Sustainable Food

Catch of the Day: Can Dwindling Fish Stocks Continue to Sustain Us?

Tricia Edgar — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:28:25 GMT

Fish is a huge part of the diets of many poor, coastal people. It's a huge part of the diets of many wealthy coastal people too, but the wealthy have options. When I hear about the depletion of the ocean's fish stocks and past and coming crashes, I get concerned about those who use fish as a subsistence food. While we can grow fish in human-created environments and can even grow them on land, it's much simpler for people to harvest them from the ocean. Unfortunately, those days may be coming to an end.

Shall we who have the luxury of choice simply throw our hands up in the air and say that it's the fault of those who subsist on fish? We certainly have had a role too, what with our interest in tuna for sushi and the feeding of fish to our pets. Fish have been feeders that sustain the world of industrial food. But I digress. We do need to steward what fish stocks we have left, and use them sensibly. There are projects that focus on reducing particularly damaging methods of fish harvesting, methods like blasting all of the fish in an area and scooping them up from the surface.

However, we need to do more than that if we are going to reframe how we fish. We need to begin to see ourselves as fish stewards, rather than those who harvest the bounty of the oceans. Some who fish on a small scale already practice this approach. They work to restore mangrove swamps and riparian areas so that fish can have a place to breed. They even work to intervene in the life cycles of aquatic animals, helping them breed.

There are fishermen in Thailand who used to hunt for crabs. That was fine, except that the crabs kept on getting smaller and fewer in numbers, so their jobs were becoming more difficult. They started a crab nursery, capturing the female crabs so that the females could steward the young crabs in peace, without having their babies eaten or washed away. Now, the crab population is gradually increasing.

It is thoughts like these that make a huge difference to our fish stocks. For those who subsist on fish and other aquatic animals, moving from a hunting mentality to a stewardship mentality may be the change that saves food, livelihood, and fish stocks. If we want to eat fish, we can no longer collect the fish that we want to eat without giving something back, each and every time.

Institute This: Sustainable Food Policy

Tricia Edgar — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:51:51 GMT

Do you work in an institution? By that I mean a big organization like a government, school, or hospital. Even a large company will do. If your organization has buying clout and wields it to garner good bulk deals as a consumer, it's an institutional buyer. This means that your institution has an opportunity to transform the landscape of sustainable food policy in a way that many individual consumers do not. While drops in the bucket make a difference in the world of sustainable food, changing the bucket is a fast way to transforming our buying relationship with food.

What am I talking about? Let's use my past university as an example. Much to the chagrin of its students, one of my alma maters cut a deal with a major beverage manufacturer. All of the beverages sold on campus were going to be part of that manufacturer's brands, and that included those sold in vending machines. Students were up in arms about the limitation of choice and the social and political activity of the company in question. The university was pleased with the deal, since handing over the buying population of the university meant that the educational institution received a sum of money from the company in question.

All companies have social and environmental ties that may or may not be sustainable. While shareholders have some influence on a company's actions, those who buy from the company have a great deal of influence as well. If there are no sales, there's no product. Institutions in particular have a huge influence, since they are big buyers: for example, in Canada, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan happens to be a huge investor in the stock of various companies, and when teachers raise a stink about a particular investment and the pension plan engineers a shift of its money, companies listen.

Where does this leave the average employee of a large institution? Institutional buying offers a gateway to influence sustainable food policy. For example, with a sustainable food push, the students or teachers at a school can work with the manager of a school cafeteria to institute a food policy that supports local and organic food. Sustainable food also includes socially ethical food, and those same students and employees can help institute a policy of selling fair trade bananas in the cafeteria or selling fair trade coffee for coffee breaks. These small steps make a large impact when they are spread over the thousands of people at an institution.

Institutions can be big beasts to move, but when pushed hard enough from the inside, they may gradually adopt sustainable policies that include social and environmental factors as part of the bottom line. The localization of the food in school cafeterias is one example. Can you think of others?

The Future of Sustainable Food: Local Markets and Big Organic

Tricia Edgar — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:03:47 GMT

When you look at the swing of food culture, there are two distinct food cultures emerging at the moment. One is the food culture of heritage plants, local food, small organic growers, and slow food. This is the culture that I write about most often. It's a culture that some think is populated by holier-than-thou yuppies that spend countless hours pondering the flavors of local cheese and the best time to grow fava beans. This sustainable and local food culture promotes the relocalization of food through small-scale farming and farmers' market sales.

Then, there's the culture of mass produced food. This food is plentiful, often inexpensive, and available just about everywhere. Its products are not unique and are certainly not small scale. Often, they are shipped from a far-away central source and covered in durable packaging so that they can survive the trip. They're certainly not small-batch and niche market: the packaging, the recipe, and even the seeds used to grow the plants may be owned by a corporation. These food products have mass appeal due to the fact that they are easy to find and easy on the budget as well.

When the two food cultures meet, interesting things happen. Much has now been written about the birth of big organics. Organic has moved from a fringe movement of hippie and ultra health-conscious consumers into something that many people want to buy, especially for their children. But sourcing out small local companies can be time-consuming, so big organic has taken over the supermarkets: flown in from far away, it's easy to access and pesticide-free.

There's also an intriguing food fusion that occurs when local roots and branding meet global consumer demand. One of our local beer companies has long been one of my husband's favorites. He likes to buy the strong, eat-with-a-fork beers made by our local Canadian companies. It's a patriotic thing. However, this company has now become part of a global beer company that has kept the label and the cachet of the local company, so it isn't exactly local any more. Some argue that making foods locally has its drawbacks, in that each producer has to recreate production systems that work more efficiently at a larger scale.

