Wrapped Up

This week's topic, planning for the local food environment, is more than just the final chapter in our food systems journey. The readings selected for this week all incorporate the topics, movements, policies, programs, and social issues that we have discussed this far, but solidified them in a planning context. Suggestions range from addressing food in comprehensive plans to building community gardens and urban farms. These and everything in between are the final iteration of the semester's topics brought full-circle to the real grit: application. As aspiring planners, one of the most transformative approaches we can take is to understand, initiate, and replicate food systems planning at the local level.

Our readings, discussions, and case studies prove, first, there is no singular way to approach the issues surrounding food systems and, second, that planners are not the only people who can accomplish change, but they can certainly drive it. Looking only at one option, or one arena of options, closes off the myriad possibilities of interdisciplinary work. For example, only looking at institutional change can pigeonhole your approach and prohibit you from working on the human, social side of things. The community can be brought together in a number of ways for a similar mission that includes a diversity of people. Community gardens may appeal to one group, while after school youth programs is meant for another; reaching out to politicians, environmental work; all of these different facets can be used to approach the same issue. The planner, as I have posted before, has a unique opportunity to take on the role of an advocate for the community, which is not readily available through traditional planning practice. Using our knowledge of planning, coupled with the close political and administrative relationship of our respective municipality, planners are the perfect candidate for stepping up in a role to promote positive change in our food systems. With enough action, the role of a food systems planner will not be elective or specialized, but rather standardized.

Planning for Food Cities: Linking Everything Together

The planning profession, although a recent one, has dramatically increased its involvement and efficiency since its humble beginning. However, food planning is an even more recent branch of the profession, and currently planning efforts show how food integrates every aspect of a modern city: economy, society, and environment.

Scott Campbell’s sustainability triangle features three main corners, social equity, environmental protection, and economic growth. Within each of the edges, different conflicts appear that come into place when two of these issues disagree, but if the three sectors are agreed upon, “green, profitable and fair” agreements can be reached, thus leading into sustainable development.

Planning for cities can present all of the triangle’s challenges and more, but if building resiliency is present in the planning process, can sustainability be truly achieved? In order for a city to be resilient and sustainable, it must have a good relationship with the environment (minimal emissions and waste), provide equitable access for all basic living needs, and a constantly improving economic system (employment, livable wages, etc). A city’s path to self-sustenance and efficiency can reduce dependency from external sources and provides security for its citizens against global constraints, whether it be for fuel, food, or other resources (Newman et al. 2009).

Food being one of the mayor sources of carbon emissions and resource use, it can signify a drastic change toward a city’s reduced environmental impact. Heavy transportation and fossil fuel use are involved in most people’s daily for acquisitions, making the way we eat very unsustainable. By creating local sources of food, citizens are able to experience ecologically appropriate foods to the region, requiring little to no transportation to the consumer. Furthermore, building community gardens increase plant density in small areas, which leads to increased biodiversity and creates resistance against rising gas prices and other effects caused by climate change (Planning Advisory Service Report, 2008). Furthermore, taking advantage of community supported agriculture (CSA) and other local food programs, change in a city’s trends toward environmental impact mitigation can greatly reduce the carbon footprint sourced from transportation and food production. On another end, green roofs and high-rise buildings agriculture improves the city’s aesthetic while providing quickly accessible fresh foods in the middle of urban centers.

Food and the economy go hand-by-hand, meaning that whenever one is altered, the other follows. Developing a good economy based in local food can positively impact small business, local entrepreneurs, and reduce the price of healthy foods. Utilizing public funds to boost small farmers and growers leads to increased production of fresh produce with little costs of manufacturing, transportation, and provides better opportunity for local agriculture to flourish. Moreover, small grocery renovations and funding opens space for better trained personnel, more space to include local foods, and increased value of nearby properties (TRF 2007). Not only it facilitates food access, but it can stimulate connections between several local businesses, leading to CSA pickup sites, selling local produce and other goods, and increasing local employment in small neighborhoods. One of the better benefits of economically viable healthy foods comes in the long-term health benefits. Healthier diets reduce obesity and other diet related diseases, which may promote a reduced need in health care, and ultimately leading to a more enjoyable lifestyle.

