• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The UC Food Systems Campaign at UCLA in support of adopting local, organic and socially responsible food practices is undoubtedly gaining momentum as it nears its halfway mark of 2,500 student signatures, but not without a prevailing concern. The issue at hand for campaign supporters and adversaries alike is that of cost.

While other UC campuses are already underway in the process of “greening” their food practices and have yet to see fee increases for meal-plan holders, UCLA may not be as fortunate. The reality of our urban setting and the price-slanting on organic produce cannot be ignored.

Yet the industrial food system’s detrimental impact on the environment, the economy and human health should be our primary concern. Furthermore, such ramifications should spark the realization that the long-term gains will surely outweigh the short-term costs.

The UC Food Systems Campaign favors sustainability, which means that what we consume may be reintegrated into the environment and restored for future generations. Industrial food-system models are vulnerable to natural disasters, yet also contribute to them. In the wake of this summer’s hurricanes, the U.S. witnessed a reduction in the supply of goods originating from its southeastern region.

While some consumers shifted their dependency elsewhere, the decreased production of certain goods was cause for increased prices.

The system on which we so heavily depend hinges on the timely transportation of goods across large distances; it requires the use of non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels, which are becoming increasingly expensive. The emission of these substances into the atmosphere is believed to contribute to global warming and many weather-related natural disasters.

The devastation caused by events such as Hurricane Katrina imposes significant costs on society, yet some of these are preventable. No aspect of daily life should be overlooked, including our food practices. By resorting to more sustainable food practices, we would be able to eliminate transportation costs and ensure a continuous supply of goods.

As California residents, we have one of the world’s most fertile landscapes in our own backyard – yet most food travels 1,500 miles to get to us. Non-local food resources should not be entrusted with the role of primary supplier, but rather that of a last resort.

Investing in our local food economy not only allows us to monitor our impact on the environment, but also supports the people who work over one-third of California’s acreage. While we may perceive reducing our food costs as fair and just for consumers, there may not be justice for those at the other end of the spectrum known as production.

We must be responsible consumers by ensuring a living wage for farm workers. By purchasing organic produce we are supporting farmers who don’t use pesticides and other chemical treatments.

If after considering the pricey causes and effects of industrial food practices, students still don’t feel compelled to support sustainable food practices as an alternative, I will leave them with these last few words. UCLA housing fees increase about $400 each academic year, and student-fee increases are even higher.

If the UC system were to procure local and organic food for 50 percent of its supply (at UCLA the procurement is currently at 0 percent), we would see a daily increase of about 50 cents per student. By committing to spending half a dollar more a day, UCLA students could rake in the benefits of ingesting local and organic food and actually make a tangible difference for the good of the planet.

Carney is the director of the UCLA chapter of the UC Food Systems Campaign and a fourth-year anthropology student.