Healthy Community Food Systems

Healthy Land, Healthy Food, Healthy People

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • About Us
    • Goals
    • Projects
    • Services
    • Board of Directors
  • Getting Serious Now
    • Setting a Green Table
    • Sturnella Messages
    • Food, Biodiversity, & Climate Change
    • Keeping Perspective
    • Blog
  • Healthy Foodsheds
    • Looking Forward—Food, Climate, Biodiversity
      • How-To Garden Resources
    • Observing Indicators of Foodshed Health
    • San Juan Mountain Watch & Field Guide
    • Exploring Foodshed Health Field Guide
    • Good Local Food
      • Finding Local Food
      • Choosing Good Food
      • Using Local Food
      • La Plata County Local Food Sources
    • Addressing Climate Change with Local Food
      • Climate Change Impacts, Mitigation, & Adaptation Resources
      • Map, Monitor, & Adapt Your Local Foodshed
    • Addressing Biodiversity with Local Food
      • Food Safety, Biodiversity, & Wildlife
    • Southwest Colorado Foodsheds
      • San Juan Mountain Watch
      • Setting a Green Table in La Plata County (PDF)
      • Local Food Groups Across SW Colorado
      • Farm to Institution in SW Colorado
      • Mesa Verde Food Guide
      • Local Food Policy
        • La Plata Food Policy Council
        • Four Corners Food Policy
      • Fruit Tree Gleaning
      • What YOU Can Do in SW Colorado
      • Beginning Farmer Program
      • La Plata County Local Food Groups
    • Four Corners Foodsheds
      • Native American Topics
      • Four Corners Farm to School
      • Native American Gardens
      • Native American Food Safety Resources
      • Navajo Churro Lamb & Wool Marketing
      • Four Corners Food Policy
  • Farm to School
    • Digging Deeper
    • Farm to Preschool
      • Getting Started
        • The Basics
        • Farm to Preschool Pathways
        • Parent Involvement
        • Farm to Preschool Video Resources
        • Getting Started Infographic
      • Good Local Food
        • Using Local Food
          • What is THAT? Unique Local Veggies
          • Local Food Recipes
          • Seasonal Menu Ideas
          • Storing Excess Bounty
        • Finding Local Food
        • Choosing Good Food
        • La Plata County Local Food Sources
      • Preschool Gardens & Edible Education
        • Edible Education Curriculum
        • How-To Garden Resources
        • Ideas for Small Gardens & Small Gardeners in Colorado
      • La Plata County Local Food Sources
      • SW Colorado Farm to Preschool Project
        • About the Project
        • Project Materials
        • La Plata County Local Food Sources
        • Ideas for Small Spaces & Small Gardeners in Colorado
      • News & Events
    • Farm to School
      • La Plata County Farm to School Project
      • Choosing Good Food
      • Four Corners Farm to School
    • Wild School Gardens
  • Publications
    • San Juan Mountain Watch Field Guide
    • Exploring Foodshed Health Field Guide
    • Wild School Garden Guide
    • Food System Tools
    • HCFS NewsBriefs
    • SW Colorado Farm to Preschool Newsletter
    • Special Reports
  • News & Events
  • Blog
You are here: Home / Archives for Jim Dyer

Possibilism & Positivism in a New Political Era

December 7, 2016 by Jim Dyer 1 Comment

greatblueheronThe climate is changing—both physically, and in case you hadn’t noticed, politically. However you voted, you are likely among those who now sense a considerable uncertainty about how things will unfold with the new administration. We would do well to recognize the disenchantment and concerns that pervaded the campaign—over the economy, our health system, our social order, and the ability of government to effect meaningful change. We would do well to hope for the best and redouble efforts to ensure that changes enacted are sustainable and fair for all.

The power of local food: For those of us working to promote local sustainable food, we see the power of healthy local food systems to address health, social justice, local economies, and meaningful public engagement—issues central to the recent presidential campaign. In that sense our work is as important as ever.

What was curiously absent in the campaign was any significant attention to climate change, even though we know it is one of the greatest threats facing us, and that immediate action is needed to avoid irreversible and potentially catastrophic impacts on our world. Biodiversity—I didn’t hear it mentioned once. In spite of inattention to these two critical issues, we remain committed to using the power of the local food movement to address both climate, and biodiversity.

Possibilism and surprises: I admit to being obsessed the last 27 days trying to catch a glimpse of where we are going as a nation. All I have so far are glimpses, profound concerns, and possibilities. As I have mentioned before, I subscribe to the concept of “possibilism” to maintain some sense of sanity—that good outcomes are possible, and therefore we have an obligation to try, to stay engaged. We just may be surprised.

