Food 2030

The UK government recently unveiled Food 2030 – a food strategy designed to ensure that Britons have access to high quality, sustainably farmed/grown, food that benefits both the farmer/grower and the consumer. At the same time Food 2030 should ensure that people have good jobs, a reduction in greenhouse emissions and food waste.

Not bad for something that only went out for public consultation in August 2009! That’s right – the British government invited citizens and other stakeholders to comments from August till October 2009. It seems Defra took the results of the consultation away, compiled the strategy and released it last week to the masses. The 24 page strategy summary (PDF) goes over what the UK wants by 2030 (informed consumers making good choices, less impact on the environment, a secure food chain, etc), along with how the government proposes they get there. The BBC covered the announcement here.

Tomatoes by Ben

Overall, there isn’t much to gripe about. I’m sure that some folks won’t like the mention of research and science helping to produce crops that require less water, fertilizer and chemicals but the reality is that high yield crops are a must if we are to food a growing population. Earth will hit 7 billion before we know it and we all have a responsibility to make sure those folks get the nutrition they need.

It would be great to see the Canadian government be so forward thinking. Just one year after massive drought caused food prices to skyrocket (more so than they did here) and caused riots, the UK has taken the initiative to put together a plan that will encourage citizens to take more responsibility for themselves. It’s especially encouraging that 3 major grocery stores only sell free-range eggs now – a move by Loblaws/Real Canadian Superstore or Metro like that would further sustainable food cycle efforts immensely!

Web Communities

Farmers and consumers alike are increasingly turning towards the Internet in order to identify where the nearest source of sustainably grown food can be found. Change.org identified 5 popular websites where people are connecting and I particularly like Local Harvest because it includes Canadian sources. If you’re a Canadian farmer producing organic, sustainable or low impact produce please add yourself to Local Harvest to make it easier for the rest of us to find you! Better yet, if you know of a good Canadian directory please leave me the link in a comment.

Vertical Gardens

There are many examples of people growing vertical/urban gardens. Again, Change.org has linked to several different ways you can setup your own urban/vertical garden, from thrifty to eco-chic. One of the greatest benefits I see from the vertical garden boom happening is a greater amount of plants taking carbon dioxide out of the air, a much cheaper way to grab fresh produce when you need it and also something nice to look at in your home. This is also a good way to use typically unused space in a home or apartment.

I hope that provides you with some food for thought – both literally and figuratively! While it’s becoming easier everyday to get your hands on food that was produced in a sustainable manner, it will still be some time before all the pieces of the puzzle come together. We can all chip in and help out though.

I will also mention that I’m going to be speaking to the folks over at Local Food Plus soon about their organization – how it works, how we can get it to expand beyond its current Toronto-centric focus, where they get their funding, etc. I hope it proves to be a mutually beneficial conversation!

First off it’s worthy to note that Fast Company, a magazine & website all about business innovation, recently put up an article entitled the Ten Best Green Jobs for the Next Decade. The very first job listed? Farmer. Why? Because the move to a sustainable food cycle invites urban/vertical farming to be a part of the solution. Translation – we’re not going to replace the farmers we currently have, we’re going to offset the lack of supply during non-growing months. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Indeed, it may be high time for a former client of mine to realize his dream of it “being a good time to be a farmer” fairly soon. And the message that Mark Bittman, cookbook author, journalist and TV personality, has been espousing recently just lends more credence to that.

Bittman, in his own TED Talk filmed back in December 2007 but not made available on TED’s website until May 2008, talks about the rise of meat in our diet in the last 100 years or so. If all of his stats are anywhere close to correct, it’s a little staggering! Bittman, like myself, thinks that less meat is a part of the solution. Not THE solution, but simply a part of it. More plants, less meat. It’s a fairly simple message that Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has been promoting for several years as well. And not only does Bittman touch on the malnutrition that eating too much meat causes us but also the vastly negative effects that producing livestock has had on our environment. I believe it was said that 33% of the Earth’s surface is being used either directly or indirectly for livestock production.

That’s a bit much, isn’t it? Surely 33% of our land isn’t being used for the production of edible plants!

Funny that, in the end, technology got us into this mess and that it ultimately will lead us out of it. The real difference is in how the technology is used and the motivations for using it.

When you factor in that so many areas of Africa are still under-nourished, yet we can’t seem to satisfy our hunger for food in North America, the need for new ideas, new development and a more local focus is now more necessary than ever. Projections have our world population hitting 8 billion by 2025 – approximately 2 billion more than we have now. Alex Steffen, founder of WorldChanging.com, talks about even more topics regarding sustainability in his TED Talk where he also talks about WorldChanging.com and the models for sustainability they are looking for and featuring on the site.