Is the relocalization and small organic movement realistic and sustainable within itself? Can we feed our cities from farmers' markets, and will consumers pay more for food that supports local farmers through fair wages? Or should we go the big organic route, fusing mass market foods with sustainable foods, taking advantage of economies of scale to produce organic food that everyone can enjoy? Is big organic simply putting a false eco-spin on a faceless and globalized food market?

What do you think? Does industrial logic work in the world of food?

Fish+Plants=Sustainable Produce AND Sustainable Fish

Ellen Sabina — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:23:03 GMT

There's hydroponics and there's aquaculture, but when the two farming methods merge together--Voila! Aquaponics is born. Aquaponics is the symbiotic cultivation of fish and plants, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't become a popular venture yet. There's high demand for fish, and increasingly for sustainable fish, as wild populations dwindle and farmed fish often wreak havoc on the environment. Aquaponics not only provides an alternative to the typically unsustainable fish farm, but also has the added benefit of supporting the production of sustainable vegetables and other plants. Seems like a great idea to me!

Aquaponics at its best works in a closed circuit system. The fish are raised in tanks of clean, fresh water. The fish waste accumulates, rich in nitrogen and other nutrients. Once a day or so, the water, and with it the waste, is flushed and replaced, so that the high nitrogen levels don't poison the fish. The fish wastewater is then added to hydroponic vegetable tanks. The plants take up the nutrients in the water, effectively filtering and cleaning the water. Theoretically the cleaned water could then be returned to the fish tanks and the process could start all over again, but in practice much of the water is sucked up by the plants, especially crops like lettuces, which are composed of about 98% water.

The idea behind aquaponics has been around for centuries though, and in many parts of Southeast Asia, fish are integrated into flooded rice paddies, feeding on farm waste and fertilizing the rice fields. But for whatever reason, more modern aquaponic farming operations have yet to catch on in most places. One of the reasons for this is that the initial investment in aquaponic equipment can run upwards of $50,000, which is a daunting figure for most farmers.

Still, aquaponics has a lot of potential for producing sustainable food. One of the most inspiring examples of truly sustainable aquaponics systems is up and running in an unassuming rural town in Maine. The sustainable beauty of Home Grown Aquaculture Engineering lies in two key factors. The first is that the farmers raise tilapia rather than other fresh water fish like trout. Not only is tilapia a very marketable fish these days, but it is unique in that tilapia give live birth, allowing Home Grown to build its own breed stock rather than relying on fingerlings from a hatchery that are prone to contaminates, like mercury. The second factor is that in addition to vegetables, Home Grown also grows hydroponic duckweed. Duckweed can be used as fish feed as well as for livestock feed, eliminating reliance on manufactured fish feed which is often made from other fish, corn, and other not-so-sustainable nutrient sources. Home Grown also produces their own biodiesel, which powers the green houses and fish tanks. All in all, it's a beautiful example of sustainable farming and fish.

It's not clear whether or not aquaponics works well on a very large commercial scale, but given the holistic nature of well planned and well managed aquaponics systems, like the operation that Home Grown has developed, it seems as though it is something worth exploring.

Photo Credit: CC BY 2.0">Kanu Hawaii

Guerrillas in the Garden: Super Stealthy Sustainable Urban Agriculture Projects

Ellen Sabina — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:33:19 GMT

There's a secret war going on, and it's been raging for a while. You may have passed the battlegrounds on your walk to work, but you might not have recognized them as such because the war zones are blooming with flowers or bursting with produce. If you've noticed a scraggly, unloved patch of public land that overnight is transformed into a plot of herbs or tomatoes, you very well may have witnessed the undercover work of guerrilla gardeners.

The guerrilla gardening movement more or less formally began in New York in the 1970s, and today has gathered momentum and spread around the world, from France to California to Botswana. Technically, guerrilla gardening is an illegal activity, as it involves the cultivation of someone's land. The rationalization behind it is that there are a lot of spaces that have been forgotten by their owners, which can (and should) be revived by local people. Because it is actually illegal, guerrilla gardeners often run stealth missions at night, and sometimes bump heads with police and landowners. However these gardening projects are usually permitted and rightly so. After all, what's the big deal about pulling a few weeds and putting in a few plants?

There are different levels of guerrilla gardening, but each is a political act. It can be as simple as planting flowers in an abandoned patch of dirt, or as bold a statement as a collective of gardeners squatting on abandoned lots and transforming them into productive vegetable gardens. An example of the latter recently made the headlines in London, when a group of 40 activists took over an empty lot to create Kew Bridge Eco Village. London is also home to some of the most vocal and renown guerrilla gardeners, including Richard Reynolds, who has written the handbook on "gardening without boundaries or permission."

Guerrilla gardening, I think, is especially legitimized when the plants that guerrillas put in produce food. More and more guerrilla gardeners are focusing their efforts on growing food and creating community gardens, rather than planting ornamental flowers (although all guerilla gardening is encapsulated in a grassroots greening effort, and that's pretty good too.) In the best-case scenarios, the land cultivated by guerrillas becomes secured for the gardening through the city or landowner and becomes a stable, thriving community garden.

I'm not exactly promoting illicit activity here, but I do think that guerrilla gardening is an exciting and very positive movement in that it puts the power of cultivation into the hands of the people. Through the guerrilla-powered transformation of urban spaces there is great potential for the exponential growth of sustainable and resourceful urban agriculture by the local community.

