Food Security and Identity: Iceland

Home , Agriculture in Iceland, Energy in Iceland, Food drying, Food power, Geography of food, History of Iceland

FOOD SECURITY AND IDENTITY: ICELAND

A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Gina Marie Butrico

August, 2013

Thesis written by

Gina Butrico

A.A.S., Middlesex County College, 2009

B.A., Kent State University, 2011

M.A., Kent State University, 2013

Approved by

______, Advisor Dr. David H. Kaplan, Ph.D.

______, Chair, Department of Geography Dr. Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Ph.D.

______, Associate Dean for Graduate Affairs, Raymond A. Craig, Ph.D. College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... v

List of Tables ...... viii

Acknowledgements ...... ix

Chapter I. Introduction ...... 1

Food Security in Iceland ...... 3 Food Identity in Iceland ...... 5 Site Selection ...... 6 Food Geography...... 7 Chapter Outline ...... 9 Conclusion ...... 11

II. Food Identity and Nationalism in Iceland ...... 12

Food and Identity ...... 13 Food and National Identity ...... 16 Food Identity in the Icelandic Sagas ...... 18 Banal National Identity in Iceland ...... 23 Conclusion ...... 30

III. Globalization and the Threat to Food Security ...... 32

History of Food Production ...... 33 The Globalization of Food ...... 34 Technologies that have Globalized Food ...... 35 Defining Food Security ...... 42 Reliance on Food Imports ...... 45 Threats of Disruption ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 57

IV. From Self-Sufficiency to Import Reliance ...... 59

Phase 1- Self-Sufficiency (9th-14th Century) ...... 60 Phase 2- External Supply (14th-17th Century) ...... 63 Phase 3- Food Shortages (18th-19th Century) ...... 65 Phase 4- Food Insecurity (20th Century- Present) ...... 68 Iceland as an Import-Reliant Nation ...... 72

iii

Conclusion ...... 77

V. Geothermal Agriculture in Iceland ...... 79

Research Methodology ...... 79 Geothermal Energy ...... 82 Geothermal Agriculture ...... 84 Geothermal Agriculture in Iceland ...... 91 Self-Sufficiency of Icelandic Geothermal Greenhouses Today ...... 97 The Government and Agriculture ...... 106 Friðheimar: Snapshot of an Icelandic Greenhouse Farm ...... 109 Conclusion ...... 114

VI. Conclusion ...... 116

WORKS CITED ...... 120

APPENDIX A ...... 128

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Fish drying on wooden poles in the South of Iceland ...... 21

Figure 2.2 An assortment of traditional Icelandic foods, or Þorramatur, commonly served during Þorrablót ...... 23

Figure 2.3 Íslenskir label on domestically grown tomatoes and potatoes. Every label displays the name and logo of the producer, the word “Íslenskir” (which translates to “Icelandic”) the type of produce, and a section of the Icelandic flag ...... 26

Figure 2.4 The banner on the Smjör website, laden with national symbols ..28

Figure 2.5 A plate of harðfiskur served with smjör, a traditional pairing still widely consumed today ...... 30

Figure 3.1 Average corn yield in the United States between 1866 and 2011, in bushels per acre...... 40

Figure 3.2 A diagram illustrating the combination of UNICEF’s definition of food security (that a place have food availability, access, and knowledge of use) with the addition of the World Health Organization’s added requirement of safeguards against disruption of food systems ...... 44

Figure 3.3 A graph created by the United Nations that illustrates world population growth from 1950 to 2050, with high, low, and medium estimates for the future based on UN 2010 projections and US Census Bureau historical estimates ...... 53

Figure 4.1 The original foundation of an Icelandic farmhouse from around the time of settlement ...... 62

Figure 4.2 Obesity rates among adults in European countries...... 73

Figure 4.3 Icelandic population, between 1850 and 2013 ...... 74

Figure 4.4 Annual expenditure in clothing imports, between 1950 and 1930, in ISK thousand ...... 74

Figure 4.5 Annual expenditure in fruit and vegetable imports, between 1850 and 1930, in ISK thousand ...... 75

Figure 4.6 Per capita consumption of industrially processed foods. Data adapted from Public Health Institute of Iceland ...... 77

Figure 5.1 Sites visited during fieldwork conducted between June and July of 2012. The yellow marker is Reykholt, blue is Flúðir, and red is Selfoss ...... 82

Figure 5.2 A modern day example of an outdoor, directly heated field in southern Iceland...... 86

Figure 5.3 An example of a plastic covered greenhouse, located in southern Iceland ...... 87

Figure 5.4 Various types of heating systems in greenhouses ...... 89

Figure 5.5 A greenhouse in Iceland utilizing the natural air movement method of greenhouse heating ...... 90

Figure 5.6 Global geothermal energy use, by application ...... 91

Figure 5.7 Number of greenhouse producers by region ...... 92

Figure 5.8 Distribution of greenhouse farms, in total greenhouse space, between 2004-2005, by region ...... 92

Figure 5.9 A map of Iceland showing cultivation potential...... 94

Figure 5.10 A glass-enclosed greenhouse complex in southern Iceland, accompanied by a visible geothermal steam cloud, indicating the presence of the geothermally heated water upon which this industry depends ...... 94

Figure 5.11 Total number of greenhouse producers from 2001-2008 ...... 97

Figure 5.12 Total area of greenhouse space (m2) from 2001-2008 ...... 97

Figure 5.13 Two examples of greenhouses that utilize automatic watering technology ...... 99

Figure 5.14 An example of a computerized system in a geothermal greenhouse in Iceland ...... 99

Figure 5.15 A container of fishmeal produced by an Icelandic fishmeal plant in southern Iceland ...... 102

Figure 5.16 A stonewool block containing a tomato plant in a greenhouse in southern Iceland ...... 104

Figure 5.17 A large tank storing CO2 outside of Friðheimar farm ...... 105

Figure 5.18 The outside of a greenhouse at Friðheimar ...... 111

Figure 5.19 A stand selling produce in front of Friðheimar ...... 111

Figure 5.20 Owner Knútur giving a presentation about his tomato farm to a group of tourists...... 113

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Supply changes in selected imported productes between 1956 and 2008 in Kg/person ...... 76

Table 5.1 Ranking of geothermal direct utilization worldwide May 2005 ....84

Table 5.2 Production of vegetables and horticulture production in tons, between 1990 and 2008 ...... 96

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. David Kaplan for his endless encouragement and illuminating feedback. It has been a pleasure working with you, and I am sure we will keep in touch. I also received generous support from my committee members, Dr. Sarah Smiley and Dr. Chris Post, whose insightful comments and suggestions refined my paper significantly. A thank you to the entire Geography department for the laughs, the discussions, and the friendships.

My fieldwork was made possible by the generosity of Bjarni Jónsson, who coordinated many of the interviews and site visits. My sincere gratitude to the farmers for sharing their stories and farms, and for being so welcoming. Your passion serves as the inspiration behind my work.

This thesis would not have been possible without the encouragement of my family and friends. Dad and Adam, it meant so much that you drove all the way to Ohio to attend my defense. Mom, I cannot promise the emotional phone calls will ever end, but I want you to know how much I appreciate your honest and loving support. To Chris

Leppla, thank you for keeping Scribbles open late, for countless hours of editing, and your unwavering friendship. Finally, I would like to thank the Geography department and

Graduate Student Senate for their generous contributions that made my fieldwork in

Iceland possible.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

It is July 8, 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy, and the most powerful political leaders in the world are assembled in one room. The global financial crisis that plummeted national economies into recession hit just a year prior, creating an undeniable sense of unease and urgency. On the agenda for discussion are topics of immense importance, including the crippled global economy, worsening climate change, and the heightened threat of international warfare. As important as these issues are, they have been at the center of discussion of G8 meetings before. What makes this particular G8 Summit significant is the focus on the growing global problem that affects every country, yet receives shockingly little attention: global food insecurity. In response to record high food prices, global leaders at the meeting agreed to reexamine international food insecurity and invest in sustainable solutions to ensure every person has consistent access to sufficient and safe food. This groundbreaking endeavor is the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI), which marks the first time global food security was given political and financial attention on such a large scale.

There is an urgent need for decisive action to free humankind from 1hunger and poverty. Food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture must remain a priority issue on the political agenda, to be addressed through across-cutting and inclusive approach, involving all relevant stakeholders, at global, regional and national level. (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011)

The AFSI brought global food security into the international spotlight, and spurred discussion in subsequent G8 Summits, as well as other governmental and non- governmental arenas. Many of the G8 countries have increased their investment in foreign food security efforts, which totaled over $18 billion in the three years following the start of the initiative. The AFSI successfully generates political awareness and financial support of food securing efforts, however, the focus is exclusively on developing countries, while developed countries are assumed to be food secure. This raises the question: are developed countries rightly excluded from the food security dialogue?

The G8 is not the first to assume developed countries to be food secure. A majority of the academic literature regarding food insecurity focuses on poor, developing countries, despite the fact that many developed countries regularly experience food insecurity. An example is Iceland, who experienced food shortages after the financial collapse in 2008 and the volcanic eruption in 2010. However, according to the World

Health Organization (WHO) and many other indexes, Iceland is a highly food secure country. The problem exists in the way food insecurity is quantified. Most definitions, including the one provided by the WHO, consider a country possessing sufficient food availability, access, and utilization to be food secure. Most developed countries fit this description, yet experience symptoms of food insecurity because of heavy reliance on

imported food, coupled with a lack of internal food production infrastructure. There is a global trend away from domestic, traditional foods to an imported, “globalized” diet, stripping countries of the national identity associated with food, along with a heightened risk of interrupted import systems upon which they rely to feed their populations. In order to achieve food security, import-reliant developed countries must develop sustainable, domestic food production systems that would provide their populations with a sufficient food supply in the event of import disruptions. For Iceland, this solution might be geothermal greenhouse agriculture, a sustainable, internal food source that has been in practice there for nearly a century. However, the industry is experiencing a decline in the face of insufficient government support, so it is not yet a viable solution to Icelandic food insecurity. This begs the question: could a greater emphasis on sustainable, domestic food production, such as geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland, remedy food insecurity and restore national identity in developed countries?

Food Security in Iceland

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to explore the concept of food security. According to the WHO’s definition, one of the most widely accepted, an area must have food availability, access, and utilization in order to be considered food secure

(World Health Organization, 2012). Again, this definition largely excludes developed countries, which often fit this definition yet experience food shortages. This gap is bridged by a fourth factor suggested by USAID; safeguards against risks that may disrupt any of the first three measures (Webb, 2003). The fourth factor is interesting because it

indicates a country not only needs availability, access, and proper use of food, but also safeguards against possible risks of disruption. Consideration of this factor defines many developed countries, otherwise considered to be food secure, as less food secure than previously thought. Little research has been done regarding food insecurity in developed countries, such as Iceland, that fail to employ safeguards against food supply disruptions.

Iceland recently experienced two major threats to food security as a product of near-exclusive reliance on food imports. In 2008, the global financial crisis hit, crippling the national economy and plummeting the value of the Krona overnight. Nervous foreign food suppliers halted all trade with Iceland, leaving grocery store warehouses empty and

Icelanders wondering what would happen if the food supply ran out. Fortunately, within a few weeks the economy stabilized and trade resumed as usual, leaving the brief encounter with food insecurity to fade into the past. Two years later, a volcanic eruption near

Eyjafjallaj kull wreaked havoc on the world, spewing a massive ash cloud into the atmosphere and disrupting global air traffic to the point of total standstill. This unexpected natural disaster caused domestic distribution failure, import delays, pollution, and animal disease, all of which interfered with the national food supply. During this period, some Icelandic households and grocery stores reported insufficient food availability because food transportation networks were compromised. Eventually the volcano quieted down and life returned to normal, and the brush with national food crisis, again, slipped out of the public consciousness.

Iceland exemplifies the types of food security threats a developed country may face, and illustrates the general lack of preparedness and safeguarding against food

import disruptions. Most countries, both developed and developing, are net food importers, meaning they import more food than they produce for internal consumption

(Valdes & McCalla, 1999). According to a 2004 report by the World Bank, 20 out of the

33 industrialized countries rely on imports for food (Aksoy & Ng, 2008). To remedy the food insecurity caused by import reliance, these countries must develop domestic food production systems to safeguard against disruptions in food imports. For Iceland, this solution might be geothermal greenhouse agriculture.

Food Identity in Iceland

Many countries have a distinct cuisine and food culture, and Iceland is no exception. In fact, food has been at the heart of Icelandic identity since it was first settled in the 9th century. Food was difficult to produce due to the harsh climate and isolation from international trade routes, making it a precious and prized resource. The cultural significance of food is evident in the Icelandic Sagas, an epic prose that tells of the legendary past of the Scandinavian people between 850 and 1030. Today, traditional

Icelandic food has become a symbol of nationalism, and its purchase and consumption are acts of asserting Icelandic identity. Icelandic food nationalism has expanded in the past century to include crops recently introduced to domestic agriculture, especially vegetables grown in geothermally heated greenhouses. The vegetables are emblazoned with the Icelandic flag and the name of the farm to differentiate them from their foreign competitors on the grocery store shelf. The nationalistic branding of domestic crops

grown in geothermal greenhouses is successful, and situates this new food group into a distinctly Icelandic food identity.

Iceland was one of the first countries in recorded history to use geothermal heat for agricultural purposes. Initially, crops were planted in soil located directly on geothermal heat sources, which extended growing seasons of traditional crops. In 1924, the first known geothermal greenhouses were constructed and were able to protect crops against weather and temperature hazards, which not only further extended growing seasons, but also allowed for the cultivation of crops that were previously difficult to grow (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011). Current greenhouse technology allows for such environmental specificity that nearly any plant may be grown in Iceland during any time of the year. Despite the economic, environmental, and political attractiveness of geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland, the total number of producers has declined in the past decade, which can be attributed to insufficient governmental support. If the

Icelandic geothermal agriculture industry is able to increase production to a level that could sustain the population if imported food networks were interrupted, it would achieve a higher level of national food security and would act as a model for other food import- reliant countries to secure a sustainable method of internal food production.

Site Selection

Iceland serves as an appropriate case study to determine if an increase in geothermal greenhouse agriculture could create more food security in developed, isolated countries. The country is relatively small, with a population of about 321,000 and an area roughly the size of the state of Texas (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011). It is an island in the

Arctic Circle, lending to the poor growing conditions and isolation that necessitates food importation (Aksoy, 2008). Iceland often ranks in the top fifteen in a variety of classification systems that measure development, including first place in 2005 according to the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2005). Due to its location on the Mid-Atlantic

Ride, Iceland has an abundance of geothermal resources that are ideal for direct-use applications such as greenhouse heating. Therefore, Iceland is a good case study to determine if geothermal greenhouse agriculture could increase food security in a food import-reliant developed country.

Food Geography

In the past decade or so, food has become a hot topic in both popular culture and academia. The surge in popularity is partially due to the landmark book Fast Food

Nation: The Darkside of the All-American Meal by Eric Schlosser, which was published in 2001. Schlosser exposes negative consequences of the fast food industry, from health degradation to wealth disparity. The book was the first of its kind, and achieved international popularity (Schlosser, 2001). Five years later, The Omnivore’s Dilemma by

Michael Pollan was published and quickly became a national bestseller. Pollan traces the origins and history of foods consumed today, such as corn and corn products, and reveals some disturbing truths about the origins and health risks of a processed diet (Pollan,

2006). Following the sensational popularity of these books, a slew of other food books appeared in popular culture, including Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara

Kingsolver, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and a multitude of others on topics such as local farming, organic and free-range practices, and urban gardening.

(Kingsolver, 2010; Foer, 2010). These books, along with a rise in farmers markets, label reading, the organic food sector, and homesteading are part of a “food movement” that has emerged in the past decade or so.

Food is receiving sudden popularity in not only popular culture, but also in academic fields such as geography. To illustrate the growing interest in food in geography, there were 24 sessions with the word “food” in the title at the Annual

Association of American Geographers meeting in 2013, compared with 12 in 2005.

Additionally, a “Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group” was formed this year to cater to the increasing number of geographers interested in these topics

(Association of American Geographers, 2013). Some common themes emerging in food geography today include political ecology, feminism, neoliberalism, and health. Susanne

Freidberg is a prominent food geographer from Dartmouth, whose interests include food politics, political ecology, and cultural economy. One of her most recent publications is

Fresh: A Perishable History, which follows the concept of food “freshness” through history and sheds light on the influence of food industry marketing. (Dartmouth

Department of Geography, 2013). Another influential food geographer is Julie Guthman, a researcher at the University of California Santa Cruz. Her research focus areas include sustainable agriculture, alternative food movements, and political ecology (University of

California, 2010). Food geography continues to grow as a subfield, and its expansion yields a diverse and dynamic literature that includes a range of perspectives and case studies.

Few geographers have used Iceland as a case study in their research, and almost none have analyzed its food geography. The case of Iceland is unique in that it is a developed country in a cold climate, while most of the literature focuses on developing regions in warm climates (Freidberg, 2003; Watts, 1989; Mutersbaugh, 2002). Those that do examine developed nations tend to study food deserts and how local food systems, such as community gardens and farmers’ markets, may remedy these food insecurity pockets (Larsen & Gilliland, 2009; Wrigley, 2002; Guthman, 2008). While the case of food security in Iceland is similar to some of the concepts presented in this thesis, there are a few distinctive differences. While Iceland is a developed nation at risk for food insecurity, it differs from most of the developed country case studies in that its insecurity is due to reliance on food imports, not internal food availability issues resulting in food deserts. A remedy to Iceland’s dependence on food imports is a transition to local, sustainable food grown in geothermal greenhouses. This differs from the regional and community solutions, such as urban gardening and low-income access to farmers’ markets, which are suggested in a majority of the food geography literature. Iceland’s food insecurity is a national problem that requires a national solution, whereas other geographers examine local solutions for local food insecurity. The research presented in this thesis not only adds to the growing food geography literature, it also contributes a novel case study and perspective.

Chapter Outline

Chapter 2 explores the relationship between identity and food, specifically national identity. The consumption of traditional foods produced domestically, such as

skyr, dried fish, and butter, is a way in which Icelanders express nationalism and drives consumer preference. In the past century, vegetables grown in geothermal greenhouses have fallen under this umbrella of “nationalism” foods due to strategic marketing efforts, making it likely that these foods have staying power with the Icelandic public.

Globalization has changed the way food is produced and consumed. For most of human history, food was generally produced in close proximity to the consumer. Today, it is not uncommon for thousands of miles to exist between point of production and consumption. Chapter 3 discusses how this change has occurred, and the negative implications it has on national food security. Because many countries, including Iceland, are becoming reliant on imported food, their domestic food production systems are deteriorating, leaving them vulnerable to food shortages if import systems are disrupted.

In order to understand why Iceland transitioned from self-sufficiency to import- reliance, its history must be examined. Chapter 4 follows food security in Iceland from settlement to the current day. It is clear that as Iceland became more dependent on foreign food, they lost food self-sufficiency and experienced food shortages. Today, Iceland continues to be an import-dominant country, which has negative implications for national food security.

