Here is another post from the illustrious Lorna Sass, originally published at Lorna Sass at Large.
I went to a press event at E.A.T. on Madison Avenue last week and had a sampling of exquisite smoked fish. The white fish–a kind of chub– was caught in the Yukon by the Yapik Eskimos and smoked at Acme Smoked Fish Corp, an old-fashioned, family-run business in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
“Wow,” I thought, “this is ridiculous,” and couldn’t understand the point of importing fish from Alaska to be smoked in Brooklyn.
It seemed frivolous and very–well–Madison Avenue.
But then I started talking with Ruth Carter, the Sales Manager of Kwik’Pak Fisheries, who explained to me that selling fish (primarily salmon) is the primary source of income for the Yupik Eskimos, a group scattered across the southwestern coast of Alaska into the Bering Sea–a group that, despite the sale of fish, still lives way below poverty level. If fine restaurants in New York City and throughout the lower 48 were not creating a demand for the high quality salmon from this part of the world, one wonders how the Yupik would survive at all.
This “aha” moment brought to mind my trip to witness the quinoa harvest in Ecuador about five years ago.
I was privileged to accompany the founders of Inca Organics who, several decades ago, organized a co-operative of farmers to grow organic heirloom quinoa and then created a marketing and distribution system in America.
Much of the quinoa farming is done by Quechua women whose husbands have been forced to leave Ecuador to find work. Most of the women and children wore tattered clothes, had poor teeth, and seemed very poor–but they would be poorer still if the U.S. weren’t creating a market for this marvelous, quick-cooking seed grain, a complete source of protein.
Eating locally grown food makes sense for many reasons, not least of which is that we need to be conscious of lowering our carbon footprint however we can.
But to be a strict locavore has consequences that may cause untold suffering to the family of man beyond the hundred-mile locavore limit.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Gary // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Completely agree – I kind of think the best approach is to be thoughtful about it – be as local as possible for the staples, and support local producers, but if you buy imports, be as fair trade about it as possible, it will cost more, then we should be judicious about buying it – makes it more special. Just be thoughtful and know where all your food comes from. Every dollar is a vote.
2 Rhoades // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Following the logic of this article you have to wonder how these poor impoverished indigenous people survived before wealthy Americans were able to import thier goods at what sounds like horribly low prices trapping them in their subsistence life styles> Oh wait locavores are generally protesting using third world resources to feed the wealthiest people on the planet.
3 Kelly // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Rhoades, life has changed for a lot of indigenous cultures. Are you suggesting that they just be allowed to die out? I have relatives in the far reaches of Alaska (yes, natives) who rely on this sort of trade to live. How did they “manage” before the White Man and White Trade came along? Very differently, with a lifestyle that is hard, if not impossible, to return to. Their options were to evolve or die, and they changed their lifestyles and are managing to maintain culture, language, and life in the face of extreme odds.
Lorna, I’ve found that for me the balance is actually relatively easy. Living inland and in a northern climate, there are things I simply cannot get if I eat 100% local; coffee doesn’t grow where I live, and neither do clementines (two examples within a few feet of me right now). So I buy the most sustainable, supportable, fair trade, environmentally conscious, etc, that I can, when I purchase things from afar.
No matter how hard I try, salmon isn’t going to sprout from the upstate Hudson.
4 Merri // Dec 24, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Somehow people survived long before they could export food all around the world for someone else’s benefit. If these people are living below the poverty line then the natural next step would be to do something else to improve their lives. As buying fish from Alaska doesn’t give much money to the farmers in the end your money (and conscious) would be better served helping them in more direct ways. And still eating as locally as possible.
5 Melissa Danielle // Dec 25, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I’d like to understand why it’s easier to “bash” locavores than it is to address the reasons why indigenous peoples have to rely on imports in the first place.
Might we best address this situation by inviting indigenous peoples to the table, by asking for their input on what it might take for them to develop sustainable agricultural practices that don’t rely 100% on exported commodities?
