The Locavore's Dilemma

by Pierre Desrochers

  The issue though is not as straightforward when dealing with “similar” (as distinguished from “identical”) products. In our corner of Canada, we seem to be involved in an ongoing argument regarding local versus California strawberries. The imported berries, our debating opponents tell us (tongue-in-cheek) only succeed because they apparently never decay, no matter how long they remain on supermarket shelves, and because their cheap price can help consumers forget about their bland taste. We disagree. For one thing, California strawberry producers (whose output now accounts for about 80% of the U.S. supply) gained significant market share a few decades ago not only because of the suitable climate in the west, but also because of considerable research that resulted in the development of new varieties and ever more efficient production, storage, and transportation technologies. It was only by offering both lower prices and higher quality (including taste) that they were able to displace most producers in other states (the remaining market share is now mostly represented by producers in Oregon and Florida). The circumstances are no different in Ontario today than they were in Delaware and other places not too long ago. Like it or not, California strawberries might travel some distance, but they do it in a matter of days and in impeccable storage conditions. Not only are they cheaper and better looking, but also typically tastier—at least according to our unscientific assessment in purchasing both kinds over the last several years. Competitive local products will always find a market, both locally and in more remote locations. Uncompetitive offerings will not. Tastes are subjective, but it is up to the producers to cater to them. Food production is not a local charity.

  Notwithstanding this personal perspective, let us for a moment grant our opponents’point and assume that all local produce is inherently superior when in season. What about the rest of the year then? Should Ontarians limit themselves to frozen berries and jam? How is shutting the door to imported fresh products improving the sensory experiences of food consumers? If the spectacular growth of fresh produce sections in the last few decades is any indication, the verdict is already in: transporting fresh fruits and vegetables over long distances resoundingly beats canning and freezing the local varieties.

  Nutrition

  The capacity of the modern food supply chain to deliver ever more abundant calories at ever more affordable prices is so overwhelming that it is not debated by agri-intellectuals and food activists. Rather, their ire is directed at two alleged nutritional deficiencies, namely that the most significant advances in terms of availability and affordability have been achieved in the realm of “junk food” and that today’s fresh produce grown with “synthetic” methods are less nutritious than those grown with traditional inputs. Regarding the former claim, the food policy analyst Robert Paarlberg states in no uncertain terms that “the charge that junk-food prices have fallen while fruit and vegetable prices have not is… bogus,” for both the price of traditional in-season fruit and vegetable products has fallen while the variety and year-round availability of fresh products have dramatically increased. American supermarkets now carry as many as 400 different produce items, up from an average of just 150 four decades ago.22

  While it is obviously impossible to compare the nutritional value of perishable food items from the past to similar ones produced today, a reasonable case can be made for using present-day organic foods as proxies, at least inasmuch as the whole rationale of the organic movement is to avoid the use of synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.), antibiotics, growth hormones, rDNA technologies (or what locavores prefer to call genetically modified organisms), and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This is not to say, of course, that organic growers do not use pesticides of all kinds (pests apparently feel no urge to spare organic crops because their producers are nicer to them), but rather that they make abundant use of “botanical extracts” and “rockdusts” which are nothing but old-fashioned pesticides like pyrethrum and copper sulfate23 that were around at the time of the Model T and are much less effective than pesticides created later on through scientific research. (Rigorous tests have shown that many pesticides used by organic producers display higher toxicity for mammals, persist longer in the environment, and do more collateral damage to non-pests.24)

  What makes these older technologies acceptable to organic growers is the fact that they were created through geological and biological, rather than through industrial, processes. In other words, two identical molecules can be deemed different if one was created in a manufacturing plant and another in a (real) plant or in a bird’s digestive system. As the agricultural policy analyst Gary Blumenthal observes, “the marketing of organic foods is not on the basis of what they are, but rather what they are not.”25

  Be that as it may, on the issue of what they are nutritionally, the evidence gathered from decades of scientific research is clear: organic foods are not better than conventional ones and have at best tiny, intermittent and overall insignificant differences in nutrient levels from one study and research sample to the next. In the most comprehensive review ever published, researchers affiliated with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and commissioned by the U.K. Food Standards Agency looked at all the scientifically sound studies published on the topic in the last five decades. Their conclusion was that there was “little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.” As the lead author declared: “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”26 These findings made major news headlines when they were published in 2009, but they were hardly surprising in specialist circles. Indeed, because of the incontrovertible evidence on the topic, organic spokespersons had long before begun to claim environmental benefits for their products rather than nonexistent nutritional advantages.27

