Home » Featured, practice & resistance

The Revolutionary Table (aka living la vida local)

Submitted by Mark Van Steenwyk on January 11, 2010 – 4:40 pmView Comments
Print This Post

I’m a foodie. I love the artistic challenge of whipping up a complicated-to-make dish that tastes deceptively simple. I seldom meet an ingredient I don’t love. In early 21st Century America, it is easy to be a foodie. Whenever I walk into the grocery store, even in the middle of a Minnesota winter, I can find fresh produce from around the world. While it is below freezing outside, I can make chicken tostadas with a mango pineapple salsa for myself, my family, and my friends.

So, while I love the wondrous variety of food that is available to me, I recognize that few things demonstrate globalization and Empire more than food. Global consumption of tomatoes, potatoes, and chocolate began with the conquest of the Americas (that’s right, folks…potatoes come from Latin America, not Ireland). When a region is conquered by an Empire, food and culture and people are used for the benefit of that Empire. The next time you’re at your favorite ethnic restaurant, stop and consider how it was that THIS cuisine ended up on your plate.

In the case of food, consumption is more than a metaphor. We consume foods from around the world at low costs because of the vast and deep practices of global consumer capitalism. A mango farmer in a warm climate (the mangos for my salsa probably come from Mexico) is paid poorly for a crop that is shipped thousands of miles. The industrialization of the process and the underpayment of workers allows me the ability to eat tasty mangos for about a buck each.

That might seem awesome to you. I mean, who wouldn’t enjoy the ability to use virtually any product from any part of the world whenever desired for prices that are cheap. But at what cost? Ours is a system–driven by an “agricultural industrial complex“–separates consumers from producers through a complicated, price-driven chain of processors, manufacturers, packagers, shippers, and retailers. As this complex grows, well, more complex, the middle links of that chain have increasing control over the quality and price of food. In the end, growers are paid as poorly as possible and consumers are kept increasingly in the dark about the quality and morality of their food.

So while “first-world” consumers benefit from low prices, we are becoming dependent upon a complex system of controlled foods. Meanwhile, the rest of the worlds social and economic fabric is being re-woven to accommodate our tastes. One documented example is the introduction of nile perch into Lake Victoria as a cash crop for primarily European consumers. In this case, the introduction of the nile perch has caused ecological disruption to other native species. Meanwhile, local fishing economies have been redirected towards foreign trade. There is, in hundreds of such examples, a dark side to globalization. When regional food production is redirected to foreign trade, a region is unable to provide for its own food needs. And, instead of self-sufficient economies, a nation ends up dependent upon cash crops that come close to enslaving them (rather than providing the oft-promised means of entering into prosperity).

I believe one ethical way forward is to reboot our relationship with our food. Besides growing one’s own food, an ethical consumer can limit their consumption to their local region. Buy local produce during the harvest seasons, learn to can some food, dry some food, freeze other food. And, for special occasions or in those times when buying a particular crop can be done ethically with minimal links in the production chain, buy certain kinds of produce, grains, coffee beans, tea, etc.

The challenge to this approach, of course, is the difficulty of “de-complexifying” the production chain. In other words, we need to learn what crops are actually local, find ways to purchase them locally, and relearn food preservation skills.

And that is the reason for this article. Here are nifty web-based resources that will help make this process a bit easier. So, dig in:

  1. Want to know what’s fresh in your area? Check out this interactive map from Epicurious.
  2. Want to recover the lost art of canning? Here’s some basic info along with a growing list of recipes.
  3. Want to explore other forms of food preservation (like drying or smoking)? Here’s info from the National Center for Home Food Preservation.
  4. Want to find a local farmer to buy from directly? Here’s a site that has a list of local organic farms.
  5. Want to start your own garden? Here’s a starter guide.
  6. Want to keep it organic? Check this out.
  7. One of the best ways to keep your food purchases local is to learn how to cook with what you have. Many websites have a search-by-ingredients feature. Allrecipes.com (which is one a few sites I visit for recipes) has such a feature here.

Anything you’d add to the list?

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.