In the end, cities are going to have to become more diverse, more progressive and those who fear change or fight change are likely to simply be left behind. Cities need to begin attracting entrepreneurs who are interested in innovations in the farming and livestock industries. The city that can foster this type of innovation will a wide array of new jobs and, therefore, help protect itself from economic downturns. We’re in a vicious cycle that we need to plow through and change in order to avoid the mistake’s of our ancestors.

That being said, I’m going to do my best to produce a new entry on urban design ready to go for a week from now. I have been fairly busy lately but I have a renewed energy in me thanks to various feedback I’ve received! Look for more very soon!

The result is a vastly inefficient food cycle. Things are even poorly managed locally during the past few years. E. coli outbreaks, listeria, salmonella, etc. The solution? It may be vertical farming.

Walrus magazine has a fantastic article on the possibilities here, and TIME Magazine also has an article on the issue here.

You may think these people are crazy, but the craziest ideas throughout history usually prove to be the best. Think about it! Farmers certainly wouldn’t get put out of business: they would just need to change the way they do things. Real estate is becoming less and less expensive lately, so finding a decent-sized building to lease or buy for probably the same amount of money it costs to buy a decent piece of farmland probably wouldn’t be that difficult. The article in TIME talks about a professor drawing up plans for a 30-story skyscraper that would be a massive hydroponic farm. Unfortunately it sounds like he’s thinking of building a brand new building, which just doesn’t make sense in a city like NYC. In London though, or Toronto, surely 10 or 20 stories could be leased for far less, especially if a government subsidy is provided.

And why not? The other benefits are many. Less pollutants, used water not absorbed by the plants could be recycled and used again to water them, far greater control over the environment and therefore being able to grow year round (yielding 2 or 3 times as many crops), no chemical fertilizers would be necessary to keep pests away and, of course, no tractors spewing out fumes! Energy costs could be supplemented by placing solar panels on top of the building and ensuring everything used inside is as energy-efficient as possible.

A company in Texas, Valcent, is already testing out this technique and it would seem they’re having some success. And if for some reason the idea of this type of farming bothers you, well then maybe you should tour around a farm next summer.

The article in Walrus also brings up another solution to importing so much of our food: a program that was setup to produce a network of growers and buyers to ensure that local produce is being used as much as possible. The result is Local Food Plus, based in Toronto. A similar system exists in Vancouver, called FarmFolk/CityFolk. Local Food Plus was able to attract New College at University of Toronto to commit to including in their new food services contract that 10% of the food budget must come from local sources, with a 5% increase per year.

Think of the implications! Local farmers knowing damn well that they’re food is going somewhere it will be valued and eaten, and nearby! Local Food Plus also certifies that any producers/farmers meet certain standards, which are published on their website.

So what’s the solution? Well it’s at least two-pronged. Doing our best to used locally-grown foods as often as possible, but also ensuring we explore new growing opportunities so that we can be sure we’ll always have the supply we need. I mean, why not grow pineapples in London in the middle of winter if we can?!

And if you read this very well-written article at The Globe & Mail, it could very well happen. Personally, I think we all need a reality check on how we got here and the many players that have played parts in the problems that Ford, Chrysler and GM are having right now.

1) Ford, Chrylser & GM – For many years now, Detroit has succeeded in creating reputations for themselves of putting out unreliable products and pairing them with expensive and poor service. Clearly I’m generalizing, but it’s necessary in order to avoid a very long explanation of what products and services don’t fall into this trap. If you walk up to almost anyone on the street and ask them how long a Ford engine will last compared to a Toyota engine, I’m willing to be a significant amount of money that the majority of those surveyed will tell you that a Toyota engine will last roughly twice as long. When I tell people that my Chevrolet Aveo has gone 187,000km without any issues they are amazed. Unfortunately the Aveo is a poor example since it’s built in South Korea.

To address the service issue – the dealership where I bought my vehicle routinely tries to screw me out of $600 to $700 worth of repairs pretty well everytime I bring it in. When I take it to “my” mechanic, the problem is fixed after only $100 or $200. Either the mechanics at the dealership are poorly trainined at their jobs or they have been trained by GM to try and extract as much money as possible from someone that they think knows nothing about cars. My father has repeatedly said he will never buy another GM car after suffering through owning his 2000 Oldsmobile Alero and 1999 Chevrolet Venture. They have caused nothing but headaches since just after the warranties expired (how convenient!) on both vehicles and my parents treat their vehicles very, very well.

Not to mention ridiculous ideas like the entire Hummer brand, huge SUVs that no one truly needs and still very fuel inefficient vehicles. I test drove a Ford Edge – it told me I was getting 13mpg on the highway. That’s ludicrous! The Ford Flex is no better and is hardly a crossover. Sorry Ford, but it’s true.

