30
September

Don’t Fear The Compost: A Zero Waste Implementation Story

This article is cross-posted on Triple Pundit.

Zero waste is a movement that aims to minimize the material that goes into landfills by recycling or composting most items. It is the next generation of traditional recycling and a sustainability initiative, which I recently implemented as my company’s Green Committee chair. After months of planning, it was very exciting to launch the program in late spring. Now that we have the summer behind us, I am taking the time to reflect on lessons learned and following up on my promise to share how our zero waste project has been running.

The program was rolled out in the corporate headquarters of an international software company and is the first zero waste implementation to be put in place within a large office building in our state.  The transition to a zero waste system in an office building, specifically collecting compost, involves a significant cultural change on behalf of the employees and management. We knew our leadership team was on board when after being pitched the idea last fall, our CEO asked, “Why would we not launch a program like this?” With his endorsement in our hands, the Green Committee began turning our focus to our 200 colleagues.

Six months before we began seriously entertaining the idea of a full-scale zero waste initiative, we had used our Green Leaves educational program to provide employees with information about home composting. We placed paper leaves throughout the office that read, “Reduce trash, save money on garbage and lawn bags, and create great soil by composting organic scraps. For more info go to: www.HowToCompost.org“. Over the weeks that followed, Green Committee members made it a point to discuss the many virtues of composting with anyone who asked us a question, commented on the green leaf, or just happened to be standing next to us in the kitchen. Some people said they remembered their grandparents composting on the family farm fifty years ago and were surprised that the practice is becoming popular once again. Several people expressed concern over the odor and were very surprised when a few Green Committee members began keeping small compost bins at their desks to collect fruit and vegetables waste from themselves and their neighbors to bring home with them at the end of each day. We soon realized that compost can be a touchy subject and would most likely be our biggest challenge moving our zero waste plans forward.

After priming the pump with our suggestion that employees consider composting at home, during the annual Kick Off Meeting in February, I announced to the entire company that a zero waste initiative would be implemented in 2011. I officially unveiled the program several months later at our spring quarterly meeting by defining zero waste and explaining we had contracted a local company that was, at the time, providing zero waste hauling to over thirty area restaurants. I had one of the two customized zero waste stations we had purchased for each kitchen in our office with me in the meeting and used it to help me education people on the types of items that should be placed into each bin. Finally, I our displayed the names of all Green Committee members and asked employees to seek these people out with their questions and comments about the program.

The most complicated part of our implementation is the variety of bins we provide employees. Traditional zero waste programs include three options: Recycling, Compost, and Landfill. We chose to include two additional collections in our zero waste station, Cans and Bottles, and Mixed Paper, because during the past three years, these items have been taken away for free by local companies. The cans and bottles are collected by a local charity that turns them in to collect the deposit and all of our paper is collected by a business that has been recycling scrap metal and mixed paper in our region for twenty years. The Green Committee began working with him four years ago when our company moved offices and encouraged employees to recycle the paper they were getting rid of before the move. The free price tag comes with a request that we sort the paper ourselves so we have set up bins throughout the office to capture the paper in four groups: white copy paper, chipboard, cardboard, and all other paper (colored, glossy, etc.)

Not only would our new zero waste hauler, Eco-Movement, charge us for removing paper, cans, and bottles from our building, we would be asking employees to change a collection system that has worked well for years. By continuing the current process and adding composting to the mix, we chose to partner with three local organizations instead of one, save money, and make the transition to zero waste easier for the employees.

Almost immediately after launching the program, we began making adjustments. Prior to zero waste, we had been told by our facilities department they were unable to secure wooden coffee stirrers. Knowing this, we made sure to point out that the plastic coffee stirrers needed to be placed into the landfill bin. After one week the Green Committee received so many requests for wooden coffee stirrers from employees , including the Vice President of Human Resources, who were concerned about the impact adding plastic coffee stirrers to the landfill has on the environment that we went back to our facilities manager and asked him to widen his search for wooden coffee stirrers. After another week, we had completely discontinued using plastic coffee stirrers are now purchasing wooden coffee stirrers which can be composted.

The lessons I have learned from developing and launching this zero waste program revolve around ease of use and listening to employees. Making the program easy and optional allowed employees to begin fully utilizing the system soon after it was launched and harnessed the power of peer pressure rather than the mandate of the Green Committee to persuade the folks who were reticent of participating to give it a try. Stressing our hope for feedback and then acting on the information we received was key. If you are about to launch a zero waste program, I suggest gathering all changes and clarifications during the first two weeks of the initiative and then communicating them all at once though a zero waste update email. Finally, sending out a survey after the program has been running for several months is an important way to see to what degree employees have internalized the idea of zero waste. We plan to poll our colleagues soon and I will be back to let you know what we learn.

No comments yet

30
March

Recycling Providers: Local Startup vs. National Goliath

This article is cross-posted on Triple Pundit.

The Green Committee, which I founded and lead at my company, has been developing an initiative for Zero Waste. Today I met with our building’s facilities manager to discuss the partnership I have forged with EcoMovement Consulting & Hauling. They are a local company who will soon collect our recyclables and compost – a move that excites me to no end – making our company’s facility the first large office building in coastal NH to pursue Zero Waste by “reducing and reusing, then composting and recycling what’s left.”

Our facilities manager told me that she just launched a single stream program with Waste Management at one of the other buildings her company manages. She said if all goes well, in a few months Waste Management will be contracted to pick up my company’s recycling as well. She was happy to tell me that EcoMovement could still collect our compost and went on to explain that for her it would be much easier to have one vendor provide hauling services to the several dozen properties she oversees.

I suddenly saw the position she was in and wondered what I would do. I had specifically sought alternatives to Waste Management when creating our Zero Waste program. If I was managing multiple locations, would I continue to follow my strong inclination to support local vendors or would I instead employ the national company that I had been using for years?

The complexity of any project increases when more stakeholders are involved. Finding a vendor that provides enterprise-wide service reduces logistics, contracts, and cost. But with size comes limitations and, sometimes, with experience comes lack of innovation. In this case the local startup would have my business over the national Goliath. Here’s why.

The primary reason I would choose to work with EcoMovement over Waste Management is for the breadth of services they offer. EcoMovement is a zero waste enabling organization that actually began as a sustainability consulting firm. They morphed into a hauling company when they saw the need for better waste management in Portsmouth, NH, and kept their educational philosophy with them.

EcoMovement prides itself on working with its clients to develop an implementation plan that will ensure the customer’s employees adopt the Zero Waste program. They offers signage and guidelines to educate people on what to recycle in which bin and how composting works. After enabling their clients to build a strong framework for pursuing Zero Waste, EcoMovement steps back and encourages each company to strive for Zero Waste in their own way. Their website boasts photos of end users expressing their interest in working toward minimal trash generation and a video that highlights some of EcoMovement’s local partners.  The owners of this startup take their work so seriously that if on pick up day they notice one company’s trash tote contains recyclables, they make sure to speak with the managers to see how they can help develop additional methods to support employees’ efforts to achieve Zero Waste.

The second reason for my choosing the local vendor is that Waste Management does not use dedicated recycling centers, locations that specialize in recovering recyclable items. This means that some of the paper, plastics, and aluminum they collect goes into landfills. Even if this practice only happens occasionally, which is what my facilities manager told me, I believe that is too often. The problem is that Waste Management has not invested in enough recycling centers and putting the recyclables their clients have taken the time to rinse and sort in with the rest of the trash is not acceptable. If Waste Management tells clients they can collect recyclables, they need to ensure these items are indeed recycled. EcoMovement brings their non-compostable material to the dedicated recycling facility in southern Maine where it is properly recycled 100 percent of the time and the compost to their own compost facility in NH.

Finally, while Waste Management invested in national compost facilities expert Harvest Power in early 2010, they do not appear to collect compost at this point in time. My organization began recycling when the Green Committee was launched in mid-2007 and pursuing Zero Waste has been a discussion for at least the past eighteen months. To work with a vendor that allows us to compost enables us take the next step on our sustainability journey.

It would most likely take a full year to transition dozens of properties from Waste Management to EcoMovement or a similar, local based and highly dedicated recycling company. I am confident that after twelve months, the process of adopting Zero Waste or single stream would be much further along using a vendor that offers implementation planning and recycling education as part of its services. In the end, each employee will make the decision to recycle and compost or not but rolling out a program designed to engage workers gives the entire project a much better chance for success. As my team gears up for the launch of our Zero Waste initiative, we are making sure to keep engagement a top priority. I am very interested in seeing how our program is accepted and internalized when it is rolled out on April 22, 2011 and I’ll write another article letting you all know how it goes.