  • Frugality is central to the Christian ethic. We work not to consume more, but to have more to share. And growing one’s own food can be a good way to be more frugal. Buying locally is also sometimes more frugal than buying imported foods, but not always.
    You claim that our system separates consumers from producers through a complicated, price-driven chain, and that as this grows more complex, the middle links of that chain have increasing control over the quality and price of food. But only one set of people control prices: consumers. The price of a good is not determined by summing up all the costs of inputs used in the production of that good. No, the process works the other way around. When a consumer expresses their willingness to pay for a good potential producers try to find a way to get that good to market at a cost less than the expressed willingness to pay. If they can’t do it, the good is not produced.
    Some people have a willingness to pay $20 for a lobster. I don’t. My willingness to pay is closer to $4. This in part is determined by my decision to live frugally and not to spend more than $4 on a lobster when I can get beef for about the same price. If the lobstermen and the middle men can get lobsters to market for less than $4 in costs, then I will get the lobster. Lately, this is sometimes possible, but usually not.
    This is important for readers of this blog to understand because a great deal of the understanding of economics is based on a mistaken “labor theory of value,” which is the foundation for arguments of worker exploitation.
    In the end we are all paid as little as possible, which encourages us each to be more productive. But we also pay as little as possible. Again, this encourages others to work hard and be more frugal.
    By choosing to buy more locally, you leave the 3rd world agricultural producer with no market for his goods. He ends up poorer! This is not your objective.
    The competitive market process works well at increasing the well being of all participants, so long as there is no privilege, no extortion, and no fraud. These come, not from middlemen, corporations, or traders, they come from governments. Governments impose tariffs, trade barriers, and immigration quotas. Even where privilege, extortion, and fraud are present, the market process produces the best results available. We need to direct our efforts, not at the process which is helping, but at the institutions, the powers and principalities, which have risen up against voluntary free exchange. These are most often embodied in the state.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    If consumers controlled prices, food would be free, particularily if the consumers on food stamps with mouths to feed controlled prices.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    I don't know about you, but I've never been encouraged to work harder when I was being paid as little as possible...By that argument, slaves must feel encouraged to work REALLY hard since they're being paid next to nothing!
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    One last note, if things are in their proper balance, the third world farmer shouldn't need a market for goods. Those goods can be traded locally and can go to feed the farmer's family and fellow community members. That way, the farmer can work less, spend more time with family, and spend more time doing other things like weaving baskets or making other goods needed around the house/community. This is how the Zapatistas mainly operate. They distribute goods and services locally so that everyone has enough. They have little need to ship most of their goods around the world. By buying locally, I'm enabling a world wherein people will be able to sell/trade their stuff locally, wherever they live and I'm discouraging a system which forces a farmer to work insane hours in order to supply an international demand, thereby not having enough time to grow his or her own food and forcing said farmer to become dependent on the foreign trade which cripples that very same farmer in the first place.
  • gregjarrell
    Thanks, Mark. Good local food grown with care for creation in mind is something that has come to mean a great deal to me personally, and to our community to some extent. The complexity of the corporate food chain has been traced out in a lot of detail in several places (a good introduction might be Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma), and one of the ironies of that chain is that the cheapest food-like substances available are actually expensive to produce, but are propped up by subsidies. That leaves our neighbors in the strange position where having good vegetables or fruits, which would grow abundantly in their own yards, is almost luxury, while highly refined sugars and corn derivatives are readily available. I've been thinking for a while that growing our own food, and teaching our kids and our neighbors' kids to do the same, is one important way to escape the weight of the empire, which is poisoning us with high fructose corn syrup. Thanks for the good links.
  • Dany
    Some good ideas here. For a more thorough analysis (i.e. in order to understand way more of the mechanisms linked to the production and consumption of global food), I highly recommend Food for Beginners by Susan George and Nigel Paige. It looks like it's going out of print, so now's the time to grab a second hand copy.
  • Hey Mark, Brilliant thoughts! I would love to feature this article on the Sustainable Traditions blogazine. We would give you credit and a link back to the article. All I would need is a one sentence bio from you. Let me know if you're interested. -shalom! jason [at] sustainabletraditions [dot] com
  • Sure: Mark Van Steenwyk is a grassroots educator, part of Missio Dei (an intentional community in Minneapolis), and an editor at JesusManifesto.com.
  • Thanks Mark! I'll let you know when it's up. Should be this week. -shalom!
  • A few of my friends are living and working on an organic farm in Ventura County CA, owned by an Episcopal priest and her husband. They are keeping a blog of their journey with this project and it hits on many of the topics of this post as well as immigration and intentional community. Here's the link: http://abundanttableorganicfarming.blogspot.com/
  • mariakirby
    There are three resources I would recommend in addition to what Mark has linked. The first is a book called Gaia’s Garden. It teaches you how to grow your garden using permaculture methods. Permaculture methods imitate the way nature grows avoiding the problems of traditional agriculture in terms of erosion and water usage. It also make more use of plant communities so that organic methods of fertilizing and pest management are more effective.
    http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Guide-Home-S...

