As a student in the Intercultural Youth Development Program, I spent two years researching, discussing, and trying ways to help young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed. It was not difficult to come to the conclusion that helping underprivileged students succeed in school will translate to advancement in the socio-economic system. What I question is whether or not this is an appropriate measure of success. Success in school does not necessarily result in an education. Success in school is achieved primarily through obedience to authority, clever test-taking strategies, and surrender of personal interests in favor of the narrow state-mandated curriculum.
This is coming from someone who by all measures was very successful at school. When people mistakenly assume I am exceptionally intelligent I quickly inform them that being good at school is different than natural raw intelligence. I know dozens of people who are truly exceptionally intelligent, and more often than not they do not thrive in school because they find the subjugation of their natural curiosity unbearable and are constantly questioning authority. I am lucky in that I was taught early to be deferential to authority, but also to remain skeptical of its true intentions. So here I am, with nearly perfect transcripts from two universities - an abundance of schooling - but almost no education.
Working at a large public school in the suburbs has been a perfect opportunity to observe how schooling and education are two fundamentally different concepts. Schooling is centered on behavior management: following an arbitrary schedule of bells to the second, total deference to all authority figures, allegiance to school before family, completing pointless tasks in the quest for more grade points, stifling of individual expression in order to be perceived as a "good student". I observe all of this every day. Few, if any, students receive a true education, at best they receive practical and technical job training so they may immediately enter the workforce in agriculture, computer programming, or nursing. This gets at the real goal of schooling - to create homogenized, predictable, and submissive employees for the socio-economic system. A real education cultivates individuality, arouses natural curiosity, develops critical thinking skills, involves young people in the community, and encourages young people to follow their passion regardless of practicality.
If I am starting to sound overly idealistic, paranoid, or unrealistic, then please watch the video below of an interview with John Taylor Gatto (thanks for the link Nancy). Gatto was named the New York State Teacher of the Year several years ago, despite his absolute disdain for the mainstream model of schooling. His book, "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling" is excellent. Gatto convincingly tracks the development of public schools, explains their currently failing state, and has suggestions about what must be done. Anyone interested in education, it the broadest sense of the term, should read this book.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Super Wal-Mart or Farmers' Market? Part III
This is the final part of my rant on how the industrial food chain can and should be reformed with a new business model that connects consumers with local food producers. People are finally recognizing that food is not just another commodity to be bought and sold soley based on price; food is too intimately related to our culture, the environment, and our health to be controlled by big business.
An Overview of the Business Model
This new retailer must fit into the mainstream market-driven capitalist economy in order to be viable and successful. This means that it should be privately owned and that it should operate based on the profit motive. Cooperatives and non-profits are seldom effective at entering mainstream retail markets because they lack consistent and committed leadership and are naturally averse to risk. Although the retail outlet is privately owned and strives to make a profit, it should operate significantly different than modern grocery retailers. It is essential that the outlet is independently owned by a member of the local community and reinvest in the community in a meaningful and progressive way.
There are two possible business models for this kind of retailer. The conventional model is to contract the purchase of products from farmers at a pre-negotiated price. This would give the retailer more control over price and product selection, but would involve risk if inventory failed to sell. A less conventional approach, which is more in-line with the overall nature of the business, is to let the producers set their own price. In this model the retailer is only facilitating the sale between producer and consumer, like a permanent farmers’ market, but more convenient for consumers and efficient for producers. The retailer would take a percentage from each sale and the unsold product would be returned to the producer. This model would shift more risk to the producer, which increases the incentive to produce an appealing and relevant product. The ability to control the retail price would result in a more efficient use of producers’ time and resources because they could shift production based on the forces of supply and demand. This model gives the individual producer autonomy, control, and a direct connection to the consumer – all of which are far too rare in the modern economy.
