Food, Farms, and Famine

Trouble for Monsanto?

2010-12-22T18:15:00.002-05:00

I just wanted to share this update on Monsanto!

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-19-top-ten-10-green-stories-of-2010/P9

Slavoj Zizek - Cultural Consumerism

2010-12-10T12:03:00.003-05:00

I've been meaning to post this for weeks. Slavoj Zizek is a sociologist specializing in Marxist theory. The majority of the video is not about food, but in the first five minutes or so, Zizek describes the cultural phenomenon that he's come to call "Cultural Consumerism," which is this idea that our guilt surrounding our crazy consumerist ways drives us to act responsibly, and that interestingly, our way of acting responsibly to combat our over-consumption is by consuming responsible products. That's a terrible summary, so here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvakA-DF6Hc

He talks about big corporations like Starbucks encouraging you to act responsibly by buying their product. The rest of the video is not as food-related, but still brings up some issues of culture and society that we've covered in class, particularly equity amongst classes.

Climate Change and Food Prices

2010-12-04T12:58:00.000-05:00

When people talk about climate change, not much attention is given to how global farming practices could be affected. This article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_sc/lt_climate_food_2) discusses how global warming could lead to a doubling of food prices and cause many more people to suffer from malnourishment. This is not just a problem to be worried about in the future; scientists have found that change is already happening in some areas. For example, in India, warmer temperatures are maturing the wheat too quickly, resulting in reduced yields. The corn belt in the US could also see a reduction in productivity due to climate change.

As productivity and yields decrease, prices for grain will inevitably increase. This will only exacerbate the problems for people who already have trouble affording food. Experts suggest that some of these problems could be alleviated by developing higher yielding varieties of corn, wheat, etc. and having more flexible trade in food commodities. As we discussed in class, malnutrition is not caused by food shortage but by people not having equal access to food. We are producing more than enough food to feed all the peoples of the world. I’m glad that this article does not suggest producing more food in newer areas as a possible solution for this problem. Maybe this means that people are starting to realize the true causes of hunger.

After reading this article, I started wondering whether a reduction in productivity in the corn belt might actually be a good thing? A lot of the food problems we’re experiencing occur because we have too much corn. If less corn was produced, wouldn’t less corn be available for industrialized beef, hog and chicken industries? This would reduce the number of animals grown on these CAFOs and the pollutants released from these feedlots which would help reduce global warming. Quite the cyclic process.

Eating Ethically on Campus

2010-12-03T12:14:00.004-05:00

I happen to be fortunate enough to have a scholarship that covers room and board for me at RPI. However, since I now live off campus this means that I can only use it for my meal plan, leading to me having a meal plan when I rather not.
Because of this situation I have been asking myself "How can I eat ethically when my food options are chosen for me by another party?"
It is very hard to avoid supporting factory farming and unsustainable food practices when the only options I have available when I go into my dining hall are food choices that come from sources I'd rather not eat from. So, I would like to point out several of the options available on campus that are available to those who wish to eat more ethically.
The most obvious options would be to eat only from the salad bar, and to choose the vegetarian option that Tofu Tim offers, while it is hard to know how the greens one is eating are grown, it is a healthier and more moral choice than eating the meat that is offered, but the reality is there is not much in the way of choice with Sodexho.
However, this doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives on campus. Sodexho is proud to point out that the coffee it offers all over campus is fair trade, and every Wednesday you can go to the Terra Cafe, which offers excellent organic and local food, and whether you choose the vegetarian or meat option you will be getting an amazing meal.
There are some options for good sustainable food on campus, but there are better ways to ensure ethical eating with your limited choices on campus, the key option being to actually talk to Sodexho. Communication is usually the only way anything gets done, and what better way to improve your limited eating options than talking to the actual food provider? Since the food quality at RPI is a running joke, I'm sure Sodexho is always looking for alternatives for food options, and I know they are willing to take suggestions, the changes with Sodexho's pizza delivery service is some proof of that.
Also, in the case of Java ++ Sodexho is desperate for student input in how to make their venues profitable. I know at one time Sodexho was willing to turn Java ++ into an outlet where organic food was served to attract more students, but the idea fell apart because it didn't get enough student support.
So, the moral of the story is this: if you are tired of going into the food halls and seeing the same unsustainable food options there are alternatives around campus, but if you are looking for long term improvements talk to Sodexho themselves. They may be a scary big company, but they do listen to students, and if the are motivated correctly (i.e. give them a way to make Java ++ profitable) then Sodexho will be more than happy to listen to you.

Senate Passes Food Safety Bill That Would Increase FDA Authority

2010-11-30T22:38:00.002-05:00

In a breaking news article today the Senate passed a new food safety bill that gives the Food & Drug Administration more power in making food recalls and inspections on food processing facilities. The intent of the bill is to thwart the outbreaks of contaminated food instead of dealing with the health problems the outbreaks cause after the fact. The FDA will now have the direct power to make food recalls. Before they were only allowed to request that food companies recall their products. They will also increase their number of inspections of food facilities from 7,400 now to 50,000 in 2015. The video with this statistic and other commentary on the bill can be seen here. The FDA can now set standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown abroad along with inspecting foreign food processing plants. The bill covers 80% of the United States food supply, excluding the institutions covered by the Department of Agriculture which consist of slaughterhouses and meat processing plants.

I was thrilled to hear that this happened today as I have been following this issue for a couple of weeks now. I think it is a very imperative bill that will go a long way in helping us avoid major food-borne illness outbreaks that we have recently seen. Last year, 1,422 people were sickened by jalapeños and another 1,813 people were sickened by eggs this year. The American food system is becoming more harmful to people than ever before. The care for food is declining as the fight for money is mounting to an all-time high. With the increased demand for food, agribusinesses and factory farming has taken over the food system. They are churning out as much food as they can in as little time as possible. Their practices are enhanced by using chemicals and pesticides on plants, fruits, and vegetables or fattening up farm animals via mass corn and grain consumption.

For me, it is nice to see this bill get passed to keep a big portion of the food system more honest. It is scary to think that anyone could consume food that is contaminated at any time and not know it until they become very ill with the potential of dying. Just to play a little devil’s advocate on this article, I would also like to see things go further involving slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. These two types of institutions are (in my mind) so far off track it is only a matter of time before a major outbreak happens. The conditions these animals are slaughtered in are so horrid and vile one cannot begin to imagine the lives these animals have to endure. I would love to see the next step in the changing of the food process aimed directly at these two corrupt institutions. At the moment I could be one of the least supportive people on how food is produced in America. But with conscientious shopping and the passing of this bill I can still catch some sleep at night knowing I am doing my part and government is starting to do theirs. Good night and happy eating!

Food Worthy of Thanks

2010-11-29T20:18:00.005-05:00

In this article David Katz traces back the meaning of food in Thanksgiving. In the past Thanksgiving was a time for celebrating that harvest and bounty of the season. Katz links this holiday to a “holy” day that was centered on food and the harvest.

Katz discusses how Thanksgiving was a day for the “masses”, who generally barely scraped by, and this one day gave everyone a chance to feast just as the aristocrats did. However, today the majority of people do not participate in back-breaking labor to support themselves; and we also do not need to worry about food shortages.

So what does this mean about our contemporary Thanksgiving? If we are not celebrating a rare bounty of food or rest from hard labor, then what is the point? What are we celebrating? I believe that we are still celebrating rest from labor, however, it is rest from the crazy hectic lives that we have on cell phones, with blackberries, and emails 24/7. Also, instead of celebrating rare bounty, it is a chance for us to share the food we have with our friends and family and also with those that may not have.

Thanksgiving today also has to do with its namesake and giving thanks for what we have. I believe a part of this is giving thanks for the farmers that supplied the food we enjoy. Australia has also recognized the importance of famers and they recently announced that 2012 will be its “Year of the Farmer”. A webpage recently created provides the purpose of this dedicated year. Australia wants to recognize what farmers do in creating fresh, fruits, vegetable, dairy, grain, meat, and also in providing fine products such as wool, cotton, and timber. This is really a great way to connect people to their food so that they are better educated about where there food comes from. This may even lead to smarter purchasing and helping to promote support of local farmers. So as you sit down to eat your Thanksgiving meal this year, or as you purchase and eat food throughout the year gives thanks for those that chose to live a life that can provide such a bountiful harvest for us all.

Meat: An Intelligence Enhancer

2010-11-20T16:28:00.002-05:00

Historically, our ancestors have been eating raw food, but because there aren't a lot of calories in these food, any one individual could spend a significant amount of their day eating in order to survive according to this study http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908 This also meant that our stomachs had to be bigger in order to digest all of this raw food, but because all of the energy went into eating it, there wasn't much left for brain power. This continued until somewhere along the line meat was discovered.

The study, suggests that after we started consuming meat, we no longer needed the large digestive gut and could then put that energy consumed toward making our brains larger. This also changed the way our teeth began to look, instead of having sharper teeth, we began to have large, round teeth instead. This not only helped make chewing up meat easier but vegetables as well. How exactly our species discovered meat is unclear, however it seemed to begin a civilizing process that has continued though to today.

Obviously there is more involved in the evolutionary story than just discovering meat and getting smarter, we also had to learn to cook it. This isn't to say that eating raw food is less healthy than not, only that cooking food makes it easier to digest. So we cook meat, we have more energy, and according to this study we're smarter for it (or rather because of it) but whether it is right or wrong still remains in question. According to history, it was right to eat meat because it led to making better tools, smaller guts and eventually a civilized world. Eating meat now is not quite the same as it was during our evolution, as most of our guts have come back, but if it does help us grow "bigger" brains as this study suggests, why not choose to eat meat?

What is Organic (Farming)?

2010-11-15T20:24:00.002-05:00

I find this question intriguing, because it’s something that at first glance seems like it will have a simple answer. When you look at the definition of ‘organic’ on dictionary.com, the concept seems straightforward enough. “Characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms” and “developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth” are two of the major definitions. So, by these terms, it seems that organic can generally be summed up as ‘all-natural.’ And, by that logic, organic farming constitutes the use of only all-natural crops, pesticides, and fertilizer during production. Problem solved, right?

Yet, when you read this article about the USDA attempting to define organic, the concept becomes murkier. They bring debates about sustainability and humane treatment of animals into the mix, trying to fit the concept of ‘organic’ into these terms. But why? Why can’t organic farming simply be defined as previously stated? The problem may be that the public has finally gotten its foot in the door in terms of organic policy-making, and now that they have this hold they want to make the definition of ‘organic’ as broad as possible to address as many of the problems associated with conventional farming as possible. By broadening the scope of ‘organic,’ we wouldn’t have to follow dozens of different grassroots organizations that are trying to make a difference in each individual sector of agricultural. Instead, we could have this one word, and therefore one movement, that encompasses all the relevant issues.

I personally would love for organic to mean all of these things. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if 'organic' fixed every problem of agribusiness? If organic could just be defined as "the practices by which agriculture will become more sustainable and humane?" Unfortunately, this type of idealistic definition would be hard-pressed to work in the real world. In the context of law, regulations, and politics this definition is far too vague. So I think we need to keep organic ‘all-natural,’ and instead supplement other concepts, such as sustainability, worker’s rights, animal treatment, etc., into our agricultural regulations. It would be great if organic was the all-encompassing solution, but it can't be.

Laura Bateman

Obesity, According to the CDC

2010-11-12T20:35:00.001-05:00

It seems the past few blog posts have been focusing on our discussion of obesity and I'm going to add to our body of knowledge, so to speak. Since my parents are healthcare professionals, the “obesity epidemic” has occasionally come up in conversation over the years so I had some biases that our class discussion let me see. For example, I found that I associate increased body mass with worse health. I generally don’t dislike people that are sick, but I feel like the reason that I judge people with very large body masses is because I think eventually their weight will either cause or contribute to ill health. And I can understand why healthcare professionals might perceive obese people in a negative light. My mom has a permanent (although relatively minor) injury from trying lift a 300 lb patient when she was working as a nurse. I also remember a section of a memoir called “Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science” written by a ER surgeon named Atul Gawande that describes the extra trouble he runs into when trying to do tracheotomies and insert central lines on obese people. I am not saying that it is ok to treat obese people worse, merely pointing out that I can understand why healthcare professionals might have negative opinions.

Anyway, since I had heard obesity described as an epidemic, I decided to go to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) and see what they had to say about prevalence, causes, and possible fixes. After thoroughly exploring the website, it became obvious that it really is an epidemic. This graphic shows how it has developed over the last 25 years. First of all there is a difference between overweight and obesity. Overweight is a BMI between 25 and 29.9 while obesity is a BMI greater than 30. (If you want to check your BMI, you can do so here courtesy of the CDC) Increased BMI is a concern because it increases a person’s chance of developing hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Medical costs attributed to both overweigh and obesity was between 51.5 and 78.5 billion dollars in 1998 which is about 10% of that year’s total healthcare expenditure. Weight gain is the result of taking in more calories than are expended (the previous post demonstrates that net caloric intake or expenditure is the only determinant of weight gain or loss.)

I also ran across a Grand Rounds Presentation about the childhood obesity epidemic. The CDC epidemiologists attribute the almost 20% obesity rate in children and teens to changes in familial eating habits, less activity, and more times spent watching TV and on the computer (as explained in an earlier post, time spent viewing TV is time spent watching advertisements for fast food.) In order to fix the problem, the CDC suggests integrated approaches that aim to decrease caloric intake and increase energy expenditure. This seems like a pretty intuitive approach but will still be a challenge.

The most interesting part about the Grand Rounds was how the epidemiologists considered lack of access to healthy food a direct and significant contributor to childhood obesity. They referred to the food deserts presented in "The Grocery Gap," the same policylink article that we read when we were discussing food deserts in class. Providing healthy food and increased exercise was the base of the case studies where the percentage of childhood and adolescent obesity was successfully decreased.

The Crap Diet and why it will work for you (average American consumer)!

2010-11-11T19:56:00.006-05:00

I've found the next big thing. I know how I'm finally going to lose the spare tire and get thin. After reading this article about Professor Mark Haub of Kansas State University, who dropped 27 pounds in two months, I'm sold on the Twinkie Diet. Haub's point is, that by simply lowering calorie intake one can lose weight. It sounds boring and tedious, but just bear with me.

This is perfect for me, because whenever I eat delicious foods like whole grains, eggs, steak or salads I lose track of the number of calories in the foods because I buy them fresh. I never know when I'm full and I just keep eating and eating! I much prefer to read the labels on packaged foods so I know how many calories are in them.