No comments yet

4
March

Carbon Labels: A Key Element in Climate Change Education

This article is cross-posted on Environmental Leader.

Carbon labeling for consumer goods is a concept full of promise and complexity. Providing end-users with information about the CO2 produced in the manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of products is a logical step in a world where NGOs, businesses, and governments are focused on reducing the impact carbon has on the health of our planet. Over the past five years, these three groups have each played a role in developing and implementing carbon labels. Today, carbon cataloging for all products appears inevitable and will allow shoppers around the world to more easily make purchasing decisions that help protect the Earth.

In 2006 Carbon Trust, a United Kingdom non-profit, developed the Carbon Reduction Label in an attempt to document the amount of carbon released during the lifecycle of a product and then pass that data onto consumers. The label was designed to show the carbon footprint of common items sold in the United Kingdom, such as detergent and cookies, and was implemented by several well-known companies that include Tesco and Walkers Crisps.

 

Around the same time, the US based footwear and clothing manufacturer Timberland was developing a “nutritional label” for their products. Their sticker assessed the effect of the company’s manufacturing practices on the health of the environment and the communities in which their plants operated. Initially, the same information appeared on all Timberland products, but in January 2007 their eco-labeling idea matured into the Green Index™ rating system that focuses on the impact of individual products. Ranking each item based on climate impact, chemicals used, and resources consumed allows Timberland to then rate their goods using a 0 – 10 system, with 0 being the lowest environmental impact. The Green Index™, the first eco-rating system for the apparel industry, is still in use and shows the tendency for markets to define their own sustainability standards.

Sweden’s government moved into the carbon labeling arena in 2008 when the Nutrition Department of their National Food Administration was asked to create new guidelines that encompass reducing climate change as well as maintaining human health. Earlier research suggested that up to 25% of an individual’s carbon footprint is associated with their diet. This incredible statistic shows that in addition to reducing my driving and flying, what I choose to bring into my kitchen affects my personal carbon emissions. This information means that seeking alternative sources of energy for my home and what I decide to order when eating out are both important ways in which I can help combat global warming.

By moving toward carbon labeling, Sweden’s actions are saying that providing consumers with more information will enable them to be better stewards of our natural world and that it is the role of government to push industry toward making CO2 information available. This is a wonderful step in the right direction, yet I see some challenges with including carbon emission counts alongside food in restaurants and at grocery stores.

The most obvious hurdle is defining who will be responsible for measuring carbon and which standards they will follow. In Sweden, emissions labeling is currently only a recommendation and each producer is asked to conduct its own research. The government has funded general studies on the nation’s staple products, but because there are multiple factors, including soil conditions, fertilizer use, degree of processing, packaging material, and length of transportation, companies such as Max, Sweden’s version of McDonald’s, are working to define the footprints of their specific menu items. The nation’s largest food co-op, Lantmannen, which is owned by 40,000 Swedish farmers, is also conducting CO2 emission audits for many of its products and placing its findings in supermarkets across the country.

The guidelines put forth by Sweden’s National Food Administration are now under review by other European Union (EU) countries. It will be interesting to see where the process goes from here. I am very encouraged that the development of carbon counting is already underway and am confident that EU programs could act as a models for how to roll out CO2 emission labels for food in America. Despite this forward progress, not all parties are in agreement that carbon labeling is a good idea. A 2009 study by the NCCR Trade Regulation finds both the lack of one standard certifying organization and the idea of creating a multi-national validation process reason for concern. Their paper states that “no widely accepted system of labeling exists, and creating one raises a number of questions on the global political and economic levels.” Not having a third party accreditation system in place is a valid concern as is the existence of too many organizations offering validation, something with which many industries struggle. Developing an international system would be difficult, but not impossible.

The second concern with carbon labels revolves around consumer education. Will people understand what the carbon numbers mean? When nutritional labels were introduced across the US in 1994, there was a steep learning curve. Even though much of the population already knew the terms being used, such as fat, protein, sodium, and carbohydrates, most of us did not fully understand how much fiber was enough and how the three different types of fats might affect our health. It has taken both public and private educational campaigns to bring us up to speed on why and how we should be reading nutritional labels and all the while dietary guidelines continue to change. It is prudent to expect the same ramp up time and on-going configuration when carbon emissions information is added to a food label already complex with nutritional analysis.

