Live Chat: Healthy Food Choices

Welcome everyone! Thanks to everyone who submitted questions ahead of time. If you haven't posted a question yet, feel free to comment and submit your question. We look forward to chatting with Brian this afternoon. Remember to refresh your page during the chat, so you can see new questions and answers as they are posted.

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this live chat. Special
thanks to everyone who posted questions before the chat. This is my first chat and from the questions already posted I can see how interesting this is going to be.

I will try to answer as many questions as possible during the chat.

I hope that people interested in food issues or with further
questions will visit our website for more information: www.worldwatch.org.

Our first question if from Jeffrey Allen.
Hi Brian - I'm a big fan of farmers' markets and buying local food, but in some cases, doesn't buying local mean we're passing up a golden opportunity to help farmers in developing countries? For every head of New York lettuce I buy, isn't there a lettuce farmer in Central America losing money? (I don't know if lettuce is actually produced in NY or Central America, but you get my point.)

Good question and that's a common concern about eating local. A good rule of thumb is that the farther food travels, the less money stays in the local economy. So the farmer growing lettuce or garlic in Central America actually gets little of what we spend on that imported produce. Most of it goes to the shipper and trader and processor and importer. I've got some good examples in my writing where farmers in poorer nations can actually make more money, and a more stable living, selling into domestic markets or processing their produce into something more valuable that can be sold locally.

The next question is from Kate P. Can you please comment upon the environmental as well as the global hunger effects of a carnivorous diet versus a vegetarian one? In short, is one more environmentally and socially responsible than the other? Many thanks!

Hi Brian,

I'm curious about your opinion as to whether crops raised for energy use (such as corn for ethanol) will have any adverse effect on the global food supply? There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about the price of feed corn going up and affecting poultry producers.

Eating a vegetarian diet (or even eliminating some of your meat eating) is the easiest way to reduce your impact on the global environment. Meat is by far the most energy intensive part of our diets. It consumes lots of water, energy, land, and other food (the grain needed to raise the animals). That having been said, raising animals on grass, instead of on grain in feedlots, is much less destructive and can be an important part of an integrated farm, where the manure from the animals is a valuable fertilzer. So not all meat is created equal. The question of the impact on hunger is a complex one. Yes, eating less meat would free up some grain that would be fed to animals. But there is no guarantee that grain would go to feed hungry people.

The following questions are from Roshani Kothari.

A while back I saw a film called Life of Debt about Jamaica. I was shocked to see how people stopped producing milk locally and starting using milk powder imported from other countries. Supposedly it was cheaper to buy the milk powder. How can food producers whether they are in rural America or developing countries produce for local and global needs? Is there a way to do both successfully?

My second question is the role we play in creating a demand for food that cannot be produced locally. Should we be more careful about what we demand and what we consume?

Finally, what is the role of corporations in all this? I was amazed to read an article about how coca has more benefits nutritionally than coffee. Are Starbucks & other companies fueling our demand for coffee? How can corporations help support local, organic foods? I saw on ABC News that Stoneyfield Farms called Mass Produced Health. "The former windmill maker said he's looking "everywhere" for organic milk, fruit and sugar including strawberries from China, apple puree from Turkey and blueberries from Canada." What do you think about organic versus local?

To answer Casey's question about energy crops, in theory, I like the idea of using biomass instead of petroleum fuel, which has all sorts of toxic byproducts, and which emits more greenhouse gases than burning plant-based materials. But the problem I see with energy crops is that right now we give very little thought to how the crop is grown in the first place. Yes, corn-based ethanol might be less polluting than oil when it's burned in our cars, but if that corn was grown in a giant, chemical-dependent monoculture, it hasn't done us many favors in terms of the quality of our land and water (and it might actually contribute more to greenhouse gas production). If we are concerned about the impact on the global food supply, there are other places we can look--the tremendous amount of grain fed to livestock--which currently dwarf our use of biofuels.

I'm wondering about the capacity of cities to grow food within their boundaries. What kind of infrastructural/planning changes would support micro-local food production? What policies would need to be changed?

Backyard growing seems to be resource heavy (water, space, fertalizer) - but is extrodinary in hightening our connection to local communities and food systems. Is this a direction you recommend?

I saw that file Life and Debt as well, and I found it very compelling, and depressing. Unfortunately, it's a common story. Around the world, farmers will switch to export markets because of the allure of more income. That income might be high, but it's short term, and when the export market dries up (or when the importing country finds a cheaper source), then the farmers are left without the crops they might have been growing for their own markets. I'm not arguing to eliminate all food trade, a certain amount of which is beneficial and natural, but greater self-sufficiency can help protect countries from the sorts of ups and downs in prices and global markets that hurt the dairy farmers in that film. But we need to balance local needs and global needs better. Countries might choose to focus on local needs as a priority and then export surplus, or to focus on local needs for subsistence but also assign some other land for export crops. It shouldn't be an either or. In the case of a country like Jamaica, exporting Blue Mountain coffee (particularly if it's processed in Jamaica) can be a great revenue stream and doesn't need to compete with land given over to staple crops for local consumption.

