ISECRIPE FOR CHANGE
R ETHINKING C ALIFORNIA’ S F OOD E CONOMYREPORT SUMMARY

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTUREINTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

alifornia once conjured up visions of abundance, productivity, andCprosperity. Blessed with a mild climate and fertile soils, it was the envy

of farmers around the world.Today, however, the picture is very different.
For the last few decades it has become increasingly apparent that the state’s
agricultural economy is fundamentally flawed. In 1983, for example, a study
by the Cornucopia Project concluded with a dire warning:
California’s present method of producing and distributing food—the present path from field totable—is, in the long term, unsustainable….The drain on water, soil, mineral and energy resources,
the dependence on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, a small genetic seed base, large government subsidies,and the concentration of ownership and control at all levels …. are fostering conditions which threaten
the long-term viability of the entire food system.
The list of problems is a long one. It includes toxic agrochemicals that pollute the environment and poison our food, an obesity epidemic amid widespread food insecurity and hunger,
low pay and appalling conditions for farmworkers, the disappearance of small and mid-size
family farms, rising rates of food-borne illness, and the presence of inadequately tested, unlabeled genetically engineered foods on supermarket shelves.

One reason for this lack of progress is the belief that the food system’s problems all result fromdifferent causes—that there is no connection between, say, the loss of rural jobs and an everincreasing dependence on agricultural chemicals. Another, interrelated, reason is that there has
been insufficient attention paid to the impact of the economy—in particular, the role of globalization.This report describes how economic globalization is at the heart of almost every problem facing the food system. Discerning this common root cause, in turn, reveals strategies tosolve all those problems at once, by creating and supporting food systems that are morediverse, smaller in scale, and more localized.

Photo: Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Most of these problems are widely recognized, and have been the subject of exhaustive
research and keen attention by academics, environmental activists, food and farming organizations, and government agencies.Yet we seem to be no closer to solving them. On the contrary,
the situation is getting progressively worse.

RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Connecting the dots

This process has heavy costs for people
and the planet, but it increases the profits and power of large,transnational corporations: they can market their commodities and services to an expanding pool of consumers worldwide, and can take advantage of cheap labor, lax environmental laws, tax breaks, and loose health and safety regula-tions wherever they may be found. As globalization breaks
down local economies and communities, the tide of mass
urbanization, unemployment, and poverty rises, and corporations are provided with dense concentrations of easy-toreach consumers and desperate workers.

Photo: Lisa M. Hamilton (Rodale, newfarm.org)

At its most basic level, economic globalization entails thederegulation of international trade and finance—in otherwords, the removal of barriers limiting corporate access toresources, labor, and markets, anywhere in the world.Trade has
always been an important part of human activity, but in themodern era the traders—large, mobile businesses—have become so powerful that they
are able to shape government policy.Aroundthe world, this means that democraticallyelected governments are ever more beholden to big business, and that local communities, regions, and nation-states are exchanging relative self-reliance for dependence on
imported goods and distant markets.Taking
globalization to its logical extreme would
mean spreading the western consumer culture into every last corner of the world, creating a global monoculture in which allneeds—water, air, food, education, and eventhe genetic building blocks of life—arecommodified and subject to the influenceof a volatile market.

Globalization is not an evolutionary
process, as is often believed, but rather aprocess of planned change, with the plans
being drawn up by unelected bureaucrats
and industry trade associations.That this is
undemocratic is but one part of the problem. Since corporations are pressured bytheir shareholders to focus almost exclusively on growth and profit maximization, theycannot put at the top of their agenda economic justice, the needs of the hungry,
long-term food security, or the maintenance of the ecosystems on which foodproduction—and everything else—depends.

Most people do not want their food irradiated or laced with toxic chemicals, nor dothey want it to come from thousands ofmiles away when it could have been produced next door.They don’t want to see small family farms
disappear, and they haven’t agreed that access to food should
depend on unaccountable transnational corporations.The
public has asked for none of this, but this is what is happening, as a direct result of economic globalization.

