Ch. 2 - The Year of Eating Locally

Chris OConnor

Ch. 2 - The Year of Eating Locally

This thread is for discussing Chapter 2: The Year of Eating Locally of Deep Economy. Post here, within this chapter thread, or create your own threads. The choice is yours.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/7/07 12:52 am

JulianTheApostate

I'll start the Chapter 2 discussion. Am I the first person to get that far? This chapter does provide less to talk about.

The detail descriptions of the Vermont farmer got monotonous, though I know a little about the area because my wife grew up in Vermont and her family is still out there.

A good companion to this chapter is Eric's Schlosser's excellent book Fast Food Nation.
www.amazon.com/Fast-Food-...0060938455
Schlosser presents a scary picture of agribusiness, though compared to McKibben he focuses more on health & working conditions and less on ecology & economics.

McKibben clearly points out the benefits of small local farms. In that light, maybe I should visit the farmer's market more frequently. He makes a good case of how cheap oil and government subsidies assist massive agribusiness.

Also, I appreciate his honesty in pointing out the advantages of the current system: cheap food and convenience. Some environmentalists have a less balanced perspective.

Edited by: JulianTheApostate at: 4/22/07 7:22 pm

RaulRamos · Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Year of Eating Locally

I found this chapter was more difficult to ‚plough through’ than the first one.
I think this might well reflect how far apart we have grown from anything having to do with agriculture. I wonder: would it have been so dreary for me to read as detailed an account about industrial or political intrigue?

I watched an interesting documentary on tv about the growing ignorance citizens have towards the things they eat. People were asked in the streets of a German town where pasta came from. Some of them (teenagers mostly) thought it grew out of trees! They were also shown a variety of vegetables common at a German market (green pepper, onion, cucumber and the like) and then they were blindfolded and asked to name the vegetable after tasting it. What started as a documentary turned into one of the most hilarious comedies I remember seeing. One of the theories presented was that food manufacturers have maimed our palate by adding artificial flavours to food. So, cheese is treated to taste like mega-cheese. To an unaccustomed palate, eating real cheese is like chewing water. So, food manipulation develops a new meaning.

Quote:
JuliantheApostate: Also, I appreciate his honesty in pointing out the advantages of the current system: cheap food and convenience. Some environmentalists have a less balanced perspective.

Plus he is fair enough to say eating locally requires some additional effort we are no longer used to.

Loricat · Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: Re: The Year of Eating Locally

I'm wrapped up right now in living this...working on a lot of things to get our local Farmers' Market going on May 5th.

Interesting how more and more, 'eating locally' is becoming the new mantra. Last year when I was interviewed for the opening of the season for the newspaper, the article was all about the community event aspect of the Market. This year, after we had a Food Security Forum in November, Vancouver's 100 Mile Diet people have just released their book on living locally for a year...the opening article in the paper was about eating & buying locally, the political aspects of the Market.

Part of it was the change in me, but it is also the changes in the media's attitudes.

I'm a little worried that this next chapter will be a bit dull for me, 'preaching to the converted'... ah, well. I'll read it today!

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

irishrosem · Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: Re: The Year of Eating Locally

Loricat:

I have a question for you. I’ve read about your participation with your own farmers’ market and I’m wondering if there is some protocol among farmers’ markets. I have a great market (the Reading Terminal in Philadelphia) literally two blocks from my office. It’s a full city block market with various local eateries/fish mongers/butchers/dairies/random sellers/etc. A whole corner is dedicated to the Amish community that brings their product in from nearby Lancaster and surrounding farms. There’s a food co-op and CSA with their own corner of the market. But there is this huge commercial produce section, with product coming from all over the world, just like a regular supermarket produce section. This part of the market certainly does not promote local/sustainable agriculture. Is that appropriate? Is there no self-policing among these markets? BTW, I bought the most delicious locally produced honey the other day. It really does taste differently.

Loricat: I'm a little worried that this next chapter will be a bit dull for me, 'preaching to the converted'

It was, especially after reading The Omnivore's Dilemma. The only thing McKibben really made me consider was cutting out my morning cereal (Kashi) that I still buy. He gets into the cost of packaging a bit more than Pollan, which made me feel guilty about continuing to buy my cereal. I've cut out almost all industrial food, except my Kashi--it's just the perfect way to start the morning. Do I sound like a commercial? With all the other changes I've been working on since reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, I'm not sure how obligated I feel about cutting out this one product. But I do buy a lot of it. And, according to McKibben, the packaging of a box of cereal is where a lot of the cost to the environment comes. I have learned, and McKibben also references this, that learning to buy locally is more of a gradual process than an all-at-once change. I took one big leap, at first, but now I'm progressing with baby steps.

