Seven Years: A Blogiversary Post and Squash

On October 15th 2009,  I wrote the first substantive post on this blog (although technically My Munchable made its debut on the 11th). Under that third Blog Action Day's (BAD) theme of climate change, the logical subject was growing food, having recently returned from working on a small organic farm. Since then, we have cycled through a variety of topics from water resources to human rights and equality. However, this year there is no official theme; the organizers have suggested writing on "whatever you are most passionate about". Oh, no problem, there are only like a million things I feel passionate about (ok, exaggeration...). But then two things happened: World Food Day announced its theme of climate change adaptation and this article ran in the New York Times. We've come full circle.

The article introduces Sarah Frey, a midwestern farmer who just happens to be the largest supplier of pumpkins in the U.S. But what made news is her effort to shift public perception of pumpkins from ornamental to edible, to bring variety back to winter squash. Every now and then I muse about starting a pumpkin farm. While mostly in jest (unless you know of any eligible young farmers...), this draw to growing things stems not only from the physical connectedness to the land, but also an appreciation for the beauty and necessity of diversity among what we grow.

So I wanted to spend the rest of this post talking about just that - the vast potential of we can grow. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, over 250,000 types of plants have been document to grown in agricultural systems, yet a mere 3% are actually in use today. To further restrict that, three quarters of our food comes from just 12 crops, and rice, wheat, and maize comprise the bulk of that.

Now say instead this represented the collective expanse of wild plants and animals on the planet, and you were an ecologist or a conservation scientist. This would be tragic; people would be outraged that so much biodiversity had been allowed to ebb away. On one hand, this means the loss of considerable genetic diversity, reducing the chance of traits and mutations that might better suit a shift in climate or ecology. On the other hand, a focus of breeding efforts and training on just a handful of crops has probably contributed to the erosion of local diets. In some cases this has improved nutrition and reduced the prevalence of undernourishment related ailments (e.g. vitamin A deficiency and blindness), but in many instances this is leading to homogenization of diets. Our ubiquitous staples also seem to have very particular requirements in terms of optimal growing conditions - water, nutrients, etc. - that make them not-so-very adaptable to inter-annual variation and change over time.a

Wayward cabbage among squashes at Borough Market

So if we're talking about agriculture and climate change, a lot of the arguments around maintaining biodiversity go back to resilience theory - building redundancy into agriculture as an insurance mechanism. But back to the pumpkins. These thick-skinned orbs are not exactly at the heart of food security; yet it's hard to imagine the beauty of diversity more evident than in this collection of colourful cucurbites. While relegated to three species, the hundreds of varietals of Cucurbita maxima, moschata, and pepo span all sorts of shapes, sizes and shades. In the grocery store you may see only the typical butternut, acorn, and occasional spaghetti (unless you're in Oz, and Kents and Blues seem particularly prevalent), as with so many food crops the industry has downsized and streamlined. But pumpkins may also be at risk due to climate change. Perhaps we shouldn't let diversity slide too far; a little nudge from consumer demand may go a long way.

Finally, with Halloween only a couple of weeks off, it's also important to make sure your pumpkin doesn't contribute to climate change! Make sure to compost the remains...or better yet, cook it up before it goes off.

Read Previous B.A.D. Posts

BAD 2015: Vocal Consumers and Silent Producers

BAD 2014: BAD Inequality: EnGendering a Resilient Future

BAD 2013: Les Droits Humains

BAD 2012: A Collective Vote with Our Forks

BAD 2011: At What Cost?

BAD 2010: Water

BAD 2009: Weeding Down Climate Change

Vocal Consumers and SIlent Producers

It's amazing how quickly Blog Action Day rolls around every year; it increasingly catches me off-guard (which is also why this post is a bit tardy)! Perhaps fortuitously, it also happens to fall on the same day as World Food Day, allowing me to write for multiple purposes. This year's theme for the former is "Raise Your Voice", and for the latter it is "Social Protection and Agriculture: Breaking a Cycle of Rural Poverty". While social support programmes include things like supplemental nutrition programmes and accessible loans, other types of safeguards or systems also serve to protect marginal or underserved populations and can be critical in overcoming poverty. Fair trade certification has been touted as a means of boosting incomes for rural producer populations, and is supported by a rather passionate and vocal consumer base. However, as I've written about before, this fair label does not necessarily yield the anticipated benefits on the ground. This potential disconnect between the two themes of the day - the level of vocality on one hand and the actual "breaking a cycle of rural poverty" - makes for a relevant topic on this day.

Consumer activism is often approached as the primary, and sometimes only, way of individuals influencing the ethics and sustainability of large-scale and distant supply chains. People ran with the Green Peace campaign against McDonald's "rainforest beef" nearly a decade ago, and catalyzed action on the fast food giant's sourcing policies. Around that same time, millions of people followed Michael Pollan's advice to "vote with your fork" three times a day. As for Fair Trade, the 2000 activist campaign prompted a massive incorporation of certified coffee into Starbucks' retail outlets. So obviously people demanding that their products meet some social and environmental standards does have some impact on the practices of these corporations. But I wonder how much this reflects the reality and, perhaps, what producers even want.

