Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

True Food Justice Requires Racial Justice

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 14:40:33 PM PDT


Bookmark and Share
Today I attended an excellent presentation by Gail Christopher, Vice President for Health of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (a major donor of programs for sustainable agriculture, food justice, and fighting racism).

She began with a fascinating look at some familiar material and then went into an even more interesting details about why we need to focus on the intersection between food justice and racism.

Jill Richardson :: True Food Justice Requires Racial Justice
Gail first spoke about "bioactive" foods and how they promote health. Of course we all know we need certain amounts of carbohydrates, fats, and protein every day. Gail referred to these as "primary" elements of plants. But then she identified "secondary metabolites" in plants - the chemicals plants use for communication, reproduction, and defense. These substances, she said, are vital to our health. They "affect common pathways of pathogenesis in all of the following diseases: Altered glucose metabolism, chronic inflammation, increased cellular oxidation, and chronic endotoxemia."

For those of you who, like me, aren't physicians, endotoxemia is the presence of endotoxins in your body. Here's how Dictionary.com defines endotoxins:

A toxin that forms an integral part of the cell wall of certain bacteria and is only released upon destruction of the bacterial cell. Endotoxins are less potent and less specific than most exotoxins and do not form toxoids. Also called  intracellular toxin.

Toxin present in the cell walls of bacteria that is released after the bacteria has died. May cause chills, fever, leukopenia, and shock depending on the bacterial species and the health of the infected person.

She went on to say that these secondary plant metabolites differ by plant family and plant species, yet the majority of our food comes from only a few plant families. Corn, wheat, rice, and sorghum are all grasses. Soy is a legume. And so the majority of crops grown and eaten by humans and by the animals humans eat in America are grasses and one species of legume.

Compare that with a diverse garden, which includes legumes and grasses plus Cucurbitae (cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, and melons), Alliums (onions, garlic, leeks, scallions, and asparagus), the Sunflower family (Lettuce, sunflowers, Jerusalem artichokes, and artichokes), the Mallow family (Okra), nightshades (tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, and eggplants), the Beet family (beets, chard, and spinach), the Morning glory family (sweet potatoes), the Brassica family (cabbage, broccoli, turnips, radishes, kale, collards, cauliflower, and brussel sprouts), and the Carrot family (Carrots, parsley, cilantro, fennel, and celery).

And yet, only a tiny percent of U.S. cropland is devoted to growing fruits and vegetables. In fact, if the U.S. was to grow enough fruits and vegetables to feed every American the recommended number of servings each day, we would need to grow an extra 13 million acres of fruits and veg. And what's worse, 86% of acres currently used to grow fruits and vegetables are under threat of development.

Furthermore, Gail Christopher reminded us that plants are living foods, and in order to fully gain their benefits, they must be eaten in a living state. In other words, they should be minimally processed. And yet, in our country we don't only grow and eat a tiny number of foods, we also process them beyond recognition before we eat them.

What's the solution? Well to solve this piece of the puzzle, we MUST look at the farm bill and our commodity policy, which tells farmers to continue growing this small number of crops so that processors can turn them into junk food that makes the processors rich and our people sick. It's ridiculous to tell somebody to change their eating habits if the foods we are producing are precisely the foods they should eat less of.

That is where the conversation shifted to race, and that is also an idea uniting both topics addressed in her speech. If it is silly to tell a person to change their eating habits when we produce all of the wrong foods, it is also silly to tell a person to change their eating habits if our institutionalized racism makes it impossible or nearly impossible (i.e. very difficult) for him or her to do so.

Here I'll skip to a story that another speaker told. She was telling about a Latina single mother whose children go to school, where they qualify for free school lunch. The mom desperately wishes to pack lunches for the kids so they could eat food they like for lunch, but she can't afford it. So she sends them to school without a lunch, and on most days they refuse to eat the nasty food the school serves. And then the kids come home and she says "How was school?" The reply is "Mom, I'm so hungry I can't even talk about that. I need food NOW." So the mom does one of the only things she can do, which is buy her children fast food. In that situation, why would you tell the mother or the children to make better choices when better choices aren't available? Step one is making them available.

So now I'll go back to Gail Christopher's talk. She said that institutionalized racism is a problem in this country, and the myth of a "post-racial America" is about as true as the myth of a "happy slave" or "separate but equal." The U.S. needs to stop denying the consequences of and feelings produced by racism and actually address it as an issue. And while efforts are being made to bring grocery stores or healthy corner stores into poor neighborhoods, we won't truly give all Americans the RIGHT foods to eat (so that they CAN make healthy choices) until racism and all of its institutionalized manifestations are gone.

