Day Two of 100-Mile Food Challenge

Well obviously I’m on the outside looking in here, but a few things I’ve noticed while watching with interest:

– There have been MANY delicious ingredients in use, from steak to lamb to potatoes to tomatoes to peppers … and on and on. This challenge would look pretty easy if it weren’t for just a few simple things: spices (mainly salt), oils and caffeine. And I would guess that those things are, at least depending on origin, pretty low-impact on the environment in the first place. I know that the point of the challenge is to be, well, a CHALLENGE, and so it makes sense to exclude ingredients like these on those grounds. But as for the *spirit* of eating locally, it looks perfectly possible to live that way pretty comfortably, without too much compromise.

And unless enlightened denial of certain things is important to your sense of superiority, that’s good news.

– Even more so than the limited ingredients, the biggest hurdle to eating this way for any sort of extended period has GOT to be the amount time it requires. Between collection, prep and cooking, this is a seriously time-consuming diet. As someone with kids in multiple schools, a job that covers a broad part of the day between home and office, and plenty of other commitments that require my time, it’s hard to imagine sustaining this style of eating for very long. Boo-hoo me, right? I’m not complaining, just recognizing a fact of (my) life. If it works with your schedule, then awesome. But if the goal is to spread some of these principles into a larger community, then there are some low-level issues that you have to address. Maybe the Main Market Co-op ends up being helpful here, maybe events like “Sustainable September” ends up inspiring some people. I’m not sure what the solution is, but there’s a practical problem.

– Speaking of “sustainability,” you sure hear that word get thrown around a lot, and often in a superficial way. This challenge — partially *because* of the artificial restrictions it imposes — has been more thought-provoking than just about anything else I’ve seen on the subject. Platitudes are easy; who’s going to argue with “eat local!” or “don’t poison the water!”? But for any sort of lasting community change, information is frankly more important than inspiration.

As a consumer it feels good to shop organic and local, right? But do even those stores know where everything they’re selling comes from? (Huckleberries, Rocket, Fresh Abundance … do you?) And buying local meat sure *sounds* more conscientious … but how do things actually pencil out? If I have to drive somewhere to find truly local lamb, how does that impact compare with me walking up to Egger’s to buy lamb that was brought in (in a shipment that serves many consumers) from Twin Falls? Is eating that can of beans from Albertson’s really that much less healthy and environmentally efficient than going outside my neighborhood to find something similar from a local producer?

I don’t know the answers to questions like these, but that’s my point. I’m a reasonably intelligent person who goes out of his way to support local businesses, and I’m willing to pay a premium for locally produced foods. But when it comes down to making real lifestyle changes, the information that’s out there seems to mostly focus on what NOT to do. The mass-production food industry is committing crimes against nature AND your health? I get it. Chain stores kill local economies and take advantage of their workers AND consumers? Sure. But tell me who’s doing it *right*, and *how*. Guilt isn’t that great of a long-term motivator; we need more data that’s useful in making positive choices. Less cheerleading, more honest conversation about day-to-day decision-making.

This comment was originally posted on Spokane Food Blog

… Possibly that “Annual Manual” should be expanded to a 200 mile range?

I have also found I would not need to leave a 5 mile radius to get all of the products I have already consumed during this challenge. It was my lack of research that sent me out to places like Greenbluff and Deer Park.

If all of these external sites had more motivation to get their products to local markets, I am sure it would be easier for all of us to eat local. The motivation won’t be there until they can be support financially. So, if they know people want their product instead of the can of Albertson’s beans from lets say, the Midwest, I am guessing that environmental impact will be lowered.

I hope stores like Huckleberries will change from pure organic to organic and local (100-200 mile radius). I am sure it would help all of us.

You are right the some stores selling organic can’t pinpoint where their butchers meat came from or where their grains came from b/c they all seem to buy from one supplier who gets their items from various farms. Not a bad idea but then we are back to this debate: http://www.spokanefoodblog.com/2009/08/18/discuss/

Also, I really appreciate Crystal’s input on SpoVegan. She is rethinking how processed vegan (and vegetarian) products really impact her health and environment
http://spovegan.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-new-project.html

Of course the same can be said about all processed foods.

I keep coming back to global impacts at large not just about food. The recession in the USA spun all the way around the world. I feel a need to keep the global impact in mind b/c it does directly effects me (us)… ripple effect.

This comment was originally posted on Spokane Food Blog