For more than forty years, scientists and environmentalists have been sounding the alarm about climate change. In 1975 Dr. Wallace S. Broecker, who first introduced the term “global warming,” published his landmark paper that modeled  the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and temperature rise. It was also in the 1970s that ExxonMobil’s own in-house scientists conducted studies that raised red flags about fossil fuels and climate change. That suppressed report motivated ExxonMobil to launch a multi-million-dollar, multi-decade disinformation campaign—the effects of which we’re still living with today.

As the chorus of credible voices on climate change has grown ever louder over the years, scientists, environmentalists, politicians, concerned citizens, and the media have struggled to craft a compelling narrative to communicate to a skeptical American public both the short- and long-term impacts of climate change. Although nearly every avenue of communication has been tried, according to recent polling nearly fifty percent of Americans continue to reject the fact that climate change will affect them during their lifetimes.

Without a doubt, the effort to normalize climate-change denial has ramped up since Donald Trump captured the White House. Incredibly, at least twenty current appointees at major governmental agencies are climate-change deniers. Trump appointees at agencies vital to the health and safety of Americans, like the United States Department of Agriculture, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Housing and Human Development, have expressed in various ways their doubts about the human causes of climate change. Trump himself has muddied the waters by repeatedly denying and denigrating, through his off-the-cuff comments, the documented conclusions of the government’s own climate researchers, space agency, and military.

Listen to your stomach

What will it take to wake up doubting Americans to the greatest challenge humankind may ever face? Publication of the results of scientific studies have failed. Charts and graphs have failed. Dramatic videos of melting ice and glaciers and predictions about the coming devastation to coastal communities of sea-level rise have done little to change the minds of skeptics. Heart-rending photos of dislocated islanders abandoning their flooded homes and devastating videos of starving polar bears gain temporary traction but then are forgotten. Warnings about melting ice caps fall on deaf ears. Climate-disaster blockbuster movies fail to translate into real-life perceptions. Appeals to deniers’ better angels and the oft-repeated religious belief that Earth is a god-given gift to humanity that must be cared for and stewarded with care seem to yield only temporary concern. Entreaties about the responsibility to pass on to children and grandchildren a rich and diverse world—all have failed to break through the psychological barrier of denial.

If science, religion, ethics, love of family, or scare tactics have failed to convince doubters of the reality of climate change, what will? Could the answer to that question be that the disappearance due to climate change of some of our favorite comfort foods will do the trick? In other words, is the way to climate deniers’ minds through their stomachs?

Foods at risk

Some of America’s favorite comfort foods and kitchen staples may either be on the edge of extinction within the next few decades or their availability and affordability threatened by rising growing costs due to the effects of climate change, like changing seasonal weather patterns, drought, or temperature rise. It may be time to remind climate-change doubters that we might be looking at a world in which favorite foods like apples, avocados, bananas, chocolate, coffee, corn, beer, wine, honey, and much more may no longer be available or may end up becoming affordable only to the wealthiest among us.

Here are a few of the predictions:

Apples

The trees on which America’s favorite fruit grows need a certain period of winter chill to produce economically viable yields. Rising temperatures are disrupting the apple-growing season and causing apple trees to bear their fruit sooner. Rising winter temperatures will most likely force apple farmers to breed new cultivars that require lower chilling temperatures, which might affect yields and taste.

Avocados

90% of avocados grown in the U.S. come from California, and 79% of avocados in the U.S. are imported from Mexico. One pound of avocados requires 72 gallons of water to grow. Due to drought and increased costs of water, the cost of growing has increased significantly. Predictions are that the cost of avocados will continue to rise as water supplies become less predictable.

Bananas

The Cavendish banana, which is the commercially grown version sold in supermarkets, has been under a devastating attack by the Panama disease,  which taints the soil in which banana trees are grown. The fungus is rapidly spreading throughout Africa and Asia and could spread more rapidly as climate change encourages spread of the pathogens. According to experts, if the fungus spreads to South America, banana lovers can say goodbye to this staple unless scientists succeed in breeding a new, pathogen-resistant variety.

Cocoa

In the early 1990s, the fungal disease called witch’s broom knocked out 80% of Brazil’s total cocoa output. Today, scientists fear that fungal diseases could send the cocoa bean into extinction because of the plant’s limited genetic variation. The projected higher temperatures in West Africa also pose a significant threat.

Coffee

Researchers predict that by 2050, up to 80% of the land area suitable for growing coffee—particularly in Brazil and parts of Central America—could become unsuitable for growing due to higher temperatures and changing rainfall patterns, all of which would pose a risk to the global coffee supply chain.

Corn

As global warming progresses, corn yields in the U.S. (now at 300 million tons produced each year in the U.S. alone or 30% of farmland) could decrease by 30 to 46 percent and even up to 63 to 82 percent if faster warming rates occur. Corn is everywhere in the American food chain. From feed for beef, chicken, and pork to ingredients derived from the corn kernel that are used in a multitude of processed foods—Ingredients like corn syrup, corn oil, corn starch, ascorbic acid, acetic acid, citric acid, and more.

Honey

The documented decline and large-scale disappearance of honeybees linked to pesticide use and climate change points to the decline or total loss of honey production in the future.

Beer

Water and hops, the main ingredients in beer production, are under threat by the changing climate. Warming winters are producing earlier and decreased yields of hops. The National Resources Defense Council warns that between 2030 and 2050 the difficulty in accessing freshwater is “anticipated to be significant in the major agricultural and urban areas throughout the nation.”

Wine

Studies are beginning to show that temperatures in California’s wine-producing regions, like the Napa Valley and Sonoma, are becoming too high to grow wine grapes. Predictions of production loss in California over the next fifty years come in as high as a potential 85% decrease. In France, extreme weather, like hailstorms, drought, and heavy rain, are threatening the viability of some of the country’s most iconic wine producers.

The post Climate change endangers food favorites like beer, wine, apples, bananas, chocolate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week the German supermarket chain Edeka cooked up an unannounced demonstration of the diversity in the German food-supply chain by removing all products from countries other than Germany from the shelves of its Hamburg store.

The result? Shoppers were shocked to find aisles of empty shelves and a store devoid of the wide

selection of food choices they largely take for granted.
Edeka’s campaign surprised not just shoppers but also German and international media as well. After all, taking a stand on controversial political issues is not what’s usually expected of one of the world’s largest corporations. Headquartered in Hamburg with over four thousand stores, Edeka is the second largest supermarket chain in the world in terms of annual revenues. This is the kind of corporation that, at least in American terms, one would expect would play it safe when it comes to controversy.

It’s clear that the social provocateurs and the out-of-the-box marketers hiding out in Edeka’s corporate offices made sure that the messaging to shoppers and the media would be clear, unambiguous, and thought provoking. Prominently displayed near the empty shelves were signs that cleverly signaled the dual messaging on diversity that the corporate giant aimed to communicate to its customers. With signs that read  “Our range now knows borders,” “This is how empty a shelf is without foreigners,” “This shelf is pretty boring without diversity,” or “We will be poorer without diversity,” Edeka squarely thrust itself into the simmering debate in Germany and abroad on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy for refugees from the war-torn countries of Africa and the Middle East.

Edeka’s surprise display of solidarity with the reality of diversity and the changing face of German society in light of Germany’s acceptance of more than one million refugees and asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Eritrea, and Albania was met with decidedly mixed reviews.

Commenting on the controversial campaign, a spokeswoman explained the corporation’s motivations. “Edeka stands for variety and diversity. In our stores, we sell numerous foods which are produced in the various regions of Germany.  But only together with products from other countries, is it possible to create the unique variety that our consumers value.”

Hailed by many for its social and political boldness but dismissed by others as a cynical marketing ploy, Edeka joins other international retailers like America’s Kenneth Cole shoe company and Britain’s United Colors of Benetton in exploiting their commercial bully pulpit to try—often with clever humor—to tip the scales toward a more tolerant and just social compact.

I, for one, applaud Edeka for this gutsy move, for getting out in front of a difficult issue, and for planting a marker that tells its customers just where this corporate giant stands. We need more cleverly conceived campaigns like this one—especially in America and especially now.