Food in the global economy
As the economy becomes more globalized, food is becoming
just another commodity, one that economists argue shouldcome from wherever it can be most “efficiently” and cheaply
produced, even if it is the other side of the world. Rather
than a vehicle for cultural expression and nourishment for
the hungry, food is becoming primarily an object of financial
investment and speculation.
In the global food system, agriculture itself is changing,
becoming an industry run by the universal standards of themodern factory, with little regard for local traditions orenvironmental conditions. As the scale of the global foodsystem has grown, it has become all but impossible for foodto be produced on numerous, small, diversified farms;
instead huge monocultures, heavily dependent on energy
and chemical inputs, are required.
At every point in the food chain, in fact, the scale is being
driven upward by pressure from the global economy: notonly are farms growing larger, but so are input suppliers,
wholesalers, distributors, and supermarket chains. At every
level there are fewer players, and the concentration andconsolidation of power over the food system is increasing.
Meanwhile, smaller businesses, from farms to processors toretailers, are being driven out.

3

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

California: cultivating the global food model
From the time of California’s earliest European settlers, theregion’s food economy has exhibited many of the traits ofthe modern global system. Large farms, for example, havelong been the norm in California. By 1870, the state washome to more than twice as many 1,000-acre farms as anyother, while the proportion of farms larger than 100 acres
was nearly three times the national average. Most of those
farms focused not on foods for local consumption, but on
specialized crops for distant markets.
There are other similarities.As in the modern global food system, the state’s big, monocultural farms were made possible byplentiful supplies of cheap labor and eventually a heavy relianceon mechanization, agrochemicals, and fossil fuels.As in every

other food-exporting region today, the export economy in
California also depended on significant government subsidies—particularly for transport and irrigation infrastructures.
In these ways, California was largely responsible for creating
an industrial style of farming suited to large-scale distribution and long-distance transport.This is a major reason why
the state’s biggest farms and agribusinesses are now at the topof the global food economy.That status may be short-lived,
however. Other nations and regions have adopted the same
formula, and “free trade” is forcing California agribusinesses
to compete with food producers in countries where energy
and transport are also subsidized, but regulations are weakerand labor costs are far lower.

The corporate squeeze
Like clean air and water, food is something people everywhereneed every day; it is therefore not only an important part ofthe economy, but, as many have argued, a human right.Yet
Americans now depend on profit-driven corporations for 95
percent of their food, setting up a fundamental conflict
between the needs of people and the goals of corporations.

Photo: Alex Jensen

In California today, large agribusinesses dominate every sector of the food economy.Vertical and horizontal integra-tion, as well as strategic alliances among input suppliers,
large-scale producers, food processors, manufacturers,
wholesalers, and retailers, have created corporate oligarchies
with immense and growing power. Today, just one percent
of California producers supplies 38 percent of the state’s
total agricultural production; just three companies control
57 percent of the huge food retail market in California.
Similarly high levels of consolidation are now foundthroughout California’s food system.

4

RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Needless trade
As the global food system becomes more centralized, foodtrade and transport are booming.The lifting of trade barriers,
along with public subsidies for energy and long-distancetransport, have contributed to rising “food miles”—the distance food travels from producer to consumer.The system is
now so focused on trade that the value of food shipped to,from, and within California—$124 billion in 1998—isexpected to more than triple, and to exceed the value of allother transported goods, by 2020.
Despite California’s status as one of the world’s leading agricultural economies, more raw farm products are shipped into
California (67 million tons) than are shipped out (37 million
tons), making the state a net importer of food. By weight, 59
percent of California’s demand for raw farm products comesfrom outside its borders.When processed foods are included,
California relies on out-of-state products for 40 percent, by
weight, of its total food needs.
Even though California is importing large quantities of raw
farm products, 43 percent of the state’s harvest is being

exported out of state, nearly half of it internationally.This
would be reasonable if food imports were products that
couldn’t be grown in California, and exports were surpluses
beyond what the state’s residents consume. But this is not thecase: much of California’s food trade is simply redundant—
involving the simultaneous import and export of the same
food products, regardless of the season. For example,
California exports brussels sprouts to Canada at the same timethat it imports brussels sprouts from Belgium. New York ships
California nuts to Italy while importing the same nuts from
Italy—the boats effectively crossing paths in the Atlantic.
These examples are not anomalies but part of a growing trend:
food, treated as a speculative commodity in an era of increasingly liberalized trade, is being transported back and forthacross the world—not to meet people’s food needs, but toincrease the profits of corporate agribusinesses. In the 10 years
since the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), for example, the transport of foodbetween the US and Mexico has doubled in both directions.

