Emory Wants 75% of Its Food to Be Local by 2015
Decatur Metro | September 27, 2008 | 10:13 amCL reports on Emory’s ambitious, new sustainable food initiative that’s end goal is to buy 75% local by 2015.
That’s an extraordinary percentage, especially in winter (more root vegetables anyone?)…but hey, I’m not the expert.
Regardless, its great to see such a huge establishment sign onto the slow/local food movement.
Though some may mistaken this sustainable food thing as just the next fad in the endless waves of new “diets”, in reality its much larger than that. As long as China and India continue to use more and more oil, raising oil (and food) prices to new highs, AND people worry about the effects on the environment, a good percentage of folks will continue to turn to local foods in an effort reduce their own carbon footprints and support the local economy.
Sorry to go all Bill McKibben on everyone, but I just wanted to say “cheers!” to Emory for being so forward thinking in this area. Perhaps such a huge commitment will help revive one of the rarest elements of the modern landscape: the local farm.
Related Posts:
-
April 21, 2015 New York Times Gives Decatur Some Love (24)
-
April 23, 2015 Jeni’s Closing All Ice Cream Shops Temporarily Due to Listeria Risk (18)
-
February 23, 2010 Your Great-Grandmother Thinks You’re Crazy (24)
During World War II, American citizens grew 40% of our nation’s food right in their backyards. We can do it again, folks, and take back control of our food and our health.
How is a two parent working household going to tend a farm?
Eating locally is a nice idea in some respects, but I wonder how many people really want to live this way when they think about it. For one thing, holding fast to that idea would pretty much mean we need to shut down the Brick Store. Certainly we can live without all that Belgian and other imported beer, right? And all the beers shipped from Oregon, California, Delaware (bye bye Dogfish Head) etc. Not to mention virtually every drop of wine we drink. Will we all be willing to drink Chateu Elan’s plonk instead?
Also say goodbye to bananas, pineapples — well, heck, about 3/4 of the produce that’s for sale at this very minute at the YDFM. Since we are hours from the Ocean, saltwater fish will be off our menus, leaving, I suppose, only catfish and trout.
I am not suggesting that thinking of ways to be environmentally sensitive is not important. It is. I am just saying that a real commitment to this kind of “local” consumption will suck in practice. There are lots of ways to use less oil. It seems to me that radically restricting the variety of our diets is one of the last we should persue.
Emory actually hosted Barbara Kingsolver just over a year ago promoting Animal, Vegetable, Mineral (her family’s experience eating locally for a full year) and mentioned this during the introduction.
Those interested in the relationship between food miles and ecological should read this study (link below). It suggests that reducing consumption of red meat will have far greater impact on one’s ecological footprint than will eating locally. Its an interesting idea and one that that Cattlemen’s Association is not likely to be happy about! And, Left Wing, it means that maybe you and your partner dont have to start a farm to reduce your footprint.
Here’s the link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31673/title/It%E2%80%99s_the_meat_not_the_miles
I think eating locally produced foods is an interesting idea, but it would be impossible to do 100%. We have been introduced to too many other types of foods and cultures to solely rely and be happy with what can be found here in Atlanta. Although I think if someone owned a home in the area and had enough room in their backyard to make a little plot of tilled land, it would be nice if people could produce some of their own veggies and such. Even if you were a two working parent household, it could be maintained and also teach your children how some foods are produced. Foods that come out of our garden still taste better (and are probably better for you) than what can be retrieved at the Dekalb Farmers Market. I know most of their customers don’t get to stroll through the Business Services are…it’s kinda scary. And that smell you can smell out front is 10x worse back there. Yuck.
Good points and concerns DEM…but I’m certainly not shooting for a 100% goal. As you’ve pointed out, there are many foods that people will refuse to live without , but there’s an awful lot that can be switched out for local with little to no change (except where you buy it).
And I respectfully disagree in terms of food being one of the final things that must be addressed in terms of energy. Our food and transportation infrastructures are the biggest energy hogs out there. From all the oil-based fertilizer and pesticides used to grow ALL non-organic foods, to the cost to transport them 1,500 miles (the average that every piece of food travels to your dinner plate), food is as linked to oil today as our automobiles.
That’s why the slow food movement is so darn powerful. Not only does it cause us to slow down, support the local economy, eat healthier, but it also uses a lot less energy. And any improvement from 0% should be championed and promoted in my book.
I agree on oil based fertilizers, and of course transporting food requires energy. And I am not sure of this, but I’d think that millions of us transporting ourselves to workevery day in our own cars uses up a lot more oil than truckloads of lettuce, etc., being sent around the country. I don’t really know the relative consumption aptterns, so I open to being corrected. At any rate, if oil gets as expensive as some think it will, this problem will start to take care of itself. It won’t take much to make it unprofitable to ship radishes to Maine from California.
Here’s another article that discusses why local food doesn’t always mean a lower carbon footprint. See: http://www.conbio.org/CIP/article30813.cfm
DEM, true that the market will help the trend, but it would take care of itself a lot faster if the federal government gave a little of the massive corn and soybean subsidies to the local farmers instead. Also, when I’ve got a little more time I’ll try to dig up some figures on food vs. people transport.