Limitations
Seasonality
A grocery store which focuses on local produce will have a limited selection of products due to the local growing season. In some northern locations, there is only a small window for local produce, but some items, such as dairy, meat, honey, jams, etc. can be available year round. The cyclical nature of the product will make it difficult to remain in operation all year and therefore to maintain customer loyalty. Maintaining overhead expenses, such as an expensive lease on a highly visible retail space, will also be difficult if sales are limited for a portion of the year.
Market Size
In order for a business of this nature to be profitable, it must experience relatively high sales volume. Assuming that the market for local food will always be a limited percentage of total food sales, only large markets can support such a retailer. In rural and semi-rural areas, the presence of family gardens, small farms, and farmers' markets meet most of the demand for local food products. Urban and suburban areas are the most likely target for this type of business model.
Possibilities for Expansion and Growth
An additional component of the business could involve a delivery service of perishable goods. Consumers could order products such as milk, bread, produce, and meat via telephone or the internet and have them delivered to their home or place of business for a fee. Discounts for group deliveries at workplaces and for recurring weekly deliveries could add another dimension of convenience. Suppling restaurants is another possibility since acquiring local products from individual producers is cumbersome for all involved parties.
The retail space should be comfortable for people of all political convictions if it is to capture a large market-share, but it could act as a focal point for the local food movement through educating consumers about industrial food production. A community information bulletin, meet the farmer events, books/magazines about alternative food production, and cooking classes are just some ideas that could educate consumers and build customer loyalty.
An eventual offshoot of the retail space could be a restaurant, deli, or catering service that exclusively uses local, sustainable, organic food. This may prove difficult in most locations, but a limited rotating menu could be possible.
An Overview of the Business Model
This new retailer must fit into the mainstream market-driven capitalist economy in order to be viable and successful. This means that it should be privately owned and that it should operate based on the profit motive. Cooperatives and non-profits are seldom effective at entering mainstream retail markets because they lack consistent and committed leadership and are naturally averse to risk. Although the retail outlet is privately owned and strives to make a profit, it should operate significantly different than modern grocery retailers. It is essential that the outlet is independently owned by a member of the local community and reinvest in the community in a meaningful and progressive way.
There are two possible business models for this kind of retailer. The conventional model is to contract the purchase of products from farmers at a pre-negotiated price. This would give the retailer more control over price and product selection, but would involve risk if inventory failed to sell. A less conventional approach, which is more in-line with the overall nature of the business, is to let the producers set their own price. In this model the retailer is only facilitating the sale between producer and consumer, like a permanent farmers’ market, but more convenient for consumers and efficient for producers. The retailer would take a percentage from each sale and the unsold product would be returned to the producer. This model would shift more risk to the producer, which increases the incentive to produce an appealing and relevant product. The ability to control the retail price would result in a more efficient use of producers’ time and resources because they could shift production based on the forces of supply and demand. This model gives the individual producer autonomy, control, and a direct connection to the consumer – all of which are far too rare in the modern economy.
Limitations
Seasonality
A grocery store which focuses on local produce will have a limited selection of products due to the local growing season. In some northern locations, there is only a small window for local produce, but some items, such as dairy, meat, honey, jams, etc. can be available year round. The cyclical nature of the product will make it difficult to remain in operation all year and therefore to maintain customer loyalty. Maintaining overhead expenses, such as an expensive lease on a highly visible retail space, will also be difficult if sales are limited for a portion of the year.
Market Size
In order for a business of this nature to be profitable, it must experience relatively high sales volume. Assuming that the market for local food will always be a limited percentage of total food sales, only large markets can support such a retailer. In rural and semi-rural areas, the presence of family gardens, small farms, and farmers' markets meet most of the demand for local food products. Urban and suburban areas are the most likely target for this type of business model.
Possibilities for Expansion and Growth
An additional component of the business could involve a delivery service of perishable goods. Consumers could order products such as milk, bread, produce, and meat via telephone or the internet and have them delivered to their home or place of business for a fee. Discounts for group deliveries at workplaces and for recurring weekly deliveries could add another dimension of convenience. Suppling restaurants is another possibility since acquiring local products from individual producers is cumbersome for all involved parties.