  True, overnutrition (in essence, eating too much) and unhealthy diets are problematic, especially among the poorest segments of the population of advanced economies. Still, compared to the previous realities of malnutrition and famine, these are lesser concerns. Besides, overnutrition can’t be blamed entirely on poverty nor food systems. According to a 2010 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, one in 2 people are overweight and obese in almost half of the 34 OECD countries and this problem can mostly be traced back to unhealthy diet choices and sedentary lifestyles.28 As with everything, cheap calories can be a mixed blessing. They can make a hungry person more productive, but they may also make him (or her) fatter and less productive. There is no point in blaming the cupcake, though, as it doesn’t spontaneously jump into someone’s mouth. Besides, substituting organically produced sugar (or “evaporated cane juice,” as listed on some “health food” packages) for conventional sweetener would not affect this situation, nor would it encourage people to eat better and to exercise more. For all its imperfections, today’s food supply is more diversified, abundant, and cheaper than ever, while comparable items, say an apple produced today and another grown a century ago, are at a minimum just as nutritious as they have ever been. Better education in terms of eating and cooking habits seems a more sensible way to address the problem than locavorism.

  Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let’s pursue this topic a little further. The locavores’ claims regarding the inherently more nutritious character of local fare boils down to two main points: 1) fresher products have lost less of their nutritional value than products that travel long distances and spend time in storage; and 2) local products are typically riper when they are picked and therefore inherently more nutritious. Granting these assumptions, what are the implications when local produce is no longer in seas
on? As with taste, locavores can’t have it both ways. If local is more nutritious because it is fresher, then it is less nutritious most of the year when it is only available in preserved form. This argument alone is sufficient to put the locavores’ stance on nutrition to rest, for eating better food a few weeks during the year and lesser quality food during the remainder cannot deliver a more nutritious diet overall. Other considerations must be brought in, too. For instance, the fortification of food items ranging from milk and butter to salt, flour, and pasta, can be accomplished much more effectively and cheaply (especially if vitamins and minerals are produced in large volumes) through large-scale facilities that serve a significant customer base. Food imports can also be crucial for people who suffer from food allergies ranging from celiac disease to lactose intolerance if adequate substitutes are not available locally.

  Most damaging to the locavores’ stance on nutrition, though, is the undeniable fact that while human consciousness might care about the geographical origins of food items, human bodies don’t. From a physiological perspective, what matters is that they provide sufficient energy and nutrients and are not poisonous. Furthermore, from a nutritional point of view, the composition of individual items counts less than the nutrient content and overall balance of the diet as a whole. In other words, even if imported items were slightly less nutritious than local ones, what is important is the overall intake, especially in terms of eating a variety of different foods, not the specific characteristics of each item. Eating insufficient amounts of monotonous but high quality food is less desirable than eating slightly lesser quality food but in sufficient quantity and variety. Because locavorism can only result in decreased variety and increased prices, it is more likely to have a negative impact on the quality of human diets. As in the past, these conditions will set the stage for greater nutritional inequalities than is presently the case. True, average waistlines will undoubtedly be reduced if this ever happens, but such an approach is not the most effective way to address current dietary challenges.

  Food Safety29

  Food safety issues have been a perennial problem ever since our remote hunter-gatherer ancestors displayed symptoms like nausea, fever, vomiting, abdominal cramps, or diarrhea, or even died after consuming contaminated prey and water. Without providing a comprehensive list of all the bad “natural” things they were subjected to long before “synthetic” chemicals came along, suffice it to say that various diseases and infections transmitted by wild animals and their parasites included rabies, tuberculosis, brucellosis, the plague, leprosy, tularaemia, leptospirosis, Chagas disease, yellow fever, encephalitis, anthrax, salmonellosis, rickettsiosis, herpes, staphylococcal and streptococcal infections, trepone-matosis, haemorrhagic fever, gangrene, botulism, tetanus, encephalitis, and trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness). True, some traditional herbal, fungal, and mineral remedies displayed some analgesic, antiseptic, and antibiotic properties, but they typically brought little meaningful relief even if accompanied by shamanic incantations.30

  Other evidence of the type of “natural” ailments that plagued our distant ancestors can be found in the mummies of the Chinchorro, a Native American fishing culture that lived several thousand years ago on what is now the north Chilean coast. Despite the absence of modern pollutants and a fully local and natural diet that consisted of up to 90% of fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and seaweed, a quarter of the local children perished before reaching the age of one, a third of the population suffered from infections that eroded their leg bones, and the vertebrae of one fifth of their female population was so porous that they splintered from the weight of their own flesh. Not surprisingly, their average life expectancy was around 25 years of age. Other mummified remains and coprolites (i.e., fossilized excrements) from past Native American populations document, among other things, heart failures resulting from nematodes having invaded muscles along with intestinal walls pierced by thorny-headed worms. As the archeoparasitologist Karl J. Reinhard put it: “The hard data of paleopathology show that many [early Native Americans] were as sick as dogs.”31 To quote a public health researcher of our acquaintance, “Nature is filthy!”32

  Fortunately, comparatively recent advances—such as proper canning, pasteurization, refrigeration, water chlorination and sanitary packaging, and food irradiation, along with greater scientific understanding of problematic agents and the development of ever more efficient countermeasures—have helped eradicate once widespread foodborne illnesses and have made our modern food system by far the safest in human history. Because many different agents can contaminate food and because different diseases have various symptoms, however, food safety at both production and processing sites is a complex issue that easily lends itself to much mythmaking. Unfortunately, the broader beliefs of most locavores on the issue are at odds with the established science and must therefore be addressed, if only superficially, before the food contamination problems inherent to locavorism are discussed in somewhat more detail.