Kristin, thanks for the link…but I’m a little confused. The article cites a study that argues that OJ concentrate flown from Brazil to Eurupe eats up less fuel than a farmer driving 100 liters of apple juice to a farmers market. Um…ok. But why isn’t this an apples-to-apples (all puns intended) comparison? Why are we comparing an unspecified amount of OJ concentrate to 100 liters of apple juice? Doesn’t that seem a bit off? And am I supposed to value locally grown apple juice the same as OJ concentrate?
Additionally, the article assumes that the farmer is shipping a “small quantity” of goods. But what if he’s hauling to capacity and getting a similar food/gas ratio? Even if he’s not, Well, then the only difference is that trans-Atlantic plane flight for the OJ. I’
To me, it smells like a study funded by the food industry…huge build up (is eating locally a hoax?) and little pay off (one vague, rather boldly far-fetched study).
I get that its a nuanced argument….that there could be rather unique and extreme circumstances where buying locally wouldn’t be reducing your carbon footprint (if we want to ignore all the other benefits I noted above) but if 99.9% of the time it does, I’ll take those odds.
Oakie – Interesting comparison. Meat definitely has its own, unique set of problems…and not eating it might be another way reduce carbon footprint. I think the two ideas are complementary, not at odds with each other.
The last time I tried growing a few vegetables and fruits, the squirells and racoons found a new dinner table. Any suggestions to keep away our urban critters?
This discussion is taking something nuanced and complex and reducing it to a single issue — carbon footprint reduction. It’s a mistake. While it’s important to keep one’s eye on the long-term environmental goal line, so to speak, carbon footprint reduction is not the reason to take on the challenges — and joys — of eating locally today.
As An Inconvenient Truth made clear, it’s easy to make small reductions in your carbon footprint — just look at the “lightbulb movement” — but it’s hard to make large ones. Why? Because our systems are designed for maximum production with minimum human input, which is predicated on the availability of cheap energy. All things considered, it’s a system that has served us fairly well for almost a century, especially in terms of food affordability, choice and the reduction of poverty on a global level.
Unfortunately, it’s also a system that’s coming to an end. We need not debate whether or not oil will last 20, 50, 100 or 200 years. The only reality we need to concern ourselves with today is that the era of *cheap* energy is closing. As global demand skyrockets, the price will continue to rise. That’s a fact.
So we pay a bit more? Big deal. Well, it is a big deal because, in the course of feasting on the fruits of petro-agriculture and inexpensive transportation, we literally dismantled the entire system of production, distribution and consumption on a local or regional scale. The infrastructure and human networks are essentially gone. So that’s what this is all about: getting consumers to change habits that *increase demand* and create a viable environment for all the previously existing economic interdependencies to reform. For more farmers to enter the niche; for them to reconnect with distribution networks; for more retail shelf space to be devoted to local foods; and for more farmer’s markets and CSAs to spring up.
All of these key steps are demand driven. If demand grows, local systems will become stronger. Once they do, the playing field will level and local food consumption will stop being a semi-sacrificial act. It will be able to fully compete on the same basis as any other food: taste, choice, nutrition, convenience, etc.
Furthermore, we won’t have to wait for a global energy meltdown to start addressing the weaknesses of relying on a single system. If the crap hits the fan and we’re diversified in our food networks, we won’t suffer nearly as much.
Sorry for the long post. We just need people to stop thinking of whether or by how much eating local is reducing one’s footprint. It’s not the task at hand. At the level of consumer, it should not be thought of as a small environmental act. It should be thought of as a large economic one.
I enjoy trying to grow some food but find it tough, so I’m glad I don’t depend on it!
Industrialization has led to food production efficiencies that make it cheaper to buy produce than to grow it (at least for my small garden). I would be better off buying the produce and volunteering my time, but I enjoy attempting to garden.
Demand (i.e., willingness to pay) will have to grow significantly for local produce to become viable on a larger scale. Essentially people will have to over pay for produce grown locally, for crops the local climate does not support efficiently producing in the current marketplace.
DM-I think that the study was referring to the fact that Orange Juice is not produced in enough quantity in Europe to make a good reference? That’s how I took it…
And Scott, using An Incovenient Truth to argue about carbon footprint reminds me of those who screamed worldwide catastrophe at the release of Ehrlich’s Population Bomb. It smacks of hubris. Erhlich was revered by the left and is still held in high regard even though all of his predictions have been discredited. Why?
I understand that we need to change certain habits, and you make some good points. However, IMHO, the problem with making blanket statements regarding the death of the current oil based production infrastructure is that it is based on today’s technologies. What happens if some kid designs a way to burn oil more cleanly and cheaply? What is an oil field is found with new technologies that is so big it could provide a country with enough oil for 100 years? 200 years? 400 years?
Think about the fact that we can produce so much food these days that we started BURNING it to use for fuel! Note to future generations….DON’T BURN FOOD! Decatur Metro, you are right on when you mention the subsidies that are given to farmers that run large farm conglomerates from their penthouses in Manhattan. A friend of mine told me that due to this whole idiotic ethanol craze, that farms were producing so much corn that excess supply would sit outside of silos in the midwest and just rot. They made so much they couldn’t even burn it. He was shocked when he drove by farm after farm and saw the same thing one time on a sales trip.
