On Tuesday January the 5th 2010, The Globe and Mail published an article entitled “GMO is in, local is out: Britain unveils future of food”. This article speaks of Britain’s 20-year food strategy and how it aims to safeguard the food supply of the country, while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint. Reducing the environmental costs will be accomplished via ‘technological innovation’ whereby some experts have interpreted this to mean “introducing GMOs into the country”. According to Hilary Benn, Britain’s secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs, currently Britain is in danger of a reduced food supply due to food practices that have been normalized by consumers including: consumers favouring local foods over imported, rejecting GMO foods, and the use of ‘food miles’ to measure the environmental impact of the food system.
I know what you are thinking, wait a minute, isn’t the local food movement (LFM) considered a good thing?
Some of the purposed benefits of local food markets include benefits to the environment, increase wealth in local economy and personal incomes, and the establishment of a sense of community. It seems that while the LFM concerns itself with environmental practices, critics may argue that a reduction in the miles food travels will not have a large impact on reducing pollution. Currently not much is done to reduce energy spent on other aspects of food system including the harvesting, processing, consuming and recycling stages. While I commend the LFM in making steps to reduce the cost of food our environment bares, what about all the other energy consuming activities? I would like to know more about the efforts in these other sectors.
A LFM may increase jobs and local wealth as well as the economic accessibility of foods to consumers. Controversy may exist in terms of how ethical some of these new jobs are, since farm workers wages often are not regulated by the government (El Contrato, 2003). Some farms contract workers from across the globe and pay them crappy wages to be competitive in today’s market. Thus, an increase in some types of jobs may not actually be in the best interest of human dignity and does not reflect acceptability of the food system. It would be interesting to find out more about where our food is coming from and the labour conditions subjected to the workers, illustrating food choices as a political decision.
While the LFM claims to initiate “community building,” critics argue that current policies of the LFM are not all inclusive and instead foster alienation and racism of individuals within the community. More specifically, an imbalance of power is created when a heterogeneous group, that of white, middle class individuals make decisions for a homogenous population. Most individuals of power in Western society fall within a very specific demographic, white, middle class, as mentioned, thus can they really and truly create an all inclusive community environment? Additionally, individuals may be left out due to lack of city planning for access and the fact that every local market would be limited in the amount of culturally acceptable foods they can provide, thus individuals may feel socially isolated.
Essentially, the LFM has some potential benefits, but it is not without its flaws. A system that speaks to a balance of local food markets and imported foods integrated into the system may be a better strategy in achieving the aforementioned goals of the LFM. Britain’s new hardship, a concern for reduced food supply, speaks to some of the challenges of finding a balance.
I know what you are thinking, wait a minute, isn’t the local food movement (LFM) considered a good thing?
Some of the purposed benefits of local food markets include benefits to the environment, increase wealth in local economy and personal incomes, and the establishment of a sense of community. It seems that while the LFM concerns itself with environmental practices, critics may argue that a reduction in the miles food travels will not have a large impact on reducing pollution. Currently not much is done to reduce energy spent on other aspects of food system including the harvesting, processing, consuming and recycling stages. While I commend the LFM in making steps to reduce the cost of food our environment bares, what about all the other energy consuming activities? I would like to know more about the efforts in these other sectors.
A LFM may increase jobs and local wealth as well as the economic accessibility of foods to consumers. Controversy may exist in terms of how ethical some of these new jobs are, since farm workers wages often are not regulated by the government (El Contrato, 2003). Some farms contract workers from across the globe and pay them crappy wages to be competitive in today’s market. Thus, an increase in some types of jobs may not actually be in the best interest of human dignity and does not reflect acceptability of the food system. It would be interesting to find out more about where our food is coming from and the labour conditions subjected to the workers, illustrating food choices as a political decision.
While the LFM claims to initiate “community building,” critics argue that current policies of the LFM are not all inclusive and instead foster alienation and racism of individuals within the community. More specifically, an imbalance of power is created when a heterogeneous group, that of white, middle class individuals make decisions for a homogenous population. Most individuals of power in Western society fall within a very specific demographic, white, middle class, as mentioned, thus can they really and truly create an all inclusive community environment? Additionally, individuals may be left out due to lack of city planning for access and the fact that every local market would be limited in the amount of culturally acceptable foods they can provide, thus individuals may feel socially isolated.
Essentially, the LFM has some potential benefits, but it is not without its flaws. A system that speaks to a balance of local food markets and imported foods integrated into the system may be a better strategy in achieving the aforementioned goals of the LFM. Britain’s new hardship, a concern for reduced food supply, speaks to some of the challenges of finding a balance.
Very interesting! We touched upon this topic in my food security class last semester.
ReplyDelete