Society revolves around food, and it can help reshaping it as well. Fostering sustainable sources of food access increases food security and equity. Creating a “food impact” within low-income communities brings opportunity to access better food options and reduce the long traveling time that is present in most food deserts. Community gardens and farmers markets may also be other ways to engage citizens and provide healthier foods. With food subsidies, communities can engage and access local foods at affordable rates whilst fostering relationship with local growers, which could enhance local participation in a wide array of events. In many cases, food change comes with education, either through cooking lessons or school initiatives to address all age groups within a city. Even if stakeholders are not able to break the poverty line, having access to government funded benefits such as SNAP or WIC can help low-income families to have a better diet for a better price (Campbell 2004), reducing the long-term health costs and increasing their “localvore” taste.

Connecting the triangle is challenging, and achieving sustainability may seem rather impossible to obtain. However, if planners and city commissioners address the importance of a resilient food system, other issues may come naturally: enhancing the economy whilst protecting the environment and its people.

What are some other ways you can connect social equity, the environment, and the economy with food? How could you further stimulate the efforts for sustainable cities?

Week 12: Reflection

Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars?

I agree with the researchers when they suggested to the local food activists and advocates considering the use of multiple methodologies to explore the integration and recuperation of local food into diverse and redundant place-based practice. It is important to not approach the local food movement just as one method for solving complex social issues. It is easy for many people to gain tunnel vision when advocating for the local food movement. For example, many people join the local food movement assuming that “local” automatically implies both organic and sustainable notions and practices. Previously, organic and sustainable definitions have played a major role in the growth of the local food movement. The local food movement comprises the philosophies and objectives of the organic and sustainable food movements, but it is not dependent upon them. For example, chickens raised about ten miles from your home may fit the criteria for “local”, however, they may be raised in brutal conditions and may be fed hormones and corn to make them grow faster and fatter.

Some great things that I believe come from the local food movement is that it puts people back in touch with an understanding of where our food comes from and therefore, an appreciation for the providers of our foods. This movement also gives gratitude and community fellowship certainly helps to foster growth in the local food movement. However, some may argue that the economics of imported food certainly fueled the trend away from local food for several decades. The concealed prices of inexpensive food such as, processed and sweetened foods that are derived from corn and soy, are finally being reveal to the public. As a result, the economic implications of cheap food are now one of the driving forces in the local food movement.

According to Michael Pollan, a local food advocate, and author, he suggests that the local food movement has substantial social implications. Being able to talk directly to your farmer and build a noteworthy relationship is a positive factor to the local food movement. As the local food movement continues to grow in the U.S. it replicates a sense of community, identity, and human interaction that I feel has been lost due to the technological and food globalization era. The local food movement has also allowed for new innovative spaces to develop within communities such as farmer’s markets, community gardens, and small local businesses. 

Lastly, it has been brought to my attention that the local food movement can possibly have a larger carbon footprint than imported foods. According to the USDA, eating foods that are in season and eating organic and less processed foods can further reduce one’s greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, not everyone is into eating restricted diet that is limited by what I growing in season. I believe that local food has the capability to keep local land in production and local money in the community often costs less than conventionally produced food, and builds community relations. 

Local Food: Its a Trap!

The literature for this week brings to light the many ways planners can incorporate food planning into their agenda. Throughout the semester we have analyzed multiple facets of the food system including urban agriculture, distribution techniques, and the industrialization of food over time. All of these themes play active roles in how we engage our food system--are we Trader Joes or Walmart people? Do we go to the farmers' market on Saturdays? are we locavores? Do we even have access to any of the above? As food is central to both the urban and rural environment, planners can (and maybe should) incorporate food related research into their job description--even if it doesn't stem from a "local" lens.

