Recycling, Composting, and Reusable Straws Aren't Enough to Save the Earth
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report which drew a distinct correlation between global warming and the heightened risk of severe food shortages across the world. Wild fires, rainfall, heat waves, and flooding ravage the Earth and destroy farmland for both crops and livestock, increasing occurrences of famine and levels of food insecurity. Human migration across borders has thusly occurred, but these movements have caused supply stress in densely populated areas. While some cases have revealed that the warming climate yields better food production for crops at higher latitudes, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces overall nutritional quality. Land loss from erosion, soil death, and rising sea levels further exacerbate the situation. Indonesia and Malaysia have begun to drain their wetlands to create more farmland, but these areas store up to 694 billion tons of carbon dioxide—every 2.5 acres of wetland drained releases the C02 equivalent of 6,000 gallons of gasoline.
For those of us living in a well-developed country with a stable income, we continually enjoy food from restaurants, grocery stores, and fast-casual establishments. Although technology and media allows us to understand the rest of world’s food conflicts, we still remain—at least partially—unaware of the problem’s reality. We believe we are making a difference when we engage in “soft” attempts to help our planet: recycling, composting, shopping at a farmers’ market, and signing online petitions to “fight climate change.” Sure, this makes us feel good about ourselves…but do we understand how to change the institutions that perpetuate the symptoms of global warming, food insecurity, and waste?
In a recent article published by the New Food Economy, high levels of PFAS—a broad class of more than 4,000 fluorinated compounds that do not biodegrade—were found in those “compostable” bowls and containers from Dig Inn, Chipolte, Sweetgreen, and Whole Foods. Didn’t you ever wonder how those bowls never stained with grease or water marks? That’s because of these indestructible and incredibly stable compounds. While we don’t have to worry about our makeshift lunchbox disintegrating on the way back to the office, these “environmentally healthy” products create compost that is more toxic, making soil and water hazardous and unhealthy. More bad news: side effects of PFAS in our bodies include kidney and testicular cancer, low birth weight, thyroid disease, decreased sperm quality, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and immunotoxicity in children.
And this is only the surface layer of our problematic consumer behavior. One-quarter of all food worldwide is wasted. 21% of water and 18% of cropland in the U.S. is utilized to grow food that will never be eaten. But this isn’t due to crop failure or pest infestation. It is because of consumer preference and market specificity. Ugly produce—an eggplant with an extra head, or a bell pepper that’s bent out of shape—is often thrown away simply because it does not look like the typical, magazine cover-worthy vegetable. The insufficient demand does not incentivize farmers to hire the labor needed for harvest, leaving no choice but to throw the produce away. However, solutions such as donating unmarketable goods to food banks have been proposed. Imperfect Produce, a company that that packages and sells “ugly” fruits and veg (at a discount) to consumers, has saved about 40 million pounds of food. Full Harvest is a young startup that assists farmers in selling unwanted crops to food and beverage companies that are incorporated into their products. Finally, Treasure8’s apple, sweet potato, and beet Ground Rules Chips are derived from produce that would be wasted by production facilities, harnessing a new branch of the product market that could alleviate both the waste problem and the desire for more nutritionally balanced convenience foods. CEO Timothy Child’s dehydrating technology—called a Sauna—removes 97% water while maintaining the product’s nutritional content. Childs hopes to distribute Saunas to other production facilities to increase nutritious food access in insecure areas and decrease national food waste.
Nutritious, Sustainable, and perfectly Snack-able
The birth of new enterprise to help farmers, consumers, and the environment will ultimately provide temporary solutions to an institutionalized, global conflict. At the heart of this issue is the failure of intragovernmental relations as they relate to our food economy. As a result, more permanent, policy-driven solutions must be put into place. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has proposed a new system of farmer subsidies and food production that would equalize the scales of supply and demand and maintain a balance of power between small farms and Big Ag. First, it’s important to understand the current system in place.
Commodity crops—corn, soybeans, and wheat—dominate the industry for their vital role in food production; these crops are used for cooking oils, grains, animal feed, sweeteners, and biofuels. The high demand leads to overproduction, which drives down the price of cash crops in the market. Farmers therefore take on huge debts as they are forced to purchase seeds and fertilizers from large suppliers to plant more and attempt to breakeven.
Big Ag corporations reap the benefits by buying most of this extremely cheap product—one study shows that industrial livestock companies have saved up to $35 billion over 20 years by purchasing feed below production costs. You might be thinking the solution is for farmers to stop producing commodities to increase market value. To prevent this occurrence, the Department of Agriculture budgets $10 million annually for post-sale subsidies to help alleviate production costs on small farms. This subsidy program, however, leaves no room for farms to diversify and find other sustainable markets to generate extra income. As a result, farmers are trapped in an economic loop controlled by Big Ag and the federal government, proving the incentive to produce too quickly and on marginal land. Warren therefore proposed a complete remodel of the subsidy system.
First, the government would cover a majority of production costs through a non-recourse loan: this means the government will offer to buy a farm’s product if the farmer cannot obtain a fair price for their goods in the market before the end of the loan period. In turn, the government will store these products in reserves—as supply in the market decreases, market price should increase. If market prices get too high, then some reserves will be released into the market to stabilize the system. If prices remain low, then farms will be required to reduce their acreage to limit commodity production and mirror levels of consumer demand. Finally, farmers will be given the option to bid land dedicated to cash crops into conservation programs. The USDA will offer a price based upon the land’s environmental benefit, and the extra revenue will allow farmers to diversify their product instead of stay trapped in a spiral of overproduction.
Of course, some may not like the idea of giving the government even more control over our food supply and economy. While the concept of a free market is all fine and dandy, it’s important to recognize the potential of these institutional changes. Via non-recourse loans, the government only pays farmers (with taxpayer dollars) for the commodities it removes from the market. In the long-term, the tactic actually means a reduction in tax payments. Since the current subsidy approach pays for every commodity crop grown, we are paying for food that might eventually be thrown away. This new system thusly acknowledges the ebb and flow of consumer demand as it relates to agricultural production, creating a price-responsive relationship that resolves the conflicts between overproduction, purchase value, and land use. Our taxpayer dollars will provide the fuel for farmers’ economic freedom, reductions in food waste, and vital acts of land conservation.
Resources
Summary of the United Nations climate report, The New York Times
Elizabeth Warren’s New Farm Economy Proposal, Medium
Food Waste on Farms, Fast Company
More info about Ground Rules Chips and Treasure8, Fast Company
PFAS in Food Containment Products, New Food Economy
Other
Read about all the Presidential Candidates and their Views, Plans, and Opinions, Politico
Become a more responsible consumer at the Farmers’ Market, Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA)
Learn more about Big Ag on their website