These organizational hurdles I have outlined are not specific to the food industry and will have to be managed across all sectors of the economy. Despite the trials, I believe CO2 labels will become ubiquitous over the next five years. The idea is similar in many ways to the model Climate Counts has developed. Climate Counts is one of my favorite organizations because it works to empower consumers in making purchasing decisions based on how companies are handling their climate change responsibilities. It ranks businesses in a variety of industries against a score card that evaluates what each company is doing to reduce its impact on the warming atmosphere. Educated consumers are then able to effect change as they have always done, by voting with their wallet for the type of company that takes its CO2 emissions management seriously.

The role of individuals can easily be seen when the discussion is brought back to the importance of carbon labels on food. Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a pizza made with local goat cheese and organic vegetables. It would have a low CO2 count and most likely a slightly higher price than a pizza from the same establishment made with pepperoni and mozzarella sourced from a major distributor, which would have a higher emission label and a corresponding lower price. As with many Swedes, some US consumers will not change their eating habits, but opportunities to steadily transform people’s patterns abound. How many of us have been torn between two items at the supermarket or at the local grill? I have a feeling that understanding the true cost of what we purchase to the well-being the planet will move a significant portion of the population to choose the product or meal with the lower CO2 rating. They may not always make choices based on emissions information but if enough people do so occasionally, the combined impact of their decisions will create significant change.

I have been reading articles for several years that extol the virtues of a plant-based diet and I’ve noticed that the theme of these pieces has increasingly moved from personal health to the well-being of the planet. In addition to the goals of generating all of their country’s energy from non-carbon based fuels by 2020 and not allowing the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030, Sweden has researched what else they can do to help reduce their country’s carbon emissions. By rolling out the inclusion of CO2 emission information with one of the most common items in our day-to-day lives, they have pioneered a system that has the power to transform the way we look at our food and the way we interact with our planet.

I am very hopeful that despite the logistical challenges, carbon emissions labels on food and other consumer products will soon be as common as nutritional information and material labels. I foresee both governments and NGOs playing a role in developing the programs as well as educating consumers on how to decipher CO2 figures. And I believe that providing people with carbon information is the best way for them to make informed decisions about how their actions affect our changing climate.

 

No comments yet

18
November

Quarter of Your Carbon Footprint and a Quarter Pounder


I just finished reading a fascinating NY Times article entitled, “To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates”. The story discussed how Sweden is encouraging their food producers to add carbon dioxide emissions information to food labels. From the complex logistics of managing this type of program to the incredible possibilities that will come from exposing the public to the true cost of its food, carbon footprint labels on food represent the cutting edge of sustainability. Despite inevitable challenges, this idea seems so simple and full of promise that I cannot stop thinking about how it could be developed in the US.

Last year, the Nutrition Department at Sweden’s National Food Administration was asked to create new guidelines that encompass reducing climate change as well as maintaining human health. Earlier research suggested that up to 25% of an individual’s carbon footprint is associated with their diet. This is an incredible number! It means that in addition to reducing my driving and flying, what I choose to bring into my kitchen affects my carbon emissions. That seeking alternative sources of energy for my home and what I decide to order when eating out are both very important ways in which I can help combat global warming. Providing consumers with more information will enable them to be better stewards to our natural world. What a wonderful step in the right direction.

I see several benefits, as well as some challenges, with including carbon emission counts alongside food in restaurants and at grocery stores. Let me start with two of the potential difficulties.

First of all, who is going to do the measuring and what standards will they follow? In Sweden, emissions labeling is only recommended and each producer is asked to conduct their own research. The government has funded general studies on staple products like rice, fish, carrots, chicken, and tomatoes, but because there are multiple factors, including soil conditions, fertilize use, degree of processing, packaging material, and length transportation, companies such as Max, Sweden’s local answer to McDonald’s, are working to define the footprints of their specific menu items. The nation’s largest food co-op, Lantmannen, which is owned by 40,000 Swedish farmers, is also conducting CO2 emission audits for many of its products and placing its findings in supermarkets across the country. The guidelines put forth by Sweden’s National Food Administration are now under review by other European Union (EU) countries. It will be interesting to see where the process goes from here. I am very encouraged that everything is already underway and am confident that the EU program could act as a model for how to roll out CO2 emission labels for food in America.

