Today’s consumer decisions are really about the future

Editor:

Although disagreeing with Al Clarke is hardly neighbourly, Viki Reynolds’ letter inspired me to speak (or write) up.

Factory style farming with chemicals is said to have prevented the “limits to growth” scenario predicted decades ago. We are told it is the reason millions, or billions, eat where they would have otherwise starved. Unfortunately, like many practices over those decades, we are learning that the benefits may have been restricted to the current generation and the costs are borne by the next ones. As Viki says, there is now plenty of evidence that the carrying capacity of soils and pollinators subjected to factory farming has been declining dramatically. It has left many farms dependent on chemical admixtures. That really is factory farming.

So there is a need for change, but how? It was a friend who told me the reason to buy a Prius was not to save money. The point of the Prius purchase was to scale up a technology that reduced society’s carbon footprint. The necessary economies of scale and technological improvement were driven by people who could afford to support the transformation away from fossil fuels. If nobody bought a hybrid until the technology became economically competitive, it never would.

I felt organic produce was the same. Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to afford to drive change would buy organics at the early stages. As the volumes grew and the farmers gained experience, the costs dropped. (The real game changer on that front arrived when Walmart became the largest purchaser/seller of organic produce.) History says this process leads to innovation that makes healthy practices more affordable for all.

So buying decisions today are really about deciding we want to regenerate a sustainable food paradigm for future generations, not just for our personal wellbeing today.

Peter Halsall,

Creemore.