Here are a few statistics that she shared with us:

Percent of Children & Toddlers in Poverty:
Blacks: 66%
Latinos: 63%
Whites: 30%
Asians: 26%

Percent of Children on Poor Families in Poor Neighborhoods:
White: 1.4%
Black: 16.8%
Latinos: 20.5%

That is why Kellogg is funding "racial healing." As Gail Christopher put it, we should not "otherize" groups based on physical characteristics. This is particularly relevant here in Arizona (although we are currently on sovereign Native American land), with its harsh new anti-immigrant law. Some people claim that the law has nothing to do with race, but, she said, "do you see any walls going up between the United States and Canada?"

She said that America is as segregated now as South Africa was at the height of apartheid. We can't deal with school failures and food deserts without dealing with residential segregation. Whether it's the built environment of safe places to play and walk, the availability of public transportation, or dumping of toxic waste, these are all part of the system of denying humanity to certain groups. And while we have this "system of apartheid," most people don't know exists.

And yet, despite the clear statistics showing so-called racial disparities, science has shown that race is a social construct with NO biological basis. We are all 99.9% the same if you look at our DNA. (I would add that the designation of a person as "Hispanic" is a linguistic, not genetic, classification. Another factor that breaks down the myth of race is when you ask "How many races are there and where do you draw the lines between the races?" You can't. Even if you ignore people who are "multiracial" with a black mother and a white father, you'll find that there are parts of the world where the native population has physical characteristics resembling more than one "race.")

And yet our society is set up based on the myth (believed by generations before us and some who are in power now) that there are 4-5 different races and the less pigment you have in your skin, the more superior you are. As Gail Christopher pointed out, that set of beliefs is no longer useful to America. We are approaching a day when the majority of children will be children of color. Therefore, when we talk about reducing rates of incarceration, school drop outs, premature death, or infant mortality among communities of color, we are not only talking about racial equality. We are talking about the future of America. It's essential for all of us, as Americans, to address the institutional racism in our country.

She continued, saying that many progressive policies are "race-neutral," i.e. giving benefits to all people regardless of race. Kellogg thinks that is not good enough. Unless the issue of race is put out in the open and discussed, and then the structures that institutionalize racism are broken down, we won't get where we need to be. It's not enough to just put a grocery store in a disadvantaged black or Latino (or even Native American) area. Ultimately we need to change the hearts and minds of the people, so that the issue of access to healthy food is addressed as a natural matter of course and not by concerted efforts of wealthy funders or organized groups or progressive governments doing the work one small step at a time.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

it's what my late husband used to call the birds eye view (4.00 / 3)
looking at the big picture. How do we do that in a  country so divided and tainted with lobbyists and big $$$ Especially when it comes to big ag.

I'm thinking aloud out here. I'm a glass 1/2 full kind of person and like to be optimistic.


We, the rank and file, boots on the ground people need to do this (4.00 / 2)
because the government can't.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
what do you think Government should or shouldn't do? (4.00 / 2)
regarding food/big ag/etc..I value your opinions and ideas

[ Parent ]
WE are the government. (4.00 / 1)
Let's not forget that.  "The Government" is not some Bond Villain hiding in a skull-shaped castle on a secret island somewhere.

When we say things like "government can't", of course it won't.  Because when we do that, we've given government over to the very same interests that don't want it to do anything for us.

Our problem isn't 'government', our problem is corporate control over it.

You know as well as anyone that even "boots on the ground people" can't do much of anything if government won't allow it.  And government won't allow it because they're currently controlled by moneyed interests who stand to lose everything if we start relying on ourselves.  It's not due to some evil inherent trait of "government".  After all, you can't have a civil society without one.


[ Parent ]
When I say "boots on the ground/rank and file" people (0.00 / 0)
I mean you and me and everyone else who's not in government. We do that by building businesses that provide fresh, high quality foods to people in low income areas. We do that by discouraging racism in our friends and families. We do it by helping our neighbors, friends and family members.

Boots on the ground people can do a lot, a hell of a lot more than we are doing right now.

I don't say that government is inherently evil. I don't believe that there is any 'inherently evil trait(s) of government. The problem with government is that it's populated by people who's only, or primary, input of information, comes from people who, by and large, are a very small, specialized, segment of society.