Geothermal greenhouse agriculture presents an opportunity for import-reliant countries to cultivate a domestic food source to combat the food insecurity associated with foreign food dependence. Iceland has a long history of using geothermal heat to extend the growing season of crops, and is one of the leaders in the industry today.

Despite the sustainable, inexpensive nature of geothermal greenhouses and the positive

consumer reaction, the industry is slowly declining. In Chapter 5, the Icelandic geothermal greenhouse agriculture industry, and its impediments, is discussed, based on findings from fieldwork conducted in the summer of 2012.

Conclusion

Secure, consistent access to safe, healthful food is a basic human need and right.

With increasing population, climate change, and economic crisis in a globalized world, food insecurity needs to be a primary concern. Global food security can be a reality with proper planning, policies, and safeguards. Many developed countries rely too heavily on food imports and fail to implement safeguards and backup plans should the import systems fail, especially those that are isolated and/or in climates that are not conducive to traditional agriculture. It is necessary to explore methods of creating sustainable, sufficient sources of internal food supplies in countries that rely on imports for food and food products to move towards a more food secure world.

CHAPTER 2

FOOD IDENTITY AND NATIONALISM IN ICELAND

Food is a necessary component of human existence, the foundation of culture and socialization, a cornerstone of the global economy. Yet it is ubiquitous, especially in industrialized countries, where the food industry has created a food supply that is more affordable, accessible, and seasonally independent than it has ever been in human history

(Nestle, 2007). Advancements in the technology of food production have created a world that produces twice the amount of calories needed to feed its human population (Pollan,

2006). The combination of a staggering overabundance of food and unprecedented financial affluence has created an environment where people have the freedom to choose which foods to consume (Nestle, 2007). Eaters can decide which foods to purchase, for both substance and symbol. The symbolic nature of food is often overlooked in research, perhaps because it has become so prevalent that it becomes invisible. A myriad of identities are expressed and reproduced through food, including gender, ethnicity, religion, social class, and nationalism (Couniham & Van Esterik, 1997). This chapter explores how food is used to express identity, and how banal national identity is expressed through food preferences and practices, specifically in Iceland, and has an influence on consumer preference.

Food and Identity

The literature on food and identity has grown rapidly in recent years along with a surged interest in the topic of food in general. One of the first to publish on food identity is Claude Fischler with his article “Food, Self and Identity” published in 1988. He acknowledges the complex nature of the relationship between humans and food in that it both nourishes and signifies. Eating food is essential to sustaining human life, and in this way it serves the purely biological purpose of nourishment. But food serves the alternative purpose of symbolizing identity, and can be a vehicle to assert diversity, organization, and hierarchy. The sharing of a meal signifies oneness, while the avoidance of foods declares otherness (Fischler, 1988). A variety of collective identities are expressed through food, including religion, gender, ethnicity, and national identity.

Religious identity is often expressed through food. The act of abstaining from eating through fasting is a practice used by many different religions as times for religious contemplation and personal sacrifice (Feeley-Harnik, 1995). Complete avoidance of certain foods is also common in many religions to assert oneness and otherness, such as

Islamic avoidance of pork or Buddhist commitment to vegetarianism (Bowker, 1997).

Alternatively, feasting on large quantities of specific foods is a widespread practice among many religions to celebrate or pay homage to religious events or deities (Feeley-

Harnik, 1995). Examples include the many feasts associated with saints in Catholicism or

Ramadan for the followers of Islam. Food is often used ceremonially, as an offering to a god, or can represent a religious symbol, such as the Catholic Eucharist as a representation of the body of Christ. The way in which food is obtained and prepared is

also central to many religions. Some followers of Buddhism will only obtain food through begging or donation, while Judaism has specific rules for the slaughter and butchering of animals according to the rules of shehitah (Bowker, 1997).

Food is heavily gendered, especially in the way it is marketed. Gender is the social construction of roles and expectations assigned to men and women. The definition of masculinity, femininity, and the spectrum between and beyond them varies from society to society, therefore, the way food is gendered differs between cultures. Gender identity is expressed through food in the acts of food preparation, consumption habits, and gendered food (Counihan, 1999). Domestic food preparation has historically and pan-culturally been associated with women, indicative of gendered division of domestic labor. In many cultures, men are expected to provide security and income while women run the household and purchase and prepare food. While these roles are not nearly as stark as they have been in the past, due in part to the shift away from “traditional” family structures, the expectation for women to prepare food remains prevalent in most cultures

(Kemmer, 2000). Consumption habits differ greatly between men and women, due in large part to the gendered societal expectations applied to them. The societal pressure to achieve a specific body type based on gender has a strong influence on consumption habits. In countries of greater affluence women are often expected to have thin bodies by restricting food intake. Conversely, men feel societal pressure to have muscular, large bodies, necessitating a greater consumption of calories and protein. In societies where food access is limited, large female bodies are idealized, causing them to overeat to the expense of their health and family income. Foods are often associated with specific

genders. Common associations include alcohol and red meat with men and desserts and vegetables with women. There is a wide range of speculation as to why food is often gendered this way, often pointing to the violent, patriarchal nature of masculine foods and the weak, fanciful feminine foods. Regardless of the cause, men and women are influenced by these assigned roles, and tend to eat specific foods to foster a greater sense of gendered identity (Counihan, 1999).

Ethnicity can be expressed and asserted through diet. Literature pertaining to the relationship between ethnicity and food is surprisingly small, indicating an opportunity for further research. Most of the literature examines how food is used to express ethnic identity in the United States, specifically looking at ethnic enclaves. An interesting framework for understanding food ethnicity is provided by Leonard and Saliba in their chapter Food and Ethnic Identity published in 1999. They present three categories of ethnic foods: indispensible foods, emblem foods, and insider foods. Indispensible foods are regarded by cultural groups as the foundation for their meals. For those with Asian identities this food may be rice, for many Italians this could be pasta, and for South

Americans it may be tortillas. Emblem foods are those that represent a cultural group, but are not necessarily historically relevant or routinely consumed by that group. An example is the fortune cookie, which has come to be associated with the Chinese culture, yet it was invented by a Japanese man in San Francisco and is not regularly consumed in

China. Conversely, insider foods are consumed by those in an ethnic group and are unknown or rejected by outsiders. The durian fruit is an insider food for those from

Southeast Asia, where it is consumed regularly. The fruit has a pungent smell and unique texture that is considered repulsive by many outsiders (Leonard & Saliba, 1999).

Food and National Identity

Identity, along with all socially constructed concepts, is difficult to define. It may be observed in terms of scale, from individual to group identities. It is often multiplanar and overlapping, including elements such as language, gender, race, ethnicity, age, and country of origin (Conversi, 2004; Jones & Merriman, 2009). The subcategory of national identity is another multifaceted definition, and an especially dynamic one in a rapidly globalizing world. Traditional definitions of national identity are centered on country of origin, and the symbols, culture, and history attached to that nation. But the development of advanced communication and transportation and supranational institutions such as the European Union have changed the way nationalism is developed and expressed (Guibernau, 1996).

One of the most prominent pieces of literature in the discussion of national identity in a globalizing world is Michael Billig’s Banal Nationalism. His book explores the difference between “hot,” prominent expressions of nationalism and “banal,” everyday expressions. Much of the literature on the subject of nationalism has focused on the brief but prominent events that shape a country’s national identity, such as social movements, nation building, and achieving autonomy. While these events are essential to the establishment of nations and can be points of nationalistic pride, the activities that actually maintain nationalism are banal, everyday, and performed in habits and routines.

The notion that nationalism declines in the presence of democratization falsely overlooks

the ever-present banal nationalism, which grows stronger as hot displays of nationalism become less frequent. Everyday nationalism is in the quiet, nonreactive actions that are difficult to detect because they are so commonplace, but essential to the promotion of state maintenance. Banal nationalism lies in subtleties of speech, such as the use of the words “we,” “people,” or “our.” It is expressed through the decision to abstain from flag waving, or in countries where flag waving is commonplace, the decision to fly the flag can be banal nationalism (Billig, 1995).

Another type of banal nationalism not discussed by Billig is the act of purchasing and consuming food. Nationalism is so often expressed through food selection and preference, yet because it is a banal performance of nationalism it receives little attention.

Literature on the subject of food and national identity is surprisingly small, with most focusing on Japan as a case study (Hiroko, 2008; Cwiertka, 2006). Hiroko explores how the Japanese perform food discourses that are founded in cultural nationalism. Therefore, their bodies and minds become “biopolitical” devices that maintain nationalism. In 2006 the Japanese government initiated the “Intellectual Property Promotion Plan” which sought to promote nationalism through the establishment of a Japanese brand. One of the four pillars of this plan was strengthening food culture, or the “Nurturing Through

Eating” campaign. It essentially branded Japanese food as unique, high quality, nutritious, and pure. The campaign specifically focused on the branding of Japanese rice, propagating loyalty to domestic rice consumption (Hiroko, 2008). While the governmental campaign might be seen as hot, active nationalism, the everyday tendency for the Japanese to choose domestic food is banal nationalism (Billig, 1995). Consciously

or not, eaters in Japan are choosing domestic food products over imports, therefore their bodies are collectively maintaining Japanese nationalism (Hiroko, 2008).

While the literature about the role of food in promoting banal nationalism in

Japan is enlightening, there is a significant opportunity for application of Billig’s theory of banal nationalism to other case studies. Iceland is an often-overlooked subject for research in many areas of geography. Current literature on nationalism in Iceland is usually situated in larger discussions of Scandinavia, where it is only briefly mentioned or completely omitted (Gundelach, 2000; Hansen & Waever, 2002). Iceland has a rich, well-documented food history embodied in the Icelandic Sagas written in the thirteenth century. The Icelandic diet remained relatively unchanged from the settlement of the

Vikings until the mid-twentieth century, and many traditional foods are still consumed in notable quantities. An overview of Icelandic food history will be presented, followed by a discussion of how identity and banal nationalism is performed through the consumption of traditional foods in Iceland today (Notaker, 2009).

Food Identity in the Icelandic Sagas

The history of food consumption in Iceland is uniquely well documented in the extensive Icelandic Sagas, specifically in the Family Sagas, or Islendingasögur. The

Icelandic Family Sagas is an epic prose that tells of the legendary past of the

Scandinavian people between 850 and 1030. These histories were reproduced as oral histories until the thirteenth century, when they were transcribed in Old Norse and compiled. Much of the Islendingasögur contains genealogical lore, tales of feuds, poetry, and significant events. While the Icelandic Sagas are certainly not historically accurate

accounts, they do provide unique insight into the culture, traditions, routines, and diets of early Icelanders (Lönnroth, 2008).

According to the Sagas, food was abundant when Iceland was first settled. Some of the early accounts describe the island as a land of plenty.

…went out fishing and seal-hunting, and collecting the eggs of wild fowl, for there was plenty of everything… Whales often got stranded, and you could shoot anything you wanted, for none of the wildlife was used to man and just stood about quietly. (The Sagas of Icelanders, 2000, p.75)

Long winters meant short growing seasons, so grain was not central to the Icelandic diet.

Instead, cereal crops were grown to feed cattle and livestock, whose meat and dairy products were the dietary foundation for early Icelanders.

…livestock grew in number the animals started making for the mountains in the summer. He found a big difference in the livestock, which was much better and fatter when grazing up on the moorland, and above all in the sheep that wintered in the mountain valleys instead of being driven down. (The Sagas of Icelanders, 2000, p.76)

While some flour was imported from Norway to help diversify the diet, Icelanders survived mainly on a domestic, sustainable combination of dairy, cattle meat, fish, and fowl. Vitamin needs were fulfilled with the incorporation of sea plants, such as dulse, and small quantities of domesticated vegetables. Icelanders were successfully self-sufficient until the 14th century, as indicated by excavated human skeletons from this time that displayed nearly no symptoms of deficiency (Mehler, 2011).

An important component of the early Icelandic diet was preservation. A short growing season and cold climate meant that food produced during the summer must last through the winter, necessitating preservation practices. Milk from sheep and cows was the most abundant food source, and Icelanders quickly found ways to preserve dairy.

Skyr is similar to curd and, according to some accounts, was eating two to three times daily by the average Icelander. It is made by inoculating skimmed milk with rennet, which was harvested from the stomachs of newborn calves. It was then left to sour in barrels, producing a thick, creamy, yogurt-like product. The byproduct of the skyr- making process is whey. Whey is nutritionally dense, including B-vitamins, minerals, and fat, and also has the ability to preserve animal products. Meat, udders, testicles, eggs, and birds were often boiled in soured whey then preserved in barrels for months (Mehler,

2011).

Meat preservation was most often done through drying or smoking. Animals were routinely slaughtered in the autumn, with butchering and preservation efforts executed collectively and within a short timeframe to maximize limited resources. Fish processing was also done in this manner. Though originally heavily forested, Iceland quickly found itself deforested by early settlers, making wood a treasured resource (Notaker, 2009). Salt was also an expensive, rare resource that had to be imported, so salting was not a common preservation method until much later. Fish was commonly dried, hung on poles, houses, or cliffs, however sometimes meat was preserved in this way as well. Fish is still commonly preserved in this way, and is called Harðfiskur (See Figure 2.1). Smoking was executed in small spaces with limited wood, with meat and fish tightly packed to maximize the precious smoke (Mehler, 2011).

Figure 2.1. Fish drying on wooden poles in the South of Iceland. (Photo by Gina Butrico, 2010)

It is clear that resources were scarce for early Icelanders, which necessitated sustainable practices. Sheep, cows, and goats were raised for their wool and milk for as long as possible, and were slaughtered for meat only once they were no longer able to produce these resources. Once slaughtered, every edible part of the animal was used.

Some traditional dishes that resulted from this practice include súrsaðir hrútspungar, svið, sviðasulta, and blóðmör. Súrsaðir hrútspungar is made from the testicles from rams, which are boiled and pressed into blocks, then preserved with lactic acid. Whole sheep heads are singed and boiled, and sometimes cured with lactic acid, to produce the popular dish svið. During the butchering process, the blood was captured and used to produce

several dishes, specifically blóðmör, or blood pudding. Animal blood was boiled then mixed with a combination of rye flour and oats. After animals were butchered and all meat, fat, skin, and organs were removed, the remaining carcasses were boiled to remove the bits of meat and fat that clung to the skeletons. This was pressed and preserved in whey to produce headcheese, or sviðasulta (Torres, n.d.).

The early Icelandic settlers were proud of their ability to thrive in such a hostile climate through various methods of preservation, and demonstrated their pride during the annual feast of Þorrablót. The feast took place during the month of Þorri, a month in the medieval Icelandic calendar that falls between the middle of January to mid February.

This was the coldest part of the year, and also quite dark with only about three hours of sunlight. The food associated with the feast is called Þorramatur and it celebrates the preservation methods discussed, including drying, smoking, fermenting, and souring (See

Figure 2.2). Súrsaðir hrútspungar, svið, sviðasulta, and blóðmör were all present at this feast, as well as whale and seal blubber, fermented shark, and svartadaudir. Whale and seal blubber were boiled, the most common food preparation method. Hakarl, or fermented shark, was another important dish at the feast. Massive Greenland sharks were killed then buried whole for up to six months. The meat of the Greenland shark is poisonous due to a high concentration of uric acid. When the shark is buried the meat ferments in the uric acid, which neutralizes the poison. The resulting meat smells strongly of ammonia and was associated with good health. The meat was often chased with a shot of brennivín, a uniquely Icelandic liquor made from potato mash and caraway seeds

(Notaker, 2009).

Figure 2.2. An assortment of traditional Icelandic foods, or Þorramatur, commonly served during Þorrablót. (The Blanz 2012)

Many of the dishes served at Þorrablót would be classified as insider foods according to

Leonard and Saliba’s ethnic food classification system because outsiders might consider them repulsive or inedible (Leonard & Saliba, 1999).

Banal National Identity in Iceland

Iceland has a tendency to preserve symbols of national identity quite successfully.

This success is aided by the geographic isolation of the island and the historically small population, which is easier to regulate. An example of a well-preserved symbol of national identity is the Icelandic language, which has changed very little in the past 1000

years due to strict language policies. The Icelandic Language Institute (ILI) is the governmental body responsible for language planning and preservation. It is part of the larger Ministry of Education, Science, and culture. Its members are unpaid volunteers who work to preserve the Icelandic language while still allowing it to expand to keep up with a modernizing world. New words added to Icelandic undergo much scrutiny, and oftentimes an existing word is given a new definition instead of adding a new one.

Pronunciation in schools is routinely inspected, and deviations have led to government- issued directives on proper pronunciation issued to teachers. The language preservation goes so far as to control which names are acceptable to give to Icelandic babies. If a parent wishes to name their child a name that is not on the legal list, the name must be submitted for review, which is often denied. Icelandic is so strictly safeguarded because there are only 350,000 Icelandic citizens and native speakers of the language, so it would otherwise be in danger of extinction in favor of a more universal language (Hilmarsson-

Dunn, 2006). The Icelandic Language Institute and governmental enforcement of the preservation of Icelandic is hot nationalism, while the everyday use of preserved

Icelandic is banal nationalism. Citizens of Iceland use this stringently preserved Icelandic in everyday conversations, newspapers, television, and advertising. They are maintaining

Icelandic nationalism through their daily performance of using the language (Billig,

2005).

The Icelandic adherence to and protection of symbols of national identity extends to Icelandic food. Many traditional foods, preparation methods, and festivals survive and are protected in present-day Iceland. It is important to note that the food identities

observed here are indispensible and/or insider foods according to Leonard and Saliba’s ethnic food classification system discussed previously. Emblem foods are significant in the discussion of nationalism, but mainly in observing outsider perceptions (Leonard &

Saliba, 1999). While there is no literature on current food consumption statistics in

Iceland, popular foods can be determined by observations made in Iceland’s major grocery store chain. Bonus is Iceland’s most popular grocery store chain, specializing in discount prices. The layout of the grocery store is discussed, followed by an analysis of the banal forms of nationalism produced by the food in each section.

The first Bonus was opened in 1989 and spread rapidly to become the most successful grocery chain in the history of the country (Bonus, 2012). Though the size of the stores varies, the layouts are very similar. Customers enter the store to a refrigerated produce room, which is often very small with a limited, rotating selection. Almost always available in large quantities are mushrooms, cucumbers, lettuce, and tomatoes, which are produced domestically in greenhouses and bear the Islenskir label, which indicates its local origin (See Figure 2.3). The rest of the produce is very expensive and often low quality because it is often imported over long distances. The branding of Icelandic food is certainly a form of banal nationalism (Billig, 2005). This branding behavior is similar to the Japanese efforts of fostering nationalism through creating a Japanese brand around domestic foods. (Hiroko, 2008)

Figure 2.3. Íslenskir label on domestically grown tomatoes and potatoes. Every label displays the name and logo of the producer, the word “Íslenskir” (which translates to “Icelandic”) the type of produce, and a section of the Icelandic flag. (Photos by Gina Butrico, 2012)

The next room is also refrigerated and contains meat and animal products. The prominent items in this room are Icelandic fish, meat, milk, butter, and skyr. Skyr in particular has a strong presence and often fills an entire wall with its various brands and forms. The two most popular brands of skyr are Skyr.is and Siggi’s. Both of these brand names are quite Icelandic in nature, with “.is” being the country code top-level domain for Iceland and “Siggi” is a popular Icelandic name that appears in the Icelandic Sagas

(The Sagas of Icelanders, 2000). Skyr itself is a traditional Icelandic food with a long, celebrated history that continues today, therefore is an indispensible, foundational food

(Leonard & Saliba, 1999). The website for Skyr.is in English promotes the uniquely

Icelandic nature of skyr in the following quote that appears on the front page.