Last year, I did a bit of research on the impact of Fair Trade certification in the coffee value chain, and it was interesting to find the few studies that had actually looked at impacts found a wide range of outcomes. The most tangible finding was that the ideal expectations of consumers, the values displayed proudly on campaign materials and in marketing, did not often match to the realities of coffee farmes. Largely focused on a fair and equitable distribution of funds, Fair Trade fails most soundly in this area, with little of the added end-cost reaching producers.

But it's rather complicated, and probably necessary to find a balance between outspoken consumers and letting things arise from the producer end. As usual, I've answered no questions and added a few. I especially wonder what happens to those not involved in Fair Trade. Are those that would most benefit from social protections excluded from participation due to the other factors necessary to ensure the certification functions?

Interested in reading about an additional Paradox of Fair Trade? Check out the Stanford Social Innovation Review article...

Read Previous B.A.D. Posts

BAD 2014: BAD Inequality: EnGendering a Resilient Future

BAD 2013: Les Droits Humains

BAD 2012: A Collective Vote with Our Forks

BAD 2011: At What Cost?

BAD 2010: Water

BAD 2009: Weeding Down Climate Change

BAD Inequality: EnGendering a Resilient Future

Anti Faustina, wearing her teacher hat

I've been reading a lot about women lately - books on development paradigms; papers on gender dimensions in agriculture; twitter chats on women farmers. It is all for my thesis, so I'm delving a bit into the archives and seeing how the discourse has changed over the last 30 or 40 years. Perhaps not so surprisingly, a lot of what is in those papers, books, and the like, seems to stand the test of time (which is not really a good thing...). Themes around education, household labour, rights and resouce surface time after time. When it comes down to it, we're talking about inequality.

Before we get too deep, why am I writing about this? Well, today is an interesting day. For one, it happens to be Blog Action Day (or B.A.D), an effort in its eighth year to unite around a globally important issue - this time 'inequality' - and, well, communicate about it! Coincidentally, it is also the 35th World Food Day, which is focused on the sustainability of family farming. And if you just couldn't get enough, yesterday marked the eighth observance of International Day of Rural Women. Three different topics, but they actually have pretty strong ties.

Now that we've gotten all that out of the way, let's go back to today's blog action topic. The dictionary definition of inequality brings up charged issues like social disparity and injustice, as well as rather neutral things like uneveness and variableness. Gender issues in agriculture and rural development have largely been framed as a social disparity concern - most recently coined the 'gender gap'. The statistics paint a pretty bleak picture of rural women in developing countries (who are primarily family farmers). Across the board, women have a much lower literacy rate and enrolment in schools. It is not common for women to inherit land, and what they do have is smaller in size than their male counterparts. Demands on time is a particularly facinating topic, because much of what a female farmer does is not compensated housework (though, this comparison of men and women in the Zimbabwe's wet season is pretty telling...).

Anti Aso, our spritely veg farmer

Did I mention that I spent the better part of this summer speaking to women farmers in Ghana? Well, I was asking these wonderful ladies about how they've dealt with past environmental shocks, what most influences the "success" of a year, and how future climate change (in not so many words) could impact their lives. The literature depicts much of the same story we've already heard, with the addition of a mild plot twist starring climate change as the villain. However, one of the things I was really struck by was the many ways in which these women are already so resilient in the face of change. Many have started side businesses for multiple income sources. Many acknowledged adjusting the crops, timing, and location in response to variability of weather within a year. And a few after my own heart were passionate about building the health of their soil, limiting the amount of chemicals, and maintaining the long-term health of her family and the land.

In concluding this post for Blog Action Day on inequality, I have to note that this entire post (and several others) was dedicated to discussing women. In doing so, though, I have created another inequality. Men often get side-lined from the gender dialogue, and perhaps that is fair. But I would like to leave you with a thought; 'gender' is about the ways in which both men and women engage in a system, their roles, their challenges. At the end of the day, we are all human, all have a role to play. I wonder how much further we entrench the division between men and women by discussing it as such. That said, we have made gains by certain metrics, and there is great optimism, if we can find the most meaninful ways to join forces - to ensure a just and liveable world, that will continue for generations to come.

Read Previous B.A.D. Posts

BAD 2013: Les Droits Humains

BAD 2012: A Collective Vote with Our Forks

BAD 2011: At What Cost?

BAD 2010: Water

BAD 2009: Weeding Down Climate Change

Blog Action Day: A Collective Vote with Our Forks

Our food system is complex. Not just because we grow many different crops; or because climate change and land degradation are making it harder to grow them; or because they are shipped all around the world before landing on a grocery shelf. No, our food system is complex because the actors with an interest in that system are complex.

Take a moment to think. Beyond the farmer and the landowner (unless you are dealing just with direct markets), there are wholesalers, processors, procurers, sales and marketing people, grocery employees, commodity traders...the list goes on. But what each of these stakeholders has in common, from the smallest of the farmers to the head honcho of an agribusiness, is that his job, the relevance of his work, depends on you the consumer. 