I will admit, I have drank the local food system tea. I believe in the power of uniting communities (scale word) through local (also a scale word) collards and cornbread. As I proudly drive my (as some would call pretentious) prius, I boast bumper stickers such as "iGrow Your Grandma's Greens" "Eat Local" and Trump 2016 (just kidding), Born and Purcell (2006) and Delind (2011) challenge me think outside of my "local"box. As most factors that we try to tabulate --race, gender, and in case local food, are social constructs (Born and Purcell, 2011). That being said, if "local"is simply a question of scale, then there is nothing inherent about the term. Therefore, planners must  be very to carry out research that insinuates that local is better, but rather focus on the actual goal that is wished to be achieve--empowerment, security, safety..etc. Additionally, Born and Purcell further that local is both fluid and fixed, and relational--communities are not synonymous with local. DeLind (2011) contributes to the scale debate by framing local (locavores specifically) as a term that is decisive and manipulative to the food movement as "there is little to the term that appeals to the whole person, peoples as residents, poets, bus drivers, grandmothers, and neighborhood activists--as people who must practice the complex art of living with each other. Its a me term, rather than a we term." I thought this was insightful and challenging, so often do I forget how exclusive my vocabulary can become. Due to the abstract nature of the term local, locally driven food systems it can be used as a strategy, rather than an outcome for promoting the good food movement. 

Campbell (2004), Raja et al (2008) and Hodgson (2011) speak specifically to the planners role at a local level within his or her community. Through trying to understand the needs of community stakeholders, Campbell found that although there is a lack of a unified agenda. However, there were overlapping needs including, public participation; social, economic and environmental justice; and the importance of local knowledge. Through these lenses, stakeholders wish to challenge today's "anti-democratic food system" into a legitimate food democracy. In order to do this, Raja et al (2008) bring up many of the tools to "promote social, cultural, and intergenerational exchange in a community" that we have discussed in class: community gardens, farmers markets, CSAs, farm to school programs, food policy councils, food charters (I thought this was really neat) and incorporating food into comprehensive plans. 

I'm sorry for the scattered-ness of this post. I'm overwhelmed with information, and unsure what to do with it!

The Trap Within The Local Trap

This week’s readings dealt with strategies for planners in food systems, but also the vernacular of locavores and the local trap. I found these articles to be the most interesting because I heavily disagree with much of what they are say, and sort of felt that it was an argument for the sake of an argument—although I must admit Born and Purcell made a few good points.

They describe what the local trap is and investigate the claims about eating locally. However, I realized that they meant completely locally. This article was arguing that the local trap mean everything must be made locally—which I do agree may be a negative thing (it could lack diversity and be unfeasible/ not realistic for most people). Born and Purcell assert that the flaws in the food system have nothing to do with the scale of the system but rather capitalism.

Although I agree with the points made, I felt they didn’t take into consideration a few things: the local food system is where the consumer has the most potential to intervene, participate, and change patterns of production by demanding certain foods from the farmer. We learn from the things we see, the things we do and where else does that occur but in our own neighborhoods and cities. So let me reinforce that idea with a question: where did your first interactions with food occur: with family, neighbors, school, friends?

Most everyone can agree that there is a flaw in the food practices of our systems, and that these practices need to change. As an individual I can’t imagine changing it by myself, but I can imagine supporting what I believe by changing my own consumption patterns. Not inherently, but the local food system has much more potential to hold both the consumer and producer accountable to produce nutritious food and take care of the community at a more doable scale than the global.

Week 12: Readings

This week’s articles generally discussed the current local food efforts to promote healthy eating and urban agriculture through community and regional food planning. The one article that really resonated with me was the Born & Purcell article, “Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research”.  The local trap refers to the inclination of food activists and researchers to inherently assume something about the local scale, which is generally assumed to be more desirable than larger scales. Born & Purcell went on to explain that scale is a social construction, therefore, there can be nothing inherent about any scale.  We must view scale not as an end goal, but as a strategy that is fluid and fixed and relational. Localizing food systems, therefore, doesn’t lead inherently to greater sustainability or to any other goal. It leads where those it empowers want it to lead. 

Thus as food activists and planners we need to be more critical of the food policies and planning strategies we utilized when addressing concerns with ecological sustainability, social justice, food security, improved nutritional options, freshness and quality. Our end goals need to be determined first and at that point we can examine which scale would be best to address the end goal. Born & Purcell gave examples of large scale strategies, such as changing national agricultural production vulnerable monoculture methods and increasing funding to food-related bills  such as the Farm Bill and smaller scale strategies, such as increasing every day access to food through regulatory reform and market incentives.

