Historical Context for the Debate Over "Local" Food, Part 2 of 2

Part One

Now here we are in 2009, and people who are [justifiably] discontented with the nation’s food supply system want to return to "local" food production.  But that desire may, indeed, likely will, produce conflicts, big ones, and over more than just urban hen houses.

Consider the variant of that conflict that has been playing out for years in the midwest.  In the mid-twentieth century, meat packing moved out of the "stockyard cities," like Chicago, and into more isolated rural packing factories. Iowa, where I live, for example, is dotted with these packing plants, as are other midwestern states.

The rationale for these isolated packing facilities is that they are near or adjacent to the huge feedlots that provide the livestock for the plant. The proximity of the one to the other, and the relatively low cost of rural land are two factors that allow packers to produce meat with a low retail price --- ground beef, for example, that costs about two dollars a pound at the store.

But as home ownership rates have soared, especially since the 1980s, developers have converted more "farmland" to housing developments. Many of those developments sit just a few miles from giant feedlots, large packing houses, or, most often, both.

Result? Conflict: Homeowners want their 2500-square-foot houses, but when the wind is right, they’re reminded that just a few miles away stands a massive hog feedlot or beef packing plant. They demand that the meat operations move --- although no one can agree on just where those ought to go.

No surprise, of course, homeowners who complain about the proximity of these facilities are also the first to complain when the price of meat rises. They don’t seem to understand that those giant, rural operations, plus taxpayers’ agricultural subsidies, are what allow us to enjoy low-priced filets and bacon.

So --- the idea of "local food" is great, and I think many Americans would agree that the nation’s food system needs some, uh, readjustment. But if history is any judge, getting from here to there won’t be easy.

But hey! It’ll be fascinating to watch and take part in. You can tell your grandchildren: "I was there during the great food wars of the early 21st century."

In any case, there are many, many blogs, websites, and twitter users who are busy debating the logistics, ethics, and business of a "new" food system. If you're interested, seek them out and join the discussion.

Historical Context for the Debate Over "Local" Food, Part 1 of 2

Yet another newspaper article today about the growing conflicts over "urban" animals -- in this case, in Salem, Oregon, where some residents want to keep hens, and other residents don’t want the animals around. We’re going to see more conflicts like theses as the "local food" activists gather steam, focus, and energy. (*1)

Many Americans are trying to "take back" their food and the nation’s food system. Some demand better state and federal food regulations. But others are engaged in grassroots efforts by supporting farmers’ markets and by producing their own food at home.

So what’s all this got to do with the price of eggs? History, that’s what.

As I’ve noted here before, I’m writing a history of meat in America (see more here). The first two chapters of that book look at the debate over "urban meat" in the late 19th century. That debate centered on Americans' unhappiness with their "local" food systems: they didn't like them, and wanted them gone.

The short version is this: Urban growth accelerated significantly in the mid-nineenth century. As cities grew, so Americans’ ideas about how to manage those cities changed, most especially ideas about how to manage urban sanitation.

No surprise, urbanites began building centralized sewer and water systems, to name one example. But they also began to question the value of "local" food production, especially meat processing. If we could go back to a typical American city in, say, 1870, we’d find dozens of slaughterhouses.

Dozens. And they weren’t on the outskirts: they sat next to houses, churches, stores, and schools.

And yes, with all the odor, waste, and, well, filth, you might imagine, as well as the constant parade of animals through city streets. (The livestock usually arrived by rail, and then handlers herded them through the streets to various slaughterhouses and butcher shops.)

Americans decided that this centuries-old system of meat production was outdated, unsafe, and unsuited the needs of a modern, progressive people.

Over the next fifteen years, they debated, considered, and experimented with alternatives (the first two chapters of my book will examine that process.)

By the late 1880s, most cities had banned those local slaughterhouses (as well as things like backyard hen houses), and a new meat processing system had emerged: A handful of operators slaughtered and processed livestock at giant "packing" houses located in just a few cities -- most notably Chicago, but also in St. Louis, Omaha, Kansas City, and Fort Worth.

Americans applauded this change: The new system was healthier and safer, and so were the nation’s cities. Next: The twentieth-century battle over meat processing.

____________

*1: Don't take my word for it. There are a zillion blogs out there. But also check out the intense food-related activity on Twitter.  (Indeed, anyone who still thinks Twitter is for narcissists and teen-agers only needs to spend a few minutes just reading the food posts on Twitter. There’s a movement out there!) Use the Twitter search box and  type in, for example, #profood.

How Would You Like Your "Fresh"? On Film, or In Print?

