this whole post is based around a comment received on this blog from my good friend pete, who recently moved to london. please see the previous post below (this post should make sense on its own, but will be more valuable probably if you skim over pete’s poignant words).

i have been wondering for some time about whether local eating is the right goal. and wondering if i should change my blog to “the aspirant ethicvore” or something. you see, i’m not sure i believe that striving to eat locally above all else should be the ultimate goal. (shock, horror)

some of my thoughts on this come from an article in the New York Times by James McWilliams (Food That Travels Well, 6 August 2007). the author is a locavore himself, but he cites recent arguments against local eating which say that food miles are not the best indicator of the total carbon dioxide emissions of a product on the shelf in your local supermarket. he cites research by a NZ university (clearly NZ are shitting themselves about the UK’s obsession with food miles and the possible collapse of their export market) which says that UK raised lamb bought in the UK has MORE carbon dioxide emissions over its total life cycle than NZ raised lamb flown to the UK. the main difference is that NZ lamb is pasture raised while UK farmers need to feed grains to theirs… (you can find the article here)

experts are now saying that the concept of ‘food miles’ is oversimplified. (see another article from The Guardian in the UK here). they say that we need to look at the whole life cycle of a product (how it was produced, how it was transported, how it is stored) in order to accurately calculate its carbon footprint.  further complicating issues:

• green beans from kenya (in UK supermarkets): it seems easy, they’re not local, so don’t buy them. BUT they are often grown in very low-tech ways with hand-picking, cow manure etc. british beans may be farmed with chemical fertilisers and pesticides (which use a lot of oil in manufacture and release a lot of carbon dioxide in manufacture, plus they are harmful to other parts of ecosystems)
• you probably emit more carbon dioxide driving to the supermarket than one packet of beans did on its trip over
• the argument goes that if you switch away from the kenyan beans, the kenyan farmers will lose their jobs… (i will counter argue this later)

so, ethical eating is no mean feat. that’s for damn sure. which makes pete’s plea all the more poignant. what SHOULD one’s criteria be for eating ethically? well, i am sure you are all thinking, that depends on what one’s ethics are!!

and you’d be right!!

various ethical criteria:

• never eating animals: vegetarianism or veganism
• least harm to animals: organic meat will most likely be grown under fairly humane conditions. there’s no guarantees in this country that ‘free range’ means anything, so you best go visit the farm if you really wanna know…
• healthy, chemical free food: you’re best going with organically certified or biodynamic produce
• more money going to disadvantaged communities: go with Fair Trade! they make sure that even the farm workers get paid fairly. this is the counter argument i alluded to earlier… in my work and experience, even small farmers who are in the big value chains like the major retailers find it hard to make a living selling to these retailers. so maybe you shouldn’t stop buying those kenyan beans but rather insist that they are Fair Trade beans!! (for this category, it would also help to go to farmers’ markets and buy from the smaller farmers in the area)
• keeping your local economy thriving: buy local produce, seek out farmers’ markets and box schemes
• least harm to the environment: this is where it gets tricky!!! as we have discovered above, there are deeper and deeper levels to this.

 

i have decided to post a set of guidelines suggested by the people from www.locavores.com. remember that they are based in San Fran…

• If not LOCALLY PRODUCED, then Organic. This is one of the most readily available alternatives in the market and making this choice protects the environment and your body from harsh chemicals and hormones.
• If not ORGANIC, then Family farm. When faced with Kraft or Cabot cheeses, Cabot, a dairy co-op in Vermont, is the better choice. Supporting family farms helps to keep food processing decisions out of the hands of corporate conglomeration. (an e.g. in SA would be to pick Camphill Feta rather than Clover cheese)
• If not FAMILY FARM, then Local business. Basics like coffee and bread make buying local difficult. Try a local coffee shop or bakery to keep your food dollar close to home.
• If not a LOCAL BUSINESS, then Terroir, which means ‘taste of the Earth’. Purchase foods famous for the region they are grown in and support the agriculture that produces your favorite non-local foods such as Brie cheese from Brie, France or parmesan cheese from Parma, Italy.
• Hit the farmers’ market before the supermarket. Plan your meal around local ingredients you find at the market.

 

you know guys, this isn’t an easy path to follow. and there’s no point being fanatical about local eating if you’re gonna chow chemically produced food only (which pumps polluting chemicals into the soil and rivers and air, destroying biodiversity etc… and polluting you) and then hop on a weekend flight to JHB every week…

you need to decide what your ethical standpoint is and then follow that as best you can…

so pete… it’s ‘ok’ for you to do whatever you want with your food choices. but we do live in a world of extreme inequality and environmenal crisis and global warming. the things you buy have a massive influence on the future of the world. and they might be one of the most effective ways to ‘make a difference’ in our consumer-driven culture. so pick wisely… and eat and enjoy life with an easy conscience.