The Hundred Mile Diet series on The Tyee has had its second installment posted, this time on the subject of trying to find chicken eggs that are not only from local organically farmed sources, but also fed from local feed – as the authors discovered, most of the organic chicken in the lower mainland is getting their feed from Alberta.
There are two items I will comment on.
One is from the article itself where the authors state:
“The strange fact is that vegetarianism as commonly practiced is, like the rest of the industrial food system, propped up by the globalization of food and everything that it entails, including a total disconnection between food consumers and producers, and the cataclysmic ecological costs of shipping food around the world.”
The statement from the article is actually several ideas rolled up into one, but let’s begin with the idea that shipping food around the world has “cataclysmic ecological costs”. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have here a fine example of hyperbole.
We live in a highly urbanized society, and the fact is that almost everything we city-dwellers wish to buy has to be transported to us; this is accomplished, shockingly enough, through some combination of rail, truck, and airplane!
It should then come as no surprise that there is a disconnection between consumers and producers. I live in an urban part of Vancouver, a block or so away from a nexus of busy streets (one of which is a trucking route) and Skytrain. The main reason I have any connection to what I eat is that I am passionate about food. I take the time and effort to make wise food choices.
In terms of the ecological shipping costs, the solution lies in educating and informing the public, and putting our money where our mouths are. I generally don’t shop at Safeway since most of their produce comes from the US; but this also begs the question of whether it is ok or not to buy hothouse tomatoes in February. Is it?
It’s all well and good to ask the questions the authors asking, but it seems to me they are taking a good idea to its unreasonable extreme.
The other item is from a commentator who goes by the handle Fiat Lux who responded to the article with the opening salvo:
“Trade is a necessary fact of life, but commerce for profits is not trade.”
Our societal model is based in no small part on the writings of the philosopher John Locke. Two of the tenets put forth by Locke are the notions of the earth held in common and the right to private property. This may seem to be contradictory at first, but they are actually complementary. The second notion, of private property, is of key importance to this discussion.
If I am a manufacturer of widgets, then I want to trade the product of my labour, widgets, for goods and services I need. As a civilization, we long ago created a very cool tool called money! I sell my widgets for money, and I spend money to buy what I want.
Ah, but then we have to address the notion of commerce for profit.
If trade is a necessary part of life, but profit is bad, then I should only make as many widgets as I need to sell to meet my needs and break even. This is ridiculous. Perhaps there is a great need of widgets and I have the capacity to fill that need. Why then should I not make as many widgets as I can sell and then keep the “profit” of my labours (being the difference between what I have earned from selling my widgets and spending on my needs)? That, my friends, is trade.
Now I return to Locke’s notion that we own the earth in common. We do. We all need to live on this fragile planet and share the resources. The best way we can do that is make sensible choices about the resources we use to minimize our impact. This includes trying whenever reasonable and possible to buy food that’s local, seasonal, fresh and raised in a sustainable manner. This includes both organic and traditional agricultural methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment