ISEC

RIPE FOR CHANGE

R ETHINKING C ALIFORNIA’ S F OOD E CONOMY

REPORT SUMMARY

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

C alifornia once conjured up visions of abundance, productivity, and

prosperity. Blessed with a mild climate and fertile soils, it was the envy
of farmers around the world.Today, however, the picture is very different.
For the last few decades it has become increasingly apparent that the state’s
agricultural economy is fundamentally flawed. In 1983, for example, a study
by the Cornucopia Project concluded with a dire warning:
California’s present method of producing and distributing food—the present path from field to
table—is, in the long term, unsustainable….The drain on water, soil, mineral and energy resources,
the dependence on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, a small genetic seed base, large government subsidies,
and the concentration of ownership and control at all levels …. are fostering conditions which threaten
the long-term viability of the entire food system.

The list of problems is a long one. It includes toxic agrochemicals that pollute the environ-
ment and poison our food, an obesity epidemic amid widespread food insecurity and hunger,
low pay and appalling conditions for farmworkers, the disappearance of small and mid-size
family farms, rising rates of food-borne illness, and the presence of inadequately tested, unla-
beled genetically engineered foods on supermarket shelves.

Most of these problems are widely recognized, and have been the subject of exhaustive
research and keen attention by academics, environmental activists, food and farming organiza-
tions, and government agencies.Yet we seem to be no closer to solving them. On the contrary,
the situation is getting progressively worse.

Photo: Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

One reason for this lack of progress is the belief that the food system’s problems all result from
different causes—that there is no connection between, say, the loss of rural jobs and an ever-
increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals. Another, interrelated, reason is that there has
been insufficient attention paid to the impact of the economy—in particular, the role of global-
ization.This report describes how economic globalization is at the heart of almost every prob-
lem facing the food system. Discerning this common root cause, in turn, reveals strategies to
solve all those problems at once, by creating and supporting food systems that are more
diverse, smaller in scale, and more localized.
 RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Connecting the dots

At its most basic level, economic globalization entails the tions wherever they may be found. As globalization breaks
deregulation of international trade and finance—in other down local economies and communities, the tide of mass
words, the removal of barriers limiting corporate access to urbanization, unemployment, and poverty rises, and corpora-
resources, labor, and markets, anywhere in the world.Trade has tions are provided with dense concentrations of easy-to-
always been an important part of human activity, but in the reach consumers and desperate workers.
modern era the traders—large, mobile busi-
Globalization is not an evolutionary
nesses—have become so powerful that they
process, as is often believed, but rather a

Photo: Lisa M. Hamilton (Rodale, newfarm.org)

are able to shape government policy.Around
process of planned change, with the plans
the world, this means that democratically being drawn up by unelected bureaucrats
elected governments are ever more behold- and industry trade associations.That this is
en to big business, and that local communi- undemocratic is but one part of the prob-
ties, regions, and nation-states are exchang- lem. Since corporations are pressured by
ing relative self-reliance for dependence on their shareholders to focus almost exclusive-
imported goods and distant markets.Taking ly on growth and profit maximization, they
globalization to its logical extreme would cannot put at the top of their agenda eco-
mean spreading the western consumer cul- nomic justice, the needs of the hungry,
ture into every last corner of the world, cre- long-term food security, or the mainte-
ating a global monoculture in which all nance of the ecosystems on which food
needs—water, air, food, education, and even production—and everything else—depends.
the genetic building blocks of life—are
commodified and subject to the influence Most people do not want their food irradi-
of a volatile market. ated or laced with toxic chemicals, nor do
they want it to come from thousands of
This process has heavy costs for people miles away when it could have been pro-
and the planet, but it increases the profits and power of large, duced next door.They don’t want to see small family farms
transnational corporations: they can market their commodi- disappear, and they haven’t agreed that access to food should
ties and services to an expanding pool of consumers world- depend on unaccountable transnational corporations.The
wide, and can take advantage of cheap labor, lax environ- public has asked for none of this, but this is what is happen-
mental laws, tax breaks, and loose health and safety regula- ing, as a direct result of economic globalization.