Professor Haub's rational approach to dieting truly has shown me the light. In the same way that McDonald's knows how to deal with all of its business so it can be the face of the American dream, I now know that if I simply stick to junk foods but eat a bunch less than normal, I can lose weight. Haub decreased his calorie intake by almost 31%. Piece of cake! Once I'm done writing this, I'm heading straight to Costco so I can buy a big case of Twinkies and Zebra Cakes.

The Twinkie Diet also gives a shining beam of hope to those poor souls who live in food deserts. Professor Haub mentions how there are people who live in these deserts and the only sustenance they can afford is junk food. Now, by switching to the Twinkie Diet, they can lose weight and have a better life by simply eating less. Also, they will do their civic duty to our struggling economy by buying all of their informative and packaged food from a big name store, instead of from a farm or other local source. The farmer down the road is grouchy and kills the cows he turns into steak. I'd rather give my money to Ronald McDonald, he's always smiling!

Now, Professor Haub says he's confused about whether or not this diet is actually healthy, but I think he's wasting his brain juices thinking about all that. After all, his cholesterol went down and he lost almost 30 pounds. The numbers alone sell it for me!

A Fast Food Nation Advertises

2010-11-09T16:07:00.002-05:00

With all of our discussions of fast food, obesity, and the relation of the two I found this article to be very interesting. In recent years as obesity rates have climbed, many fast food industries like Burger King and McDonalds joined ranks and started offering somewhat more healthy choices on their menus, specifically targeting the children's menu. These combination meals are advertised at an alarming rate and run specifically during times when children are known to be watching T.V.

This article highlights the amount of ads that are run by companies like McDonalds and how many children see them each day. Could the amount of times children see these ads be one of the factors of obesity? Many of the reasons why parents take there children to fast food restaurants besides the easy convenience is because they beg. But although the children's menu has become healthier, including the addition of apple slices and carrot sticks, most kids look at pictures, and in those pictures they see french fries at the forefront and the healthier choices in the background as like of an after thought.

Another factor involves how many children actually eat from the kids menu; many children want to get adult meals. One of the things that the article highlights is the fact that the rise of children obesity may also be caused by more children choosing items from the adult menu which have a much higher calorie content than the choices of the children's menu. So is it the number of ads that children see that cause them to drag their parents to fast food restaurants and make poorer food choices or are the fast food restaurants doing their job by providing the means for healthier choices and it is the parents that are at fault by given in to the demands of the child for a "big kids" or adult meal?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131166614

Organic foods offers no additional health benefits:

2010-11-09T10:02:00.001-05:00

I don’t know about you, but personally I am tired of having all of these people tell me what is healthy or not healthy for me, and what I should or should not eat. Currently, most of the pressure is coming from the organic foods industry. With the huge success of Whole Foods, and farmers markets springing up everywhere I was thinking whether or not there really was a significant health benefit to consuming organic foods. This led me on a search to find empirical evidence to justify one side or the other.

We all know what constitutes organic from non-organic: non GMO, organic fertilizer, no antibiotics, et cetera. But does any of that really affect the amount of health benefiting nutrients within the produce? According to a researcher of the subject Pia Knuthsen of the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, “organically grown foods do not have higher levels of healthful antioxidants and related substances known to fight cancer, heart disease and dementia.” This was the result of a two year experiment where they specifically targeted organic fertilizer (manure) and non-organic fertilizers on various vegetables. Clearly the organic fertilizers are not responsible for this health craze.

What about pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones in our foods, you ask? Well Carl Bartecchi, a medicinal specialist states in regards to this topic “there is no evidence for greater safety of organic foods.” In fact there has been more research on the effect of non-organic substances proving that they are benign to the foods, whereas the organic counterparts could very well have problems of their own.

In a last ditch effort some people say to eat organic foods because they taste better. Well taste is a subjective sense where not everybody has the same tastes and preferences. I feel that it is an unjustifiable advertisement to say that organically grown foods are “tastier”.

In all, the health aspect of organic foods to me seems like a way to mark up the price of a good without justification. Simply being able to place a USDA organic sticker on your product entitles you to make it more expensive, and for what reason. Somewhere along the line the word organic was associated with healthier and I know that I am not going to fall into a fad for the wrong reasons.

"While Waring About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales"

2010-11-09T09:58:00.001-05:00

An article called “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales” was recently published in the New York Times. The article outlines what the USDA has been doing to bolster the dairy industry while at the same time trying to fight obesity. The USDA has created an agency called Dairy Management which functions to promote the sales of milk and cheese products in the US in an attempt to help the struggling dairy farmer.

Dairy Management has greatly intensified the attempts that the government had previously making to help the dairy industry. There are direct parallels to what the government has being doing to help stabilize the prices of wheat. The problem that has appeared is in the form of conflicting interests. The USDA is both putting out information that is supposed to help people make healthy nutrition decisions and trying to sell more dairy. While there is a huge market for low fat milk, the cheeses and higher fat milks and yogurts are suffering greatly. This has led the USDA to partner with places like Domino’s pizza to help them advertise cheesier pizzas and in turn buy more pizza. The USDA also start a campaign saying that 3 servings of dairy per day will help people lose weight, this information is highly contested and not considered valid.

Something different that can be seen in this article is an issue of deskilling. Many people rely on governments and even magazines to tell them how to eat to maintain their health or lose weight. Some people lack nutritional knowledge to the point that they need to be told that soda is not good for you. The USDA in this case is manipulating their position of power as the purveyors of knowledge by sending out controversial information to sell a product that they profit from. How much responsibility should we place on the government to give us truthful information about our own health? And how surprised should we be when they misuse the power they’re handed?

Green Grocer

2010-11-05T12:02:00.014-04:00

I read an article detailing the architectural advances within a newly constructed LEED-Platinum Hannaford supermarket in Augusta, Maine. It is the first supermarket in our nation to gain such a certification through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. Motion sensitive LED's, solar panels, a green roof, solar tubes, and waterless urinals are among the innovations to be found here. Together, they allow this Hannaford location to consume 50% less energy and 38% less water than a standard supermarket of the same size.

I wonder why only one such supermarket exists in our country. If we can build facilities that leave a smaller footprint, how does it make since to keep building stores that suck up twice as much energy? Do you think that Hannaford built this store for the savings or for the publicity? People simply don't realize how much effort goes directly to keeping our food cold and fresh while it's on the shelf. As the article states, half of a supermarket's electrical costs are from refrigeration. We can add this to the list of externalities that come with shopping at a supermarket. Still, the frugality of its operation does little to change the corn based, mono-culturally derived products that sit upon every shelf.

This being said, I live less than 30 minutes from this store, yet I have never set foot inside of it. In the case of a supermarket, people are inclined to shop at the most convenient location rather than one that might be slightly more efficiently operated. For this reason I will keep a watchful eye on this store and hope for it to be rewarded for its green efforts. Yet, I will smile as I watch, because the farmers' market consumes 100% less energy than any supermarket ever will.

2010-11-04T15:10:00.002-04:00

While thinking about our recent discussions about hunger, obesity, and it's correlation with food deserts I found this article to be interesting...

The story talks about how instead of an ice cream struck, the city of Detroit, which has been considered one of the worst food deserts in the country, they have started a fresh produce truck that will help connect people to access to healthful foods.

Here's the story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131000846

Texas Food Stamp Challenge

2010-10-29T19:17:00.002-04:00

I found this challenge while surfing the internet earlier today. I saw a close relationship with our class discussion today, as well as other ones in the past about hunger and the relationship with food in the United States.
It seems like a really interesting idea and a good way to raise awareness.
Do you think that you could live on $4.50 a day? Or even less?

Raj Patel discusses Stuffed and Starved

2010-10-26T12:12:00.001-04:00

What do you think about Patel's perspective? Do you think he is correct in his diagnosis of the problems with the food system? Do you agree or disagree with the kinds of solutions he suggests (getting angry rather than feeling guilty, having a "democratic conversation about food" rather than approaching the issue as consumers, etc.)?

Transgenetics WILL be for the good

2010-10-25T23:39:00.003-04:00

I am fascinated by genetic research and the GMO. I started my search, looking for some currently events to place a spotlight on this wonderful field. What I found, article after article, was a plethora of negative opinions, angry writers with mobs of supporters. None of them, however left me feeling any less supportive of genetic research. So I searched more, and found an article from the NY Times published on October 7th.

Modified-Salmon Fight Showcases Risks, Rewards of Engineering Wild Species

What I found was finally an unbiased report on GMOs.

It is clear that we Americans did not get off on the right foot addressing many agribusiness issues. GMOs are no different and I fully expect more adverse results from our eagerness to invent and make profit.
The FDA and USDA are making strides in the right direction. This article does cite that the FDA has launched a program to overhaul its biotech program. The USDAs biotech division has requested $5.8 million to assess environmental risks.

Within this lengthy article many fascinating issues are brought up, here is just a few:
-Creating a non-reproducing salmon may be harder than expected, carp have already shown the ability to overcome the current sterility measurements being used.
-Analysis on potential escaped salmon around Prince Edward Island and Panama has not been conducted.
-GM grass for golf courses, created to resist the weedkiller Roundup, has spread into the wild in Oregon.

It is clear that any support for genetic modification will result in many angry people. I am OK with people being angry, they should be. We are a corrupted country run by the rich who want to get richer. What we need is control of our country and its leaders, and not the extermination of genetic research.

The Cost of Calories

2010-10-24T21:34:00.003-04:00

I thought this: www.weightloss.org/the-cost-of-calories/ was an interesting graphic. It shows a lot of the topics we've been talking about in class, in particular the rise in obesity in the United States and some of the social circumstances that have served as catalysts in this process.

Response to the 'Ideology of Nutritionism'

2010-10-22T13:12:00.001-04:00

I found the recent class topic on nutritionism especially telling about how humans respond to and deal with complex issues involving multiple factors. These issues may include things like health and hygiene, environmental sustainability, macroeconomic analysis, etc. Sometimes the path towards a viable solution to issues in these areas may be hindered by a habit to condense or even polarize the issues. When thinking about maintaining a healthy body, it’s hard to weigh and balance factors like diet, genetic predisposition, sleeping patterns, psychological responses to stress and pleasure, etc. And yet these are all macro-level products of even more complex interactions at the biochemical level. So it’s easy to understand how, given these complex issues, there would be a certain inclination to resort to simple answers and explanations.

One of the problems Gyorgy Scrinis highlighted in his article, “On the Ideology of Nutritionism”, that perfectly exemplifies this phenomenon was that of ‘second-order nutritional reductionism’ (p.41). Second-order nutritional reductionism is the focus on individual nutrients, and how they individually benefit the health of the human body. Of course this is complete nonsense, because all nutrients benefit the health of the human body by interacting with several other nutrients in complex biochemical reactions. Resorting to second-order nutritional reductionism would be like taking apart the human body, molecule by molecule, and then from scratch, deciding which parts are necessary for your survival.

The problems of nutritional health in today’s society aren’t new 21^st century problems; in fact, the problems are caused by a larger systemic inadequacy of society that the public health community has been trying to confront for some time- a scientifically illiterate populace. I am not saying that science is the absolutely most important pillar of a society. I’m saying that science education is the necessary solution for the way our society responds to the problems it’s facing at present. The way food and weight-loss industries are taking advantage of the lure of second-order nutritional reductionism is reminiscent of the era of ‘snake oil medicine’ in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, in which noxious concoctions were being sold to the public with absolutely no ingredient labeling. Examples of these patent medicines include names like ‘Dr. Kilmer’s Swamp Root’ or ‘Dr. Moore’s Indian Root Pills’, which mostly contained substances like alcohol, laxatives, and in one occasion, organophosphates to rig chemical tests.

Of course it’s different for today’s nutritional health issues, in which the most of the ingredients in manufactured foods are far from poisonous. But it shows an exaggerated consumer confidence in the industries to know what’s right for them, to know that single nutrient or health myth that would serve as a panacea for all of their problems. What is necessary is to get consumers to make choices based on scientifically rational terms, to be familiar with the scientific and, especially, clinical terms relevant to their health, and to get them to understand how to rationalize issues on a scale involving multiple factors.

Which Companies Are Buying into Organic?-Animation

2010-10-19T00:20:00.003-04:00

This animation was in the yogurt presentation given by Megan and myself. It shows how in the past ten years large multinational companies have been buying up small scale organics, but letting these companies keep their names. This gives consumer the idea that they are supporting small scale organics when most of the profits are going to the larger companies. Some examples are how Stonyfield is primarily controlled by Dannon, and Odwalla is now owned by Coca-Cola.

The animation is here:

http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/OrganicIndustry.mov

In the animation the small green dots are organic companies, the large yellow circles are multinationals, and the blue dots are strategic alliances.

The animation is originally from this site: https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html

which also has several useful pictures to show what companies own what.

Whole-Grain Pastas

2010-10-14T15:54:00.003-04:00

Growing up with an Italian mother, I consumed endless amounts of pasta as a child. So naturally, an article in the New York Times about whole-grain pastas caught my attention. The pasta I have eaten for most of my life has been the white, refined variety, by no real choice of my own. This is of course the type that covers the majority of the shelves in the supermarket. Whole-wheat pastas are relatively new to the market, but are increasing in popularity due to the rising number of health conscious consumers. However, not all wheat pastas are created equal.

White pastas are usually made using high-yielding durum wheat. Wheat pastas need more texture to hold together, which can be done one of two ways. Either low-yielding wheat varieties are used or high-yielding wheat is used and fortified with additives like flaxseed, and legume powder. Unfortunately, the latter is more common because low-yielding durum wheat and ancient types of wheat like farro, spelt, and einkorn are less profitable to produce. This parallels the corn industry in that farmers are forced to grow modern high-yielding varieties of seeds to be profitable and meet the demands of food processing companies.

Ancient wheat naturally contains healthy nutrients and proteins, but industrial agriculture has hybridized this wheat into modern, nutrient depleted varieties. High nutrient and fiber contents not only make the pasta healthier, but also better tasting. It is a shame that we have taken something naturally good for us and evolved it into something of lower quality to make products like Kraft macaroni. There are selective brands that make wheat pasta from these ancient varieties, but the pasta comes at a high price.

Since I first noticed the whole-grain pasta options in the grocery store, I was excited to try them. Now I always buy whole-grain when I can. In general the wheat pastas with additives are often not as tasty as those without. Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at NYU interviewed in the article, recommends eating whole-wheat pasta high in fiber with no additives. The growing demand for whole-grain pastas has pushed companies to develop better tasting varieties and has increased the selection of whole-wheat pasta in the stores. Hopefully whole-grain will continue to gain popularity in pasta as well as other products. Today pasta remains one of my favorite meals and I particularly enjoy the Barilla whole-grain pastas.

Mcdonalds Happy does not decompose

2010-10-12T18:44:00.003-04:00

...for six months.