The first Nordic settlers to Iceland brought centuries of food-preserving skills with them. Dairy products took on new qualities in Iceland thanks to the unique climate and environment. (Skyr.is, 2012)

It is clear through branding and history that skyr is a food that is a symbol of national identity. The production and consumption of skyr is described in the Icelandic Sagas, modern day brands are laden with Icelandic national symbols, and it is known as a uniquely Icelandic food item. Its prominence in Icelandic grocery stores indicates that it is popular among consumers. Again, consumers that purchase skyr are performing banal nationalism in promoting a product that is such a symbol of national identity (Billig,

2005).

Butter is another food item in this room that is clearly Icelandic. In most Bonus stores the only butter available is Smjör, a domestically produced butter. It comes in unsalted and lightly salted, and is wrapped in foil that bears the phrase “Icelandic Butter.”

The homepage on the Smjör website features a pastoral scene of an Icelandic field with an Icelandic cow, overprinted with the phrase “Pure Icelandic Butter” (See Figure 2.4).

The left side panel on the homepage gives a history of butter in Iceland, from traditional methods of production to its role in folklore. Smjör embodies Icelandic nationalism in several ways. The world “Smj r” is the Icelandic world for “butter.” The fact that one of the only butters available for purchase in grocery stores is Iceland points to consumer preference for domestic butter.

Figure 2.4. The banner on the Smjör website, laden with national symbols. (Smjör, 2012)

The Smjör website is laden with Icelandic national symbols, including an idyllic

Icelandic landscape photograph, an image of an Icelandic man churning butter using traditional methods and the word “Icelandic” placed right on the product (See Figure 2.4)

(Smjör, 2012). Because of the myriad of national symbols associated with the brand

Smjör, it is a banal expression of nationalism for those who consume and purchase it

(Billig, 1995).

The final room in the journey through a Bonus grocery store contains the dry and canned goods. There are less outwardly Icelandic products in this room because these are the items that can be easily imported and stored, as opposed to the produce and animal product rooms, which contain more perishable items. However, right before customers checkout there is one product that is often hanging near the register: harðfiskur.

Harðfiskur, as previously discussed, is wind-dried fish, a traditional Icelandic food. It is still very popular today, as is evident by its presence in all grocery and convenience stores. The production of harðfiskur has remained relatively unchanged since the Viking age. Catfish or haddock are caught, gutted, sometimes salted, and then hung to dry near the windy coast or dried in “drying chambers” which are computerized, automated rooms

that produce a more regulated, consistent product. Harðfiskur can be consumed by itself as a snack, in a similar fashion to beef jerky, or it is buttered like bread and eaten with a meal (See Figure 2.5) (Torres, n.d.). Harðfiskur can be considered an insider food in

Leonard and Saliba’s ethnic food classification system because it is unknown and/or unlinked by many outsiders (Leonard & Saliba, 1999). It has a strong, fishy odor and is very tough to eat, but is enjoyed by those who grew up eating it. The “insider” nature of harðfiskur makes it a symbol of national identity, because primarily those who associate with the Icelandic identity consume this food. The purchase and consumption of harðfiskur is yet another way in which Icelandic consumers reproduce nationalism through their food choices (Billig, 1995).

A final example of the expression of banal nationalism through food in Iceland is the continued celebration of the traditional Þorrablót. As previously discussed, Þorrablót is a mid-winter feast and celebration of the Icelandic perseverance to survive in a harsh climate. The celebration centers around traditional Icelandic dishes that feature the various methods of preservation that were historically utilized to extend the shelf-life of food produced during short production seasons (Torres, n.d.). Þorrablót is still observed today, both in Iceland and abroad, and experienced a resurged interest after the financial collapse in 2008 After being faced with sudden economic hardship after failed expansion into international banking markets, a common theme has been for Iceland to revert to

“traditional” values (Schram, 2010). This echoes the renewed enthusiasm in Þorrablót that took place in the second half of the nineteenth century during Iceland’s fight to regain sovereignty from Danish (Torres, n.d.).

Figure 2.5. A plate of harðfiskur served with smjör, a traditional pairing still widely consumed today. (Photo by Gina Butrico, 2012)

Again, there is a clear relationship between collective hardship and reinvigorated need to express national identity. The renewed interest in Þorrablót is an example of this trend, and is an expression of banal nationalism (Billig, 1995).

Conclusion

Food and nationalism are topics that are rarely studied in conjunction with each other, yet their relationship proves to be significant. Food is so often used to express identity, especially ethnic and national identities. Iceland has a well-documented food

history that has been uniquely preserved. Traditional foods and food preparations have remained relatively unchanged since the Viking age and still find themselves incorporated in the modern Icelandic diet. Consumer decisions to purchase and consume foods that are laced with Icelandic national identity is banal, or everyday forms of reproducing nationalism. As Iceland continues to struggle with the recent financial collapse and efforts to reinstate themselves in the international market, it seems these banal expressions of nationalism through food choices are becoming more prevalent. In the face of collective hardship comes a renewed sense of camaraderie, and, at least in

Iceland, an assertion of national pride through food.

Food nationalism has been successfully used in marketing efforts for domestically produced foods, such as meat, butter, and greenhouse produce. Icelanders are more likely to purchase a food or food product that has been produced domestically if the price is comparable to an imported option. The labeling of produce cultivated in domestic geothermal greenhouses has proven to be effective in the promotion of vegetables grown in this manner. If this industry was to expand, it should continue promoting its produce as

“domestically produced” to capitalize on growing Icelandic nationalism. It is important to consider how national identity can be asserted and expressed through food, especially in

Iceland, because this relationship drives consumer buying and shapes the national diet.

When a country adopts an imported, foreign diet and moves away from the consumption of traditional, domestic foods, does this have an effect on national identity? Could nationalism be used as a marketing tool to promote domestic food to combat the negative consequences associated with imported foods?

CHAPTER 3

GLOBALIZATION AND THE THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY

It is undeniable that the way food is grown, processed, and distributed has changed drastically in the past few centuries. For most of human history, food was a largely local process, with no more than a few miles between site of production and consumer. Today, both developed and developing countries are adopting a processed, imported diet that relies on international food production networks. The danger of food import reliance is the inevitable degradation of domestic food production systems that accompanies this shift, which results in a vulnerability to interruptions in food imports. If a country lacks sufficient, sustainable domestic food production, it is food insecure because it is at the mercy of external supply networks that are at risk of being disrupted at any time. Iceland is an example of a country that has shifted from food self-sufficiency to dependence on foreign food, damaging internal food production infrastructure and placing the country at risk for food insecurity. Driving this change is a change in food preference from local, traditional food to imported, industrialized food. The shift from local to global diets results in countries that rely on international food processing networks and lack sufficient, domestic food production infrastructures to provide an adequate food supply to their populations, which puts them at risk for food insecurity.

History of Food Production

Until around 7000 BC, food was obtained through hunting and gathering which necessitated a nomadic lifestyle. People travelled in groups and never stayed anywhere for more than a few months, which allowed for very few possessions. Then the

Agricultural Revolution occurred, and people began to grow food and domesticate livestock, allowing for permanent settlements and accumulation of personal property.

Agricultural technology improved and food production became more efficient with innovations such as tillage, irrigation, plant selection, and harvesting methods. Less people were needed in the farming sector due to increased proficiency and by the 11th century food surpluses allowed for the rapid growth of cities and a boom in population growth. For the first time in history people were able to rely on someone else to grow their food, which permitted economic specialization. People were able to explore fields other than agriculture, such as tool-making, carpentry, and developing new technologies which rapidly progressed into the next big revolution in human history: the Industrial

Revolution (Weisdorf, 2005).

A large portion of the global population was still involved in farming up until the start of the Industrial Revolution, which began between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Human labor was replaced with mechanized tools, such as the precision seed drill, the cotton gin, and automatic harvesters. Plant breeding also came onto the scene during this time, and selective breeding for plants and animals increased the yield and hardiness of crops. Agriculture chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides were developed, which further intensified crop yields. Between 1820 and 1975, technological

advances helped agricultural production double four times. Industrial-scale farming quickly replaced local farm operations, which set the stage for international agro-business as it is known today. Small-scale farms simply could not compete with the economies of scale of the growing industrial farms and were bought out, perpetuating an amalgamation cycle that resulted in a few agro-businesses that controlled a majority of the market.

Farms began the agricultural practice of monoculture, the cultivation of a single crop over a large area of cropland for many consecutive years. This method maximizes production by producing massive yields while using as little labor and resources as possible

(Kimbrell, 2002).

The Globalization of Food

The way food is grown and distributed globally has changed drastically in recent years, especially since process became mechanized. Throughout human history, especially since the Neolithic Revolution, food systems were largely local and reflective of cultural preferences. Dietary habits were based on regional availability of food and changed very slowly over time. Now every stage, from seed planting to distribution, has been industrialized in some way, and those industrialized processes are increasingly controlled by a handful of large corporations. The result is an international food production and distribution network and the “deculturalization” of food preference.

Culture and geography are no longer the primary determinants of diet. Instead, food preference is a driven by marketing efforts and low prices of agro-food companies, which has yielded a “global diet.” This new world diet is considered Western, and is based on corn, soy, and processed food (Weisdorf, 2005). To better understand why the average

modern meal is so different than what our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate, it is important to realize how the production of food has changed, and how this has altered our diet completely.

Technologies that have Globalized Food

For most of history, the human diet was determined by geography. The type of food consumed was heavily dependent on the fecundity of the land, the diversity of flora and fauna, and climate. Due to technological advances in refrigeration, preservation, transportation, and cultivation, the human diet has been freed from the bounds of geography. Food production, processing, and consumption are processes that can now span thousands of miles, and often does as a result of advances in technologies that allow food to travel further and stay edible longer. The result is diverse diet that is no longer dependent on the immediate geography.

Refrigeration. Refrigeration is not a new technology. The use of ice and cold temperatures to preserve food can be traced to prehistoric times. There are historical accounts of ice harvest and storage in China before the first millennium for the purpose of food preservation. Wood and straw was used to insulate the ice, which was often stored in underground rooms or pits. When ice was not available, food was often stored in rooms deep underground where the environment was cooler. Storing foods in ice and cool cellars was the only type of refrigeration technology until the sixteenth century, when chemical refrigerants were first used. Sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate was added to water, which caused a drop in temperature and created refrigeration bath to cool

foods. Though this was a significant advancement in refrigeration technology, ice storage was the commercial and domestic standard until the late 1800s (Arora, 2010).

Most of the technological advances in refrigeration before the 1900s were for uses other than food, or to improve insulation to allow ice to travel further distances.

Breweries were the first to adopt electrical refrigeration systems that did not require ice in the 1870s, due to increasing issues with polluted water and ice. Around the same time, the railroad industry began using refrigerated cars to transport dairy products. In the early

1900s, most of the major meatpacking companies in the United States had replaced ice refrigerators with artificial units because the upkeep was much less expensive and temperature regulation more reliable. By the 1950s, artificial refrigeration was in use in almost all major forms of transportation, including cars, trucks, railroad, and boats.

Advances in refrigeration technologies have resulted in inexpensive, efficient refrigerated transportation that has allowed perishable items, such as food, to be transported further distances and in greater quantities than ice alone could allow (Freidberg, 2009).

The ability to refrigerate food during transport has allowed perishable foods, such as fruit, vegetables, meat, and dairy, to travel further distances without spoilage. This technology contributes to the globalization of food because it makes distance a nearly inconsequential factor in food distribution. Historically, fresh food was only available near the cultivation source, necessitating people to live within the food transportation radius. Now, fresh food can be delivered via refrigerated transportation to nearly anywhere. Not only is fresh food more widely available, it is also healthier. The nutritional value of foods is better preserved when properly refrigerated, compared with

unrefrigerated transport. The development of refrigeration technology has significantly increased the average “food miles,” the distance food travels between producer and consumer (Freidberg, 2009).

Chemical Food Preservation. Another technology that has allowed food to globalize is preservation. Like refrigeration, humans have used food preservation as a way to extend the shelf life of food. It involves preventing the growth of bacteria, fungi, and another other microorganisms that cause spoilage though a variety of different methods. Historically, the preservation technique was dependent on the local climate and resources available. For example, people living in warmer climates used the hot sun to their advantage and eliminated water from food, through drying or curing, to combat the growth of bacteria. Those living in colder climates were more likely to freeze, pickle, or ferment foods to increase their longevity. Available resources were also a determining factor for the type of preservation method, and which kinds of foods were preserved. For example, a society with a limited food supply was more likely to preserve organ and other non-traditional animal parts, while those with an abundance of food usually preserved only the favorable cuts (Thorne, 1986).

Some major food preservations methods used throughout human history and across different cultures include drying, salt curing, smoking, fermenting, and canning.

Drying is one of the first preservation methods ever used, and was most likely discovered by accident. There is evidence of grain drying in the Middle East as early as 12,000 BC, which eventually expanded to include fish and meat. Salt curing is another original food preservation method. Salt was harvested from the ocean or from mines and applied to the

surface of food, especially meat and fish, to extract as much of the water as possible, which allowed it to be stored without spoiling for longer periods of time. There is evidence that suggests smoking may have been used to preserve meat around the same time fire was first discovered by humans. Meat may have been hung by fires to dry in the smoke, which greatly increased the shelf life and made it lighter to transport. Large-scale fermentation can be traced to the beginning of the Neolithic period as a way to preserve crop surpluses. Vegetables were some of the first foods to be preserved in this fashion, and were usually suspended in vinegar or cultured dairy. Fermentation preserves food through the transformation of organic substances into simpler compounds through enzymatic action, making it more difficult for mold, yeast, and bacteria to grow. Canning is another fairly recent food preservation technology that greatly extends the shelf life of food. It was invented in 1810 by Nicolas Appert, who found that if food was boiled then sealed in an airtight vessel, it would be edible for years. (Thorne, 1986) Along with the other preservation processes discussed, canning is still widely used today to extend the shelf life of food, allowing it to be stored and transported for long periods of time

(Freidberg, 2009).

Today, many foods are treated with chemical preservatives to prevent decomposition and ward off microbial growth. Class I preservatives are similar to those previously discussed, and include salt, honey, vinegar, oil. Any preservative that is chemically manufactured are considered Class II preservatives. They are chemically derived from benzoic acid, sulfite, and sorbate, and are able to preserve foods longer and less expensively than those in Class I (Dalton, 2002). Nuclear radiation is another recent

food preservation technology that exposes food to radiation to kill bacteria without significantly altering the food, unlike older methods such as boiling. Though the potential human health hazards associated with Class II preservatives, and irradiation are under scrutiny, there is no doubt this technology is a catalyst for the globalization of food. The use of these less expensive, more effective food preservation methods have allowed food to travel further and be stored longer without spoilage.

Monoculture. When people first began domesticating plants during the Neolithic

Revolution, most farms had a lot of agricultural diversity. Farmers planted a variety of crops in their fields to ensure sufficient yields if one or more should fail. Also, the first farmers were subsistence farmers, meaning they produced food for themselves and their family members, so a variety of crops provided a diverse and healthy diet. Crop rotation was essential for maintaining proper nutrient ratios in the soil before the advent of chemical fertilizers (Weisdorf, 2005). Today, the farms that produce a majority of the global food supply are large-scale, industrialized enterprises that practice monoculture.

This is an agricultural technique of producing a single crop over a large area for many consecutive years. Monoculture cultivation has economic advantages over polyculture, including resource maximization and labor cost reduction. It allows farms to focus their resources and labor to produce a single crop, which maximizes efficiency and output.

This agricultural practice would not be possible if not for technological advances in pesticides, fertilizers, genetic modification, and harvesting.

Figure 3.1. Average corn yield in the United States between 1866 and 2011, in bushels per acre. Created using data from: (USDA, 2013)

Single crops are more vulnerable to disease and insect infestation, so specially designed pesticides must be applied and reformulated often to keep up with the evolution of new pests and biological threats. When one type of crop is grown in the same soil for many consecutive years, it depletes the soil of the nutrients that particular plant needs for growth. To combat nutrient depletion, industrial farms must use fertilizers to ensure the crops receive sufficient nutrients. Many monocultures, specifically in the United States, have been genetically modified to maximize growth potential and to resist pests (Pollan,

2006). For example, due to genetic modifications that increase kernel count, ear number, and stalk concentration, an acre of farmland can produce up to 160 bushels of corn, compared to 20 bushels in the 1930s (See Figure 3.1).

Transportation. The way food is physically distributed has completed changed since the Industrial Revolution. Transportation in general changed drastically during this time, with the sudden expansion of waterway, road, and railroad networks. Food and other commodities could be moved in greater quantities, over longer distances, and less expensively than ever before. Without these technological advancements in transportation, the globalization of trade would not have been possible. Faster, less expensive transportation has had profound effects on the human diet, allowing for a greater diversity of foods than has ever been possible. This change can be observed in terms of “food miles,” which is the rough estimate of how many miles a food or food product has traveled in order to arrive on an individual’s plate. Before these advances in transportation, food was often locally produced and processed, so the food miles were generally low, especially for perishable foods such as unprocessed fruits and vegetables.

When transportation became more efficient (along with the preservation and refrigeration advancements discussed previously), food was able to travel much further distances. This trend continues through today, where it is not uncommon for food to travel hundreds or thousands of miles before reaching a consumer’s plate, especially food that has several processed components. One of the primary concerns of food miles is the energy expenditure, and consequent environmental effects, of transporting food over such long distances (Pretty et al., 2005).

Global commodity chains and the transnational corporations that control them have changed the global economic stage. Food was once a local economic process, with the producer and consumer often located within a few miles of one another.

Technological advancements in preservation, refrigeration, monoculturing, and transportation that resulted from the Industrial Revolution, along with a globalizing economy, have “globalized” food. Globalized, or industrialized food, is a relatively new type of food that is characterized by a large quantity of food miles between producer and consumer. It is often processed, and usually includes a monoculture ingredient, such as corn or soy. Countries that adopt industrialized diets, especially those that do not produce monoculture or food processing facilities, often become import-reliant because the food preference demands externally-produced foods. Heavy reliance on imported food coupled with an insufficient domestic food production system creates a vulnerability to food insecurity, as will be discussed in the following section.