Food in the global economy

As the economy becomes more globalized, food is becoming to be produced on numerous, small, diversified farms;
just another commodity, one that economists argue should instead huge monocultures, heavily dependent on energy
come from wherever it can be most “efficiently” and cheaply and chemical inputs, are required.
produced, even if it is the other side of the world. Rather
than a vehicle for cultural expression and nourishment for At every point in the food chain, in fact, the scale is being
the hungry, food is becoming primarily an object of financial driven upward by pressure from the global economy: not
investment and speculation. only are farms growing larger, but so are input suppliers,
In the global food system, agriculture itself is changing, wholesalers, distributors, and supermarket chains. At every
becoming an industry run by the universal standards of the level there are fewer players, and the concentration and
modern factory, with little regard for local traditions or consolidation of power over the food system is increasing.
environmental conditions. As the scale of the global food Meanwhile, smaller businesses, from farms to processors to
system has grown, it has become all but impossible for food retailers, are being driven out.

3
 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

California: cultivating the global food model

From the time of California’s earliest European settlers, the other food-exporting region today, the export economy in
region’s food economy has exhibited many of the traits of California also depended on significant government subsidies—
the modern global system. Large farms, for example, have particularly for transport and irrigation infrastructures.
long been the norm in California. By 1870, the state was
home to more than twice as many 1,000-acre farms as any In these ways, California was largely responsible for creating
other, while the proportion of farms larger than 100 acres an industrial style of farming suited to large-scale distribu-
was nearly three times the national average. Most of those tion and long-distance transport.This is a major reason why
farms focused not on foods for local consumption, but on the state’s biggest farms and agribusinesses are now at the top
specialized crops for distant markets. of the global food economy.That status may be short-lived,
however. Other nations and regions have adopted the same
There are other similarities.As in the modern global food sys- formula, and “free trade” is forcing California agribusinesses
tem, the state’s big, monocultural farms were made possible by to compete with food producers in countries where energy
plentiful supplies of cheap labor and eventually a heavy reliance and transport are also subsidized, but regulations are weaker
on mechanization, agrochemicals, and fossil fuels.As in every and labor costs are far lower.

The corporate squeeze

Like clean air and water, food is something people everywhere tion, as well as strategic alliances among input suppliers,
need every day; it is therefore not only an important part of large-scale producers, food processors, manufacturers,
the economy, but, as many have argued, a human right.Yet wholesalers, and retailers, have created corporate oligarchies
Americans now depend on profit-driven corporations for 95 with immense and growing power. Today, just one percent
percent of their food, setting up a fundamental conflict of California producers supplies 38 percent of the state’s
between the needs of people and the goals of corporations. total agricultural production; just three companies control
57 percent of the huge food retail market in California.
In California today, large agribusinesses dominate every sec- Similarly high levels of consolidation are now found
tor of the food economy.Vertical and horizontal integra- throughout California’s food system.

Photo: Alex Jensen

4
 RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Needless trade
As the global food system becomes more centralized, food exported out of state, nearly half of it internationally.This
trade and transport are booming.The lifting of trade barriers, would be reasonable if food imports were products that
along with public subsidies for energy and long-distance couldn’t be grown in California, and exports were surpluses
transport, have contributed to rising “food miles”—the dis- beyond what the state’s residents consume. But this is not the
tance food travels from producer to consumer.The system is case: much of California’s food trade is simply redundant—
now so focused on trade that the value of food shipped to, involving the simultaneous import and export of the same
from, and within California—$124 billion in 1998—is food products, regardless of the season. For example,
expected to more than triple, and to exceed the value of all California exports brussels sprouts to Canada at the same time
other transported goods, by 2020. that it imports brussels sprouts from Belgium. New York ships
Despite California’s status as one of the world’s leading agri- California nuts to Italy while importing the same nuts from
cultural economies, more raw farm products are shipped into Italy—the boats effectively crossing paths in the Atlantic.
California (67 million tons) than are shipped out (37 million
These examples are not anomalies but part of a growing trend:
tons), making the state a net importer of food. By weight, 59
food, treated as a speculative commodity in an era of increas-
percent of California’s demand for raw farm products comes
ingly liberalized trade, is being transported back and forth
from outside its borders.When processed foods are included,
California relies on out-of-state products for 40 percent, by across the world—not to meet people’s food needs, but to
weight, of its total food needs. increase the profits of corporate agribusinesses. In the 10 years
since the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Even though California is importing large quantities of raw Agreement (NAFTA), for example, the transport of food
farm products, 43 percent of the state’s harvest is being between the US and Mexico has doubled in both directions.