So that’s what this is all about: getting consumers to change habits that *increase demand* and create a viable environment for all the previously existing economic interdependencies to reform. For more farmers to enter the niche; for them to reconnect with distribution networks; for more retail shelf space to be devoted to local foods; and for more farmer’s markets and CSAs to spring up.
=============
So in other words, you want to assume that oil will rise in price to the point that food can’t be transported long distances at a profit without large price increases, that no other form of energy will take its place, and, based on this string of assumptions, substantially alter the markets for food in a way that the market will not currently support?
A couple clarification, if I may, Left Wing.
There’s no hubris in pointing out that someone made a clear case for the entirely non-controversial idea that small contributions taken collectively can add up. An Inconvenient Truth may have had detractors taking issue with the larger scientific claims — and I quite deliberately stayed out of that discussion — but, come on, saying that loads of people changing their light bulbs can make a notable contribution now qualifies as arrogant?
Second, I also very deliberately didn’t inject the far more debatable subject of the death of oil production. What I suggested is the far more accepted notion that, regardless of the specifics, the price of energy ain’t comin’ down. That has economic consequences that can be better offset by diversification of our models.
I agree that we can always wish for the “what if”. Optimism is always appreciated. But we also gotta play the hand we hold today. Given that all I really said is that it’s a bad idea to put all your factory-farm eggs in one basket, are you suggesting that it’s not?
Left Wing…my issue with the “new technologies” argument is that you still haven’t resolved the issue of a capitalist China and India…who everyday are using more energy per person. If either country even approached using the amount of energy the US does, we’d be screwed.
Also, can you clarify again what you took out of the OJ article? I’m still a bit unclear as to what you got out of it. To me, the article was just baffling.
DEM, I’m not assuming all those things will happen any more than the, uhhhh, spirited tone of your question suggests you’re assuming they won’t.
I’m looking at and evaluating current trends in the context of how markets work. You’re probably doing the same and arriving at different conclusions. Time will tell.
OK…India….we allow all Indian students to become citizens after they graduate from a US school.
China, we stop buying anything made in China. There….it’s solved
Seriously though, necessity is the mother of all invention. Someone will invent a new energy source. It just has to be done. I suppose my optimism in the ingenuity of the human race trumps all here.
I will get back to you on the OJ thing
Scott…sometimes tone doesn’t come across well in blogs. I apologize for any offense levied. Now for the lightbulb thing, that is something that has a cause and effect. I don’t know if most people are aware, but here is what you have to do to dispose of one of those bad boys:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
Thanks, Left Wing. I suppose I figgered as much. And your mercury link makes, probably, the most important point of all: These challenges that confront us are not black and white. We must pursue smart ways to overcome them but we also need to always acknowledge that, whatever path we take, there will be benefits but there will also be consequences.
It’s like sitting down with an attorney. They don’t come out and tell you what you should do, as though there was a magic bullet solution. They simply tell you what your options are. Reasoned debate starts there.
Scott, sorry if the tone came across wrong — I have a bad habit of that. I honestly don’t know what our energy situation will be 5-10 years out. No one does. Because of that, I am not a big supporter of upending the way we grow, transport and buy food right now. I tend to think that if we can’t get food from CA to GA at a profit, then a local infrastructure will build itself up here very quickly. It’s hard to say what will happen, of course, because government so distorts the market for all kinds of food that we are not, even now, governed by true market principles in this area, and it is very unlikely that we will ever be, since every presidential candidate has to promise the moon — read: our tax dollars — to Iowa every 4 years.
No worries, DEM. To be clear on one thing: I definitely was not suggesting swapping out the current model for a new one. That’s no more diversified than where we are now. I’m talking about encouraging the two models to operate in tandem so that we’re better positioned to take on changing circumstances, however they might shake out.
If (I might say “when”) the time comes that our energy situation begins making petro-agriculture and transcontinental shipping less cost viable, we won’t find ourselves scrambling to deal with it. We can ramp up one model while ramping down the other.
We’ve seen how a modest disruption to gas delivery has rippled through Atlanta. Imagine if the same thing happened to food and there was no where else to get it. It’ll suck either way but I opt for at least sucking less.
It’s funny,so many people who believe in God don’t believe in global warming.
Global warming isn’t something we’re supposed to believe in. Either the science supports it or it doesn’t.
Global Warming is the religion of the left…at least, as a Democrat who is not on the fringe, that’s what I think:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
For those of you interested in the “eat less meat” movement, check out the PB&J Campaign here: http://pbjcampaign.org/
Lots of info on this topic.
Left Wing,
Crichton also did a speech to the national press club a few years ago where he exposed a lot of nonsense in a IPCC report that, had it been given more attention, would have revealed to the public just how flimsy the basis was for a lot of the IPCC’s conclusions.
Such as?
I wouldn’t trust the UN any farther than I could throw one of the tinpot dictators who give speeches there.
Chris, pretty sure the speech is still on his official site.