City delays local food plan

May 16, 2008

Despite heavy pressure from Mayor David Miller’s inner circle to move on his green agenda, a committee of councillors yesterday delayed taking action on a proposal to buy more local food to serve at the city’s homeless shelters, daycares and seniors homes. The initiative, touted as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, was attacked by members of the government management committee, who wanted precise information on costs and benefits.

“The city’s smog and climate change plan is now in idle,” said Franz Hartmann, executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. The much-touted climate policy passed unanimously last July, and Hartmann said a key component was buying more food locally to help curb the city’s reliance on long-distance food, which damages rural economies and, with the huge quantities of fuel consumed and emissions spewed in transportation, contributes to global warming.

The city spends $11 million annually on food for its facilities, and the idea was to earmark $100,000 this year to cover any extra costs from buying more local food. The alliance was pushing hard for the buy-local plan, as were councillors Shelley Carroll, Gord Perks and Glenn De Baeremaeker.

Five other councillors on the committee voted for delay, and the sixth, Doug Holyday, wanted to kill the initiative on the basis that agriculture is a provincial responsibility. The matter has been held off until the committee meets July 9.

For more on the benefits of eating local food, check out our previous posts on the 100 Mile Diet and locavores.

source

comments

One Response to “City delays local food plan”

  1. Politics in America » City delays local food plan on May 16th, 2008 12:56 pm

    […] NonStopSite wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Despite heavy pressure from Mayor David Miller’s inner circle to move on his green agenda, a committee of councillors yesterday delayed taking action on a proposal to buy more local food to serve at the city’s homeless shelters, daycares and seniors homes. The initiative, touted as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, was attacked by members of the government management committee, who wanted precise information on costs and benefits. […]