The Future of Food

On:
Belasco, W. (2008). "The Future of Food," pp.105-123 in Food: The Key Concepts. New York Berg Publishers.
Schlosser et al. (2006) "One thing to do about food: a forum." The Nation. http://thenation.com/doc/20060911/forum.

Today, food is taken for granted by the millions of people who have the privilege of picking up dinner at the grocery store, with no thought about how it got there or the process that is went through to be made so readily available to them. Food is available to most people at one flat cost- the price they pay at the register. But for the people responsible for producing the components of that food, there is much greater consideration of the true costs associated with the production of that food. The environmental deficit is one that can not be ignored and will have the greatest impact on the future of our food supply.
In "The Future of Food" by Warren Belasco, the practicality of our food system is examined, and to no surprise, turns out to not be very practical at all. When it takes "57 calories of fossil fuel per calorie of lettuce" (Belasco, 109) to be produced and transported across the country, is that a very reliable efficient system? The environmental impacts of growing and transporting the food we do in the way we do are greatly ignored (or otherwise unrecognized) by far too many consumers.
Grains are the backbone of our food supply, both directly and indirectly as they are used as feed for most of the livestock that provides us with meat and other animal source foods such as eggs and milk. While biologists and other scientists have been working to increase efficiency on the given area of land that is available for farming, the toll on the health of the land continues to increase with increased yields. Over the years, we have been faced with producing on more and more marginal land which has called for the use of more and more chemicals and synthetics to make up for what the land lacks. What people do not take into consideration is that there will come a time when there is no more space for expansion of arable farmland. And that time is not far in the future.
There are innumerable ways that people could have a positive impact on the situation at hand (and who wouldn't want to considering we all need to eat?) In the essays on "One thing to do about food," there seems to be a commonality among most authors: education and public awareness. This includes everything from knowing where food comes from, to how to make the best food choices for your dollar, to understanding the gigantic impact of government involvement in agriculture (through things like the Farm Bill). I agree that public knowledge would greatly effect the health of our population and our remaining land, but we can not depend on people to teach themselves. People are too busy with their day to day lives to care about researching everything there is to know about food. There are always minor groups working to increase awareness of a certain product or diet, but it seems as though there could be more effort put towards helping people fully understand and appreciate the importance of agriculture in their lives. What can be done to help educate people effectively and who would be the best group to get this knowledge spread? Would it be more effective on a regional level or more national/global level?

What's your take on sustainable?

This blog post is an interesting but somewhat logical take on the idea of sustainable agriculture. It's a nice thought, and has many beneficial aspects- but it isn't going to feed the world. What do you think?
Why Sustainable Agriculture Isn't

Nano-foods whether you like it or not!

Nano-technology is fast invading the food industry and our stomachs.... eew. Does this give you the shivers?? Wait until you read the article. It definitely makes you rethink the trust we put into our food system, and what we put on out plates:

Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You

Is Food Scarce?

On: "The Scarcity Fallacy" (http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2010/the-scarcity-fallacy/) by Stephen J. Scanlan, Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson.
and The One Campaign (www.one.org/us/issues)

The name of this article "The Scarcity Fallacy" is self-explanatory. It argues the simple but commonly unrecognized idea that world hunger is not the result of a food shortage, but rather it is a consequence of many other sociological and environmental factors that result in a shortage of effectively distributed, accessible, affordable foods. Essentially our attention has been turned to the wrong issue, or rather, something that is not the issue at all.
The problem of hunger has been wrongly approached by a method called the "supermarket model," which works to grow dependence on large global food industries. This method has been found to be counterproductive in the sense that there are many increased prices that come along with this market-based mode of production, which in the end makes food unaffordable to people struggling with feeding themselves and their families.
Global shortage of food is not the problem- in fact, today, there is more food available per person in the world than ever before. The issue is the making this abundance of food available to the people who need it most. Scanlan, Jenkins and Peterson identify underlying causes of hunger as poverty, gender and ethnic inequalities, conflict and corruption of food aid programs. These factors come into play most often in developing countries but are also prevalent in developed countries such as the US. The One Campaign also cites factors such as HIV/AIDS, Education, Climate and Development, and trade investment as playing a role in world wide hunger.
In "The Scarcity Fallacy," the authors claim that "food must be upheld as a human right." While I agree that hunger is an unfortunate consequence of many of the factors mentioned, and that ideally everyone should have the right to food, it is hard to comprehend how exactly this right would be up held. Could this actually work? How would we guarantee this right to everyone and how might people react if their right is not fulfilled? Who would be responsible if food availability came to a halt? And how would this right be enforced/ distributed to the rich (buy their own food) and the poor who can not afford to purchase or grow their own food source?

