Author: Vanessa Neergheen

Like Katherine, I am finding it difficult to come up with any concrete answer to the questions Chuck Ross posed. As Secretary Ross made clear, the only answer to those questions may be a new economic system, though it is a challenge to dream up a new system when we are so entrenched within our old one.

Lately I have been wondering how the much the use of EBT at farmers’ markets has expanded access to local food.  From the outside it seems as though this might be an easy answer to Chuck Ross’ first question related to broadening the socio-economic range of people that engage in the local food system. However, after speaking with people in Louisville, the general consensus is that even with EBT benefits, farmers’ markets are still largely inaccessible for low-income families. In fact, during the 2009 season, out of $1,232 spent at the Victory Park Market, a farmers’ market in the underserved California neighborhood in Louisville, only $31.50 represented EBT sales (in other words, less than three per cent of the total sales).

If farmers’ markets remain inaccessible for low-income families even when they accept EBT, it seems as though we need to find a way to decrease farmers’ market prices even further if we intend to expand access to the local food system. Another thing I have been thinking about lately is how increasing sales at farmers’ markets among families or individuals that are not from low-income backgrounds might have a trickle-down effect with the potential to decrease farmers’ market prices, and consequently increase low-income families’ access to local food. Like Secretary Ross indicated, these issues are often a simple question of economics. I have yet to find any study that considers how farmers’ market prices have changed in the past couple of years as a result of increasing demand, but I think this would be interesting to look at. Perhaps this is even a way to bridge the divide between supporting local food systems and expanding food access–in this instance, supporting the local food system is actually the force that increases food access.

One interesting wedge that comes to mind in the context of Louisville is Heine Brothers’ Coffee, a local coffee “chain” that brews 100 per cent fair trade coffee. Beyond its use of fair trade coffee, Heine Brothers’ has also engaged in advocacy efforts that promote composting and local farming in addition to helping found Cooperative Coffees, a fair-trade coffee buying cooperative. Though I would say Heine Brothers’ mission primarily focuses upon assisting coffee farmers living abroad, their work with Breaking New Grounds and 15Thousand Farmers, both domestic organizations furthering causes in Louisville, proves that they have found ways to positively affect the local economy as well.

From the time I have spent in Louisville I would say that Heine Brothers’ is both a largely successful business and a largely successful wedge in the system. Heine Brothers’ boasts 14 locations across the city and it seems that most Louisvillians love their coffee. Heine Brothers’ is a household name. Obviously Heine Brothers’ caters to a certain type of co-producer (I do not believe they have a location in West Louisville), but at the same time I think their active promotion of certain causes sets them apart from Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts. I have often wondered how Heine Brothers’ became so successful when pitted against these two well-established giants. In being a successful wedge, Heine Brothers’ capitalized upon Louisvillians desire for great coffee and simultaneously managed to champion some good causes.

Beyond buying Heine Brothers’ coffee, I think Louisvillians can act as co-producers by increasing awareness of the social issues the business is trying to tackle. If community members that love Heine Brothers’ know that the business supports 15Thousand Farmers, perhaps they will be more inclined to take up farming themselves, or at least support farmers’ markets. As co-producers it is our responsibility to get the word out about the positive work the businesses we support are doing in an effort to encourage other people to begin promoting and engaging with these causes as well. I think being a co-producer also entails being a co-promoter.

On our fifth day last week we had a lengthy discussion about Ackerman-Leist’s suggestion to promote the return of biosolids back into the food system, focusing in particular upon how realistic this proposal was. If biosolids are to be re-used, I believe the initial change has to come through top-down, legislative action. Our “grossed out” attitude toward human waste is so fixed that I think the only way for biosolids to become part of our food system would be through laws that essentially forced people, perhaps through fines, to accept and adopt this change.

One similar example that comes to mind is Mayor Bloomberg’s recent proposal to make food composting mandatory in New York City. Though the residential composting program will be voluntary at first, predictions have been made that in three to five years composting will be required for all city residents. Residents’ initial reactions to this proposition have been mixed–while some are largely supportive others have declared that they will only begin to compost when it is officially required by city law, citing the smell and inconvenience as reasons they do not want to compost (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/nyregion/bloombergs-final-recycling-frontier-food-waste.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

In the case of biosolid re-use, I would predict a similar, albeit more dramatic, reaction: refusal to comply until mandated by law. Of course legislation is never 100 per cent effective, yet it seems to me that law has the capacity to shift faster than cultural attitudes, especially those related to human waste. As a (quasi) Anthropology major, I would argue that cultural attitudes are even more resistant to change than law.

In our group discussion we also considered the possibility of locating the re-use system within already established treatment plants, adopting the same “out of sight, out of mind” approach our waste system currently employs. Under this strategy, perhaps biosolid re-use could be incorporated into our food system more rapidly. It is possible that if people cannot see the process, they might be less opposed.

As Justin made clear, engaging in revolutionary sustainable behaviors will rarely be easy, though I think a shift in cultural attitudes fueled by legislative action may have the capacity to make these necessary changes possible in the near future.

In assessing the disparity between local foods producers and consumers, I think it is important to remember that sales support farmers’ livelihoods, and for many of these individuals farming is a business. Yesterday Nicole and I visited the Douglas Loop Farmers’ Market. While there, Stephen Bartlett, of Sustainable Agriculture Louisville (SAL), explained to us that many farmers who previously worked in the Smoketown/Shelby Park Farmers’ Market had moved their operations to Douglas Loop. Shelby Park is located in a low-income area of Louisville, and Bartlett explained that farmers simply were not earning enough revenue to justify holding a market in that location. In this instance demand was not high enough to justify the continued presence of the farmers’ market. In contrast to Shelby Park, Douglas Loop is located in the Highlands, a much more affluent neighborhood. Farmers have unsurprisingly experienced better business since the move.

I am sure many farmers selling local foods are strong proponents of food equity, but at the same time they must remain realistic about the economic viability of their operations. Though I tend to shy away from pure economics as an answer or justification, I do not think anyone would contest the fact that markets in low-income neighborhoods will not perform as well as markets in more prosperous areas. This trend has obvious implications for the availability of local foods and the reality of the “by whom/for whom” distinction noted by Ackerman-Leist. In fact, the distribution of farmers’ markets throughout Louisville confirms this pattern–the West End, another low-income area, has two markets, while the Highlands has four.

One initiative in Louisville I am particularly interested in is the use of the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system in farmers’ markets. I believe that allowing welfare benefits to be used at farmers’ markets has the potential to partially reconcile Ackerman-Leist’s “by whom/for whom” division. Some markets in Louisville accept state benefits, such as those provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as payment, which could increase low-income families’ access to local foods sold at farmers’ markets. I am looking forward to exploring whether or not the use of the EBT system at markets has actually increased access among low-income demographics in Louisville.