A Rare Breed: Why Oddball Animals Matter in the World of Sustainable Food

Tricia Edgar — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:26:29 GMT

The few weeks ago, I listened to an interview. The interview was with a woman who had given up her job as a university professor and had become a farmer. Instead of studying the demise of rare animals, she was now fostering the survival of these rare breeds. The world of sustainable food seems to be populated with a strange mix of family farmers and activists, those who have moved from being entranced with organic, sustainable and heritage breeds into growing these plants and animals for their life's work.

Yesterday, my daughter received her monthly nature magazine. At the front of each magazine is the part that I liked best as a child: a "who's that?" photo of an animal that the average North American or European child has never seen. In fact, since many of these animals are endangered or very specific to one area of the world, most of the planet's children have never seen them. The animal of the month was one that looked like a cross between a big-eyed deer and an elephant. I found it intriguing, to be sure.

Aside from being intriguing, what's to be gained by saving rare breeds of farm animals? Well, diversity, for one. You may have heard the story of the banana: grown by farmers around the world, the banana that the world grows is under threat from a disease that could decimate crops of the Royal Cavendish banana. By virtue of their popularity, popular farm animals and plants can be susceptible to disease and to the decimation of the food supply.

Diversity is also useful when you consider the future of agriculture. Most of us live in cities, and while cities are probably not the first place you consider when you think of farms, the urban farm and the urban dairy, egg, or meat farm is growing in popularity, partially out of necessity, since farmers pushed into the cities of the world struggle to feed their families. Some breeds of animals are well-suited for cities. Since I am not a huge fan of goats, my favorite is the tiny, tiny cow. While North American dairy cows are big and sturdy and well-suited for mass milk production, they are huge. Little heritage breeds of cows can live on small meals of grass in urban and suburban areas and are the ideal size to produce milk for a family.

Like plants, rare and heritage breeds of animals are more than our history. Their genes are a valuable addition to the animal gene pool. Rare chickens may not lay golden eggs, but they may be hardy, easy to care for, or excellent layers. Keeping these rare breeds adds to the resilience in our food and on our farms, and that is a good thing indeed.

Fusing Technology and Heritage: Sustaining Seeds in the Vaults

Tricia Edgar — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:38:27 GMT

If you go to the university library in any major city, you'll find tomes that are hundreds of years old. If you visit the libraries of countries with a longer bookish past than mine, you will find illuminated manuscripts and more, all treasures from a past that we can no longer imagine in its daily detail. Cultures have managed to save books that they find valuable, books that tell us about the myths, teachings, and histories of people from many generations gone by.

What about the history of our food? Many of the seeds we use today are relative newcomers to the scene. While their ancestors may have been successful for hundreds of years, these seeds are newer hybrids or genetically-engineered modern marvels. They're suited to the markets now, and they're designed for hardiness, superior growth, and their ability to transported and preserved over long distances.

But who is saving the grandmothers of the seed world, those heritage varieties that have adapted to local conditions over generations? Many have died out: foods have been lost because no one found value in preserving them. Yet heritage seeds are ideally suited for their particular micro-environments. They have staying power, disease resistance, storage capability and flavors that are outstanding, but they may not have all of these at once. Those plants that don't conform to the large market economy have become the realm of the backyard gardener or the heritage seed fancier, and often they are not widely available. Small seed companies and seep swappers around the nations of the world have saved many heritage seeds from extinction.

However, there is also a Noah's Ark of seeds. This Norwegian seed vault has been designed to save the genetic material of generations. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is 130 meters inside a mountain. Countries can deposit and withdraw seeds from the vault without charge, and the vault has the capacity for 4.5 million seeds. The vault was officially opened just over two years ago, in February of 2008. Also known as the Doomsday Vault, it is designed to withstand catastrophes and save seeds for the world, stored in the dark, cold depths of a mountain on a remote Norwegian island. Norway funds the operation of the vault and is helping nations move seed samples to the vault. Currently there are approximately half a million samples inside.

Is a static seed vault going to be useful to future generations? One of the beautiful things about open-pollinated seeds is that they adapt to their micro-environments. A static vault of seeds won't keep this dynamism going. However, if the worst happens and a catastrophe sweeps the earth, it is somewhat comforting to know that some of the world's food-growing material has been saved.

Is a seed vault an answer to global change and catastrophe?

Sustainable Food from the Ground Up

Ellen Sabina — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:13:44 GMT

I think it's safe to say that almost everything we eat is, at some juncture, connected to the soil. Sure, there's some hydroponic operations out there that sidestep dirt, but by and large everything, be it corn-fed chickens and cows, any of the unrecognizable processed foods that Micahel Pollan refers to as "food-like substances", and so on, eventually links back to the soil. Therefore, as long as we plan on eating, and especially if we plan to eat sustainable food, we need to keep our soil healthy.

Currently, our soil is in a sad state. Years and years of industrial agriculture has eroded vital topsoil and depleted nutrients. Topsoil is the outer 2-8 inches of soil that supports all plant life. Plants derive most of their water and nutrients from this important layer, which is, at its best, laden with microorganisms and organic matter.

Most agriculture uses tilling techniques using big machinery that makes quick work of tilling large fields. The problem is that this technique digs deep into the soil, displacing the rich topsoil and setting the stage for erosion. Erosion is nothing new to big agriculture. Remember hearing about the Dust Bowl in your U.S. History class? The great American dust storms of the 1930s were in large part due to poor farming techniques that didn't employ crop rotation, cover crops, or other anti-erosion measures. Once the topsoil is removed or blown away, it's really difficult to rebuild it to its original nutrient levels. The best way to prevent erosion is to practice "no-till" farming. Even though it requires further investment in seeding equipment, farmers who are concerned with sustainability are making the switch to no till with the hope that it'll pay off in the long run.