Defining Food Security

The definition of food security has proven to be dynamic over time, changing to accommodate new perspectives and problems. Food security is fundamentally defined as consistent access to safe food. It is important to note the “security” half of the phrase refers to the security of the people, not the security of the food. The World Health

Organization (WHO) provides the definition most widely accepted and cited today. This definition identifies three criteria an individual, community, or country must meet to be considered food secure: availability, access, and use. Food availability is defined as sufficient quantities of food available consistently. Many developing countries fail to meet this fundamental requirement for food security because they lack the resources, such as sufficient arable land, and infrastructure necessary to secure a sufficient food supply. If food availability is secure, the next requirement of food security is food access,

which refers to the ability to obtain safe, nutritious food. In some developing countries, food is technically “available,” but people are unable to physically obtain it due to transportation or financial impediments. Sometimes the food that is available is unhealthy, unsafe, or culturally inappropriate, therefore cannot be consumed. The final necessary component of food security according to the WHO is food use, the nutritional knowledge and appropriate facilities required to prepare and consume nutritious, safe food (World Health Organization, 2012). Food use is an obstacle in low-income areas in developed countries such as the United States. People experience food availability and are able to access it, however they lack the facilities and/or the nutritional knowledge to prepare healthful food (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2005).

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has identified a fourth factor necessary for food security: safeguards against risks of disruption (Webb

& Rogers, 2003). The fourth factor is a key addition because it begins to address some of the overlooked causes of food insecurity, specifically the ones associated with globalization. For example, if a country relies heavily on food imports and lacks an internal, sustainable food system it would be considered food insecure according to

USAID’s fourth factor. The food insecurity here lies in the threat of import interruptions, which would lead to internal food shortages and eventual starvation if the food imports systems are not restored. However, if this same situation was viewed only through the

WHO’s three pillars model it would overlook the threat of import disruption and would classify it as food secure (See Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. A diagram illustrating the combination of UNICEF’s definition of food security (that a place have food availability, access, and knowledge of use) with the addition of the World Health Organization’s added requirement of safeguards against disruption of food systems (Diagram created by Gina Butrico).

Scale is a key consideration when attempting to determine food security. For example, it could be said that food security is not an issue because there is enough food to feed everyone in the world twice over. However, if we move from global to individual scale, we see that some individuals do not have availability, access, and/or use of this global food surplus, therefore they are not food secure. The four major tiers of scale in the discussion of food security, from macro to micro, are global, national, household, and individual. This chapter will focus mainly on the national level, with the acknowledgement that food insecurity may exist at the household and individual levels in the nations examined (Smith, El Obeid, & Jensen, 2000).

The chapter utilizes a combination of both the WHO and USAID’s definitions of food security in attempt to create a more complete model food insecurity identification.

Food insecurity as it relates to import reliance will be explored, with specific focus on developed countries, which receive little attention in the academic literature. Finally, the health hazards that accompany the globalizing Western pattern diet will be examine through the lens of food insecurity, a perspective that is only beginning to receive academic consideration. This definition will then be applied to the case of Iceland, shedding light on food insecurities that are otherwise overlooked when more conventional food security indicators are applied.

Reliance on Food Imports

Most countries, both developed and developing, are net food importers, meaning they import more food than they produce for internal consumption (Valdes & McCalla,

1999). According to a 2004 report by the World Bank, nearly two thirds of industrialized countries rely on food imports to feed their populations. Reliance on imported food poses an often-overlooked threat to food security. Countries that become reliant on imported food often lose internal food production infrastructure, and eventually become unable to produce enough food to feed their populations. So if the import systems are disrupted, these countries face food insecurity because they are unable to produce a sufficient food supply internally. Therefore, the greater the reliance on food imports and the weaker the internal food production infrastructure, the stronger the threat to food security if import systems are interrupted (Ng, 2008). Food import systems face many different threats of

disruption, such as natural disasters, energy shortages, financial crises, overpopulation, war and conflicts, and climate change.

Iceland is an example of a country that relies heavily on imported food. Food consumption trends have changed the Icelandic diet significantly in the past fifty years, moving away from locally produced food and moving towards imported, processed ones

(Statistics Iceland, 2009). This is due to both individual purchasing power as well as steadily relaxing importation regulations. Though food production accounts for nearly half of total value of manufactured goods, mostly due to a successful fishing industry, this food is mostly exported for profit, not consumed by Icelanders. This is evident in the fact that in 2010, only 87.6 billion Krona of the 303.1 billion worth of internally produced food and beverages stayed within the country (Statistics Iceland, 2011). This number would indicate that Iceland produces half of its total food supply, but it overlooks the imported parts and supplies that allow this internal production to occur, such as fertilizer, food ingredients, energy, and seedstock. Considering the role of imported parts and supplies, it is estimated that Iceland is reliant on imports for 95% of its total food supply (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011). This heavy reliance on imports places Iceland at a high risk of food insecurity because it is highly susceptible to food shortages if food imports are affected by the myriad of disruption factors.

Threats of Disruption

Natural Disasters. Natural disasters are often unpredictable and may have devastating affects on food import systems. Some of the most common natural disasters include earthquakes, avalanches, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, and violent storms. They

can interrupt food imports by damaging cropland, livestock operations, and transportation infrastructures. Agricultural land can easily become compromised by natural disasters due to their fragility. Crops require specific soil nutrient content, water amounts and intervals, sunlight exposure levels, and harvest times. When an unexpected natural disaster hits, these elements can quickly become interrupted or unbalanced, lowering or destroying crop yields. For example, an unanticipated flash flood can wash away nutrient-dense topsoil, leaving the land inarable. Domesticated animals raised for food, including cows, pigs, and fish, also require specific conditions for growth, including enclosures, food, and water. Natural disasters pose both indirect and direct threats to the livelihood of livestock animals (Israel & Briones, 2012). An example of an indirect affect is a major weather event that interrupts feed distribution center operations, causing malnutrition and eventual starvation and death in livestock (Skees, 2000). A direct threat is a volcanic eruption that temporarily pollutes the air with ash and toxic fumes, which compromises pulmonary health and could poison the animals (Witham, Oppenheimer, &

Horwell, 2005).

Arguably the greatest threat of natural disasters to food security lies in the threat of disruption and damage to food distribution transportation networks. Food distribution systems can be disrupted by natural disasters in three primary points: the supplier, the deliverer, and the importer. The supplier produces and prepares food for export. An example is a factory that produces a processed food product to be exported. If this supplier is damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster, it will be unable to supply the importer, resulting in varying degrees of food insecurity relative to the degree of reliance

on this food product. Interruption may also occur during the transit of food from the supplier to the importer. Food is transported in a variety of ways, including on ships, airplanes, trucks, and trains. Some food is temperature or time sensitive, requiring specialized transport such as refrigeration. This makes food a particularly vulnerable commodity. If a natural disaster halts or delays food while it is in transit, the quality of the product often degrades to an inconsumable state, especially produce and other temperature-specific foods (De Haen & Hemrich, 2007). If a natural disaster occurs in the destination country, it may create a food insecure environment. Airports, train stations, and other drop-off points in the transportation process can become damaged or temporarily shut down, disrupting the movement of food into the country. Food distribution centers, such as grocery stores, can also be compromised, preventing the movement of food to individuals (Skees, 2000).

A recent example of food insecurity caused by a natural disaster is the 2010

Ejafjallajökull volcanic eruption that occurred in Iceland. Airborne ash from the volcano interfered with air traffic across Europe for several weeks following the eruption. Iceland, and several other European countries, experienced food insecurity during this period because food supply transportation was interrupted. Food requiring refrigeration, such as fresh produce, rotted in warehouses as it awaited stalled shipment (Laurie, 2010). This temporary food insecurity scare received plenty of attention in the media, specifically in the United Kingdom. The dependence and vulnerability of imported food was realized, and there was a call to increase internal food production to safeguard against future

disruptions. However, this attention to food security was short lived and no significant action was taken (McDonald, 2011).

Energy. Energy is an integral part of the food production and importation process. Food production and distribution are incredibly energy intensive processes.

Energy shortages at both the supplier and importer points can compromise food security.

Agriculture is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, especially in industrialized countries, and is responsible for emitting roughly a third of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy is used to regulate building temperature, power irrigation systems, transport materials, and fuel machinery. Fertilizer and pesticides are also massive energy consumers, no only in their production but also because they are composed of natural gas and petroleum. Food processing also requires large energy inputs due to machinery, facility, and transportation demands. Livestock operations also require considerable amounts of fossil fuels, especially if the animals are grain-fed because of the energy required to grow and transport this type of feed. It is estimated that it takes thirty-five gallons of oil, or about

16 gallons of gasoline, to fatten one corn-fed steer to market weight (Pollan, 2006).

Because energy is so integral to every stage of production and transportation, an interruption in energy supply can have devastating affects on the entire process. Fossil fuels are heavily utilized by the food industry, a dangerous dependence considering the finite nature of this resource. As preference for energy-intensive processed foods continues to grow, so does the stress on global energy resources. Continuing on this trajectory could result in global energy scarcity that would interrupt food production, prompting food import-reliant countries to become food insecure (Tokgoz et al., 2011).

Iceland has the geographic advantage of being located between the North

American and Eurasian tectonic plates: a geothermal hotspot. This resource is used for sustainable, inexpensive electricity production that powers about 26.6% of the island. The remainder of electricity is generated by hydropower from the many waterfalls located in

Iceland, and is also a sustainable and inexpensive form of energy production. Only about

0.1% of Iceland’s total energy is imported, and is mostly comprised of fossil fuels for vehicle powering. While near-complete energy self-sufficiency is certainly a unique advantage, Iceland’s reliance on imported fossil fuels does create an area of energy vulnerability (Ragnarsson, 2004). If imported fossil fuel systems were interrupted or discontinued for any reason, the vehicles needed for transportation and utility would not be able to function, which would hinder internal food distribution. The major threat of energy disruption for Iceland is the dependence it has on imported food, which is usually transported by airplane. Planes require large quantities of fossil fuels, so any disruption in supply to this industry would directly affect Iceland’s food supply (James, James, &

Evans, 2006).

Capital. Food and money are inextricably tied, and have been since the

Agricultural Revolution. Food and the land used to produce it were traded for goods, services, or capital. Today, all stages of the food production and distribution process require capital input. The land, materials, energy, and labor that drive global food systems require capital exchange. Also driven by money is the myriad of secondary forces, such as advertising, administration, and legal services. Money drives the food system, and the food system relies on money to function. Therefore when financial

systems are disrupted, as in the case of a national or international financial crisis, the agro-food systems are directly affected. Many developing countries are food insecure because they lack the capital necessary to purchase an adequate food supply. Individuals in these countries often have no disposable income, making them particularly vulnerable to global financial fluctuations. If global food prices rise, they become unable to purchase food and become malnourished, starved, and eventually die. In 2009 after a global economic crisis, 100 million people in developing countries joined the existing billion living in hunger (Von Braun, 2008).

Developed countries that rely on imports are also at risk due to their reliance on a system tangled with the global financial system, which has proven to be unstable in recent times. Financial crises may occur at the local, national, and/or international level, and all can have an effect on food security. If an import-oriented country experiences a national economic crisis, their currency will suddenly devalue, making it more expensive to purchase goods in the global marketplace. In severe cases, the country will be unable to continue food imports, resulting in immediate food insecurity if sufficient internal food production systems are not in place. International financial crisis also poses a threat to food import-reliant countries, including developed nations. When a global financial crisis occurs, nearly every commodity chain experiences a price spike. Countries become unable to purchase goods in the global market, including food, especially as rising energy costs make transportation more expensive. Eventually the prices spike so high that countries are unable to afford food importation. This has a devastating affect on food

import-reliant countries with no internal source of food production, as they are suddenly faced with widespread food insecurity (Brinkman et al., 2010).

In 2008, Iceland experienced the most devastating financial crisis in its history.

The national economy crashed nearly overnight, causing the Icelandic Krona to suddenly lose significant value in the global economy. In an instant, Iceland was no longer able to afford the food imports they rely so heavily upon. Foreign food suppliers ceased all trade with Iceland immediately following the crash due to the uncertainty of the Krona’s value.

During this time, food warehouses quickly emptied and there were questions of how

Iceland was going to feed itself. Luckily, the currency stabilized after a foreign bailout, and food imports continued as usual. This is an example of how a heavy reliance on food imports leaves a country vulnerable to food insecurity, because fluctuations in the global economy have a direct affect on these systems (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011).

Human Population Growth. Human population growth exacerbates many global issues, including climate change, natural resource degradation, poverty, and food security. At the current growth rate, the seven billion people in the world today is expected to exponentially increase in the next century, intensifying the global problems associated with them (See Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. A graph created by the United Nations that illustrates world population growth from 1950 to 2050, with high, low, and medium estimates for the future based on UN 2010 projections and US Census Bureau historical estimates (United Nations, 2004).

Rapid population growth poses obvious threats to global food security. The more people there are, the more food is necessary to feed them. It can be argued that humans have, so far, been successful in this endeavor. Global food production currently yields twice the amount of food needed to feed the human population twice over (Pollan, 2006).

However, continued growth places mounting pressure on the environment and technology to meet food demands. Industrial agriculture is not only an energy intensive process, but also a resource demanding one. It requires a massive portion of the global

freshwater supply and a vast quantity of physical space. These natural resources are finite and susceptible to degradation if they are not used sustainably. In order to feed a rapidly growing human population, overuse of these resources is inevitable. Degradation of the world’s freshwater supply and arable land will have catastrophic affects on the global food system those countries that rely on it to feed their populations (Hanira & Oureshi,

2010).

With demographic growth comes an increased competition for water. The agricultural sector is driven by freshwater and consumes 70% of global reserves. Water is mainly used for irrigation, especially in areas where the land would otherwise be semi or nonarable. Non-agricultural uses for water, such as urbanization and industrialization, also rely on consistent access to freshwater and will contribute to water competition as the population grows. Eventually the demand for water will exceed supplies and water scarcity will spread (Coles & Hall, 2012). Industrial agriculture will suffer decreasing yields, which will hinder the food exportation system. If this situation continues, it is possible that exportation will come to a complete halt, which would have destructive effects in countries that rely on imported food. Industrial agriculture, as well as urbanization and industry, requires large amounts of ecumene land. Population growth increases competition for land and necessitates unsustainable practices in order to maintain adequate agricultural production. The result is arable land degradation, which leads to lower crop yields and eventual desertification if the land is not given time to regenerate nutrients. Desertification is, in many cases, an irreversible and disastrous loss of precious arable land. Cropland degradation and desertification would cripple

international food networks because production would be unable to keep up with the demand. It is possible that food exportation would come to a complete stop and would only be able to distribute locally. This would have detrimental affects on the food security of countries that rely on imported food, such as Iceland (Hanira & Oureshi,

2010).

Population growth is not a concern in Iceland. On the contrary, Iceland struggles with the threat of population decline because the current 320,000 Icelanders have a low birth rate and have a tendency to emigrate. However, because Iceland is involved with the global economy, global population growth has a direct effect on Iceland. An increase in the global population places stress on water, energy, food, and other resources. Growing competition will result in higher prices and scarcer supplies. In terms of food, the cost of production and transportation will rise, so food imports will become increasingly more expensive. Eventually, Iceland may be unable to afford the imported food it currently relies upon. If there are no domestic food production systems in place, Iceland will experience food shortages as a direct result of global population growth. (Laurie, 2010)

Wars and Conflicts. Wars and conflicts, both in the producer and consumer countries, have proven to severely threaten food security. Conflicts that erupt in producer countries can affect the production, processing, distribution, capital flow, and manpower required to export food. Fighting can occur directly on agricultural land, which has the potential to compromise or destroy crop output. This is especially true the warfare is mechanized, such as the use of tanks and machine guns, because these devices have a higher potential to create physical damage to the land. Production processes can also be

physically damaged by war. For example, a flourmill may be bombed and burned down during an outbreak of conflict. Even if processing centers are not directly affected, there are many secondary factors to consider. For instance, processing plants may be converted to produce materials to support war efforts. Transportation networks are at risk for compromise during warfare and can experience a partial or total halt. This may be due to damage endured from direct contact with conflict, such as bombed roads or railroads.

Destroyed transportation infrastructure may also be the result of strategic warfare, such as an attempt to cripple the enemy country by cutting off supply networks. Halted transportation can also be a means of protection during warfare because it reduces the damage and fatalities that would otherwise be endured if these networks continued business as usual (Picotte & Campbell, 2010). War is expensive, especially modern warfare that involves “wonder weapons,” or highly mechanized equipment that uses advanced technology. Other costs of war include education, transportation, manufacturing, construction, and a nearly incalculable number other war-related expenses. Because a large portion of the national funds is tied up in the war, it is not uncommon for other industries to suffer as a result, including those who produce food for export. War is not only expensive in terms of dollars spent, but also human lives lost.

Historically, the loss of life from the largest wars ranges between 0.02- 3.1% of the total global population (Lacina & Gleditsch, 2005). War also temporarily displaces people, removing them from daily social and economic roles, leaving voids in their places. This has a devastating affect on local economies, especially in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors where the workforce is most likely to be drafted to serve. Limited

manpower means limited production, which can cause food shortages in the case of agro- food industries (Acemoglu & Lyle, 2004).

Iceland has had the fortune of avoiding involvement in most modern wars.

However, because it imports most of its food and other goods from foreign suppliers, it is directly affected by the war involvement of the countries it trades with. Though wars have not had a direct affect on Iceland’s food supply in recent history, it is at risk for future insecurity because most of its food supply comes from Europe, a historically active war region. If a domestic conflict affects a country where a food supplier to Iceland is based, imports from that supplier are at risk for disruption. In the case of international war, there is a potential for multiple food suppliers to be compromised, which would cripple Iceland’s food supply (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011)

Conclusion

As countries become more reliant on imported food and food products, they are at an increased risk for food insecurity. As the demand for externally produced foods increases, internal food production infrastructure often suffers as a result. The consequence of this degradation of internal food production is the inability to internally produce enough food to feed the population. Therefore, if external food supplies are disrupted or halted for any reason, the country will be unable to produce enough food to feed its population, and faces food insecurity as a result. Iceland is an example of a country that has shifted from self-sufficient, internal food production to near-total reliance on imported food. Because of this shift, Iceland is at risk for food insecurity

because if food imports are disrupted, the country is unable to produce the quantity or diversity of food necessary to support the population.

CHAPTER 4

FROM SELF-SUFFICIENCY TO IMPORT RELIANCE

Iceland is an example of a country that has shifted from self-sufficiency to reliance on imported foods. As previously discussed, this shift puts Iceland at a heightened risk of food insecurity because if the external food supply is disrupted,

Iceland does not have the internal infrastructure to adequately feed its population. The history of Iceland’s shift from self-sufficiency to import-reliance reveals that as it became more dependent on imported food, its internal food production infrastructure degraded.

This left the country vulnerable to food shortages and famines, which it experienced at an escalated rate as it became less self-sufficient. The history of Iceland acts as a case study of the relationship between import-reliance and food insecurity.

Iceland has been largely self-sufficient since the Vikings first arrived in 874 AD until recent decades. This was purely out of necessity, because, as the original settlers quickly learned, sustainability is essential for survival in an isolated nation. Nearly half of

Iceland was covered with birch and woodland forests upon settlement. Wood was used for space heating, construction, fodder, and other applications necessary for survival.

Trees were harvested unsustainably and cleared for grazing, causing rapid deforestation.