Emergency Food

On:
Poppendeick, J. (1998). Sweet Charity? Excerpts from chapters 2 and 3: “Who Eats Emergency Food?” and “The Rise of Emergency Food,” pp. 49-74 and 81-98
Deparle, J. and R. Gebeloff. (2009). Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?scp=1&sq=food%20stamps%20stigma&st=cse

Many people may automatically assume that emergency food programs are only utilized or required for the most needy of the needy. The fact of the matter is that emergency food programs are more common than many might think, as Poppendieck, DeParle and Gebeloff explain in these readings. Users of food aid programs in the U.S. include all ages, genders, races and social ranks including the recently laid off (previously well off), chronically unemployed, underemployed, and disabled (to name a few) with the majority of users being women and children. Poppendieck says "The pool of people who might realistically find themselves in need is much larger than the number of officially poor," (54). By definition, any household that is unable to allocate one third of its income to to food purchase would be considered poor (Poppendieck, 51).
Food aid programs became prevalent during the recession of the early 1980s with food pantries, soup kitchens, and food stamps (now technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- SNAP). "Emergency food" became a necessity for some people who were struggling to make ends meet while on food stamps, who had been unfairly denied stamps, or were in need but not eligible for food stamps. Taking advantage of these programs has since become a less stigmatized act, although some hard workers still see their use of food aid as embarrassing or shameful. Now, one in eight Americans and one in four children are benefited by food stamps. (DeParle, 1)
The "social constructionists" as Poppendieck describes, place the blame of hunger on society as a whole, rather than any individuals lack of self-help or ability. I agree that there are many underlying problems of the system that cause people to be hungry- even if they are well respected, working individuals. It was daunting (but not surprising) to find that so many people are refused federal food aid for one reason or another, though they are truly in need of help. How can other circumstances besides the typical requirements for poverty be incorporated to allow people in need to receive food aid? Also, How are federal food aid programs funded and who loses out when food is "given away".

No more fast food joints on military bases??

This short article reminded me of discussing the role of Coke as a comfort food/ symbolic food for soldiers during WWI. (From Weiner, Mark. 1996. “Consumer Culture and Participatory Democracy: The Story of Coca-Cola During World War II.” Food & Foodways, 6(2):109-129.)
Apparently, fast-food restaurants such as Burger King and Pizza Hut are due to be removed from military bases in Afghanistan- following the argument that the outlets take up too many valuable resource (water and energy)on the bases. Sounds reasonable enough... but I'm interested to know if these food joints hold as much sentimental value to soldiers now as Coke did during WWI?... Are these places really "unnecessary luxuries" or should soldiers be provided with a little extra- considering the sacrifices they make for us??

Check it out:
No fries with that: fast food axed at Afghan bases

McDonald's Society

On:
Ritzer, G. “The McDonaldization of Society” pp. 371-379 in Sociological Odyssey:
Contemporary Readings in Sociology.

In this piece, Ritzer makes many parallels between the "rationalization" of American society and the infamous McDonald's, suggesting that "The model of rationalization, at least in contemporary America, is no longer the bureaucracy, but might be better thought of as the fast-food restaurant," (372). He elaborates on the characteristics of the so-called "rationalized" society: "efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty" (372). It's not surprising that our society has come to function similarly to a fast-food restaurant, since the two have evolved simultaneously and seem to play off of the values of one another.
Ritzer makes many connections that are fairly self explanatory and easily recognized in society- people want convenience, consistency (no surprises when it comes to their food or daily routine), technological advancements that lessen the personal work load, and an emphasis on quantity or quality. All of these traits can be seen put to work at a place like McDonald's. None of this is new to us.
He then goes on to mention the "irrationality of rationality"- the downside to the routine that we have found ourselves in. "Dehumanizing aspects" and "disenchantment...lives without any mystery or excitement" were among the downfalls, concluding that "a fully rational society would be a very bleak and uninteresting place" (378). (As of now it looks like we're headed in that direction). The kicker is that despite recognition of these problems, Ritzer does not suggest a return to "less rationalized" society, but the need for "greater control over the process of rationalization involving, among other things, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences" (379), suggesting that we're not controlling enough! Ironic.
I agree that a complete return to a earlier way of life is not reasonable, but I do think that there are valuable characteristics that have been lost in the population as a whole due to the dependence on this McDonald's way of living. However, I don't think that increased control is what will help to alleviate these consequences. Are there really more pros than cons when it comes to the fast-paced demanding way of life that we have come to know and depend on? Does it matter that we are slowly losing the "old" way of life where people cooked for themselves and could survive camping a night in the woods without electricity or running water? What can be done to keep society from becoming the "bleak and uninteresting place" that Ritzer predicts?

