Eastern Ontario is becoming known for its burgeoning Creative Food Economy, which has the potential to be not only a viable economic development and tourism strategy, but also a means to contribute to sustainable development and better community health.  There are several shining examples in the region of how local food has been successfully ‘cultivated’ for economic development, including the impressive, integrated strategy adopted in Prince Edward County. 

Of special note, we are seeing the Artisan Cheese sector emerging as an integral part of ‘green’ and sustainable economic development, satisfying consumer demand for more nutrition, better taste and a reduced carbon footprint, as Betsy Donald reported in a recent presentation to the Ontario Cheese Society (see attached pdf).

Through our research on creative food economies at Queen’s University, we are interested in identifying innovative local food strategies across the region and sharing those success stories through this blog.  However, we will start with a discussion about some of the debates around local food that can cause confusion for consumers, producers and economic development practitioners alike.  “Local food” is a term that seems familiar to everyone, but it can mean different things to different people.  For example. a May 20th Globe and Mail article, “Locavores, Beware”, discusses the rising consumer appetite for “locally foraged” wild leeks and fiddleheads and how this has led to commercialization and industrial processing, and has also raised concerns about extinction of these delicacies through over-harvesting.  It also questions what “local” really means, as the fiddleheads that you might find in your grocery store could have actually been harvested more than 1,000 kilometres away. 

Local food definitions and debates abound in both popular media and the academic literature, making it sometimes challenging to know whether local food is the best choice ethically, economically or nutritionally.  While there are many excellent reasons for supporting local food, it is important not to fall into what is called the “local trap”, which is the tendency to assume that local food is inherently good or desirable in terms of ecological sustainability, social justice or food security. 

One of the arguments in favour of a “locavore” diet (which usually means only consuming food produced within 100 miles), is that by travelling shorter distances to our plates, local food generates less CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) than food produced in and transported from remote locations.  However, the scientific community has recently demonstrated that food-related GGEs are generated more in food production than transportation (see, for example Weber and Matthews, 2008).  If producing local food involves excessive inputs of water or energy, or is degrading local resources, the results can be environmentally and economically harmful.   To address these concerns, certification through the Canadian organization Local Food Plus provides some assurance that the food has been produced through sustainable and ethical practices. 

Another local food debate relates to supporting the local economy.  “Defensive localism” is a strict version of local food production and consumption, consistent with a locavore perspective.  Critics of this stance argue that decisions to exclusively purchase local food represent a form of protectionism, like the recent Buy American controversy that brought a negative response from Canadian industry and political leaders.  Defensive localism can imply a decision to not support farmers and communities in other regions, which can have wider environmental, socio-economic and political impacts, with implications for the well-being of farmers in depressed regions.  A focus on food miles alone may also muddy consideration of equally effective options.  For example, a recent study of U.S. households indicated that shifting less than one day per week’s consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or vegetables could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers (Weber and Matthews, 2008: 3512).

Despite these intellectual and moral debates, there are many good reasons to support local food production, marketing and consumption as part of local and regional economic development. Especially in times of economic uncertainty, as we are experiencing across Ontario in 2009, the shorter producer-consumer links that are integral to local food can also build greater “social capital” or stronger community networks, and increase the economic viability of small-scale farmers, keeping dollars in the local economy.  Buying local food can increase the economic viability of small-scale farmers and rural communities.  It is also generally agreed that locally-grown food is fresher, and typically more nutritious, safer and environmentally sustainable.  We are intrigued by a new movement called “transition towns”, which features local food as part of a long term strategy for increasing community sustainability and resilience while reducing carbon emissions, in light of peak oil and global warming.  More information is available on the Australia-based Bank of IDEAS website.

We are always interested in hearing about new ideas for creative approaches to food production and marketing that communities and entrepreneurs have developed in and around Eastern Ontario.   Responses to the issues raised here, and suggestions for local food stories you’d like to share or hear more about are more than welcome!

Reference:  Weber, C. and H.S. Matthews. (2008). Food-Miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology 42(10): 3508-3513.

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."