by Adriane Dellorco (Environment and Society, March 23, 2000)

Wendell Berry contends that “the local consumer population in towns and cities should subsist, as much as possible, from the produce of the locality or region...It would tend to diversify local farming as well as support the local farm economy.” (Berry, 1987) In Oberlin, we live in a rural county which depends largely on agriculture to sustain its economy. As the largest group of food consumers in the town, students at Oberlin College can have a potent effect in contributing to a more sustainable local economy by supporting local foods (Baring-Gould, 1998). One of the fundamental ways Oberlin College can do this is is to incorporate local foods into our Campus Dining Services (CDS). How then, would the inclusion of local foods in CDS lead to a more sustainable local economy?

In order to construct a more sustainable local economy, we are essentially aiming to meet “the needs of the present without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (qtd. in Beach, 1998). A sustainable local economy strives to develop its present businesses and industries without unnecessary expansion. It encourages energy efficiency and sensible use of its land and resources. A sustainable local economy aspires to keep money from leaving the local community by purchasing directly from local businesses and industries. Here in Lorain County, we are blessed with a productive and diverse agricultural industry that can offer us numerous local food options. The existence of Lorain County farms upon which our local economy is based on, is being greatly diminished, however. According to the American Farmland Trust, Lorain County is the seventh most threatened county containing prime agricultural land due to urban sprawl (qtd. by Masi, 2000). Supporting local foods is essential in order to prevent our farmers and farmland from disappearing, and keep our local economy afloat.

The economic rationale for local buying can be explained by six reasons: avoided transportation costs, hidden transportation costs, regional food security, direct purchasing, support of local farmers and the prevention of urban sprawl, and an economic phenomenon dubbed the “multiplier effect.” (Baring-Gould et al., 1988)
The food served by CDS has traveled an average of 1300 miles to reach its destination (Lovins, 1984). Transportation costs account for approximately 5 percent of America’s food spending. For CDS, this translates into about $75,000 per year, based on CDS’s annual school year budget of approximately $1.5 million. (Dwyer et al., 1998) When we buy food that is produced closer to home, some of these transportation costs are eliminated. We are thus able to retain much of the money that would be spent on transportation costs in the local economy.

Buying locally also leads to decreased hidden transportation costs in maintaining local roads that are damaged by heavy trucks that must travel long distances. Most transportation relies on trucks, and 27% of all trucks transport food alone. Although large trucks pay 7 to 8 times more taxes than automobiles, a truck weighing 80,000 pounds causes as much damage to a mile of roadway as 9,600 automobiles. (Baring-Gould et al., 1988) According to one study, 99 percent of damage to local roads in California is caused by trucks weighing over 6,000 pounds (Cornucopia Project, 1981).

When we buy locally, we are able to decrease our expenditures on maintaining highway infrastructure.
Regional food security is also increased by supporting local agriculture. Dependency on far-away food sources leaves a region vulnerable to supply disruptions, and removes any real accountability of producer to consumer. Our present food distribution system, with its long transportation lines, is vulnerable to unexpected or unplanned events. Possible disturbances include strikes, fuel shortages, and technical failure. Even a relatively minor breakdown can wreak havoc, as did a truckers’ strike in 1979 when Florida melon growers lost $1 million (Baring-Gould et al., 1988). Importing food from other regions also tends to promote larger, less-diversified farms that hurt both the environment and local economies/communities (Beach, 1998). Local buying acts as an insurance policy against any unpredictable flukes or disruptions in transportation.

Additionally, buying direct from a producer is almost always cheaper. A portion of the fees normally paid to middlemen can be captured by the producer, while supplying the product at a low price. Although one need not buy direct in order to buy local, buying locally does tend to create more opportunities for direct buying. For the homeowner, this can mean shopping at a farmers’ market or roadside stand. In the case of CDS, a wholesale buyer, this can mean establishing contractual arrangements with a local farmers’ cooperative.
Supporting local farmers not only helps to maintain the dwindling farming community, but it also retards the costly process of urban sprawl. Ever since World War II, millions of rural people have moved from the country to the city in an exodus that has not ceased from the war’s end until now. The motivating force behind this migration, then as now, has been economic ruin on the farm. (Berry, 1987) We have lost 8 percent of our state’s farm acreage in the past ten years (Beach, 1998). This translates into a loss of 13 acres of farmland an hour over the past decade (Beach, 1998). Small-scale farming is ceasing to be financially viable, so more and more farmers have been selling off the farms that have been in their family for years. The affluent that have been fleeing the central city of Cleveland are willing to pay high prices for secluded land in the country, and so it has become more profitable for farmers to sell their farmland for residential purposes than to struggle to maintain the farms themselves.

The economic costs of urban sprawl are expensive and numerous. Primarily, it is economically wasteful to abandon existing urban areas and build new infrastructure in the country. In New Jersey, for example, a study found that the state could avoid $8 billion in infrastructure capital and operating costs over 20 years by following a land use plan that favored more compact development. It’s especially wasteful and economically unsustainable to keep consuming land and building new roads, sewer lines, and schools in an area like Northeast Ohio where the population isn’t growing much. (Beach, 1998)

The multiplier effect explains why purchasing locally grown food keeps money within the local community. When a consumer spends a dollar on a locally produced commodity, it benefits more than the specific seller. That dollar stays in the local economy and generates additional businesses, according to what economists call the “multiplier effect”. Sales and employment multipliers have been calculated for Ohio’s agricultural sector. A job created in farm production creates between 1.85 and 4.26 additional jobs in the Ohio economy. A dollar spent on Ohio farm products generates between $1.94 and $3.28 more business. (In each case, the actual impact lies somewhere between the low and high figures.) (Baring-Gould et al., 1988) Thus, purchasing locally contributes to the health of all sectors of the economy, increasing the local quality of life.
The inclusion of local foods in CDS is a solution to a wide set of problems that affect our local economy. By introducing local foods in CDS, we are opening up a large market for local foods due to the large amount of people CDS feeds on a daily basis. As such a large number of students in such a small community, we have the power to greatly affect what happens in our town. If we use our power in order to enact beneficial change, our impact can resonate in a positive way throughout all sectors of the community.

Literature Cited

Baring-Gould L., D. Elshoff, G. Kehm, K. Rae, and K. Schneider 1998. Where Our Food comes From: The Oberlin College Food System.

Beach, D. 1998. The greater Cleveland Environment book.

Berry, W. 1987. Six agricultural fallacies. Pages 123-132 in Home Economics.

Cornucopia Project 1981. Empty Breadbasket?

Dwyer, M., A. Mack, B. Masi, D. Orr, N. Palmer, K. Warren, and C. Wolfe 1998.

Oberlin and the Biosphere:Campus Ecology Report 1998.

Lovins, A., L., and Marty Bender 1984. Energy and Agriculture. Page 68 in Meeting the Expectation of the Land, Jackson, Berry, Colman, eds.

Masi, B. March 3, 2000. Interview.