Click here for the story.

-Steven Foster

Beef or Tofu?

2010-10-08T14:41:00.005-04:00

When I first saw the title of an older New York Times article, from August 6, 2010, I thought it was a silly question, one with too obvious an answer. "At Vegan Weddings, Beef or Tofu?" seemed to me to be barely a question at all.
Tofu, of course, you would think, should be the right answer. Or roasted vegetable lasagna. Or mushroom and pumpkin risotto. Or a summer vegetable tart. Or any number of many delicious and festive options...plus cake.

But instead, I was surprised to read that Chelsea Clinton, a vegetarian who was married over the summer, served short ribs at her wedding. As a vegan who wants to get married someday, I started to ponder: what would I do?

Coming from a family who only serves plant-based fare, I have seen enough dinner parties, barbecues, graduation banquets, and general get-togethers without meat. Even on Easter, we serve what we affectionate call “the traditional Easter pizza” instead of the standard ham or lamb. My family has been blessed to have been spared loutish guests like the article’s Patrick Moore, who not only snuck out of a wedding for a chicken sandwich, but had the audacity to bring it back! He says, “I know it’s your day, but it’s not all about you. Why have a wedding if you’re going to be like that? Just print a bumper sticker." By “be like that,” does he mean honor the couple’s sense of morality and ethical value set? Isn’t that what the wedding, and all weddings, are about? Of course hosts should consider the comforts and pleasures of their guests, but wedding attendants will not go into meat withdrawal in an afternoon.

What have we come to expect as a culture? As we discussed in class, culinary culture is socially constructed. Has our convenience based culture created a situation where we come to expect whatever we want, at all times, regardless of circumstance? Has it come to a point that even on a day devoted to love and becoming family, you are unable to put aside your demands for a particular meal? Is it possible that people have become so accustomed to the "have-it-now" culture that we presently live in, that they are unable to set aside their desires for others? I certainly hope not.

I know that I will have a vegan wedding. Even if I were inviting world famous chefs, as the couple in the article were, I would only serve vegan fare. If a chef is unable to appreciate the taste and quality of food made without “enhancement” from animal products, what kind of true appreciator of food is he? For me, the question beef or tofu? is barely even an issue. Tofu. If someone was unable to go an afternoon without meat to celebrate with me, then they’re probably not the kind of person I want at my wedding. I like to think that my future wedding guests would just be happy to celebrate and have a good time with me…regardless of what I was serving for supper.

What do you think? Should vegans serve honey and dairy? Vegetarians serve meat? Baptists and straight-edgers serve champagne? Should people of certain religions serve their versions of unclean food, be it meat, seafood, pork, or something else not kosher or halal? Where do you draw the line, if there is one at all?

Monsanto

2010-10-07T17:31:00.005-04:00

After all the times that Monsanto has come up in class, I found this article rather amusing. It ties in completely with what we've been talking about as far as concerns about GMOs. It seems that the seed companies have finally found a way to set the price too high for seeds, and that action hurt Monsanto's sales. Especially since the more expensive seed did not have a higher yield than the less pricey version.

The article also touches on some patent laws that don't seem to follow the company overseas since Monsanto is has generic Roundup competition from China. Although Monsanto remains strong in the U.S. it is not popular in Europe, due to the resistance to GMOs.

The combination of problems for the seed giant further call into question the limits of GMO possibilities. If Monsanto's new plants don't grow better than the old ones, then it becomes very hard for the company to keep making profits and to stay ahead of the competition.

However, I think more competition would be good for the general health of farming. If the different companies start from different stocks of seed, then competition becomes another way to help maintain genetic diversity.

Fast Food

2010-10-06T22:33:00.003-04:00

I found this article particularly interesting because growing up my family and I would constantly be on the go. We would always be juggling different sports between my brother and I, and different school events between my parents, along with their jobs. Fast food would always be looked upon as a solid solution to dinner or lunch and even sometimes breakfast.

I chose this edit because I thought it related to myself and possibly others. I use to eat a lot of fast food. I think the main reason for this is like what I mentioned above, constantly being on the go. Now a days, I find time to pack a healthier snack, something that is organic or close to it. I look back on eating fast food and it makes me sick in a way. It would be very interesting to see what they are pumping into all these meats and vegetables that they serve, and stress are healthy for average people. I would love to see a behind-the-scenes and watch peoples reactions. I feel as it would not be what some people would expect.

I really like the correlation between the tobacco industry and the fast food industry. I think it makes sense in a way. Obesity can be closely related to fast food, something that does not help your overall health. Same can be said for tobacco products, something that does not help your overall health. It will be interesting to see what will happen to this industry in the years ahead to see if any lawsuits come from it and their outcomes. I for one, try and stay away from fast food as much as I can and prefer the much safer and healthier route with organic or natural foods.

Anyways enjoy the reading and keep in mind the healthier way. You may seem pressed for time when rushing from something to something, but try and make the better choice for a more healthier way.

Stephen Colbert on immigrant farm workers

2010-10-01T17:20:00.002-04:00

On 9/24 Stephen Colbert testified in Congress to support resolving the issue of illegal immigrants working on US farms.

Stephen Colbert is a television personality most popularly known for his show "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central, a satirical news show.

I noticed several correlations to material we have covered in class:
-Illegal farm workers (the subject)
-The growing number of obese Americans
-Farms relocating outside of the U.S.
-Genetic engineering
-Work conditions for farm employees
-Low wages of farm employees

I believe he had the right idea about giving illegal immigrants thier green cards. If they have rights then perhaps a chain reaction can start that will eventually lead to a more safe agricultural system. He highlights this issue with an excellent point regarding thier rights. This point speaks to a root cause of our faulted agribusiness.

-Steven Foster

Breaking the Natural Cycle

2010-09-30T22:15:00.003-04:00

There is always a cycle, or rather a broken cycle that leads to many of the world's problems. Does over population lead to poverty, or does poverty lead to over population? Has world hunger been caused by land degradation or vice versa? These topics are always never ending debates in many of my environmental sociology classes. There are always arguments for both sides and every situation is different, especially when comparing the growth and development of first-world countries during the colonial era versus the third-world countries that are attempting to develop now for one example. One of the cycles that I feel is very important to connect to the current problem of trying to solve world hunger is the issue of land degradation and displacement from land.

The way that I see this new pattern, is it first begins with some reason that people are forced to make a shift in their lifestyle. Generally it involves some shift on the level of the how the people live and relate to their environment. A company comes in a buys land from the government rather than the people, a drought or some environmental new problem; either way, there becomes a disconnect from the land. In other times people could simply move to another area to solve their problems, however today people are more attached to their land, as sometimes there is no other place to move to. Global conglomerates have the ability to deal with governments directly and can been seen as a way to bring development into an area. However more often than not, this hurts the people rather than help. Companies have been known among other things, to destroy land, forcing more people off their land and into working the factories. At this step people no longer can survive off of what they are able to produce, since their work, all though might deal with picking or processing food goods, results in physical money. Now the price they pay for food is no longer the amount of effort put into growing or gathering but into predetermined amounts set by a third party. The amount they work does not equal what they are paid and thus they are often unable to sufficiently feed themselves or their families.

Another aspect of this is land degradation. The shift in global climates has caused many problems throughout the world. While one area is being flooded, another is suffering from a long drought. Either way unstable climate conditions can cause crops to fail. Another way crops can fail is if the land is being polluted by a factory or the natural settings are being harvested at an unsustainable rate. An example of this is from an article from BBC about logging in the Congo basin in Cameroon. The Ngola Baka are hunter-gatherers the rely on the forests for food. Despite attempts in proving their ownership of the land, the Ngola Baka cannot keep the loggers away. Removed from their food source, they are forced into poverty and can no longer feed themselves.

The Ngola Baka is just one example of how breaking the connection between land and people often leads to hunger. In a first world country where most people are entirely disconnected from any form of food production, this does not seem like a problem. The difference is we have the means to get money to pay for the food. Even so in the US there are still people going hungry, while we export our surplus elsewhere. In third world countries, there is often no means of obtaining money. People that could produce their own food have had no need for money. When land is removed, the people have no way of growing food, and thus have to rely on some form of making money to survive.

I believe that in order to best help many of these struggling areas is to force companies to take responsibility for their actions and either clean up the environment they polluted, pay their workers more, collect resources in a sustainable way that compensates the true owners of the land, or simply leave. Once a connection is made back to the land, that is no longer being harmed, there is once again hope that people will be able to support themselves.

The South Bronx Obesity Epidemic

2010-09-29T07:23:00.002-04:00

My friends and I always buy cheap snacks from a local convenient store, two blocks away from our high school, Bronx Science. It’s a pretty local thing; not some fancy 7-Eleven-type gig. The store is lined with cheap snacks, most of the brands not heard of anywhere else. And probably for good reason too. One of the more notorious snacks, our personal favorite, is the Iced Honey Bun, manufactured by Cloverhill Bakery Snacks, Co., and composed of a whopping 610 calories (97% DV sat. fats, 55% DV total fat, 22% DV carbs, etc.)- it sells for a dollar.

This cheap and disastrous alternative to a well-rounded diet is easily avoidable for most people. Yet the snack is still cheaper than a medium bag of Lays ($1.25) or even a medium bag of semi-healthy Wheat Thins ($1.75). Such is the basis for the Bronx obesity epidemic. Bronx high school students, caught between the standard $1.50 charge for a skimpy school lunch and the cheaper more tempting treats, often choose the latter. According to a recent New York Times article linking the South Bronx obesity epidemic, ironically, to poor food security in the area, “A 2008 study by the city government showed that 9 of the Bronx’s 12 community districts had too few supermarkets, forcing huge swaths of the borough to rely largely on unhealthful, but cheap, food.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=2)

So in fact, this is not just an issue confronting the Bronx’s teenage populace, but in fact, a systemic problem plaguing the entire community. The correlation between poor food security and rising obesity rates has been delineated by Raj Patel as an inevitable burden placed upon the powerless through a food system hyped up on ‘individual choice’. Overall, our food system looks like it runs in a vicious cycle: the impulses of well endowed consumers bias market growth in the direction towards cheaper processed food, which become the only affordable choice for those with less. The trapped underclass in turn, feed this growth, eventually driving up the prices of less demanded, but healthier food choices like fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy, and meat. But in fact, there is still time for moral restitution. What is a few extra bucks spent each week on healthier foods for the average middle class consumer, in comparison to a lifetime of obesity for the financially oppressed? This growing systemic ill can be easily overcome the minute we take up our consumer responsibilities.

The Obesity-Hunger Paradox, by Sam Dolnik- NYTimes, March 12, 2010

www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?_r=2

Define "All Natural"

2010-09-28T12:37:00.002-04:00

After our class discussion today about the various issues involving GM foods I began to wonder what even is considered natural anymore. I found this article on NPR about the Ben and Jerry Ice Cream company and thought it might be an interesting article since it discusses just that. What is considered natural anymore, or like the article implies, does natural now mean "with minimal processing."

Ben and Jerry's was asked to take their "all natural" off of their logo containers on some of their ice cream because it contained some "unnatural" ingredients. One of these ingredients was corn syrup which seems to me actually has become a natural ingredient because it happens to be one of the staples of our diet. Although this may not be on purpose, it certainly raises the question what is considered natural anymore?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/09/27/130158014/ben-jerry-s-takes-all-natural-claims-off-ice-cream-labels

Pseudovariety

2010-09-24T16:33:00.004-04:00

While flipping through kottke.org I came across this blog post.

I’d always known that Pepsi and Coca-Cola have had far-reaching empires, but I never thought that they, along with Dr. Pepper (which I always thought was owned by Pepsi, for some reason) would produce 89% of the soft drinks out there in the American market. That's some crazy CR3.

A zoomed-in version of the diagram can be found here , so you can actually read all of the companies’ names. I found myself roaming around this for hours, seeking familiar brands and finding that they are, in fact, tied back to Coca-Cola in some way or another.

Add in the fact that while not completely under Coca-Cola’s (or Pepsi’s or Dr. Pepper’s) control, most other soft drink companies are in competing markets. These three mega-companies produce and distribute drinks of all varieties – no lemonade, tea, or energy drink manufacturer can get away from “the big three”, and have to match their prices to the larger corporations’.

The diagram presented in this post represents pseudovariety. We have so many choices as to what flavor of softdrink we should get, but all these varieties are really concealing a lack of any real choice as to who we give our money to.

Agribusiness concentration

2010-09-24T09:04:00.001-04:00

Analysts of the food system use a figure called CR4, which stands for the concentration ratio of the top four companies in a particular sector. For example, more than 83% of the market in beef packing is controlled by the top four beef packers, which as of 2007 are Tyson, Cargill, Swift & Co., and National Beef Packing Co. So we can say that in beef packing, the CR4=83%.

Phil Howard, a sociology professor at Michigan State University, made this graphic to represent the level of concentration in a number of different sectors of the agri-food system.

Notice that concentration in these sectors is increasing. Why do you think this is? Are you surprised at this level of concentration?

Notice that the colors represent particular companies. What do you think it means that some companies are in the top four of multiple sectors? How do you think that affects farmers? How do you think it affects you?

Check out Phil Howard's website for more awesome infographics about food and agriculture.

Not Your Average Joe's

2010-09-23T19:28:00.001-04:00

The following items in my pantry have traveled hundreds of miles (I’m talking specifically since I’ve purchased them) to be perched on my shelf, awaiting the moment when I get a craving: Oreos, wheat thin crackers, dark chocolate, and olive oil (which I normally don’t crave, but do use in other yummy dishes). Why such a long journey you may ask? Because they come from Trader Joe’s, and not a-one of those stores can be found in the Capital Region. This absence needs to be fixed. I know I may sound like I drank the Trader Joe’s kool-aid (or rather, their fruit juice NOT from concentrate) but I honestly am a big proponent of the chain.

The basic reason TJ’s needs to join us here in Troy (or Albany, I’m flexible) is because the store is FOR EVERYONE.

If you consider yourself more earthy-crunchy than the average consumer who indulges in Pop Tarts and microwave pizza at a whim, you can find a plethora of organic options at your finger tips which will satisfy both your conscience and your cravings. And, if I may insert my humble opinion, you can no longer claim that the ‘healthy food’ version doesn’t taste as good as the ‘junk food’ version in regular stores. I can personally testify that TJ’s Oreo cookies, which do not have trans fats (or partially hydrogenated oils) in them, taste just as good if not BETTER than those from Nabisco.

If you consider yourself to be on a strict college student budget – insert sad violin music here- or perhaps you’re on a fixed income as an elderly person, or even if you’re just a regular Joe (pun intended) who simply don’t feel like paying SKY HIGH prices for better quality food (no offense, Whole Foods), then Trader Joe’s is right up your alley. Those Oreos I told you about: $2.49/box at TJ’s, $3.29/package at Price Chopper.