Dissident Heart

Quote:
The deepest problem that local-food efforts face, however, is that we've gotten used to paying so little for food. It may be expensive in terms of how much oil it requires, and how much greenhouse gas pours into the atmosphere, and how much tax subsidy it receives, and how much damage it does to local communities, and how many migrant workers it maims, and how much sewage piles up, and how many highway miles it requires- but boy, when you pull your cart up to the register, it's pretty cheap. 89

I think McKibben packs a lot of punch in this small paragraph. The key, as I see it, involves how our economic model determines cost, and what it values as cheap or inexpensive. If the only determining cost factor is what you see at the register, then, our current economic model is very hard to beat. But if you consider the list of concerns McKibben names above, our means of feeding ourselves are profoundly flawed.

The selection below is how McKibben defines the cost/value dynamic in his winter experiment of eating locally, and I think it captures the real treasure of this chapter and, truly, the hope of this book:

Quote:
Eating this way has come at a cost. Not in health or in money (if anything, I've spent less than usual, since I haven't bought a speck of processed food) but in time. I've had to think about every meal, instead of wandering through the world on autopilot, ingesting random calories. I've had to pay attention. But the payoff for that cost has been immense, a web of connections I'de never known about. I've gotten to eat with my brain as well as my tounge: every meal comes with a story. The geogrpahy of the valley now means something more to me; I've met dozens of people I wouldn't otherwise have known...the winter permanently altered the way I eat. In more ways than one, it left a good taste in my mouth. That good taste was satisfaction. The time I spent getting the food and preparing it was not, in the end, a cost at all. In the end it was a benefit, the benefit. In my role as eater, I was part of something larger than myself that made sense to me- a community. I felt grounded, connected." 94

Preparing for our daily bread as a necessary means to transform an entire economy: becoming fully intentional participants and informed partners in the process of feeding ourselves is crucial to defining economic value. Deep economic revolution requires a daily practice of considering: what does the bite of bread really cost?

McKibben also makes it clear that this is not a solitary endeavor geared around rugged individualism and consumer customization. This kind of deep economy requires constant interaction, collaboration, cooperation, engagement, sharing of information: no one really gains unless everyone shares in the effort and sacrifice...and it takes time and labor. There is no easy way to do this. It is inconvenient. But with the effort comes satisfaction: the genuine pleasure of honest exchange and trusted relationships, linked to physical health and an everincreasing knowledge of the wondrous world around us.

I fear we (our Nation) are too deep in the Junkie mode: too addicted to short term gratification and unable to imagine that the minor inconveniences demanded by a deep economy will pay off in satisfaction rarely, if ever, experienced. And, the Pushers who control industry and manipulate policy are not going to simply let go of their control of consumer appetites.

McKibben's vision, in my opionion, is beautiful. But is beauty enough?

JulianTheApostate

DH, don't forget how conservative the US is. After all, George Bush won the 2004 election, despite his disastrous right-wing first term.

Sure, there are lots of people out there who take environmental issues seriously. Still, it will take a dramatic shift for the country as a whole to accept McKibben's arguments.

Dissident Heart

Julian: DH, don't forget how conservative the US is

I agree. But I think the very best of American Conservatism is linked to a love and appreciation of the soil and protection of the American farm. I reject the jingoism, patriarchy, militarism, and Christian exclusivism that is expressed by many American conservatives; but I think they are just as disgusted by corporate elites and their tiny segment of the population absconding with the lion's share of wealth. There is a huge portion of American farm culture that is not friendly to the massive agribusiness industries that hold entire villages, cities, counties and agricultural regions hostage. And, there is a vibrant movement of religious environmentalists who practice a Green Faith that involves progressives and evangelicals working together to foster a more responsible stewardship and love of Creation by Christians everywhere. No matter what our solution, it must include conservative Americans...and if that is true, it needs to take seriously their religious belief systems.

