What The Heck Is Wrong With the Local Foods Movement?
People involved in local foods have a lot to be thankful for. For one reason or another, we’ve all congregated and found what many of us believe to be athe central purpose of our lives, something that is the axis upon which our other endeavors revolve.
It’s like we’re in on a secret, especially as we look out at the culture around us and see so many people suffering from the malaise of being plugged into America’s broken food system: a system built on fast, easy, cheap food. Fast food chains, take-out and microwaveable dinners, protein bars and health shakes, cleanses, diets, fads, nutritionism, families that rarely eat or cook together. It’s all there. And we’re free of it! Huzzah!
But we really have some house cleaning to do. In order to take us into that next step where we crack into the mainstream culture and begin the wholesale reshaping of American food, how its produced, processed, procured, cooked and eaten, we’ve got to get a couple of things ironed out.
An article I read today by one of our leading lights, Grist Magazine’s Tom Philpott, really got my goat. Now let me qualify myself here by saying upfront that I think Tom is a wonderful journalist, a calculating and precise writer, and a tremendous asset for the local foods movement in general. He’s broken important stories, has challenged the American food industry, and has advanced the discussion in an untold number of ways. Nevertheless, this is what I read today in this piece by Tom:
At the Washington Post, Jane Black has an interesting article on the school-lunch problem and a possible solution: de facto privatization. Black opens with a depressing and accurate summary of the miserly sums now devoted to school lunches and the dismal fiscal situation that confronts school lunch reformers.
Black highlights an Oakland-based company called Revolution Foods that reportedly offers well-sourced, healthy, and good-tasting lunches to school districts for a price only about 12 percent higher than the government’s $2.68 per-meal allotted budget. The company cooks the meals at regional commissaries and then distributes them to client schools.
From my perspective, any method for getting decent food into schools deserves praise. But I can’t support a full-on privatization model—if we want a decent society, I think we need to figure out how to make and serve good food in our public schools. (emphasis mine)
I asked Tom about this on Twitter and he politely responded. This is our exchange:
ZacharyCohen: @tomphilpott why do you oppose privatization if it does the trick tom? re: your last piece
TomPhilpott: RT @Zacharycohen @tomphilpott why oppose lunch privatization if it does the trick tom? <for 1, system already is privtzed–Tyson chkn nugs!
ZacharyCohen: @tomphilpott but in your article u highlight a private initiative that gets local foods into schools. Which you praise but won’t support?
TomPhilpott: RT @Zacharycohen I support that program, but not as a general solution. Privatization–vending machines, Tyson premade meals–has failed.
This is ridiculous. I don’t have any idea what kind of system Tom has in mind, but is he really advocating for one where private enterprise has NO place? I don’t know, and I’d love to find out, but from the above exchange it seems as though Tom is willing to write off private enterprise entirely. This is total arrogance, and its also completely divorced from reality. If we want to grow the movement, we need to support things that achieve our goals, NO MATTER WHAT. It’s just that simple. If a private company can get local foods into schools, for a minor premium above what the local government can do, shouldn’t we support that?
Tom says that in order to “build a decent society” we need to figure out how to make good food in our public schools. So true, but are you really willing to wait around for city and local governments to do it if a private company, a gasp! FOR-profit enterprise can do it!
Furthermore, Tom seems to be saying that because some forms of privatization have led to awful consequences, that ALL forms of privatization are therefore dubious. This just defies logic. And it is holding us back. We need this kind of absolutism to be modulated. It’s just that simple.
Do you really trust this government, ANY government to fix the problems that they have spent 50 years getting us into?
I don’t. I’ll tell you who I trust though. I trust the people within the local foods movement, and yeah, I trust entrepreneurs, the most dynamic amazing force in American society, to do the good work that needs to be done…Do you disagree?
Let me know in the comments.
I was prepared to disagree, but don't.
The school lunch programs are awful and have been for quite some time. If we can improve them faster by having a privatized option- let's do it! A gov't option would be great too, but I would rather see something than wait around watching our kids get sicker and more overweight. If the privatized option doesn't serve our system in the long run, the government may be ready to catch up by then.
I'm not sure if I understand this at all. When my son was in school, my understanding was that the school contracted with various food vendors to supply the food. I kind of thought that was the way it worked in most schools now. What am I missing?
dont know janice..im not sure what Tom is advocating…that governement
should take the lead in providing local healthy food into schools…
before hell freezes over maybe
Some school systems do have a privatized school lunch program, below are a few excerpts from some articles you may like, they may be old but still relevant today.