Currently, less than 1% of Iceland is forested, mostly due to reforestation efforts, and no virgin forests remain (Kaplan, Krumhardt, & Zimmermann, 2009). Icelandic settlers

quickly learned from their initial exploitation of limited resources and developed sustainable and self-sufficient practices to maximize vital resources and preserve them for the future, especially the ways food was obtained and processed. It was not until colonization and the introduction of imported food that Iceland experienced famines and food insecurity. The history of food self-sufficiency in Iceland may be considered as four phases, adopted from the framework set forth by Mehler (2011): self-sufficiency, introduction of external supply, and famines, and food insecurity.

Phase 1- Self-Sufficiency (9th- 14th Century)

Norwegian Vikings were the first to settle Iceland in the late 9th century, and formed small villages based around farming and fishing (See Figure 4.1). Norway is similar to Iceland in that it is an isolated country in a cold climate, so the settlers came with knowledge of farming, fishing, and resource management suited to Iceland’s environment. They also brought cooking and food preservation methods that were key to surviving the cold, dark winters. Sheep, goats, pigs, and freshwater fish were introduced and flourished, due to the lack of natural predators. Between the abundance of native animals, such as puffins, ducks, and saltwater fish, and the introduced species, there was plenty of animal-based food to feed the settlers. Excavated farms from this period show a variety of both domestic and introduced birds and livestock that were kept for consumption. Some animals were raised for direct consumption, such as pigs, while others provided milk or eggs, such as puffins and sheep.

Sheep were, and continue to be, an important resource in Iceland because they provide a variety of different products that aid survival, namely wool, milk, and meat

(Mehler, 2011). Wool was spun into yarn, which was knit into sweaters and blankets that helped the original settlers survive frigid temperatures. Dairy was a staple component of the early Icelandic diet, and a majority of milk came from sheep. Milk was both directly consumed and used as a preservation agent. The most common dairy product was skyr, which was able to be stored longer than unprocessed dairy due to the fermentation it undergoes during processing. Milk was also fermented in other ways, such as the souring of whey, which was used as a preservation solution for meat. The sheep meat itself was also a diet staple, and was often smoked or cured to ensure longevity. Sheep and the resources they provide is a legacy from the original settlers that has survived to the present day (Mehler, 2007).

Between the time of settlement in the late 9th century until the 14th century,

Iceland can be considered largely self-sufficient. Other than sheep and sheep products, the original settlers consumed meat and products of both domestic and introduced animals. Another major dietary component was the abundance of fish in both lakes and the ocean. Seaweed was consumed in small quantities, which provided many of the vitamins and minerals that would otherwise be lacking from such a meat and dairy- centric diet. Agriculture for direct human consumption was minimal during this period, and consisted mostly of barley and flax. Historical records indicate grain crops were grown more for alcohol production than direct consumption. Most agricultural efforts were focused on growing fodder for livestock. Skeletal excavations from this period indicate the settlers were healthy and did not suffer from any major nutrient deficiencies

(Mehler, 2011).

Figure 4.1. The original foundation of an Icelandic farmhouse from around the time of settlement. The house featured a fire pit in the center for smoking and heating, a room with skeletal remains of animals slaughtered, and sleeping quarters (Photo by Gina Butrico)

This was the time of self-sufficiency and food security. Iceland was isolated, both geographically and politically, and had no source of imported supplies or food. The settlers quickly realized self-sufficiency was vital for survival. Preservation and sustainable food production were products of this time, developed to maximize the quantity and longevity of the food supply. Meat and dairy were at the core of the diet, supplemented with seaweed and some root vegetables that ensured sufficient nutrition.

There are no records of widespread famines or food shortages from this period, and

skeletal remains indicate general health. Food insecurity was not an issue until Norway intervened and Iceland became reliant on imported food.

Phase 2- External Supply (14th to 17th Century)

Until the 14th century, Iceland was entirely self-sufficient and did experience significant importation of goods. This changed rapidly in 1262, when the Norwegian king declared Iceland a vassal state of Norway (Karlsson, 2000). Iceland was an attractive source of valuable goods, such as wool, animal skins, and fish, and Norway wanted to capitalize on these commodities. For the first time, Iceland found itself economically connected with other countries, and became both an importer and an exporter in the global economy (Mehler, 2011). Around the same time, Iceland experienced a slight climactic shift known as the Little Ice Age, which made the winters longer and colder.

Agriculture became more challenging, and farmers found themselves unable to grow enough fodder to feed their livestock (Karlsson, 2000). Farmers relied on imported livestock feed that had recently become available to them due to the new global economic trade. Globalization of Iceland’s economy drastically affected the Icelandic diet, in both its production and composition (Mehler, 2011).

Before Norway colonized Iceland, farmers successfully produced livestock fodder, barley, and flax. The Little Ice Age made farming more difficult, and farm yields were dramatically reduced. Struggling farmers looked to the global market to alleviate the grain deficiencies, so they traded dried fish, wool, and other commodities in exchange for grain and flour. This marked the first time in Iceland’s history that it was reliant on

imported food for survival, a trend that continues today. Grain production slowed, and eventually came to a halt by the 16th century because it was much easer to trade goods for grain rather than grow it in the difficult climate. The economy became centered on producing goods for exportation, instead of internal consumption. As a result, the fishing, wool, and sulfur industries experienced growth while farming and internal food processing declined. The importation of grain and flour not only changed Iceland’s economy, it also marks a drastic change in the Icelandic diet (Mehler, 2011).

As previously discussed, the original Icelandic diet mainly consisted of internally produced meat, dairy, fish, and eggs. The globalization of Iceland’s economy introduced a myriad of new food items that were previously unavailable. The largest food import was flour, a food not previously eaten in large quantities due to the difficulty of growing cereal grains. Beer was the second largest food import and was made available to

Icelanders in quantities never before possible. Other introduced foods include malt, butter, honey, and exotic spices such as cinnamon, pepper, saffron, and ginger.

Cookbooks from this period reveal the changed nature of the diet, containing recipes for spicy dishes that required imported ingredients. It should be noted that the variety offered by foreign foodstuffs was only available to those who could afford it. Despite the exclusivity of some elements of the imported food revolution, everyone consumed staples such as flour, salt, and vinegar. The changed diet caused a shift in Iceland’s economy, with the decline of sustenance farming and the rapid growth of export-oriented production. It was during this time that Iceland lost the food sovereignty it maintained for

centuries, and was never able to restore. Instead, the trend continued towards an import- dependent food supply that primed Iceland for food insecurity (Mehler, 2011).

During this next phase, Iceland experienced food insecurity for the first time in its history. Norwegian intervention caused Iceland to import food instead of growing it, causing the internal food production infrastructure to degrade. Food insecurity was not caused by the Little Ice Age, but was exacerbated by it. This climactic shift had an inevitable negative affect on farming, however, because Iceland was dependent on imports and didn’t have a sufficient internal food production, the Little Ice Age was much more detrimental to food security. This trend towards food insecurity continued as imported foods continued to dominate the Icelandic diet.

Phase 3- Food Shortages (18th Century- 19th Century)

The shift from self-sufficiency to reliance on food imports made Iceland a food insecure nation, as is evident in the frequency of food shortages and famines that followed the change. Imported foods almost completely replaced locally produced ones, so internal food production infrastructure deteriorated. Following this shift was a string of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and climate change, which severely damaged the remaining internal food production infrastructure and had adverse affects on human health. Because of the reliance on imports, there was not enough backup food production in place to safeguard against these calamities (Mehler, 2011).

Natural disasters are fairly commonplace in Iceland because it straddles the active tectonic boundary between the North American and Eurasian plates, resulting in earthquakes, glacial flooding, and volcanic eruptions. Despite the frequency of these

events, nothing could have prepared Iceland for the massive volcanic eruption that occurred on June 22nd, 1783. The eruption took place along the Laki volcanic fissure in the south of Iceland and lasted nearly eight months. During this period, an estimated

14 km3 of basalt lava was expelled from the volcano, which was accompanied by large emissions of poisonous sulfur dioxide and hydrofluoric acid clouds. The poisonous gas discharges and airborne ash particles killed over half of Iceland’s livestock, which was a key resource for both external trade and internal food supply (Sigurdsson, 1982). The negative effects of the Skaftáreldar eruption were exacerbated by Iceland’s reliance on food imports and lack of self-sufficiency. Icelanders suddenly found themselves unable to trade for the imported food they had come to rely on, and lacked the internal infrastructure to feed themselves. The resulting famine killed an estimated 25-50% of the population; a number that may have been lower had Iceland been more self-sufficient

(Mehler, 2011).

When Iceland began trading with Norway, Denmark, Germany, and other countries, it exposed itself to both foreign pathogens and invasive insect species, which threatened the health of its people and crops. A widespread smallpox epidemic hit Iceland in the summer of 1707 and lasted until 1711, taking the lives of nearly a quarter of the

Icelandic population. The outbreak can be traced to a ship that docked at the port of

Eyrabakki in the south of Iceland on June 2nd, 1707. It had returned from a voyage to

Denmark, during which one of its passengers had died from smallpox and was buried at sea. His infected clothing was not disposed with him, allowing the disease to spread once it was taken ashore (Hays, 2005). The sudden death of a quarter of Iceland’s population

had a strong impact on the economy because there was not enough manpower to maintain the faming, fishing, and livestock operations the country depended on for trade. Denmark attempted to alleviate some of the hunger that resulted from both the eruption and the smallpox outbreak by supplying free flour and grains. This proved to only make the situation worse because many shipments were rotten and infected with insects (Mehler,

2011). Though the opening of Iceland’s borders for trade would eventually allow the country to become a strong world economy, the initial consequences were detrimental to the people and economy.

The start of Iceland’s international economic interactions happened to coincide with a bout of particularly cold winters. During this period, which occurred around the

1750s, agriculture was even more challenging and harvests suffered. Not only were farms unable to grow enough food to directly feed people, they were also unable to grow fodder for livestock. The cold temperatures also created more pack ice than usual along the shores, which made fishing difficult. Loss of crops and livestock, coupled with low fish harvests resulted in widespread famine. The hardship was exacerbated by the fact that this period directly followed the smallpox epidemic, so food production infrastructure was already struggling. Skeletal examinations from this period reveal undernourishment and starvation. Icelanders were unable to trade for the foreign food imports they had come to rely on, and the spoiled flour and grain shipments from Denmark were of little help. They had no choice but to depend on internal resources for survival. It is estimated that imported food consumption dropped to 10% of the average diet, with the other 90% comprised of domestic, animal-based foods. There was a marked return to traditional

foodstuffs, such as skyr, preserved fish, and seaweed (Mehler, 2011). Though Icelanders managed to survive through this period of hardship, it was worsened by the lack of internal food production infrastructure that resulted from food import reliance. It was only through a return to traditional, local food that survival was possible.

This period in which Icelanders returned to traditional, internally produced food was short lived. Once the population and economy recovered from the smallpox epidemic, volcanic eruption, and climactic variation, there was an enthusiastic resurgence of food importation over the following century. The Icelandic diet underwent radical change during this period, from meat and dairy-centric to grain-based. Some of the traditional foods remained, such as skyr, dried fish, and lamb meat, but were consumed in significantly lower quantities than they had been historically. By 1910, over half of the average Icelandic diet consisted of grain-based foods, a trend that has continued through to today (Jonsson, 1998).

Phase 4- Food Insecurity (20th Century- Present)

Heavy reliance on food imports places Iceland at risk, yet again, for food shortages. While famines are less of a threat to developed countries in current times, due to technological advances and transnational political entities, the looming food insecurity that accompanies food import reliance is undeniable. In the last decade, Iceland has experienced two major disruptions to food imports. Both of these events reveal how weak

Iceland’s internal food production infrastructure has become. On 2008, Iceland experienced an economic, political, and financial crisis in which the three major banks collapsed, causing an overnight collapse of the economy (Boyes, 2009). The second

largest crisis of the past decade was the Eyjafjallajökull eruptions, which occurred between April and May of 2010 and had detrimental effects on the environment and economy (Gudmundsson et al., 2010).

Prior to the financial crisis, Iceland enjoyed economic success since the mid-

1990s due to the privatization of the banking sector. Before this time, the country experienced moderate economic power which rested on the fishing and aluminum export industries. Prime Minister David Oddsson’s administration is mostly responsible for this change, inspired by privatization initiatives pushed in other parts of the world, such as by

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. State companies, including fishing processors, alcohol distillers, and a fertilizer plant, were sold to spur movement away from manufacturing and into the financial sector. Three large banks were privatized, namely the FDA investment bank, Landsbanki, and Bunadarbanki, and sought foreign investment. They marketed themselves as willing lenders, with interest rates as high as

15%, and quickly attracted large amounts of foreign investment. Icelanders also took advantage of the high interest rates and easy loans, which they used to purchase houses and automobiles. The average Icelander was 300% wealthier in 2006 than they were in

2003, mostly due to stocks invested in the Icelandic banks. The financial bubble finally burst in October of 2008, when the global economy crashed, taking the Icelandic economy down with it. Over the course of a few weeks, the three major banks went bankrupt, resulting in a national debt eight times the annual GDP. The average Icelander was $403,000 in debt, and 25% of homeowners could no longer afford their mortgages

(Boyes, 2009).

The effects of this crisis are numerous and extensive, and recovery remains an ongoing process requiring total restructuring of the political, economic, and financial sectors. An often-overlooked consequence of this event is the temporary, yet poignant brush with food insecurity that immediately followed the crash. Food importers were hesitant to do business with a country with such unstable currency, and many suppliers temporarily halted business. There was a short period of panic, with media reports of

Icelanders hoarding food from grocery stores, whose warehouses were quickly thinning.

Though import networks were restored before food supplies ran out, the food scare prompted the Icelandic government to sanction a report entitled the Icelandic Risk

Assessment Report (IRAR) that examined Iceland’s food insecurity (Bailes &

Jóhannsson, 2011). The report found that if food imports were discontinued, Iceland lacked the internal infrastructure to feed its population. Suggestions for improvement include establishing grain stocks, contingency plans, and conducting further research in the area of food security in Iceland (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, 2009). The

IRAR is significant because it is the first government-sanctioned report that acknowledged food insecurity as a national issue. However, the report proved to be solely a discussion starter, and resulted in little, if any, changes to Iceland’s food situation.

The eruptions near the Eyjafjallajökull glacier in the spring of 2010 mark the second crisis that revealed Iceland’s food insecurity. The volcano, located in the southern poriton of the country, began erupting on March 20th, 2010 and continued until late May of the same year. It erupted in an explosive fashion, expelling volcanic ash several kilometers into the atmosphere (Gudmundsson et al., 2010). While glacial flooding and

lava flows were damaging to the immediate area surrounding the volcano, the atmospheric ash proved to be the most damaging and disruptive consequence of the eruption (Donovan & Oppenheimer, 2011). The ash pollution was heaviest in the south of

Iceland near the volcano, which happens to be where most of Iceland’s farms are located.

Croplands were blanketed with ash, which severely damaged and destroyed yields for the year. Livestock operations lost cattle due to respiratory problems resulting from poisonous smoke and ash inhalation. Not only was Iceland’s internal food infrastructure affected by the volcano, it also temporarily disrupted food importation. Atmospheric ash halted air traffic due to the dangerous nature of flying under these conditions. Food that was normally transported via airplane was not able to reach Iceland, and a few minor food shortages were reported as a result (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011).

Mirroring the response to the temporary food shortages resulting from the financial crisis in 2008, the Icelandic government assembled a task force to assess and monitor national food security. This committee was a direct result of a meeting headed by the Minister for Fisheries and Agriculture, Jón Bjarnason, which took place on April 16th,

2010. The purpose of the meeting was to assess the volcanic damage endured by the agricultural and livestock sectors, and determine the state of national food security. The task force was assembled to monitor the short and long term affects of the eruption, and to handle any future threats to food security. As with the IRAR report that was issued shortly after the financial crisis, it remains to be seen if this task force will produce tangible solutions to Iceland’s food insecurity (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011).

Iceland as an Import-Reliant Nation

Iceland serves as an interesting case study in the discussion of food insecurity in developed countries. It is considered to be food secure by several indicators, including those set forth by the World Health Organization, the United States Department of

Agriculture, and the United Nations (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). However, as previously mentioned, these indicators fail to include risk of interruption as a factor in determining food security. As an island nation in a cold climate, Iceland relies heavily on food imports and lacks sufficient internal food production to safeguard against import disruption. These imported foods are largely processed, Western-diet foods, and their introduction in the Icelandic diet directly correlates with an exponential rise in obesity rates that have placed Iceland as one of the most obese countries in Europe (See Figure

4.2) (Cheney, 2011). Despite two recent, nation-wide threats to food security, Iceland has done little to secure an internal food supply to protect against future threats and continues to rely heavily on imported food. Iceland provides an example of the negligence industrialized nations give to national food security, despite brushes with food shortages and intermittent media attention.

Figure 4.2. Obesity rates among adults in European countries (Cheney, 2011)

For most of Iceland’s history, it has been a self-sufficient nation, surviving solely on the natural resources available on the island. This has changed in the past few centuries, as Iceland’s economic and political interactions have become globalized. It is understood that the population of Iceland has increased, so there is an expected increase in the total amount of goods consumed, both imported and internally produced (See

Figures 4.3 and 4.4). However, it is clear from observing the graphs that there is an disporportionate increase in the consumption of imported goods relative to population growth. This indicates a trend towards the consumption of imported goods.

Figure 4.3. Icelandic population, between 1850 and 2013. There is a somewhat steady increase in population, compared with the following graphs that indicate the exponential increase in the consumption of imported goods (Data from “Statistics Iceland,” www.statice.is)

Figure 4.4. Annual expenditure in clothing imports, between 1950 and 1930, in ISK thousand. There is an exponential increase in spending on imported clothing beginning around 1910 (Data from “Statistics Iceland,” www.statice.is)

Figure 4.5. Annual expenditure in fruit and vegetable imports, between 1850 and 1930, in ISK thousand. There is an exponential increase in spending on imported fruits and vegetables beginning around 1900. (Data from “Statistics Iceland,” www.statice.is)

It appears that the trend towards an increase in spending on imported goods appears around 1900 for the two categories sampled (clothing and fruits and vegetables).

The same was true for other categories observed on the Statistics Iceland imported goods database. In 1900, Iceland began the trend towards importing a majority of their goods.

Food has certainly experienced the shift from internal to external supply. The long- reaching historical narrative of this change will be discussed in the following chapter.

However, it is useful to examine data from the past few decades to observe the most recent changes in imported food trends. As is evident in Table 4.1, per capita consumption of imported food has increased significantly since 1956.

Table 4.1. Supply changes in selected imported productes between 1956 and 2008 in Kg/person. Data adapted from Public Health Institute of Iceland (PHII). % change 1956-60 1981-85 2008 1956-2008 Meal and grain 76.4 56.5 84.3 10.3 -wheat 48.1 44.4 64.5 34.1 -rye 21.4 5.6 4.0 -81.3 -rice & meal 1.7 2.0 5.3 211.8 -maize 0.2 1.4 5.6 2700.0 Potatoes 77.3 58.1 67.7 -12.4 -potatoes 77.3 51.8 39.5 -41.2 -potato products 67.2 6.3 28.2 179.2 Vegetables 15.9 33.0 61.1 284.3 -fresh vegetables 13.6 23.4 44.5 227.2 -vegetable products 2.3 9.6 16.6 621.7 Fruits 29.3 46.5 90.3 208.2 -fresh fruits 19.3 32.1 59.5 208.3 -fruit products 10.0 14.4 30.8 208.0

The trend towards the consumption of processed foods is supported by data collected by Landlaeknir, or the Icelandic Surgeon General, in a recently published report about Icelandic dietary changes since 1956 (See Table 4.1). The graph below indicates that soft drinks, cakes and cookies, and candy consumption has increased since 1956.

