Garrett Heath (Honor Code Pledged)

1

Heath

Garrett Heath (Honor Code Pledged)

Dr. Nancy Williams

Philosophy of Food – A

12 December 2016

Determining Justice in Local vs. Non-local Food Systems

In an ever-globalizing world, efforts to promote local food have populated the entire country. Since 2008 and 2014, the demand for farmer’s markets has increased by 76%, exemplifying current trends in the national campaign for eating local.[1] While the benefits of this movement may seem positive at first glance—supposedly building the local economy, helping the environment, and strengthening the community—a critical eye can provide insight into the implications of purchasing local. Helena de Bres, a philosopher at Wellesley College, articulates the falsehoods of eating local by using empirical data to investigate the foundations of several ethical arguments for local foods. She argues that commonly held beliefs about local foods—like a lessened environmental footprint or a contribution in global poverty alleviation—are misconceptions rather than fact.[2]

Helena de Bres points out noteworthy information in her article “Local Food: A Moral Cause”. But, her critical lens should be taken one step further. In the following, I will argue that the choice of local versus non-local foods does not dictate whether a food system is just. I will cite reasons as to why both local and non-local foods can be detrimental. In doing so, I hope to articulate the reasons as to why subscribing to local or non-local foodsystemsimply becauseitis local or non-local would not provide ample reasons as to whether either choice is morally permissible.

Foremost, I will discuss why non-local foods can be detrimental. For the purpose of my argument, I will limit locality to a radius of 100 miles, implementing the definition in “Local Food: A Moral Cause”. Within her article, Helena de Bres suggests that purchasing non-local foods may help alleviate global poverty as to contribute to a suffering economy abroad rather than a stable one at home. Furthermore, she points out reasons why buying local is not necessarily positive for the environment, personal health, or grassroots change.[3] In response to de Bres, I will provide two examples as to why non-local foods do not necessarily provide these benefits.

Foremost, consider the ubiquitous American consumption of the banana. Americans loves this tropical fruit, consuming more bananas annually than apples and oranges combined.[4] Although seemingly integral to the modern American supermarket, bananas—which do not naturally grow in the United States—are a product of 19th and 20th century colonial efforts by the U.S.A. and countries in Europe, who hoped to bring “modernity” to the tropics, utilizing already “useless” jungle environments.[5]But—like many commodity crops grown in Central and South America—the banana has a darker history. The Human Rights Watch reported instances of child labor in 2016 on banana plantations in Ecuador, forcing children to work an average of 12-hour days of dangerous, physically demanding tasks.[6] Furthermore, the industry negatively impacts the environment by clear-cutting whole tracks of tropical forest and replacing the areas with soil-intensive banana plants (on which they spray substantial amounts of pesticides).[7] These chemicals do not only threaten the health of the unique, tropical ecology but also affect the lives of nearby individuals, causing those living near plantations to have traces of pesticides in their blood.[8] By violating aspects of human rights, environmental stewardship, or international child labor laws, one can easily identify the reasons as to why this food is not morally permissiblemerely due to its non-local status.

Fishing practices in Southeastern Asia further identify reasons as to why non-local foods do not necessarily generate benefits. Due to groundbreaking investigative reports, the Associated Press won the 2016 Nobel Prize for Public Service due to exposing the links between slavery and the fishing industry in Thailand. Reporters found that human trafficking of adults and children has contributed to Thailand’s booming $7 billion dollar fishing industry. Due to corruption in local governmental positions and complicity among authorities, the actions went unchecked. The reporting freed over 2,000 enslaved workers—who were caged, beaten, and referred to by number rather than name.[9] The reports even influenced President Obama to sign and enforce an 83 year-old ban on goods produced with child or slave labor.[10] The fishing practices discovered by the Associated Press further detail instances of malpractices in non-local food systems.

Local foods, in a similar manner to their globalized counterpart, do not necessarily promote well-being due to their very nature of being local. Here, I will further the thinking kindled by Helena de Bres in providing two examples as to why local foods can also be detrimental. For example, consider those in food deserts, or areas lacking in access to adequate, substantial nutrition. The South Bronx, for example, suffers from the highest rate of hunger in the country.[11] The area bears pervasive poverty as well as high rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, and diabetes linked to mortality.[12] These individuals suffer from a serious injustice, as articled in philosophical articles like “Food Deserts and Lockean Property”. Their residence within a food desert—and, therefore, their inability to purchase local foods—does not define their actions as unjust or immoral. The limiting of local foods through an injustice like a food desert does not, in turn, provide evidence as to the wrongdoings of Bronx citizens for not purchasing a locally grown apple or beet.