Californians pay the priceThe globalized food system exacts a heavy price from all
Californians. For one, it requires industrial-style monocultural farming methods, which have high environmental costs:■

Wells contaminated with the carcinogenic pesticide
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) put the health of morethan 875,000 people in California at risk.

■

Per-acre pesticide use in California is almost ten times thenational average.

■■

Between 1990 and 1995, 38 million tons of toxic waste
were spread as fertilizer on California fields.

■

Pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and livestock waste havedamaged 81 percent of the state’s lake area, 75 percent of
its estuary and wetland areas, and 23 percent of its rivers.

The health of farmers and farmworkers is heavily compromised by industrial agriculture. Because of pesticide exposure, California’s farmworkers are 59 to 70 percent more
likely to develop various forms of cancer than the rest of
the population.

■

Agrochemicals are also linked to asthma.The childhood
asthma rate in Fresno, California’s leading agriculturalcounty, is three times the national average.

■

Manure waste from California industrial dairy farms
threatens the drinking water of 65 percent of Californians.

■

Industrial farms are heavy air polluters as well: since 2001
the agricultural San Joaquin Valley has been home to thenation’s dirtiest air.

The costs of these agricultural methods are borne not only bynature, but by all of us, including generations to come.The
health of Californians is being seriously impacted. For example:■

More than 90 percent of the pesticides used in California
each year are prone to drift, meaning that hundreds ofthousands of Californians—including urban and suburban
residents—face pesticide exposure.

Health impacts from the global food system are not solely
due to industrial agricultural practices. For example:■

Food from the global system is not only subject tomore chemical applications, it is transported farther,processed more, contains more additives, and sits intrucks and on supermarket shelves longer—all of which
compromise its taste, nutritional value, and safety.

5

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE■

With industrial food processors speeding up the assembly
line, the total number of confirmed and suspected foodpoisoning cases in the state has nearly tripled since 1989.

■

The two California counties with the worst food security,
Fresno and Tulare, are among the country’s leading global
food producers.

■

More than half of California’s adult population is overweight or obese. Obesity increases the risk of 30 serious
health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer,
and stroke. It is the second leading cause of preventable
death in the country.

■

Despite the key role they play in supplying the nation
with food, farmworkers have the highest rate of malnutrition of any sub-population in the country.

■Long-term food security is also being compromised, inpart by the erosion of agricultural diversity in the global
economy: for example, 95 percent of California’s half-million acres of rice is confined to the Sacramento Valley, androughly half of that is planted in a single variety.

■On average, farmers linked to the global system keep only
9 cents out of every food dollar.

■

The smallest 50 percent of California’s farms capture lessthan 1 percent of total agricultural revenue.

■

The total number of farms in California declined by 10
percent between 1982 and 1997, with the smallest farms
declining by more than 20 percent.

Three-quarters of California farmworkers earn less than
$10,000 a year. Fewer than 10 percent receive health benefits.
As globalization widens the rich-poor gap, drains rural
economies, and puts control over food in the hands of corporate agribusinesses, hunger is increasing and food security
is being undermined:

With California agribusinesses supplying food for much of
the country and exporting food all over the world, local foodsystems elsewhere are being undermined as well:■

In 1920, Iowa was nearly self-sufficient in food production, with 34 different fruit, vegetable, meat, and dairy
products produced commercially on the state’s farms.
Today almost all of those foods come from California
rather than local farms.

■

Rising food imports from California have exacerbated thedecline of Mexico’s small-scale farm economy: for example, before NAFTA was implemented, Mexico’s top market for tomatoes was the US; now the balance has reversedand Mexico has become one of the top recipients of US
tomatoes, primarily from California.