Secondly, how are consumers going to understand what the numbers mean? When nutritional labels were introduced across the US in 1994, there was a steep learning curve. Even though much of the population already knew the terms being used, such as fat, protein, sodium, and carbohydrates, most of us did not fully understand how much fiber was enough and how much sugar was considered too much. It has taken both public and private educational campaigns to bring us up to speed on why we should be reading nutritional labels. We have to expect the same ramp up time when emissions information is added to a label already busy with nutritional analysis. For most of the US, the entire idea of carbon emissions, what exactly they mean, how many ounces of CO2 per pound is too much, and what are reasonable alternatives to my burger must be answered. The question is who will be the teacher?

Despite these organizational hurdles, I believe CO2 labels will become ubiquitous over the next few years. The idea is similar in many ways to what Climate Counts has been doing. They are one of my favorite organizations because they are empowering consumers to make purchasing decisions based on how companies are handling their climate change responsibilities. Climate Counts ranks businesses in a variety of sectors against a score card that evaluates what the company is doing to reduce its role in climate change.

Carbon emission labels for food are more specific because they look at individual items rather than an entire organization. I think this is appropriate for food and may be a way for both consumers and producers to ease into a new paradigm where food takes on the important role of saving the Earth. Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a pizza made with local goat cheese and organic vegetables. It would have a low CO2 count and most likely a slightly higher price than a pizza from the same establishment made with pepperoni and mozzarella from a major distributor, which would have a higher emission label and a corresponding lower price. As with many Swedes, some US consumers will not change their eating habits. But how many of us have been torn between two items at the supermarket or at the local grill? I have a feeling that understanding the true cost to the planet will move a significant portion of the population to choose the meal or product with the lower CO2 emissions. They may not always make choices based on emissions information but if enough people do it even occasionally, their impacts will create change.

If I begin to make food purchasing decisions based on the new food labeling, I am able to help re-focus the companies that produce the food. If Tyson Fresh Meats, the largest beef and pork supplier in the world, observes even a minor fluctuation in the amount of meat they are selling because their products have a high CO2 count, they will no doubt work to become competitive with companies that can provide these items with lower emissions. One of the first steps to measure and then reduce a carbon footprint is to assess the carbon released during each step of the supply chain. By encouraging its suppliers to reduce their emissions, Tyson could literally change the face of the industry. There are numerous examples of how the sustainability requirements Wal-Mart put in place have forced their suppliers to make a variety “green” business changes, many times looking to their own suppliers and asking them to reduce their CO2 emissions. Eventually each player in the chain cleans up their process and we all win.

I have been reading articles for several years that extol the virtues of a plant-based diet. The theme of these pieces has increasingly moved from human health to the well-being of the planet. In addition to their goals of generating all of their energy from non-carbon based fuels by 2020 and not allowing the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030, Sweden has researched what else they can do to help reduce their country’s carbon emissions. By rolling out the inclusion of CO2 emission information with one of the most common items in our day-to-day lives, they have pioneered a system that has the power to transform the way we look at our food and the way we interact with our planet.

I am very hopeful that despite the logistical challenges, carbon dioxide emissions labels on food will soon be as common as nutritional information. I foresee both government and private institutions playing a role in developing the program as well as educating consumers on how to decipher CO2 figures. Whether or not consumers decide to act on this information is still unknown. I like to think that if we were able to ensure the safety of dolphins by demanding they be protected during tuna fishing, we will find it a way to make food choices that ensure the entire Earth is spared while we work to feed ourselves.

1 comment

14
October

FOOD Inc. Shows That Consumers Can Change Corporations

2538540022_6e5c05990c_tI just returned from seeing FOOD Inc., a new documentary about the industrialization of the American food industry. I knew the basic message would revolve around how distant we as a nation have become from the food we consume. I also had a feeling that Monsanto and their evil seed empire would make an appearance. What I was not expecting was to learn so much about how the incredible quantity of meat we eat in our country is supplied. I was also surprised to hear that the rise of fast food created a demand for cheap ingredients and helped spur the growth of the modern day corporate farm.

When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, his infamous expose of the meat industry in the early 1900s,  his words shed light on both the unsanitary processing facilities as well as the exploitation of immigrant workers in the meat factories of Chicago. The public was outraged and demanded safer meat, a bit ironic because Sinclair had hoped to raise awareness of the dangerous working conditions. The Pure Food Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act gave people safer meat and workers better conditions. Evidently these changes, and others that followed, were effective, for being a meat packer became a well-paid and respected position by the 1950s, in line with the often venerated American autoworker. This is in stark contrast to today’s meat plants, which are among the most dangerous places to work in the US. So what happened? Among other reasons, FOOD Inc. says, McDonald’s happened.