“he state cut its $11-million school- lunch appropriation to less than $200,000 and fired all but 11 of the 780 workers who administered, cooked, and served the lunches. Now, private food-service contractors like Marriott and ARA Corp. plan the menus and feed the students. The school districts still get reimbursement from Washington, but the federal money is sent directly to the local districts on a per-meal basis. As a result, combined federal and state subsidies have fallen from more than $23 mill” http://bit.ly/wGIls
“Approximately 1,000 of the 15,000 school districts in the United States have contracted with foodservice companies to manage their school foodservice programs. Contract foodservice companies have been involved in the school food programs for nearly 50 years. These companies provide complete food management services – offering menu ideas, recipes, employee training, purchasing assistance, inventory control, and other management services” http://bit.ly/kMzNN
Not saying that they systems above are perfect either, but a current option for school districts.
thanks mike! i say whoever can get healthy, local foods into schools should
get the contracts…but i just dont want to erect barriers to any kind of
progress
I used to work in the public schools, and to my knowledge, they already contract out to private food services. Trouble is they choose to contract to low-bid providers that offer only kid-popular and nutritionally bankrupt choices like frozen pizza, fried chicken, grade B hamburgers, as well as vending machines.
In the world of lowest-bid contracts, and tiny school food budgets that can't afford real, whole food choices, we need political and financial will to feed our kids right. Heck, we can't even get them the text books and supplies they need, and teachers spend $500 or more a year out of pocket on this. Private or public food options are meaningless when all we are willing to pay for is crap.
yes but Tom is not willing to support a private company that WAS able to
find local healthy foods..thats just wrong
I don't have a problem with privatization if it brings in healthy, nutritious, whole foods. Most modern school cafeterias no longer cook from scratch and merely heat up frozen, packaged foods. Many schools already privatize and actually bring in fast food such as Pizza Hut! So just about any hot meal with real food would be an improvement. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Darn right!! Podcast next week??
Great post Zac! I agree with you wholeheartedly … especially that this attitude is arrogant and divorced from reality. Stuff like this is what set me off, again, today. Thanks for this. Only Marxists will disagree with you.
Right on Zach. Privatization has it's drawbacks, but consider that most schools are not run by private organizations. As a result, I think that it is very unlikely that schools and there constituents would allow private enterprise to make a buck at the expense of the children they are responsible for. The key here is that the schools boards, etc find religion in the message of local, sustainable, and (I prefer) organic food. If the manager of schools mandate that these food standards be met, and a private organization can deliver more reliably and cost effectively, then so be it.
Let's don't confuse the message. In the end, we just want the result – regardless of how it is delivered.
I think if there are certain controls or regs that ensure that the business goes to local entrepreneurs grounded in each local it's a good thing. IF on the other hand it simply becomes another way a government awards no bid contracts to cronies and powerful massive corporations as with Halliburton, Monsanto and other glaringly bad actors then no.
I do agree that thinking on both sides has calcified. But that underneath the pull of right and left ideological tugs – actual people in actual communities agree – left right and center – WE would all rather have Sal or Josey down the street – or a few miles away get the contract to feed our kids with locally grown healthy food – than ADM and McDonald's. That's where the animus towards privatization comes from as well as much of the animus towards 'government.'
Would I be wrong to ask that we (left, right, center) – that:
- a slightly higher cost for healthier, local, whole food for our kids is a good thing.
- that sending that money to people where we live is a good thing
- the hope that they will in turn spend that money in our local community is a good thing
- that local jobs – with local owners grounded in out community – is a good thing
- that doctinaire one size fits all answers no longer suffice
- that sometimes great things can be done well, and sustainably and be 'not-for-profit' – (as in the legal structure)
- that ALL profit is not bad, but some is exploitative
- that the short term interests of distant shareholders – should not be the driving impetus behind our naturally long term interests in the lives of our children, communities and families.
- that new models such as farm-to-school and school yard farms BOTH offer new sustainable models both for profit and 'not-for-profit' are worth exploring
- that no matter how hot the lunch lady was she could never make fish sticks taste good
I hope people from all ideological bents – will start to look seriously at the new models and structures that people are innovating everywhere. There are many MANY ways to look at how to accomplish getting good food into schools – We simply need to stop fussing – and start working.
[...] the rest here: What The Heck Is Wrong With the Local Foods Movement? | Farm To Table Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 at 19:13 RSS feed for comments on this post Leave a comment [...]
Also – the title of this post SUCKS Zach – with all due respect – to Tom – It should be “What The Heck Is Wrong With the @TomPhilpott? — The local food movement – is quite ideologically diverse – as you and I know ;D
Liz thanks for your thoughtful reply. Will reply in full tomorrow but
right on!!
