Health and Sustainability of Food Systems in Toronto City - Essay Example

Health and Sustainability of Food Systems in Toronto City Question 1: How Activists can exploit Vulnerabilities in Farm Inputs i. Toronto Food Systems Activists in Toronto can exploit the vulnerabilities in the farm inputs sector of food systems by engaging in these three succinct strategies: advocate for support of organic inputs producers, increase advocacy for use of GMOs, and push for restructuring of agricultural land ownership in Toronto. Using these strategies will help address the sustainability and health aspects of food systems in Toronto. In the 1950s, Toronto City had a population of approximately 951,000 residents. By the 1980s, the city’s population had grown twice fold to approximately 1.8 million residents. Based on recent statistics, Toronto has a population of approximately 2.6 million people in 2011, and the city’s population is projected to reach over 5.5 million people by the year 2030 (Palmer, 2012). Observably, the city’s population is expanding, and there is a profound need for a corresponding increase in food production. In future, Toronto will be able to meet its food requirements in two ways: increase local production, or increase food imports from foreign producers. Either way, the increased food requirements should serve the purposes of not only improving the health of food systems, but also of fostering the element of sustainability in food production (Palmer, 2012). Health and sustainability can be implemented at different stages of Toronto food systems; stages like retail, manufacturing/processing, and farm production among others. This section examines the manner in which health and sustainability of food systems in the city can be improved at the food production stage; particularly with respect to the sub stage of farm inputs. ii. Health and Sustainability of Farm Inputs According to the World Commission on Environment and Development, healthy food systems should offer food products with minute or no potentially harmful contents like carcinogenic preservatives, pesticide residues, saturated fats and sugars. Farm inputs used in food production should not contaminate food products with such potentially harmful contents (Woodward & Fernandez, 2009). In this regard, the World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable food production processes as those that meet the present consumers’ needs without compromising the ability to meet the nutritional needs of future generations. In this context, food production processes that use harmful pesticides and fertilizers to alter the soil’s natural composition are neither sustainable nor healthy for food systems. However, production processes that utilize environmentally friendly farm inputs not only foster environmental protection but also improve the nutritional soundness of food products in the market. As identified in class, common vulnerabilities in farm inputs sector include but not limited to: use of chemicals, high energy costs and swift evolution of farm machinery. iii. Overview of Vulnerabilities in Farm Inputs Food production is a business, and farmers expect to earn profits from their farm produces. In food production, profit margins are determined by three distinct factors: cost of production, amount of yield, and market prices of harvested produces. Occasionally, amount of farm yields increase with increased use of inputs like pesticides, while heavy use of pesticides translates to increased cost of production. In food production, cost of chemicals like pesticides is of a particular concern to farmers. Farm chemicals are expensive; it requires approximately $50-100 million to develop a new inorganic pesticide (Boer, 2008). Farm chemicals that are considered organic and environmentally friendly are even more expensive when compared to inorganic chemicals. With increased advocacy for use of organic farm inputs, the exorbitant cost of agrochemicals feature as a key vulnerability to farm inputs (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1996). Fuel prices also increase the energy costs of food production. Massive food production is a highly mechanized venture which requires hundreds or even thousands of liters of gasoline and diesel fuels. Recently, pressure has been mounting on farmers to use green fuels like ethanol and bio-oil in fueling farm machinery; hence farmers are vulnerable to the increasing cost of energy inputs (Stock & Campbell, 2013). Finally, fast evolving technology in farm machinery renders most farm machines obsolete within a short period after purchase, thus farmers must frequently update their machinery inventories in order to enhance the sustainability of their food production techniques. iv. Three Strategies for Capitalizing on the Vulnerabilities a) Restructuring of Agricultural Economies Fortunately, activists can use the identified vulnerabilities of farm inputs in fostering health and sustainability of food systems in the city of Toronto. First, local environmentalists should advocate for the urgent restructuring of agricultural economies in Ontario, particularly the reversal of agricultural lands from private ownership to community-based ownership. Sustainable and health food systems should promote values like ecological preservation and restoration, economic justice, and energy saving (Stock & Campbell, 2013). Presently, Toronto’s agricultural sector is largely privatized. Private organizations and individual farmers own thousands of hectares of agriculturally productive lands, and utilize the lands according to their personalized food production techniques. Private producers are usually concerned with huge profit margins than they are concerned with sustainability aspects like ecological restoration and energy saving techniques (Koc, Sumner & Winson, 2012). In this regard, private producers are more likely to prioritize their profit maximization objectives at the expense of environmental protection and health benefits of food products to consumers. In an effort to maximize their profit margins, private producers will utilize economical farm inputs as opposed to ecologically friendly inputs. For example, energy inputs like fossil fuels are cost effective when used as fuel for farm machinery. However, fossil fuels contribute to global warming, thus compromising on the future sustainability of food production (Hobbs, 2014). However, community-based production