Moreover, simply because a food system exists within one’s 100 mile radius does not dictate whether an individual should or should not cooperate with that system. For example, the largest pork production plant in the world exists in Tar Heel, North Carolina. With extremely quick production, the plant produces approximately 16 million pork shoulders every year, or one shoulder for every 17 seconds.[13] Harsh conditions at the processing plant not only effect the pigs—who face cramped spaces, long hours in transit, and premature death—but also harm the factory workers. The Smithfield Company has twice been found guilty of violating United States labor laws by denying the unionization of workers who resist long hours and low pay.[14] Likewise, an increase in company profit with a stagnant minimum wage for line workers has forced many Americans to leave the job, creating a gap filled by immigrants with illegal or undocumented status. In this scenario, factory supervisors can more easily violate the pay and rights of employees, an illegal status providing a window for maltreatment and exploitation. Finally, this plant violated local water systems by discharging 3.6 million tons of toxic byproducts from hog production. A recent study by researchers at the University of North Carolina and Johns Hopkins University found that effected water systems contain high concentrations of fecal coliform, which can cause hepatitis, dysentery, and other diseases.[15] Food systems like this—which exist within my state—may lie within a local sphere for many Americans. However, the locality of this company does not override the violations of the Smithfield Pork Processing facility to human rights, animal rights, and the environment.

A common objection to this argument may be that one could know their local producers better, creating a heightened sense of trust or accountability. For example, popular co-ops like Ozark Natural Foods suggest that local foods “enrich our social community” and that “local foods support responsible land development.”[16] In rebuttal, I will first identify that trust does not dictate justice. Simply because I trust a farmer in community does not mean that said farmer will act justly. Furthermore, we should not limit accountability to local areas: imagine the implications! Without countries holding other countries accountable for their violations towards human beings, animals, or the environment, morally impermissible actions will be sustained and unchecked.

The decision for eating local or non-local foods does not tap at the root of the problems that plagues modern food systems. A sense of justice is not permanently and innately tied to local or non-local foods due to their very location. Following the umbrella terms of local or non-local foods blindlydoes not describe the morality of the food system itself. As I’ve described with the examples above, unjust food systems can exist anywhere from Central America to Southeast Asia to the South Bronx to central North Carolina. Therefore, the just nature of a food system does not lie within the locality of our food production and consumption but rather in the actions of the system itself.

[1]USDA. "New Data Reflects the Continued Demand for Farmers Markets." USDA. August 4, 2014. Accessed December 10, 2016.

[2] de Bres article

[3] De bris

[4]Chiquita. (2014). Frequently Asked Questions About Bananas. Retrieved from (6/02/14)

[5]Soluri, J. (2002). Accounting for Taste: Export Bananas, Mass Markets, and Panama Disease. Environmental History, Vol. 7 No 3, pp. 386-410

[6]Human Rights Watch. "Ecuador: Widespread Labor Abuse on Banana Plantations." Human Rights Watch. 2016. Accessed December 8, 2016.

[7]McSweeney, K. (2007). Bananas. In P. Robbins (Ed.), Encyclopedia of environment and society. (pp. 100-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

[8]Chatterjee, R. (2013, Sept 23). Global love of bananas may be hurting Costa Rica’s crocodiles. GPB News.

[9]Mason, Margie, Robin McDowell, Martha Mendoza, and Esther Htusan. "Global Supermarkets Selling Shrimp Peeled by Slaves." Associated Press. December 14, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2016.

[10]Mendoza, Martha. "Obama Bans US Imports of Slave-produced Goods." Associated Press. February 25, 2016. Accessed December 7, 2016.

[11]McMillan, Tracie, and Photographs by Kitra Cahana, Stephanie Sinclair, and Amy Toensing. "The New Face of Hunger." National Geographic. 2016. Accessed December 11, 2016.

[12]New York City Health Provider Partnership. "Bronx Community Needs Assessment." New York State Department of Health. November 14, 2014. Accessed December 7, 2016.

[13]LeDuff, Charlie. "At a Slaughterhouse, Some Things Never Die." How Race Is Lived in America. June 16, 2000. Accessed December 7, 2016.

[14]Inside Smithfield Plant. Directed by PBS. April 30, 2008.

[15]Schlofield, Rob. "The Astounding Quantities of Water Pollution Coming from Smithfield Foods." NC Policy Watch. June 7, 2016. Accessed December 11, 2016.

[16]Ozark Natural Foods. "Why Buy Local?" 2016. Accessed December 11, 2016.