There has been an especially significant increase in the amount of soft drinks consumed per capita, which is consumed six times as much as it was in 1956. Processed oil and bread have increased since 1956, but not as significantly as the other categories examined. Most of these processed foods are imported, because Iceland does not possess the resources and/or facilities necessary to produce these foods.

Per Capital Consumption of Industrially Processed Foods 140

120

100 Bread

80 Cakes and Cookies 60 Candy 40 kg/person/year Soft Drinks 20 Oil 0

Figure 4.6. Per capita consumption of industrially processed foods. Data adapted from Public Health Institute of Iceland (PHIL).

According to data collected by Statistics Iceland, 95% of food consumed in Iceland today is imported or contains imported ingredients, which further proves Iceland is reliant on foreign food supplies (Bailes & Jóhannsson, 2011).

Conclusion

Iceland is an example of a country that has shifted from self-sufficient, internal food production to near complete reliance on imports, especially food. As Iceland transitioned from a self-sufficient to an import-reliant nation, it also shifted from food secure to food insecure. This is evident in the fact that when Iceland produced all of its food internally, there were no major food shortages. However, as it became more reliant on imported food, food shortage episodes became frequent. In the past few years, Iceland

has experienced two major threats of food shortages, and therefore, food security: the financial crisis in 2008 and the volcanic eruption of 2010. These two events have exposed the vulnerability of Iceland’s food security. It has become so reliant on imported food, especially fresh produce, that it would not be able to sustain itself if import systems were interrupted. In order to achieve food security, Iceland must develop an internal, sustainable infrastructure of food production that would feed its population in the event of an interruption to food imports.

CHAPTER 5

GEOTHERMAL AGRICULTURE IN ICELAND

Despite recent economic and environmental threats to food security, Iceland has proven to be resilient and maintain an adequate food supply for its people. However, because this supply continues to be dependent on foreign food importation, Iceland remains food insecure. To counter this danger, the country must produce an internal food source to safeguard against disruptions to food imports. Geothermal energy is readily available in Iceland, and many other countries, and may be used to support enhanced agricultural production. Geothermal greenhouse agriculture presents an opportunity to generate an adequate internal food supply for countries relying heavily on food imports.

This agricultural technology is well suited for Iceland because of an abundant geothermal energy supply and a history of successful implementation. However, the industry faces challenges and lacks sufficient governmental support, preventing it from becoming a food securing entity.

Research Methodology

The research and literature concerning geothermal greenhouse in Iceland is very limited. A majority of the data is collected by Bændasamtök Íslands, which is the

Farmer’s Association of Iceland. The association is comprised of several different unions that represent the interests of various producers, including the association of egg 79

producers (félag eggjaframleiðanda), the Federation of Potato Farmers (landssamband kartöflubænda), and the Union of Horticulturalists (samband garðyrkjubænda). The collective union represents the interests of all food producers in Iceland and includes a

Farmer’s Bank, to which most union members are enrolled. A majority of Icelandic farmers and food producers are members of the Farmers Union, and because the union keeps precise, updated records of production, demographic, and other data, it is a good resource for statistical data concerning food production. The union submits the data it collects to Statistics Iceland, the official center of Icelandic statistical data since it was founded in 1914. Agricultural yield statistics have been collected since 1977, and have been kept relatively updated since this time. Statistics Iceland does acknowledge that the data collected from the Farmers Union, though extensive, is not comprehensive and is from a third party with specific interests. Despite these limitations, it is a good resource for determining and comparing agricultural output trends (Statistics Iceland, 2012).

The literature and data regarding geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland is sparse, and a majority of the information is in Icelandic. Geothermal greenhouse counts provided online are not updated frequently, and many of the greenhouses listed are no longer in operation or have moved. Because of these limitations, it was determined that fieldwork was necessary to get a better sense of the number, location, and experiences of the farms and farmers. Between June and July of 2012, about twenty greenhouse and traditional farms were visited and six famers and farm workers were formally interviewed

(See Appendix A). The reason the number of farms is an estimation is due to the close proximity of the farms, and often unclear boundaries between them. There were also a

number of brief discussions with farm workers who were busy sorting and labeling vegetables during the busy harvest cycle. All of the farms visited were located in the southwestern portion of the country, where a majority of the farms are located. (See

Figure 5.1) Semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers and farm workers, which allowed the interviewees to speak more freely than if the interviews were structured. The advantage of this interview style is unanticipated information that would not have been discovered if the interviews were structured more rigidly. For example, the farmers were asked what sorts of challenges their farms face, to which many responded the taxes on electricity were very high and were getting higher, making production too expensive. Energy taxes as a challenge to the growth of greenhouse agriculture was not a consideration prior to the fieldwork, and semi-structured interviews allowed this information to surface. A series of interviews was also conducted with a representative from Samband Garðyrkjubænda, or the Union of Horticulturalists, whose information, advice, and assistance were of invaluable importance. As someone with frequent contact and interaction with greenhouse farmers, Bjarni was able to provide detailed accounts of opinions and struggles they experience, information that is not easily available elsewhere.

A representative from the Ministry of Industries and Innovation was interviewed to help understand the energy subsidies farmers receive, how they have changed, and discussions about the future.

Figure 5.1. Sites visited during fieldwork conducted between June and July of 2012. The yellow marker is Reykholt, blue is Flúðir, and red is Selfoss (Data from “Statistics Iceland,” www.statice.is).

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy utilization can be divided into two categories: electric production and direct application. Electric production requires high heat, or high- enthalpy, geothermal resources. Generally, these resources must be capable of heating water to a minimum of 150°C for conventional electric power production. Direct applications are best suited to low heat, or low-enthalpy geothermal fields that are less than 150°C, though they may also utilize high-enthalpy sources. This type of energy is best applied to direct use applications in close proximity to the source. Examples of direct applications include space heating, food drying, swimming pool warming, and greenhouse temperature regulation. Today, virtually every country has access to geothermal resources due to technological advances such as the heat pump, which

requires very little heat energy, and advanced drilling, providing access to geothermal fields up to 5000 meters below the surface (Fridleifsson, 1998).

Despite the fairly recent nature of these developments, many countries are already taking advantage of their newfound geothermal resources. As is indicated in table 5.1, countries that have increased geothermal energy use between 2000 and 2005 are those that had limited access to these resources in the last thirty years, such as Sweden,

Belgium, and the Czech Republic. The countries ranking first in overall geothermal energy use as of 2005 include Turkey, China, and Iceland- countries that have been using shallow geothermal resources for centuries. As of 2005, 72 countries reported direct utilization of geothermal energy. Global direct thermal energy usage rose to 273,372

TJ/year (terajoule per year), a 43% increase from 2000. This increase is largely due to the growing popularity of geothermal heat pumps. Heat pump energy output grew at a compound annual rate of 19% between 1995 and 2000, and a rate of 30% between 2000 and 2005. As the awareness and usage of geothermal heat pumps continues to spread, more countries will have the capacity to replace their current, less sustainable forms of energy usage with geothermal energy (Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005).

Table 5.1. Ranking of geothermal direct utilization worldwide by May 2005. TJ is terajoule, which is a unit of energy, MW stand for megawatt, which is another unit of energy, and MWt is megawatt thermal, a specific unit of energy for geothermal sources (Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005).

Ranking of geothermal direct utilization worldwide by May 2005

Use TJ/year Capacity MWt TJ/area TJ/population MW/area MWt/population China USA Iceland Iceland Iceland Iceland Switzerlan Sweden Sweden Israel Sweden d Sweden Switzerlan USA China d New Zealand Sweden Norway Iceland Iceland Denmark Georgia Denmark Switzerland Turkey Turkey Georgia Denmark Hungary Hungary

Geothermal energy has gained recent global popularity because it provides a less expensive, internal, and sustainable energy source. Countries heavily dependent on imported energy, such as Turkey, are at the mercy of sporadic and rising energy prices.

Internal energy production allows for greater control and increased stability of energy pricing. It also prevents the vulnerability and insecurity that accompanies imported energy dependence. Most energy use today is dependent on nonrenewable sources, such as fossil fuels. Geothermal energy is renewable and presents a sustainable, long-term energy solution. Replacing fossil fuels with geothermal energy would decrease the environmental hazards associated with oil, including atmospheric emissions that contribute to global warming (Kaygusuz & Kaygusuz, 2004).

Geothermal Agriculture

The direct application of geothermal heat to agriculture predates recorded history.

Naturally heated soil has been used to extend the growing season of crops, especially in

countries located in colder climates. Some of the first recorded accounts of the incorporation of geothermal heat and agriculture are of Icelandic farmers in the 1850s.

The extended growing season provided by naturally heated soil helped farms combat the cool summers and cold, long winters (Gunnlaugsson, Agustsson, & Adalsteinsson, 2003).

Direct heating is still used in Iceland today for hearty crops such as cabbage, potatoes, and kale (See figure 5.2).

The use of geothermal energy for agriculture continues today. More countries have been able to implement geothermal greenhouses due to the advent of the geothermal heat pump. Greenhouse technology has drastically improved yield types and quantities compared with the original, open-air methods. The first covered geothermal crops that replaced open-air agriculture utilized cloth and natural coverings, which was later replaced with plastic (Ragnarsson, 2008). Today, many greenhouses are glass covered to better stand up to harsh weather and climates, though some are still plastic covered or open. Cover type and overall design is heavily dependent on regional climactic conditions, as well as funding available. The most important climactic factors that determine structural design are temperature, solar radiation, precipitation, and wind intensity (Von Elsner et al., 2000). Plastic covering is well suited to warmer, milder climates and is less expensive, while glass is more costly but necessary in colder, harsher climates (See Figure 5.3) (Ragnarsson, 2008). Other cover types include fiberglass, rigid plastic panels, and plastic film (Dickson & Fanelli, 2004).

Figure 5.2. A modern day example of an outdoor, directly heated field in southern Iceland. Though difficult to see in this picture, steam rising from in and around the plot made it obvious this is a directly heated plot. This particular farm produces a variety of hearty crops, including kale, kohlrabi, cabbage (Photo by Gina Butrico).

Besides cover type, the overall design of a greenhouse is also dependent on the natural environment. For example, greenhouses located in areas that experience high wind speeds must have foundations and frames constructed of durable materials that can handle the stress. Greenhouses exposed to rain, hail, and/or snow must have properly angled roofs constructed of heavy, insulatory materials.

Figure 5.3 An example of a plastic covered greenhouse, located in southern Iceland (Photo by Gina Butrico).

Intense solar radiation can degrade plastic and other thermo-reactive materials, so greenhouses located in areas where this is a concern must be constructed of thermo- resistant materials (Von Elsner et al., 2000). Greenhouse design and construction must be able to both withstand environmental hazards while maintaining the target ranges for temperature and moisture levels necessary to grow the plants desired.

Geothermal heat may be distributed through greenhouses in a variety of ways.

The type of heating method used depends on two factors: the surrounding climactic conditions and the temperature requirements of the target crop. The outside climactic conditions determine how much heat is needed to maintain a target temperature. For example, a greenhouse in a cold climate requires more heat than one in a warm environment due to inevitable heat loss. The type of plant to be grown is significant because it also affects internal temperature requirements. Bananas require much higher temperatures than potatoes, so a different heating method would be used for both

(Rafferty, 1990). The way in which heat is distributed through greenhouses may be

considered as two main categories: natural air movement and forced air movement (See

Figure 5.4). Natural air movement circulates heated water through open channels or finned tube radiators in close proximity to the plants. The natural movement of the water heats the air, which heats the plants. Many of the greenhouses visited in Iceland during field research were heated in this manner. Hot water or steam travels through pipes that either lined the greenhouse walls or were laid along the rows of plants in the greenhouses observed (See Figure 5.5). This method is inexpensive, but also difficult to regulate, so it is best suited to plants that do not require high or exact temperatures. Forced air movement transports air that has been heated by water through ducts or vents in a forced fashion. This type of system is more expensive, but may be precisely regulated and can achieve higher temperatures. Also, the heating implement may be placed anywhere within the greenhouse and is not confined to close proximity to the plants like the natural air movement method (Dickson & Fanelli, 2004).

Figure 5.4. Various types of heating systems in geothermal greenhouses. Types utilizing natural air movement: (a) aerial pipe heating, (b) bench heating, (c) low-position heating pipes for aerial heating, and (d) soil heating. Installations with forced air movement: (e) lateral position, (f) aerial fan, (g) high-position ducts, and (h) low-position ducts. (Von Zabeltitz, 1999)

Figure 5.5. A greenhouse in Iceland utilizing the natural air movement method of greenhouse heating. Geothermally heated water from a nearby source moves through the pipes, which heats the surrounding air. (Photo by Gina Butrico)

Though there has been an increase in global geothermal energy implementation, agricultural applications have stagnated. As of 2005, greenhouse heating accounted for

7.6% of total geothermal energy use (See Figure 5.6). This is only a 3% compounded annual increase since 1995. There has been an increase in the number of countries reporting geothermal greenhouse use since 1995, but because total energy use has remained constant, the sector is not experiencing significant overall growth. Despite lack of global growth, greenhouse heating remains a relatively significant portion of overall direct geothermal energy applications. The sectors using the largest amount of overall energy are geothermal heat pumps, balneology (bathhouse or swimming pool heating), and space heating. It is true the agriculture sector has experienced minimal growth from a global perspective. However, countries such as Denmark and Norway are investing in their geothermal agricultural sectors, and are therefore experiencing rapid individual growth (Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005).

Figure 5.6. Global geothermal energy use, by application (Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005).

Geothermal Agriculture in Iceland

Sustenance agriculture has been a vital industry in Iceland for a majority of its history, but has declined in the past few decades. As of 2013, there were 4,200 farms in

Iceland producing a wide variety of products, including milk, meat, eggs, and vegetables.

About 4,800 people are employed in the agricultural sector, or 2.9% of the total workforce. There are currently over 11,000 jobs related to agriculture, including administration, processing, and legal. The largest portion of producers is located in the south, as is evident in Figure 5.7, which is why a majority of the fieldwork occurred in this area (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012). The southern portion of Iceland has most readily available geothermal resources and is flat and fertile area due to nearby volcanic activity

(See Figure 5.8) (Arnalds, 2004).

Figure 5.7. Number of greenhouse producers by region (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

Figure 5.8. Distribution of greenhouse farms, in total greenhouse space, between 2004- 2005, by region (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

As previously discussed, Iceland was one of the first countries in recorded history to use geothermal heat for agricultural purposes. Initially, crops were planted in soil located directly on geothermal heat sources, which extended the growing seasons of traditional crops. Crops grown in this manner included potatoes and other hearty vegetables that could stand up to the harsh Icelandic climate. In 1924, the first known geothermal greenhouses were constructed. These structures were able to protect crops

against weather and temperature hazards, which not only further extended growing seasons, but also allowed for the cultivation of crops that were previously difficult to grow. The greenhouses allowed for temperature and water control, making it possible to produce fragile crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers. Advances in greenhouse technology, such as forced heating systems, allowed for the cultivation of a wide variety of plant species that would otherwise be unable to grow in Iceland, including bananas and exotic flowers (Mohamed, 2003). Plastic covering has largely been replaced with glass enclosures, which allows for greater temperature control and sunlight (See Figure 5.9).

Some utilize computerized systems that automatically regulate heating, cooling, lighting, moisture, and other factors (Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005). Current greenhouse technology allows for such environmental specificity that nearly any plant may be grown in Iceland during any time of the year. This is a massive change from the limited nature of Icelandic agriculture from the time of Viking settlement to the mid-twentieth century.

Figure 5.9. A map of Iceland showing cultivation potential. The orange is best suited for cultivation, followed by dark green, light green, and yellow (Johannesson, 2010).

Figure 5.10. A glass-enclosed greenhouse complex in southern Iceland, accompanied by a visible geothermal steam cloud, indicating the presence of the geothermally heated water upon which this industry depends (Photo by Gina Butrico)

Iceland’s total agricultural output has varied quite a bit in recent decades (See

Table 5.2). Output of crops grown exclusively in the traditional, outdoors manner, such as potatoes and beets, has remained relatively stable or decreased. For example, between

1990 and 2008, Icelandic potato production fell from 14,893 tons a year to 12,500, which is nearly a 17% loss. Beet production has fluctuated between 1990 and 2008, with a total increase of just 7%. Conversely, total output of greenhouse crops, such as tomatoes and cucumbers, has dramatically increased. Tomato output has grown from 495 tons a year in

1990 to 1,621 in 2008, a staggering 65% increase. Cucumber cultivation also increased about 65% during this period, from 534 tons a year in 1990 to 1,516 in 2008. Lettuce production, which occurs exclusively in greenhouses, was nearly nonexistent in 1990 and now has a yearly output of 98 tons. It is clear that during the last two decades, the productivity of traditionally grown crops has stagnated while greenhouse-grown crops have grown exponentially.

Table 5.2. Production of vegetables and horticulture production in tons, between 1990 and 2008 (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

Production of Icelandic Vegetables in Tons

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2007 Potatoes 14,893 7,324 9,013 7,250 13,800 13,000 12,500 Beets 808 328 793 750 800 860 872 Carrots 231 395 395 418 398.2 526 653 Cauliflower 95 122 89 44 82.9 112 107 Cabbage 395 624 538 346 306.6 340 434 Broccoli 25 53 56.3 83 88 Chinese Cabbage 224 301 255 162 219.3 222 229 Red Cabbage 31.8 Lettuce 40 65.7 89.8 98 Leeks 22 22 6 0 Tomatoes 495 749 931 1508 1,724 1,603 1,621 Cucumbers 534 606 914 1,147 1,124 1,433 1,516 Peppers 120 194 203 126 130 147 170 Mushrooms 251 447 438 487.6 515 526

Despite the economic, environmental, and political attractiveness of geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland, the total number of producers has declined in the past decade (See Figure 5.11). As of 2008 there were 96 greenhouse producers in Iceland, a significant decrease from the 121 producers in 2001. The largest decrease in number of total producers occurred between 2002 and 2003, with 12 greenhouse farms ceasing operations. Interestingly, the total area of greenhouse space has only slightly decreased.

In 2001 there were 199m2 of greenhouse area, which is only slightly more than the 192m2 used today. This indicates that while total number of producers is dropping, the size of the greenhouses that remain in operation is expanding (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

This would suggest that small farmers are unable to make a viable living, so larger and more resource-efficient farms, are becoming more commonplace.