As far as government not allowing something, I don't see government not allowing people to work in jobs that pay well, I don't see government not allowing people to live in various areas, I don't see government not allowing people access to good, fresh, high quality foods.

What I do see is individuals not tapping markets for those good, fresh, high quality foods. I do see people not hiring people because of their own narrow, racist attitudes. That's not government's doing. That's boots on the ground, rank and file citizenry failure.  

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
And why is this? (0.00 / 0)
The problem with government is that it's populated by people who's only, or primary, input of information, comes from people who, by and large, are a very small, specialized, segment of society.

Because when good people say 'forget government', we leave it to them.  Government is not a set, determined class of people.  We're not a royal society, and we're not the Soviet Union.  It doesn't have to be populated with those people.

I don't see government not allowing people to work in jobs that pay well

I do.  I see "free trade" agreements and a financial system that allowed privilege and greed to destroy our society.

I don't see government not allowing people to live in various areas

I do.  I see the results of 'urban renewal' (a government policy, btw) in cities all across America, I see the results of decades of redlining with silent complicity of government for decades, I see the result of incentives given to developers of sprawl over decades and decades and beyond still to this day.

I don't see government not allowing people access to good, fresh, high quality foods.

See above.

What I do see is individuals not tapping markets for those good, fresh, high quality foods.

We've left things to "the market" for years now, and we see where it's gotten us.  "The market" leads to what we have now.  "The market" leads to liquor stores and McDonald's for Newark and Paterson, and Whole Foods for Millburn and Madison.

Government is a tool.  Like a hammer.  You can use it to destroy, as the current types in it have done for decades now, or we can take it back and use it to build our future.


[ Parent ]
Point being... (0.00 / 0)
...that government isn't going anywhere, and it's going to necessarily either be part of the solution or part of the problem.

[ Parent ]
Jay, (0.00 / 0)
Just as we are the government, we too are the market.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
Market... (0.00 / 0)
"The market" is an abstract concept subject to outside influence and regulation, or lack of same.  We don't vote on the market*, we don't run for the market.  We are not the market in anything even nearly close to the sense in which we are the government.

*Despite the fact that it makes for a catchy slogan, my $$$ going to the farmers' market rather than Safeway is not sufficient enough to outweigh the influence exerted by government policy.


[ Parent ]
You just made my point regarding markets (0.00 / 0)
with your quote about sending your money to the farmers markets instead of Safeway.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
How did I do that? (0.00 / 0)
I said that's not enough to change the system, and it isn't.

[ Parent ]
And fwiw... (0.00 / 0)
Some of us also don't believe it's fair or just to sit around and wait for "the market" to rectify past wrongs.  Even if it ever did, or could...

[ Parent ]
Immediate example... (0.00 / 0)
The market wants me to die of liver disease.

Shit, this current government does, too... but!  If we had decent people there, this wouldn't be the case.

There's a parallel here.  There are always exceptions, of course, but there aren't shopkeepers rushing to South LA to open vegetable stands just like there aren't doctors and hospitals rushing to provide affordable health care for all who need it.  "The market" does not provide the safety net required in a fair and just society.  Only government can do that.


[ Parent ]
You are the market (0.00 / 0)
if you want to die of liver disease, that's your choice. Otherwise let people in your area know that there is a market for fresh vegetables instead of things that promote liver disease.

My contention is that there is a market for fresh vegetables. The key is to let people who would like to provide (through sales to supply that market/those markets) the ability to supply the market(s) that want said fresh vegetables.

What I'd like to happen, is, instead of everyone standing around and saying "What can government do to make those markets possible", see people actually go out and supply those markets.

This is a business oportunity people, step up to the plate!

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
To continue on with the theme (0.00 / 0)
how about instead of a food cart selling prepared foods, ready to eat, a cart selling fresh vegetables and the cart operator networking consumers with livestock/poultry growers enabling the consumers to obtain fresh, wholesome meats and poultry direct from the growers, in addition to fresh produce?

Sound like a plan, Stan?

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
Just the fact that... (0.00 / 0)
...there is a market for something, doesn't mean it will be solved by that fact alone.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here?

The key is to let people who would like to provide (through sales to supply that market/those markets) the ability to supply the market(s) that want said fresh vegetables.

You said before, and you seem to recognize, that nobody's stopping them.  So why aren't they there already?

The market's there, and has been for some time.  That magical force isn't drawing vegetable vendors into the inner city on its own.  Something else is obviously needed.