    The second book I would recommend is Bringing Nature Home. This book is written from an entomologist’s point of view and gives a well documented and well reasoned argument as to the importance of indigenous species for the stability of our ecosystems. At the end it has lists of indigenous shrubs and trees according to region, many of which produce edible fruits or nuts. Even if you live in an apartment and don’t grow anything, I would encourage you to know what indigenous species are in your region so that when you go to the store you can buy those foods over non-native foods. The more we purchase indigenous foods, the greater the demand for indigenous species, the more farmers will plant indigenous species, and the more stable our ecosystems will be.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881929921/ref...

    The third book I would recommend is Identifying and Harvesting Edible and Medicinal Plants in Wild (and not so wild) Places by Steve Brill. He is a naturalist who has given tours of Central Park in NY showing people what they can eat that grows wild both in the city and the countryside. At the back of his book are a collection of recipes using the wild plants he identified. If we expand our epicurean sensibilities, we have the potential to be better stewards of the earth –not only by encouraging the growth of plants we like to eat and which are good for the environment, but by consuming the plants that are growing where they don’t belong.
    http://www.amazon.com/Identifying-Harvesting-Ed...
  • I think there are arguments to be made for 'long-distance ingredients', particularly as there is often a significant disconnect between what folks consider truly local, or truly organic, or what have you and what they actually eat and purchase...

    ...that said, I think the idea of changing ourselves, our orientations and understandings of food, as with everything else (economics, relationships, community, spirituality, etc) is a good one. Tools and resources like what you have listed are the first piece; having examples and mentors is another.

    I've got land that I could make into a garden, but it requires several other not-insignificant things first...but it's a process, and one that I'm working through, albeit slowly.

    Thanks for the links, and for the example.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    I'd be interested in hearing what arguments can be made for 'long distance ingredients...'
  • Most people who talk about local food with me haven't really given it more than cursory thought. If you live in a city center apartment block, what constitutes 'local'? Farms within a half hour drive? Farms within an hour drive? Do you meet each other half way? If it's in-state is it good? What about stuff two states over?

    What if it's the Arctic? We lived there when I was a kid, and we had a very 'green' way of getting our groceries; one barge up the Mackenzie river, twice a year. In Kuwait pre-oil, they had to take their ships up to Iraq just to get fresh water every couple of weeks, as desalination was impractical and there was nothing else they could use.

    Finally, the economics of efficiency come into play with much of it. Project BLT illustrates it well (http://onehungrychef.freewebhostx.com/blt/), but so does this article [http://skepticblog.org/2009/05/28/the-fallacy-of-locally-grown-produce/].

    So, while I understand and empathize with the ideological frameworks that support locavorism, it's hardly a blanket solution; but it has far more play than I think people give it credit for right now, so I'm all for it, as long as we stay honest about what it can and cannot accomplish.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    I'm still unclear what the arguments are for 'long distance ingredients." If I buy an apple from the co-op that was grown just 30 minutes away on a small, family run, organic farm, I'm supporting local agriculture and putting less pollution into the air than if I buy an apple grown 10 states away from where I live. It seems that simple to me. I try to buy food within a 100 mile radius of where I live...I know that's a somewhat arbitrary number, but it's something to start with and I know that it give me enough range to have a healthy variety of foods, while still not going too far out to get them. I don't meet the farmer half-way, the farmer bring the food either to a co-op or another central drop off point in my city (as CSA drop-off, just two blocks from my house). Also, growing a significant portion of food in one's own yard or in a nearby community garden which one can walk to puts less pollution in the air having the food driven in.
  • That's why I tried to give a couple examples; like when you're in a town in northern Canada that has winter 8 or 9 months of the year, with permafrost (the soil is permanently frozen), you are *very* limited in what can be considered 'local'. The fact that we bought non-organic, canned food and the like and had it shipped by barge hundreds of miles north seems not terribly 'green', but when you consider economies of scale; the fact that the barge only comes up twice a year, that it delivers most *everybody's* groceries up and down the river...it starts to make sense.

    Similarly, in the Kuwait example; if you don't have fresh water, you don't have fresh water; you either have to import it or desalinate it. Desalination is massively expensive (in money and in electricity), so for a long time importing water was practical, even when it meant boat trips to the mouth of the Euphrates every fortnight. It was only after oil, when money was readily available that they moved to desalination.