If you want to ENJOY your grocery shopping experience, walk into a Trader Joes, you’ll find that those employees with the tragically unfortunate Hawaiian shirts are some of the nicest, most personable and helpful grocery store people you’ll meet. It’s similar to shopping at a farmer’s market, where complete strangers take the time to talk with you as you shop or check-out. (Note: Trader Joes is not a farmer’s market, and their products should never be advertised as such. I am merely noting the social similarities of the venues, and the pleasant atmosphere they both have.)

If you want to be a part of the IN-CROWD, then go shopping at Trader Joe’s. It’s no doubt, the chain is a fad, but THAT my friends is one of the strengths of the brand. Trader Joe’s image makes it COOL to buy brown rice, or parmesan cheese by the wedge, organic olive oil, or those AMAZING Oreos! This trend which propels consumers to buy- to desire- better food is what we NEED. Because sooner or later, corporations will start paying attention to the purchasing decisions we consumers make, and my guess is they’ll want a bite of the profit. (From what I understand, the profit is pretty sizeable: see the following article for more information about Trader Joe’s business.)

In conclusion, I hope you’ll consider bringing your reusable*ahem* shopping bags to a Trader Joe’s next time you’re near one. And if you happen to hear rumors about TJ’s opening up near RPI, please PLEASE let me know.

-Leslie Vorce

Labeling and GE salmon

2010-09-22T10:21:00.002-04:00

A frequent topic in our class discussions deals with consumer knowledge of the food industry. This NYTimes article in particular deals with the facet of labeling regarding genetically engineer foods. Genetically engineered salmon is on the cusp of entering our food markets but right now it’s caught in a triangle between multiple major consumer groups, the FDA, and the representatives of the food and biotechnology industry responsible for the salmon. If it were to enter supermarkets, it would be the first genetically engineered animal to be offered to the American food supply, and whether the American public should know is the struggle at hand. Labeling could make it or break it, and the main argument for those producing the salmon is that “a ‘genetically engineered’ label would be akin to a skull and crossbones, killing sales.”

I think this particular case should be treated as a landmark; we’ve come so far in biotechnology’s entanglement in our food and are also so cornered by the power of big food corporations that we have gotten here and can do almost nothing about it. Conclusive testing and effects of consuming take much more time than the big company is will to put in - their product is hot and by comparison to regular raised fish will reap in a huge profit. Labeling might be the last defense, but in the grand scheme of the supermarket, so much information has been tucked away and mislabeled that it almost seems as though one more addition would hardly make the difference. This brings me to my last point: the majority of the American consumers might not care that this huge and inexpensive cut of salmon is only partly-animal, mostly science experiment. I didn’t know about genetically engineered salmon but personally, I’m horrified that they might be selling this in my local supermarket without letting me know that these animals weren’t engaged in their normal, evolutionary life paths from the very beginning.

sugar beat ban

2010-09-21T20:03:00.008-04:00

sugar beat ban

I found this article very interesting because there are different viewpoints from different political agencies (mainly the courts and the USDA) based on what those agencies goals are.

What i think is most surprising and unusual is that unlike most crops and people, this sugar beat is guilty until proven innocent. this is the type of practice that is upheld in European governments for pesticides, herbicides, and similar new technologies that can effect human life. This type of "justice" protects the rights and the health of the consumer at the cost to corporations. I agree with this style of treating new entities to be introduced into the biota, but i am pleasantly surprised that there is this small victory over powerful agribusinesses by the courts ruling. As we had seen in our readings large companies like Monsanto (the producers of the GMO beat) had the power to up root many family farms and influence industrialization on farming techniques.

Unfortunately the USDA is trying to temporarily allow its cultivation under controlled conditions which "might" be an acceptable compromise, but it is still risky especially considering that the farmers have to be very wary of those blotters which could spread the genetic information of these beats to native species or other plants where farmers can be sued for patten violations. Even worse, these beats could give their herbicide resistance to weeds to create supper weeds. To top the list of risks is the unknown nutritional value and health risks of consuming GMO beats. This risk will not be fully known until years of health studies, making the consumer the guinea pig. All of these risks of GMO beats are placed on the consumers and farmers, not Monsanto.

The Fast Growing Atlantic Salmon

2010-09-20T15:20:00.003-04:00

I found this article on NPR's website. It is about genetically engineered fast growing salmon and how because they can be grown twice as fast will make for a more sustainable fish product in the future. It also discusses various environmental and food safety questions as well and some consumer perspective.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129939819

2010-09-15T20:54:00.006-04:00

On September 13, 2010 there was an article in the Chicago Tribune, Healthy lunch is in the bag; Parents, children and manufacturers rethink their choices for school meals. The article focuses on large manufacturers such as Kraft, General Mills, Campbell’s Soup Co., and ConAgra Foods switching to healthier lunch options for kids. Their products now have reduced calories, reduced sodium, more fruit and vegetables, and clearer packaging. Due to their changes Kraft has seen a 10% increase in their Lunchable sales.

This brings back my memories of grade school, when I ate Lunchables almost every lunch period. However, one day I opened up my favorite box of bologna, cheese and crackers, bit in and experienced the nastiest taste in my life. I do not know why this happened, my taste buds might have changed or it could have been the case of bad packaging. Either way, I never touched Lunchables ever again. Kraft ‘s reasoning for their large increase in sales is that kids want healthier foods. To me this seems like a bunch of phony bologna. My early childhood memories are of people telling us young students about the perils of candy. Yet, candy taste good and we kept eating it. It was even given to us as a reward and for holidays.

When I was in elementary school our major topic of health was smoking. Students were always trying to stop their parents from smoking. They would come into class, and tell stories of their confrontations with their parents, such as, hiding cigarette packs, and having sit downs. The ironic thing is, many years later, some of my past classmates have indulged in smoking. It seems to me that humans like to do things deleterious to their health. Some think it comes with the right to the pursuit of happiness. I believe Kraft’s sales are most likely do to better advertisement, than more health conscious children. More health conscious children would go to the grocery store and beg for fruits and vegetables. Instead they are just buying the new Lunchables options available to them. To close, I side with the nutritionist who believes healthier school meals are a step in the right direct, but they do not equal the benefits of eating fresh healthy non-packaged foods.

Reference:

Emily Bryson York. Healthy lunch is in the bag; Parents, children and manufacturers rethink their choices for school meals. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Sep 13, 2010. pg. 4 http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/pqdweb?did=2136299911&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=8470&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Chickens and eggs

2010-08-31T12:59:00.004-04:00

Following up on today's discussion, Monica just sent me this NPR story about how eggs naturally stay germ-free - unless the hen that lays them is infected with salmonella. Really fascinating!

Also, here is a blog post by Marion Nestle about the FDA's inspection reports related to the salmonella outbreak. She summarizes:

The inspection violations at the Hillandale facility ranged from the seemingly trivial (unsigned forms) to the disturbing (rodent holes) to the alarming (leaky manure) to the utterly damning (egg wash water testing positive for Salmonella enteriditis).

Nestle's post links to the FDA reports, if you have the stomach for them...

And here's a really good LA Times article that discusses California's much stricter regulations aimed at wiping out salmonella. In an industry that uses economies of scale to produce profit while competing to keep food prices low, producers are reluctant to spend even just a few pennies to prevent disease.

During the average two-year lifespan of these California hens, they will be vaccinated three times, have their droppings checked five times and have their feed tested six times.
The total cost per bird: about 8.5 cents.
But in the egg world, such a seemingly small sum can mean the difference between profit and loss.
In the late 1980s, about 2,500 commercial egg producers served the U.S. market. Today, fewer that 200 big operators dominate the trade, using economies of scale to drive down production costs.
Many of the cheapest eggs are produced in the Midwest, where energy, farmland and feed cost less and where regulations are less onerous.
As a result, Iowa egg operators can undercut the competition. Last month it cost Midwest farmers 53.5 cents to produce a dozen eggs, about 16% less than in California, according to Iowa State University's Egg Industry Center.

Thought for Food

2010-07-08T22:13:00.002-04:00

Stephen Colbert presents a segment called "Thought for Food" on his show "The Colbert Report" yesterday evening. All joking aside, this satire provides an interesting analysis of how we think about food.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Thought for Food - Kentucky Tuna & Grilled Cheese Burger Melt

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

2010 Election

Fox News

Back in Black: Product Recalls

2010-07-07T21:55:00.008-04:00

Lewis Black and his "Back in Black" segment were featured last night on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Black 'discussed' government oversight and some recent product recalls, which many of them were food or health related.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Back in Black - Product Recalls

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Iphone Commodity Chain

2010-06-04T11:35:00.002-04:00

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/iphone-heidegger-woot/

These diagrams include information about what goes into making the iphone but also how the phone came about and the societal and environmental impacts.

I also found this wiki that was recently started.

http://wikichains.com/en.wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It seems like a good place to share the results of research for the commodity chain project.

Do any students still follow this blog?

Obesity

2010-05-13T21:50:00.001-04:00

190 Million Americans are Obese or Overweight. These are not the only staggering statistics. The number of obese children in the United States has tripled the past 30 years and currently three out of every four children are considered obese. However, obesity has not just affected humans in the United States, sadly 25% of dogs and cats are heavier than they should be.Obesity has become an epidemic in the United States. Obesity-related diseases are a $147 billion dollar medical burden every year. It is the cause of many deadly diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes heart disease and cancer. In fact, 75% of the diabetes cases in the United States are Type 2 Diabetes. Needless to say the obesity epidemic is to blame for a lot of these cases. According to the Surgeon General, and the Journal of the American Medical Association reported in March that poor diet and physical inactivity could soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.
So what has led this country to become the heaviest in the world? The obvious answer is that we eat too much and do not exercise enough. It is not that Americans are not trying to lose the weight. Americans pour scores of billions of dollars every year into weight-loss products and gym memberships and liposuction and gastric bypass operation. Even with magic diet pills and some success stories on shows such as “The Biggest Loser” America just keeps getting fatter. Even though many blame the obscene number of fast food restaurants and bad habits, genetics and evolution may be a reason for obesity. Years ago food was for energy and survival, as the human race evolved and the environment changed food because more of a pleasure and available everywhere. Technology is also in the mix. With remote controls and video games movies on demand and commercials with unhealthy but enticing foods, technology has almost completely removed physical exercise from the day-to-day lives of most Americans.
I feel the only real way to prevent the number of obese individuals in the United States from rising is education. Teaching parents and young children about a healthy balanced diet where you do not have to refrain from eating sweets within limits is the key to healthy living. Government officials are taking some steps by ridding schools of vending machines and extending gym periods. However, in the short time it took for America to expand its weight, it will take much longer to make it healthier.

Where do we go from here?

2010-05-13T18:56:00.004-04:00

Throughout this semester in Food Farms and famine we all have learned so much about food production,whether it be local or conventional, organic or non-organic or large scale to small. I would like to comment on the paradox of choice that we are all presented with, now that we know all of this information about food production. Although it may seem overwhelming, making good food choices doesn’t have to be difficult.

Were food choices easier when we did not know about the consequences of them? Speaking just for myself I believe they were. Schwartz says that “consumers tend to return to what they usually buy”. It would be easy to return to my way of shopping and living and try and forget everything that I learned about conventional food production, its effects on the poor, the environment and our bodies. But now that we have the information we should make the better choice. However, this can be difficult when you are a student with a limited budget, limited time and limited means of transportation. Fortunately there are many things we can do with this information that are easy and inexpensive that have been mentioned by Pollan, Kingslover and even Joe Salatan.

Here are some relatively easy solutions to the question of “where do we go from here?” Obviously the first and easiest choice that you can make is visiting your local farmers market to purchase your groceries. Since the semester is coming to a close, many of you may not know where your local farmers market is. You can use this website to find out where a farmers market is in your town. The farmers market is the best option, as most of the food sold there will be local, seasonal and possibly organic. Since I don’t have a car, I have learned the bus route to get down to the farmers market.
If there is no farmers market in your city or town, the next best option is to buy food that is in season from your grocery store. Buying Seasonal fruits and vegetables is an easy way to reduce the environmental damage of shipping food thousands of miles and it usually tastes better. This blog has a great listing of when food is in season. Barbara Kingsolver remarks that you can purchase food in season and freeze it for the winter.

The next easiest choice is to try and purchase organic –small scale- foods whenever possible. The problem for me in choosing organic is that it is more expensive and sometimes I cannot afford to buy all of my groceries. Here is a website I found top 12 fruits and vegetables you should purchase organically because there conventional methods of production almost always include a lot of pesticide use. The omnivores dilemma talks about the difference between small scale and large scale organic foods. Although large scale organic food is still technically organic-ingredients grown without pesticides- it also allows for some processed ingredients to be added. Although “organic” Twinkies may seem like the environmentally friendly choice, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is healthier for you.

Food Farms and Famine has provided us with a wealth of knowledge regarding food production and given us the tools to make the right decisions when making choices about what to eat. Now all we have to do is act on that knowledge.

LOCALISM

2010-05-13T00:45:00.004-04:00

Food localism builds local production for local consumption in order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, to support and diversify local agriculture, and to promote local food security and food sovereignty (fooddowntheroad.com)

Most of the foods we consume today travel hundreds of miles to our homes. We eat certain foods when they are in and out of season, and most of food product at home are from large cooperation’s such as general mills etc. But whatever happened to home grown gardens or local farms??? Farming in the past use to be a lot more popular than it is today. This was an enjoyable and relaxing part of life, and is slowly becoming extinct. Food from local farms are usually way tastier and are way higher in nutritional value. Local farmers breed for taste big companies breed their crops to last long transportation times
Localism help creates a healthy social connection with producer and consumer. The focus is the community and a certain trust bond is created. This is important because food safety has become an increasingly important subject amongst consumers. Local farms are usually very sustainable and are environmentally friendly. So why not more local farms??? Well the government does very little to help these farmers creating financial pressure on them, they are competing with companies that spend millions of dollars on advertisements catching most consumers eyes, local farmers produce cannot travel far, and foods produce are generally a bit more expensive then processed foods.
What can we do to promote localism?