Californians pay the price

The globalized food system exacts a heavy price from all ■ Wells contaminated with the carcinogenic pesticide
Californians. For one, it requires industrial-style monocultur- Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) put the health of more
al farming methods, which have high environmental costs: than 875,000 people in California at risk.
■ Per-acre pesticide use in California is almost ten times the ■ The health of farmers and farmworkers is heavily compro-
national average. mised by industrial agriculture. Because of pesticide expo-
■ Between 1990 and 1995, 38 million tons of toxic waste sure, California’s farmworkers are 59 to 70 percent more
were spread as fertilizer on California fields. likely to develop various forms of cancer than the rest of
the population.
■ Pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and livestock waste have
damaged 81 percent of the state’s lake area, 75 percent of ■ Agrochemicals are also linked to asthma.The childhood
its estuary and wetland areas, and 23 percent of its rivers. asthma rate in Fresno, California’s leading agricultural
county, is three times the national average.
■ Industrial farms are heavy air polluters as well: since 2001
the agricultural San Joaquin Valley has been home to the ■ Manure waste from California industrial dairy farms
nation’s dirtiest air. threatens the drinking water of 65 percent of Californians.

The costs of these agricultural methods are borne not only by Health impacts from the global food system are not solely
nature, but by all of us, including generations to come.The due to industrial agricultural practices. For example:
health of Californians is being seriously impacted. For example: ■ Food from the global system is not only subject to
■ More than 90 percent of the pesticides used in California more chemical applications, it is transported farther,
each year are prone to drift, meaning that hundreds of processed more, contains more additives, and sits in
thousands of Californians—including urban and suburban trucks and on supermarket shelves longer—all of which
residents—face pesticide exposure. compromise its taste, nutritional value, and safety.

5
 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

■ With industrial food processors speeding up the assembly ■ The two California counties with the worst food security,
line, the total number of confirmed and suspected food Fresno and Tulare, are among the country’s leading global
poisoning cases in the state has nearly tripled since 1989. food producers.
■ More than half of California’s adult population is over- ■ Despite the key role they play in supplying the nation
weight or obese. Obesity increases the risk of 30 serious with food, farmworkers have the highest rate of malnutri-
health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, tion of any sub-population in the country.
and stroke. It is the second leading cause of preventable ■ Long-term food security is also being compromised, in
death in the country. part by the erosion of agricultural diversity in the global
economy: for example, 95 percent of California’s half-mil-
In the global food system, most of the public’s food dollar lion acres of rice is confined to the Sacramento Valley, and
goes to corporate agribusinesses. Little is left for farmers, roughly half of that is planted in a single variety.
farmworkers, and their rural communities.The result is the
disappearance of small- and medium-sized farms, the elimi- With California agribusinesses supplying food for much of
nation of farm-related jobs, and a gutting of local economies the country and exporting food all over the world, local food
and rural communities. For example: systems elsewhere are being undermined as well:
■ On average, farmers linked to the global system keep only ■ In 1920, Iowa was nearly self-sufficient in food produc-
9 cents out of every food dollar. tion, with 34 different fruit, vegetable, meat, and dairy
■ The smallest 50 percent of California’s farms capture less products produced commercially on the state’s farms.
than 1 percent of total agricultural revenue. Today almost all of those foods come from California