I’m not giving up my quinoa, my fair trade bananas, cocoa, vanilla, tea, etc and am grateful to be able to experience these foods as a USAmerican while contributing to their economies.
But, we should be looking for ways to create and support sustainability.
6 NatureWriter // Dec 28, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I definitely echo Gary in voting with the dollar, but I would take it one step further and say that, if EVERYONE went towards being a locavore and only outsourced a few luxury items, then native peoples would not have to worry so much about their economic stability; they could do what they’ve been doing for hundreds or thousands of years and build their own sustainble local economies which produce for their needs and a little surplus.
7 Jeremy // Dec 29, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I agree with rhoades. I am a fairly strict locavore Living well below the poverty level. But what is the “poverty level”? Although i only make 15,000 a year in an area where the average yearly cost of living is above 60,000 i am healthy, happy, and eat like a king every night. Just because i don’t have a lot of money doesn’t make me impoverished. At least the eskimos have high quality salmon to nourish them. I could think of worse things to eat.
8 Walter Jeffries // Dec 30, 2009 at 8:09 am
Sort of. We farm. We raise pastured pigs.We sell primarily to restaurants and health food stores in upscale towns in about a 100 mile (coincidental) circle around us making weekly deliveries. These stores and restaurants are in the urban areas. We’re smack in the middle in a very rural area up on the mountain in rough terrain. Their urban tastes support our farming and we appreciate this. I can’t live in their urban world.
That 100 mile circle has nothing to do with Locavorism or 100 mile diet or anything like that, it is just how far we can deliver in one day. So it happens to be “Local” by the typical definition but on the other hand it is also like you say, one economic level supporting another – just not as extreme as your Ecuador example. My point is, you can do that type of support at all sorts of levels and distances. The distance should be justified by the value of the transaction.
The purchases by the upscale buyers of our pork means we can farm, naturally raising pigs on pasture and whey without commercial grain diets. I can’t afford to eat at those restaurants but I greatly appreciate their patronage. Their chefs create wonderful meals, I’ve had tastes. Those chefs do work with local raw ingredients. Their customers are willing to pay the price for these creations which sponsors a whole local economy of small farmers. This is all very good. As a side benefit it gives us greater local food security – something that is hard to achieve for many people in our climate.
Our family eats from what we term the farmer’s basket. Primarily food we raise, the left overs at the end of the weekly deliveries plus veggies and fruit we grow. We eat a lot of soups and stews in the cooler nine months of the year. Head, feet, hocks and jowl are all fine eating. Once in a while we get prime pork from high on the hog like a piece of loin that was improperly packaged. But that is a rare hunk of meat, and is savored.
Think of life as rings, keeping things locally where you can. Distance equates value. Novelty is luxury. Yes, there are fancy items, like chocolate, that one imports from great distances, but that is not the foundation of life. The bedrock of our life should be as local as possible.
Cheers,
Walter Jeffries
Sugar Mountain Farm, LLC
Orange, Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com
Pastured Pork CSA Pre-Buy: http://SugarMtnFarm.com/csa
Butcher shop story: http://SugarMtnFarm.com/butchershop
9 Norm Pompa // Jan 4, 2010 at 8:32 am
Rhoades’ re right. but unfortunately strong and weak, rich and poor, for it tells a lot of people, but something will not be changing a lot I guess.
10 rebeccasubbiah // Jan 8, 2010 at 5:58 pm
great blog and post
11 Judith Yamada // Jan 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm
No matter how you look at this situation or most others for that matter, there’s always a reason to do something or not do something. Opposing reasons to support or protest a cause often get us stuck in the mud, unable to do anything except gripe. No one is expendable and everyone deserves an opportunity to make a living. My focus is to start where I live. Supporting the smaller community in which each of us reside, allows it to be viable, vibrant and strong. Buying locally and seasonally is not only more nutritious and helpful in minimizing carbon footprints. It strengthens the place we call home – wherever that is. I start within my view and work my way out from there. If fish from Alaska or quinoa from Equador are healthy, ethical and humane resources, once they become best option, based on my personal practices, I’ll buy them.
Leave a Comment