What Can You Do About It?

Respond to an article or write about a new topic

incitemagazine Web

Food Policy Councils in America: Expanding Possibilities for the Food System

In a perfectly functioning free-market system, consumers make choices about what to buy based on their own rational self-interest and through the mechanism Adam Smith termed “the invisible hand.”  These choices guide what is produced, resulting in the most efficiently structured economic system possible.  However, in many instances an incomplete or incorrect set of information presented to consumers prevents the free-market from functioning correctly.  Some examples of incorrect information are prices that do not accurately reflect the cost of production, negative externalities such as pollution that are not reflected under a price system, or skewed presentations of price and value due to sophisticated marketing techniques.  In these cases, it is considered the job of the government to intervene and help the market function more correctly.

Aramark, Wesleyan’s food service provider, demonstrates its support for local food systems with this display in the McConaughy dining hall

From a distance, the system of production, processing, distribution, and retailing of food in the United States seems to be a well-functioning example of a free market.  Yet, with a closer examination, the opposite becomes true.  Large commodity crops are heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, food companies are spending $17 billion to $23.8 billion a year¹ using sophisticated advertising techniques to try to convince Americans to buy more food, and long-term environmental damage is creating costs that are not reflected in the price of food.  In this imperfect market system, it has become very difficult to provide consumers with adequate information so they can make rational choices about purchasing food.

However, a renewed presence of a completely different but parallel vertical food system –consisting of more local production, processing, distribution, and retailing –is being rebuilt in communities across America.  This local system presents consumers with food alternatives while providing them with more complete information about their choices.  Individuals in these communities benefit from a type of consumer education that employs vastly different tools than the billion dollar advertising industry.  Rather than playing on weaknesses in order to encourage irrational choices, local networks work to encourage individuals to learn about choices and judge for themselves what is rational.  The common result is that people purchase food that is healthier for their bodies and more beneficial to the local economy.

A large body of literature spanning disciplines from economics to public health and nutrition defines an ideal food system as one where all residents achieve the highest possible level of food security and all sectors of the food system –producing, processing, distributing, and consuming –contribute as much as possible to the economic health of the community. This literature explores the possibility that a partial conversion to alternative local food systems is better for the economic and physical health of communities.²  For this reason, affluent communities across America have partially replaced the mainstream industrial food system with local food systems.  This presents opportunities for examining how individuals learn to make choices to support a more rational system.³

The growth of local food networks in more affluent areas has been seen as a triumph of social, economic, and environmental movements.⁴  It appears that the success of individuals and businesses, who are ideologically aligned with these movements, can be attributed to their ability to create local food networks, while simultaneously educating consumers on how they will contribute to creating a more ideal food system by buying locally.  Yet, the individuals in America that are suffering the most from irrational food choices do not have access to local food networks.

Low income communities suffer directly by watching their food dollars exit the community as they are spent on a limited selection of cheap, nutrition-less, imported food; they suffer indirectly due to the rising levels of obesity and diabetes caused by the consumption of this food.  The initial, large overhead cost of rebuilding local food networks prevents lower income communities from access to a system that could in the long run save them large amounts of money by increasing the dollars spent within the community and decreasing healthcare costs.  Moreover, because affluent consumers can pay more money for food, and perhaps are even more likely to purchase food if it costs more, the overhead costs of developing local networks do not hinder the growth of local businesses in affluent communities.

Cities across America with burdensome healthcare costs due to growing obesity in lower income communities are beginning to pay attention to the structure of the food system in those areas.  Groups such as the Community Food Security Coalition,⁵ who have long been making the connection between unhealthy communities and irrational food systems, are starting to achieve recognition by city and state governments.  Food Policy Councils (FPCs) have become the standard body created by cities and regional governments to act as the liaison between all stakeholders in creating a more rational food system.

Yet, the role that these FPCs play, and in turn the role of city and regional governments in low-income communities, is largely undefined.  Closely examining FPCs across America and the development of local food networks is essential to understanding how city governments can help lower income communities develop more rational food systems.

In one example, the city of Portland, Oregon established a Food Policy Council as a branch of its Office of Sustainable Development in 2002 with a mission to bring together the diverse array of stakeholders in the food system in order to enhance the environmental, economic, social, and nutritional health of the City of Portland and Multnomah County.  The most effective role of the Council in the City of Portland and neighboring Multnomah County has been to help communities overcome the initial overhead costs of increasing the percent of food that is produced, processed, distributed, or consumed locally in communities where neither single individuals nor single organizations can bear the costs.  Since 2002, the Portland/Multnomah Food Policy Council has conducted numerous studies and initiated partnerships in various communities where conversion to a more local food system is unlikely to happen on its own.

The Food Policy Council focuses on projects that have the potential to both increase food security and local economic well-being.  Dealing with issues encompassing land use, food access, education, and institutional purchasing in low-income areas, the Food Policy Council supports projects that simultaneously change the preferences of low-income consumers and increase their access to local food networks. Once local food networks in these various communities have reached a certain critical mass, the need for support from the Food Policy Council is almost non-existent.  It seems that the Food Policy Council in Portland, OR provides a good model for helping with the development of local food networks in low-income areas around the country to develop a more rational and sustainable food system.