The Rise of “Food NIMBYism”

Have you ever heard of the acronym “NIMBY”ism?

Essentially, it’s a term used to describe residents’ opposition to proposed developments in their communities. It stands for “Not In My Backyard.”

In this post, I’m going to talk about NIMBYism as it relates to food, but that’s not typically how the phrase is used. 

Instead, it’s used to refer to an opposition related to real estate development. Some projects that are commonly opposed by “NIMBYs” include affordable housing and trailer parks, homeless shelters, trailer parks, sewage treatment systems…and of course, wind farms and solar farms.

The rallying idea behind the opposition is that these developments will reduce property values and quality of life nearby. Some people might worry that there will be a harm to local businesses (something we often see when big box stores, like Dollar Generals or Walmarts enter a town). 

Others worry about the strain on public resources and schools, a disproportionate benefit to non-locals, an increase in crime, or even a rise in environmental or light pollution.

The term was first used in the late 1970s and has increased in use since then. It’s evolved to have connotations that are almost entirely negative, and it’s spread across party lines. Both conservatives and liberals are equally likely to express NIMBYism for a variety of reasons. 

**J&R Pierce Family Farm is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to allow sites to earn advertising fees by linking to products on Amazon. I often link to Amazon when recommending certain products, and if you choose to purchase, I may earn a small percentage of the sale. It costs you nothing extra, and all recommended products are ones that I personally vouch for.**

NIMBYism in Renewable Energy

In the book I’m writing on agri-energy, I explore this concept a bit in relation to solar developments. The biggest problem with NIMBYism in renewable energy is that it passes the responsibility of energy production off to communities who don’t have the resources or social capital to oppose new developments. 

In this, it creates a sort of “energy colonialism” in which the communities responsible for producing energy are also those who must bear the negative externalities - and in some cases, don’t receive the benefits.

The poorest communities are the ones who not only bear the worst brunt of climate change (via flooding, hurricanes, and natural disasters) but also must play host to the technologies or the degradation. In Africa, 600 million people lack access to electricity because fossil fuel investment is exported rather than remaining local.

While 69% of Americans largely favor alternative energy sources, according to Pew, only 42% support additional development. There’s a huge gap between our idealism and our actual priorities - and that’s a problem.

Exploring the Idea of Food NIMBYs

Unfortunately, NIMBYism is a problem that extends into many other areas of our lives beyond renewables.

I’ve noticed that there hasn’t been a lot of conversation around food and NIMBYism, and that’s something I want to explore a bit more in depth.

By that, I mean the idea that there are very few of us producing food - and all of us need to eat. 

That’s completely fine, of course - there’s a limited number of people with the skills, desire, or resources to farm. Not everybody needs to farm. But it’s my opinion that we all need to be more connected with where our food comes from.

7% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. 

That’s an extreme example, but it highlights our disconnect. 

So many other people don’t realize that it takes months to raise a pig, years to raise a beef cow, to be ready for slaughter. 

So many others don't realize the challenges of seasonality - that you can’t grow tomatoes in December in the North Country and that getting strawberries in February in Plattsburgh, NY means you’re either buying them frozen or they’re shipped up from a farm in Florida or Mexico. 

There’s nothing wrong with ignorance, provided that the ignorance doesn’t spill over into poor decision making (or worse, poor policymaking). 

The problem is when farmers are criticized for decisions that are literally keeping food in production. We are often criticized for slaughtering animals (“they’re so cute! How can you kill them?”) by the same people who have no problem buying packages of meat off the grocery store shelves. 

The Duality of Agriculture

It is a hard pill for some folks to swallow - that there is a duality in farming. Two things can be true at the same time. I can love an animal and care for it until its day at the slaughterhouse comes. That day is not a joyful one, but it’s not a sad one, either. It’s the recognition that for everything to live, something must die. 

Vegetarians and vegans aren’t immune to this. No matter how far you want to separate yourself from the food chain, always, something must die. An average of 40 mice die for every acre of grain that’s harvested. 

But of course, we don’t really care about mice - at least, not as much as pigs and cows and chickens, because they aren’t cute and they aren’t personified. We don’t attach as much emotion to them.

And naturally, if you’re not the one doing the actual killing - then all the better. It’s not in your “backyard".” If you can’t see it happening, you’re not part of the problem, and you can freely criticize those who are. You can buy your meat and eggs from the grocery store and not think anything of it. 17% of Americans strongly disapprove of legal hunting, but only 4% of Americans are vegetarian. 

For more than three years, when I was in high school and early in college, I was one of these people. Then I realized my own rationale made zero sense. As I matured, I realized the lack of logic in my former train of thought.

This is something I like to refer to as “food NIMBYism.” It’s eschewing the responsibility of producing food to a third party, yet criticizing that third party. Not for actually doing anything wrong (I won’t lie and say there aren’t bad actors out there), but going through the actual motions of producing that food. For slaughtering animals when it’s time for them to be slaughtered, for example. 

The Solution?

Food has been incredibly commercialized, for better or worse. Very few of us even cook our own food at home, let alone grow or butcher it. And again, I’m not saying we need to. We live in a society of specialization, where everybody has an extremely valuable role to play - and you should play the role that suits you best. If you’re a doctor, your role is to practice medicine. 

But since we all need to eat, we need to think more about how and where our food is being produced - then make decisions that are more in line with what we actually care about.

If you’re picketing about animal welfare and climate change, and then buy pork that was raised in a CAFO and shipped across the country, then those values aren’t exactly meshing up. 

And it’s not just about food, but about society.

Per the World Bank, about 78% of the world’s poorest people live in rural areas and rely largely on agriculture to make ends meet. 

Much of the food that’s being produced isn’t staying local. In the sharpest of ironies, many of the people who are struggling to get enough to eat are the ones tasked with growing the food. 

There is no world hunger problem - there is a world hunger distribution problem. About 40% of the food grown and sold in the United States is never eaten, but is instead wasted. Grocery stores regularly throw away unsold food, even food that’s not past its expiration date. 

And so much of the food we are producing domestically is being shipped abroad. Only about 6% of American farms market foods locally through direct-to-consumer sales.

It’s easier to pass the problem off to other communities even though the problem is one that affects us all. It’s easier to buy meat from the grocery store because you don’t have to think about the realities of an animal that’s no longer living to help fill your plate. 

In the United States, farmers comprise less than 2% of the population, which means 98% of us aren’t waking up everyday to produce food. But 100% of us need to eat. 

You don’t need to start a farm, but I do invite you to become more connected to your food. If you want a better understanding of life, if you want a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by your community, or of the communities abroad, interact more with what’s on your plate. 

Take a cooking class. Learn how to grow carrots. Talk to your local farmer about what their cows are eating or where the different cuts of meat come from on an animal. 

There’s no greater way to interact with the world - the human world, or the natural world - than through working with the land. Take some time to become part of it - rather than letting it be someone else’s problem. 

You’ll thank yourself - trust me.