The Fight Over the Future of Food

This is an short but thought provoking article that contrasts the benefits of "eco-sustainable" farming practices, such as that of a man growing cereals and legumes near Milan, and the need for another Green Revolution (pros and cons of GM as seen by many different interest groups) as the world's population continues to increase exponentially...
The Fight over The Future of Food

Food or a sum of its parts?

On:
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Chapter 5-6.

In these chapters, Pollan tackles the processed food trend in our country. As we have read before, corn and soy beans make up the majority of the processed foods found in grocery stores. Over the years, the industrial food chain has become concerned with the issue of perishable products and therefore perishable profits. Industry has taken it upon themselves to conquer the "dream of liberating food from nature" (90), which would keep their products on the shelf longer, and find a way to mess with people's natural appetites and stomach capacities. What has arisen from this movement is a belief that "food" is more beneficial as a sum of combined nutrients than the whole food itself. One food additive company went as far as to say that people are better off eating synthetics than natural products: "Natural ingredients, the company pointed out rather scarily, are a 'wild mixture of substances created by plants and animals for completely non-food purposes- their survival and reproduction. These 'dubious substances' came to be consumed by humans at their own risk'" (97). I have a hard time agreeing with this statement at all. If whole foods (plants, animals...) weren't meant to be consumed as food sources, what in nature is meant to be the food source? People have become so concerned with the individual nutrients that make up a "healthy diet" that they have forgotten that nutrients interact with other nutrients to be beneficial or destructive to our bodies. In nature, food sources have these nutrients pre-combined for our benefit. Why would we not take advantage?

The next chapter deals with the effects that the food industry has had on national health. Supersizing portions, increasing sugar and fat intake, and production on nutritionally useless "food" items in general has thrown the country into an obesity epidemic. Pollan points to the conflict of interests in government decisions that are made concerning the health of our country. As we see a rise in obesity and other related health issues, the government continues to support an unhealthful production system where commodity crops are subsidized, supporting the use of substances that are not necessarily beneficial to our health (HFCS- Hi fructose corn syrups, and other corn and soy derivatives found in most all processed foods). Pollan further supports the idea that most of our countries issues such as health care and poverty could be diminished if we simply tackled the issue of a faulty food system. Read his "Farmer in Chief" article written to the president-elect in 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html

American Cuisine?

On:
Mintz, Sidney. (2002). “Eating American,” pp. 23-33 in C. Counihan Food in the USA.

This section of writing focuses on the question of American Cuisine. By "American" the author refers to inhabitants of the United States specifically and asks the questions does America have a Cuisine, what has shaped the eating habits of people in the US and what are the consequences of our habits and how might they change in the future?
While most countries identify with a certain type of food, cooking style or tradition surrounding food, the US seems to be a culmination of outsider food traditions that have accompanied immigrants over the years, and have been altered to meet our standards of convenience. The diverse make up of our population has resulted not so much in a shared appreciation for one type of cooking but rather in many regional cuisines defined by the ancestral traditions of the founding groups and local availability of products. The author then points to the decrease in regional cuisines due to commercialization and depletion of local resources. She claims, and I would have to agree that the US is much more susceptible to a commercialized food chain because there is no national cuisine to fall back on, nothing to keep people from the allure of well-marketed, convenient and appealing junk. One could argue that America's "cuisine" could be characterized by hotdogs, hamburgers,soft drinks and apple pie but the author is skeptical that those foods can really be defined as such. America seems to run more according to food fads (Organic, vegetarian, McDonalds, etc...) than tradition, or what we know to be good for us and to us. A person's diet can change dramatically year to year depending on the current popularized food items, but is mostly controlled by what is made available to them in the supermarket. The percent household income that is spent on food is at an all time low, but this doesn't suggest that people are eating less, but that they are spending their money on cheap products that lend nearly no nutritional value. Because (most) Americans live on a strict time schedule, they have become accustomed to buying cheap products that are produced specifically for multi-tasking (hamburgers on the run, coffee in a throw away cup etc...) The author points to the serious health implications of the typical American's diet (which is now well known), but how strikingly, the population as a whole has shown almost no concern about their diets, though the health risks are evident and obvious on an every day basis. As we see the population expanding exponentially, what will this habit of consumption lead to? Will people have to change their habits and if so, will it be voluntary or forced by some major change in the food industry? Will people consider the risks of continuing to consume such "food" and will America ever have or have they ever had a true cuisine that is wholesome and can give the country a way to identify with food culture as others do?