■

Thanks in part to federal subsidies to promote US foodproducts abroad, India now imports most of its almonds
from California, pushing Afghani almonds out of the market. Many Afghani farmers have resorted to opium poppy
production instead.

■

■

6

Over 5 million Californians are “food insecure,” whichmeans they must do without such basic needs as utilities
and medical care in order to put food on the table. For atleast 1.25 million of those, it also means going hungry.

Photo: Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

In the global food system, most of the public’s food dollar
goes to corporate agribusinesses. Little is left for farmers,
farmworkers, and their rural communities.The result is thedisappearance of small- and medium-sized farms, the elimination of farm-related jobs, and a gutting of local economies
and rural communities. For example:

RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Supporting the global at the expense of the local
Even among those who acknowledge these and other problems emanating from the global food system, many argue thatthey are an unfortunate but unavoidable price to provide consumers with cheap food. But global food isn’t really cheap: it isheavily underwritten by hidden subsidies and ignored socialand environmental costs, ultimately paid for by the same consumers who ostensibly benefit from lower prices.
A wide range of direct subsidies props up the global foodsystem. In California, as in the US as a whole, the biggest
farms reap the lion’s share of USDA farm subsidies. From1995 to 2002, the top 1 percent of California recipients took
in one-quarter of the subsidies, with an average payment of$2.3 million per farm. Most subsidies go to agribusinesses
producing monocrops for export, with dairy, cotton, and rice
growers receiving the most assistance. Farmers practicing sus-

tainable agriculture and those marketing locally get almost
no support.
Many indirect subsidies also promote global agribusinesses:
subsidies for water, for a trade-based transport infrastructure,and for publicly-funded research into industrial, high-tech
food production all support large-scale producers and marketers at the expense of those that are smaller and more
localized. Substantial subsidies also go toward programs likethe federal government’s Market Access Program, which
spends $100 million per year to promote California agribusiness products overseas.
In addition, many health, safety, and environmental regulations—most of them needed because of the hazards of largescale production—are too expensive for small-scale farmers andbusinesses to implement, forcing many of them out of business.

Shifting from global to local
Photo: Doug Gosling

Understanding that the problems
facing California’s food systemhave common roots in the globalization of the economy helps
point the way to a powerful systemic solution: localization.
Localization means shortening the
distance between producer andconsumer—simultaneously benefiting farmers, farmworkers, andconsumers, protecting the environment, and improving the quality of food while lowering its cost.
It means a shift in direction awayfrom the global food system toward smaller-scale food systems that are more localized, diverse, democraticallyaccountable, and ecologically-based. It does not mean a cessation of all trade but a gradual striking of a better balance
between trade and local production, with people everywhere meeting as many of their food needs as close tohome as possible. Localization is not synonymous with“protectionism,” nor does it imply ignoring the needs ofthose whose economies are currently trade-dependent.
Localization is not a solution for California alone, nor justfor the countries of the North. Every country and every
region, North and South, would benefit from a greater
degree of food sovereignty—the ability to control its own
food supply.

Shifting toward the local is a strategic solution-multiplierwith significant potential to improve many of the social, economic, and environmental problems we face. Bringing thatshift about will require two complementary steps: those that
resist and reverse the process of globalization and corporate
control, and those that renew local food economies from theground up.Through resistance and renewal, a local foodmovement is already taking shape worldwide.Within thispromising movement, California is well-situated to lead theway. It is not only one of the world’s largest food economies,
it is home to a thriving sustainable agriculture movement.
Because the state’s agricultural economy is being emulated
by other states and nations, a shift toward the local in
California can have widespread repercussions.

