If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Micah passed this quote on to me…
If every US citizen ate just one meal a week that consisted of locally and organically raised meats and produce we would reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels of oil a week! Each food item in a typical US meal has traveled an average of 1500 miles.
- Steven L. Hopp
Emory and Henry College
Reading about food mileage always makes me think more about where people choose to live. For example, California’s climate can support a rich diversity of produce; so, if hypothetically we could only eat what was raised locally, we would still fare pretty well. Contrast this with the food limitations in other parts of the US where the climate can’t support such rich diversity.
This may be an oversimplification (and I recognize that a diverse diet isn’t valued by all), but it seems that we’re being lulled into a false sense of quality of life by the oil-based infrastructure that our current development and agricultural models are dependent on. If you lived in the desert and could only eat desert vegetation (prickly pears may be haute cuisine but they’re a pain to prep!), I don’t think we’d have seen the rapid growth of Arizona cities these last twenty years. We’d see people living more densely in the areas where the quality of life was more true to nature and not artificially imposed.
If we start having to pay the true price for these models (not only in dollars but in quality of life), it will be interesting to see how cities change. Zoomburbs will become the ghost-towns of tomorrow.
Jason
3 responses so far ↓
1 E // Jun 6, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I sat through a fascinating lecture at the National Planning Conference in Philadelphia a few months ago on the subject of “food deserts.” This term is in reference to existing, mostly poor, underserved neighborhoods that don’t have access to basic grocery stores within walking, biking, or even short driving distances, but are oversaturated with fast food restaurants, corner liquor stores, etc. The sad reality of many low -income neighborhoods in this country, not to mention neighborhoods of all types where we force people to drive unreasonable distances to go to huge supermarkets.
You could also apply the term “food deserts” to areas of the country where, if cheap oil and ergo transport of food no longer existed, you’d find them so far from viable food production that they would end up as literal ghost towns that you spoke of.
2 Sue // Jun 8, 2007 at 6:39 am
Nice post! You have said it very well. Keep going.
3 Kempster // Jun 11, 2007 at 11:52 am
In Atlanta, we have a huge “farmer’s market” that is open everyday and is about the size of a Costco. This market is frequented by people of all socio-econonic strata, and provides one of the better options for fresh produce. Recently, I’ve been more mindful of where this “fresh” produce is coming from. Surprisingly, almost all of the produce comes from Mexico, with a smattering from Latin America, the south-eastern states, and CA. Georgia farmers? It seems they only grow peanuts and some collards. It sucks to think how inefficient (oil-wise) it is to buy produce in a busy metro area.
On the lines of what E mentioned, eating locally is out of reach for most low-income residents. Think about what a luxury it is to munch on those organic strawberries from the co-op or pick up some tasty dandelion greens and fresh sprouts at the Sunday morning market in Sac. At a minimum, it is probably 30% more expensive (and that is being more than fair). On a $15,000 yearly income, that is a signifcant increase for food.
How about subsidizing local farmers for economically recessed communuities? I would bet that govt subsidization of American farms has less to do with altrusitic principles and more to do with feeding the coffers of the massive soy and grain growers that have decimated our farming industry (for more on this, check out a book called “Deep Economy”).
People with less should be able to afford fresh, healthy, local food.
Leave a Comment