systems are more likely to prioritize long-term benefits of environmentally friendly and healthy food production methods at the expense of short-term profit gains. Through local legislative mechanisms, environmental activists in Toronto should either push for strict supervision of private food production or for public ownership of food production systems. Through strict supervision and control of private farms, energy saving mechanization and use of organic farm inputs can be improved (Koc, Sumner & Winson, 2012). On the other hand, public ownership of farmlands will ensure that the beauty of sustainable food production systems are optimized through community-based environmentalism and fair trade practices. b) Support Organic Inputs Activists can also advocate for support of local producers of organic farm inputs. Presently, nitrogen-based fertilizers feature as the most costly farm input in Canada. Commercial fertilizers are derived from inorganic sources and despite improving crop yields, present challenges in terms of soil health. Nitrogen-based fertilizers like urea render the soil acidic after prolonged use, thus compromising on the future fertility of agricultural lands (Koc, Sumner & Winson, 2012). On the other hand, organic fertilizers like green manure, seaweed extracts and compost residue are not only friendly to soil composition but are also derived from naturally occurring sources in an ecologically sustainable manner. Support for local producers of organic farm inputs can be realized through financial incentives of green inputs producers, specifically the tax exemption on organic fertilizers. Through financial incentives, production of organic farm chemicals will be more attractive compared to development of inorganic farm chemicals, thus increasing the supply of cheap organic inputs meant for protection and restoration of ecological systems. c) Use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Finally, activists should advocate for increased use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food systems. Genetically modified crops have better nutrition, require less use of farm chemicals, require less farmland and necessitate less use of farm machinery compared to regular crops. Genetically modified crops are mostly resistant to pest attack and interruptions from herbicides, thus GMOs require limited use of harmful agrochemicals and fossil fuels for farm machinery (Woodward & Fernandez, 2009). Particularly, farmers will not be forced to frequently and expensively update their farm machinery in order to improve farm yields. Rather, GMOs are fine-tuned to yield up to 3 times better results than conventional crops (Palmer, 2012). Widespread use of GMOs will require support initiatives like advocacy trainings and financial incentives. For example, community-based producers of food should be sensitized and trained about the use of GMOs in improving their returns from farming endeavors. Also, financial incentives could be channeled through subsidized GMO products and services in Toronto city and the vast Ontario region. Question 2: Imported Organic vs. Local Conventional Beef i. Overview of Toronto Beef Market In Canada, consumers are more concerned about food safety and nutrition values than with the attributes of prices and taste. Primarily, approximately 40% of Canadian consumers are more interested with the safety and nutritional value of products like fruits, meat and vegetables. Safe food not only presents little effects to the consumers’ health but also foster environmental protection through ecologically friendly food production methods. On the other hand, nutritional value entails the nutrient content of food materials; the protein and minerals content of meat products like beef (Johns, 2004). The production, handling and preparation of food products affect nutritional value, thus consumers are always on the lookout about the nutritional effects of food production systems. With respect to safety and nutritional value, consumers are usually split between organic foods and conventional foods. For example, beef consumers are usually in a dilemma as to whether they should purchase organically produced beef or traditionally/conventionally produced beef. From a personal perspective, I would advise Canadian consumers in Toronto and other cities to select organic beef, either fresh or processed, at the expense of conventionally produced beef. Furthermore, Toronto beef consumers would rather choose imported organic beef instead of local conventional beef. Between 1990 and 2013, a Canadian adult consumed an average of 30 kilograms of beef each year. In the early 1990s, approximately 65% of Canadian beef consumers paid significant attention to the attributes of: physical access to beef retail outlets, taste of beef products, and comfort of beef-serving places. Canadian consumers paid little attention to elements of food production practices, especially the aspects of nutrient retention practices and agrichemical use in the rearing of beef cattle (Lindsey & Watts, 2007). Towards the late 1990s and onto the early 2000s, Canadian consumers have become more cognizant of the environmental and health aspects of food production. Presently, beef consumers in Canadian cities like Toronto are concerned about the beef production methods. With widespread knowledge and education on sustainable food production methods, beef consumers today would prefer organic food products to conventional food products (Turner, 2013). Knowledge of food production systems coupled with the consumers’ attitudes towards ecological sustainability have increased the popularity of organically produced food, regardless of whether the organically produced foods came from local or international markets. ii. Popularity of Organic Beef in Toronto Preference of organically produced foods to conventional ones among Canadian consumers is justifiable. Prior to delving deep into the justifiable nature of organic beef, it is worth appraising the common dilemmas and challenges faced by Canadian farmers in selecting between imported organic beef versus local traditionally produced beef (Ingram, Boer & Smith, 2015). First, Ontario consumers are bent towards self-reliance in terms of the socio-economic aspects of food systems. Ontario consumers would rather promote local producers of meat than to purchase imported beef. More often, consumers in Toronto city are willing to pay more for locally