Photo: Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

■ The total number of farms in California declined by 10 rather than local farms.
percent between 1982 and 1997, with the smallest farms ■ Rising food imports from California have exacerbated the
declining by more than 20 percent. decline of Mexico’s small-scale farm economy: for exam-
■ Three-quarters of California farmworkers earn less than ple, before NAFTA was implemented, Mexico’s top mar-
$10,000 a year. Fewer than 10 percent receive health benefits. ket for tomatoes was the US; now the balance has reversed
As globalization widens the rich-poor gap, drains rural and Mexico has become one of the top recipients of US
economies, and puts control over food in the hands of cor- tomatoes, primarily from California.
porate agribusinesses, hunger is increasing and food security ■ Thanks in part to federal subsidies to promote US food
is being undermined: products abroad, India now imports most of its almonds
from California, pushing Afghani almonds out of the mar-
■ Over 5 million Californians are “food insecure,” which ket. Many Afghani farmers have resorted to opium poppy
means they must do without such basic needs as utilities production instead.
and medical care in order to put food on the table. For at
least 1.25 million of those, it also means going hungry.

6
 RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Supporting the global at the expense of the local

Even among those who acknowledge these and other prob- tainable agriculture and those marketing locally get almost
lems emanating from the global food system, many argue that no support.
they are an unfortunate but unavoidable price to provide con-
Many indirect subsidies also promote global agribusinesses:
sumers with cheap food. But global food isn’t really cheap: it is
subsidies for water, for a trade-based transport infrastructure,
heavily underwritten by hidden subsidies and ignored social
and for publicly-funded research into industrial, high-tech
and environmental costs, ultimately paid for by the same con-
food production all support large-scale producers and mar-
sumers who ostensibly benefit from lower prices. keters at the expense of those that are smaller and more
A wide range of direct subsidies props up the global food localized. Substantial subsidies also go toward programs like
system. In California, as in the US as a whole, the biggest the federal government’s Market Access Program, which
spends $100 million per year to promote California agribusi-
farms reap the lion’s share of USDA farm subsidies. From
ness products overseas.
1995 to 2002, the top 1 percent of California recipients took
in one-quarter of the subsidies, with an average payment of In addition, many health, safety, and environmental regula-
$2.3 million per farm. Most subsidies go to agribusinesses tions—most of them needed because of the hazards of large-
producing monocrops for export, with dairy, cotton, and rice scale production—are too expensive for small-scale farmers and
growers receiving the most assistance. Farmers practicing sus- businesses to implement, forcing many of them out of business.

Shifting from global to local

Photo: Doug Gosling

Understanding that the problems
facing California’s food system
have common roots in the global-
ization of the economy helps
point the way to a powerful sys-
temic solution: localization.
Localization means shortening the
distance between producer and
consumer—simultaneously bene-
fiting farmers, farmworkers, and
consumers, protecting the envi-
ronment, and improving the quali-
ty of food while lowering its cost.
It means a shift in direction away
from the global food system toward smaller-scale food sys- Shifting toward the local is a strategic solution-multiplier
tems that are more localized, diverse, democratically with significant potential to improve many of the social, eco-
accountable, and ecologically-based. It does not mean a ces- nomic, and environmental problems we face. Bringing that
sation of all trade but a gradual striking of a better balance shift about will require two complementary steps: those that
between trade and local production, with people every- resist and reverse the process of globalization and corporate
where meeting as many of their food needs as close to control, and those that renew local food economies from the
home as possible. Localization is not synonymous with ground up.Through resistance and renewal, a local food
“protectionism,” nor does it imply ignoring the needs of movement is already taking shape worldwide.Within this
those whose economies are currently trade-dependent. promising movement, California is well-situated to lead the
Localization is not a solution for California alone, nor just way. It is not only one of the world’s largest food economies,
for the countries of the North. Every country and every it is home to a thriving sustainable agriculture movement.
region, North and South, would benefit from a greater Because the state’s agricultural economy is being emulated
degree of food sovereignty—the ability to control its own by other states and nations, a shift toward the local in
food supply. California can have widespread repercussions.