Absolutely bo. We cannot allow Perfect to be the enemy of the good
Haha. Well I'll be calling more insanity out but yes ur right. L
October 19
Liz … Mom & Pop down the block had better be prepared to provide full traceability as well as a fully documented HACCP plan in place. Food safety and chain of custody control and documentation are HUGE issues that are just being addresses throughout the food value chain. THIS is why “corporations,” which are merely a form of economic and legal organization, get these contracts … N-O-T because school boards are bad people who don't care for their children.
Your politics blind you to the reality of the situation. Almost all jobs are local. Entrepreneurs are inherently ethical, or they wouldn't be successful. Your distain for wealth creation is palpable and counter productive to progress.
As a mother with children in the local school systems, I'm all for geting more local healthy foods into their lunches, but we must face the facts that are prohibitting them from getting those foods into schools. It is not just cost. I am with Jason on this. From the food manufacturing side of the equation, food safety, traceability, and “proving the food safety (HACCP)” are key to getting more local foods into the school systems. It won't happen without a paper trail. Records, Records, Records, plans, plans, and more plans. GMP's, SSOP's, SOP's, all are necessary to take local products to the mass. It is much easier said than done. Speaking from experience here.
It occurred to me in my sleep last night that Tom said ” I can’t support a full-on privatization model” – emphasis on “full-on” – he didn't say to cut it out of the equation entirely. On top of that, just look at the difference between where the two of you live. Zach on the concrete in NYC and Tom on the farm in the beautiful (sorry I'm biased) Blue Ridge mountains. Of course corporate infrastructure and government controls are going to be more of the norm in the city, and I can assure you that they are not in Tom's neck of the woods. Not that either of you never get out of home base, but I really think this is becoming somewhat of a nasty debate (in the comments) over two guys with different perspctives and similar goals. Just from what I know about you from reading.
@Jason – “Entrepreneurs are inherently ethical, or they wouldn't be successful.” Seriously? As Liz pointed out Halliburton, Monsanto, might I add Enron, pretty much all of the big players in the “food industry” like Smithfield – hell no. I'm proud to be part of the Entrepreneurial community at UNC's business school – where they emphasize not just financial profitability but also
ecological integrity & social equity. Most corporations only care about item #1.
Marcie
Great Great comment. I agree with almost everything you said. And you are right about Tom's comment. He did say full-on privatization. But, he also said “if we want a decent society, I think we need to figure out how to make and serve good food in our public schools.” When I gave him the opportunity to clarify he didn't. So by default what he is saying is that we cannot have a decent society unless government takes the lead. That is just wrong. I disagree 100% and if the local foods movement wants to be anything but another fringe movement, it will need to move beyond such sentimentalist pap.
Furthermore, I too disagree with Jason's characterization that entrepreneurs are inherently ethical. Entrepreneurs are people, and well, human nature being what it is….Jason knows better. But Jason is ALSO not talking about large corporations when he is talking about entrepreneurs in local foods. I also think it is incredibly unfair to judge late capitalist corporations by the standards of an evolved way of thinking. When Halliburton, Enron, and Smithfield were getting off the ground, the idea of a triple bottom line approach to business was basically non existent. It's like blaming the Thomas Jefferson for being a slave holder…At that time, it was just the way things were done… Thank Gd now we know better and with people like you at UNC and around the country learning there is a more just way to do business while not sacrificing profits and shareholder value, I know that the next evolution of business practices has as good a shot as ever!
Thanks, and hmmm…so, if corporations don't do it than it has to be government? Well, public schools are already government-run, I think the goal is to figure out a way to get more local food into the school kitchens…like LIz said maybe non-profits, co-ops, etc. (and I'll echo her also in saying not all for-profits are bad, just tend to be, well, money-centric).
I also do not think ethics are an “evolved way of thinking.” Children tend to be very ethical, then get spoiled by culture and greed, among other things. From the movie Mr. Deeds: “We all had these dreams, and then we got jobs to achieve those dreams. But we wanted more money, and we got rid of our dreams. You know, if your nine-year olds saw you guys the way you are, you'd get your butts kicked right now! I mean, look what's happened to us!”
Z – I'm talking about businesses still run and controlled by their founders, regardless of their size or approach to profit distribution. Most of the companies are not publicly listed, thought not all. One of my consulting clients, Cherry Capital Foods, is one of the only for profit local food distribution firms in the nation. As such, they have the opportunity to partner with other distributors to deliver on their mission to sew up a local-to-local foodshed here in Northwest Lower Michigan. Gordon Food Service here in Michigan is a $3B family owned and operated broadline foodservice distributor that have been better partners than Sysco, for example, a much large public company.
It's about economic incentives, and when I say that entrepreneurs are inherently ethical, I mean that business owners who are smart enough to retain control of their enterprise, regardless of its ultimate size MUST operate within an ethically sound operating strategy. One could argue that the whole process of going public is giving-in the greed, though that seems like a discussion for another forum. Businesses still owned and controlled their founders tend to be better than the others, with private firms the best of the lot.
People may be people, but anyone who's run a successful business will tell you that the multiple constituencies that must be served compel you to do right by them. For more of these ideas, read anything my Umair Haque: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/ It's about creating value … MUCH of which is piles of cash to take care of your people, community, etc.
[...] a Wednesday blog post, Cohen posed the question: “What the Heck is Wrong with the Local Food Movement.” His answer: me. Based on the above paragraph and a Twitter exchange between us (which he quotes), [...]
i read EVERYTHING umair says! he is a genius!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Meredith M.. Meredith M. said: His response to http://bit.ly/cnPVs. RT @Zacharycohen: The Problem with Privatizing School Lunches by @TomPhilpott http://bit.ly/u42yY [...]
Thank you for your sane approach to the bigger picture. We support local organic foods, but much must be done to reform our corporate food giants. Alternatives to cheap caloric foods need to take place in those 40,000 other items in the middle isles.
http://www.foodinitiative.com
thanks!!
It's your ideology – which blocks rational response that reeks to high heaven Jason. Your projections are your problem- and a big one it seems.
“Entrepreneurs” are a distinct class from multinational corporations. I am one. You simply need to look at the actions of multinationals. Over and over again they are taken to court for violating – human rights, labor rights, environmental protection, soveignty and health codes to note that they ROUTINELY take into account a cost/benefit analysis of complying to or violating local standards as well as federal standards. The list is so damn long of times when they have made the choice to violate the rule, take the hit and apply a giant dose of PR (in the millions) to cover their ass after being willing to pay HUGE fines, but take even huger profits. They are not 'entrepreneurs' and ADM is not a 'family farm'. Your inability to make a distinction between a legal form, and the impact of the extreme sovereignty obliterating global reach of multinational is just one more example of your inability to think rationally and critically without lobbing ideological stink bombs.
It reminds me of the biotech advocates who love to equate trans-genics with having your white cow mate with brown bull so you get spots. I don't know who exactly you think your speaking to -a chymeric creature of your imagination it seems, but as folks like to say I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday – so stick your 'experience' back in – perspective.
“Corporations” are much more than a legal form. Indeed, mom and pop – should and do incorporate – that's just good business. Jobs are local, but shareholders are not. Shareholders think in quarterly terms and in abstracted terms. There are other forms of 'shareholding' to be sure that are locally grounded, locally invested. I do not suggest in that in all ways in all terms everything must be local. However, any businesses person – left right or center knows that costs of inputs are a critical factor of making a profit. Cheap oil is a brief blip in time and it's about to end. Locally generated products including energy – are simply going to be good business and the means to make a reasonable profit. You have a very short term view and a tendency to project a lot of crap onto people you are talking to. You need to check that.
I am not sure were you got the idea that I have anything against tracability or making a profit? I have a preference for people in my community making and keeping that profit by establishing flourishing businesses… If that makes me a pinko commie – Well…I suggest you go read some Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.
As for how to provide this tracability – which I agree is critical – well that looks like a damn fine IT problem and a GREAT opportunity for my good friends in Silicon Valley who seem to know something about making money and solving problems.
Growing a garden in a school yard, add an orchard – you get fruits and veg the kids can pick. You don't like the laws – change em. Are the regulatory structures being formed being overly influenced by multinationals YOU BETCHA. Do people need to get involved? Damn straight. Is the current framework creating a lot of problems for the goals we hope to achieve…indeed they are.
EVERYTHING worth doing is “more easily said than done.” And Amy I assume you and I will keep fighting the good fight when we are not busy flapping our gums (fingers) on the net.
Please Zach… we protect the feelings of retrograde old men who still say dumb things because how they were raised.
Multinationals do not need their feelings protected. They have leagues of lawyers protecting their profits and have no feelings. They are a human system that has outgrown it's usefulness/civic space in many cases and need to be turned back into human serving systems. It's our creation and our choice.
yes maam! i love it when you order me around
Ha. OK. Pour me a martini!
actually -to be clear – it's an IT opportunity that many are already chasing…that said – Europe is far ahead in solving this problem – RFID goes a long way to help in many instances.
Let's remember that it's activists like myself that insisted on tracability through out the EU because of health and food scares and an opposition to GMOs and the multinationals forcing them onto the market.
Not to mention short sighted…that said a social entrepreneur…could as easily get that contract as a multinational…local or not, I would of course prefer a model focused on long term sustainability – which contrary to the way the word has been co-opted and distorted does not in all cases necessitate rapacious profit.
Oh, I certainly don't disagree with you at all on this one. Just want those that may not be as familiar with the process to understand it works. They (farmers) will have to make changes and keep records, good ones and so on. Food safety paper trails and practices are a must.
or that should have said “understand HOW it works. Sorry, fingers ahead of brain!
my fingers are too fast and dyslexic!
I think there are great opportunities out on the horizon for people with IT skills and innovative models- to help family farmers with compliance and tracability….but yes I imagine it is a GIANT rather threatening intrusion at this moment in time, in a work day that is already exhausting. I think the aim for the IT company would be to make that record keeping far less burdensome and time consuming. Hopefully it is a problem that is attacked by the open-source community – So that a base implementation is free to all small holders with off the shelf equipment (I Phone RFID readers and RFID tags?) – and any major extension of the base product would be paid for by larger orgs that need a specialized implementation…Works in all sorts of industries already, no reason it can't be used to solve these issues for the smaller guys.
The problem is that regulation schemes and sometimes new tech (including biotech) is started by the big guys or coopted in the lobbying process by the multinationals to make it impossible for smaller competitors to fight and win – and the smallest guys – get eaten.
That said a highly distributed flattening system with an eye towards maintaining culinary, biological and agricultural diversity works very well with how many internet pioneers think about how to maintain vital economic systems capable of sustaining living thriving communities. Of course, there is great diversty among net geeks and some are very happy to assist multinationals maintain fierce dominance, but many are equally dedicated to undermining that closed system.
This reminds me of a conversation I had at Davis last week while on a visit of grad programs related to food & ag. I was at this awesome potluck with awesome folks and got into a hot debate with a very passionate and very knowledgeable self-proclaimed Marxist who basically said the same thing, only stronger — that private companies were never really able to “do good” and shouldn't really play a role in what he saw as a cultural, moral, and essentially epistemological struggle.
To him, fixing food was synechdochal for fixing everything… to have a better food system, we'd have to realign some core values and change everything.
As a pragmatist I agree that there's lots of stuff that sucks in the world, but we've got to start somewhere and private businesses have mucked up some things, but then, so have governments, and so have individual people and movements of people…
[...] a Wednesday blog post, Cohen posed the question: “What the Heck is Wrong with the Local Food Movement.” His answer: me. Based on the above paragraph and a Twitter exchange between us (which he quotes), [...]
I'm with marciebarnes that this has gotten pretty nasty between what to me are two sides of the same coin. I mean, Tom didn't say no privatization. He'd just prefer from scratch cooking. Nothing wrong with that. I'd love to see schools move to scratch cooking – it's not going to happen in the short term, but I'd love it.
Also Zach, you rightfully defended Jason by saying, “Jason knows better” but you don't give such a benefit of the doubt to Tom.
I think both of you are important advocates on this issue and this type of hyperbole isn't good for anyone.
http://www.healthyschoolscampaign.org
thanks for the comment mark, i think there is some validity in what your
saying
I made a slightly more articulate formulation of my thoughts here… http://healthyschoolscampaign.org/?313
I've heard you say elsewhere that peak oil and catastrophic climate instability are leftist hoaxes…or whatever phrase your fevered brain came up with. I hope you keep thinking that way. All that means to me is that your business – whatever it is – will not be dealing with reality. The costs of all inputs to your business will in the next decades be a new shock every day…to you. And eventually you will go under.
[...] I’ve been writing for a the past few months about some of the things we, as amateurs, need to do. We need to play our part. I’ve talked about finding good leaders, and I’ve talked about banding together. I’ve talked about forming community blogs, overcoming our differences, marginalizing people who allow “perfect to be the enemy of the good.” [...]
The key here is moderation. We can't rely on public-private partnerships to fix everything that is wrong with the school nutrition problem, but we can use them to specific advantage. As Philpott points out, these private enterprises, while incredibly useful to some schools, are also a bit too expensive for others. And when schools across the country have to worry about purchasing even the most basic supplies, a few extras bucks here and there for a fresh lunch could also mean fewer textbooks in the classroom. So, private enterprise can definitely serve its purpose, but in the end, we need an overhaul of the system on a higher level in order to fully right this wrong.