Julian: Still, it will take a dramatic shift for the country as a whole to accept McKibben's arguments.

As Climate Change increases (with all of its attending crises) we can count on dramatic shifts like we have never seen before. I think McKibben's arguments will speak to the vast majority of middle Americans who come from generations who were tied to the land and depended upon far more frugal lifestyles within close-knit, local economies. Again, I think an important part of this conversation will have to include Religious Environmentalism, as it will connect the deepest notions of identity, moral obligation, and spiritual practice to care and love of Creation. Middle America understands this language and is mobilized by its unconditional demands.

irishrosem

D.H.: No matter what our solution, it must include conservative Americans...and if that is true, it needs to take seriously their religious belief systems.

These solutions absolutely do not have to “take seriously” “religious belief systems.” They may need to respect the many different belief systems of the American public; but solutions to the destruction of the earth/society/community by industrial agriculture, and/or the economy as whole, certainly do not need to rely on religion or mythology.

D.H.: …a vibrant movement of religious environmentalists who practice a Green Faith that involves progressives and evangelicals working together to foster a more responsible stewardship and love of Creation by Christians everywhere

My understanding of the conservatives Julian mentions have very little, possibly no, resemblance to the people you cherish describing.

Dissident Heart

irishrose: but solutions to the destruction of the earth/society/community by industrial agriculture, and/or the economy as whole, certainly do not need to rely on religion or mythology.

If you are interested in changing the minds and habits of Middle America, which are far more religious than not, then you may want to consider how religion can help. You don't have to endorse anything religious, but if a substantial portion of the challenge involves those who do endorse some sort of religious life...then it stands to reason that religion will be part of the solution. I'm offering one way to get religion into the solution part of the Climate Crisis equation. It's a way that brings different religious communities across cultural and ideological borders onto common ground with secular folk and scientists.

irishrose: My understanding of the conservatives Julian mentions have very little, possibly no, resemblance to the people you cherish describing.

I suggest we lift up those voices of conservative America that accept the truth of global warming and climate change and the role of human activity in exacerbating both. I think it's important to highlight those conservative Christians who see a moral obligation to turn back the tide of global warming and climate change because of their religious commitment to love and care for creation. I think the combination of those conservatives who cherish the earth and those who love creation will be a substantial force in starting the substantial shift of the country that Julian refers to.

RaulRamos

I have just posted a comment on the Chapter 1 thread where I defend that apart from the question of how to make McKibben's suggestions true there is the question of whether we all want to see his suggestions become reality. I see in this thread that you also concentrate on how to implement the changes necessary to make McKibben’s vision true and I assume – I may be wrong – that it is a vision you identify with. I look forward to the discussion in the following chapters, where I would like to object to the idealized version of a community he presents us with.

Apart from that, I would like to comment a couple of points:

Quote:
Again, I think an important part of this conversation will have to include Religious Environmentalism, as it will connect the deepest notions of identity, moral obligation, and spiritual practice to care and love of Creation. (DH)

Before reading the following comment please bear in mind that I will refer to change regardless of national borders (I know McKibben centres on the US, however, his discourse can be applied to a certain extent to any part of the rich world.)
I agree that even though some of us might not be sympathetic to a vision of life that is tainted by religious belief, we must admit that an important part of the population does, and that the solution to some problems can only be reached through the implication of all of us, whether religious or not, and that to mobilize us we will have to ‘speak the language’ of each other, i.e. we will also have to resort to the framework of thinking characteristic of religious people to convince them that their religious view of the world is more compatible with an alternative way of organizing our use of resources. However, what I would like to point out is that notions of identity, moral obligation and spiritual practice to care and love of Creation is not exclusively linked to religious belief. Just change the word Creation for Nature or Life, for example, and many non-religious a person will make those notions their own.

One more point, related to care and love of Life:
I would have liked McKibben to concentrate not just on how harmful the present system is for humans, but also for other animals ::38

. His talk about ‘chicken being produced’ (p. 52) and how their farmer acquaintances relished when eating poor old Moose and Charlie (p. 50) did not really please me. True, at a certain point he mentions those ‘miserable animals’ (p. 61), but I would like to have seen a bit more of how unjustly we deal with animals as our food source. I would be glad to read somewhere that the eating revolution he advocates for contemplates a fairer use of animals, and an increased intake of vegetables on our side.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT