New York Times Op-Ed Contributor:
Think Globally, Eat Locally
December 18, 2004
By JENNIFER WILKINS
Ithaca, N.Y. - WHEN Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human
services, announced this month that he way resigning, he made an
unexpected comment: "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the
terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to
do." He
added, "We are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it
would be easy to tamper with that."
Unexpected, but right. The United States is importing more and more
food, and not just from the Middle East (which actually accounts for
only 0.4 percent of our food imports). Tomatoes from Mexico, grapes from
Chile and beef from Brazil are standard fare on American tables. The
Department of Agriculture reports that in 2005, our nation will fail to
record an agricultural surplus for the first time in 50 years,
demonstrating our rising dependency on foreign agricultural production
and distribution systems that may not be safe.
Yet few of these imports are examined to ensure they meet American
health and safety standards. This year, the Food and Drug Administration
will inspect about 100,000 of the nearly five million shipments of food
crossing our borders, and distribution is so rapid that tainted food can
reach
consumers nationwide before officials realize there is a problem. The
increasing control of the global food supply by a few corporations has
made such tampering even more tempting for a terrorist who wants to have
a big impact.
You might think that the solution is obvious: we should rely on our
domestic food supply. Unfortunately, when it comes to food security, our
vulnerabilities at home rival those we face abroad. The federal
government's encouragement of consolidation in agriculture diminishes
the security of our food supply.
Since the 1950's, American agricultural policies have been grounded in
the belief that farms should produce as much food as possible for the
least cost. These policies have led to a landscape of fewer but bigger
farms that specialize in a decreasing number of commodities that are
destined for fewer processors and packers.
>From 1993 to 2000, 33,000 farms with annual sales of less than
$100,000 disappeared. Meanwhile, very large farms play a larger role in
the United States: farms generating more than $500,000 a year are only
3.3 percent of all farms but use 20.3 percent of America's farmland and
account for 61.9 percent of all sales. The 10 largest food companies
account for more than half of all productson supermarket shelves.
Imagine what might happen to our food supply if a widespread
contamination by a food-borne disease, accidental or intentional, were
to strike even one of those
megafarms or food companies.
The increasing power of food processors means that the farmer no longer
controls the quality of the food system. About 85 percent of all
vegetables destined for freezing and canning are grown under contract,
with processors dictating variety, quantity, quality, delivery date and
even price. If American farmers cannot produce the cheapest food, the
processors turn to foreign countries, where there is greater potential
for contamination, whether because of less strict inspection procedures
or because of fewer protections against bioterrorism.
The combination of cheap food from overseas and the consolidation of
domestic production compromises America's ability to feed itself. A food
system in which control of the critical elements is concentrated in few
hands can and will fall victim to terrorism or accidents.
The solution to these insecurities is to establish community-based food
systems that include many small farmers and a diversity of products.
Such systems make large-scale contamination impossible, even for
determined bioterrorists. Far more people have contact with the Mexican
lettuce at the supermarket, for example, than with the locally grown
lettuce at the farmers' market.
But is it possible for farmers' markets to feed a growing country and
provide the range of produce we demand? The answer is yes. With some
exceptions, like coffee and chocolate, American farmers can easily meet
demand. They've also had great success in marketing directly to the
consumer: the number of farmers' markets has increased to 3,100 in 2002
from approximately 1,700 in 1994.
But creating this system of agriculture would require a shift in policy.
We should encourage smaller, diversified farms, a reallocation of
farmland from feed grains to food crops, and local food processing. And
the change in the cabinet, at both the department of health and human
services and the department of agriculture, is an opportune moment for a
such a change in policy.
It would be reassuring to one day hear a new secretary of health and
human services report that a terrorist attack on our food system would
be next to impossible because it is a complex network of farmers,
processors and consumers integrated into communities nationwide.
Strengthening local
food systems and supporting policies that shorten the distance between
producers and consumers will reduce the points of vulnerability and make
America truly food-secure.
Jennifer Wilkins is a food and society policy fellow in the Division of
Nutritional Sciences at Cornell.
--
Keith Johnson
Permaculture Activist Magazine
PO Box 1209
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828)669-6336