Down Home Cooking - Does it Really Affect the Enviroment?

A little knowledge that acts is infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle. -The Chef's Collaborative National Forum, 2000

We've wreaked a lot of destruction on our little planet and the resulting problems often seem overwhelming. It is tempting to throw up our hands and do nothing. But one of our most profound opportunities for action rests literally in our hands several times a day: the food we eat.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, in their book The Consumer Guide To Effective Environmental Choices, published in 1999, rated American consumer habits by their degree of environmental impact. They defined environmental impact as effects on global warming, air and water pollution, and habitat alteration.

Their conclusion? The second and third most harmful consumer purchases were "meat and poultry" and "fruit, vegetables, and grains."

About 40% of U.S. land area (800 million acres) is used for grazing livestock and an additional sixty million acres is used to grow grain for feeding livestock. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that meat and poultry consumption alone is responsible for about a quarter of threats to natural ecosystems and wildlife. Raising livestock for meat also uses a tremendous amount of water and generates huge quantities of waste. Free range beef is raised more humanely, and is more healthful, but its impact on the environment is not substantially less. Poultry production is somewhat less wasteful, while dairy farming is surprisingly low impact.

Vegetarianism is an option, but it's not for everyone. If you enjoy beef, try using it as an accent rather than the main attraction. Add a few slices of steak to a stir-fry; combine with beans and/or potatoes in a stew; add ground beef to a pasta sauce.

Growing fruit, vegetables, and grains also uses an enormous amount of water, takes up lots of land, causes water pollution via fertilizer and pesticide use and soil erosion. The best way to limit these negative impacts is to buy organic produce. While organic farms take up just as much farmland as their conventional counterparts, they produce far less toxic waste. Obviously, they don't generate pesticide pollution. They use organic rather than petroleum-based fertilizers, and cause less soil erosion due to low or no till practices. Water use is generally lower, as the common organic practices of cover crops and crop rotations allow soil to retain more moisture.

So there are two easy changes to make. I wish I could stop there, but unfortunately that would be overly simplistic. Unfortunately, even important changes such as these are not enough to reverse the degradation of our environment. To make deep and lasting improvements, we must expand our concept of "organic" or more accurately, "sustainable," beyond that of a preferred consumer good. We must recognize the integral role that food production and distribution plays in our ecosystem. I recently overheard a discussion in my aerobics class concerning which warehouse market sold better avocadoes. One market's avocadoes were cheaper, but the others "lasted longer" (up to six months, one woman bragged!). No one questioned why the avocadoes remained so bizarrely impervious to decay. No one wondered where and how the avocadoes were grown. Cost and stability were the only criteria. When this level of ignorance persists in an educated, affluent, and health-oriented population we have a long way to go!

Food consumption (along with reproduction) is the primary imperative of all life forms. Even today, many of the world's peoples devote most of their waking hours to the acquisition of food. Only in the affluent developed world has food attained the status of recreation. And perhaps only in America has the food we eat become so divorced from the land on which it grows and even the kitchen in which it was prepared. The essential cycle of cultivation, processing, and disposal continues, while we remain oblivious to its hidden costs.

By the time the average foodstuff reaches an American's mouth, the food has traveled 1300 miles from its point of origin. This has major environmental consequences. Food grown closer to home requires less transportation (the Union of Concerned Scientists ranks autos and trucks as the most damaging consumer habit of all), and requires less (if any) pesticides and preservatives, and less energy spent on refrigeration.

There are major economic consequences as well. Locally grown and processed foods provide jobs, shoring up depressed rural economies and bringing urban and rural populations together. Local food products don't require sophisticated, costly distribution networks and are thus more amenable to small businesses. Local small producers are accountable to their communities, not to distant shareholders.

There are health consequences. Fresh local food retains more nutrients. Handled by fewer people, they are far less vulnerable to bacterial contamination or terrorist attack.

And there are also aesthetic consequences. Farmers can grow heirloom vegetables or breed unusual varieties of chickens, because they aren't limited by the demands of corporate markets for uniformity and the ability to survive cross-country truck journeys. Local, heirloom varieties aren't "blanded-down" to a least common denominator taste, and thus reflect the idiosyncratic traditions of their communities.

The means of creating a truly sustainable food network are as numerous as the topic is huge. Yet the immensity of the project shows how so many segments of society can make a valuable contribution. Community supported agriculture, farmer's markets, and locally and/or cooperatively owned grocery stores all strengthen the connection between growers and consumers. Institutions (schools, prisons, and government agencies) purchase enormous quantities of food, and changing their buying habits would have major environmental, economic, and nutritional impacts. Many well-intended regulations, such as zoning laws, have been enacted with only large corporations in mind. These regulations need to be re-evaluated with regard to small food producers, processors, and retailers.

Lastly, we need to take a long hard look at ourselves. It is all very well to purchase a bag full of produce from a CSA, (Community Supported Agriculture gardens) but to make the system work, someone needs to take those pounds of kale and tomatoes home and cook them. Are we willing to take the time to prepare our own meals from scratch? To compost the waste? To grow vegetables in our home gardens? It is amazing how many environmental activists "talk the talk" but don't eat the food.

Recently I attended a coffee for a candidate for state representative. We went around the room, each attendee stating what they felt was the major problem facing our state (Oregon). Out of thirty-some people, only two mentioned the environment, and not one individual mentioned safeguarding farmland or producing safe, nutritious food. If we are going to build a sustainable food system, we need the issue in the center of our radar screen, where it belongs.