However, while you can calculate the water footprint of your diet, or purchase only local, seasonal, and organic, at the end of the day you are just one person. Changing the food system is truly a collective effort. It means expanding the network of people making conscious food decisions, where the power of a group of eaters is larger than that of any single individual. And it is why this 'new' and 'alternative' food movement has attracted so much attention: it has shifted from a fringe fancy of hippies and tree-hugging organic farmers, to a more mainstream lifestyle focused on awareness of environmental, physical, and social impacts.

Moreover, the direct connection of eater and grower plays an important role in shaping and encouraging this collective action. This is something I see every Sunday, selling organic produce at the farmers market - the power that knowledge, trust, and motivation can have in changing an entrenched agriculture and food sector. As Michael Pollan noted in a New York Times Magazine article, "with the organic movement, consumers and farmers have shown how they can work together as cocreators of an alternative food system. We need to join together now, to recruit a larger and larger army of cocreators, to rewrite the rules of the game — and 'cocreate' a different kind of food system."

This is my third year participating in Blog Action Day, and the theme this year is "The Power of We." Past years have focused on a range of environmental and social issues: Last year's theme of 'food' coincided with World Food Day (tomorrow); In 2010 the theme was 'water' and I looked at payments for watershed services; and 'climate change' took the stage in 2009. But once again, every one of these issues involves a good or service in the public domain, where movement towards solutions will require cooperation and coordination.

To make large-scale lasting change, collective action is necessary. To learn about actions on the consumer end of the food system, read Oxfam's The Food Transformation. To enter the policy sphere, and take action on US farm policy, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's website.

B.A.D: At What Cost?

Today is Blog Action Day (B.A.D)! This event really served as the impetus for rejuvenating my blog in 2009, with climate change as the year's theme. Food is actually this year's theme, but it has thrown me for a loop. Everything I write about has some connection to food, so choosing one topic on which to focus is rather a toss up. However, as it happens, today also marks the 30th annual World Food Day. Coincidence? I think not! This year's theme is Food Prices - From Crisis to Stability.

We have explored food prices to some extent, particularly with regards to how increases have already impacted my baking inclination. According to FAO, rising food prices, at their all-time highest this year, have set 70 million people back into poverty. Now it seems that the cause of food price volatility would be a pretty straight-forward, supply side issue. But in fact, there are many drivers including trade policies, distorting trade policies, and extreme weather and temperature events.

In the States we don't experience these food price hikes in the same way as those in developing countries. Particularly for the portion of the population which spends a disproportionate amounts its income on food, even purchasing the staple grains and starches to feed a family is a stretch. Curiously enough, many small-scale farmers in the developing world are actually net buyers of food, despite producing crops. This means, that you get a very poor subset, suffering acutely from higher food costs.

This, of course, varies between countries and regions within a country. Oxfam International has created its own visual to depict the hunger predicament in countries in the global south, influenced largely by food prices, addressing the key culprits behind each country's situation. World Food Programme (WFP) has set up a FAQ around these price changes.

I don't have any answer. Policy changes and research and development have been proposed over and over as solutions to overcoming these recurring and worsening challenge. That said, it is difficult with such a complex global food economy to ensure that funds go to those who need it most. Have a happy Blog Action Day, and I hope you have some quality time to dwell on issues of food!

Blog Action Day 2010: Water

Water is one of those resources that we tend to use on a daily basis without a moment's thought, complain about when it comes raining down from above, and yet require to support the systems that keep us alive. One of the sectors that uses and impacts water in large quantities is agriculture, our food source.

Normally I would expound upon the exorbitant water uses of certain crop and livestock systems, like paddy rice and beef cattle. If you are interested how much water that chunk of cheese is costing you, check out the water footprints of major foot items. I am also not going to dwell on the potential wars to be fought over water as drier regions become drier and drinking and irrigation water becomes more scarce.

But I have become newly inspired by a topic I am exploring at work, payment for watershed services (PWS). Yes, I see some of your blank stares. Well, the concept is very simple in theory. First of all, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, "a watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place." So, when we talk about PWS, we are interested in finding financial mechanisms to make people who impact that area of land inclined to keep it healthy and functional.

Farmers use all sorts of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers (not to mention the water itself) that runoff the land and into waterways. The 'cides then poison aquatic plants and animals. Fertilizers provide nutrients that are often limiting in the water, which in turn spur growth of algae and the like, using up all the oxygen and killing off the organisms that usually chill in the waterway (eg. the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico). However, the impacts are often downstream and standard farm practices are established and appear to make economic sense.

This is where PWS comes in. Through incentive schemes, farmers are more inclined to adopt ecologically friendly land management practices. Approaches range from government payments to implement conservation measures such as buffer zones or more efficient input/chemical applications to eco-certifications. The classic example is how restoring the Catskills-Delaware Watershed saved New York from constructing a water filtration facility. Another interesting take is the Salmon-Safe Farm certification sweeping the Pacific Northwest. Because fish spawning is such an integral part of the economy and culture of the PNW, this label is really starting to grow, ensuring that farms are more efficient irrigators, restore streamside vegetation, and use less chemical inputs on the farm.

For more on this emerging market, check out this major publication at Ecosystem Marketplace. And don't forget to sign the petition to bring safe drinking water to the world's poor!