Subject: consequences of local markets

Posted by Bill Rathborne on 2/15/2009
In Reply To:consequences of local markets Posted by Bill Braun on 2/15/2009

Message:

Bill Braun wrote:

> By demand I mean the aggregate amount of vegetables and fruit
> consumed. To wit, would Canadians (as a whole population) eat more
> vegetables and fruits if they were available locally?

I doubt that aggregate demand would change much "IF" that were in fact an option. In the real world of - "eating within 100 miles" - aggregate consumption would plummet because they would not be available during the winter.

> Assuming aggregate caloric intake would remain unchanged, if
> vegetables and fruits increase, what decreases? If there is no
> decrease in other foods we would be looking at the paradoxical effect
> of fruits and vegetables causing increasing obesity (I say with a bit
> of facetiousness).

This is where it gets really complex. Although an assumption of total aggregate caloric intake is a reasonable one, assuming we are not talking about a return to early pioneering days where actual death due to starvation was not uncommon during the winter, then there is clearly a question of "calorie substitution" of what might have been consumed in the "fresh" category with other say, processed/preserved foods. Certainly, "putting up" preserves - apples, pears, peaches, etc. -was widely practiced in the past and would likely make a big comeback. Not-local fruits and vegetables, pineapple, bananas, and such would simply disappear from the diet.

Processed junk foods like potato chips would likely increase in popularity during the winter. Also, us pale skinned northerners already know that vitamin D and vitamin C supplements are almost
essential for survival! :-) As I write this I am preparing my soy
sauce roasted almonds. Almonds from the South East USA. Have to give that up too! So sad. The almond producers would see a major slump in demand!
>
>
> I am less sure about the impact in developing nations to which B
> Rathborne refers. I do not know enough about local growing conditions
> to know if locally available vegetables and fruits would alter eating
> habits. If there is a bona fide increase in carrying capacity (from
> the local vegetables and fruits) it may indeed change the demand.

I think that developing nations are horrified at the thought of an eat- local movement in the developed nations. There is almost no doubt that there is no way local populations could eat enough of the specialty crop - admittedly monoculture - to make up for the decrease in demand from the developed nations. This is a critical source of foreign exchange funds. Clearly, there would be a massive reallocation of acreage from the "export" crop to perhaps a variety of other crops so the developing nation population would be forced to also "eat locally". Whether they would be better off or not is difficult to say.
I think that the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) which are already at risk, would simply become so unachievable that they would be forgotten. I do sometimes find it interesting that many of those who most enthusiastically embrace the eat-local movement are often those who also most enthusiastically pressure governments to achieve the MDG's. The potential conflict (Unintended consequences?) seems to escape them.

> I wonder about overshoot and collapse when life spans increase and the
> demand for all the things increased population corresponding
> increases.

My basic point is that getting from "here" to "there" involves enormous change and a rats-nest of complexity and consequence, both know and unknown. Donald Rumsfeld knows more about this than I do!
However, we have learned a little about rats-nests in the global financial markets, so unravelling the global agricultural markets should come as no surprise.

Having just read Howard Kunstler's book, "The Long Emergency", this all may be moot!

Bill