7

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

Local food for a sustainable future

Support smaller, more diversified farms. Local food economies
encourage farms to become more diversified to meet local
demands.This in turn supports an increase in agricultural biodiversity: rather than tailoring their production to the demands ofglobal markets, farmers would be able to choose varieties suited
to their particular farm’s conditions.The amount of water needed for agriculture in California would also be reduced, since ashift toward the local would create markets for drought-tolerant
food varieties that require far less water than export crops likerice and cotton, or alfalfa for industrial dairies.
Reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Since
diversified farms are less susceptible to pest infesta-

8

tions and disease outbreaks, they are more conducive toorganic and other ecologically-based farm practices. Rather
than being segregated into factory farms, livestock can be
integrated into the farm system, providing a source of fertility
that builds soil and eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers. Diversified organic farms also provide niches for many
wild species—including beneficial insects, birds, reptiles, andothers—that are eliminated from chemical-intensive monocultural farmland.
Give small farms a bigger share of every food dollar. Farmers
hooked to the global system keep a tiny and shrinking portion of the public’s food dollar, with corporate marketers
and input suppliers taking the lion’s share. By selling tolocal shops and restaurants or directly to consumers
through farmers’ markets or CSA schemes, farmers
can keep as much as 80 to 90 percent of theprice of food.

Photo: Alex Jensen

A shift toward local food means more than encouraging
everyone to buy food that was grown within some prescribed
distance. It is a broader, deeper change that involves placing ahigher emphasis on diverse modes of food production thatreflect the planet’s cultural, geographic, and climatic diversity.
A conscious shift toward more localized food systems is a
strategic move that would encourage the following:

RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Revitalize the state’s rural economies and communities. In more
localized food economies, the money spent on food supports
the local economy rather than being siphoned into the bankaccounts of corporate middlemen.A greater number of farmers
would be needed, displacing the relative handful of large-scale
farms.With better incomes for farmers, pay and working conditions for farmworkers would improve as well. More farms
and more locally-owned food businesses would all boost the
local economy, helping to revitalize California’s communities.
Add substantially to the state’s overall economy. If just 10 percent($85 per person per year) of Californians’ food expenditures
were redirected toward food produced within the state, anestimated $848 million in additional income would flow to
the state’s farmers, $1.38 billion would be injected into
California’s overall economy, $188 million in tax revenue
would be generated, and 5,565 jobs would be created.
Higher proportions of local food consumed would generate
even larger economic benefits.
Reverse the trend toward concentrated control of California’s foodsystem. In localized food systems, food is not only grownlocally, but processing facilities, distribution networks, andretail marketing are also geared to local markets.This means asubstantial increase in the number of small businesses, and areduction in the power of corporate agribusinesses.
Reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions from food transport. The
distance between producers and consumers would be greatly
shortened with a shift toward the local, thereby reducing theuse of petroleum products for food transport, and cutting air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Provide Californians with healthier, fresher food. Since production
for local food systems is conducive to organic or low-input
methods, the pesticide residues found on many foods fromthe global system would be cut significantly. Since local foods
are not intended to be transported thousands of miles or sit
in warehouses and on supermarket shelves for extended periods, many of the processing and packaging requirements for
global foods could be reduced or eliminated, and varieties
could be grown that maximize nutritional value and taste,rather than transportability and shelf life.
Make healthy food more affordable. Most of the social, health, andenvironmental costs of food from the global system neverappear on the price tag, making it seem far cheaper than it
really is. Even without accounting for those “externalities,”
local food would still be far less expensive if the many directand hidden subsidies that now support the global food systemwere instead shifted to support local food. By making healthy
food more available and accessible, local food systems canimprove food security and alleviate the problem of hunger.
Support rural economies in the global South. Policies aimed atreorienting agriculture toward exports have been devastating
for rural communities throughout the South.The highly
competitive and volatile global market demands “efficiency”—which means consolidating land into large plantations,replacing farmers with agrochemicals and heavy equipment,
and piling up huge debts to build trade-based transport andenergy infrastructures. Shifting the focus back to the local—
with farmers primarily growing food for themselves and local
markets—would greatly strengthen those rural communities,
create more jobs, and help to stem the tide of urbanization.