And it usually does. After the initial switch to no-till (also called conservation tillage,) farmers can expect to reap the benefits within the next few years. These benefits go beyond preventing erosion to actually rebuilding the soil. Because the soil isn't torn up by big machinery, there is less soil compaction, and higher water retention, and the accumulation of organic matter and aggregates that enrich the soil. So far, this technique is rarely used on a large scale, but it's an action that many small and mid-sized farmers are taking against further soil degradation.

The continued removal of topsoil means that more nutrients must be added to the stripped dirt if it is going to be rendered productive. For the bulk of our agriculture, the soil is only usable if inundated with petroleum and other non-renewable resource-base fertilizer inputs. The only way to move away from the dependence on these heavy-duty inputs is to rebuild topsoil.

Our food comes from the soil. We want sustainable food, we support sustainable agriculture, but we need to remember that sustainable agriculture is dependent upon soil that is managed sustainably. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before more topsoil bites the dust.

Photo Credit: CC BY 2.0">Marco Belucci

Digging Up the Boulevards: A Shift in Local Government Food Policy

Tricia Edgar — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:07:04 GMT

Instead of Burning Down the House, Digging Up the Boulevards may be the new smash hit of this decade if sustainable food policy advocates get their way. Things are getting dirty in the food policy notebooks of local governments. Really soiled, actually. Food policy folks are taking to the boulevards, the parks, and the traffic circles and looking for spaces in which to grow food. They've always done that. It's just that this time, the spaces belong to the government.

In the center of two beautiful avenues in our city, we have a park. Although I cannot confirm it, I believe that this park turns the two streets into one of the widest boulevards on the planet. You could just about play a baseball game in the center of the road. I've jogged down the middle, I've tossed a ball to my daughter on the edges, and the rather progressive city government has daylighted and restored a small stream at one end of the boulevard. The place is the picture of an urban park, albeit in the middle of two rather busy streets.

I have long dreamed of planting carrots in this park. Now, carrots are not the most logical crop for Vancouverites to dream about, because we have an abundance of carrot rust fly. However, I have dreams of long rows, clumps, or huddles of orange, white, yellow and purple carrots. I have visions of those people in their suburban houses and the people from the apartment buildings in streets close to the boulevard heading out to this piece of public land to garden. I imagine people meeting their neighbors, starting conversations, sharing food and gardening tips, and eating well off local public land.

Now, this boulevard is an unlikely candidate for agriculture at the moment, but I was amused at the fact that recently, a park in the same neighborhood became the topic of urban agriculture discussions. The park is underused and in an area that sees a lot less traffic than the boulevard. There's talk of turning it into an urban farm with a paid farmer who would grow food and offer classes as well.

When I began working for our only local food advocacy organization five years ago, we laughed and dreamed about the idea of turning the boulevard into a farm. Now it seems that local government food policy is beginning to turn a corner. Funders are funding food research and food advocacy, and local governments are listening to those who want opportunities to eat and to grow local food. Yes, the listening is token in some places, but it is there, and growing. And I for one raise my trowel in delight.

Slow Money Supports Slower, More Sustainable Food

Ellen Sabina — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:06:32 GMT

The Slow Food Movement has been around for a while, and continues to grow with the sustainable food movement. Slow Food is an international organization that works to protect the biodiversity of traditional food supplies, promote taste, and provider avenues for producers to connect with co-producers. Co-producers are consumers who take an active role in discovering the person or people who produce their food, how the producer makes his or her product, what challenges they face. By taking on an active consumer role rather than the normal, passive role, the consumer becomes invested in the product and therefore becomes a co-producer.

This is where the concept of "slow money" comes in. The idea of slow money isn't as popular as slow food has become, but it's an inextricable component of sustainable, slow food systems. Slow money was presented by Woody Tasch, in his 2008 book Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered. Tasch contends that the age of fast money, where people have a buy low, sell high mentality and prize personal wealth is on the decline, and alternatively we ought to practice a more "down to earth" approach to money. He envisions a restorative economy that moves away from exploitation, extraction, and blatant consumerism towards the sustainable preservation of the earth and community. In order to reorient our economy, Tasch proposes "nurture capital," a model of entrepreneurial finance directed at building soil fertility, cultural, economic, and biological diversity, with attention to sense of place and the carrying capacity of communities and ecosystems.

It sounds lofty, and it is, but it's important to note here that Tasch isn't talking about doing completely away with Wall Street and our entire economic structure, but rather building a new capital sector that stands alongside the current economic industry. Investors and companies wouldn't be so preoccupied with high return rates, but rather on the long term health of bioregion. In Tasch's book he focuses on the importance of applying the slow money philosophy specifically to local food systems and producers. He imagines an economy that puts 50% of its assets was invested within a 50-mile radius, directed towards building diverse, sustainable, small-scale, regional companies.

The slow money movement is still in beginning stages, but it's future is promising, particularly for sustainable food. The principles of slow money are already employed in many local food systems in small ways. The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model is a perfect example of slow money at its purest: the consumer invests directly in the local farmers product, which is produced according (hopefully) to sustainable, organic practices. What are other ways you can become a co-producer, and invest even a little bit of money in supporting sustainable food, your community, and the earth all at once? How can you participate in shifting the economic mindset of the country and bring it all back down to earth, towards a more "ground up" approach?

photo credit: CC BY 2.0">grantsviews

Food Security on the Table: Will the Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act Mean Big Change for Hungry Kids?

Ellen Sabina — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:33:11 GMT

When U.S. President Harry Truman signed the National School Lunch Act in 1946, ensuring that school children be guaranteed a meal, he proclaimed that, "in the long view, no nation is healthier than its children." I don't think many people would dispute the truth in that statement, which is why it is so mind-boggling that as a nation we have indeed undermined the health of our children and are now faced with record rates of childhood obesity and food-related health problems. At the same time, thousands of children in America are hungry, and depend on the food they are served in school once (or twice) a day as their main meal. The Child Nutrition Reauthorization, an act originally signed into existence by Lyndon Johnson in 1966, would expand and redefine the school meal programs. If these acts have failed to make a significant positive impact on the health of our children in the past, how can we ensure that they address the problems at hand effectively in the future?

The reauthorization will hopefully combine four bills that are in both the house and senate, which address various aspects of child nutrition and food security. Combined under the reauthorization, this would equal an ambitious act that could have major benefits for childhood nutrition. Some of the desired outcomes and initiatives would include expanding existing programs and introducing National Lunch and Breakfast programs at more schools, and extending meal programs year-round, even during summer vacation. One of the most exciting pieces of expanding these programs is the new effort to streamline the paperwork process necessary to receive free and reduced-cost meals, which is often a daunting task for parents and is a real roadblock to connecting hungry kids with food services they qualify for. The USDA has also sought diet recommendations from medical experts to revamp school meals and offer more whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

There's more to the reauthorization goals than those three points, and I encourage you to take a glance at Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent press release on the topic. But basically what you need to know is that it all sounds good. Really good. In theory, the Child Nutrition reauthorization, in conjunction with Michelle Obama's recently launched Let's Move! Campaign could put a real dent in both childhood hunger and turn the tide of obesity. But there's one not-so-small problem with all of this, and particularly with the nutrition act, that could mean a major lapse in the effectiveness of all these programs. You may have guessed already: Money.

Funding is yet again one of those pesky problems, and while this administration seems to have made these issues a priority and its intentions sound solid, it all comes down to putting the money where their mouth is. In reality, national school lunch programs can only improve and expand if schools are reimbursed at a higher rate per lunch. Currently the government pays about $2.68 per meal per child in the national meal programs. That's a pretty cheap meal, and it can only equal pretty cheap food. If we want all of our children to access healthy food in school, we're going to have to invest a bit more money in food quality.

It's difficult to acknowledge the great need for and demand more funding in the midst of a recession, when government spending is already through the roof. But to return to Truman's declaration, the future of our country very much depends upon a more concerted effort to grow healthy kids. Encourage your senators and representatives to support a funding increase for programs included in the Reauthorization of Child Nutrition Act!

photo credit: CC BY 2.0">Selma90

Pitch In! Community Compost Supports Local, Sustainable Food

Ellen Sabina — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:20:21 GMT

It wasn't easy for me to start composting. I wanted to, of course, because it's such an easy and sustainable way to recycle food waste, but when you live in a city or town there are often obstacles. Ok, I'll admit that part of it was laziness and not wanting to deal with it, but mostly the reasons had to do with my living situation. I was renting and sharing an apartment with several roommates who weren't all that excited about food rotting in a bucket in our kitchen and having to empty it and clean it every few days. More than that, we didn't have much of a backyard, and the landlord wouldn't have been supportive of the construction of our own little compost pile there, regardless of my insistence that it really wouldn't smell all that bad. Reluctantly, I settled for tossing my food scraps in with the regular trash.

But no longer: I soon discovered that the little city I live in happens to have a community composting program located at one of the community garden sites. Anyone is free to contribute their household food scraps (with a few limitations) to the compost, which is spread in windrows and aerated. The finished compost is incorporated into the soil of the city's community gardens and excess is sold to other local farmers and landscapers. Community composting projects are a great way to add nutrients to urban garden spaces, which are often characterized by depleted soil, as well as a great way to divert waste from the landfill and back into a usable and profitable product.

Chances are pretty good that there are community composting projects in your town or city. They're all over the place. In my city, individuals bring their waste to the compost area located on the outskirts of town, but many larger cities have multiple drop-off points and receptacles at centralized locations, like the farmer's market. Some may require membership or operate as a cooperative reliant on volunteer labor to maintain the project. In several cities, the public works department will even pick up your compost for you, just as they would the trash and recycling.

When joining an urban community composting project, it's important to self-regulate what you are throwing in your compost bucket according to the project's guidelines. Most compost projects don't accept pet waste, meat and bone scraps, ashes, or anything that isn't organic matter, like plastics. If community composting is still too much of a hassle for you, look into maintain a small indoor composting operation using a worm bin. Check out the options available to you and start composting in your community today!

photo credit:CC BY 2.0"> normanack

Does Organic Junk Food Deserve a Place in the Natural Food Aisle?

Tricia Edgar — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:25:59 GMT

Organic junk food. It has to be good for you, right? I'll answer that question in a moment. In the meantime, have another chip. They're organic, after all. Would you like a glass of something fizzy? Certainly! It's all-natural, too. How about a few cookies? No really, have another. They even contain fair trade organic chocolate. Yum.

Yes, most of us have a hankering for junk food upon occasion, and for the earthy sorts, we tend to go for the organic, no preservative variety of junk food. We balk at the extra-orange chips and the diet drinks that are enhanced with unnatural colors, flavorings, and sweeteners. Yet when I walk down the aisles of our local grocery store, the natural food section of the store is full of goodies that are all-natural, preservative-free, and organic. Do I mean local kale, shitake mushrooms, and brewer's yeast? Not really. These aisles are often full of organic junk food that is just waiting to fly off the shelves into your pantry.

I am a great believer in moderation. I have eaten and will likely eat my share of eerily orange chips and have imbibed many a fizzy drink whose flavors have origins in the chemistry books. However, I have doubts as to whether organic junk food deserves a place in the natural foods section. Why?

It's overly processed. Organic junk food has "stuff" in it. To be sure, there are not as many preservatives and unmentionables as conventional junk food, but organic processed foods are still not like home-picked apples or chard fresh from the garden. It's also overly packaged. An organic cookie that is in a box, then in a plastic container, then in a little bag does not really seem like a natural food.

On the flip side, junk food has cachet, especially for those who may be a little phobic of the local kale. Chips full of vegetables and soft drinks that are actually fizzy fruit juices are certainly better than the alternative, and packaging them like junk food definitely has appeal to those who are seeking a fun snack. It's a lot easier to get my daughter to eat spinach when it's packaged as a tortellini or a chip. However, it's also a lot easier to get her to eat spinach when it's straight from the garden, so perhaps it's just the experience surrounding the vegetable that matters.

My conclusion? If your diet consists primarily of organic soft drinks, chips, and cookies gleaned from the natural foods aisle, I regret to inform you that your diet still consists mainly of soft drinks, chips, and cookies. However, if your diet consists of fruit, vegetables, some meat or dairy, and some delicious whole grains accompanied by a side of organic chips, well then, moderation in all things.

The Beauty of the Suburban Garden: A Guide to Producing Food On A Small Scale

Tricia Edgar — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:22:32 GMT

Now, I'm no dummy. But stumbling through my new experiments in willow weaving, broad bean growing, and the harried-looking remnants of my beets and swiss chard, I do wonder sometimes. For years, book series like the Complete Idiot's Guides and the Dummies series have been catering to people like me: people who fumble our way through a myriad of gardening quandaries, gradually accumulating knowledge and producing food until we somehow find ourselves in the position of expert instead of dummy.

For new gardeners who are just beginning to produce food, playing in the suburban garden is a good way to begin. It's local and easy and an excellent entry point to food gardening. Recently, I interviewed avid suburban gardener Chris McLaughlin about her adventures with vegetables, chickens, and goats, all within the confines of a smaller garden. McLaughlin is the author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Heirloom Vegetables and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Composting. The Idiot's Guides are a series of reference books that features core concepts about gardening and other practical topics.

Why move into food gardening? It's a way to exercise, increase the beauty of a lot, get together as a family, and put food on the table. Gardening is an ever-shifting thing. The landscape is always changing, and you can participate in the "growing, shifting, and adding." Gardening doesn't need to be an expensive hobby, yet it can result in tasty and healthy food for your family.

For the beginning gardener, community resources are key to producing food and building a successful vegetable garden. McLaughlin recommends your local cooperative extension office and other community education centers as resource people. Master gardeners have a deep understanding of the plants and food crops that thrive in your particular area. Join gardening groups and start to trade seeds, cuttings, and extra plants. This makes gardening a very inexpensive hobby. If you are in an area that is well-served by nurseries or garden centers, Chris recommends finding a nursery and building a relationship with the staff over time. Community matters, and soon those same staff will be giving you gardening tips.

McLaughlin is an advocate for suburban food gardens, but not just for the pleasure of gardening. "The biggest thing for me is that it empowers people," she says. "It's no small thing to grow something and feed yourself with it." It's a matter of control over the home economy, budget, and food sources. McLaughlin points out that the suburban yard is a perfect size for the beginning gardener. It's not so large that it's overwhelming, yet it's a large enough parcel of land to give people a taste of successful food growing.

Snuggle Up to Local Eats: Food Within Reach Uses Maps to Pinpoint Regional Foods

Tricia Edgar — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:07:40 GMT

Have you heard of Google's Street View? It's made by the lovely folks at Google who have taken a little drive down streets in your local area, taken some photos, and posted them online. You can see your street, your parents' street, and your friend's street, even if it's in another city. It's a little creepy and it can provide loads of nosey entertainment.

Imagine a Street View for local produce. If you could zoom in on your region, your city, and your neighborhood and find out which stores are selling local produce, wouldn't that be grand? If you could look at your region and source out summer produce to buy in bulk, planning a route around rural neighborhoods, you could save on time, gas, and research. Perhaps you could even plan a regional food holiday based on the food purveyors that you found as you zoomed in and out of regions, looking for local delicacies.

Nanaimo-based Food Within Reach is piloting this concept in British Columbia, Canada. The company uses mapping technology to pinpoint the areas where local food grows and is sold. It connects those who buy, sell, and produce local food. If you are going for a lovely country drive to get some blueberries, the map can let you know who is growing cucumbers and corn around that blueberry farm. Or perhaps you need to pick up some honey or some local meat?

The concept is simple, but it takes a load off the minds of those who attempt to source local food. One of the reasons that we try to eat local is to reduce the carbon footprint of our food. We also like supporting local farmers and building relationships with those who grow our food. However, battling the whims of the internet can exhausting. First, try to source your food. Then try to map out a route that involves a few stops, to save on gas and reduce your climate impact and be efficient with your time. It would be lovely to look at a map, see what's available, contact the farmers and plan a seasonal trip or two to gather local produce.

First, Vancouver. Next, the world? Users are welcome to upload information: the maps are interactive and open to the public. Would you use mapping technology like this in your city or town? Would it help you as an agricultural producer? How important is it for you to have a virtual "reach" to the local people who might consume your product?

Peak Phosphorus=Peak Industrial Agriculture?

