The term “organic” brings to mind two attributes: unwashed and primitively natural. Take these two descriptors, add tie-dye shirts, a suspicious odor, and a complete lack of concern for one’s future income, and you have the group membership of the Sustainable Food Initiative or SuFI. These kindly hippies, fresh off their last hit of marijuana, have stumbled upon an organic food program that is fun, educational, and not an imposition on the rest of the Brown student body.
Founded by Emily Benjamin, SuFI coalesced last year into an official student group. More than they fear shampoo, group members fear the many artificial elements in the modern palate. Worldwide population increases have created incentives for the genetic engineering of crops and pesticide use in order for supply to keep up with demand. Rapid modernization and the elimination of trade barriers have created a situation in which in all of the world’s richest countries, it is quite unlikely that the produce you purchase at the market is grown locally. This trend has put a squeeze on Western farmers, American farmers in particular. Many have been forced out of the market. However, some have achieved success by transferring to the relatively price-insensitive organic food industry. The goal of SuFI is to ensure the financial security of these farmers by promoting the consumption of local, organically grown produce, by all members of the Brown community.
In tacit acknowledgment of the First Commandment for hippies – “Thou shalt not be efficient” – the group has no top-down organization. There are eight to ten veteran members, however, and these individuals somehow have motivated the creation of four committees: Market Shares, Publicity and Outreach, Student Farm Project, and Farm Tours.
The Market Shares initiative functions as a creative way for farmers to tap into the urban, educated market that is willing (and able) to pay higher prices for their foods. It is an eccentric scheme: in the spring, farmers sell shares to individuals. In return, consumers receive a composite – not compost—box of goods each week in the fall, some of which will contain edible food, proportional to their shares. The beauty of the program lies in its modesty: all transactions taking place are between free individuals in a market in which direct contact with a food producer is highly valued. Save for a small amount of funding needed to finance the initial fixed costs of the operation, such as the buying of the composite boxes, this idea will not further lighten the abused wallets of Brown parents.
Publicity and Outreach focuses on raising awareness on campus of the benefits of purchasing from local farms and the nutritive superiority of organic foods. Though there appears to be less emphasis in this area, there are some ideas planned, such as campus movie nights (watching organic plants grow?). Lindsay Hagamen, a group member, has been promoting the use of organic foods by BUDS.
The greatest generator of publicity for SuFI is the Student Farm Project, an independent initiative. The farm will be located on a 3,000 sq. ft. plot near the intersection of Hope and Charlesfield, next to the Young Orchard dorms. As of this writing, Facilities Management has cut up the turf, and SuFI members are digging the soil. According to SuFI member David Schwartz
The farm will be run on bio-intensive growing methods. This is actually very efficient and is best done on a small scale. ?The Southside Community Land Trust, a model for urban agriculture, grows on 5,000 square feet. They earn $15,000 from the vegetables they grow on that land. ?If you do some rough math, they are making over $75,000 dollars an acre, which is way more per acre than any farmer out west is making. ?So there are advantages to growing niche products to educated consumers, where there is high demand (in such a densely populated area).
Due to the operation’s small scale, one can rightly question its usefulness. Unless SuFI members elect to grow some extra ganja, there is no reason to believe that this “microagriculture” will be economically viable or realistic. Real world farms – the kind that are not just a passing fancy for the urban elite—are thousands of acres stewarded by a small group of farmers. The Student Farm Project takes the idea of sustainable agriculture down to its logical psychedelic roots, for a 3,000 sq. ft. student farming endeavor is sustainable in the same sense that a committed Rastafarian student is sustainable – both are willing to accept checks and engage in sloth. But the idea’s superfluousness is an insufficient criticism; after all, half the Brown curriculum would fail to be proven viable if subjected to the criterion of utility.
The final initiative, Farm Tours, represents a fun opportunity for interested student groups and persons. People are transported in natural gas powered vans down to the farm site. Upon arrival, the day is spent learning about sustainable agriculture and participating in various farm tasks. The Spectator plans to have an outing with SuFI on the 28th of April. With our conservative feces added to the night soil, organic produce will never be the same again.
Along with global warming, organic produce is one of the greatest scientific shams of the past twenty years. There is no scientific evidence that proves that it is more nutritional than regular, genetically modified, pesticide ridden foods. The official term “organic” only means that the food, in its preparation, was subject to a special process. The lack of agents to kill bacteria and the fact that genetic means cannot be employed to fight back diseases make the issue of whether organic food is healthier even more ambiguous.
That said, there are plenty of silly ideas which millions of people believe. The most desirable aspect of SuFI is the group’s innocuousness. They’re not hurting anyone, so let the hippies have their coca farm. The worst that can result from SuFI’s efforts is wasted time, fun outings, and a lagging endowment for Brown – three outcomes that are preferable to the destructive ways of other Brown student groups. The next time you see a SuFI member on campus (easily identifiable—look for bare feet), don’t be afraid to go up and ask for a weekend frolic on the farm.

while i am glad to see sustainable food getting some press, this article takes a tone i find quite offensive. do you have to throw in those wisecracks about those “primitive” advocates of organic agriculture? it perpetuates the myth that good food is only for “kindly hippies fresh off their last hit of marijuana”, a myth i believe to be damaging not only to the reputation of this burgeoning food movement, but to america’s chances of ensuring a safe food supply well into the future. taking this tone of voice turns an otherwise informative and well written article into yet another excuse to write off supporters of local/sustainable food as dirty, inefficient, and addicted to drugs. if you were in touch with the food movement these days you would know that this is not the case. certainly, there is some truth in the labels you use. i am not denying that the public perception of sustainable/organics has traditionally been one of grubby hippies and all that peace/love bullshit. that is why i find this article so problematic. in order to overcome the stigma of its history(something i don’t think should exist yet it remains a fact) we need to bridge the gap between the “dirty hippies” and ivy league types like you. this is about food. not about how one dresses, what one smells like, or yes, even what substance one chooses to abuse. so please, keep writing the articles(i found it highly informative by the way). just don’t assume that everyone sympathetic to “the cause” is a dirty hippy. otherwise, it will take considerably longer for people to see sustainable food as a “legitimate” issue.
sincerely,
a clean-cut, fresh-smelling, drug-free food activist
Reply
when you write an article make a point to not come off as a douchebag. makes is much easier to read and not want to kick the writer in the face.
Reply
I hope that the author of this article eats as much genetically modified food as his little uniformed heart desires. This “article” is almost as offensive as it is inaccurate. I am assuming that the author is not an economics major. I am left a little confused by the “rough math” theory posited in the article. First of all, how much per acre is a farmer out west making? Secondly, what is the difference in real estate value? Labor? What is the growing season? Oh, but I suppose the author would like to just ignore these considerations and stick to his “rough math”.
Then of course there was my personal favorite in which the author spoke about “real world farms” being thousand of acres farmed by a group of farmers. Where is that Jason? I must assume you are talking about those sucessful cotton and sugar platations that liberal hippies opposed a couple hundred years ago…. Are you aware of the average size of farms or the agricultural crisis of the 1980’s??? Why do we need farm subsides anyway?
I am guessing the author of this article has never been to a farm nor was able to set aside his judgment of organic farmers long enough to ever talk to one. I wish the author of this article a very well planned, economically successful life. Make sure to eat plenty of pesticide and herbicide ridden gm foods and don’t ever let me catch you without your shoes on.
Reply