Sand in the gears
Rethinking the 100 mile diet by Ed Epp
M
iguel is a small bean farmer in the highlands of Nicaragua. His farm can produce world quality beans. His local market is not large enough to support his family and he must rely on bean markets in Mexico and the United States. His work will provide him with the income to feed his family, send his children to school, and even expand his farm. Miguel does face competition from North American farmers even in his local market, but he is confident that with a level playing field and equal access he can thrive. Miguel’s story can be repeated millions of times, in all parts of the world. The products might change but the underlying facts do not. The effect of the 100 mile diet could drive Miguel back into poverty. The motivation for the 100 mile diet is laudable. It is also a wonderful educational exercise helping people understand more about the path food takes before it reaches our table. Buying locally does provide markets for local producers, and cuts down on the environmental impact of transporting products to faraway markets. If everyone in North America bought into the 100 mile diet however, global poverty would rise astronomically. If followed by all, the 100 mile diet, now in vogue by people who do not know Miguel, would drive his family and many others like them back into poverty. Even many Canadian farmers outside the 100 mile radius of major urban centers would go bankrupt. The idea behind the 100 mile diet is for consumers to limit their food purchases to 100 miles. It does not speak to producers limiting their market to that same distance. A pure 100 mile diet plan should limit purchases from farmers who certify that they will only sell within that distance. Most agricultural producers, even in Canada, would be hard pressed to make a decent living if their market was limited to 100 miles. I wonder how many of these producers would sell locally if that meant certifying that they were limiting their market to that same locale. Producers in Canada have access to world markets, and naturally wish that to continue. Farmers want access to both the local and global market chains, and I don’t blame them. Miguel wants that same opportunity. Even in their own local market, farmers from poor countries face competition from global producers. Many times, North American and European products are subsidized by governments, driving the price downward and putting even more pressure on the Miguels of this world.
It sounds good, in theory at least, to limit food
Our economy is increasingly global and interdependent. purchases to a Global commerce that eliminates barriers for 100 mile radius. small and poorer producers reduces poverty. The Unfortunately, issues are much more complex then just buyit would drive ing locally. They include equalizing access to a lot of peasant global markets, reducing subsidies on production, farmers deeper and ways in which small producers in poor countries can access global into poverty. market chains. In the last decade the poor have begun to make the global market work for them. Now we, in our rich world, want to keep their products from our table without restricting our own access to theirs. This will drive Miguel and millions like him back into poverty. I don’t think that they will much care if our motivation behind this was good. I would rather live in the world where Miguel, and millions like him, are proud of their self‑sufficiency through the products they can sell, than wait ◆ to exercise our good will through Christmas charity. Former MEDA staffer Ed Epp now works for Tourmagination in Waterloo, Ont.
13
The Marketplace November December 2008