[ Parent ]
The market's here (0.00 / 0)
we need more people to serve that market. That's what I've been talking about.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
You willing to start up a vegetable cart? (0.00 / 0)
If you are that's wonderful and I'll help in any way I can including funding and providing you with produce. If you aren't then deliniate those reasons below and you'll know why most people aren't interested in starting up a business like that. But people willing to start businesses like that would help bring healthy, whlole foods, to low income neighborhoods, and they should be encouraged by both government and by consumers alike.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
And I'm sorry to say... (0.00 / 0)
But this is just ludicrous -

if you want to die of liver disease, that's your choice.

Oh, so our ('market' based, hey!) health care system is really all about "choice"?


[ Parent ]
Liver disease isn't about health care (0.00 / 0)
Liver disease is about people engaging in practices (such as exessive alcholol consumption) that promotes liver disease.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
Access to health care isn't about health care? (0.00 / 0)
I see.

Okay, I'm done here.


[ Parent ]
The liver disease I was talking about didn't have anything to do with health care (0.00 / 0)
it had everything to do with alchohol consumption.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
And sometimes... (0.00 / 0)
...people just get sick, you know?  Things stop working sometimes for no apparent reason.  Part of being human, the body isn't a perfect machine.

But if it makes you feel good about yourself and your ideas to blame others and find fault in them when you know absolutely nothing about their personal situation, go right ahead.  And thanks.


[ Parent ]
I have know idea where you got this idea (0.00 / 0)
But if it makes you feel good about yourself and your ideas to blame others and find fault in them when you know absolutely nothing about their personal situation, go right ahead.  And thanks.

You said that the market want's you to die of liver disease. I don't agree with you. You're right about the causes of liver disease, but the most common one is alchoholism. One of the arguments made quite often about what kinds of stores are around in low income neighborhoods is that there are usually more liquor stores and convenience stores than grocery stores. Hence a potential for liver disease. I thought that's what you were talking about.

You said before, and you seem to recognize, that nobody's stopping them.  So why aren't they there already?

The market's there, and has been for some time.  That magical force isn't drawing vegetable vendors into the inner city on its own.  Something else is obviously needed.

There are all sorts of reasons why people don't go into business for themselves. And all sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't tap a market like one for fresh fruits and vegetables in low income neighborhoods, or in high income neighborhoods for that matter.

I'll list a few in another comment because this string is getting a bit cramped.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
I've appreciated this thread... (4.00 / 2)
but some food justice issues keep coming back to not only how the free market works, but how we want our government to operate. The "experiment" of de regulating everything to let the free market do it's job hasn't worked very well for either ag/food or health care. I'd like to believe now that corporations have person hood that they would behave better.But they WON'T And I don't see anyone except our Government making them "behave"  through regulations.

I don't know if deregulation is actually a main cause (4.00 / 1)
of food injustice.

I don't know how the government could force companies into 'behaving' through regulations that would aleviate food injustice. What would you do? Force Safeway to build a grocery store in every neighborhood? Would you force 7-11 to sell lettuce along side their nachos? How about forcing farms to offer fresh produce at below cost to low income people in the inner city?

If there is a market for fresh produce and other high quality foods, and I believe that there is, then it's really a matter of hooking up someone who WANTS to serve that market, with the market. If there isn't anyone who wants to serve that market, or if there are people who want to serve that market and they aren't aware of the market, then that's why the market isn't being served. It's not because we're not forcing someone to serve the market.

And, as well, if the market isn't capable of making a business profitable, then that market isn't viable anyway. I would hate to be forced to serve a market that wouldn't make me enough money to keep a roof over my head. Nothing like being forced to work for slave wages.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
regulatory efficacy (0.00 / 0)
I don't think deregulation causes food injustice. The corollary is (I think) regulation won't cure food injustice. If lack of regulation isn't the cause, regulation can't be the cure.

[ Parent ]
In answer to your question - (4.00 / 1)

The market's there, and has been for some time.  That magical force isn't drawing vegetable vendors into the inner city on its own.  Something else is obviously needed.

Here are several reasons why vegetable vendors might not set up -

* If you're already a succesfull vendor, you already have a location, and don't want to move. If you're new to the business, then you have a whole lot of hurdles to jump some of which I've listed below.

* Investment capital - lots of money needed, more in some situations than others. A cart would be the least expensive, a fixed place store would be the most expensive. So, unless you had lots of money laying around you'd need to aquire some either through a small business loan from the government, from a bank, family, friends, investment angels, a mortgage on your home, if you own it, etc..