By getting rid of its waitresses and turning their kitchen into an assembly line, McDonald’s developed the foundation for the modern day industrial food company. People were trained to perform the same job over and over and over again. They were treated as machines, paid a low wage, and disposed of at will because other workers were readily available to take their place. As fast food grew, McDonald’s needed larger and larger quantities of meat, potatoes, chicken, lettuce, etc. They demanded that farmers ensure consistent quality in their products while at the same time decreasing their cost. How were the farmers of the 1950 and 1960s able to meet this demand? They were not and the corporate farm was born.

According to the movie, in the 1970s, the top four beef producers made up approximately 20% of the industry. Today, they account for almost 80%. The US has gone from having hundreds of slaughter houses to only thirteen major factories that process beef. Not only are the cows being kept in high density feedlots, they are being feed a diet of corn instead of what ruminants typically eat, grass. Corn is used because its production is heavily subsidized by the federal government and the cost to ranchers is actually below the cost of production. It also makes the cows grow larger and fatter.

The corn produces an unnatural environment in the cow rumination chamber and encourages the growth of harmful e-coli. Reports of e-coli tainted meat increased throughout the 1990s and we have even seen other crops, such as spinach and peanuts, become infected over the last few years. E-coli outbreaks have killed multiple people, one of the most notable of which was a 2 1/2 year old boy who died twelve days after eating an infected hamburger while on vacation with his family. This tragedy was the impetus for Kevin’s Law, a food safety bill that has been bounced around Capital Hill for almost a decade but has yet to find its way into law.

Despite a fair amount of doom and gloom concerning the current state of our food system, FOOD Inc. offers a strong sense that this madness can be stopped. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in Virginia is an honest, humble, and insightful spokesperson for a farming system that treats animals as living beings and rewards small scale agriculture with fresh, nutrient packed, and delicious food. The audience clapped when he mused about what happens to people who treat cattle, chickens, and pigs as if they were only a raw material. He wondered how we will treat our neighbors, our community, and the rest of the world if we can’t treat our food and the people who raise and process it with respect.

After the movie ended and the house lights came on, I left the Portsmouth Music Hall thinking about what Gary Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm, said near the end of the film about the power of consumers. He assured us that companies will do what we as consumers want. When Wal-Mart customers showed a preference for milk free of rGBH, an artificial growth hormone, the company switched to non-rGBH milk. This has more or less “nailed the coffin” on rGBH because of Wal-Mart’s tremendous buying power.

Each time we buy an item at the grocery store or the farmers market, we are sending a message to the food industry. Companies spend millions of dollars every year to find out what consumers want. Let’s make sure to tell them we need local food grown and raised with care on organic farms. And this food will taste even better when we know our choices are changing the way the modern way farms operate.

1 comment

3
September

Local Food: Another Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle

August is New Hampshire Eat Local Month and a great example of the growing push to reorganize our society and economy around environmentally sustainable and socially responsible practices. Eating local foods not only helps combat global warming by reducing the transportation required to get food to our tables, it provides a major boost to the Granite State economy. Increasing the production and consumption of locally grown food and moving away from super-sized supermarkets is an important step in creating a truly sustainable society.

The development of the modern day grocery store did not happen over night; however, more has changed in the way we grow and purchase food during the past 50 years than during any other time in human history. The current model favors rapidly produced items made from ingredients that are increasingly devoid of nutritional value. Food is a multi-billion dollar business in the US and much of what we find in our Hannaford, Shaw’s, and Market Basket stores comes from monstrous manufacturing facilities completely detached from the reality that their products are intended to nourish people.

Instead of providing healthy food choices at honest prices, most of the over 45,000 items found in a typical supermarket reflect the attitude of their makers. Primarily, that food is just another product to sell. Our consumer driven society has let them be successful in marketing this food because we like the promises of fat free ice cream and the sound of exotic spring water. When the marketing efforts are more important than product itself, we have a problem. The recently released movie Food, Inc. likens today’s food industry to the giant cigarette companies that once stood proud and tall as model corporate citizens. Both, it claims, mis-led the public about the effects of their products and both fought vigorously to continue their charade while the health of our country suffered. Phillip- Morris had to change its name, it now goes by Altria,  and its strategy, such as focusing on reducing under age smoking, because of the dubious nature of its business. I wonder if Kraft, and its horrible products like lunchables which have 17 grams of fat and 1100 mg of sodium in a single serving, will one day be forced to do the same.