Surprises trend both ways, good and bad. It seems that scientists are repeatedly surprised as glaciers and Arctic sea ice melt faster and faster. My sense is that actually keeping our global warming to 2 degrees C or below would be a surprise—a wonderful one. On the other hand, increasingly competitive solar and wind may edge out fossil fuels even without government assistance. Political will just might move toward a carbon tax, regenerative agriculture, and fairness toward all people, creatures, and the earth. As many people, I swing between pessimism and optimism, but having even the possibility of good outcomes is what keeps me going.

Positivism: To temper those inevitable swings between optimism and pessimism, I find that a deliberate effort to see the good, the positive, and the hopeful helps. We need to be able to see the problems facing us at the same time as we see the wonders to be enjoyed and protected. My favorite example is visiting the Everglades with our daughter in South Florida and knowing that the biodiversity has been cruelly trampled, but reveling in the abundance of birds, reptiles, and amazing ecosystems—much remaining to be enjoyed and protected.

Even better, we can combine learning about the world around us (including the problems), enjoying that interaction, and contributing to solutions. Citizen Scientists do just that, contributing to scientists their observations of pollinators, weather, blossoming times, and all sorts of birds, bats, bees, and bugs. This is relevant in gardens, farms, ranches, and the surrounding ecosystems that make up our local foodsheds. Observing the natural world, in the wild and in the backyard, is therapy in itself. Combining this with reporting these observations to help scientists develop new solutions makes it even more meaningful. Combining this with growing as much of your own food as possible—now we are getting somewhere!

Filed Under: Getting Serious

Map, Monitor, Adapt—Healthy Local Foodsheds & Climate Change

October 4, 2016 by Jim Dyer Leave a Comment

We need to be “doing something” about climate change. There is plenty of talk, more and more people recognizing the problem, but much, much less action than needed. Food, actually local food, is a perfect way to start, and an area that all people can make substantive changes in without hardship. Effort—yes; thought—yes; hardship—not really.

Climate change is hitting food production now, is slated to get much more intense, and urgent action is required to keep climate disruptions from becoming catastrophic. This all comes at a time when the local food movement is calling for more local food, and when Native peoples are trying to revitalize their Native foods and farming. To us, this is an opportunity to harness the power of the local and indigenous food movements to support thoughtful and proactive measures to make our local food systems more resilient, more productive in a changing world, and a truly regenerative force combating climate change.

Map, Monitor, Adapt. We at Healthy Community Food Systems have been working this past year on a number of resources to support this effort. We believe that a concerted effort among farmers and ranchers, local food activists, and consumer-citizens is needed to understand and adapt to climate change impacts on food production, mitigate further impacts by reducing greenhouse gases generated by the food system, all while making their communities healthier as well as their future.

Mapping—who doesn’t love maps? Maps help us visualize patterns and relationships, and if you think in terms of foodsheds, the geographic representation is essential. Local food groups have mapped their food systems as part of local food assessments for some time, but we are suggesting that we pay more attention to the land where this food production occurs and the broader landscape that is ecologically tied to these gardens, farms, and ranches.

We see local foodsheds as the area that we should look to first for our food, and that area we should be most responsible for—such as a county or two to start—so maps help us visualize these landscapes in relation to neighboring foodsheds.

Maps, simple or complex, help us consider the health of the land that our food production depends on, so we not only map out economic disparities, food security and access, food production areas, and personal health indicators—but the environmental health as well. For example, in our Four Corners/San Juan Mountain region, we consider water quality (we think of the yellow river here last year), water supply (snowpack changes in our mountains), air quality (Four Corners power plants), climate (heat, drought, floods), and biodiversity (pollinators, bats, sage grouse, and pikas), and more. All must be considered for truly sustainable and healthy foodsheds.

Monitoring—what’s changing? Without tracking the changes in these indicators of health, we simply would have little idea what we have accomplished or how to set priorities. The food system and specific projects need monitoring over time or we can’t catch longer term changes and outcomes. Economic development, health, agriculture, and environmental agencies and groups are logical partners in this effort.

Is anyone watching? What we see as an excellent opportunity to engage people of all ages in this effort is to get them involved in citizen monitoring of foodshed health. It can start with kids learning to be observant of nature in their school and backyard gardens—worms, bees, birds, weather, pollinators, etc.  This is our Wild School Gardens project—deeper ecological learning in school food gardens.

What if these kids shared their observations with the farmers and ranchers that sell local food to their schools, and asked these producers what they were seeing on their farms and ranches? What if they needed local experts from the community to help? We envision a whole community effort that raises awareness of the connection between the health of the land, food, and people.