grown food products than imported products. Secondly, communities in Ontario and other Canadian cities are concerned about the nutritional effects of prolonged food distribution systems (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1996). Importation of food products entails substantial freezing, preservation and nutrient loss; hence affecting the safety and nutritional benefits of imported foods like beef. Despite being cognizant about the benefits of organic foods, Canadian consumers are often faced with tough choices on whether or not to purchase imported organic beef rather than conventional beef sourced from local producers. iii. Benefits of Organic Beef a) Nutritional Value As advice, the first reason why Ontario consumers should prefer imported organic beef to conventional beef from local producers is the nutritional superiority aspect. Organic beef is sourced from farms and ranches rearing cattle using certified organic programs (Turner, 2013). In the USA and other international markets in Europe, there are national regulation standards guiding the organic farming of organic livestock. Practically, organic livestock farming mandates the feeding of beef cattle with natural grass instead of processed grain products. As a result, imported organic beef have less calorie content compared to traditionally produced foods from local farms. Natural grass feeds lowers the fat content of beef products, thus organically produced beef have up to 20 calories less per ounce of steak compared to beef from grain-fed livestock. Consequently, organic beef minimize the obesity epidemic among consumers. Besides better calorie content, organic beef have more unsaturated fats than conventional beef, specifically linoleic acids and omega-3 fats (Annette, 2012). Medically, unsaturated fats lower the consumers’ chances of developing hypertension and health problems. Therefore, nutritional benefits of imported beef from organic farms are better than the nutritional values of conventional beef from local farms. b) Less Detriments on Environment In addition, consumption of organic beef has less negative environmental impacts than the consumption of conventional beef. First, conventional beef farming entails the extensive use of synthetic pesticides. Pesticides like organophosphates not only impact the environment but also present direct impacts to consumers’ health. Use of synthetic pesticides in livestock farms contaminate water sources, thus harmful chemical compounds in the pesticides find their way into consumers’ diets (Macbeth, 2012). Compounds like organophosphates and sulfur derivatives cause nervous system disorders, cancers and disruptions of body hormonal systems. In this regard, consumption of conventional beef from local farms translates to prolonged exposure to synthetic pesticide residues and more health complications among children and adults in Ontario communities. On the other hand, support of organic farming through consumption of imported organic beef eliminates the negative impacts of pesticides and other agrochemicals in the consumers’ habitants (Macbeth, 2012). Increased purchase of imported organic beef translates to decline in the intensity of conventional beef production in local communities; hence improving consumers’ health levels through reduced magnitude of exposure to pesticide residues from local conventional farms. c) Mitigates Global Warming Finally, consumers should opt for imported organic beef because of the global warming benefits of organic food production. Presently, global warming is of a particular concern to global citizens, especially industrialized economics like Canada. From an international perspective, each nation has been tasked to implement global warming mitigation strategies in any way possible. In this regard, consumption of imported organic foods like beef features as one collective means of reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses from conventional farming methods. First, organic farming methods improves yield by up to 55% compared to conventional farming. In this context, organic livestock farming improves beef production per acreage by up to 55%, thus organic farming reduces land use (Johns, 2004). As a result, reduced acreage translates to minimal use of fossil-fueled farm machinery. One aim of organic food production is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases through effective food production mechanisms, thus reducing acreage will scale down greenhouse gas emission by approximately 50-55%. In solidarity with the international community, Canadian meat consumers would mitigate global warming by purchasing imported organic beef instead of conventional beef produced locally. References Annette, A. (2012). Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems. Montreal: Fern-wood Publishers. Boer, J. (2008). Environmental impact Assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science, 27(3), 59-71. Hobbs, C. (2014). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 38(1), 91-115. Ingram, S., Boer, J & Smith, W. (2015). Implementing social and environmental policies in cities: The case of organic farming in Ontario. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 47(3), 194-207. Johns, T. (2004). Bio-cultural diversity in the sustainability of developing food systems. Ecological Economics Journal, 37(2), 12-19. Koc, M., Sumner, J & Winson, T. (2012). Critical Perspectives in Food Studies. Toronto: OUP Canada. Lindsey, D & Watts, E. (2007). Measuring environmental sustainability in food production systems: A case of Canada. Local Environment Journal, 39(1), 75-102. Macbeth, R. (2012). Health and Sustainability in Canadian Food Systems: Advocacy and Opportunity for Civil Society. New York: UBC Press. Palmer, B. (2012). Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems. Pittsburg: Ashgate Publishing. Stock, P & Campbell, H. (2013). Food Systems Failure: Global Food Crisis and the Future of Agriculture. London: Rutledge. Toronto Food Policy Council. (1996). Food Retail Access and Food Security for Toronto’s Low-income Citizens: Discussion Paper 7. Toronto: Victoria Press. Turner, J. (2013). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change Journal, 18(3), 201-217. Woodward, B & Fernandez, I. (2009). Comparison of conventional and organic beef production systems: Feedlot performance and production costs. Livestock Production Science, 34(2), 124-156. Read More