The retail space should be comfortable for people of all political convictions if it is to capture a large market-share, but it could act as a focal point for the local food movement through educating consumers about industrial food production. A community information bulletin, meet the farmer events, books/magazines about alternative food production, and cooking classes are just some ideas that could educate consumers and build customer loyalty.
An eventual offshoot of the retail space could be a restaurant, deli, or catering service that exclusively uses local, sustainable, organic food. This may prove difficult in most locations, but a limited rotating menu could be possible.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Cuba's Organic Revolution
Synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are used and abused all over the world to increase yields of grains, fruits, and vegetables. Using these new chemicals to produce massive amounts of cheap food has become the norm, so much so that this method is labeled conventional agriculture to distinguish it from the “newer” organic agriculture method of food production. Conventional? Only fifty years ago many of these synthetic compounds had yet to be invented. Organic agriculture is not new, it has been the conventional, and only, method of food production for thousands of years. The use of chemical compounds to raise yields is not conventional, it is experimental and after a fifty year trial the dangerous experiment must be stopped. Our water is poisoned, plant and animal life is suffering, and the long-term effects on our bodies are only beginning to be uncovered.
The argument that is most commonly used in support of chemical-based agriculture is that it is necessary to feed a growing global population. True, but did the growth of chemical intensive agriculture come in response to the growing world population, or is it fueling the world population boom? I think both are true to a certain extent. Agricultural scientists developed methods of increasing crop yields with the motivation of feeding hungry people, but now that these methods are widespread, the population has increased accordingly and there are still hungry people in many parts of the world.
There is another flaw in this argument; it assumes that increasing yields is only possible through the use of synthetic chemicals. Thanks to my friend Jairo, I just read an article that refutes this assumption.
Cuba became involved with chemical agriculture along with the rest of the world in the 1950’s and 1960’s. After the Cuban Revolution the United States imposed a strict embargo in an attempt to overthrow Castro’s government. Of course, this failed, and the Cuban government received generous support from the Soviet bloc in the form of oil, food, and agricultural subsidies. Everything changed in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Cuba’s supply of chemicals was cut almost overnight; no more cheap oil and fertilizer. Instead of revolting against its government, the people of Cuba reinvented their agricultural methods. Virtually all Cuba’s food is now produced through intensive organic methods, with particular focus on urban agriculture, which reduces food transport costs. Cuba is now able to meet all of its food needs through organic agriculture - a feat that most people thought was impossible.
Anyone interested in fundamentally changing the food system in this country and others should read this article – Cuba’s Organic Revolution. More proof that we can do better, we just need the right motivation.
The argument that is most commonly used in support of chemical-based agriculture is that it is necessary to feed a growing global population. True, but did the growth of chemical intensive agriculture come in response to the growing world population, or is it fueling the world population boom? I think both are true to a certain extent. Agricultural scientists developed methods of increasing crop yields with the motivation of feeding hungry people, but now that these methods are widespread, the population has increased accordingly and there are still hungry people in many parts of the world.
There is another flaw in this argument; it assumes that increasing yields is only possible through the use of synthetic chemicals. Thanks to my friend Jairo, I just read an article that refutes this assumption.
Cuba became involved with chemical agriculture along with the rest of the world in the 1950’s and 1960’s. After the Cuban Revolution the United States imposed a strict embargo in an attempt to overthrow Castro’s government. Of course, this failed, and the Cuban government received generous support from the Soviet bloc in the form of oil, food, and agricultural subsidies. Everything changed in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Cuba’s supply of chemicals was cut almost overnight; no more cheap oil and fertilizer. Instead of revolting against its government, the people of Cuba reinvented their agricultural methods. Virtually all Cuba’s food is now produced through intensive organic methods, with particular focus on urban agriculture, which reduces food transport costs. Cuba is now able to meet all of its food needs through organic agriculture - a feat that most people thought was impossible.
Anyone interested in fundamentally changing the food system in this country and others should read this article – Cuba’s Organic Revolution. More proof that we can do better, we just need the right motivation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
