data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10fbe/10fbef969c055f119459b11d511d1c2a8e7442e0" alt=""
At the market, I used Photobooth to take kalidescopic photos of fruit, vegetables, local food products, and crafts. It was a lot of fun, and included some of the Kona Lisa logos from my favorite Kona coffee.
"According to Chipotle’s Web site, the company uses only “happier” pigs. It doesn’t say how it measures a pig’s happiness, and I can’t help but picture porcine focus groups, response meters designed for the cloven of hoof. We can all agree that production methods should not cause needless suffering, but for all we know, pigs are “happier” in warm, dry buildings than they are outside. And either way, the end result is a plate."And here's his view of the greater expense of raising pigs with more space and imputed happiness:
"Since we can’t ask the pigs what they think, we know only one thing for sure about the effects of scrapping our most efficient farming systems: the cost of bacon will rise. Wealthy consumers will reward farmers who are able to pull off the Chipotle ad’s brand of combination farm/tourist attraction and are willing to trade efficient animal husbandry for political correctness. Many big multistate operations will also be able to afford to make the changes, or will at least have the political sway to resist them. But the small farmers now raising hogs will be pushed out of the industry."So, he concludes, farmers are being asked to do two contradictory things to try to satisfy both the humanitarians (or in other cases, ecologists or advocates for other changes in farming practice) and those who want cheap or affordable food. I assume he knows pigs, and that the humane treatment will really cost more -- and Chef Polcyn definitely confirms the much higher price for differently raised animals and small-scale farming. However, I think the generalization is subject to much more analysis, especially when you consider all the other interests that are pressuring the food industry. I wish this discussion didn't remind me of how Monsanto has misled the public about what's good for anyone but Monsanto!
"Just because you bought your chicken from a local farm, that doesn't mean it has less impact than a chicken from the local grocery store, which may have been shipped from thousands of miles away. It all depends on how that chicken was produced."In the article is something I've been looking for: a collective look at carbon impact of various foods. Instead of trying to show the impact of what's on your plate, this graph shows the total for all US food usage. It turns out that transport is the least significant part of the picture:
"With a majority of our citizens living in cities, local agricultural production – from hydroponic greenhouses to small urban vegetable gardens – can help address the growing demand for nutrients and fresh produce in urban areas, and become key strategies to reduce overall food waste. However, it will be very difficult to produce our daily calories in cities, specifically bulk calorie crops such as cereal grains, roots and tubers, sugar and bananas that today still need to be produced where vast areas of land are available for cultivation."