Sanet Post, Jeff Gold
Re: Irradiation/Changing Habits
January 23, 1997

Steve Hall wrote:

>How does irradiation then differ from freezing (frozen orange juice which
>becomes a "commodity"), canning (similar argument) or other preservation
>techniques? At least at one level, they all allow a product to be stored
>for longer (extend storage life), which has good (you can have a wider
>variety of food in the winter, for example), as well as not so good {the
>above arguments about distance between source and consumer suggest
>difficulties with various justice issues (being unaware, one can hardly
>influence social justice), movement of nutrients (from land to the sewer,
>which may eutrophy lakes, for example), toxics (organic pesticides), plus
>the excess cost required for transport...} results.
> It seems we should be asking questions not just about new
>technologies, but about existing ones as well. It appears that it is
>possible to prevent new technologies or at least hold them at bay for a bit.
>What about moving toward more sustainable use of the ones we have? Any
>suggestions?

1. The existing global food production, processing and distribution network has come into existence over hundreds, maybe even thousands of centuries to form a complex ecosystem with billions of interdependent parts. Analyzing the relationships between the various components and subsystems of this planetary process has and will continue to occupy the attention of countless academics, researchers, farmers, economists, weatherpeople and commodity traders. I do not presume to be able to predict the consequences of changing any or several inputs into this immensely complicated global system. However.........

2. One common denominator, or choke point, in the whole system is the act of choosing what our next meal will consist of. At some point we all must decide what to eat and what to shun. Our cultural biases and individual values will then prevail. I believe that is where lasting change will occur, through the accumulating results of billions and trillions of individual decisions made by food consumers. Changing national dietary preferences and habits is a very slow process and requires a long-term committment, which is after all, one of the basic tenets of sustainability: taking the long view.

3. Given enough good data, lots of time and the right software, it should be possible to establish an ecological cost for any food item available at the retail level. This worthy endeavor would then give the individual food consumer some of the information needed to make an informed decision. This information would still not overcome cultural and historical buying habits, but could over time influence people to purchase the ecologically positive (i.e. cheaper) alternative. This type of data could also be used to persuade legislatures to include the environmental costs of food production, processing and distribution in the cost of food, using tax incentives, penalties, grants or other means. Given the increasing globalization of agribusiness on the planet, this lobbying effort would also have to include GATT, NAFTA and other such international arrangements.

4. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, working to educate farmers, agricultural agencies and institutions about the benefits and necessity for sustainable practices has to continue, perhaps with evangelical fervor, in order to break through the complacency and habitual thinking of the established order. And we can all still vote for sustainabilty when it comes time to make a purchase, any purchase.

---