a skeptical law maker might point out the obvious possibilities of economic action like this back-firing, but I strongly doubt it. Many of our state’s economic development initiative involve competing against other states, including recruiting and attracting companies, film production and tourists. When NCR decided to relocate to from Ohio to Gwinnett County, I highly doubt state officials discussed the fact that this might piss Ohio off and force them to try and poach our companies in the future, mainly because Ohio would, and will, do this regardless of NCR’s decision.
I better stop now before I go off on a rant about our state’s foresight, but needless to say, backlash by others is not a priority.
(again, as a proponent of local food, myself)
I agree that when I heard that myself on the radio, I was confused (and I haven’t read the study itself)…
so there’s that much local produce that isn’t being sold, or how would they make that extra money? By producing more? And that’s determining that buying from Publix or Kroger pumps less money into the local economy (balancing out jobs, etc)? I’d hope the study explained all of that, since both reports I’d seen covering the study didn’t explain HOW it would generate more revenue.