The post A German supermarket’s clever object lesson in diversity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Farmers’ market season is in full swing here in the Northeast. And for this devotee, the season of fresh local produce can never come soon enough.

This is the season I long for throughout the barren winters when supermarket produce trucked and flown in from fields far from the Hudson Valley leaves my cooking juices as well as my taste buds in the doldrums. Put simply, farmers’ market season reawakens my interest in food. Now that the season is here it’s possible to indulge in exquisite meals in which the starring role can be taken by the simplest of preparation methods – peeling, cutting, and tossing with a bit of fruity olive oil and some freshly picked herbs from the garden.

Lest anyone try to convince you differently, the fact is that taste, freshness, and healthiness are inexorably linked. At my local farmers’ market I almost exclusively buy organically grown produce. Although there are skeptics who have been known to deny the efficacy of my taste buds, I swear by my ability to taste the residue of pesticides even after thoroughly washing and peeling conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.

But taste is just the beginning of why health-conscious consumers should be thinking about whether to purchase conventionally grown produce or make the slightly higher investment during your farmers’ market season to purchase organically grown produce.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment, provides sobering, science-based research that can help families make smart choices about the food we purchase and consume.

This year when EWG conducted their annual analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data, they found that nearly 70 percent of the samples USDA tested of the 48 types of conventionally grown produce were contaminated with the residues of one or more pesticides. Researchers at USDA found an astounding total of 178 different pesticides and pesticide breakdown products on the thousands of samples analyzed.

You read that last sentence correctly. Let me repeat: 178 different pesticides and pesticide breakdown products were found.

One of the questions consumers should be asking is what are the health effects of the astounding number of chemicals we’re ingesting via our food supply? The truth is that contrary to popular belief, it’s been proven that pesticide residues remain on fruits and vegetables even after they’re washed and, in some cases, even when they’re peeled.

What does that contamination mean for the consumer?

The pesticide and chemical industry have been telling the public for years that pesticides, growth hormones, and antibiotics in produce, in dairy products, and in meat, fish, and poultry are “nothing to worry about.”  If that false reassurance reminds you of another industry that promised their products would do no harm you wouldn’t be far off the mark. We should never forget the years of promises and lies broadcast by the tobacco industry.

The question is: Who should consumers believe when looking for answers about the safety of ingesting pesticides? The independent doctors and scientists or the industry that profits from agribusiness’s addiction to pesticides, growth hormones, and antibiotics?

Here’s Dr. Philip Landrigan, Dean of Global Health and Director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, sharing the health industry’s conclusions about pesticide exposure in the most vulnerable – our children.

Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to infants, babies and young children, so when possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children’s exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables.

If you’re looking for guidance on which conventionally grown fruits and vegetables to avoid in terms of pesticide residues and help with making informed decisions about getting the most healthy “bang for your buck” when making decisions about purchasing organically grown produce, look no further than the Environmental Working Group’s annual scorecards. They’re called the Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen.

The Dirty Dozen

• Strawberries
• Spinach
• Nectarines
• Apples
• Peaches
• Pears
• Cherries
• Grapes
• Celery
• Tomatoes
• Sweet Bell Peppers
• Potatoes

Key Findings on the Dirty Dozen from the Environmental Working Group Study

• Nearly all samples of strawberries, spinach, peaches, nectarines, cherries, and apples tested positive for residue of at least one pesticide.
• The most contaminated sample of strawberries had twenty different pesticides.
• Spinach samples had an average of twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop. Three-fourths of spinach samples had residues of a neurotoxic pesticide banned in Europe for use on food crops – it’s part of a class of pesticides that recent studies link to behavioral disorders in young children.

The Clean Fifteen

• Corn
• Avocados
• Pineapples
• Cabbage
• Onions
• Sweet Peas Frozen
• Papayas
• Asparagus
• Mangoes
• Eggplant
• Honeydew Melon
• Kiwis
• Cantaloupe
• Cauliflower
• Grapefruit
  

Key Findings on the Clean Fifteen from the Environmental Working Group Study

• Avocados and sweet corn were the cleanest: Only 1 percent of samples showed any detectable pesticides.
• More than 80 percent of pineapples, papayas, asparagus, onions, and cabbage had no pesticide residues.
• No single fruit sample from the Clean Fifteen tested positive for more than four types of pesticides.
• Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on Clean Fifteen vegetables. Only 5 percent of Clean Fifteen vegetable samples had two or more pesticides.

The post What we’re eating: The Dirty Dozen vs. the Clean Fifteen appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Trump’s wall could affect your weekly trip to the supermarket. Instead of getting Mexico to pay for his pet project, as he loudly promised during the presidential campaign, Trump is now floating a 20 percent tariff [“border tax,” as he calls it] on all goods imported from Mexico. That’s going to ding you in the shopping cart.

I called my local supermarket today and spoke with the assistant produce manager, Steve. [He works for Dierberg’s, a high-quality, locally owned chain with 25 stores throughout the St. Louis region and Metro East–Illinois region.] I asked him to list all of the fruits and vegetables that—right now, at the end of January in the Midwest—are imported from Mexico.

Topping his list was avocados. That’s a big one all over the US, according to USAID: Currently, the U.S. imports 78 percent of Mexico’s avocado production.

Okay, so if you’re not a regular guacamole maker, that’s no big deal, right? But avocados are only the beginning.

Steve the produce guy then scrolled a little farther down his Excel spreadsheet and found some other items that the rest of us shoppers buy regularly. He reported that most of the varieties of tomatoes in his store also came from Mexico: Beefsteaks, Comparis, Cherubs and others.

That observation also fits national statistics: USDA says that 71 percent of tomatoes sold in the U.S. come from Mexico. Overall, the US imports $4.9 billion in fresh vegetables per year.

He also noted that essentially all of his supermarket’s strawberries, blackberries and raspberries are imported from Mexico at this time of year. And he’s right on trend there, too: According to US Trade Representative statistics, the US imports $4.3 billion in fresh fruit per year. We also bring in $1.4 billion in processed fruits and vegetables from Mexico. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mexico is the biggest exporter of fresh produce to the U.S. by far, responsible for nearly 70 percent of our vegetable imports and almost 40 percent of fruit imports. (USDA data from 2015 places the number at 44 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable imports.)

So, I asked Steve, if Donald Trump imposes a 20 percent tax on these imports, would you raise your prices by 20 percent as well?

“We could,” he said. “And that would hurt.”

But there could also be trouble in the snack food aisle, as well as in the beverage department. The US imports $2.7 billion in wine and beer from Mexico, and $1.7 billion in snack foods. Under the Trump tariff plan, your tacos-and-Corona parties, as well as those wine-and-cheese events, are going to be pricier. And if you’re fond of tequila shots, they’re probably going to cost more, too. [The U.S. imported over $1.3 billion worth of beer from Mexico last year [Statista, 2016] And we import about 79 percent of Mexico’s total annual exports of tequila [Tequila Regulatory Council, 2014]

Did I mention that 15 percent of all sugar consumed in the US comes from Mexico? Think of all the items on your supermarket shelves that have sugar as an ingredient. Then consider what the manufacturers of those items are going to have to do if sugar costs them 20 percent more. Trump’s scheme will be hitting your wallet when you reach for the Coco Crispies and when you grab a family-size pack of Oreos. You could get a double whammy on jars of pizza and spaghetti sauce, where more pricey tomatoes and more pricey sugar co-mingle.

A 20 percent tariff might, indeed, generate much of the estimated $15 billion cost of Trump’s wall, if you add up the total value of the food imports, plus all of the non-food items we import from Mexico and multiply by .20.

But, if Trump gets his way, when you’re at the checkout counter looking at your receipt; as you load your paper, plastic or reusable bags into the trunk of your car; and as you look at your household budget and wonder why you don’t have as much left over at the end of the month, don’t forget that some of the extra cash you left at the supermarket helped fund a chunk of Trump’s wall. How do you like them tomatoes?

The post Trump’s wall could ding you at the supermarket appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Maybe you’ve been following the long-simmering controversy about labeling food products for GMOs (genetically modified organisms). If you haven’t, now is a good time to pay attention because one of the world’s largest food conglomerates—that would be Campbell’s—has just thrown a new twist into the GMO pot. In fact, Campbell’s recently announced turnaround might just prove to be the watershed moment the anti-GMO movement and vocal consumers have been hoping for.

Campbell’s, a long-time opponent of GMO labeling, is breaking ranks with its biotech and agribusiness cronies and the powerful Grocery Manufacturing Association (GMA) to become the first major food company to label its entire line of products for genetically engineered ingredients. (That portfolio includes Campbell’s iconic soups, Pepperidge Farm cookies and snacks, Vlasic pickles, V-8 beverages, Prego pasta sauces, Swanson broths, and more).

Campbell’s new policy is in answer to consumers’ demands for transparency and reflects the economic realities of the impending enforcement of the first state-labeling law to take effect this summer in Vermont. To put it bluntly, it looks like Campbell’s is conceding defeat in the fight to establish mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Here’s how Campbell’s CEO Denise Morrison’s dropped the bombshell on January 17th:

Today, consistent with our purpose, we announced our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and proposed that the federal government provide a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.

Campbell’s announcement must have sent shockwaves through the industrial food complex because up to this year the company had been marching in lock step with the powerful anti–GMO-labeling lobby. That group was composed of a who’s who of America’s food giants—corporate titans like PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, Hershey, Kellogg, Land O’Lakes, Del Monte, Cargill, ConAgra, Ocean Spray, and Smuckers.

Along with Campbell’s announcement backing a federal mandate for labeling came a second bombshell: that the company would “withdraw from all efforts led by coalitions and groups opposing such measures.” It was as recent as 2012 that Campbell’s deposited $265,000 into the anti-labeling lobby’s war chest. That pile of cash eventually tallied up to the mighty sum of $46 million, which America’s corporate giants sank into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37 in California (the first salvo in the fight to defeat state-mandated labeling of foods for GMO ingredients). And although Campbell’s contribution was a drop in the bowl compared to Monsanto’s more than $4 million and DuPont’s more than $3 million, the new year’s turnaround by Campbell’s could be a game changer.

Remember that the corporate bullies won the first battle in 2012, when California voters narrowly defeated Prop 37. Where California failed, however, Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine succeeded. In May 2014, Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law Act 120, one of the country’s first mandatory, GMO-labeling laws. Act 120, which becomes enforceable as of July 2016, requires that all foods offered for sale in Vermont must be labeled for GMOs if the food is “entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.”

It looks like tiny Vermont sounded the alarm on the future of GMO-labeling and one corporate food giant finally is listening.

Addressing the question of why the sudden turnaround: Here’s Campbell’s Morrison again:

We are operating with a “consumer first” mindset. We put the consumer at the center of everything we do. . . . GMO has evolved to be a top consumer food issue reaching a critical mass of 92% of consumers in favor of putting it on the label.

And Campbell’s has broken ranks even on the issue of the cost of labeling. Addressing the canard that labeling for GMOs would increase costs for consumers, in an email response to the Organic Consumers Association, Campbell’s spokesperson Tom Hushen wrote:

To be clear, there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or national GMO labeling for Campbell products.

Campbell’s words and actions certainly appear to support the obvious economic benefits of a single federal labeling law rather than the higher projected costs of complying with a patchwork of state labeling laws. Campbell’s will be looking for guidance from the USDA and FDA for a single, federally legislated mandatory labeling standard. In sum, Campbell’s—unlike the rest of the food giants—has seen where the wind is blowing on GMO transparency and has decided to take the lead.

However, lest GMO opponents get too excited, it’s important to point out that Campbell’s is not conceding anything on the health dangers of GMOs. Here is spokesperson Tom Hushen of Campbell’s reaffirming his company’s unwavering commitment to GMOs:

We still believe GMOs are safe, and we continue to believe that they play an important role in feeding the world.

Clearly, for GMO opponents hoping to eliminate genetically modified ingredients entirely from America’s food basket, the labeling battle may have been won but the war will still go on.

The post Campbell’s will label its products with GMO info appeared first on Occasional Planet.

According to Carol Adams, the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat, “Meat is a symbol for patriarchal control.” Meat has been historically associated with gender since the age of hunter/gatherer societies in which meat was a valuable economic commodity, and those that controlled its distribution could maintain power. This established a pattern in social relations, which a social theorist would argue establishes a “social structure.” According to Adams, “one’s maleness is reassured by the food one eats.”

However, the social pressure males feel to reinforce their gender identity through meat has some very serious consequences. Females, traditionally considered second-class citizens in the various patriarchal societies throughout history, have been delegated what the particular society in question designates as “second-class food,” which is nearly always vegetarian. Despite the fact that pregnant and nursing mothers actually have a greater need for protein than their male counterparts, the protein needs of men are often prioritized and women starve at a disproportionate rate to men in third world countries today, as a direct result.

Throughout various patriarchal societies, such as Mbaum Kapu, women are restricted from certain meats, such as chicken and goat, and are punished if they choose to consume them. Conversely, foods designated for female consumption, such as eggs in the Nuer culture, are not eaten by males and are considered undesirable and effeminate. These are examples of the direct consequences of the genderization and sexualization of meat and the meanings associated with it.

Examples of the consequences of the genderization of meat also exist in American history. American policies regarding food rationing during wartime reinforce ideas connecting meat to masculinity: The government reserved meat for the masculine ideal, or the soldier/warrior. During World War II, on average, soldiers consumed two and a half times more meat than the average civilian. This policy is based on the superstition that in consuming the muscles of other creatures, the consumer is given strength. This has led to the traditional belief that men require meat for strength and, as a result, the consumption of meat has become a symbol of male dominance and a way to sustain strength, and by extension, social power. In this way, the federal government has reinforced ideas about meat and gender, as well as meat and power, forging meat as a symbol of the patriarchy. Meat has become a tool of gender identity in our society, which has serious consequences for women and animals.

The post The sexual politics of meat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I am a strong believer in organic foods. And not only because I think they are better for you to eat. It is just as important that organics are also better for farmworkers and the Earth.

A new report from Consumer Reports (which I trust without reservation) says:

The reliance on toxic pesticides to produce food is neither safe nor sustainable…. Given the growing body of scientific evidence pointing to harm, we believe that the costs are too high and do not justify the short-term benefits of controlling pests with toxic chemicals.

Consumer Reports recommends buying organic produce whenever possible— not at the expense of not eating fruits and vegetables if you can’t get it or afford it, but as much as possible– and if you can afford it, it is worth the extra cost, especially for certain “high-risk” items.

The risk from pesticides in produce grown conventionally varies from very low to very high, depending on the type of produce and on the country where it’s grown. The differences can be dramatic. For instance, eating one serving of green beans from the U.S. is 200 times riskier than eating a serving of U.S.-grown broccoli. This is especially important for children.

The post Consumer Reports says, “Buy organic.” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Daffodils are blooming here in the Northeast. That’s the surest sign that opening day for our local farmers’ markets is not far off.

That’s a day that can’t come soon enough for this dedicated vegetarian. As the winter months dragged on, the longing for the taste of fresh, locally harvested produce became almost unbearable. By March, I decided that I had to stop wasting my food dollars and put an end to purchasing the over-priced, tired organic vegetables on the shelves of my local supermarket. Don’t get me wrong: from October to February, who wouldn’t be grateful to California growers for keeping a steady stream of fruits and veggies coming our chilly way? But the taste of that produce, having traveled nearly three thousand miles in refrigerated trucks cross-country, cannot compare to the taste of the local, seasonal selection less than one mile away that’s harvested the day before it’s dumped into the sink, rinsed off, and chopped up for salads.

I’ll admit it. I’m a die-hard supporter of farmers’ markets and the superior tasting organic produce that graces our tables during the blissful six months of the growing season here in the Hudson Valley.