7
 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

Local food for a sustainable future

A shift toward local food means more than encouraging tions and disease outbreaks, they are more conducive to
everyone to buy food that was grown within some prescribed organic and other ecologically-based farm practices. Rather
distance. It is a broader, deeper change that involves placing a than being segregated into factory farms, livestock can be
higher emphasis on diverse modes of food production that integrated into the farm system, providing a source of fertility
reflect the planet’s cultural, geographic, and climatic diversity. that builds soil and eliminates the need for chemical fertiliz-
A conscious shift toward more localized food systems is a ers. Diversified organic farms also provide niches for many
strategic move that would encourage the following: wild species—including beneficial insects, birds, reptiles, and
others—that are eliminated from chemical-intensive mono-
Support smaller, more diversified farms. Local food economies cultural farmland.
encourage farms to become more diversified to meet local
demands.This in turn supports an increase in agricultural biodi- Give small farms a bigger share of every food dollar. Farmers
versity: rather than tailoring their production to the demands of hooked to the global system keep a tiny and shrinking por-
global markets, farmers would be able to choose varieties suited tion of the public’s food dollar, with corporate marketers

Photo: Alex Jensen

to their particular farm’s conditions.The amount of water need- and input suppliers taking the lion’s share. By selling to
ed for agriculture in California would also be reduced, since a local shops and restaurants or directly to consumers
shift toward the local would create markets for drought-tolerant through farmers’ markets or CSA schemes, farmers
food varieties that require far less water than export crops like can keep as much as 80 to 90 percent of the
rice and cotton, or alfalfa for industrial dairies. price of food.
Reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Since
diversified farms are less susceptible to pest infesta-

8
 RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Revitalize the state’s rural economies and communities. In more Provide Californians with healthier, fresher food. Since production
localized food economies, the money spent on food supports for local food systems is conducive to organic or low-input
the local economy rather than being siphoned into the bank methods, the pesticide residues found on many foods from
accounts of corporate middlemen.A greater number of farmers the global system would be cut significantly. Since local foods
would be needed, displacing the relative handful of large-scale are not intended to be transported thousands of miles or sit
farms.With better incomes for farmers, pay and working con- in warehouses and on supermarket shelves for extended peri-
ditions for farmworkers would improve as well. More farms ods, many of the processing and packaging requirements for
and more locally-owned food businesses would all boost the global foods could be reduced or eliminated, and varieties
local economy, helping to revitalize California’s communities. could be grown that maximize nutritional value and taste,
rather than transportability and shelf life.
Add substantially to the state’s overall economy. If just 10 percent
($85 per person per year) of Californians’ food expenditures Make healthy food more affordable. Most of the social, health, and
were redirected toward food produced within the state, an environmental costs of food from the global system never
estimated $848 million in additional income would flow to appear on the price tag, making it seem far cheaper than it
the state’s farmers, $1.38 billion would be injected into really is. Even without accounting for those “externalities,”
California’s overall economy, $188 million in tax revenue local food would still be far less expensive if the many direct
would be generated, and 5,565 jobs would be created. and hidden subsidies that now support the global food system
Higher proportions of local food consumed would generate were instead shifted to support local food. By making healthy
even larger economic benefits. food more available and accessible, local food systems can
improve food security and alleviate the problem of hunger.
Reverse the trend toward concentrated control of California’s food
system. In localized food systems, food is not only grown Support rural economies in the global South. Policies aimed at
locally, but processing facilities, distribution networks, and reorienting agriculture toward exports have been devastating
retail marketing are also geared to local markets.This means a for rural communities throughout the South.The highly
substantial increase in the number of small businesses, and a competitive and volatile global market demands “efficien-
reduction in the power of corporate agribusinesses. cy”—which means consolidating land into large plantations,
replacing farmers with agrochemicals and heavy equipment,
Reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions from food transport. The and piling up huge debts to build trade-based transport and
distance between producers and consumers would be greatly energy infrastructures. Shifting the focus back to the local—
shortened with a shift toward the local, thereby reducing the with farmers primarily growing food for themselves and local
use of petroleum products for food transport, and cutting air markets—would greatly strengthen those rural communities,
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. create more jobs, and help to stem the tide of urbanization.