As I've noted before, food is much on my mind, thanks to the book I'm writing (a history of meat in America). And in that line, "fresh" is the word of the day, week, month.

As part of my research (in this case, secondary rather than primary), I'm reading Susanne Freidberg's new book Fresh: A Perishable History, a sweeping survey of the history of the modern idea (and technology) of "fresh" foods in the U.S. and Europe, using meat, fruit, eggs, vegetables, and so forth as her case studies.

The book is a remarkable accomplishment, given its scope and scale. I can tell you from considerable personal experience that it's not easy to distill so much information into a digestible form and make it accessible to a general audience. But she's pulled it off. Five thumbs up.

Also "fresh" at the moment is a film by that name, by director Ana Sofia Joanes.  Unlike the other new "food" film, "Food, Inc.," which is, I gather, an expose of corporate food practices, "Fresh" documents the work of people around the country who are trying to re-think and re-imagine our food system. (Or again, so I gather: I've not seen either film, and only know this much from looking at the websites for both films.)

Anyway, as I noted a few days back (or maybe a few weeks?), food: it's everywhere you wanna be!

Tip o' the mug, by the way, to Zachary Cohen, who alerted me to Freidberg's book.

Food: New Tipping Point for a New Conversation?

A few days ago, Zachary Cohen, who blogs at Farm To Table, wrote that he believes American society has finally hit the "tipping point" when it comes to rethinking the national food system.  His entry is worth reading.

Food, of course, is much on my mind because I'm writing a history of meat in America.

And I'm inclined to agree with Zachary on this point. (Although I hasten to remind one and all that I'm writing a history of part of the food system, not an exploration/analysis of contemporary food systems.)

Think about it: a few years ago, most of the chatter about American food stemmed from things like The Food Network, celebrity chefs, and the opening of the latest grotesquely, obscenely expensive elitaurant. (*1)

But in the past year or so, it seems as though our national social chatter (for lack of a better word) has shifted away from food gloss-glitz-and-glam to, well, manure, local-versus-not, and so forth.

Yes, many expert types have been hammering at the issues of, for example, genetic modification and food irradiation for years. But the larger conversation about food --- the one taking place us ordinary, non-expert types --- has caught up with the experts.

I think we can safely credit Michael Pollan for pushing the conversation in new directions, but his books wouldn't be as popular as they are if other people weren't already interested in discussing food.

So, Twitter, for example, is chockful of a dizzying array of conversation about food from every angle, and I don't mean recipe swaps.

There are two new films ("Food, Inc." and another one whose name totally escapes me right now...).

And it feels as though a small mountain of books about various kinds of encounters with food has come tumbling out of publishing houses. (Too bad mine's not one of them, but, what can I say: research takes time. Plus, mine is historical in nature, rather than focused on current inssues).

Here's a small sample of the books that have just come out:

• Coop
• Goat
• Righteous Porkchop
• Farm City
• Deeply Rooted
• The Unhealthy Truth
• The End of Overeating

And those are the ones that are new. I'm leaving off a slew that have been published in the past two years. More to the point, the creators/authors of these books and films started working on their projects at least, bare minimum, two years ago and more likely three years. Which means this tipping point has deep roots (absolutely no pun intended...) (Seriously.)

Anyway, I have no real point here except that it's worth tooling around the internet/Twitter/Wherever to listen in on the conversation. I have no idea where it will lead, although I do think that the sort of "eat local or die" attitude isn't quite going to cut it.

Do people in California, for example, honestly believe that they should be allowed to eat fruit all year because the climate makes it possible, but that people in Minnesota should not be allowed to the climate won't allow it?

I think not. The issues and problems concerning our food system are far, far more complicated than a simple "eat local" solution. But enough of this rambling. Back to work, everyone!

___________

*1: That's my invented-on-the-spot word for grotesquely, obscenely, expensive, celebrity-oriented restaurants.

Historian James McWilliams on the Downside to "Free Range" Pork

James E. McWilliams is a first-rate historian. He wrote what is, in my opinion, the single best book ever about the history of American food. (The work of Warren Belasco, especially his history of American food in the 1970s.)

Apparently he's working on a new book about eating "local" and that topic led him to write this op-ed piece in today's New York Times. It's fascinating to me because I'm writing a history of meat in America. But it's a perfect example of why long-term and critical thinking is necessary during times of social and cultural change.

Translation: eating "local" isn't quite the simple, groovy solution to food issues that many think it is. Absolutely worth a read.

You Wanna Tax My Burger?

Well, this hits all my buttons (beer, meat, taxes....)