The Atlantic Food Summit

Today I was fortunate enough to attend The Atlantic Food Summit, a day long conference held at the Newseum. There were three panels of discussion: Feeding the World, The Next Era of Food Security, and The Way We Eat. Each panel discussed a wide array of food security issues.

I particularly enjoyed the first panel, Feeding the World, a discussion featuring The Honorable Thomas Daschle, Senior Policy Advisor, DLA Piper, and Chair, DuPont Committee on Agricultural Innovation and Productivity for the 21st Century, Dr. Hafez Ghanem, Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and Josh Viertel, President of Slow Food USA.

Dr. Ghanem opened the discussion by stating that today, one billion people are undernourished and grain stocks are at an all-time low. It is estimated that one billion tons of cereals and 200 million tons of meat are needed by 2050 to meet this demand. What we are called to do, is to think about how to support innovation in agriculture, improve productivity in sustainable way, and use policy to meet farmers' needs.

We can feed the world in 2050, however we cannot continue along the food path we have created. How are there so many under and mal-nourished despite all of our resources? In order to feed the world we need to focus on research and development, and change our focus from higher yields to productivity enhancement. How do we get farmers to apply this methodology and close the yield gap, which is the difference between what can be done and what we actually do in regards to yield and capability.

Farmers have a strong voice in the political economy but this is not the case in developing countries. We must invest in this situation and work with governments and civil societies. However our current system is not sustainable.The problem is export restrictions and ideally, nobody should subsidize anything.

Second to speak was former Senator Daschel who first questioned that if we need increased investment to address our agriculture mal-practices, but where will this money come from? Most agricultural investment comes from farmers themselves.We must focus not as just defense and diplomacy in United States' relations, but defense, diplomacy and development in our agenda abroad. It is critical to improve development because we cannot export our way out of this problem. We must create ways for farmers to help themselves by offering unique research to address these unique problems, encourage competition, maintain good collaboration, and keep our focus on empowering producers, not just through shifting.

In regards to agricultural subsidies and lowering tariffs, farmers do not prefer subsidies and instead prefer a reasonable place in the market and a fair return on investment. We must make sure marketplace is functioning well by empowering produces to collaborate subsidy relivant programs and open trade. We must rely on interation and interdependence, open our borders, and find ways to make political processes more transparant. With a balanced economy, there is no need for subsidies.

It is ideal to have self-sufficient countries, yet it is not very reasonable. We must maximize the value of the food we produce today and in addition export overseas while making these areas sufficient.
Additionally we should embrace science, but not forget that simple systems such as biodiversity is science too.

Finally, Mr. Josh Viertel closed the discussion by stating that the good news behind our food crises is that we have the technology and the resources to feed the world. Currently we have the capacity to feed 11 billion people, however with a population pushing 6 billion, still 1 billion people go hungry. We must apply these technologies and resources to the problem and not rely on on market opportunities. New technologies (mainly GMOs) don't have a big role to play in this problem because they aim to increase profit to increase global yields. This is not necessarily the solution. Instead we need market reform, land reform, access to new practices, and new, simple technology. By promoting teaching, extension, and empowerment, we can create the political will to tackle food and agricultural problems.

The key is finding low cost inputs that are locally available and regenerable, sustainable, local processes in food farming. Exporting crops are not a long term solution. The resources and technology is there globally, but is not evenly spread, and therefore we still rely on trade., However, subsidizing our behavior may not be the sole cause food problems globally, but it plays a huge role.

I really enjoyed the conference, however the final two panels had too much of a focus on food labeling disputes and the question of obesity to really spark my interest as much as a the first one did. Today I had many interesting conversations with professionals from all areas of this field, and if I learned anything today, it is that it is DEFINITELY time for me to invest in a business card.

A Hard Won and Seldom Seen Victory

When i went home for thanksgiving I was excited to see my family, eat massive amounts of turkey (Which I am proud to say came from a local farm near my house free of the Industrial food chain), and generally do nothing. Yet, in the face of my potential laziness, I was charged to bring up environmental politics to my family in Kentucky -this wasn't going to go well.

First, a little backround. I come from a conservative legal family. My father has voted republican for over twenty years, he is a true small government idealist. Also, he is one of the smartest people I know. He gradutated first in his class at Georgetown, first in his class at U of Cincinnati Law School, and has over 25 years of legal experience. Needless to say, the man knows how to argue.

So, when I confronted him about the possible ramifications of human interference and overuse of the environment, he certainly had something to say. He gave me a whole slew of arguements from the idea that whats going on now is a natural phenomena, to the idea that regulation is fruitless because it would necesitate a government expansion. However, despite all his ability to manuever, I, for the first time in quite a while, was able to confront him with a range of counterarguements. From the I=PAT equation, to the idea of sustainability as defined by Cradle to Cradle to Maniates' feelings on consumption and responsible individual action.