• Try and visit your local food market, you would be amazed at the atmosphere freshness of foods displayed
• Eat healthy, and introduce your family to better eating habits
• Growing your own food is also a great idea

Ecological impact of Industrial Agriculture

2010-05-13T00:04:00.001-04:00

Farming In good old days…
Good Agricultural Practices are a collection of principles to apply for on-farm production and post-production processes, resulting in safe and healthy food and non-food agricultural products, while taking into account economical, social and environmental sustainability.
Farms in the past were not as specialized in the past as they are today; crop rotation is a very important aspect of good agricultural practices. Crop rotation helps with nitrogen input into the soils, naturally protects plants from pest because it break their life cycles, and rotating crops helps protect the farm against changes in weather. Also farms were usually worked on by a family and were a very sociable lifestyle. All though these farms yielded stable production, they cannot compete with more modern farms yields
Modern Farm…
Modern farms today aren’t as specialized, using monoculture methods. These Farms today create higher yields of crops and better quality. This works better for our growing need for food and our dependence on convenience. However these farms create a magnitude of problems. These types of farms rely wholly on pesticides creating a number of environmental problems. This farming method also creates a very open eco system instead of a naturally closed ecosystem. Technological innovations have been working on increasing farming yields but most crops have been pushed to their maximum output and scientist are looking into methods such as cloning. Problems that may occur from such methods are unsure but if it brings about anything close to the problems monoculture farms cause food production may need to revise the direction it is headed.

Slaughter This!

2010-05-12T12:59:00.001-04:00

Today’s readings bring to light two major issues occurring in the United States. One, being immigration and the regulations shrouding this issue; and two, highlights the increase greed and de-familiarization of humanity in large corporate owners, especially those companies who practice vertical integration. I would have to say immigration plays a heavy role in today’s meatpacking conditions, as once mentioned, the meatpacking industry used to be a “skill”. A “skill” comparable to other industry’s who rely heavily on “manual” labor, i.e. tomato pickers. In retrospect, although both forms of “manual” labor is one that this college student would care to not participate; I believe the tomato pickers are in a far better condition, in comparison to their meat brethren.
The second issue of the decrease in humanity with regards to these food conglomerates. In order for them to remain “competitive”, they essentially base their bottom line by exploiting the impoverished or near-by immigrant. An insinuation in Fast Food Nation was the fact that their were several meat packing processing plants throughout the US, but with expansion comes a inevitable monopoly and also the reduction of available meat packing processing plants. Now, the few processing plants are located in prime territories, areas in which there is a high influx of impoverished persons and also a possible intake of illegal immigrants. This source of ever growing manpower, leads to these vial conditions and disrupts the previously “skilled” employee from their once respected position.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the meat packing industry will reach its formative years; it will be a steady decrease, in which the consumer will inevitably bare the costs. There will never be mechanization in this field, because other than the fact that cattle’s range in sizes, I do not see conglomerates willing to pay the initial expense burdens, in sacrifice of their “cash cows”.

Effect of Global Climate Change on Food Security

2010-05-05T21:18:00.002-04:00

Global climate change presents a serious threat to the food security of many developing countries. A recent United Nations report, presented at a conference in Angola, warned nations to take action to protect Africa from imminent food security threats. The 23-page report cited higher temperatures, draught and unpredictable weather as likely to cause up to a 7 percent decline in yields of staple crops, such as maize. This decline comes to populations already experiencing an insecure food source and, in many cases, already suffering malnutrition.

Threats to food production from climate change are especially pronounced in many African countries. Many populations in Africa have experienced a long history of food shortage. Non-sustainable agriculture contributed to prolonged shortages of food, which have led to famine, higher infant and maternal mortality, higher rates of disease as a population becomes less healthy, and, at the extreme, to increased wars. Recent research and development into more sustainable and higher producing crops have targeted different environments. Global climate change, which is creating higher temperatures and unpredictable weather, is contributing to the problem of food security in these nations. This makes the need for “sustainable agricultural and natural resource management methods” more pressing as developing nations, especially in Africa, face “looming food security issues.”

Many parts of Africa are prone to drought, including some of the coastal areas where about 60 percent of the population is located. Africans have a long history of planting and harvesting with the wetter cycles of an arid climate, but this new and bigger threat from global climate change overwhelms the ability to adapt. The United Nations, among other groups, have tried to promote sustainable agriculture. Peace Corp workers, religious missions, non-profits, and other groups have been deployed to many developing countries to aid in developing an agricultural program.

The success of these programs is largely dependent on their ability to get the developing nation to commit to natural resource management and sustainable agriculture. Without complete support by the developing country, outside change will have little success in solving the growing food security issues faced by developing nations. The United Nations report predicted that serious challenges to Africa’s food security would occur within the next 50 years. "The presence of major non-climatic stressors that influence sensitivity to changes in climatic conditions, and the endemic poverty often associated with food production exacerbates the situation in Africa," the report adds. Without significant change towards sustainable agriculture and use of natural resources in developing nations, the current problems of food security and famine will worsen substantially in the near future as the effects of global climate change become more pronounced.

Food Labeling and Our Power as Consumers

2010-05-04T23:23:00.004-04:00

This semester in "Food, Farms, and Famine" has opened our eyes to many dimensions of food that may have never crossed our minds before. We are no longer aware of just food itself and its nutritional value, but also of the social and environmental implications of its production, marketing, and consumption. Our discussions of the sobering (and sometimes downright grim) issues relating to our current food system have left many of us wondering, "What can be done? What can I do?" To start off, think about how many people are not taking this class, have not seen "Food, Inc.", and can perceive only a nominal difference between fair trade and free trade, organic and non-organic, grass-fed and corn-fed, etc. Information, its dissemination, and consumers' use of that information constitute a very important first step in rethinking and reshaping our food culture. Adi Narayan of Time Magazine recently wrote an article which discusses the politics, marketing strategy, merit (or lack thereof), and effectiveness of food labeling systems. Narayan also includes a list of some of the current labeling systems used to relay nutritional information to the consumer. Narayan sheds light on a very important issue but he deals mostly with labels that signify nutritional value and health benefits. If we want to "build a better label" as the title of the article claims, food labels should include [more] information not just about its relation to nutrition and health, but also about the origins of our food and how it was produced and/or processed.

"Shoppers who paused for an interview in the cereal isle that evening said their choices were guided either by past purchases or front-of-the-box labels," writes Narayan. Front-of-the-box labels. The front of the box is prime real estate for a company to put its best foot forward in terms of advertising its product. Nutritional value and health benefits are fair game as selling points for a product, so naturally, some scientific claims and their meaning get lost in a shroud of flashy graphics, vague wording, and convenient omissions all designed to "confuse and seduce consumers" and distract them from more important information found on the Nutrition Facts label. What makes this slope even more slippery is the fact that the manner in which these claims are presented are unique to the company selling the product; it is all part of a very competitive capitalist game to see which company can put out the most glowing, attractive, and convincing advertisements. Certain types of food labels such as "0 Grams of Trans-Fat!" or "Rich in Anti-Oxidants!" reach a point where they become superficial and trendy and this makes unbiased, objective, and consistent food labeling and its effectiveness as a tool for making better food choices even more difficult to achieve.

The FDA has recently become more stringent in its efforts to improve food labeling systems by putting out a survey asking consumers to comment on "ways to enhance the usefulness to consumers of...information on the principal display panel of food products." Claims about the nutritional value and health benefits of food should not be easily tossed around and manipulated as pawns in a capitalist game and one way in which this can be kept under control is through more rigorous implementation of government control (or some neutral authority) in the matter. Another way in which food labeling systems can be improved is by modifying the actual nature of the information presented to the consumer. The food labels that Narayan discusses deal mostly with nutritional information of the food itself. Nutrition facts are definitely important but in a time where 'healthy and nutritious' vitamin and mineral mixtures can be added to Twinkies, they are no longer sufficient in making smart and conscious food choices. As was proven time and time again over the course of the semester, the relation of food to our well-being is intrinsically tied to its origins, its production, and its social and environmental implications. It seems that foods labeled according to their origins and production process (i.e. grass-fed beef, free-range chicken, organic produce, free trade coffee) satisfy only a small niche market. But nowadays it is these labels [not the nutrition facts] that are marking the key difference between healthy and safe foods and unhealthy and potentially dangerous foods. Doesn't everybody deserve to know about this? Why not break this food 'scene' wide open so everyone can have access to this information?

The origins and production of food constitute a whole separate spectrum of information that would definitely overwhelm the consumer and probably even depress the consumer into complacency and learned helplessness. But this cannot be seen as a negative as is implied by Dr. David Ludwig of Harvard Medical School, "At-a-glance labels assume that the consumer is too ignorant to make an informed decision...the solution should be to offer more, not less information...food choices are too complicated to be reduced to simply green, amber, and red." This also implies that consumers also have a significant responsibility in "building a better label". Only so much information can be presented to consumers; but if they are too lazy to actually heed this information and take it into consideration in their purchases, it is useless. This is why consumers should definitely be more conscious, on all levels, about the foods they buy and eat. This would help them make more health-conscious, environmentally and socially responsible, and overall smarter food choices and ultimately help remedy the flaws in our current food system in the long run.

Narayan, A. (2010, May 2). Building a Better Label. TIME Magazine

Issues brought up by Food, Inc

2010-05-04T05:53:00.017-04:00

Cheap foods contain lots of calories:

33% of kids born after 2000 will have diabetes
50% of kids have some sort of obesity related issue
Cheaper to buy cheap foods, $1 burger, than it is to buy vegetables, broccoli, that cost $1.29 per pound.

Production of animals:

Chickens are grown in less than a month and a half, it would "naturally" take three months to fully grow a chicken. Chemicals help them grow faster. Antibiotics also given but it is not beneficial to the chicken but instead the antibiotics get transferred to the animals and humans and can harm them.
If the chickens are lucky enough, they will be able to walk a few feet, otherwise they wont be able to walk at all. This is caused by the fact that they now weigh twice as much as they would "naturally."
Solution: Corn is used to feed animals because its subsidized. As such, stop subsidizing corn and farms should have to eat animals the correct food.

Food feed to animals:

Animals feed foods that they would not "naturally" eat. Corn based foods are given to fish, i don't know what foods fish eat but i do know its not corn.
Corn is also feed to cows which "naturally" eat grasses instead. A new strain of e-coli known as E0157H7 has spread between cows as a result of forcing cows to eat corn instead of grasses.
Solution - By feeding cows grass for 5 weeks, it will remove any chance of e-coli outbreak from occurring.

Legal:

Less than 5 companies own betweem 65% to 85% in both the meat and pork industries.
These companies are not being charged with Monopoly status.

Genetically Modified Crops

2010-05-03T20:46:00.003-04:00

There is a lot of discussion about the use of genetically modified crops in agriculture. Many arguments can be made for and against their use. Most of the articles I have read focus on the cons of the use of GMOs, so I was fairly suprised to read a recent article that not only condoned their use, but praised them.

The article "Supreme court hears arguments on genetically modified seeds, local farmers offer their opinions" by Aaron Krause claims to have testimonies not only from Monsanto, but also from local farmers about the benefits of using GMOs. Geertson Seed Farm posed some of the normal arguments against GMOs, including cross-contamination of their organic plants from nearby farms using a patented GMO. These fears were deemed "unwarranted" and "unlikely" by Monsanto and agriculture possible with GMOs was described as sustainable. Local farmers even chimed in remarking on the decreased need for pesticides due to biological resistance built in to the genetially modified crop.

Arguments have been made for the opposing side, of course. The movie Food, Inc. shows the exploitation of small, local farmers by large companies like Monsanto. Something not discussed in this article was the idea that GMOs can be patented. Big companies sell their patented GMO to various farmers and can enforce by law that these seeds are not saved and used again. This has caused controversy with farmers who administer seed cleaning equipment, because Monsanto has filed lawsuits against them because they make it easier to save and reuse seeds. With the possibility of patents for GMOs, it makes it easier for big companies to take over the agricultural business and turn it into an oligarchy.

Both sides can be argued and all points are valid. It is difficult to declare a real winner. Perhaps the problem isn't the introduction of GMOs, but rather the way in which we are using them. The idea of patenting has to be sorted out so that it doesn't allow the take over of Monsanto and similar companies. There is no question that these GMOs have benefits, so it is up to us to figure out how they can be used to the greatest advantage without being so controversial.

Barbara Kingslover Insight

2010-05-02T18:39:00.001-04:00

This excerpt from Barbara Kingslover from her book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life , “Getting over the frozen-food snobbery”, is the quote I will center my discussion around. I think this excerpt is her attempt to highlight society’s ability to blindly and stringently abide by a certain formula for healthy living. I also believe her excerpt addresses the stigma which hovers over the idea of frozen products. A good example of this notion is pretty evident in my Commodity Chain Analysis with regards to the strawberry. There are two insinuations to draw, one, being the fact that international countries such as China are emerging leaders in the frozen strawberry export, but it’s common knowledge their agriculture is one that lacks the fiber to produce the strains of strawberries that we here are accustomed too. The second iteration would be that here in the United States, the fresh strawberry is the sought after commodity, in comparison to its counter-part the frozen strawberry. Does the fact that the strawberry is “frozen” imply it lacks the same nutritional make-up of a “fresh” strawberry, or are their more health benefits from a strawberry falling under this category entitled “fresh”? This same argument can also be adapted to Tuesday’s readings with regards to the myth or effectiveness of an organic label. The product may boast its “organic-ness”, but there is no finite legislation which defines this idea, ergo the word “organic” is subjective. Kinglsover, further contributes to that statement, by her analysis of her own childhood and the foods she was accustomed too, no matter if in/out of season. She acknowledges that buying in-harvest products in bulk and freezing is acceptable, because there is no question where the products originated, in comparison to some non-frozen products whose origins remain muddled in the packaging. This quote not only criticizes the misconceptions of the “frozen” world, but also highlights the ignorance of society today with regards to the true meaning of healthy and what constitutes a nutritional food product.

Food Labeling Fiasco; Organics and Nutrition

2010-04-30T18:18:00.004-04:00

Amidst the resurgence of health conscious food and drinks, consumers are often quick to associate labels such as "organic," "natural" and "wholesome" with an actually healthy product. With the adoption of organic product lines by major food producers such, the marketing of these lines as healthy alternatives has allowed these false connotations to proliferate among consumers. Those who are reluctant to read cryptic nutritional information on packaging now turn to these vague symbols to guide their health choices.
Although these products may be made from organically prepared ingredients, organic junk foods are still junk foods. Currently these labels are seeing their way on products from potato chips to sweets. Meanwhile, the foods carrying the American Heart Association stamp have grown from 1-7%. As diabetes and obesity become increasingly serious threats to the American population, FDA funding and influence is being cut. The result is that food companies have been able to take advantage of consumers, lulling them into a false sense of nutritional security.
But, the blame does not lie solely with the manufacturers. Consumers have an obligation to educate themselves, just as the government has an obligation to provide common goods such as regulations requiring clear and concise food labeling. Consumers have a responsibility as responsible citizens to exercise their political rights to push for labeling reform. These three confounding factors have turned organics from healthy food choices into a mire for unwary consumers.