Our guest lecturer, Lauren Chappell Harris, informed us last week of Tallahassee’s food movement history and its current state. Tallahassee has been trying to address local food security concerns for the last 8 years. Since Tallahassee is also the capital for Florida, it would be awesome if we are the example city for our state on how to address food insecurity in Florida. Understanding that each city and county within Florida is different because we are an agricultural and tourism state, do you have any suggestions on possible strategies (e.g. policies and initiatives) that can be addressed on a statewide scale?

Rethinking Discourse

My reflection this week is largely shaped by the first reading I finished, "Avoiding the Local Trap," by Born & Purcell. While the other readings this week were an interesting and very thorough overview of the current thinking in food systems planning and a helpful list of toolkit for planners, I unfortunately found them more of the same. That's why I found the Born & Purcell article to be so amazing -- it was different, it was critical, it called into question our assumptions about progressive food planning. As planners, I think we get stuck on what's "en vogue." As a transportation planning student, my education has focused on complete streets, bike/ped, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, and other similar "progressive" transportation planning issues, because that's where the current focus is. While I love these topics and ideas, and while these progressive planning strategies are why I wanted to study transportation planning in the first place, I worry about current transportation planning's hyper-focus on bikeable, walkable, TODs, and transit, all with the assumption that this, finally, is the solution. If planners blindly accept these strategies as an end-all panacea (walkable neighborhoods are going to solve our health problems, as well as our emissions problems, as well as our equity problems...well, you get the picture), we will end up without a critical lens to our strategies that is really the hallmark of our profession. As Born & Purcell point out, an overly pointed and tunnel visioned focus on local food may have unintended consequences, and is not in of itself a solution to the problems we are targeting.

With this in mind, there were a few takeaways from this article that really struck me. First, the authors point out that the local trap conflates the scale of a food system with a desired outcome. Specifically, they state "...descriptive research on scale should interrogate how the inter-relationships among scales are fixed, unfixed, and refixed by particular social actors pursuing specific political, social, economic, and ecological goals." In other words, "local" is a social construct that is inherently embedded in how we see regional and global scales. Since we have lately come to understand "global" as an inherently "evil" scale (as DeLind points out in the "Pollanization" of our understanding of the food system), then "local" must be the benevolent scale. But this is equating scale with ever-changing values that, really, have nothing to do with the food system at all. This relates to my second takeaway from the article, which is that local ("good") food may not be able to offer us everything that we have grown accustomed to, and actually like, about the global ("evil") food system. In order to rid ourselves of the global scale food system, which we have unjustly married to the wrong end of our value system, we may be giving up tangible parts of our, and our community's, culture. For better or worse, our community's culture, our community's food, is not wholly tied food grown at the local scale. Does this mean we should abandon it?

The authors mentioned something along the lines of not being able to imagine a Midwestern meal without a Jell-O mold. Jell-O, of course, is not grown locally in the Midwest -- it is an industrial food. Does that mean the Midwest should rid themselves of Jell-O, a staple at their gatherings for decades? I remember in undergrad, I was preparing Christmas cookies for a group of friends. The cookie recipes were all passed down through my family and in turn influenced by my German and Polish ancestry. One of my "food woke" friends was horrified that a Polish jelly cookie recipe called for Crisco and refused to eat it. I was so upset that I cried -- my mom had made these for me when I was growing up and they were one of the first things I ever helped her cook, and her mom for her, and so on. These cookies were important to how I understood my identity and my heritage, and with how I connected to family and friends. I don't want to give up the Crisco cookies, and I don't consider them "evil" for being partially made from industrial food. So yes, I do try to eat local, and I have a garden, and I love TODs. However, I think we as planners, as argued for in the Born & Purcell article, need to take a critical lens to assumptions we hold about planning strategies. We need to separate the outcomes we desire -- whether ecological sustainability, social and economic justice, or food quality and human health -- from the strategies we are employing and make sure that "local food and the local food movement are taking us where we want to go."