An elegant solution. Citizen Science programs allow the public to submit their observations to help scientists understand these issues and develop improvements. While environmental degradation, climate change, and biodiversity losses can be so worrisome that there is a tendency to be paralyzed into inaction, straightforward observations of the indicators of these problems shared with scientists is an elegant way to be aware of the issues while helping to improve them. Our Observing Indicators of Foodshed Health guidelines are for observers and citizen scientists of all ages.

Adapting—as if our future depended on it. Much of what needs to be done is already known—things we have known that we should be doing as part of a sustainable and wise agriculture. What we have now with climate change is an even more critical need for these changes and a greatly enhanced urgency. In addition to what might be called mainstream sustainable agriculture is a need to revisit systems-changing approaches such as forest gardens, permaculture, traditional knowledge, and biomimicry as Gary Nabhan promotes in his outstanding guide: Growing Food in a  Hotter, Drier Land.

Mitigation is the most important adaptation. As we compiled information on current impacts, possible solutions, and the prospect of much greater climate change, a need became clear. We don’t at all suggest that adapting to withstand climate change is not important, but that unless we act now to reduce greenhouse gases, we face the prospect of catastrophic impacts that we will be hard put to withstand. In this sense, we see mitigation as the most important and urgent change we can make in our local to global food systems. The silver lining is that many if not most adaptations to be better able to withstand climate change will also help mitigate it.

Looking Forward—to more healthy local food from healthy local foodsheds. We currently face the certainty of challenging times ahead for food production, but also the uncertainty of exactly how and when these impacts will unfold. We need to envision the future (we present scenarios that can help), make the changes that will address what we think is likely (especially no-regrets strategies), and be ready to adapt to the unexpected. With this mindset and resolve, we should be able to look forward to more healthy local food as we strive to keep our foodsheds healthy and productive.

Filed Under: Getting Serious

The Lloyd’s Scenario

May 18, 2016 by Jim Dyer Leave a Comment

IMG_8616.JPGI have felt lately like I have joined a “preppers book club” as friends discuss books looking to an uncertain future, not as survivalists but as preparers or preppers. Concerns for the future range from electromagnetic pulses frying our electronics, our fragile electric grid, even that subtle and far-off specter of climate change. Preparing for the unknown is not a bad idea—if done strategically and with a clear view of relative risks. In fact this is what we at Getting Serious Now have been urging for some time.

A scenario from Lloyd’s articulates a very real concern for our future that we should all prepare for. Yes, Lloyd’s of London, the venerable insurance company that adds an air of authority to projections into the future. Their recent report is getting some much-deserved attention lately with an excellent synopsis and climatological backgrounder from Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, alarmingly called, “Food System Shock: Climate Change’s Greatest Threat to Civilization.”

Master’s synopsis of the Lloyd’s Scenario is well worth reading. They see “uncomfortably high odds,” pegged at an 18% chance over the next 40 years, of catastrophic disruptions rippling through the global food system, and then to the world economy and international affairs. Crop losses, food price spikes, food riots, stock market drops, famine, civil wars, terrorist attacks, and failed states.

“Yes, we have heard these warnings”—but let’s listen again with some real-world projections from Lloyd’s scenario: Crop losses (corn and soybeans down 10%), food price spikes (four times prices seen in 2000), food riots (Mid East, Latin America), stock market drops (European loses 10% value), famine (one million starve in Bangladesh), civil wars (Nigeria), terrorist attacks (US), and failed states (Mali). For a relatively fragile world system, these are shocks indeed.

“Still, just projections”—not so fast! Masters calls up the most extreme weather year of recent times, 2010, to illustrate how realistic these projections are. A stagnant jet stream brought Russian grain failures and a heat wave killing tens of thousands, food price spikes, riots in the Mid East and North Africa tied by many to the Arab Spring—among other disruptions across the globe. What strikes me as so alarming is that at the beginning of 2010, the USDA projected good global harvests and low prices. These experts seemed to have little inking in January what that very year would bring!

The key to the catastrophic global disruptions in Lloyd’s specific scenario is a few things happening at one time, a strong El Niño causing a US corn crop failure along with failures in two other regions of the world, coupled with two well-known diseases attacking global wheat and soybeans. The nature of our global food system and of global climate connections, such as when warm Pacific waters of an El Niño cause droughts and floods around the globe, makes the deadly combination of crop failures just a matter of time. These odds will grow if we allow population to surge, industrial agriculture to remain the norm, and if we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Not a pretty picture. Yet, I find curious solace in a haunting poem from Wendell Berry, that gives me a literal and figurative direction.