Source:

Pettitt, Jeniece. "FDA Seeks Consumers' Advice On Food Labeling - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. Dow Jones & Company Inc., 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. .

Interview with Anna Lappe

2010-04-29T09:23:00.002-04:00

Recently we've talked about the current state of the food movement. Here is an interview discussing that with the author of one of our readings. In it Anna Lappe talks about how we used to say organic everything and now its getting to be more about local. She also talks about the signs of hope for the future that we mentioned in class.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04-28-ask-umbra-dishes-with-anna-lappe/

Sell Out or Opt Out

2010-04-26T23:54:00.001-04:00

The last couple of readings have focused on different ways the terms sustainable and organic have been applied on small farms and large farms, organic and conventional, but another interesting dichotomy that kept being alluded to was “sell out” or “opt out.” The idea of “selling out” by compromising one’s integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for money, success, or mainstream appeal is a common accusation of musicians on their way up, but most people would laughingly dismiss the notion that yogurt could sell out. Gary Hirshberg, the “CE-Yo” of Stonyfield Farm, doesn’t take such criticisms lightly (and he’s heard them before). In a 40 minute interview (here on youtube) entitled, Selling Without Selling Out, he defends Stonyfield’s partnership with Wal-Mart and their purchase (or 85% ownership) by Groupe Danone, the French food giant. In his writing in Food, Inc. (excerpted from his book Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World), Hirshberg described his life-shaping realization that “[He had] to become Kraft” because only large powerful businesses with enough “cash and clout” could popularize sustainable and organic food. On the other hand, Joel Salatin, the lecturer, author, and farmer behind Polyface Farms, has a completely different philosophy. He sees Polyface as a true alternative farm for the consumer who chooses to “opt out” of a corrupt and unsustainable system. Joel is no more likely to sell to Wal-Mart than he was to FedEx as steak cross country to Michael Pollan (He is featured in The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as Food, Inc.). So what does it mean to opt-out? Did Stonyfield sell out or just “opt-in,” and which approach is more successful in the long run?

I don’t need to reiterate all the problems with the current industrial chemical-based agricultural system and both Hirshberg and Salatin understand these problems well. On paper, the missions of Stonyfield and Polyface are much aligned; to provide high quality, tasty, natural products produced in an environmentally and socially responsible way. It is in the approach each business takes that separate their philosophies. Hirshberg writes as an idealist who has long since turned the corner to realism. “In the late 1970’s…we built a solar-heated greenhouse that used no fossil fuels, herbicides, pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. Yet it produced enough food to feed ten people three meals per day, 365 days per year” (Hirshberg 49). 30 years later, in the aforementioned interview, Hishberg says, “We’re not going to get rid of capitalism…Wal-Mart…Dow Chemical…GE…or the others...let’s not hold out for absolutism.” This is not to imply a compromise of ideals, only a belief that the whole system can’t be changed and “the only way to influence the powerful forces in this industry is to become a powerful force" or as he later reiterates in language fitting of a yogurt mogul, Stonyfield can’t rid the world of these forces, it can only “inoculate them…convert them with a different ethical code.” But certainly many of the pastoral ideals of the original organic movement, small scale (or “correct-scale”) and local commodity chains were sacrificed in the growth that turned organic food into a multi-billion dollar industry. “Stonyfield already gets strawberries from China, apple puree from Turkey, blueberries from Canada, and bananas from Ecuador. It's the only way to keep the business growing.”

Joel Salatin would turn that last statement around and ask, “Why does the business have to grow?” He rejects the “Wall-Streetified numerical growth, growth, growth objective” and considers governmental regulations to be a major obstacle to small farmers like him. Polyface Farms does not even fit the governmental standards for “organic” (although internationally shipped fruit and dairy farms with thousands of corn fed cows can still be organic). “Perhaps the most empowering concept in any paradigm-challenging movement is simply opting out…it’s actually the most realistic and effective approach to transforming a system that is slowly but surely killing us.” "We don't need a law against McDonald's or a law against slaughterhouse abuse--we ask for too much salvation by legislation. All we need to do is empower individuals with the right philosophy and the right information to opt out en masse." In Declare Your Independence, Salatin puts forth a simple and empowering message to opt in to the nonindustrial food system by seeking out and supporting local food and embracing seasonality through CSAs, MBCs, and personal or community gardens. “So much can be done right here, right now, with what you and I have.”

When I first started to notice the huge philosophical dichotomy between Hirshberg and Salatin, I assumed that I would agree with points from both sides; personally fitting somewhere in the middle of the opt-in/opt-out realist/idealist spectrum. However, after rereading both pieces in Food, Inc. and listening to both men speak, I think that the Salatin opt-out rallying cry is not only more beneficial to farmers and consumers in the long run, but more importantly, it’s not as difficult or idealistic as it might at first sound. “For some, it may be having one family sit-down, locally-sourced meal a week. That’s fine.” Wal-Mart is certainly not going to disappear, I agree with Hirshberg, but finding the “organic” products there that also donate some profits to environmental causes (as Stonyfield does) is more difficult than just cooking one local meal a week. Stonyfield hopes that by expanding into more supermarkets and giving consumers the option to purchase organic, it will replace conventionally prepared yogurt slightly more harmful to the environment aiding the slow reformation of the current food system with “big organic;” ironically even less sustainable than the “industrial conventional.” Michael Pollan even discusses the “supermarket pastoral” as its own literary genre; flowery PR descriptions that are carefully crafted to make consumers feel good about their purchases. It has been almost two years since I personally bought a tub of organic yogurt in a supermarket, but only two days since I last bought yogurt at the Farmer’s Market. It was really tasty and convenient. I didn’t do it consciously as a proactive political statement, but opting in to your local nonindustrial food system doesn’t have to be.

How sustainable is "Organic"

2010-04-22T22:24:00.029-04:00

How sustainable is the term organic? Will the term still exist in the future; will it have the same meaning? Now there is much confusion between organic and sustainable agriculture, thus a new term should be devised which encompasses both of these principles.

In the 19^th century, the term organic described the opposite of industry, yet now it is capable of acting as a marketing ploy geared toward elitists. Michael Pollan explains in the Omnivore’s Dileman how the word seems to have lost its meaning. Today, it is possible for microwavable TV dinners can be considered organic.

There is a difference between sustainable and organic, but do consumers recognizes this? According to sustainabletable.org, “Organic farming generally falls within the accepted definition of sustainable agriculture. However, it is important to distinguish between the two, since organic products can be (unsustainably) produced on large industrial farms, and farms that are not certified organic can produce food using methods that will sustain the farm's productivity for generations.”

The Organic label primarily focuses on the regulation of the inputs in a processed food an on the farm. It regulates the genetic modification of seeds and the use of chemical fertilizers. The label also insures that few chemical additives are applied to processed foods. It fails to integrate carbon footprint, level of processing, distance traveled, promotion of local agriculture, and sustainable practices. Thus, the organic label is one of many steps of many toward promoting healthier and more sustainable foods. In the Omnivores dilemma, Pollan brought up how term Organic is owned by the government (Pollan, pg 132). Surprisingly, the government permitted specific artificial additives are permissible in organic food (Pollan, pg 156).

Since the meaning of organic has evolved to encompass products which are not sustainable and do not promote community, will we need to create new terms to categorize our food? Should foods which are organic and unsustainable be privileged over those which or may violate a few of the governmental requirements of organic agriculture but produce a more sustainable and equitable systems of agriculture? I personally think that organic practices should integrate sustainability, and if they do not than a new term is necessary to describe products which integrate both organic and sustainable practices.

Pollan explains how some companies like Whole Foods seem to be depicting organic, as a “story” which convinces people to pay a grater price (Pollan, pg 135). In Newsweek, six experts debate the issue of whether or not Organic is in fact a marketing hype. Blake Hurst argues, "It affords a chance to enjoy a sense of superiority over the coupon-clipping bourgeoisie, to identify with beautiful actresses instead of old farmers in overalls. But mostly, organic food is marketing hype." The proliferation of organic food may be a marketing fad word to attract a specific customer base rather than a means of instilling positive long term practices.

Milk which is produced on factory farms, processed, and travels long distances to the consumer is still capable of being designated organic (Pollan, pg 139). Organic farming does not necessarily instill the sustainable agriculture practices or revolutionize the industry. “the same farmer who is applying toxic fumigants to fertilize the soil in one field is the in the next field applying compost to nurture the soil’s natural fertility” (Pollan, pg 158). It seems as if the government’s definition of organic contains many loopholes which permit unsustainable practices.

Yes, now there are degrees of organic, but these indicate the percentage of ingredients in a processed food which is organic, they do not indicate the integrity of the principles. They do not indicate the distance it has traveled, or how it is not associated from industry. I think there should be some way for the consumer to learn more about the vital parts of the food commodity chain from the labeling.

On a similar note to the reductionist ideas of the contemporary uses of the certification of or ganic is the LEED Certification of buildings. Yes in general LEED promotes sustainability, but it is possible to have an exemplary building design and not receive the designation "LEED Certified Building" just as it is possible to design a building which is inefficient in is energy usage but still receives the LEED Designation. Today, many homeowners are electing to participate in sustainable practices, but don’t want to pay for the paperwork. Both LEED and Oorganic Certification require lengthy checklists, and promote sustainable practices, however LEED promotes more flexibility. It is possible to petition individual points of LEED if you are proposing a more sustainable solution. I think this flexibility should be integrated into the Organic Certification process, however this flexibility may only be possible from the expensive application fee.

Some farmers are saying it is too expensive and too difficult to obtain certification. I was surprised to learn the following about the cost of becoming certified organic: “Producers who market less than $5,000 worth of organic products annually are not required to become certified, though they have the option of doing so. These operations must still adhere to the federal standards for organic production, product labeling, and handling.” What happens to the farmers who produce more than 5,000? It costs within the range of a few hundred dollars and a few thousand dollars depending on the scale of the farm.

However some farmers wish to abstain from the organic because the rigid regulations do not permit the most sustainable practices of local farming. “Then there is this further paradox: Polyface Farm is technically not an organic farm, though by any standard it is more “sustainable” than virtually any organic farm. Its example forces you to think a lot harder about what these words sustainable, organic, natural – really mean. “ (Pollan, pg 131) At Polyface farms, the farmers value supporting neighbors and a reduction of carbon emissions more important than the use of a minor pesticide.

Is it even necessary for farms with sustainable and organic practices to receive the designation of organic? Will the public recognize if a product lacks the label organic and does it necessarily mean that the product is worse than those which are produced on certified organic farms?

______________

According to Dictionary.com,

or·gan·ic

–adjective

11. pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits.

sus·tain

–verb (used with object)

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

Another student blog about food

2010-04-21T22:07:00.002-04:00

Last semester, students at University of Virginia blogged about their own efforts to eat sustainably.

Morality of GMO's

2010-04-20T19:17:00.005-04:00

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) are becoming a huge part in everyday life, or at least in our foods. For this discussion genetic engineering will be defined as alternating the DNA of a living organism. They have also stirred up a lot of controversy along with moral judgments, such as we should just leave mother nature alone and Gods creation alone.

GMOs include a variety of plants and animals that have been altered at the DNA level to try to bring out some quality that is desired, such as resistant to pesticides or adding a vitamin or mineral. Companies have then been able to patient their seeds and can only be used once, but is it really fair to patient living organisms? And then once these organisms are planted by farmers and grow and spread seeds, the companies that have patients on the seeds and what ever seed they breed with they own. So, is owning a seed ok? How about owning a gene sequence in an animal and owning everything it breads with? Or how about creating a baby by selecting the best genes from the mother and father and then owning that child? And if you think this hasn't been thought of, then watch then 1997 film Gattaca. So where do we draw the line of what type of life we can and cannot own. Like with plants we can't stop nature doing what nature does, so how can big business claim that it's the farmers fault when a GM seed is breed with a non GM seed. Its not like big business would try and claim that they own a human that they genetically alter, or would they? But lets say, and hope, they wouldn't, so then what makes it OK for them the say they own a seed. Why yes they put all the time and money into it, so therefore they own the gene sequence and such. By that means they'll be only ones able to produce and sell it. So from the aspect of owning the seed is there, but once it leaves the factory and purchased, the person who bought it owns it now right? Not according the patient laws that allows these big businesses to sue farmers for reusing the seed, even if the seed got mixed in with another farmers seed who didn't intend on using it.

But back to the morals concerning Genetic Engineering plants, how far are we to let this go. This could just be the frontal push for the public to come accustomed to genetic engineering. Politics use this principle of only showing a little bit of their big plan and after time show us a bit more and we become desensitized to what is really going on around us. If they just put their entire plan right in our lap we would have nothing to do with it and be done with the hole thing. So could genetically engineering plants just be the for front of us becoming desensitized to organizations and companies genetically engineering animals and babies. I believe that one day we will have a society much as the film Gattaca depicts, it'll just take time to desensitize the public eye.

How grocery stores influence consumers

2010-04-20T12:07:00.002-04:00

Two main supermarkets, Coles and Woolsworth, make up the majority of grocery stores in Australia. According to Epoch Times, these stores sell a combined 75% of total packaged groceries in Australia. There is little room for third party competition in the grocery sector in Australia due to the almost complete market domination of these large companies. A study done by the University of Queensland (UQ) found that a correlation exists between the lack of retail competition in the grocery sector and public health-which illustrates how supermarkets have a profound influence on the consumer’s diet.

Since little to no competition exists in the grocery stores of Australia, the companies are not competing for the lowest price to lure consumers into their stores. The consumers then are not given a ‘level playing field’ when it comes to buying fresh fruits and vegetables (ABC News). Not only are the healthy foods like fruits and vegetables expensive, but there is also limited selection and accessibility. Lead researcher Jon Wardle, of UQ's School of Population Health states "The current situation has meant that prices are higher, choice is lower and it is harder to get to places that sell healthful foods. People generally want to eat healthier foods, but the current situation makes it harder for them to do so." (UQ News)

So how is this affecting consumers? Little nutrition exists in the consumer’s diet because of the low intake of healthy, fresh foods. According to Jon Wardle, the lack of nutrition may be implicated in 56% of all deaths in Queensland and 14% of the state hospital’s budget (UQ News).

"We need to look at not just what people are eating, but how it's getting to them in the first place. If we make it harder to access or afford good foods then obviously it's going to be harder to get people to eat well," says Jon Wardle (UQ News)

As Wardle states, supermarkets have a strong influence on the consumer and the consumer’s diet. Supermarkets’ general strategy to lure customers into their stores is to sell ‘a way of life’ which “provides a supportive context to the exchange of goods and services,” according to Jane Dixon (A Sociology of Food & Nutrition). This is done via a variety of practices, using particular language, marketing certain images, but above all, supermarkets want to appeal to the consumer’s lifestyle. For example, in the 1970s a social movement towards an increased concern with health and the environment spurred supermarkets to advertise goods that “had minimal contact with the industrial process and were ‘close to nature’” (Dixon pg. 112). The influential “cool chain,” a process that involves getting produce to stores in an unfrozen but chilled state, which is then ready for storage in supermarkets refrigerators, facilitated this movement of increased consumption of healthier foods because the chilled food seemed fresher (compared to frozen foods), and thus healthier.

The food retailers also influenced consumers’ diets by creating ‘meal solutions’ which solved consumers’ problems of time constraints for cooking a meal and the potential lack of food preparation skills. These meal solutions started with a ‘roto bird’ which was a rotisserie style cooked chickens with potatoes and coleslaw and was then replaced by frozen TV dinners in the 1960s. These meals appealed to consumers because they were fast and easy, but were considered to be a healthier alternative to fast food meals, which were similarly fast and easy.

Grocery markets have a profound influence on the consumer and the consumer diet, whether it be through increased production of ‘meal solutions’ to eliminate time intensive home cooked meals or limiting accessibility to healthful foods through high prices and limited choices. In Australia, lack of competition in the grocery sector has proven to have a severely negative influence on the consumer’s health. Changes are being made though to combat this problem, the ACCC (Australian competitor and consumer commission) has conducted an inquiry on the grocery sector and it was found that “grocery retailing is workably competitive, but there are a number of factors that currently limit the level of price competition.” (ACCC.gov) One of the regulatory measures passed in response to this inquiry is that Coles and Woolworths will no longer be able to demand that shopping centres not lease out space to competitors according to news.com. This will allow other companies with lower prices like Aldi, Franklins, Foodworks and IGA to open up stores adjacent to Woolworths and Coles which forces them to lower their prices to compete.

Out to Dry: Tracing Implications of Australia's Shifting Climate

2010-04-20T08:57:00.015-04:00

As the debate presses on regarding the most efficient and effective methods of implementing a future of sustainable farming practices, we cannot neglect the crises that are shifting agricultural processes as we speak. Australia is currently riding out a major eight year drought that has left their agricultural economy out to dry. It is the worst drought in the country's 118 year history.

Water is life, and to the farmers who refuse to give up hope they are sacrificing their crops, their livestock, their contracts and their families in exchange for some glimmer of hope that the rains will soon return and replenish the lands that once yielded grounds for survival. Farms that lie below the Goyder Line are susceptible to insufficient rainfall for crops to grow and are therefore completely dependent on irrigation techniques to supply water to their farm. Such farms have been dependent on the great Murray River to supply their irrigation channels, paying a yearly fee that as of recent has suspended delivery to farms and instead giving utmost precedence to the southern city of Adelaide. The fury? Farmers are still paying under contract for water they are not even receiving. Similar to farmers in the U.S. cornbelt who are stranded at the mercy of the transnational corporation, Monsanto, options are slim to none while the bills escalate and the livestock that's left along with the family, struggle to survive. In a disclosed interview with a counselor, a farmer's wife "says she checks every couple of hours to make sure her husband is not lying in his orchard with a self-inflicted gunshot wound in his head. When the meeting is over, the counselor adds their names to a suicide watch list."1

The multi-generation Australian farmers have never seen a drought reach these extremes and attribute it to world climate change. Even the slightest increase in global temperatures have scientifically been attributed to altering the precipitation patterns that once nourished Australian grazing lands. Unable to turn back past events, farmers recognize the urgency to look at alternative options ranging from developing drought resistant crops to reducing the water supply to dairy farmers whose current use equals a thousand gallons of water for each gallon of milk produced to the construction of desalination plants near the major urban centers. While desalination plants would mean a drastic increase in energy bills, Monsanto is currently producing drought resistant crops for the future 2, an alternative that might leave farmers with no choice despite where their moral obligations fall... Government officials on the other hand are pressing for a major shift that encourages local farmers to find new work and leave the largest producing farms in operation.

It is impossible to wrap ones head around the magnitude of such a problem as this. We might start by tracing the problem back to its source which in this case might be two things: first is the elephant in the room, climate change. This is not something Australians have control over, however what they do control is the location of their farms and the regulation of resources. Perhaps the decision to permit farms to materialize south of the Goyder Line where the known rainfall amounts were already known to be much less than that needed to grow crops. In addition, the dependence on the irrigation systems creates a vulnerability that is currently being exploited at its worst. Farmers are paying for water that they are not receiving to grow their crops and irrigate the lands that feed their livestock. As a consequence they are paying upwards of $20,000 a month to import food for their animals and increasing their debt tenfold. Faced with having to sell their properties as a last resort, farmers are left in turmoil, begging the question in the end, who is responsible for this? Mother Earth's climate? The government? The farmers? Regardless of who is responsible, our footsteps have left imprints on a changing world that demand awareness and action.

In addition to what alternatives are available, the larger message extends beyond the future of Australia and to our planets future. Climate change is happening now and its consequences have begun to accumulate. When and who is next we may not know, but let Australia's drought serve both as a warning and more importantly as a model, for awareness is the first step towards implementing a future of greater sustainable farming practices.

1 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/murray-darling/draper-text/1
2 http://www.monsanto.com/droughttolerantcorn/default.asp

Pop Culture References to the Food Industry

2010-04-19T23:19:00.003-04:00

The relationship between the organic food market, commercial food industry and the consumer is a growingly complex and meaningful relationship. Intrigue in these topics is indicated by a growing number of popular culture references to the food industry. Following is a critique of one particular pop culture reference. Despite the fact of being a simple cartoon, this episode speaks inherent truths of the food industry, particularly its connection to the consumer.

“With great meat, son, comes great responsibility.”

The gravity of these words uttered by Hank Hill of King of the Hill (KOTH) as he gingerly grilled his steak rings truer than he originally intended. I was very surprised to be watching television last night, and a KOTH episode entitled “Raise the Steaks” was aired. In this episode 6 of season 12 from 2007, Hank is grilling some steaks from the local Mega-Lo Mart (similar to Walmart) only to discover they are tough and inedible. He then ventures to the nearby Co-Op for the first time and discovers the delicious, organic, locally produced food the store has to offer, despite his initial adversity to the hippie-like, earth-hugger atmosphere.

Hank then becomes enamored with the Co-Op after visiting the free-range farm where the meat cows are raised, and helps the store earn profit and attract new customers. When the store makes it first profit, the hippie store owners are appalled since they are a non-profit organization and believe money is evil. Hank then reminds the Co-Op members that they can use the money to improve the store and provide their quality food to more people. Due to the newly improved store, more members of the “establishment” come into the store which causes the hippie store volunteers to “lose their vibe.” Hank assumes the voice of reason by reminding them that these people simply want the good, wholesome, non-industrialized food they have to offer.

The new-age store owners then take Hank’s advice to the extreme and decide to sell the store to Mega-Lo Mart. As soon as the new ownership takes effect, the Co-Op’s food quality immediately plummets to that of industrialized food. Appalled by the food condition, Hank takes the animals from the Co-Op farm, and they are sent off to live permanently on a free-range farm.

“If this is food, what have we been eating?”

Peggy Hill, Hank’s wife, utters this statement after eating food from the Co-Op for the first time. Due to the heavy emphasis on livestock in this episode, the FAO-Livestock’s Long Shadow reading has a direct correlation to the condition in which cows are treated. The industrial food production process is rife with environmental concerns and problems. The sheer number of livestock that must be supported is confined to amicable climates, which causes severe environmental strain, degradation, and resource depletion. In addition to this, cows are substantial producers of several green house gases. These problems among many others plague industrial food production.

On the other hand, organic and free-range food production does not have these significant negative impacts. As mentioned in Food Inc., food produced in more natural ways do not have as many harmful microbes and do not have negative environmental effects. The episode focuses on the food industry’s relationship with the consumer, but scientific data and research confirms that free-range and organic food production is healthier for ourselves and the earth.

“It’s not a crime to be a cow”

After seeing photos of the dreadful conditions and prison-like cells to which Mega-Lo Mart cows are subjected, one of the Co-Op volunteers gives this poignant statement and then helps Hank kidnap the livestock. Though the cartoon gives a comical insight to a small corner of the food industry, the episode speaks essential truths that industrial meats are of a lower quality than free-range, organic meats. The fact that cows are subjected to abominable conditions, and then we eat them is absolutely atrocious. As a result and as detailed in Fast Food Nation, food-borne illness outbreaks have become a part of society, enormous amounts of processed foods are produced in unethical ways and, in general, industrialized food production produces lower quality food.

It is documented knowledge that livestock production is not environmentally sound as mentioned in the FAO reading above, and the livestock trapped in the butchering process are treated inhumanely. The next question is, why don’t more people rebel against this unsound, unsafe, inhumane process? Small sects such as the volunteers running the Co-Op begin the process, and through their dedication, their wholesome products can become available to more people, as exemplified by Hank’s role in improving the Co-Op. The episode touched on all sects of food consumers. The volunteers were the organic/free-range proponents, Hank’s friends were the skeptical industrial consumers, and Hank was the undecided consumer who does not completely agree with the hippie-lifestyle but can appreciate good food made from well-treated animals.

The episode delved even deeper into the relationship between food production and consumer then just characterizing the various types of consumers. In the episode, the store volunteers are actually corrupted by money and greed. The Co-Op workers sold their humble store to Mega-Lo Mart since they would all receive a cut of the purchase money. The volunteers justified their actions by convincing themselves that their quality food will now be available to more people. The Co-Op suppliers then became subject to Mega-Lo Mart’s large-scale industrial process, causing the food quality to plummet. This situation brings to light the problem that simply consuming foods labeled as organic or free-range is not sufficient to be a responsible consumer. Actually going to the farm and seeing the animals, like Hank did in the episode, is the only definitive way to ensure food quality. The sheer scale of our current food industry makes such personal visitations impossible, but the example of the Co-Op is a viable place to start the process.

I was genuinely surprised to find such a thorough expose of the food industry in a cartoon show. The episode characterized the majority of consumers and their responses to free-range, organic food and typical industrial food. The episode then delved into the unacceptable conditions of the industrial food process and one honest man’s decision to not accept such atrocities. The episode also explored the fallacies of the organic food market and its susceptibilities to large chains and alluring profits. The fact that all of these complexities could be presented in a short show is a testament to the dynamic relationship between the food industry and consumers.

Extra

Example of livestock abuse

The organic, free-range option

Grass-fed beef standards

Social Implications of the Green Revolution

2010-04-19T10:53:00.003-04:00

The Green Revolution was a period of technological innovation in agriculture between 1943 and the late 1970s. Many developing countries were exposed to the ideologies of the Green Revolution and it was deemed a success in many nations for the increased production of grains due to new irrigation techniques, fertilizers and seed technology. In our class we have already discussed the environmental consequences of the Green Revolution such as the loss of biological diversity, increased pollution, depletion of natural resources, loss of soil nutrition, erosion, deforestation, etc. Without a doubt there are many unsustainable effects from the Green Revolution but I would like to take the time to focus on the cultural effects of the Green Revolution, in particular the effect that the Green Revolution had on the peasant population in Malaysia.

In 1966 the World Bank introduced an irrigation project to the Kedah Plain of Malaysia to that was deemed a success because it allowed the peasant farmers to plant rice harvests twice a year that doubled production and reduced unemployment. The evidence of these ‘successes’ can be seen in the rural villages with new stores and buildings and the fact that fewer peasant lost their land. But with many of the world technological innovations and interventions with any positive change there are also costs attributed to it. In the case of the Kedah Plain, there was the obvious gap in the economic inequality in the farmer population and the traditional relationship between the poorer and the richer peasants were challenged.

Before the green revolution was introduced the peasants who owned farm land did not have the labor to farm it by themselves and would rent it out to the poorer farmers at prices determined after a harvest so that the rate could be set based on the quality of the harvest. The farmers would employ the poorer peasant to work their land for a small amount of money as well. Additionally, there was also the traditional gift giving and festival that the rich would hold for the poor in exchange for labor and loyalty in the following harvest.

The innovations of the Green Revolution disrupted this social relationship in the peasant population. The double harvest and increased yield in rice made land more valuable and the prior conditions of settling rent was pushed to the side because outsiders were more willing to pay more than the peasant could to rent the land. Additionally, rent was now demanded before the harvest and would not be adjusted for a poor harvest. The impact of this on the landless peasants was that they lost their access to farm land for their own profit. Another innovation was the technological innovations that used machines to replace manual labor: marginalizing the landless peasants even more. The final change seen was the end to the gift giving practice because they no longer needed the loyalty of the poorer peasant to works their fields

The landowning peasants cannot be blamed for these changes because they were simply playing their part in the capitalist market that is taking over the agricultural sector and were trying to increase their profits, the primary goal of capitalism. They took advantage of the new machines that cut costs and the increased value that came from owning land and lost sight of traditional obligations to the offense and further marginalization of the poorer peasant. They were many displays of protest to the modernization of the rice production some were more peaceful than other. Landless peasants used means of protest that included gossip, appealing to traditional values, theft, sabotage of machines, and strikes by females who were hired when the combines were not enough to transplant rice seedlings. The landless peasants were not upset that the farmers were making excessive profits only that they were violating traditional behaviors where they had exploited the peasants for their labor. Many protests that are arising from the technological innovations that are being introduced into the capitalist economy are that workers who were once exploited for their labor are now being completely eliminated from the equation. A recently fired American factory worker summed up the theme of these protests perfectly, “The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited” (314).

The Green Revolution can definitely be deemed a success in the eyes of a capitalist economy; it is increasing profit and growth which further spurs spending in our consumptive culture. However, the marginalization of the less privileged populations, in addition to the increased economic inequality will lead to an increase in protests in the periphery and they will not always be as peaceful as that in the Kedah Plains.

Robbins, Richard H. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Pearson Education, Inc. 2008.

Biodiversity and Reciprocity

2010-04-16T20:19:00.001-04:00

Although the global system for producing and distributing food accounts for 1/3 of the total anthropogenic global warming effect[1], modifying this system can greatly help to mitigate climate change and also to re-claim social and cultural relationships that have been diminished as a result of agribusiness. The CNN article, “Feeding the Future: Saving Agricultural Biodiversity,” discusses a $116 million dollar fund through the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) to preserve agricultural biodiversity. Among eleven other communities worldwide, the Quechua Indians in the high mountains of Peru are being funded to maintain their diverse collection of rare potatoes in return for ensuring that these species will be available when the world faces future food crises. The article goes on to discuss how biodiversity is essential to the natural world but also to the resilience of agriculture in the face of climate change. Humans went from reliance on over 10,000 different plant species for food to today’s 150 species where only 12 species provide 80% of our total food needs! Secretary of the Treaty, Dr. Shakeel Bhatti, states:
"From a food security point of view this makes the world's farmers much more vulnerable to pests... and increases the vulnerability of some poor countries to price shocks in global commodity markets."
The ITPGRFA initiative seeks to prevent the loss of underused crops and ensure that common crop species are maintained. The treaty has provisions in its contracts to ensure that countries harnessing diversity in their agricultural crops will benefit when the species are used commercially by richer nations. This treaty allows these communities to maintain their traditional lifestyle while so many other communities of the global south are forced into cash crop production because of its pitched economic benefits that do not last long for many. For me, this article demonstrates the reciprocity that needs to happen between the developed world and indigenous populations. In order to sustain basic survival resources and food supply the globalized market must adapt to mitigate the climate change it has helped create and work in conjunction with producing nations, not at their expense.
There has been an ongoing discussion this semester of the way in which new problems are rapidly created through industrialized farming and responses to these problems are not solutions at the source, but instead “masks.” An example of this can be seen with the way in which monoculture in the agribusiness has made cash crops vulnerable to diseases outbreaks, changes in climate and market swings. Instead of re-introducing biodiversity in farming, the solution has been to use biotechnology (GMO’s), pesticides and fertilizers that make plants resilient to poor soil conditions, pests, changes in climate etc. This does not fix the source of the issue and instead increases profits to companies like Monsanto for coming up with “solutions” when they are the same companies that helped cause the initial problem. The capitalistic economic model to maximize profits and minimize costs makes it very difficult to carry out real solutions in our expanding globalized food system[2]. In looking at the way agriculture practices effect climate change and vice versa, it is important that holistic solutions are sought out to reverse these backwards cycles.
[1] Anna Lappe, “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork” in Food, Inc.
[2] Terry Leahy, “Unsustainable Food Production: It’s Social Origins and Alternatives” in A Sociology of Food.

[1] Anna Lappe, “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork” in Food, Inc.[1] Terry Leahy, “Unsustainable Food Production: It’s Social Origins and Alternatives” in A Sociology of Food.

Industrial Agriculture

2010-04-16T11:10:00.002-04:00

Over centuries agriculture has grown from an individual way of life to a part of the service industry. As technology booms, big companies who own the present day farms have changed the way crops are grown, the way food is distibuted, and the cost of food.

The advantage of having small, locally owned farms that grow natural, biodiverse crops is variety. There is a vast availability of genetic variation which allows the consumers to have choices. Technology has opened up some very surprising opporunities, where biologists can manipulate the genes of crops to make their own specific line that can now be patented. Genetically manipulated monocultures were made and companies came up with ways of controling the pest situation. Part of the way crops can be genetically altered is by providing them with resistances to certain pests and the continued use of pesticides. Of course this would fix all of the problems with the recent pest control problem, right? WRONG. Not only did pests continue to destroy crops, but they built up resistance to them and the pesticides. Not to mention, the pesticides are still poisoning the environment.

As we have discussed in class, the ruling of a few large companies over all aspects of the agriculture industry seems to have more cons than pros. The pros being cheap prices and the need to many employees. The cons being the low wages of these workers, the lack of genetic variation in crops, the continued use of unsustainable farming, and the growth of corporate greed and wealth of the large "agriculture tycoons". The cons double the weight of the pros which should tell us that something needs to change and soon.

Although I am a big believer that corporate greed is a Goliath that is difficult to destroy, it does not give Americans an excuse to sit back and do nothing. The first step is educating people about what's going on so they can decide if a change should be made. The next step is getting people to actually get involved and stand up for what they believe. If we aren't motivated enough to make a change, how can we expect anything to happen?

Liz M.

Source:
Miguel Altieri, "Ecological Impacts of Industrial Agriculture and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming"

The Ambiguous Implications of GM Crops

2010-04-15T19:47:00.002-04:00

Genetically modified crops have a lot going for them. They provide higher yield, easier harvesting, increased pest resistance, and increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup). These are benefits that some farmers consider to outweigh the higher cost of seed. In the United States, over 80% of corn, soybean, and cotton crops are genetically engineered. On a global scale, we were the first to widely adopt these farming practices, and are now producing about 50% of GM crops worldwide. The technology is slowly being incorporated in other parts of the world, but is mostly eschewed in Europe.

(tomatoes from my garden)

On Tuesday, the National Research Council released a report entitled "Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States." Academic scientists in the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability compiled this lengthy (240 pages) report using the findings of peer-reviewed papers to generate a thorough analysis of what we know about the effects of genetically modified crops. What resulted was an exposure of the truth that genetically modified crops have generated an imperfect solution to age-old farming woes that may leave us with perpetual social, political, and economic issues in addition to the health and environmental problems that are more tangible.

Genetically engineered "Roundup-Ready" crops have a high tolerance for the use of this herbicide. However, when farmers use it excessively, the weeds can potentially develop resistance, thus requiring the use of stronger, more toxic herbicides. So while the goal of decreased use of toxic chemicals is initially achieved, in the long run we are creating a bigger problem. Not only is the use of these chemicals harmful to the crops and thus harmful to those who consume them, the treatment of soil is also compromised. In the Food, Inc. companion book, Anna Lappe discusses the risks of overuse of chemicals on soil. More sustainable soil treatment renders a farm more resilient to drought and flooding. During a Midwest flood in 2008, corn fields were completely obliterated while biodiverse organic farms survived unscathed.

National Research Council

We observed some of the social impacts of GM crops in the film Food, Inc. Moe Parr, an Indiana soybean seed cleaner, was pushed out of business because of Monsanto's lawsuits against him. Seed cleaning is a practice that has been employed for thousands of years. But to Monsanto, this was exploitation of copyrighted property. Mr. Parr hadn't grown Monsanto seed, but it was the risk of contamination by his neighbor's GM seed that upset the company. He was forced to settle and end his practices. This created major rifts between these neighboring farms.

National Research Council

Because the genes used in GM crops have been patented, the seeds are quite costly. The prohibitive prices have played a role in keeping universal adoption of GM crops at bay. However, Monsanto announced last week that it would decrease some of its prices because their sales are not meeting expectations. An investigation is being conducted by the Justice Department to determine whether Monsanto is violating antitrust laws. They have patented the "Roundup-Ready" system and have the power to unnecessarily increase prices and possibly hinder positive innovation. As a side note - shares of the company dropped 2% the day the National Research Council Report was issued.

The political implications of GM crops can be quite unsavory. We saw in the film Food, Inc. that executives of GM crop - producing companies now run important influential government agencies like the FDA and USDA. These companies also have enormous pull with politicians. Legal regulations can be utilized to prohibit the use of GM crops, but as of late, more and more GM crop use is being approved. Last month, genetically engineered sugar beets were permitted for harvesting in California. It was justified that this ruling would assist the economy, as the sugar beet accounts for a major percentage of the sugar source in the US. Even Europe, a bastion of non-GM crop purity, has recently cleared a genetically modified potato as well as three types of Monsanto corn. Unrelenting public opposition could not prevent these approvals. The floodgates for GM crop production in Europe have now been opened.

Speculation has been presented regarding the effects of GM food on consumer health. The modified gene in the potato approved in Europe, for example, has been linked to antibiotic resistance in humans. Europeans are fully aware of these risks, and express that vehemently in polls, but the European Commission has ulterior motives for growing GM crops. By producing their own, the EU could alleviate unfavorable trade relations with the US and bring down food prices, connecting a health issue with political and economic objectives.

(blueberries from my garden)

All of this only scratches the surface of the GM crop debate. Their implications penetrate far and wide into all aspects of society - even without considering the effects yet to be discovered. The benefits sound great, but we need to step back, study, and ask, are we setting ourselves up for something extraordinarily tragic here?

Nanoparticles-Huge Implications?

2010-04-14T20:10:00.006-04:00

Nano technologies are the hype of almost every major engineering and science field because of their theoretically endless applications. The food industry is no different, and many companies are working on uses for nanoparticles to enhance their own products. Nevertheless, with every new technology that is developed with all the best intentions, there is the chance for unseen consequences later down the road.

A great example that nanotechnology does not want to be like is genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their use in the food system. The public developed a very negative perspective of this technology after its introduction and it can be greatly attributed to the fact that it was not thoroughly researched and that he public was not properly informed of this technology.

The approach of researching a product to ensure there is no risk is known as practicing the precautionary principle, and I believe this to be the most responsible way for a company to introduce a new technology to the public. Through public education and thorough research a company can gain the trust of the public. With the public’s trust, a company can ensure the consumption of their product and profit from this technology. The problem is that research is an expensive venture, and most companies will not undergo this risk unless they are assured that conducting the research will give results that prove the safety of their product. This seems to present a conflict.

The fact is that many of the largest food companies have added a new dimension to their vertical integration of their respective food industries by developing their own nano-labs instead of contracting an outside source. This research is however focused on the uses of nanoparticles and not its affect from human consumption. Many applications that have either been developed or in the process of being developed are presented in the chart below:

I think that nanoparticles have very good uses and that they can possible be used in the food industry for many beneficial reasons. However, the appropriate research needs to be conducted to ensure product safety for human consumption. Should the government step in and mandate that companies conduct this research? Should companies be left to regulate themselves on product safety? (We have read how effective companies are at this!)

It would be a real waste if this technology gets blacklisted by the public because one company causes a public scene due to rushing a product into the market before adequate research. All we need is to see such blacklisting images as these on every product that contains nanoparticles:

News articles on nanotechnology in food:
Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You
Why Nanotech Hasn't (Yet) Triggered 'the Yuck Factor'

Monsanto and the National Academy of Science...Questionable ?

2010-04-13T22:23:00.003-04:00

Isn’t it Ironic that the day we analyze Hungry for Profit; the agribuisness threat to farmers, food and the environment by Michael Alteri, I find an article written about the benefits of Genetically modified crops for American farmers? The article comments on a study made by the National research council , which is the first complete analysis on the effect of Genitically modified crops since their introduction to agriculture in 1996. It’s interesting to me that in 2000 Altieri comments that biotechnology has the potential to improve agriculture through making it environmentally more friendly and more profitable, but that under the control of multinational corporations that are creating it that it will most likely not happen. In fact he says that “under the control of multinational corporations it more likely that the results will be environmental harm, the further industrialization of agriculture, and the intrusion of private interests too far into public interest sector research.”(Alteri 86) He also talks about predictions for environmental risks associated with the release of genetically engineered crops, namely that genetic uniformity will be created in rural landscapes, genetic diversity will be decreased, super weeds will be created and that yields from genetically modified crops will not be significantly larger than normal crops. It’s shocking to me that these predictions were made and seem to be true today, yet the National Academy of Sciences has written a 200 page paper on the BENEFITS of genetically modified crops. Something seems off.

The times article starts off talking enthusiastically about the gains that genetically engineered crops (GEC)have provided to farmers, which was a little surprising to me given the extreme negative tone with which Alteiri used when talking about GEC. Unfortunately, excessive use of these crops has gotten in the way of their effectiveness and as more are planted, weeds are becoming resistant to the pesticide and others are having to be used, some which are more toxic than the original pesticide. A host of other problems are listed from a myriad of sources, many of which are repeated in Alteri’s work.

The article also comments that Monsanto is under scrutiny from the Justice Department because of it’s potential violations of antitrust laws. This doesn’t make sense to me, as a huge 200 page paper has been released on how their product is beneficial to farmers! It would be interesting to look up the people who conducted the study and see if they have any affiliation with Monsanto..I wouldn’t be surprised to find out they did.

Urban Farming

2010-04-13T16:11:00.008-04:00

Given the issues surrounding contemporary mega-farms, is it plausible to suggest reverting back to local farming practices?

The idea of creating urban farming structures which incorporate green sources of energy which allow them to not only self-sustain as structures but which also sustain surrounding communities through their outputs is an interesting topic both on a theoretical level and on the design front.

According to The Vertical Farm Project, "By the year 2050, nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers."

There are several advantages to urban farming listed by The Vertical Farm Project:

· Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)

· No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests

· All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers

· VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water

· VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services

· VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface

· VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of
evapotranspiration

· VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible
parts of plants and animals

· VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)

· VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers

· VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers

· VF creates new employment opportunities

· We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on
earth

· VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps

· VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical
LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.

· VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water
and land for agriculture

Though there are many possibly benefits to urban agriculture, there are some possible set backs as well. Can urban agriculture sustain society to the level it currently does; or is this intended as an addition to our current system? How does meat production fit into urban farming? How would vertical farming change the current social-economic-political structure of agriculture?

There are many things to consider when discussing urban farming. However, I believe it is a plausible solution to many problems associated with our current system of food production.

Variety: Good or Bad?

2010-04-13T12:40:00.009-04:00

Until taking this class and my other sustainability classes, i would not have thought that the option of choice necessarily a good thing. Look at the jean example, before the person recalls that he only had the option to buy one type of jean. All he would have to do in acquiring of this one jean type is that he had to know the size of jeans he needed. This could easily take less than 5 minutes to select the correct jean size, pay for the it and leave the store.

Now however, the notion of having choice has come into play. Instead of having to take 5 minutes of the persons time, it could now quite easily take longer hours to decide which jean to pay for and return home with. The reason is that instead of having one "default" jean type, there are now 6+ different jean types. Now the person has to spend time trying on all the different types of jeans in order to decide which type he wants to buy. Yes, its awesome that you can pick which type of jean you may want to wear but at the end of the day, the various types of jeans still provide the same function as the "default" jean would have.

I found it very interesting when the author decided to brake up liberty into both positive and negative liberty categories. I never thought that you could brake liberty up. Negative liberties are liberties that are that it provides "freedom from" whatever you do like agree with, freedom from government intervention in your business. On the other hand, negative liberties provides you with the "freedom to" do something you want, the freedom to write out against the government dictatorship.

Yes, we are often given the "freedom to" decide what should i eat today or wear tomorrow, but at the same time the "freedom from" autonomy is sometimes taken away from us when we have to always choose something instead of just relying on a "default" choice. We have been wasting more and more of our time on things that does not really need to have a choice because it could be a very trivial matter you are trying to choose the correct option. Should i drink plain milk or chocolate milk? At the end of the day, both milk options will cost the same and should provide similar health benefits.

However, should i buy a BMW or a Ford should be something that should have options because the end result would be very different. The BMW may be much safer than the Ford, but the Ford costs more than half the cost of the BMW. If you only need a car to get from A to B without any worry what others may think, then the Ford by be the best option for you.

Blog post in response to - "Paradox of Choice" reading