    Really, I don't see a case for 'local, organic' food in either of those case studies. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just not a universal truth that can be flatly applied to any locale or environment.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    Ok, you make some good points about that, noting that local and organic food can't be had everywhere....which for me begs the question...should humans really be living in places for extended periods of time where they simply can't grown any of their own food?

    Also, while I think the examples you point out are well worth considering, I also think it's worth considering the fact that, at least in the US of A, almost all people can either grow or obtain a significant portion of their food locally and organically...and the US is one of the worst perpetrators when it comes to GMO's and horrible mono-culture crops and huge unsustainable factory farms...yet we have the resources to change that too....we can go the other way and do things right.
  • The argument many make is that areas that, generally speaking, can't support human settlements shouldn't. Both of those areas you describe had thinner populations before industrialization. The reason they are so settled has to do with globalization, right? Many advocates of localization of economics and food suggest that population should be determined by ecology rather than by trade.

    So, one question would be: what do we do with that knowledge?
  • mariakirby
    One of the things that I learned in geography class is that most cities take over the best farm land as they expand. If we were really concerned about maximizing the earth's resources, we wouldn't be using prime farmland for houses, factories, roads and the like, we would us unarable land or land that is less productive.

    The other thing is that every environment produces surpluses. It is these surpluses which enable/encourage trade. Through trade, everyone benefits because each one gets something that they could not easily have grown/made in their locale. I have no compunction about buying bananas or coconut milk because these are things that are the surpluses of other areas. My buying bananas and coconut milk allow the residents of those tropical regions to afford to buy the surpluses of my region.

    I do recognize that long distance trade does contribute to global warming, and for that I have great pains. However, I do not believe that long distance trade necessarily has to contribute to global warming. We used to do long distance trade with sail boats. And I'm sure that if we wanted we could come up with other creative ways to do long distance trade without contributing extra carbon to the atmosphere.

    I agree with supporting local agriculture, and think that it should be the staple of our diets. However, I don't think we should become so locally minded as to become protectionistic. We all benefit when we share/trade freely what God has given us. I feel like I am a more whole person because I benefit from the blessings of those half way around the globe. And to limit sharing the blessings God has given me to only those who live in my vicinity, seems to me to be very cliquish and not reflective of the graciousness of God.
  • I agree that trade can be beneficial--I wouldn't want to over-state my
    position there. However, my primary concern is one of land allocation. When
    a people allocate land and resources and labor to cultivate a crop for
    export at the expense of growing more basic local crops, it can be a
    problem. For example, South Africans used to grow finger-millet as a local
    staple. However, they began to grow more and more grains for export to
    Europe. Eventually, that led to huge export of grains and an increased need
    to import basic foods and staples.

    In other words, sometimes this trade economy means that regions grow too
    much export crops and are increasingly dependent upon imports. This
    arrangement TENDS to benefit the rich who benefit from trade, but it TENDS
    to work against the local worker.
  • mariakirby
    I agree. Having small farmers instead of agrobusiness would work against trend. However, I think we need to rethink our attitudes toward the land. Instead of managing the land for our benefit, we need to manage the land for nature's benefit. We need to live off the surpluses of nature, rather than single out particular parts of nature that we nurture to the exclusion of other parts.
  • I agree. We act as though permaculture is some sort of exotic, strange
    thing. Rather, it should be our default.
  • That I feel is the most valid argument against those edge cases. I don't have a good answer to that; it's the classic tension between the world as it is and the world as it should be, and where do you attempt to engage. Do you simply avoid certain regions? I don't think that's a reasonable response, but I don't have a well-reasoned backbone for that feeling.
  • Well one example is buying coffee from the Zappatistas.
  • Leo Day Hennacy
    But, but, you mean I should actually change the way I eat...but, but...The Bible doesn't say anything about eating organic...And since the end times are coming anyway and God is going to wipe out all of the earth in an enveloping flame of violent, furious wrath, why should we care about anything at all... OK, I'm being extremely facetious here.

    Actually, this article nails it! I hope that everyone who reads this article takes it seriously and really re-thinks and re-does the way they eat. What we eat and where it comes from really does involve issues of justice and our individual economic and social impact really matters. And I think in the Christian ethical context, loving your neighbor means supporting your small, local, organic farmers while at the same time refusing to buy food from unethical mega-farms who're exploiting their workers (their workers also being your neighbors in the universal sense of the word).
blog comments powered by Disqus