2) The UAW & CAW – The unions are one of the biggest problems plaguing North American automakers. This is clearly seen when you see in the G&M article that GM spends an average of $71 per employee per hour compared to Toyota spending $47. The UAW & CAW have demonstrated time and time again that they care about nothing more than getting more money out of the automakers. The result? Massive layoffs, huge inefficiences and oversupply on the market. The company my father works for has treated him very well for the past 25 years, and indeed I have worked for said company two separate times, however all but one of it’s contracts are to supply Ford, Chrysler and GM. The company has consequently suffered massive losses over the past few years and things are looking grim.

The real problem here is that everyone expects automotive-related jobs to pay well. And yet the automakers constantly want the parts their buying from companies like Magna, Meridian and Wescast to be less expensive, meanwhile the manufacturers are expected to increase pay every year. The formula doesn’t really work out in the long run unless you increase productivity and yield in return for the decrease in price – and in my experience, that simply cannot be sustained.

And things are worse at unionized plants. The union goes in, gouges the automakers for better wages and benefits and then gets irate when an automaker has to cut jobs. I can support the idea of a union, but the CAW and UAW, among others, really do nothing but cause American and Canadian-based manufacturing jobs to be less and less viable. Corporations have a legal mandate to increase shareholder value which means doing everything they can to iron out inefficiencies, increase productivity and decrease costs. A few years ago, in St. Thomas, that meant shutting down a truck-building plant and moving the work to Mexico.

Congratulations CAW! You are so good and making sure Ontario remains a competitive and viable area for companies to assemble their products here!

I know, I’m oozing with sarcasm right now. But really, the CAW and UAW need to realize what’s going on here. They look after themselves more than making sure that doing business in Canada or the US even makes sense for a company, and in the end they ended up biting the hand that feeds them… several times. The unions are a humongous part of the problem and they are only making the situation worse.

3) The executives – Wow they take home a lot of money, don’t they? Even when the companies they run are losing money, they take home millions! Why?! I remember a few years ago reading a story about one of the North American automaker’s CEO’s taking home a several million dollar bonus after the company he ran lost several million dollars that year. How does that make any sense? And then, just this week, they all flew in private jets to Washington, D.C. in order to plead for emergency loans. Whose bright idea was that?! Heaven forbid they fly with the rest of us on normally scheduled flights!

Ford has 8 private jets, GM currently has 7 but is getting rid of 2 because they aren’t being used enough. Boo hoo! Did I mention that GM CEO Rick Wagoner took him $15.7 million last year? Oh, but wait, he voluntarily reduced his salary by 50% this year, allowing himself to take home a paltry $7.85 million in 2008. The poor thing, he must be resorting to food stamps in order to get by!

Amazingly, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli’s salary, to my knowledge, is $1 a year. However, he has other means of compenstation that Chrysler no longer has to disclose since they’re a private company now.

Ford CEO Alan Mullaly took home $22 million last year. How does he sleep at night?! Isn’t $1 million enough? The U.S. President makes $400,000 a year and his decisions affect over 300 million people directly. Our Prime Minister takes home roughly $280,000 a year for running a country of roughly 32 million people. You do the math.

4) Old, stupid laws – The G&M article has some information on this, but apparently there are many states in the U.S. that have laws prohibiting the automakers from selling their vehicles directly to the public.

The king is GM, with more than 6,700 dealers, or nearly five times as many as Toyota. And the average Toyota dealer outsells his GM rival by a factor of three-to-one vehicles a year. All told, the Detroit Three have more than two-thirds of all dealers, but their cars account for less than half the market.

That situation does not make for an efficient supply chain – another problem for the North American automakers. I know plenty of people who gladly drive to a different city to buy a new car if need be.

5) Letting Toyota & Honda take over – Really, that’s what happened. Toyota’s been producing good cars for a long time now, so has Honda. Every year they evolve their vehicles in order to make the more attractive, more fuel efficient and more reliable. And for years Ford, Chrysler and GM let them catch up and eventually overtake them. Even Hyundai has made decent in-roads in North America, and I know a few people who would like a Mitsubishi to be their next vehicle. I don’t know anyone clamouring over the Ford Fusion or Dodge Caliber to be their next vehicle.

The big 3 fell behind and now they’re struggling to play catch up. GM is hoping the Volt helps propel them ahead of the competition again, and I don’t know what Ford or Chrysler are doing in order to truly stay competitive. Sync, available on a few Ford models, is nice and all but it doesn’t help change Ford’s image. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Mercury vehicle with Ontario plates on it.

The bottomline is that the big 3 have dug themselves a huge hole and there’s a chance that none of them will survive. The good news is that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Volkswagen will benefit almost immediately and there will still be the need to increase production in North American by those companies. That will also make it easier for some of the European automakers, Fiat especially, to come back to North America and possibly use some of the then abandoned factories to produce their parts and vehicles for this market. So how dire is the situation? Very. Possibly not as bad as Wagoner, Mullaly and Nardelli would have you believe, but there would certainly be plenty of short-term pain.