The UC Food Systems Campaign at UCLA in support of adopting
local, organic and socially responsible food practices is
undoubtedly gaining momentum as it nears its halfway mark of 2,500
student signatures, but not without a prevailing concern. The issue
at hand for campaign supporters and adversaries alike is that of
cost.
While other UC campuses are already underway in the process of
“greening” their food practices and have yet to see fee
increases for meal-plan holders, UCLA may not be as fortunate. The
reality of our urban setting and the price-slanting on organic
produce cannot be ignored.
Yet the industrial food system’s detrimental impact on the
environment, the economy and human health should be our primary
concern. Furthermore, such ramifications should spark the
realization that the long-term gains will surely outweigh the
short-term costs.
The UC Food Systems Campaign favors sustainability, which means
that what we consume may be reintegrated into the environment and
restored for future generations. Industrial food-system models are
vulnerable to natural disasters, yet also contribute to them. In
the wake of this summer’s hurricanes, the U.S. witnessed a
reduction in the supply of goods originating from its southeastern
region.
While some consumers shifted their dependency elsewhere, the
decreased production of certain goods was cause for increased
prices.
The system on which we so heavily depend hinges on the timely
transportation of goods across large distances; it requires the use
of non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels, which are
becoming increasingly expensive. The emission of these substances
into the atmosphere is believed to contribute to global warming and
many weather-related natural disasters.
The devastation caused by events such as Hurricane Katrina
imposes significant costs on society, yet some of these are
preventable. No aspect of daily life should be overlooked,
including our food practices. By resorting to more sustainable food
practices, we would be able to eliminate transportation costs and
ensure a continuous supply of goods.
As California residents, we have one of the world’s most
fertile landscapes in our own backyard ““ yet most food
travels 1,500 miles to get to us. Non-local food resources should
not be entrusted with the role of primary supplier, but rather that
of a last resort.
Investing in our local food economy not only allows us to
monitor our impact on the environment, but also supports the people
who work over one-third of California’s acreage. While we may
perceive reducing our food costs as fair and just for consumers,
there may not be justice for those at the other end of the spectrum
known as production.
We must be responsible consumers by ensuring a living wage for
farm workers. By purchasing organic produce we are supporting
farmers who don’t use pesticides and other chemical
treatments.
If after considering the pricey causes and effects of industrial
food practices, students still don’t feel compelled to
support sustainable food practices as an alternative, I will leave
them with these last few words. UCLA housing fees increase about
$400 each academic year, and student-fee increases are even
higher.
If the UC system were to procure local and organic food for 50
percent of its supply (at UCLA the procurement is currently at 0
percent), we would see a daily increase of about 50 cents per
student. By committing to spending half a dollar more a day, UCLA
students could rake in the benefits of ingesting local and organic
food and actually make a tangible difference for the good of the
planet.
Carney is the director of the UCLA chapter of the UC Food
Systems Campaign and a fourth-year anthropology student.