Superior taste, however, is just one reason to buy local. Hard-core economics is another. If data and facts hold even the slightest influence over your purchasing decisions, then the reason for buying local adds up to a lot more than just culinary pleasure, symbolic idealism, or what some may derisively call the starry-eyed sloganeering of the buy-local movement. The truth is that the economics of buying local hits communities right where it counts—in the wallet. And the economic advantage of buying local applies equally to both farmers’ markets and the independently owned businesses in our communities.

The facts are, indeed, on the side of the buy-local campaigners. Here are just a few:

• Strengthening a community’s economic base. Buying from independent, locally owned businesses and farmers creates a ripple effect. As money flows into local businesses and farms, that money is spent making purchases from other local businesses, farms, and service providers who create and retain local jobs.
• Preserving the uniqueness of communities. Supporting local businesses and farmers (who are, after all, stewards of open land as well as food producers) helps retain the unique character of a community, which leads to increased tourism dollars, which leads to higher sales-tax revenues.
• Job creation. On the national level, surprising as it may seem, in the aggregate small, locally owned businesses and food producers are the largest employers—not the giant corporations.
• Saving tax dollars. Local businesses located in town centers require less investment in expensive infrastructure improvements and make more efficient use of local tax dollars than nationally owned companies that locate on the periphery and often are the recipients of incentivizing property-tax deferments.
• Encouraging local prosperity. One study after another demonstrates that entrepreneurs and skilled workers invest and settle in communities that preserve their unique character and retain one-of-a-kind businesses, farms, and landscapes.
• Reducing environmental impact. Local businesses tend to cluster in town and city centers. This clustering effect reduces the quantity of fossil fuels used by consumers who would otherwise drive to businesses located in outlying locations. The same holds true for farms, as transportation of foodstuffs to farmers’ markets by local farmers burns far less fossil fuels than produce shipped cross-country by industrial farms.

All of the above make a compelling argument for Americans to reconsider where they spend their dollars—particularly their food dollars.

But is that shift happening? The answer is “yes” and “no.” In terms of farmers’ markets, the public’s perception of the personal and economic benefits of buying local, as well as a growing discomfort with industrial food-production practices, is starting to have an impact across the country. The USDA has been tracking the numbers, which show an extraordinary increase in farmers’ markets located in communities large and small. From 1994 to 2013 the total grew from 1,755 to 8,144. Although these numbers reflect significant growth, the fact is that the majority of consumers don’t shop at their local markets. In fact, just 0.2% of overall food dollars is spent nationally at farmers’ markets.

There are many explanations for that low number. Among them are the lack of easy access, particularly a problem in low-income communities, and the perceived convenience and habit of one-stop shopping. Another explanation is the reliance of the American diet on boxed, frozen, or ready-made foods. But, above all, there’s the problem of price perception, which acts as an obstacle to greater market participation.

The belief that foodstuffs at farmers’ markets are overly expensive continues to challenge market boosters. Data on price comparisons between non-local supermarket fare and local offerings at farmers’ markets is difficult to come by. The number of formal studies is limited. One of the most comprehensive to date was conducted in 2009 by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture of Iowa State University. The study compared pricing of a “market-basket” of typical local and non-local conventionally grown vegetable items available at peak season at farmers’ markets, small grocery shops, and supermarkets.

The Leopold study concluded that “during peak season, local produce items at farmers’ markets were competitive with the same non-local items found at supermarkets.”

The study also concluded that, based on price data for a family of four, consumers would spend slightly less buying from the farmers’ market during peak season. The Iowa study went on to conclude that the majority of vegetable prices at farmers’ markets during peak season were equal or lower for the same items at groceries and supermarkets, and that for those items that were priced higher at farmers’ markets, the price difference was marginal.

Interestingly, the Iowa study did not compare meat prices because “meats for sale at farmers’ markets typically have additional attributes, such as antibiotic-free or free range, that make it impossible to compare them directly to the conventional meat items sold in supermarkets.”

This observation reflects a broader issue that promoters of farmers’ markets struggle to communicate to consumers when discussing pricing. As one farmer at my local market has said, “Comparing vegetable varieties that are grown on a small scale for the intensity of their flavor with tasteless varieties that are grown primarily to survive the shipping process is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re simply not the same product.”