And a remarkable thing happened, for the first time that I can remember, I changed my fathers mind, at least a little bit. He was very taken with Maniates' idea of systems of social change. I think it appealed to his logical, analytical mind to believe that a change in structures would lead to a change in action. He also seemed to like it because it minimized the role of government in regulation and replaced it with the concerted effort of indiviuals.

He was more conflicted with the idea of fivolous consumption. He has always prided himself on thrift. However, he felt that the kind of indictment that Maniates was laying out was too general an indictment of modern american capitalistic culture. He was fundementally unwilling to critique the system through which he has succeeded.

The conversation was truely eye opening. Firstly because it reinforced the idea that environmental responsibility is the only logical choice. But moreso because of the limitations my father represented. One of the major dificulties is convincing a population that has made its wealth through the American capitalist system that it is that very system that will lead to dramatic problems in the future. While he is a logical, reasonable man and is very willing to change his beliefs if they can be proved wrong, he was not willing to, in his eyes, betray the system that has brought him prosperity. That was very interesting.

So, my thanksgiving was not completely without an education. Though, I didnt bring up the idea of an industrial food system, I figured that may be too much for Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanksgiving

I found it pretty difficult to bring up environmental issues at Thanksgiving because the conversation didn't head anywhere near global issues (except for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai) and this year, no one was really fighting I didn't want to ruin a good thing! Anyway, I found my chance later in the night, when my little sister was telling me that I need to eat meat to get some protein and iron. After telling her for the 100th time that I have energy and that my iron is high enough to give blood, I realized I now how a perfect opportunity to talk about the environment.

So I turned our conversation to industrial farming. I tried my best to get a discuss going, but she just kept nodding her head and saying.. "well..... i like meat..... it's good for you." I even tried the bit about methane gas from cow excrement polluting the air. It pretty much fell on deaf ears. My sister actually kind of makes fun of my mom because she is 100% insistent that our family use all organic cleaning products and reusable grocery bags. I'm always standing up for my mom in this case, because I don't think those things are a waste of money/energy, like my sister and dad. Long story short, my attempt to start a conversation about it kind of went badly, because my sister really didn't want to discuss it.

Thanksgiving Conversation About the Environment

So I didn't get to spend too much time at home, but when I did, I brought up the environment quite a few times, and I actually referenced a lot of what we've talked about in class, like the "Cradle to Cradle" paradigm, the "Trinity of Despair," etc. Most people in my family and circle of friends, as I suspected, agree with the majority of my environmental views. They believe that we are facing an environmental crisis, that many things have to be done quickly on various fronts to prevent the worst of the damage and that the Bush administration has been a complete abomination when it comes to environmental policy making (and when it comes to most other issues as well). I feel lucky to be surrounded by environmentally conscious people.

There were a few instances, though, where someone didn't quite agree with a specific point or action. For instance, when I was talking about drastically enhancing public transportation to wean the U.S. off of our car fix, my sister said something to the effect of, "but we're so spread out and we live in cars." I told her that I thought this was unnecessarily defeatist and that we can work on revamping the auto industries at the same time, to tackle the problem from two angles. After that the pie was served so our conversation inadvertently kind of ended there...

Also, throughout the weekend I made it a point to remind my mom to turn out the lights and unplug her appliances. Although it was kind of nagging, I tried to explain to her why this is important to remember. (I still think its worthwhile for us to do the simple stuff when we can.) She is environmentally aware at heart and she was receptive to these suggestions.

So basically, since I didn't really have the opportunity to get into any sort of friendly debate/exchange with someone who drastically disagreed with me, I thought of people that I know who don't believe in global warming. My dad's best friend doesn't, and, although I didn't see him over the break, I can imagine how our conversation would go. He apparently doesn't believe in global warming because, as he says, "God promised that He wouldn't flood the earth twice." I think this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard - not because of the religious connotations (I consider myself spiritual/religious and I believe in God), but more because I think it's completely impractical. I obviously wouldn't say this to him, though - I'd say, "You know, I'm sure that God wants us to be good stewards of the land as well so that we can be more at peace with the world. Also, a better environment improves human relationships as well. To be good stewards means that we should not only recycle, but also campaign for policy changes, support homegrown food, take the metro, etc." Maybe I'll subtly broach the subject over winter break...

I love to talk about this stuff and I'll continue these types of discussions when I'm home again in two weeks and also while I'm in Thailand. (That is, if the protesters ever allow the airport to open again...)

So I figured the perfect candidate to have an environmental discussion with would be my most recent ex-boyfriend. An ultra-conservative, super Christian, staunch republican military guy with a lot to say regarding environmental politics.

I asked Alan what he felt the most important environmental issue was today and without hesitation he answered: "Nuclear Energy". Now it's been obvious in class that I am absolutely, positively, one hundred percent against nuclear energy. I hate the stuff and it actually drives me crazy when people see it as a solution to many of today's problems. But according to Alan, "We need to develop nuclear energy so we can provide renewable energy to our homes and businesses." I told Alan that my main problem with nuclear waste was that right now it doesn't really fit into any sort of reusable cycle. . . and this is where the conversation got interesting.