The difference between “global food” and “local food”

The global food system is characterized by large-scale, highly mechanized, monocultural and chemical-intensive methods, with
production oriented toward distant, and increasingly global, markets. Production and distribution of global foods requires
abundant use of external inputs, large machinery, and long-distance transport and communications infrastructures, and relies
heavily on the knowledge and technology generated by a small number of Western-style institutions.The goal is ever-increas-
ing agricultural “efficiency,” defined as maximizing the yield of a narrow range of globally traded commodities, while mini-
mizing human labor—thereby eliminating millions of agricultural jobs. Although variants are to be found within the global
food system, its fundamental characteristics, largely determined by technology and international market forces, are the same
everywhere.

Local food systems are typically oriented toward local and regional consumption, with “food miles”—the distance between
producers and consumers—being relatively short, sometimes with direct links between the two. Local food systems differ
from place to place, since most have evolved within a particular social, economic, and environmental context.Though most
existing local food systems are in the global South, people around the world are combining recent advances in small-scale
organic agriculture with the remnants of their own farming heritage in order to shift away from the global food system and
back to the local.

9
 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

Making the shift

People in communities across the state have already begun to To make the shift, a powerful movement is therefore needed
bring about a shift toward the local: they are joining CSAs, that can resist and reverse the globalization of the food econ-
planting urban gardens, and starting farmers’ markets, farm- omy while simultaneously promoting more localized food
to-school programs, and edible schoolyard projects. systems.This is a difficult challenge, but it is not impossible.
In fact, the efforts of activists and ordinary citizens around
In order to make a lasting shift possible, however, govern- the world have already dispelled the notion of globalization’s
ment policy also needs to be changed. Since our tax dollars “inevitability.” Even the Financial Times acknowledges that
so heavily favor global food, it can be sold below the price of “the protesters are winning.They are winning in the streets.
fresh local food. At the same time, regulations make it all but Before too long they will be winning the argument.
impossible for smaller local farms and businesses to compete Globalization is fast becoming a cause without credible
with large corporations. champions.”

Reorienting policy
One of the biggest challenges is to roll back the wave of inter- instance, California could tax the transportation of goods in
national treaties supporting the corporate “free trade” agenda. the state to account for environmental externalities, thereby
Halting and reversing the deregulation of trade and finance favoring shorter hauls.
would keep food economies from being further monopolized
by global agribusinesses and create space for policy initiatives Research and development. A shift in the focus of R&D subsi-
that don’t discriminate against local food.With so many cor- dies is also needed. Substantial funding is currently available
porate interests lined up to promote deregulation, intense pres- for technology-intensive industrial agriculture, while almost
sure from below is needed to force national governments back nothing is devoted to research into sustainable agriculture
to the negotiating table to hammer out trade agreements that and the needs of small-scale producers and local processors.
respect the needs and wishes of the majority. Educational cam-
Regulations. Many health, safety, and environmental regula-
paigns are therefore urgently needed to inform the public and
tions are required because of the hazards of large-scale opera-
policymakers about the many costs of global food, and the
tions, but meeting them makes it difficult for smaller busi-
multiple benefits of a shift toward the local.
nesses to survive. One solution is a tiered regulatory system,
Shifts are needed not only in international trade agreements, with strict national regulations on global-scale producers,
but in national and local policies as well. Policy areas of urgent processors, and marketers, and locally-determined rules for
priority for regenerating local food economies include: smaller-scale enterprises marketing locally.This would allow
restrictions on the increasingly deregulated global food sys-
Farm subsidies. Eliminating the heavy bias toward agribusiness tem to be tightened, while local businesses could be regulat-
and redirecting public funds toward smaller-scale, diversified ed in ways that reflect local conditions and needs.
family farms would be immensely beneficial.
Antitrust laws. While antitrust laws were never designed to deal
Indirect farm supports. Redirecting many other supports that effectively with mobile transnational corporations, trade liberal-
are currently devoted to large export-oriented farms is also ization has weakened even the laws already on the books.
important.The state’s “Buy California” campaign, for Stronger, better-enforced antitrust laws are therefore urgently
instance, is now largely aimed at promoting the state’s food needed.
products overseas, rather than building support for stronger
regional food economies at home. Tax reform. Today, a wide range of tax credits are available for
the energy-intensive technologies used by large-scale produc-
Transportation and energy policy. Instead of continuing to fund ers, while smaller, more labor-intensive businesses are bur-
transportation projects tailored to the demands of interna- dened with heavy payroll taxes. Ecological tax reform—which
tional trade, steps could be taken to level the playing field for puts the burden of taxation on activities that destroy natural
producers and processors marketing more locally. For resources—would support the growth of local food systems.