February 2, 1968 
In the dark of the moon, in flying snow, in the dead of winter,
war spreading, families dying, the world in danger,
I walk the rocky hillside, sowing clover.

Certainly we need to prepare, to be smart preppers. But even more important is to work as hard as we can individually and collectively to reduce the chances of the Lloyd’s Scenario. The beauty is that decoupling as much as possible from the global food system (heresy for sure), localization of our food systems (naïve indeed), and depending on our local foodsheds and keeping them healthy (idealistic to say the least) will help us prepare for the worst and make sure the worst doesn’t happen.

It isn’t all about local solutions though, we need to have wise national and international policies. Not the corporate, industrial, business-as-usual solutions predictably springing up, but “whole solutions” as Wendell Berry would propose—those that don’t create new problems along the way. As much as we might want to retreat politically into our local shell, we need to elect and support wise, compassionate, and clear-thinking leaders, in spite of the odds, who are willing and able to pursue these whole solutions.

Scythe-gardenAs the day warms this beautiful May morning, I need to wrap up this piece, plow through all the other so-important pressing work on my desk, and get out to the garden I have been neglecting and get working on some of Berry’s truly whole solutions.

Filed Under: Getting Serious

We Need to Take Back the Word “Organic”

March 31, 2016 by Jim Dyer Leave a Comment

Veggie TableWhether it is “near organic,” certified, or “beyond organic,” this must be our approach to food production into the future.

The word “organic” is not perfect, but represents one of the best articulated approaches to sustainable food production that we have.  We must take it back from those who would mischaracterize it, and from those industrial food companies and marketers who would use it to describe production methods that just meet the absolute minimum requirements of organic certification without regard for the philosophy and rich set of principles it represents.  The word can be misunderstood and co-opted as any meaningful word can be, but rather than avoid it, we need to understand and use it well, apply its core principles broadly, and improve on the system it describes.

As I read the origins of the term, organic has roots with people who believed that natural biological processes were the best basis for healthy food production—for many reasons.  The recent push in the 1990s to codify it for certification rode largely on the desire to avoid the adverse effects of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on the environment—soil, water, and wildlife.  This was set in the context of biologically based practices such as cover crops, diversified cropping, and natural fertility and pest control, but synthetic chemicals were a prime focus in part because they are easy to regulate.

To me, organic is not directly about us and the pesticide residues on our food, but much, much more about impacts on everything but us.  A fortunate side effect is that that organic food can be safer and healthier for us, but the reduction in pesticide residues on food has come to overshadow the other primary objectives of this system.  Those who can afford it but still say, “I don’t need organic food!” or “It isn’t worth the price to me!” are saying, perhaps unknowingly, that they don’t care about the soil, water, wildlife, climate change, or even the farmers and farm workers involved.  They are saying, in effect, that they don’t care about the world their children will live their lives in.

Some people seem to avoid the word “organic” or the food it represents out of political correctness.  They feel that to call a farmer organic is to disparage non-organic farmers.  That reasoning would preclude pointing out any exemplary farmers.  Some see it as food for the elite.  Organic food, especially in boutique quantities and in the hands of unscrupulous marketers, can be more expensive than it needs to be.  Admittedly, some people can’t pay any extra for their food, but I am talking about the vast majority of us who can.

Organic food should command higher prices to the farmer in most cases, since it takes more work, and lacks many of the agricultural and energy subsidies available to conventional food producers.  Organic food prices tend to better represent the true costs of food, while conventional food externalizes many costs to society and the environment.  Ironically, it is the poorer socioeconomic populations that often bear the brunt of those externalized costs of cheap food.  Wise intervention programs for the poor would prioritize livable wages, food assistance, and emergency feeding that would enable them to access the very best foods that they need every bit as much as the rest of society.

Many large corporate organic food producers and marketers have found ways to just barely meet organic certification guidelines, disregard many of the less easily regulated aspects, and make a killing in the marketplace.  This is disquieting to say the least—perhaps obscene, to put it bluntly.  In the big picture, it could be argued that these are acres not saturated with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but we can and should demand much more for our dollars from these growers.  In the meantime, we should look for more genuine organic products, and local organic food is the best alternative.

When buying food from afar, organic certification is one of the only ways to have any assurance that the food is grown sustainably.  But when buying on the local level, the ability of consumers to meet, visit, and discuss production methods with the farmer or rancher may make certification an unnecessary expense and effort—it’s a simple business and marketing decision.  The USDA would like us to reserve the term “organic” for certified products, and I would grant them some legal basis for that position.  I personally refrain from calling any of our products an organic product when I think it implies that it is certified organic, but I feel free to talk about the organic methods, approaches, and philosophy we use on our small farm.