Ellen Sabina — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:11:01 GMT

Peak oil gets all the hype. I'm not saying it's not important; it's an issue that certainly deserves more serious attention than we are giving it. But there are other crises also looming in the dangerously not-so-distant future. Crises like peak phosphorus.

This probably doesn't come as any big surprise. Phosphorus is just another natural resource on the long list of resources that we are exploiting beyond their limits. But you may not realize how vital phosphorus is to our current agricultural system, and therefore how vital it is to the production of our food. Modern agriculture is dependent upon phosphorus-based fertilizer inputs, which is sourced from phosphate rock. It is predicted that we will reach peak phosphorous in the next 30 years or so, after which point there will be a forced decline in phosphate mining, and therefore the end of cheap fertilizer, which is a foundational piece of industrial agriculture.

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant growth and is a limiting factor in crop yields. In other words, without the addition of extra phosphorus via manufactured fertilizer the plant population is restricted to the natural supply of phosphorous within a given ecosystem and therefore cannot produce beyond natural limitations. Unfortunately, our food system is utterly dependent on being able to produce above and beyond the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems.

Although phosphorus is a non-renewable resource and there is no good substitute (yet) to replace the amount needed for large-scale agriculture, phosphorus is recyclable, which is somewhat hopeful. The trick will be capturing the phosphorous that remains, and creating more efficient systems so that phosphorus is not wasted. An effective solution that is already being employed in parts of Europe involves recapturing the phosphorus in human and animal waste. In Sweden and Germany phosphorus is recovered from municipal wastewater treatment plants and new technologies, like no-mix toilets are being developed for widespread use. The idea of recycling human waste and using sewage sludge for fertilizer doesn't sit well with everyone, but if done correctly it is completely safe and sanitary, and someday may be necessary.

Peak phosphorus and the decline of phosphate mining doesn't mean the end of agriculture, but it certainly means the end of agriculture as we know it. The end of reliance on phosphorus means the end of our reliance on industrial agriculture, and a forced shift to small-scale sustainable agriculture, for whom adequate phosphorus can also be sourced from compost and animal (and human) waste.

Photo Credit: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Slide Set, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Bugwood.org

Bringing Fair Trade Home

Ellen Sabina — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:01:12 GMT

Perhaps you've seen the words "fair trade" on imported products like coffee beans and chocolate bars, but have you ever seen the label "domestic fair trade"? Fair trade typically denotes products from international small farmers that are purchased and traded at a fair price. The fair trade movement also works to improve small farmers access to markets. However a new movement, led by the Domestic Fair Trade Association, seeks to broaden the definition of fair trade to encompass the needs of struggling domestic farmers.

In the face of industrial agriculture and the consolidation big organics that often threatens to push small farms out of business, domestic farmers feel the need to create a more local fair trade label. This labeling would distinguish that the food we eat is produced through a series of equitable relationships, implying that farmers get fair prices for their products, and that farm workers receive a livable wage and healthy working and living conditions. The emphasis on the people behind food production is an opportunity to build relationships across the agricultural system, uniting small farmers seeking fair prices and farm preservation, farm worker justice movements, and encouraging a more holistic definition of sustainable agriculture.

The Domestic Fair Trade Association, originally a collaboration between the international fair trade organization Equal Exchange and the Agricultural Justice Project, kicked off a pilot program several years ago to test the feasibility of local or domestic fair trade in Minnesota. The project followed four small-scale family farms and two food co-ops. The pilot program seemed to go smoothly. Farmers who not only farmed organically but also signed on to the fair trade guidelines-namely providing good working conditions and a livable wage- saw some notable market preference. Although the original pilot program has since ended, there is still growing interest in bringing fair trade to local markets all over the country.

It's great to eat organic. Organic is better for our bodies and better for our planet. But we need to expand our thinking beyond the stewardship of our land to include social stewardship as an important pillar of healthy agriculture. We need to think more about the people behind our food, who helped plant and harvest it, prepare and package it. The fair trade label for domestic products would make us, as consumers, more aware and concerned about the hands behind the scenes that prepare our food for us. Adding a Domestic Fair Trade label to qualifying products increases transparency and promises a healthier agricultural system in the U.S.

Photo credit:CC BY 2.0"> ILoveButter

Iceland's Greenhouses: Energy-Intensive and Sustainable Local Food

Tricia Edgar — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:30:10 GMT

Two years ago I ran a marathon in Iceland. This sort of activity is not unusual in my world. I've been known to wake up in the morning and say things like, "I feel like signing up to run a marathon in Iceland!" And then a year later, there I am, running a marathon in Iceland. A few things happened in between: an arduous year of training, for one. But I digress.

Iceland was as expected: gorgeous, windy, and cool. There's a wonderful cultural festival in Reykjavik that occurs after the Reykjavik Marathon, and we took that in then proceeded into the countryside for some time at a farm. We learned about wool, one of Iceland's most famous farm exports, and we got to ride an Icelandic horse, another famous and sturdy Icelandic farm animal.

What I didn't expect was all of the local food, created in greenhouses that are green, in spite of the fact that they use energy to grow cucumbers, tomatoes, and peppers in the cool Icelandic climate. I knew that fish was an Icelandic dish, but I wasn't aware that Iceland had a vital vegetable and floral industry. The name Iceland does not bring to mind verdant fields, blossoms, and fruit. However, Iceland's greenhouses are green, and they're powered by the energy from the earth. Geothermal energy from the country's very active geology creates power for sustainable food. The same energy that creates hot springs and amazing geological formations and powers the country's many outdoor swimming pools powers a local food industry as well.