The difference between “global food” and “local food”
The global food system is characterized by large-scale, highly mechanized, monocultural and chemical-intensive methods, withproduction oriented toward distant, and increasingly global, markets. Production and distribution of global foods requires
abundant use of external inputs, large machinery, and long-distance transport and communications infrastructures, and relies
heavily on the knowledge and technology generated by a small number of Western-style institutions.The goal is ever-increasing agricultural “efficiency,” defined as maximizing the yield of a narrow range of globally traded commodities, while minimizing human labor—thereby eliminating millions of agricultural jobs. Although variants are to be found within the global
food system, its fundamental characteristics, largely determined by technology and international market forces, are the same
everywhere.
Local food systems are typically oriented toward local and regional consumption, with “food miles”—the distance between
producers and consumers—being relatively short, sometimes with direct links between the two. Local food systems differ
from place to place, since most have evolved within a particular social, economic, and environmental context.Though mostexisting local food systems are in the global South, people around the world are combining recent advances in small-scaleorganic agriculture with the remnants of their own farming heritage in order to shift away from the global food system andback to the local.

9

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGY AND CULTURE

Making the shift
People in communities across the state have already begun tobring about a shift toward the local: they are joining CSAs,
planting urban gardens, and starting farmers’ markets, farmto-school programs, and edible schoolyard projects.
In order to make a lasting shift possible, however, government policy also needs to be changed. Since our tax dollars
so heavily favor global food, it can be sold below the price offresh local food. At the same time, regulations make it all but
impossible for smaller local farms and businesses to competewith large corporations.

To make the shift, a powerful movement is therefore neededthat can resist and reverse the globalization of the food economy while simultaneously promoting more localized foodsystems.This is a difficult challenge, but it is not impossible.
In fact, the efforts of activists and ordinary citizens aroundthe world have already dispelled the notion of globalization’s“inevitability.” Even the Financial Times acknowledges that“the protesters are winning.They are winning in the streets.
Before too long they will be winning the argument.
Globalization is fast becoming a cause without credible
champions.”

Reorienting policy
One of the biggest challenges is to roll back the wave of international treaties supporting the corporate “free trade” agenda.
Halting and reversing the deregulation of trade and financewould keep food economies from being further monopolized
by global agribusinesses and create space for policy initiatives
that don’t discriminate against local food.With so many corporate interests lined up to promote deregulation, intense pressure from below is needed to force national governments backto the negotiating table to hammer out trade agreements that
respect the needs and wishes of the majority. Educational campaigns are therefore urgently needed to inform the public andpolicymakers about the many costs of global food, and themultiple benefits of a shift toward the local.
Shifts are needed not only in international trade agreements,
but in national and local policies as well. Policy areas of urgent
priority for regenerating local food economies include:
Farm subsidies. Eliminating the heavy bias toward agribusinessand redirecting public funds toward smaller-scale, diversified
family farms would be immensely beneficial.
Indirect farm supports. Redirecting many other supports thatare currently devoted to large export-oriented farms is also
important.The state’s “Buy California” campaign, forinstance, is now largely aimed at promoting the state’s foodproducts overseas, rather than building support for stronger
regional food economies at home.
Transportation and energy policy. Instead of continuing to fundtransportation projects tailored to the demands of international trade, steps could be taken to level the playing field for
producers and processors marketing more locally. For

10

instance, California could tax the transportation of goods inthe state to account for environmental externalities, thereby
favoring shorter hauls.
Research and development. A shift in the focus of R&D subsidies is also needed. Substantial funding is currently available
for technology-intensive industrial agriculture, while almost
nothing is devoted to research into sustainable agriculture
and the needs of small-scale producers and local processors.
Regulations. Many health, safety, and environmental regulations are required because of the hazards of large-scale operations, but meeting them makes it difficult for smaller businesses to survive. One solution is a tiered regulatory system,with strict national regulations on global-scale producers,
processors, and marketers, and locally-determined rules forsmaller-scale enterprises marketing locally.This would allow
restrictions on the increasingly deregulated global food system to be tightened, while local businesses could be regulated in ways that reflect local conditions and needs.
Antitrust laws. While antitrust laws were never designed to deal
effectively with mobile transnational corporations, trade liberalization has weakened even the laws already on the books.
Stronger, better-enforced antitrust laws are therefore urgently
needed.
Tax reform. Today, a wide range of tax credits are available forthe energy-intensive technologies used by large-scale producers, while smaller, more labor-intensive businesses are burdened with heavy payroll taxes. Ecological tax reform—whichputs the burden of taxation on activities that destroy natural
resources—would support the growth of local food systems.

RIPE FOR CHANGE: RETHINKING CALIFORNIA’S FOOD ECONOMY

Taking action
Everyone participates in the food system in one way or
another, and there are concrete steps we all can take to support the growth of local food systems in California:

Farmers. Farmers can diversify their production and switch
to selling more locally—by using local distributors or marketing directly to consumers via farmers’ markets, roadsidestands, or CSAs. Local value-added initiatives have long
been recognized as a way for farmers to add to theirincomes, but in most California communities the infrastructure needed to implement such efforts has been eradicated. This problem can be overcome by joining forces withother farmers—for example by building community foodprocessing facilities or abbatoirs. Farmers are also in an
excellent position to educate consumers, policymakers, andother farmers about the real costs of the global food systemand the benefits of marketing locally.

Photo: Tyler/Center for Ecoliteracy

Citizens and communities. Citizens are also consumers, andtheir actions in the marketplace can make a
big difference. Purchasing food from local
sustainable producers wherever possible is an
obvious first step, one made relatively easy if
there is a nearby farmers’ market or CSA. (Ifnot, the next step is to help start one.)
Asking local retailers and restaurants to carry
local foods sends a clear message that people
care where their food comes from. Other citizen actions might include boycotting big
food corporations and supermarket chains,
joining or organizing a consumer cooperativethat purchases local food, starting an “edible
schoolyard” project, publishing a list of local
growers, starting a local labeling initiative,and educating the public through letters-to-the-editor andop-ed pieces.

Processors, distributors, and retailers. By purchasing from sustainablelocal producers and making local food available to other businesses and the public, small-scale independent processors, distributors, and retailers provide crucial links within the overall
food system. Collaborating with other businesses by forming
cooperatives can make the entire system function more smoothly, and spread the benefits
more evenly. Retailers can educate consumers
through posters and displays, and by organizing
events about the importance of local food.
Restaurants. With so much of the US food dollar devoted to eating away from home, restaurants can be valuable markets for local farmers,
as well as for processors and distributors thatsource from them. Many restaurant owners
already recognize the benefits for their businessof local food: the food is fresher, the quality
higher, and customers enjoy knowing that theirfood came from nearby farmers. Like shopkeepers, restauranteurs can educate their customers about whatgrows locally, what is in season, and why local foods are better.
Although thousands of people are already involved in many of
the steps outlined above, it will take a great many more to create the “critical mass” needed to transform California’s foodsystem. If enough people take concrete action both to rebuild
local food systems and to reorient government policy, there is
every reason to believe that California can become home tomore socially just and economically viable food systems that are
healthier for people and the planet.
There is significant public support for fresh, healthy, local foodin California, and a wide range of positive initiatives are alreadyunderway.With a systemic shift to local food economies as aunifying priority, California could become a leader in the
movement toward truly sustainable and equitable food systems
worldwide.

May 2004 © International Society for Ecology and Culture
Executive Editors: Helena Norberg-Hodge and Steven Gorelick
Authors: Katy Mamen, Steven Gorelick, Helena Norberg-Hodge, and Diana Deumling
Cover Photos:“Girl with Strawberries” by Tyler/Center for Ecoliteracy“Landscape” by Lynn Betts, USDA
Page 1 “Sacks” by Lisa M. Hamilton,© The Rodale Institute® 2004 from www.newfarm.org
Page 11 “Tomatoes” by Doug Gosling

11

ISEC
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY FORECOLOGY AND
CULTURE

US office:
PO Box 9475, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
Tel: (510) 548-4915
Fax: (510) 548-4916
california@isec.org.uk
UK office:Foxhole, Dartington, Devon TQ9 6EB, UK
Tel: (01803) 868650
Fax: (01803) 868651
E-mail: isecuk@gn.apc.org
www.isec.org.uk