Locally-grown tomatoes? Too cute.
HOW A TOO- CUTE ESTHETIC UNDERMINES THE LOCAL FOOD MOVEMENT’S MESSAGE
After one bite of the carrots I knew I had poisoned my dinner guests. It squished between my teeth like greying hospital meatloaf. An edge of decaying sweetness wedged itself at the back of my throat like a bad lie. “Don’t eat the carrots,” I practically shouted. “I don’t know what happened. I bought them at the farmer’s market yesterday. They’re local.”
The attribute of being pulled out of dirt that was presumably nearby rather than far away served as quiet redemption. Everyone at the table nodded thoughtfully, pushing the carrots to the edges of their plates with a little less fervour. “You know, I have been meaning to go locavore,” a friend announced after she was done exiling the carrots from her plate. “It just seems so much better.”
We are all familiar with the vague selling points of sustainability and community preached at farmers’ markets and luxury grocers. But hearing the word ‘ local’ co- opted as a dietary restriction makes it feel less like a political choice and more like an elite culinary recreation on par with avoiding gluten.
It is admittedly difficult to see the urgency in any message that sits adjacent to heirloom tomatoes and handwoven linen shoulder bags filled with organic kale. But while the movement has been adopted by the yuppies at Wholefoods, its origins are hardly mainstream or glamourous.
In North America the contemporary local food movement began in the 1970s when activists like Alice Waters started working with farmers to serve regionally sourced food at her California restaurant Chez Panisse. In 1981 the term “Sustainable Diets” was introduced into the nutritional lexicon by the Society for Nutrition Education. It was met with criticism from agribusiness and the public alike.
Since then the movement has succeeded in bringing its message to the mainstream. Today everyone from Subway to Chipotle has jumped on board in the form of locally sourced vegetables and meats. “The stuff we’re talking about didn’t exist 25 years ago,” says Debbie Field, former executive director and current special adviser to non-profit food education organization FoodShare. “I spoke in St. John’s, Newfoundland, in 1998 and the mayor of St. John’s said to me, ‘ Debbie, you’re dreaming in technicolour, if you ever think there’s going to be a farmers’ market at city hall in St. John’s like there is in Toronto.’ People used to make fun of me when I talked about farmers’ markets or local food. They thought it was crazy.”
Yet in the rush to brag about eating local, the original activist message seems to have gotten lost.
“The local food movement is more than a cute thing that makes us feel good, it’s about national food security,” says Field. “Where local becomes really i mportant i s when you ask: ‘ How would we eat if we had to sustain ourselves?’ We have to really think about that because the global food supply chain is changing and will continue to change in the coming years.”
Indeed, global demand for food is rising and will continue to rise. The UN predicts the Earth’s population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, while a recent paper in Harvard Business Review found crop yields are increasing too slowly to meet the forecasted demand. In addition to an increased demand, food producers will also have to deal with climate-change-driven agricultural problems.
Developing communities that can produce enough calories to sustain themselves is critical in dealing with a changing global food supply. Buying local food supports local farmers, which allows them to keep their jobs and stay on the land. This helps build self-sustaining communities that do not have to rely on food imports, which will likely become unreliable in the future.
But the local food movement is not only about being able to produce enough calories during times of environmental upheaval; it’s also about ensuring adequate nutrition for all. Researchers at the Global Alliance for Improved Food Nutrition have estimated that over two billion people currently suffer from micronutrient deficiencies as a result of being overfed with too much nutrient-void food.
A landmark study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition found food from local, organic farms is more nutrient- dense than its conventional counterpart. But even more importantly in the fight against hunger, supporting local business has also been shown to fight poverty by creating jobs and boosting economies. In yet another paper published in Harvard Business Review, researchers found regional economic growth is highly correlated with the presence many small, regional businesses instead of a few large ones.
Properly maintained farmland also plays a critical role in preserving natural ecosystems. A paper authored by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies found that well-managed soil sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and stops soil erosion. This protects natural habitats since topsoil that is carried off through wind and rain often leads to sedimentation of rivers, lakes, oceans and coral reefs.
The l ocal food movement began with the i ntention of preserving farmland and natural ecosystems while supplying communities with nutritious food. Although the message has since been buried in futile buzzwords and vegetables arranged in the shape of a heart, these are still the movement’s intentions.
Supporting sustainable agriculture is often more expensive than buying conventionally produced food. Yet unlike caviar and foie gras, we can’t afford to continue viewing local food as just another luxury product. Nor should we see it as a frivolous fad diet cloaked in vague promises of good. Once you are able to see past the heirloom tomatoes, there is only one way to look at it: those who can afford to support local farms can’t afford not to.