Figure 5.11. Total number of greenhouse producers from 2001-2008 (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

Figure 5.12. Total area of greenhouse space (m2) from 2001-2008 (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

Self-Sufficiency of Icelandic Geothermal Greenhouses Today

Geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland is an incredibly self-sufficient industry because many of the operational components are domestically produced, including electricity, fertilizer, soil, and water. The near autarky of this industry acts as a model for other countries seeking agricultural self-sufficiency.

There are currently five major geothermal power plants in Iceland that collectively produce nearly 75% of the nation’s electricity. The remainder is mostly

produced via hydropower, another domestic and sustainable method of energy production

(Bertani, 2012). Greenhouses require electricity to operate, especially during the winter months when artificial lighting is required to compensate for the lack of natural sunlight.

Other mechanisms requiring electricity include ventilation, watering, backup heating, and computer processing. Figures 5.13 and 5.14 are photographs taken during fieldwork that exemplify some common electricity-powered elements observed in most of the greenhouses, especially automatic watering systems. These systems have a distinct, and almost melodic sound that became an expected part of the greenhouse-visiting experience. Because Iceland produces most of its electricity domestically and in a sustainable manner, the electricity used by greenhouses is yet another component that makes this industry highly self-sufficient. Crops grown in greenhouses have the same environmental requirements as those grown in the traditional, open-air method. Every species requires specific parameters in order to grow, specifically for sunlight, water, nutrients, soil composition, temperature, and air. Greenhouses in Iceland source many of these components locally, specifically fertilizer, soil, and water, so they contribute to the self-sufficient nature of this industry.

Figure 5.13. Two examples of greenhouses that utilize automatic watering technology. A computerized system regulates soil saturation and watering times, automatically pumping water to plants when needed through a tubing network (Photos by Gina Butrico).

Figure 5.14. An example of a computerized system in a geothermal greenhouse in Iceland. This system automatically controls temperature, water, fertilizer, and a variety of other growing factors. Computer systems are one example of components in geothermal greenhouses that require electricity. (Photos by Gina Butrico)

100

Though some fertilizer is imported, two major internal sources of fertilizer are volcanic ash and fishmeal. Good topsoil is somewhat difficult to obtain in Iceland because the country has struggled with erosion ever since it was deforested by Vikings in the ninth century. Because there are no tree roots to secure the soil in such a windy environment, any topsoil that does manage to accumulate quickly erodes, causing widespread desertification (Arnalds & Ármannsson, 1999). Though volcanic activity can contribute to erosion and desertification, it may also provide fertilizer in the form of volcanic ash. Ash composition varies between volcanoes, but generally consists of rock fragments, volcanic glass, and minerals that have been pulverized into fine particles by an explosive volcanic eruption. Iceland experiences frequent volcanic activity due to its location along the mid-Atlantic ridge, a divergent tectonic plate boundary. There are thirty active volcanic systems, thirteen of which have erupted in recorded history (Rose &

Durant, 2009). As a result, Iceland often experiences large outputs of volcanic ash across its landscape. Though too much ash may suffocate cropland, small quantities have been proven beneficial to agriculture. Because greenhouses shield plants from airborne ash, farmers are able to control the amount administered to the soil, therefore maximizing the benefits. Some important agricultural functions of volcanic ash include organic carbon and nitrogen content, water storage capacity, and quantities of potassium, micronutrients, and soil acidity (Shoji & Takahashi, 2002). Farms in Iceland have historically been located in the southern portion of the country, which is partially due to soil fertility from volcanic eruptions in that region. Some geothermal greenhouse farmers take advantage of this free, naturally occurring fertilizer by adding controlled quantities to their crops. Not

101

only is this an inexpensive alternative to synthetic, imported fertilizer, it is also contributes to the self-sufficiency to this type of agriculture.

Another self-sufficient, sustainable fertilizer option is fishmeal, which is a byproduct of the country’s large fishing sector. Fishmeal (Fiskimjöl in Icelandic) is comprised of discarded fish and fish offal that would otherwise be discarded by fish processing plants. Fishmeal is transported in big, blue drums that were observed on an organic, directly heated farm in Flúðir named Laugarland Fluðum, and is pictured in

Figure 5.15 (See Appendix A). There was no mention of fishmeal fertilizer in the literature or interviews, so this was a vital field observation that revealed yet another way

Icelandic agriculture can be sustainable. A farmworker at Laugarland Fluðum explained that the fishmeal is dried and ground into a nutrient-rich powder that is inexpensive and excellent for fertilizing both greenhouse and traditionally grown crops. There are currently eleven fishmeal factories in Iceland, which is a decline from the twenty operating in 2000, mostly due to heightened quality control standards. Almost 95% of the meal is exported, mostly to Norway, Denmark, Scotland, and France, and is largely used for feeding aquaculture. The remaining 5% remains in Iceland and is mostly used for aquaculture and agriculture (Arason, 2003). Though no statistical records exist that track the exact amount used by greenhouses, many organic farmers interviewed indicated the use of fishmeal as a fertilizer in their greenhouses and fields.

102

Figure 5.15. A container of fishmeal produced by an Icelandic fishmeal plant in southern Iceland. The fishmeal is directly applied to crops, both indoors and outdoors, to supplement the soil with additional nutrients to aid growth. (Photos by Gina Butrico)

Fishmeal, like volcanic ash, is an internal, self-sufficient fertilizer. (Pauly & Watson,

2009). If more Icelandic greenhouse farmers replaced synthetic, imported fertilizer with fishmeal, it would support a declining Icelandic industry and increase the self-sufficiency of the geothermal greenhouse industry.

Many Icelandic greenhouse farmers have switched from traditional, soil-grown agriculture to hydroponic technology. Hydroponics is a type of hydroculture that allows plants to grow in an inert medium, such as clay, gravel, and mineral wool, eliminating the need for soil. Plants grown in this manner receive nutrients through mineral solutions designed to deliver perfectly calculated nutrition necessary for growth. Hydroponics is especially beneficial to Icelandic farmers because it reduces the demand for topsoil, a

103

scarce resource in this country. Stonewool (fine stone mesh) is a common inert material used by Icelandic hydroponic farmers because it is inexpensive and reusable, and was observed in a majority of the greenhouses visited (See Figure 5.16). Though the stonewool blocks must be imported from external suppliers, specifically Denmark, this is a more sustainable alternative to using scarce topsoil resources. Some farmers also use locally sourced gravel as a secondary drainage medium to reduce the amount of stonewool needed. Though hydroponics is not a completely self-sufficient method of greenhouse agriculture, it does utilize some locally sourced materials and reduces the exploitation of Iceland’s scant topsoil resources.

Agriculture is a water-intensive industry. Many countries must carefully manage their limited water supplies to ensure sustainability. While freshwater is certainly a finite resource, Iceland contains an abundance stored in glaciers. Over 10% of Iceland is covered in glaciers, with a total area of about 103,125km². Besides glaciers, Iceland experiences heavy rainfall of about 2,000mm a year, which also contributes to freshwater availability. These factors, along with a sparse population, means Iceland has the highest renewable freshwater availability per capita in Europe (Shiklomanov & Rodda, 2003).

Many farmers, both greenhouse and tradition, are able to water their crops with collected rainwater or from nearby glacial runoff sources. The renewable and abundant nature of

Iceland’s water supply contributes to the self-sufficiency of geothermal greenhouse agriculture because the farmers will not need to rely on external water suppliers for the foreseeable future.

104

Figure 5.16. A stonewool block containing a tomato plant in a greenhouse in southern Iceland. The farmer has placed locally sourced gravel beneath the block for additional drainage and to reduce the amount of stonewool needed. (Photos by Gina Butrico)

Also, 95% of the freshwater distributed in Iceland does not need to be treated, which minimizes the need for imported water purification systems and makes Icelandic water an even more self-sufficient resource (Alessa et al., 2008).

It is clear that Icelandic geothermal greenhouse agriculture is a highly self- sufficient industry. Most of the high-volume input variables, such as water, soil, and fertilizer, have the potential to be sourced locally and sustainably.

105

Figure 5.17 A large tank storing CO2 outside of Friðheimar farm. Like many other farms in the area, the CO2 is an inexpensive and sustainable way to improve harvest tonnage. (Photo by Gina Butrico)

Another element worth mentioning is CO2, which is produced at a geothermal plant in southern Iceland and is used by many greenhouse farmers to enrich their crops, including

Knútur, a farmer interviewed during fieldwork at his farm Friðheimar (See Appendix A).

On Knútur’s farm, the CO2 is stored in a large tank and is pumped into the greenhouses through pipes as needed (See Figure 5.17). There remain some elements that must currently be imported, including structural components, computer systems, and pollination bees. However, these variables present opportunities for Iceland to find innovative ways to produce these materials domestically.

106

The Government and Agriculture

The Icelandic government has a history of interventional policies in favor of the agriculture sector, though expenditure has fallen in recent decades. There are two major categories of support: subsidies to encourage production and taxes on imported food to protect Icelandic food production. In 1993, all legislation regarding food production, pricing, and sales came under the jurisdiction of the íslenskrar landbúnaðarstefnu, or the

Agricultural Policy Act. The act set forth agreements between the state and the farmers regarding objectives of agricultural policy. The six main objectives, translated from

Icelandic, are as follows:

To promote the development and increased efficiency in agricultural production, processing, and sale of agricultural products for the benefit of the consumer.

To ensure agricultural production for consumption and its prices match the needs of the nation and always ensure sufficient food supply that can adapt to varying conditions within the country.

To ensure pricing for agricultural products are allowed to be competitive in the global market.

To secure conditions of the agricultural sector are comparable to that of other professions.

To optimize domestic resources in a way that is most beneficial to agricultural production, both for production and employment security.

To promote equality between producers in each production sector in terms of product prices and market conditions. (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012)

The act is a government initiative to support local agriculture, for the purposes of both consumption and business. The main objective is to protect food and job security, by

107

allowing food prices to be affordable yet competitive. Though it is true that the government has, generally, adhered to these agreements, it may be argued that cost of agriculture and trade is higher in Iceland than neighboring countries, so the industry requires a proportionally higher amount of support (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012).

Icelandic farmers and their backers have, and continue, to express a need for greater support to secure the industry against decline. The managing director of the Icelandic

Association of Horticultural Producers expressed concern about the growing electricity costs:

We have seen a 30 percent increase in the price of electricity this year and

such an increase is very difficult for horticulture farming because it is the

industry's largest cost item. (Iceland Review, 2009)

Indeed, there is a correlation between the decline and stagnation of the agricultural sector and diminishing subsidies and import regulations. Though Iceland receives a proportionally larger amount of financial support from the government compared with neighboring countries, the data indicates that more funding and stricter regulations are needed to secure the future of farming in Iceland (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012).

Tariffs and import fees applied to imported food allow Icelandic agricultural production to be competitive in the domestic market. The taxes are applied to products that are comparable to those substantially produced internally, such as dairy, meat, and root vegetables. No taxes are applied to goods that cannot be produced within Iceland to ensure affordable food prices for Icelanders. The tariffs are flexible and are lifted during times when Icelandic products are unavailable to protect Icelandic consumers against

108

unnecessarily inflated food prices. These policies are successful in protecting Icelandic food production and allowing it to be competitive while maintaining affordable food prices for consumers. However, the tariffs fail to protect greenhouse crops. In 2002, tariffs for imported cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, lettuce, and other greenhouse crops were abolished in favor of increased farming subsidies, making it difficult to compete with less expensive imports. The policy was slightly amended in 2007 to place a 10% tax on fresh vegetables supplied by countries outside of the European Union. This amendment had an arguably insignificant impact, since very little fresh produce from non-European Union countries are imported into Iceland (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012).

The elimination of this import tax had immediate negative affects on the greenhouse sector. Both the number of producers and total greenhouse area dropped after

2002 after the import tax change was made. The total greenhouse area decreased from

204,000m3 to 187,000m3 during the year following the policy change, which is a loss of about 10%. Greenhouse farm ownership also dropped approximately 10% after the change, from 119 to 107. Both total greenhouse area and number of producers continued to drop until 2007, which happens to be the year the policy was amended. Despite this growth, neither space nor grower counts have been able to reach the quantities they were before the policy change of 2002. It is clear that geothermal greenhouse agriculture currently depends on tariff protection to allow their produce to compete with the inexpensive, imported counterparts. The vulnerability of the industry is starkly illustrated by how quickly greenhouses ceased operations after a slight policy change

(Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

109

When the decision was made in 2002 to eliminate import taxes on fresh vegetables, the government began giving high subsidies to the greenhouse farmers. The subsidies were roughly 40% of the average income and mainly contributed towards electricity costs (Bændasamtök Íslands, 2012). Greenhouse farmers, including many of those interviewed, still felt energy costs were too high, and many cite electricity costs as a major impediment to their success. Ragnar Sverrisson, a greenhouse farmer in Laugarás

(see Appendix A.) expressed the difficultly of high electricity prices, when he stated, “I can’t make ends meet with these prices” during a 2009 horticultural producer protest

(Iceland Review, 2009). In 2005 the government increased electricity subsidies to include

95% of distribution on energy, which was 35-45% of total costs at that time. In Iceland, electricity is divided into two different entities: energy generation and energy distribution. So the government was not subsidizing the energy itself, but the costs associated with distributing it. Over time, the price of distribution increased to about 60% of the total electricity cost. In response to this increase, the government lowered support to about 75% of the distribution cost. Today, subsidies have dropped from 40% of the average income to about 20%. In addition to the waning support, there remains no taxation on imported, inexpensive foods that directly compete with geothermal crops

(Bændasamtök Íslands, 2013).

Friðheimar: Snapshot of an Icelandic Greenhouse Farm

To better understand what the Icelandic greenhouse farming experience looks like, it is worth taking a close look at a typical farm in operation today. One of the first greenhouse farms visited was Friðheimar, established in 1946 and located in Selfoss, an

110

area densely populated with geothermal greenhouses due to the abundance of readily available, low-enthalpy geothermal heat. The current owners are young couple Helena

Hermundardóttir and Knútur Rafn Ármann who purchased the farm in 1995. When they first took ownership, the facilities were in desperate need of repair. Like many greenhouse farms in the area, it was neglected and abandoned by former farmers who were unable to make a living from the farming business. Helena and Knútur repaired, updated, and expanded the farm into the successful and diverse business it is today. Their latest expansion in 2011 increased growing area 60% with the addition of a 2,200 m2 greenhouse, allowing them a daily output average of a ton of tomatoes. Today, they mostly manage the farm themselves with help from their five children, who are actively involved in the family business.

Farming isn’t the entire Friðheimar story, which became evident shortly after arrival. From the outside it is a typical Icelandic greenhouse farm; several glass greenhouses in a row with tall green tomato plants lining their interiors (See Figure 5.18).

An unmanned, honor-system farm stand constructed from branches sits along the winding driveway, selling very inexpensive tomatoes and cucumbers (See Figure 5.19). Also next to the driveway are several stables housing the iconic Icelandic horse, a somewhat common sight on farms in this area. What makes Friðheimar different became immediately clear upon entering the greenhouse. Most farms maximize greenhouse space to optimize resources, so it was strange to observe several hundred square meters of open area. Instead of tomato plants, there is a large welcome display of information in

Icelandic and English about the farm and Icelandic geothermal agriculture in general.

111

Figure 5.18 The outside of a greenhouse at Friðheimar (Photo by Gina Butrico)

Figure 5.19 A stand selling produce in front of Friðheimar. It is common for farms in Iceland to have an easily-accessible farm stand selling their produce (Photo by Gina Butrico)

112

When a BSI tour bus pulled in, filled with visitors from all over the world, it became obvious that Friðheimar is not only a greenhouse farm, it is a tourist destination.

A majority of farm visits involved interviews with farmers and farm workers

(most of whom seemed rather unused to visitors), followed by a personal tour of the greenhouses, fields, and other farm facilities. Friðheimar was very different. After the tourists arrived, owner Knútur emerged to welcome and corral them into the visitors’ area inside the greenhouse. He hopped up on a mechanical lift and began a presentation about his farm (See Figure 5.20). Afterwards, everyone had a chance to talk to Knútur and his wife and was welcomed to a bowl of tomato soup made from in-house-grown tomatoes.

The tourists eventually left to see the horses and continue on their way, leaving the greenhouse quiet again, except for the periodic pumping of the automatic watering system.

There was some time to speak with Knútur before he had to return to work and prepare for the next tour group. He was clearly tired, but excited to talk about his farm. It turns out tourism was not an objective when Knútur purchased Friðheimar. The goal was to repair and expand the crumbling infrastructure into a successful tomato and horse farm. Within a few years Friðheimar grew from three old greenhouses to eight automated, highly efficient facilities. Along with the agricultural success, the couple realized they could use the farm to generate income from tourism, mostly through payouts from tourism companies. Friðheimar is located in the Selfoss region, home to a well-known waterfall (also called Selfoss) that receives heavy tourism traffic.

113

Figure 5.20 Owner Knútur giving a presentation about his tomato farm to a group of tourists (Photos by Gina Butrico)

They capitalized on their location by making deals with tour companies to include a

Friðheimar tour in several popular packages. Knútur admitted that running both a farm and a tourism destination while raising five children is quite the balancing act, but he is thankful for his success. Though his tomatoes are selling well, he expressed concern about maintaining a competitive price for his crop. His electricity costs are rising, and though he receives a governmental subsidy, he still pays more than other industries.

There is also a growing competition from imported tomatoes because there are no protection tariffs. For now, his tomatoes are selling well and are less expensive than the

114

foreign alternative. However, the family plans to continue investing time and resources into the tourism aspect of the farm as a means of financial security.

Friðheimar is a snapshot of a typical Icelandic greenhouse farm, along with a few distinctive differences. Many of the farms visited have been in operation for decades, but recently switched owners. Every farm utilizes some of the latest and sustainable greenhouse technologies, including automatic watering and bee pollination. All of the farmers have similar concerns to Knútur regarding the rising electricity costs and lack of protective tariffs. Friðheimar is unique in their approach of securing their farm against fluctuations in electricity and foreign produce prices. They have diversified their business to be both agricultural and tourism, and because the government heavily supports tourism, its continued growth is almost guaranteed. Though strategic, farm diversification into other industries is a product of mounting fear among farmers that their farms will not continue to be profitable. As Knútur cleared away the dirty soup bowls left by the tourists and went back to work among the tomatoes until the next group arrived, his wearied demeanor suggested that the dual nature of Friðheimar was beginning to take its toll.

Conclusion

Geothermal agriculture presents an opportunity for import-reliant countries to have the internal food production necessary to feed its population if import networks are interrupted or discontinued. Fertilizer, soil, water, and heat can all be locally sourced, making this a self-sufficient industry. Iceland was one of the first to use geothermally heated agriculture, as well as the first to use geothermal greenhouses. The industry continues to have a presence today, though its growth has waned in recent years. The

115

decline of the industry can be attributed to many variables, including insufficient governmental support. If the Icelandic geothermal agriculture industry is able to increase production to a level that could sustain the population if imported food networks were interrupted, it would achieve a higher level of national food security and would act as a model for other food import-reliant countries to secure a sustainable method of internal food production.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Food has gone global. The way food is produced, transported, and consumed has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution. This transformation has yielded an entirely new diet, an industrialized diet, which shows little sign of losing popularity in the near future. Due to constantly updating technologies, food can travel further, last longer, and be purchased for cheaper than ever before. In many ways, the industrialization of food is a great achievement, since enough food is produced to (theoretically) feed the world twice over. It has also proven to have dire consequences, such as environmental degradation, health hazards, human rights violations, and the topic of this paper, loss of food security and national identity. As industrialized food continues to dominate the global plate, locally produced, traditional foods will continue to be replaced and obliterated, perhaps permanently. This begs the question: what can be done to prevent food insecurity and loss of national identity that accompanies the adoption of a global diet?

In the exploration of the relationship between industrialized food and national food security and identity, Iceland acts as a good case study. Once a completely self- sufficient nation, Iceland has become so involved in international trade that it is almost completely dependent on imported food. Following the history of this conversion reveals

116

117

that as Iceland became more reliant on foreign food, its internal food production infrastructure deteriorated, leaving it vulnerable to food insecurity. In the past few years, two events that led to temporary interruptions in food import systems resulted in immediate food shortages. This is a clear indication that Iceland has become completely dependent on these systems to feed its population, meaning any threat to food transportation is a threat to national food security. Despite these two recent brushes with food insecurity, little has been done to protect the country from future disruptions, suggesting Iceland does not consider food security a national priority.

Iceland is not the only developed country that fails to place political and economic focus on national food security. In international political arenas, such as the G8 summit meeting, the topic of food security is discussed with a sole focus on developing nations. While it is true that most of the world’s poorest countries do not have sufficient or safe food supplies, developed countries are also at risk for food insecurity because of heavy reliance on imports and lack of food self-sufficiency. Despite increasing episodes of food shortages in developed nations, the discussion and political action remains surprisingly sparse.

Food insecurity is not the only negative consequence of industrialized diet adoption. Nearly every country has a traditional or national diet, comprised of foods historically grown or produced in that region. For example, Iceland has been producing and consuming skyr, a specific type of yogurt, since it was first settled by Vikings. Foods of this nature embody national identity, and its production and consumption acts as a display of national pride. So when a national diet is slowly dominated by foreign foods,

118

the demand for traditional foods decreases. Sometimes these foods disappear completely, or become novelties that are made in small quantities. The result is a loss of national identity, a loss of a vehicle upon which to express nationalism.

For countries at risk for food insecurity because of reliance on imports, a sufficient, sustainable, and domestic food production system is a solution. If a country domestically produces enough food to feed its population, it has a backup food supply in the event of import disruptions. It is difficult, and probably impossible, to fabricate a single method of internal food production that will work for every country because each has a unique food history, climate, national economy, and food preference. However, it is possible to propose solutions that suit the needs of individual countries upon examination of their food environments and food shortage vulnerabilities. For Iceland, the answer could be geothermal greenhouse agriculture.

Iceland was one of the first to use geothermally heated soil to extend agricultural growing seasons. The practice continues today in the geothermal greenhouse agriculture industry, with several modifications due to advancing technologies. Because geothermal agriculture has a long history in Iceland, crops produced in this manner are a symbol of national identity. Greenhouse farmers realize the nationalism associated with their crops, and capitalize on it by labeling their products blatantly “Icelandic.” For example, many labels include the Icelandic flag, the name of the farm, and the region it was produced. So in Iceland, geothermal greenhouse agriculture remedies two issues associated with the adoption of industrialized food: it offers a domestic, sustainable food source to safeguard against import disruptions, and it provides a means of expressing national identity.

119

The findings resulting from the fieldwork are somewhat alarming. The biggest impediment to geothermal greenhouse agriculture in Iceland is lack of governmental support, and, according to greenhouse farmers, governmental negligence. Though greenhouse operation is mostly powered by naturally occurring geothermal heat, many components, such as lighting and computerized systems, rely on electricity. Both residential and commercial electricity use is taxed, and despite a government subsidy, electricity prices are becoming too high for farmers to continue operation. The other major impediment is the lack of protective taxes on imported produce that competes with domestic, greenhouse-grown crops, including cucumbers, tomatoes, and peppers. These taxes were dropped in favor of the electricity subsidy, and have left farmers struggling to compete with imported vegetables.

This research indicates the growing, yet overlooked issues of food insecurity and loss of national identity in developed countries due to the adoption of an imported diet.

For Iceland, these problems could be countered with sufficient production from the geothermal greenhouse agriculture industry. However, the industry is not receiving the political or economic support necessary to produce the quantity of food necessary to feed the Icelandic population in the event of chronic food import disruptions. The ideas presented in this paper, and the illumination of the Icelandic food situation, will hopefully spur continued discussion on these academically and politically overlooked issues.

WORKS CITED

Acemoglu, D., & Lyle, D. (2004). Women, war, and wages: The effect of female labor supply on the wage structure at midcentury. Journal of Political Economy, 112(3), 497-551.

Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Lammers, R., Arp, C., White, D., Hinzman, L., & Busey, R. (2008). The Arctic water resource vulnerability index: an integrated assessment tool for community resilience and vulnerability with respect to freshwater. Environmental management, 42(3), 523-541.

Arason, S. (2003). Utilization of fish byproducts in Iceland. Advances in Seafood Byproducts, 47-66.

Arnalds, O. (2004). Volcanic soils of Iceland. Catena, 56(1), 3-20.

Arnalds, Ó., & Ármannsson, H. (1999). Soils and soil erosion in Iceland. Geochemistry of the earth's surface. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland, 15-20 August 1999, 135-139.

Arora, R. C. (2010). Refrigeration and air conditioning. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

Association of American Geographers. (2013). Search by title session: food. Meridian.aag.org. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from http://meridian.aag.org/callforpapers/program/SearchAction.cfm.

Bændasamtök Íslands. (2013). Svona er íslenskur landbúnaður.

Bændasamtök Íslands. (2012). Tollar og íslenskur landbúnaður.

Bailes, A. J., & Jóhannsson, O. (2011). Food security in Iceland. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla, 2(7), 491-509.

Bertani, R. (2012). Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report. Geothermics, 41, 1-29.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bowker, J. (1997). Food and religion. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

120

121

Bonus. (2012). Bonus Homepage (website). Bonus.is. Retrieved on December 5, 2012.

Boyd, W. (2003). Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defense. Technology and Culture, 44(2), 423-424.

Boyes, R. (2009). Meltdown Iceland: How the global financial crisis bankrupted an entire country. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brinkman, H. J., de Pee, S., Sanogo, I., Subran, L., & Bloem, M. W. (2010). High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. The Journal of nutrition, 140(1), 153-161.

Cheney, C. (2011). Battling the couch potatoes: Hungary introduces "fat tax." Der Spiegel. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/battling-the- couch-potatoes-hungary-introduces-fat-tax-a-783862.html

Coles, N., & Hall, P. (2012). Water, energy and food security. InTechnology and Society in Asia 2012 IEEE Conference, 1-6.

Conversi, D. (2004) Can Nationalism Studies and Ethnic/Racial Studies be Brought Together? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(4), 815-829.

Counihan, C. (1999) The Anthropology of Food and Body. New York: Routledge.

Cwiertka, Katarzyna J. (2006) Modern Japanese Cuisine: Food, Power And National Identity. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

Dalton, L. (2002). Food preservatives. Chemical and Engineering News, 80(45), 40.

Dartmouth Department of Geography. (2013). Susanne Freidberg, professor of geography. Dartmouth.edu. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from www.dartmouth.edu/~geog/facstaff/freidberg.html

De Haen, H., & Hemrich, G. (2007). The economics of natural disasters: implications and challenges for food security. Agricultural economics, 37(1), 31-45.

Dickson, M. H., & Fanelli, M. (2004). Geothermal energy. Wiley.

Donovan, A. R., & Oppenheimer, C. (2011). The 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption and the reconstruction of geography. The Geographical Journal, 177(1), 4-11.

Feeley-Harnik, G. (1995). Religion and food: An anthropological perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 62(3), 565-582.

122

Fischler, C. (1988). Food, self, and identity. Social Science Information. 27(2) 275-292.

Foer, J.S. (2010). Eating animals. Hamish Hamilton.

Freidberg, S. (2009). Fresh: a perishable history. Belknap Press.

Freidberg, S. (2003). French beans for the masses: a modern historical geography of food in Burkina Faso. Journal of Historical Geography, 29(3), 445-463.

Fridleifsson, I. B. (1998). Direct use of geothermal energy around the world. GHC Bulletin, 4-9.

Gudmundsson, M. T., Pedersen, R., Vogfjörd, K., Thorbjarnardóttir, B., Jakobsdóttir, S., & Roberts, M. J. (2010). Eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, Iceland. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 91(21), 190-191.

Guibernau, M. (1996). Nationalisms. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gundelach, P. (2000). "Joking relationships and national identity in scandinavia." ACTA Sociologica. 43.

Gunnlaugsson, B., Agustsson, M. A., & Adalsteinsson, S. (2003). Sustainable use of geothermal energy in Icelandic horticulture.

Guthman, J. (2008). Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cultural geographies, 15(4), 431-447.

Hansen, L. and Waever, O. (2002). European integration and national identity: The challenge of the Nordic states. London: Routledge.

Hays, J. N. (2005). Epidemics and pandemics: their impacts on human history. Abc-clio.

Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2006). Protectionist language policies in the face of the forces of English. The case of Iceland. Language Policy, 5(3), 295-314.

Hiroko, T. (2008). Delicious food in a beautiful country: Nationhood and nationalism in discourses on food in contemporary Japan. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism.

Iceland Review. (2009). Horticulture producers in Iceland protest with flowers. Icelandreviewonline.com. Retrieved on June 21, 2013, from icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=35149 9. Israel, D. C., & Briones, R. M. (2012). Impacts of natural disasters on agriculture, Food security, and natural resources and environment in the Philippines.

123

James, S. J., James, C., & Evans, J. A. (2006). Modelling of food transportation systems– a review. International Journal of Refrigeration, 29(6), 947-957.

Johannesson, T. (2010). Agriculture in Iceland: Conditions and characteristics. The Agricultural University of Iceland, 1-32.

Jones, R., & Merriman, P. (2009). Hot, banal and everyday nationalism: bilingual road signs in Wales. Political Geography, 28(3), 164-173.

Jónsson, B. (2012, July). Personal interview.

Jonsson, G. (1998). Changes in food consumption in Iceland, 1770–1940. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 46(1), 24-41.

Kaplan, J. O., Krumhardt, K. M., & Zimmermann, N. (2009). The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(27), 3016- 3034.

Karlsson, G. (2000). The history of Iceland. U of Minnesota Press.

Kaygusuz, K., & Kaygusuz, A. (2004). Geothermal energy in Turkey: the sustainable future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(6), 545-563.

Kemmer, D. (2000). "Tradition and change in domestic roles and food preparation." Sociology. 34(2), 323-333.

Kimbrell, A. (2002). The fatal harvest reader: the tragedy of industrial agriculture. Island Press.

Kingsolver, B. (2010). Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: Our Year of Seasonal Eating. Faber & Faber. Great Britain: Harper Collins Inc.

Lacina, B., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2005). Monitoring trends in global combat: A new dataset of battle deaths. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 21(2-3), 145-166.

Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2009). A farmers’ market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food. Health & Place, 15(4), 1158-1162.

Laurie, D. (2010, April 18). Volcanic ash cloud causes economic concern. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8627899.stm. Lemann Jr, J. (1999). Relationship between urinary calcium and net acid excretion as determined by dietary protein and potassium: a review. Nephron, 81(1), 18-25.

124

Leonard, R., & Saliba, W. (1999). Food and ethnic identity. The Asian Pacific American Heritage: A Companion to Literature and Arts. Routledge.

Lund, J. W., Freeston, D. H., & Boyd, T. L. (2005). Direct application of geothermal energy: 2005 worldwide review. Geothermics, 34(6), 691-727.

Lönnroth, L. (2008). The Viking World. London: Routledge.

McDonald, B. L. (2011). Food security. Polity.

Mehler, M. (2011). From self-sufficiency to external supply and famine: foodstuffs, their preparation and storage in Iceland. Processing, storage, distribution of food: Food in the Medieval rural environment. Turnhout: Brepols, 173-186.

Mehler, N. (2007). Viking age and medieval craft in Iceland: Adaptation to extraordinary living conditions on the edge of the Old World. Arts and Crafts in Medieval Rural Environment (Ruralia VI), Brepols, Turnhout, 227-244.

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland. (2009). Ahaettumatsskyrsla fyrir Island: Hnattraenir, samfelagslegir og hernadarlegir paettir.

Mohamed, M. B. (2003). Geothermal resource development in agriculture in Kebili region, Southern Tunisia. Geothermics, 32(4), 505-511.

Mutersbaugh, T. (2002). Migration, common property, and communal labor: cultural politics and agency in a Mexican village. Political Geography, 21(4), 473-494.

Nestle, M. (2007). Food Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ng, F. (2008). Who are the net food importing countries? World Bank Publications, 4457.

Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2005). Household food security in the United States, 2004. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report, (11).

Notaker, H. (2009). Food culture in Scandinavia. Greenwood Press.

Pauly, D., & Watson, R. (2009). Spatial Dynamics of Marine Fisheries. The Princeton Guide to Ecology, 501-509.

Picotte, M. S., & Campbell, C. G. (2010). The Effects of War on Iraq's Food System: A Historical Analysis and Proposal for Future Direction. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5(2), 234-253.

125

Pinstrup-Andersen, P., (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5-7.

Pirog, R. (2001). Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals. Penguin Books, New York.

Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., & Morison, J. I. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30(1), 1- 19.

Rafferty, K. D. (1990) Geothermal greenhouse heating. Geo Heat Center Bulletin, 12.

Ragnarsson, Á. (2000). Geothermal development in Iceland 1995-1999. Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 1(1), 363-375.

Ragnarsson, Á. (2008). Utilization of geothermal energy in Iceland. Proceedings of the 14th Building Services, Mechanical and Building Industry Days. Debrecen, Hungary.

Rose, W. I., & Durant, A. J. (2009). Fine ash content of explosive eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 186(1), 32-39.

Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Harper Perennial.

Schram, K. (2010). Obscurity as heritage. Háskóli Íslands. 11. (2010).

Shiklomanov, I. A., & Rodda, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). World water resources at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shoji, S., & Takahashi, T. (2002). Environmental and agricultural significance of volcanic ash soils. Global Environmental Research-English Edition, 6(2), 113- 135.

Sigurdsson, H. (1982). Volcanic pollution and climate: the 1783 Laki eruption. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 63(32), 601-602. Skees, J. R. (2000). A role for capital markets in natural disasters: a piece of the food security puzzle. Food Policy, 25(3), 365-378.

126

Skyr.is (2012). Skyr.is Homepage (website), Skyriceland.com. Retrieved on June 20, 2013, from http://skyr.is.

Smith, L. C., El Obeid, A. E., & Jensen, H. H. (2000). The geography and causes of food insecurity in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 22(2), 199-215.

Smjör. (2012). Smjör homepage (website), Smjor.is. Retrieved on June 20, 2013, from http://smjor.is.

Statistics Iceland. (2009). Average household expenditure and size by type of household from 2002. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Prices-andconsumption/Consumption.

Statistics Iceland. (2010). Number of farms and utilized agricultural land 2010.

Statistics Iceland. (2011). Exports by broad economic categories (BEC) 1999-2010. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.statice.is/ Statistics/External- trade/Exports.

The Sagas of Icelanders. (2000) New York: Penguin Group.

Thorne, S. (1986). The history of food preservation. Barnes and Noble Books.

Tokgoz, S., Zhang, W., Msangi, S., & Bhandary, P. (2011, December). Agriculture and Energy: Implications for Food Security, Water, and Land Use. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 4).

Torres, Jessica. “Thorrablot: Consuming Icelandic Identity.” [n.d.]. Video clip. Accessed November 21, 2012. YouTube. www.Youtube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nJzn6tWJM.

United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2004). World population to 2030. Retrieved from website: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pd f.

University of California. (2010). Julie Guthman: Food, politics and economy. Research. universityofcalifornia.edu. Retrieved on June 22, 2013, from research.universityofcalifornia.edu/profiles/2011/09/julie-guthman.html.

USDA. (2013). USDA Economic Research Service. ers.usda.gov. Retrieved on June 13, 2013, from www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains- yearbook-tables.aspx#.Uc-BVj7wJn8

127

Valdes, A., & McCalla, A. F. (1999). Issues, interests and options of developing countries. World Bank: Washington, DC.

Von Braun, J. (2008). Food and financial crises: Implications for agriculture and the poor (Vol. 20). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.

Von Elsner, B., Briassoulis, D., Waaijenberg, D., Mistriotis, A., Von Zabeltitz, C., Gratraud, J., G. Russo, & Suay-Cortes, R. (2000). Review of structural and functional characteristics of greenhouses in European Union countries, part I: design requirements. Journal of agricultural engineering research, 75(2), 111- 126.

Von Zabeltitz, C. (1999). Greenhouse structures. Ecosystems of the world, 17-70.

Watts, M. J. (1989). The agrarian question in Africa: debating the crisis. Progress in Human Geography, 13(1), 1-41.

Webb, P., & Rogers, B. L. (2003). Addressing the" In" in food insecurity. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project Academy for Educational Development. USAID Office of Food for Peace, Occasional paper, 1.

Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10), 3508-3513.

Weisdorf, J. L. (2005). From foraging to farming: Explaining the Neolithic revolution. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(4), 561-586.

Witham, C. S., Oppenheimer, C., & Horwell, C. J. (2005). Volcanic ash-leachates: A review and recommendations for sampling methods. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 141(3), 299-326.

World Health Organization, (2012). Who.int. Retrieved on December 23, 2012, from http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/.

Wrigley, N. (2002). 'Food deserts' in British cities: policy context and research priorities. Urban studies, 39(11), 2029-2040.

APPENDIX A. Farms Visited During Fieldwork

FARM FARMER REGION PRODUCE INTERVIEW Friðheimar Knútur Rafn Ármann Selfoss Tomatoes ✓ Garðyrkjustöðin Heiðmörk Ómar Sævarsson Selfoss Tomatoes ✓

✓ Hveratún Magnús Skúlason Selfoss Herbs/Flowers Garðyrkjustöðin Engi Ingólfur Guðnason Selfoss Organic Produce Gróðrarstöðin Kjarr Helga R. Pálsdóttir Selfoss Tree Nursery

Lambhagi Hafberg Þórisson Reykjavík Lettuce/Herbs ✓ Svein Magnus Víðigerði Andrésson Reykholt Tomatoes/Carrots

Ösp Ragnar Sverrisson Laugarás Tomatoes/Cucumbers

Bökun Vignir Jónsson Flúðir Carrots ✓ Brún Birgir Thorsteinson Flúðir Tomatoes Laugarland Flúðum Emil Gunnlaugsson Flúðir Herbs/Greens

✓ Varmalækur Ragnheiður Karlsdóttir Flúðir Tomatoes

Appendix A. Farms visited during fieldwork, including name of owner, region, and major agricultural output. There were multiple interviews conducted at several of the farms. When an interview was not possible, observations were made from a guided or self-guided tour of the greenhouse or field. Other farms were visited, however, many did not have clear names or owners, so they have been excluded from this table.

128

129