10
 RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Taking action
Everyone participates in the food system in one way or Processors, distributors, and retailers. By purchasing from sustainable
another, and there are concrete steps we all can take to sup- local producers and making local food available to other busi-
port the growth of local food systems in California: nesses and the public, small-scale independent processors, dis-
tributors, and retailers provide crucial links within the overall
Citizens and communities. Citizens are also consumers, and food system. Collaborating with other businesses by forming
their actions in the marketplace can make a cooperatives can make the entire system func-
big difference. Purchasing food from local tion more smoothly, and spread the benefits

Photo: Tyler/Center for Ecoliteracy

sustainable producers wherever possible is an more evenly. Retailers can educate consumers
obvious first step, one made relatively easy if through posters and displays, and by organizing
there is a nearby farmers’ market or CSA. (If events about the importance of local food.
not, the next step is to help start one.)
Asking local retailers and restaurants to carry Restaurants. With so much of the US food dol-
local foods sends a clear message that people lar devoted to eating away from home, restau-
care where their food comes from. Other cit- rants can be valuable markets for local farmers,
izen actions might include boycotting big as well as for processors and distributors that
food corporations and supermarket chains, source from them. Many restaurant owners
joining or organizing a consumer cooperative already recognize the benefits for their business
that purchases local food, starting an “edible of local food: the food is fresher, the quality
schoolyard” project, publishing a list of local higher, and customers enjoy knowing that their
growers, starting a local labeling initiative, food came from nearby farmers. Like shop-
and educating the public through letters-to-the-editor and keepers, restauranteurs can educate their customers about what
op-ed pieces. grows locally, what is in season, and why local foods are better.

Farmers. Farmers can diversify their production and switch Although thousands of people are already involved in many of
to selling more locally—by using local distributors or mar- the steps outlined above, it will take a great many more to cre-
keting directly to consumers via farmers’ markets, roadside ate the “critical mass” needed to transform California’s food
stands, or CSAs. Local value-added initiatives have long system. If enough people take concrete action both to rebuild
been recognized as a way for farmers to add to their local food systems and to reorient government policy, there is
incomes, but in most California communities the infra- every reason to believe that California can become home to
structure needed to implement such efforts has been eradi- more socially just and economically viable food systems that are
cated. This problem can be overcome by joining forces with healthier for people and the planet.
other farmers—for example by building community food
processing facilities or abbatoirs. Farmers are also in an There is significant public support for fresh, healthy, local food
excellent position to educate consumers, policymakers, and in California, and a wide range of positive initiatives are already
other farmers about the real costs of the global food system underway.With a systemic shift to local food economies as a
and the benefits of marketing locally. unifying priority, California could become a leader in the
movement toward truly sustainable and equitable food systems
worldwide.

May 2004 © International Society for Ecology and Culture

Executive Editors: Helena Norberg-Hodge and Steven Gorelick
Authors: Katy Mamen, Steven Gorelick, Helena Norberg-Hodge, and Diana Deumling

Cover Photos:
“Girl with Strawberries” by Tyler/Center for Ecoliteracy
“Landscape” by Lynn Betts, USDA

Page 1 “Sacks” by Lisa M. Hamilton,

© The Rodale Institute® 2004 from www.newfarm.org
Page 11 “Tomatoes” by Doug Gosling

11
 ISEC
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR
ECOLOGY AND
CULTURE

US office:
PO Box 9475, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
Tel: (510) 548-4915
Fax: (510) 548-4916
[email protected]

UK office:
Foxhole, Dartington, Devon TQ9 6EB, UK
Tel: (01803) 868650
Fax: (01803) 868651
E-mail: [email protected]

www.isec.org.uk