In terms of creating demand for out of season or imported produce, you're right that we need to rediscover the joys of eating seasonally. If people demand tomoatoes yearround, then stores will scour the earth to flow them in from 1000s of miles away. In the same way, if we say we want more local root crops in the winter, stores will find a way to get that. But that also means that local farmers will start putting in greenhouses and doing other things to extend their season, and local chefs and food companies will start being more creative with their menus.

Finally, as this eat local movement grows beyond the culinary fringe, we are seeing larger companies get involved, from Bon Appetit Cafes that now has at least one menu item that is put together from ingredients grown within 100 miles, or Kaiser Permanente, which has farmers markets in about 40 of its clinics and hospitals. As larger food companies get involved, local food will be available to more and more of the eating public, and it would be hard to find anymore.

I'm wondering about the price difference between "organic" and regular vegetables. I would love to support my local farmers as much as possible, but I can't always afford organic vegetables. Will there be a time when the discrepancy between the two won't be so great? Thank you. Great chat.

Cities have a tremendous untapped potential to raise more of their own food. And as cities grow even larger and more congested--more than half the people on the planet now live in cities--and it's harder to get large quantities of food into those cities, raising at least some of their food locally is going to be an important solution for cities. Already cities worldwide raise about one-third of their own food. The cities and countries that have had the most luck with this have taken steps to give people access to open spaces in cities, offered training and seeds and other assistance, and have set up ways for people to market their extra produce. Longer-term planning includes protecting any remaining big tracts of land in or near cities for food production. And such urban food production can also create lots of jobs and income, so there's good political reason to support it.

I don't necessarily see backyard production as resource intensive. Raising some herbs or a few tomatoes or greens in a pot on a porch can be very productive. And generally, the smaller the scale of production, the more attention the "farmer" can give to every square inch of soil, which means being more efficient with water and other inputs. Since urban farms are so close to people, they really lend themselves to organic growing. Although cities seem to not have lots of open space, roof top gardening can be very productive.

The question of organic vs. local is a good one, and it's interesting and surprising that most of the people I have spoken with in the organic business (farmers, food companies, supermarkets) will often say that if you have to choose, you should choose local. If you don't support your local grower, then you risk that grower going out of business and you'll never have the chance to get them to go organic. Remember, that the closer you are to your food, the more control you have over how it is raised, how your landscape is used, and how your neighbors make a living. There's a good reason that organic farmers are disproportionately represented at farmers markets. Because if you are buying something grown locally, you probably want to know that that farming isn't polluting your local environment.

The question of organic vs. local is a good one, and it's interesting and surprising that most of the people I have spoken with in the organic business (farmers, food companies, supermarkets) will often say that if you have to choose, you should choose local. If you don't support your local grower, then you risk that grower going out of business and you'll never have the chance to get them to go organic. Remember, that the closer you are to your food, the more control you have over how it is raised, how your landscape is used, and how your neighbors make a living. There's a good reason that organic farmers are disproportionately represented at farmers markets. Because if you are buying something grown locally, you probably want to know that that farming isn't polluting your local environment.

Here's a question from Surya Prakash.

After organising a program on World Food Day -0ct 16th 2002, in a village in india, a girl aged 12, came up to me asked - My mother served food from rice conatiner which DOG kept its mouth in, is it OK to eat or not?

I just looked at her and I couldnt answer her, even today I keep asking people what should I say? till now I am not getting satisfactory anser, could you help me?

-surya prakash.

Hello Brian and welcome to Gather. I was wondering if there was a recongnizable turn in our history where people stopped a lot of their own gardening. If there was such a thing do you know the reasons that happened?

Hi Surya, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that question. All over the world, people live in close proximity to animals, whether they are working animals (cows, chickens) or pets (dogs, cats). My impression--based on knowing lots of people who love their pets--is that if the animal is healthy, there shouldn't be a big risk to your health. Especially if the rice is cooked.