"If I gotta store nuclear waste 10 drums high out in the middle of Iowa, as long as it isn't creating radiation or toxic effects of other kinds, I don't really care."

So I asked Alan if he'd dump factory runoff into the ocean, to which he quickly responded "Ew, gross, hell no!"
And then I asked him how that's different from dumping nuclear waste into a mountain or into a hole in a ground.

And this is where Alan tried to convince me that what we need to do is spend time developing technology that ensures the waste won't leak and quite frankly if we could bury it a hundred feet into the bottom of the land bed he wouldn't care.
I, on the other hand, thought if nuclear waste was really something our country should consider over wind or solar power, then we shouldn't waste time trying to displace the waste, but recycle it instead.

So Alan says "If private citizens wanna do stuff I don't really care."
Alan doesn't really care. He just wants his power and will close his eyes to the possible consequences if it doesn't affect him.

What I couldn't figure out is why Alan felt this land in the middle of Iowa is useless just because it isn't being "used". We, humans, haven't found any "use" for it, so therefore it makes perfect sense to dump all of our nuclear woes on Iowa's shoulders. Forget what effects this could have on the ecosystem. . . WE COULD USE THE LAND!


Clearly, things with me and Alan could never, ever work out.

Trinity of Despair

I liked Maniates' Trinity of Despair because I thought it was a useful way to frame environmental issues.

Human Nature: I was more optimistic on this one. As Prof. Maniates said, people are inherently social creatures. We work together all the time. While people, of course, are looking out for their own self-interest, they still care about issues bigger than themselves.

Social Change: We DEFINITELY do not need everyone on board to make social change. There have been so many social movements in history that have succeeded simply because the leaders in those movements were able to make themselves heard. On that note, I think the environmental movement is lacking something important. There are lots of great people working very hard on this crisis, but there is no leader at the forefront. There's no particular environment group or, more importantly, no individual, that stands above all the others. I think developing that kind of leadership is key to spreading the movement.

Environmental Strategy: I think this is a good idea too. Obviously, not everyone who uses a green lightbulb is going to turn into an environmentalist. If education on this stuff comes early in life though, it really has the potential for becoming an issue that kids today grow up to really care about. The one or two more people who become environmentalists because of strategy, that's one or two more people that could become leaers in the movement.

So I'm not sure if his speech changed my opinions in any way, though it did make me realize that I think that a leader (a face of the movement) is really important.

"Trinity of Despair"

I really enjoyed the video conference and thought that Professor Maniates was very informative and inspiring. His "trinity of despair" is especially useful for us environmentalists.

A few thoughts:

Human Nature: Although he had some convincing arguments, I still believe that humans are, for the most part, inherently selfish. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a selfless good deed and many people adhere to the "kill or be killed" motto: Darwin's "survival of the fittest." This can be overcome, or at least compromised to a certain extent: there are definitely great people out there that care about others and big, important issues, such as climate change. Maybe working on the Hill makes me too cynical (people call and write in about the most inconsequential things and are oftentimes rude and crude), so I don't usually have great heaps of faith in the human race. I try to remain at least somewhat optimistic, though...

Social Change: I actually am in the middle on this one. I don't think that everyone has to be on board to affect change. I think that the message of a few can be very powerful. However, I think that the environmental situation is a bit different from the Civil Rights Movement, for instance. Because of climate complexities and the interconnectedness of the environment and environmental problems, I think that more than 3% or 4% must be involved to have an appreciable impact (maybe 60% or more). For instance, governments can pass cleaner, more sustainably focused laws, but more than 3% or 4% of the population must comply to carry out the spirit and intent of the law. (Enforcement is necessary in part because of my more negative view of human nature, I think.) However, I believe that it is very important to focus on civil action because, if executed correctly, a few people can get many more people on board.

Environmental Strategy/Easy Stuff: This is a great concept in theory, but I think that a necessary stepping stone for people to care about the environment is engaging in the small, everyday things, like recycling and using efficient light bulbs. Once people reach that level of awareness, I think that an important few will reach higher and farther and utilize civic action to lobby for change. (Maybe this goes back to my more cynical view of human nature: I think that oftentimes people have to be eased into things for them to get accustomed to/educated about issues and to become passionate.) I also don't think that the two approaches have to be mutually exclusive: why not advocate for devoting a certain amount of time per day to the little, easy things, and spending more targeted time on campaigns? That expands the effective umbrella of change. However, Professor Maniates makes a great point that we shouldn't limit ourselves in any sense - someone has to reach for the stars or else we'll be stuck in polluted sink holes forever.

I know that these comments go back and forth, to a certain extent, but that's because I think that these issues are very nuanced and can be interpreted in many ways. The triangle is definitely a fresh, innovative way to view the status of the environmental movement and plan effective ways to move forward, but I don't think that these categorizations are absolute.

Let's have another video conference!
Katie Suplick

P.S. I think that the Starbucks campaign sounds great and I'm totally on board to help out!