An increasing amount of our food is sourced from around the globe and sent to processing plants too big to keep clean. But the world is not a sterile environment and neither is the human body nor the foods we need to live. Attention and care is needed to establish an equilibrium between the necessary helpful bacteria and those that are harmful. Because this balance cannot be maintained in giant processing plants, ad-hoc solutions are used just to keep food from being lethal. Lucky for the food manufacturers, the additional steps needed to maintain a food system of such magnitude are just as profitable as the system itself.

Moving food around, applying sterilization mechanisms, producing dietary supplements to make up for nutrient loss from processing, pasteurization, and even irradiation, all are primarily economic activities, encouraging a chain of fixes during the production process rather than getting at the root of the problem: industrial food.

Why else would we be exporting the same or similar goods to China that we import? The costs of such an irrational system are often justified by the profits gained by the huge amounts of food sold. For example, the Mars Co. can sell a candy bar, whose ingredients are as well traveled as Rick Steves, for roughly 65 cents and still earn a 2 billion dollar profit. There is no question that scale pays.

This scale of operation has led to our food being exposed to many processes never before seen in the history of man.  There is food that contains harmful chemicals added through cutting corners in production practices to make a profit — such as  Melamine in milk and other processed products from China (including feed for farmed fish) and antibiotics in meat that makes its way into vegetables through cheap CAFO manure. One could also argue that the use of pesticides is a short-cut by design, leaving behind potentially harmful residues.  There are also foods which, due to the convoluted process of large scale production and distribution methods, have a lot of harmful microbes and make people sick.  Related, but not as acutely dangerous, are foods that contain lower levels of harmful substances due the nature of industrial processing (melamine is found in infant formula produced in the US via inherent contamination in the processing plant or user-end packaging, for example).

The problem of antibiotics absorption by crops is alarming — not least because the study found that some organic produce was affected — but also because it is difficult to determine if the vegetables you buy are contaminated.

While organic farms are not free from contamination, compost and manure come from the produce and animals living on the farm, creating a closed system that could be arguably safer, and builds nutrient rich soil that is also filled with living organisms.  As small-scale farmer Allen Balliett describes it, “The basis of all good organic farming is promoting the diversity of the beneficial microbial community which inevitably leads to the suppression of pathological organisms.”

The nature of large scale operations means it is very difficult to change the system, particularly because of trade policy and the policies of other nations that undermine our own food production standards.  Additionally, because many of the contamination issues come from problems of federal regulation and the practices of giant food companies (like Cargill which is in charge of much of the buying, selling, growing, and processing of food. Read more about the ag firm here) voting with our fork is our most practical tool in speaking out against food contamination.

While policy changes are ideal, consumer spending patterns are powerful motivators for change. Stricter standards for the source of manure organic growers can use would be best, but the more you buy organic meat the less demand there will be for animals that undergo antibiotic treatments that provide the contaminated fertilizer. And meeting your producer at the farmer’s market can be a direct source of information on agricultural methods.

The power of consumer spending is a compelling reason not to get discouraged about food contamination findings but to be encouraged to support those who are engaged in practices that guarantee healthy, safe food. For the most part that means local producers and processors, particularly you in your own kitchen. If you can’t find a food you are looking for from your community, state, or even somewhere in the U.S., try something new.

It is important to stay proactive in the face of disconcerting information. We must support solutions that do not diminish the nutritional value of food or only provide what are essentially lazy fixes to a large and unclean production process. The more locally you source your food and the more transparent and accountable your source is, the more assured you can be that you are safe from contamination and that you are supporting a rational and healthy food system.

In a sold-out room at The Commonwealth Club on August 14, Moderator Naomi Starkman led a discussion about “The Centralization of Our Food System.”

Centralization affects all aspects of our food system, Starkman said, including production, distribution, consumption patterns, and economic cycles. The question is, what does this really mean?

To answer that question, she turned to Roots of Change President Michael Dimock, Ecosa Capital Managing Director Paul Frankel, and Don Shaffer, President and CEO of RSF Social Finance.

Dimock began by discussing how perfect our current system was – that is, it is perfect if the ultimate value is profit. But, what if there are other goals for a food system, like the health of the society?

Frankel added that centralization is a necessary component of our food system, and that it is not necessarily bad, we just need to optimize it for the values that we hold dear – local culture, communities, and heritage.

Shaffer jumped in, wanting to get to the root of the issue. “We all need to realize that we need to invest our money differently,” was one of his central points. The reality is, Shaffer says, that all of us as investors and consumers are responsible for the system that we have. We need to try to create more alternatives to be able to invest our money in sustainable projects.

What the current system does do very well, continued Dimock, is to create a cheap price point. But it does this by externalizing some of the costs. For example, water pollution caused by farming and transportation is something that society as a whole has to pay for.

The good news is that we now have momentum in the right direction. One large reason for current change is the high price of oil. Shaffer pointed out that this makes international trade less viable, making all companies look for local sources. “It’s an encouraging shift,” he says.

Dimock pointed out that even WalMart and other large retailers are starting to buy local for economic reasons. This is great, Frankel added, because WalMart brings awareness and education to a whole new group of consumers. What’s more, it lowers prices and increases the demand for organic and sustainable goods in the process.

What’s the take-away message? What actions can we all take? Here are some panelist recommendations:

1. Buy from retailers who buy local and seasonal.

2. Shrink the distance between you and your food sources.

3. Shrink the distance between you and where your money is invested.

4. Build relationships with where your food comes from.

5. Write two letters: one to the State Capital, and one to the White House, asking them both to plant vegetable gardens on their lawns.

6. Make a meal from local sources. Live and express your appreciation for the connection between food and community.

7. Support businesses that share your values.

8. Support the FoodDeclaration.org. The Declaration calling for healthy food, farms, and communities will be read aloud in a ceremony at Slow Food Nation on August 28th, in the Rotunda of San Francisco’s City Hall.

Images by TheeErin and David Boyle in DC