Having run the Colorado Organic Producers Association for several years in the past, I always recommend that any producer who is certified should make it clear that they and their products are certified organic.  They have gone to extra expense and effort and should have that distinction made clearly.  But I also value the non-certified growers who are “near organic” or “beyond organic” or follow some other organic-based system.  Unverified, unclear, subjective—maybe—but exactly what direct marketing allows us to clarify in personal conversations between buyer and seller.

Buying some of your organic food from non-local sources, which most of us need to do, must be done with care.  Try to see through the marketing hype, buy in quantity, avoid the highly processed foods, and be willing—if you are able—to pay more if necessary.  Michael Pollan, among many others, suggests that most of us should eat less.  Could the financial impact be softened a bit if we bought better food, but ate less?

Finally, the most local organic food you can get, and the cheapest, would be that which you grow yourself.  Growing organically is second nature in the garden setting.  It’s easier agro-ecologically in such settings.  Who wants family members exposed to ag chemicals?  How enjoyable and nurturing would our gardening be if we knew we were killing the soil and wildlife we depend upon?  We need more people growing their own food and policies that allow those without space or resources to participate in community gardening.

Organics is about the future.  Organic certification needs to evolve to incorporate more of what we know it should include—more on crop diversity, humane animal treatment, farm worker well-being, energy use, and climate and wildlife impacts.  It should be seen as the path to a more sustainable future for our children.  It should be seen as the only real way to feed the world in the long run.  It should become the rule rather than the exception.  It should be not just about us, but about caring for everything else around us as well.

Filed Under: Farm to Preschool, Farm to School, Getting Serious

What’s Behind Our Quest for Local Food?

March 11, 2016 by Jim Dyer Leave a Comment

What's Behind Our Quest for Local Food

The strength and enduring nature of the local food movement continues to amaze me. I have worked in this field for a few decades and have seen trends come and go. The American public’s attention span is rather short, but local food grows on. There must be something more fundamental than what could be seen as a quaint notion that our food should come from nearby.

The deeper meaning of local is what Anne Lappe, in her book, Diet for a Hot Planet, is getting at when she states that for local food advocates, local “is code for sustainability and connectivity.” There are sustainability values, including but not limited to food miles, embedded in our quest for local. Feeling connected to our food sources is important to us for very practical as well as emotional reasons. I think most of us would recognize this when brought to our attention, but we often don’t act on it in our everyday food choices.

My preferred description of sustainable food is “good food”: healthy, local, green, fair, and affordable. In practice, we often see local as the best way to assure the other attributes in this list. Local food should be fresher and therefore healthier. We have a much better chance of knowing that our food is healthy, green, and fair if from local sources, and the chances are that it is. We are more likely to decide to afford better food if know the money is going to a producer we know and trust. And, if we do have a mega-industrial food plant down the road, we know that its localness is rather one-dimensional. (Once in Milwaukee, I asked our waiter whether they had any local beers, and realized my mistake rather quickly.)

When buying local, we must recognize this and insist on local and sustainable or “good” food. While a good bet, we shouldn’t assume it is sustainable just because it is local. We need to know the questions to ask of our local farmer or rancher. We need to let them know that we appreciate their extra effort and that we are there to support them. That this conversation is possible is part of the beauty and the “connectedness” we often seek.

This broader meaning of local also points out the folly of the “local or organic” question that people like to pose. I am not talking here about organic certification, but food that is produced essentially organic, certified or not. There are always trade-offs to weigh, best done on a case by case basis rather than by rule, but we should be seeking both.

However, for most of us, the majority of the food we buy is still non-local. If we go out of our way to find local, sustainable food, we should take the same extra effort to find the most sustainable food if local is not available. This requires a more complicated set of questions asked impersonally and at a distance—but critical questions nonetheless. We at HCFS are currently working on gathering some guidance for making these sustainable food choices easier. In the meantime, when you think local, realize that there is a lot more to it than food miles.

Filed Under: Farm to Preschool, Farm to School, Getting Serious

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • Next Page »

Being Proactive—as a Community—About Climate Change in our Local Food Systems and Foodsheds

May 6, 2026

Fickle Monsoons, Summer in March, and Hot Summer Nights: Climate change is here, has been seriously affecting local agriculture, and will certainly get worse. It will take some serious effort to adjust our local food production and local food systems to the extent needed, so why not ramp up efforts now to adapt and help […]

Getting Started

Setting a Green Table

Addressing Climate Change with Local Food

Food System Tools

Mission Statement

Our Mission: To help communities build healthy sustainable food systems through effective systems … Read More

Connect with Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest

HCFS NewsBriefs

Copyright © 2026 · Outreach Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...