The wonderful truth about local food in New England is that it can supply most of what we want as consumers. Our farmers’ markets abound with fresh vegetables, ripe fruit, and many locally produced jams, breads, meats, and dairy products. The food tastes better because it was picked recently when it was ripe, not weeks beforehand and then shipped to us from 3000 miles away.  Producing and consuming foods within a local geographical region is a model that thrived for several thousand years. It is time to focus on local food grown within a few hundred miles of our homes and businesses and restoring our communities to fully functioning organisms.

The transition to a new food economy is both incredibly simple and extraordinarily complex. What could be more natural than buying food from your local farmer, to say nothing of growing some yourself. California and Mexico provide examples of where the process becomes more difficult. The San Joaquin Valley produces more than ten percent of our county’s food. Turning off their pipeline of lettuce, raisins, beef, and asparagus may help the farmers in NH but many of those in CA would have to shift into new industries as their national markets are reduced by a growing demand for regional food.

Which brings me back to August being NH Eat Local Month. Initiatives like this start the discussion. Many of us have been speaking about the benefits of local food for years. The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program to which my family and I belong is an example of what happens when local food becomes important to many residents of the same locale. Together with about 30 other members, we pay the farmers at Brookford Farm in Rollingsford, NH for a share of their harvest. In return we recieve twenty pounds of fresh produce every week as well as milk, yogurt, eggs, a chicken, and some beef. What could be better? Fresh food from local people.

As we close in on 2010, I often find myself excited thinking about the changes taking place here in NH. The University Office of Sustainability (USO) at UNH is doing fantastic work with their Food & Society Initative, which promotes local agriculture and the concept of a Sustainable Food Community. The number of farmers’ markets across the state has risen from less than 20 to over 100 in the past decade. This equates to more local food available to more citizens and less manufactured food required by our population. As individuals, families, and businesses become increasingly involved, momentum is building and another piece in the sustainability puzzle is being put into place.

No comments yet

26
March

Hotels Need Local Products

The Million Tons of Trash Challenge developed by the Green Meeting Industry Council (GMIC) is a great example of the many sustainable initiatives being launched across the hospitality industry. The aim is to have participating  hotels track the waste they are able to recycle or compost instead of throwing away. With major players like Oracle and American Express Travel associated with the project, it is sure to help promote better waste management practices across the industry. 

Another way to greatly reduce the environmental impact of meetings and conferences is to source products locally. Hotels can save money, reduce their carbon footprint, and help support their local economy by purchasing as many items as possible from regional vendors. The first LEED Gold certified hotel in the mid-west, the CityFlats Hotel in Holland, MI , had many materials shipped to Holland and assembled locally. 

A favorite example of mine is Green Mill Village (GMV), a conference center scheduled to open in 2010 in Arcola, IL. They are looking to local Amish craftspeople to build all of the furniture throughout their hotel and center. In addition to the initial purchases made for the hotel, GMV will continue to support the regional economy by allowing guests to purchase any item they see in their room, a majority of which will be made in the area. These local products decrease the carbon emissions related to transportation of products from outside the state. There will also be several wind mills on site that, along with the solar panels, will provide the entire village with clean, renewable electricty.  

The final program that I would like to highlight is Farmers, Foragers, and Fishermen, an initiative that just got underway at the Loews Coranado Bay Resort in San Diego. The idea is to highlight one local producer each season and feature them at special dinners. Loews head chef and the purveyor of honor interact with guests during a four course meal, sharing the history and details of their company and explaining why working with local producers is an important step in creating vibrant local economies throughout the country.

So next time you find yourself dining at a hotel, make it a point to select the locally produced fare. It will be fresher than something shipped across the country, it will often be a speciality of the region in which you find yourself, and the increased demand you help create will provide the hotel with an incentive to seek out more local vendors. And as I’ve said, items produced near a hotel decrease the environmental impact of the facility by reducing the transportation needed to link a vendor with clients and it helps to keep local economies strong.

No comments yet