In fact, just outside of Reykjavik is a town called Hveragerði, The Blossoming Town. Since 1929, the town of the greenhouses has used geothermal energy to support greenhouse agriculture, including plants that are more reminiscent of California than Iceland: peppers, tomatoes, and even floral bouquets. The southern part of Iceland is the country's greenhouse capital. In Icelandic cuisine, stalwart potatoes and fish now meet southern delicacies straight from the hot houses.

Iceland may not have the most hospitable climate for agriculture, but its agriculture is ingenious. The Icelandic people can make much with very little. The trade in sheep is an example of that. They have also made much of excess. In a country where volcanic eruptions and hot pools spring to the surface with regularity, using geothermal energy to power food production is both sensible and sustainable.

Are Food Gardens A Sustainable Part of Our Children's Education?

Tricia Edgar — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:53:30 GMT

Schoolyard gardens seem to some to be a paragon of universal and sustainable good. They provide food, knowledge of the life cycles and interactions of plants, animals and soil, and an opportunity for children who have a more physical way of learning to get comfortable in a learning environment that is very unlike the seats of a classroom.

However, schoolyard gardens also have their detractors. A recent article by Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic lambastes the idea of the school garden. Flanagan points out that a farm laborer who moves to another country to better their child's education may be less than thrilled to learn that their child is again laboring in the fields, this time in the guise of a school garden. She is concerned that instead of learning academic subjects and excelling on standardized tests, children are being forced to work in school gardens. I disagree with her assessment. Here's why.

The difference is choice. If you are provided with an education that leads only to farm labor and you have a deep desire to be a doctor, then this is maddening. However, our school gardens are part of a variety of activities that schoolchildren are involved in. Children learn how to play instruments, read and write, do math, and yes, garden. Different activities appeal to different children, and some may find meaning in mathematics while others find appeal in growing vegetables.

The difference is also the honor conferred on farmers by different cultures. All cultures value food, of course. It's what we need to live. In a socially-stratified community where those with money look down on those who must farm to eat, declining to be a farmer and seeking more education is a sensible strategy.

However, in places where many urban-dwellers are now several generations removed from farm life, gardening has developed a new mystique. Food, growing food, and local and sustainable eating are emerging as areas of interest, particularly amongst those who may have previously look down in disdain at farmers. The idea of farming and food is being gentrified. Once an activity that people aspired to leave behind, people are discovering that practical skills are valuable and necessary to everyday life if we are to develop sustainable homes and cities. We're revaluing lost knowledge, and the schoolyard garden is part of that movement.

In school, I excelled. I did exceptionally well on the aforementioned standardized tests and eventually received a graduate degree. In the end, what did I really want to learn as an adult? I wanted to learn how to harvest wild plants, how to grow food, how to cook well, and how to sew and knit. While school may not be the right place to learn all of these things, practical skills should absolutely be part of a growing child's education, as they are a part of adult life.

I am an example of that trend. My grandparents grew up poor on a Canadian farm and had little education. When I talk with them about my work to reintegrate practical skills into the lives of those who have forgotten how to garden, they understand the value that their skills have. They say it is sad that people have forgotten how to lead lives that incorporate gardening, making food from scratch, and creating our own clothing. It's an honor to be able to choose this path again.

Fighting for Healthy Food: Spotlight on Ladonna Redmond

Ellen Sabina — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:01:27 GMT

Last weekend I had the privilege of attending two thought provoking lectures at the Northeast Organic Farmers Association's winter conference at the University of Vermont. One featured a panel of distinguished political figures, including Vermont's two state senators and the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Although the speeches did indeed provide thought-provoking fodder for a sustainable food editorial post, I'm going to put it on hold for the time being, and instead shift the spotlight to the other headlining speaker, Ladonna Redmond.

If you're into urban gardening and food justice, chances are you've heard of Ladonna Redmond. She has been crusading for food justice and access to healthy organic food in Chicago's food deserts, which are also, not surprisingly, some of the city's most low-income neighborhoods. For her efforts she has been recognized by TIME magazine, Essence Magazine, and The Nation, among other national publications. In other words, she's making a big splash and is someone who is making real changes in the sustainable urban food world.

Ladonna is one of the biggest advocates for the black community's access to good food. She is interested in helping to recreate the idea of food among the "hip hop generation," a generation that she says equates food with McDonalds. In order to do this, Ladonna envisions, and is acting upon, a multi-pronged approach. The first step, which has been her focus in the past, is to simply make food accessible in low-income, predominately black neighborhoods that qualify as food deserts. She has incited the establishment of farmers markets, urban gardens, and most recently a grocery store with lots of local and organic options. The grocery store, called "Graffiti and Grub" is located in Englewood, a Chicago South Side neighborhood and food desert, also ties into her hope of encompassing the hip hop generation in the green food movement.

Graffiti and Grub aims to serve as a community wellness center of sorts, promoting Redmond's idea of SOUL food: Sustainable Organic Urban and Local food. The first floor is the store, while the second floor serves as a community performance space. The store employs local teens, and aims to banish the pretentiousness often associated with organic food stores. It's important to mention that Redmond's vision of SOUL food is using healthy food as a means of reconnecting the hip hop generation with traditional soul food, and African American culture. Food is a powerful cultural touchstone that she feels needs to be restored to the black community, as well as other ethnic communities, in order to make the shift away from fast food and towards local, organic, good food.

Hearing Ladonna Redmond speak was inspiring, despite the fact that her emphasis is geared towards urban black communities and Vermont is perhaps the least urban, least diverse state in the U.S. But her message still resonates. It is possible for us to overcome the many hurdles cluttering our dysfunctional food system, and everyone needs to get back to some SOUL food.

Photo Credit: ItzaFineDay