Interesting question, Travis. Historically, a much greater share of the population everywhere was engaged in agriculture. This included raising some food for themselves or to sell. I'm not sure I can pinpoint a date. But there have been big waves of urbanization throughout history that moved people from the country into cities, and generally reduced the number of people raising their own food. The industrial revolution in the 1700s not only moved lots of people off the land and into factories, but also mechanized agriculture so fewer people were required to be on farms. In the modern era, more and more prepared and packaged and convenience foods have also reduced the need to raise some of your own food. There are certain countries where people still enjoy having an intimate connection with food, even though they don't have to raise their own food. I just returned from a trip to Italy, where it seemed like everyone in the countryside and even a fair share in teh cities raised some of their own food, whether in a big kitchen garden or on a little apartment building terrace. Americans don't seem to be as interested, although we're just as capable. When the need is there, we have shown a capacity to change. During World War II, Americans started millions of "victory gardens" as a way to free up food for our troops. Neighbors started competing with each other for the best garden and every plot of land was used. Rising fuel prices or other problems with long distance food transport could create the need again. Or we just might want to do it because of the pleasures of homegrown.

Two more questions from Jeffrey Allen.

I know there's a lot of controversy over "cruelty-free" labelling standards. Does "cage-free" or "free-range" really mean anything significant? Are there any particular labels or phrases used on labeling that we can trust to know that what we're buying is really cruelty free? I'm particularly interested in eggs and dairy.

Biotechnology - pandora's box or panacea?

Thanks Brian. Do you see organic farmers of others moving towards hydroponics as a viable option instead of needing a lot of land to grow with?

Hi Jeffrey, A lot of these labels aren't really regulated and so they can mean different things in different contexts. Giving companies the benefit of the doubt, cage-free generally means that several chickens aren't in small metal cages (battery cages about the size of a piece of paper), but the chickens could still be kept very close together in a large building and never see the outside. Free-range generally means that the chickens have a bit more space, but again it doesn't necessarily mean they are spending any time outside. In the case of cows, "grassfed" or "pasture-raised" would be the best indication that the cows are spending time outside eating their natural diet--grass. Organic eggs and dairy have strict standards about not only what the animals are fed, but also how they are kept. There is some indication that some larger organic dairy and chicken farmers are taking advantage of loopholes in the regulations to be able to call their animals organic even if they have access to only a small amount of outdoor space for a small section of their lives and that is definitely misleading. Again, the best way to know exactly how your food is being raised is to ask, and ideally ask the farmer. That's the big advantage of buying local.

Biotechnology. That's a big subject, and you basically hit on the dichotomy. Here's my nutshell answer. I haven't been impressed. Proponents of biotech crops have argued that they are necessary to feeding the world and they will usher in an era of sustainable agriculture. The current genetically modified crops have very little to do with either of these claims. They are primarily being used to raise commodities in wealthier nations, and the crops are reinforcing our dependence on pesticides, not reducing it. I think there is a lot we can learn from mapping the genomes of our major crops, but I don't think that genetic engineering is the best way to feed the world. At least right now, the technology is not being used for humanitarian purposes.

Hi Julia, Fish farming is an ancient technology and has been done in Asia for thousands of years as a integral part of land-based farming. The waste from farm crops were fed to fish in nearby ponds. And the manure from the fish was then used to fertilize the crops. Water that irrigated fields seeped into fish ponds and both the crops and fish benefited from the symbiosis (and farmers get another food source).
But modern fish farming is very different, very energy and input intensive, and sometimes very polluting. In contrast to the herbivorous species that have been raised for thousands of years (like carp and catfish and tilapia), today's fish farms often raise salmon or even tuna--big, meat-eating fish that have to be fed more fish than they ultimately produce. This means a lot of feed and a lot of waste. And the conditions are so intensive that the fish often need antibiotics and other chemicals to keep down disease. The bottom line, as with making healthy choices for wild seafood, is that you should choose farmed fish that is low on the food chain. Choose vegetarian fish that aren't being fed fishmeal. Or choose farmed shellfish (oysters and clams), which are actually beneficial because they clean the water.
Fish farming currently accounts for about 40 percent of the seafood in the world and this share will likely grow, but we should focus on more ecological, integrated fish farming.

Special thanks to Brian for his thoughtful responses to everyone's questions. Thanks to everyone who participated in the chat.

We invite you to check out Farm to Table and share your thoughts in Community Space.

Farm to Table - New Perspectives E-zine from OneWorld.net
http://us.oneworld.net/section/us/perspectives/11/food
As so many of us sit down to holiday feasts over the coming month, why do close to 1 billion people still go hungry? How do our choices of what to eat affect our communities, the environment, and workers halfway around the world? As so many of us sit down to holiday feasts this month, OneWorld's Perspectives magazine takes a closer look at the links between agriculture and poverty and assesses the impacts of growing trends to buy organic, local, and fairly traded products.

Yes, Brain I accept the question I placed, none could answer and Just for clarification, the dog was a street dog whcih strayed into the hut.

My next question to you, what do you do if land otherwise is being traded for non-agriculture purposes or say being enmassed for producing food for profit?

And my next question is - how do you protect small farmer - here in india we have series of suicides happening, how do you look at this issue?