Off the top of my head I'm thinking that you'd need probably $50,000 minimum if you're going to use a motorized vehicle (a used catering truck would do nicely), maybe $20,000 if you want to use a push cart. If you had a van or small pickup with a canopy, you could probably do it with $5,000-$10,000 to start up incase you needed to do any retrofitting. You'd need a food seller's or retailers license, city business license, I don't know if you'd be required to cary special liability insurance. If you're using a motorized vehicle you'll need commercial liability insurance or artisan's insurance. Your regular personal auto insurance won't cover you or your materials if you get into an accident. And God help you if someone gets sick from something you sold them because then, even with good liability insurance, they, their family and the government will own you body and soul.

For a fixed location store you'd probably need at least $150,000 startup money, and that's if the location didn't need too much work, and if you were able to do a lot of the work yourself, which would be illegal in Oregon unless you are a licensed and bonded commercial contractor, which means you'd be hiring electricians, plumbers, a general contractor, etc. to get set up. It would be less expensive to move into a location that already had coolers, displays, etc. but if those grocery stores were already in those underserved neighborhoods, they wouldn't be underserved.

* You have no garantee that you'll make money, especially if you don't know what you're doing as far as marketing, etc. The bulk of businesses do not survive their first 3 years. My uncle in California, who was a very successful business man went bankrupt on the first business he started up and tried to commit suicide. Fortunately he was not successful at the suicide either, and became a multimillionaire through his second, third and fourth businesses.

When my mom and I started our first business (horseshow photography and artwork), IRS figured that a business wouldn't be profitable until it's third or fourth year. So don't count on making much if any money for your first few years. You're going to work your ass off, even when/if you do become successful.

* Be prepared to float yourself financially for at least a year. It helps to have family to support you financially your first year because there's a chance that you won't be making enough to pay your own rent. I made a profit on the farm last year, but only because there were certain bills I didn't have to pay, and even at that, I didn't make enough to actually support myself. I think I made a couple thousand last year in profit. That's not enough to pay rent for a year on a studio appartment.

The fellow who has the produce stand down the road from us has been in place for close to a year now, and he's still touch and go. That's with ample parking, and around 60,000 customers driving back and forth in front of his store every day.

Those might be some of the reasons why people aren't jumping to supply fresh produce to low income neighborhoods.

That having been said, probably the easiest way to get fresh produce into the inner city and other low income neighborhoods would be to set up a farmers market. It'd only be one or two days a week, but that's better than nothing, and it would be the least expensive and logistically easiest as well. But even a farmers market is a lot of work to set up. I looked into that for out here in Mulino. When I found out what was involved I said no way. Fortunately someone else is willing to organize one and there will probably be one in Molalla next year.

That's why I was so tickled when the produce stand opened up last year. He's open 6 days a week in the winter and 7 days a week (I think) the rest of the year. It's there and someone else is doing it, so now I can buy what ever produce I don't grow myself. Actually, the green garlic I'm selling right now was grown from garlic I bought down at the produce stand last year, and the red fingerlings I planted week before last came from the produce stand.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


Here's an inovative idea in Baltimore that I just read about (4.00 / 1)
over at Change.org's sustainable food blog -

Baltimore's Innovative Solution to Food Deserts

Government sponsored, government funded, helps people get food from stores not in their area or that are in their area but perhaps too far for them to get to, to do their shopping, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get going.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


It's a dumb idea. (0.00 / 0)
Libraries help fill city nutrition gaps

I applaud the people who recognize the problem and are thinking creatively about how to do something about it, but this is a top-down intitiative. That's the "dumb idea" part. It isn't a response to a clamor from neighborhood people who want better food. What is the chance of success in that circumstance? Both those neighborhoods contain large populations, and after a month each library has about a dozen participants?

This project is better than nothing, I guess. I think we need to revert to your education prescription, but darned if I know how to do it. Churches are a huge force in those neighborhoods, a natural locus for the effort, and I bet they support the virtual supermarket project. If the churches can't do it, I don't know who can do better.

Baltimore probably is not much different from other cities. Produce carts or trucks? We used to have a strong group of guys who traveled the streets every day with horse-drawn produce carts. In summer, anyway. I don't know if anybody does that today. Ice cream trucks yes, produce carts no. Grocery stores? They aren't absent for lack of trying. Many Baltimore neighborhoods have seen grocery stores, both large and small and in a variety of configurations, come in and fail. Fact is, junk food joints are viable, grocery stores aren't right now. Suggestions advanced in this thread are meant well, but often they have already been tried and proven to not work.