  The public debate on food safety has long been skewed by activists, who, in economist Thomas DeGregori’s apt characterization, equate “preservatives with contamination and microbes with health,” and are obsessed with the pesticide-residue molehill while ignoring the germ mountain.33 In short, for a long time agriculturalists have relied on pesticides which are, technically speaking, any substance or mixture of substances that kill, repel, control, or mitigate the actions of any pest likely to damage humans and crops. Unlike animals that could always potentially escape predators, plants have always had a strong evolutionary incentive to develop toxic chemicals and digestive inhibitors as a primary defense mechanism. All plants produce on average a few dozen toxins to protect themselves against fungi, insects, and animal predators. Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered. When plants are stressed or damaged by pests (as sometimes happens when synthetic pesticides—meaning pesticides produced by humans in factories—are not applied), they greatly increase their output of natural pesticides, sometimes to levels that are acutely toxic to humans. While both synthetic and natural chemicals can cause cancer in animals at high doses, we typically ingest through our regular diet at least 10,000 more (by weight) of natural than synthetic pesticides. In other words, about 99.99% of all pesticides in our diet are entirely “natural;” a single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens roughly equal to at least a year’s worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in our diet.34 As Paracelsus (1493–1541), the founder of toxicology, observed a few centuries ago, it is the dose that makes the poison. Any substance, even water, can be hazardous at high enough concentrations. Needless to say, though, public opinion was long ago tainted by beliefs that “natural” substances are not only inherently more benign than synthetic ones, but also that human intervention to control “natural” organisms through “artificial” means will ineluctably prove lethal to genus homo.

  In terms of food safety, pesticides are a very minor—and in most cases insignificant—issue. While the media is keen to generate public panic over the feeding of unrealistically high doses of a synthetic chemical to experimental animals, it is almost completely silent on the fact that old-fashioned food production and “modern” organic agriculture are much more greatly endowed in harmful microorganisms than the offerings of agri-business. Over 250 different foodborne diseases are caused by consuming beverages and foods that have been contaminated by a wide range of viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins, metals, and prions, and through nonfood mechanisms, such as the consumption of contaminated water or contact with animals. According to the latest research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), each year approximately 1 in 6 Americans—48 million people—gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. Of these, by far the most significant are bacteria, viruses, and microbes35 and, significantly, the vast majority of all U.S. food-related hospitalizations and fatalities nowadays do not originate from contaminated batches of agri-business products produced
in large facilities, but rather are the result of careless handling and improper preparation inside the home, such as poorly refrigerated foods, unwashed hands and produce, cross-contamination of food through unwashed cutting boards, and insufficiently cooked meat.

  To repeat and clarify, the foodborne illness cases in American emergency wards are not attributable to the synthetic pesticide and herbicide residues that worry the public so much, but rather can be traced back to “natural” pathogens such as Campylobacter jejuni, Salmonella, and E. coli O157: H7 that often find their way into our food supply through the use of animal manure in agricultural production.36 Another very good source of illness is raw milk, a prime vector for tuberculosis, diphtheria, severe streptococcal infections, and typhoid fever, among other things.37

  Humanity’s food supply has never been inherently “pure, natural, and safe” and only recently corrupted by man-made chemicals and careless industrial practices. On the contrary, it was always afflicted by a large number of “natural” pathogens that are all around us and have been significantly, but not completely, brought under control in the recent past, in large part because of the development of industrial-scale food safety technologies.38 In other words, there are such things as economies of scale in food safety, both in terms of producing and processing food. To give but one illustration, the science writer Steve Ettlinger describes two of many surprises he encountered while visiting a Wisconsin whey plant a few years ago: The first is the sticky doormat just inside the door. Thinking I have stepped in some spoiled spilled milk, I stare dumbly at my gooey feet. My guides, two athletic-looking women, get a good laugh: the mat I’ve stepped on is designed to remove dirt from shoes. Inside another door, I gingerly step into an unavoidable mound of white foam, thinking once again that I did something bad. The women laugh once more: the foam is disinfectant, sprayed continually on the floor. Cleanliness is clearly paramount here.39