A more recent study of price comparisons was undertaken in the summer of 2010 by the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont. Unlike the Iowa study, which studied only conventionally grown vegetable items, the Vermont study analyzed price differences between organic and conventionally grown produce at farmers’ markets, co-ops, and supermarkets. The results show that, in Vermont, prices for conventional produce at farmers’ markets were lower than at groceries for 5 out of the 14 vegetable items studied. Nine out of 14 were cheaper at grocery stores. The average price difference between conventional produce at grocery stores and farmers’ markets was 19.8%. On a $3 purchase, that means that, on average, buying conventionally grown, freshly picked local produce at a Vermont farmers’ market would cost approximately 60 cents more than purchasing non-local produce at the grocery store.

The results, when comparing pricing for organics at farmers’ markets with pricing at traditional retail grocery stores, were more definitive. Prices at Vermont’s farmers’ markets were lower for 12 out of 14 organic items. The price difference between organics at farmers’ markets and organics at traditional stores was 38.8%. On a $3 purchase, that means that, on average, buying freshly picked, local organic produce at a Vermont farmers’ market would cost approximately $1.20 less than purchasing non-local organic produce at the grocery store.

The post The economic facts about farmers’ markets: Freshness and high quality don’t cost more appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Although the worship [what does that mean, anyway?] service was long, the bar mitzvah boy did himself proud, and this here atheist survived another socially obligatory religious event. And then, just when I thought the exit doors were about to open, the rookie rabbi stepped up to the plate and delivered a sermon. About being Kosher. This would be the perfect time to tune out, I thought, because a sermon about the ins and outs of keeping kosher was going to have no relevance to my secular life. So, I began to shut down. But my ears perked up when he asserted that, with regard to the rules of Kashrut [the Hebrew word that means “keeping Kosher”], the Oscar goes to…vegetarians.  A person who eschews meat, rather than chewing it, is the most kosher eater, according to the rabbi–and I’m one of those people. Fist pump, baby!

The post Accidentally kosher appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right now is the time of year when the most bountiful pickings from our local family farmers are ready for the table.  Peppers, eggplant, tomatoes, corn, garlic, onions, greens and herbs of all varieties, potatoes, peaches, plums, pears, apples, blueberries, grapes, and more. The list of freshly harvested deliciousness goes on and on.

A trip to your local farmers’ market reveals a cornucopia of fruits and vegetables that scientists now believe to be nutritionally superior to supermarket fare shipped from afar. Did you know that when you alter your diet to include eating just one more serving of a fruit or vegetable –whether it comes from the produce section of your local supermarket or a local farmer—you would significantly improve your health? That single serving could also help to reduce health care costs for yourself and the rest of us.

Turns out that the old adage “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” (or, as the Welsh would say,  “Eat an apple on going to bed, and you’ll keep the doctor from earning his bread”) is true.

Our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have produced an animated video that explains in simple terms the relationship between the foods you consume, your health, and the impact in real dollars on health care costs.

As advocates for public policy that reflects good science, UCS explains how the federal farm bill’s entrenched subsidies to farmers to grow corn and soybeans—used primarily in the production of junk food—end up making unhealthy junk food cheap and healthy fruits and vegetables expensive.  That intentional cost imbalance impacts everyone,as an obesity epidemic caused by junk-food consumption results in a host of preventable diseases whose treatments explode the cost of health care.

Watch the UCS video and you’ll learn that 725,000 people die each year in the U.S. from preventable health problems related to coronary heart disease and stroke. You’ll also learn that we collectively spend $94 billion treating those diseases.

And the projected number of friends and family whose lives could be saved each year if they’d consume just one more serving of fruits or vegetables? 30,000. What about the collective savings in health care costs?  $5 billion.  And what if everyone pushed themselves just a bit and ate 2.5 cups of vegetables and 2 cups of fruit daily?  That change alone could prevent more than 127,000 premature deaths each year and save an astounding $17 billion in medical costs.

The post An apple a day equals $17 billion a year appeared first on Occasional Planet.