To me, this is a reason why school food programs are so important. I know attempts to revitalize them might fail without strong neighborhood demand and we could be looking at another top-down failure, even if the top is at the state or county/city level instead of federal. But, school programs at least reach many people and have the potential to grow a generation of eaters who could become a customer base supporting real grocery stores. Every other initiative probably is worth trying to the extent that it rises from street-level demand, but the school meal program already is in place and could deliver big benefits if done right.


[ Parent ]
rural food deserts (0.00 / 0)
Whenever I read or hear about food deserts, the discussion is in an urban context. I do that myself because I live in a city. I wonder, though, how broadly does this problem extend into rural areas? For all I know, this might be at least as serious, maybe even more so.

[ Parent ]
Rural food deserts (4.00 / 1)
I suppose it depends on how a food desert is defined. Is it defined by how many grocery stores there are per square mile or percapita per square mile? I really don't know the answer to that one.

Out here where I am, it's relatively rural, but not as rural as many areas. The population density is very low compared to Portland, but way higher than, say, eastern Oregon once you get away from cities like Pendelton and Klamath Falls.

The closest grocery stores to me are 4 miles, the next closest are 9 and 10 miles away. I think that'd count as a food desert in urban terms. Of course there's the produce stand, 1 mile away, but I can't get things like toilet paper, and other sundries there, no grains, flours, dried products like beans, no meat, etc..

A friend of mine had parents that lived in northern Idaho almost to the USA/Canada border. They were 80 miles away from the nearest grocery store. I think they went to town once or twice a month, and not at all in the winter when they were snowed in. My friend's father raised cattle and they were essentially homesteading.

But you can't have acreages and have density, and the minimum out here is 5 acres where I am, and it goes up from there. I know people who are in an 80 acre minimum zoning. I think the big difference, and perhaps why maybe food deserts aren't as big a concern here as they are in urban areas, is that almost everyone out here has the land to raise a lot or all of their own food, although some up in the hills have to contend with a lot of shade. On the other hand, this area is litterally filled with food production, from small ranches to CSA and U-Pick farms, poultry growers, etc. as long as a person can find them, and we're working on getting the word out so that people do know where they are and can go buy and/or pick from them.

I think that in an area like Mulino, even though the grocery stores are few and far between, it's maybe easier to source food than for someone in some areas of some cities.

An odd thought I just had - I'm surrounded by more feed stores than I am by food stores. Won't find that situation in a city.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
undefined concept (0.00 / 0)
You're right, I don't know what it means either. When we think "rural" we're conditioned to think "agriculture" or at least arable land, but I know there are swatches in Appalachia where "land" basically means a thin scuff of dirt on top of rock, and other parts of the country have enough dirt but insufficient water. Availability of purchasable food is what it's about, for sure - if there are several gas-and-go mini-marts and convenience stores within a 25 mile radius of your house, but no real grocery stores, is that a food desert? How many real grocery stores are there in Indian country?

[ Parent ]
Intersting question (4.00 / 1)
if there are several gas-and-go mini-marts and convenience stores within a 25 mile radius of your house, but no real grocery stores, is that a food desert? How many real grocery stores are there in Indian country?

I'll answer your question with a question -

If you live in the middle of a 1,000 or a 10,000 acre ranch are you living in the middle of a food desert? My friend's parents who live 80 miles from the nearest town, were they in a food dessert? That's the thing, is that for people to live on acreages, you necessarily have to be seperated by distance. The less dense the population, the farther away from a store you're going to be. It goes with the territory. Just like, if you're up in the hills and the power goes out it may not come back on for 2 weeks. People would riot in the cities if that was SOP, but it is for some areas out here. We were also told by the fire and rescue that it would be advantageous to know things like first aid an CPR, because of the response times. It's an all volunteer fire department here, and even Molalla only has a couple people on duty at any given time.  

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
stray thought (0.00 / 0)
Baltimore's Latino population is most concentrated in one part of the city. That neighborhood has both grocery stores and good restaurants serving a relatively low income base. I don't have any idea what this means, I'm just noting the fact. I wonder what differentiates this neighborhood from other low income neighborhoods.

[ Parent ]
perhaps (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the difference is as simple as the fact that so many of our Latino residents are first-generation immigrants from areas with a cooking tradition. They do it because they're used to it, unlike some other low income groups.

[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox