Gardening and Those with Less – Is it really just a pipe dream?

It seems fashionable lately to talk about “Victory Gardens” and “Recession Gardens” as a way to save some money in an uncertain economy. I must admit I never paid it much mind because it seemed like one of those “Well, duh!” things. My favorite seed source sent out a notice encouraging folks to order early because they were expecting higher than usual volume and shortages. We dutifully did so not wanting to miss out on my favorite heirloom seeds (this I realize means that we’re already a bit “elitist”).

Then I came across some comments made by an individual on a blog that made some passing mention of gardening in a recession (it was actually mostly about Monsanto) and how giving that sort of advice was insulting and a luxury….because it’s cheaper to buy produce at Wal-Mart. I believe it was something along the lines of that’s why we don’t make our own soap, clothes, or change our own oil. That we have to bow to the wisdom of “specialization” and all that. I’m not going to link to that person’s blog – although I’m sure she’ll find me. She’s been posting in comments all over the place and linking back to her own blog. I’m also sure that if you really want to find it, you can within just a few minutes of searching on Google.

What I found most interesting about the discussion is that this particular person makes one glaring assumption – that the working poor (those who have limited resources, don’t have access to land, work plenty of hours, etc) actually can get to a grocery store that sells produce. They don’t call them “food deserts” for nothing (See “Urban Issues: The Sprawl of Food Desserts” by M. Nathaniel Mead). This is a real issue – grocery stores are notorious of leaving less-affluent areas in favor of the more profitable suburbs. I even remember a “Cosby Show” episode that touched on the issue as well which I realize makes my point seem dated, but it’s not. There was a recent news story on our local news about a grocery chain that was leaving a less-affluent, higher crime rate area leaving the residents (who don’t own cars) who used to walk to get their groceries, without a viable alternative (And bus fares set to increase because why should we tax payers pay for it? Shouldn’t the people who use it pay for it? Ugh.).

To completely dismiss gardening to me shows more naivete than the person suggesting a “recession garden”. All things are not created equal – not to mention the sorry state of most produce in the grocery store (and the declining nutrient density in produce since the 1960s) – it’s been awhile since I shopped in an urban grocery store, but I imagine the lower quality produce would be shipped there just from a profit perspective.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the only solution is for people to grow their own food – there are some urban farming enterprises out there – like Growing Power in Milwaukee, Wisconsin which in addition to reaching out to lower income residents in their own city, also offer fairly reasonably priced “Market Baskets” to people in lower-income areas of Madison and Chicago.

So, to the question of “recession gardens” is it really an elitist proposition? I don’t think so for a few reasons:

1. You don’t have to have your own land to garden. In many urban areas there are “Community Gardens” where you can rent a small plot of land (and depending on the degree of involvement get help from more experienced gardeners). The American Community Gardening Association has lots of information along these lines including how you can go about creating your own community garden. For some it can even be an issue of planting on an abandoned lot (and improving one’s community at the same time).
2. You don’t have to have your own land to garden. Duplicate reasons? Nope! Many fruits and vegetables can be grown in containers. You don’t even need to buy fancy containers. You can often get containers at thrift stores, Craigs List, or Freecycle. In fact, the book “Fresh Food from Small Spaces” gives plans for how to make your own from inexpensive storage containers many people already have. A roof top, a deck, a patio, etc. You may not grown enough for your entire family’s needs (although there are urban homesteaders out there which for the sake of argument I’ll leave out given that most people may not be able to achieve this particular level of success), but it would certainly be a start.
3. If you own your own home, chances are you also have access to the land you need – have you seen the time and effort many people spend on their lawns? In fact, I would venture to guess that tending to a garden would take less time than mowing your lawn. “Food Not Lawns” by H.C. Flores is a great reference book on this particular aspect.
4. It doesn’t take a lot of money. As mentione above there are many places on can get second hand tools and supplies. We don’t all need a rototiller (in fact, it’s probably best to skip it altogether since it destroys soil structure) and we don’t all have to buy fertilizers (composting – even on an urban scale – is a very reasonable way to recycle what so many people already throw away). In fact, you can even garden without buying seeds. Food Not Lawns International helps folks organize community seed swaps and once seeds have been obtained it is possible (as long as they’re open-pollinated and not hybrids) to save seed for the following year.
5. More sustainable, self-sufficient options shouldn’t be as difficult as they are. Some of what might be possible won’t be because we’ve allowed our zoning and city ordinances to reflect the “specialization” argument far more than it should. Is having your own garden, chickens, rabbits, or bees possible for everyone? Not necessarily, but we’ve also taken away the possibility for many by making it against the law.

I could go on further, but I think that’s at least a start in the right direction. I’m working on hunting down some real life examples of what I’m talking about here. I know they’re out there, I just haven’t been very good at keeping track of them as I’ve come across the in the past.

That being said, if you don’t want to garden, don’t like to garden, or don’t think you’ll have time by all means search out another option for your food. If you believe in the logic of “specialization” then by all means, allow someone else to be your food specialist. However, I don’t think that means that the “recession garden” is a worthless proposition. True, you may not have significant yields or provide a significant amount of your family’s caloric needs, but I don’t think that alone justifies writing the idea off completely. There are other gains to be made? What about a sense of pride or accomplishment? Is there a greater social good that can be had from these sorts of intangible things?

I tend to write these kinds of posts and then let them sit for a bit while I mull over a few things and decide whether there are some revisions to be made. This one was no exception. While mulling it over I also remembered one glaring omission from the discussion. All of this cheap produce in grocery stores and big box stores relies upon a few factors that while we may have thought they would last forever in the past, we can no longer go on assuming in the future.

First off, the cheap produce in the store relies upon certain costs being externalized. The cheap labor involved in picking and selling the produce at the store, the lack of health care for those same people, the environmental impact of all the oil need to fertilize and transport the produce all over the world. The sad irony here is that the people we’re talking about are in essence “subsidizing” all this cheap food because they’re the ones who are paid so very little above minimum wage and forgo health insurance either because it’s too expensive or it’s not offered. This directly impacts the selling price at the store (and protects the profit margins of the shareholders). What happens when theses costs are folded back into the pricing equation? Cheap oil is a momentary player (remember the $4/gallon gas from not all that long ago?) and with increasing shipping distances can have a real impact on cheap food.

Secondly, the assumption is that all is right in the world and will continue that way indefinitely. One look in the newspaper tells you this isn’t the case any longer. Global water supplies are becoming a great deal less certain – not to mention water shortages in California which has led some farmer’s to leave ground fallow for lack of water. A few disruptions along the way can play into our very own food supplies given that we also ship in food from overseas. What happens when those who can least afford it are faced with higher prices and/or shortages? Do we really believe that these kinds of problems are a problem for someone else, somewhere else? I’m not even including the specter of climate change here and what impact that might have on food supplies in the next 10 or 15 years.

The bottom line is, can we really afford to poo-poo an idea like the “recession garden” in light of future uncertainties? Is it likely that a family can grow enough fruits and vegetables to meet all their needs? Probably not, but perhaps down the road with experience it might be more of a possibility. Would a few plants here and there help a family become more food secure and better able to handle possible future shortcomings? Perhaps. The problem is a bit more complex than just “to garden or not to garden” and as often is the case I tend to come up with more questions than answers. Overall, though, I believe the “recession garden” is another one of those middle ground, short-term acts on the way to long-term change. We’re in desperate need of some long-term solutions (which more than likely will require some sweeping fundamental changes to the way our society/economy approaches things), but as I’ve said before we have to start somewhere.

Advertisement