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

On: Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives
by Miguel A. Altieri. 2004

I found this book to be a bit more on the personal opinion/emotional side rather than strictly based on fact, although many studies are cited. Nonetheless, I think it provides a good overview of the risks associated with genetically engineered (GE) food sources. Altieri starts off by pointing out that despite the level of poverty, the world is producing far more food than is necessary to feed every inhabitant (though I would like to know if the surplus of food we are producing now is due to GE crops...) - he uses this to claim that the word of GE has developed not to do away with poverty, but rather for profit to the companies who engineer and sell these products (ex. Monsanto). Altieri attributes poverty levels to the lack of access to food (though plenty is produced) and lack of access to land (4). He claims that anything that would increase an impoverished nation's dependence on outside sources, such as GE crops, would not help the issue of hunger, but in turn would increase the nation's instability and therefore poverty. Altieri makes a good argument against the effectiveness of "golden rice", a GE crop, by presenting the evidence that the rice does not address the core problem of malnutrition. The rice is known to contain elevated levels of Beta Carotene and Vitamin A to supplement the diet of vitamin A deficient individuals in Asia. Altieri mentions that the lack of Vit. A in one of these individuals is not due to to lack of Vit. A in normal rice, but the fact that their diets do not contain the protein needed in order for the body to make use of Vit. A. He suggests that the introduction of a more varied diet including greens and a fat or oil source to increase the uptake of beta-carotene.

Altieri states many more arguments against GE foods including the fact that they do not necessarily have a higher yield than conventional crops, the loss of important traits when selecting for others, unintended gene flow from GE crops to non GE plants (organic or wild), the lack of scientific testing on the safety of these food products, the possibility of increased antibiotic resistance, overuse of herbicides leading to weed resistance, pest resistance to BT crops, among others...

Altieri suggests in closing that a "bottom up" approach be implemented in agriculture to help move toward a sustainable system that can adequately feed all people. This approach would involve "using and building on the resources already available: local people, their knowledge, and their indigenous natural resources" (61). I agree that this would be an ideal system for food production, but Altieri's vague "strong body of evidence" (70) that suggests that organic methods could provide enough food to sustain the growing population, is not enough for me to believe it. We have moved away from traditional farming methods due to the expanding population, now what is the most effective way to sustain our food security?

Food industry's role in Influenza spread

On:*Davis, M. (2005). “The Triangle of Doom,” in The Monster at our Door: The Global Threat of
Avian Flu. Pp. 81-96.
*Davis, M. (2009). “The swine flue crisis lays bare the meat industry’s monstrous power.” The
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-mexico-health

While swine flu is currently of societal concern and significance, these excerpts address the food production industry's role in the various influenza outbreaks throughout the past. Many outbreaks are traced back to animals (poultry, swine, etc.) from industrialized producers where they are easy targets for viral strains to mutate and replicate quickly within close confinement situations. Viruses are further spread by transport of live animals to surrounding areas or distant locations. In "The Monster at our Door", Mike Davis mentions many influenza pandemics and epidemics including a 2002 "particularly virulent strain" (92) OF H6N2 poultry virus that popped up on a farm in San Diego, CA and quickly spread to the surrounding area, creating the "Triangle of Doom" (92) in the Turlock region of the Central Valley where birds could not enter without becoming infected by the virus. This epidemic was particularly problematic because the knowledge of the outbreak was "kept quiet by 'corporate decision-makers who feared that consumer demand would plummet if the public knew they were buying infected meat and eggs'" (92). The diagnosis was also kept from neighboring farms and even the state, preventing any measures that could have been taken against the spread of the virus. This problem of corporate control is not uncommon in the food industry. How can we make it more appealing to large companies to immediately report outbreaks (and for that matter implement viable health regulations) in the interest of public health to prevent the possibility of a pandemic, instead of making choices based on corporate profit? Also, a problem raised in "The swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power" by Mike Davis is the lack of a functional pandemic warning system. Why does such a warning system "not exist" according to Davis, and what can be done to improve? Also, what can be done so that countries such as Mexico who "lack both capacity and political will to monitor livestock diseases" (Davis) and are susceptible to viral outbreaks, have more acess to control mechanisms for livestock disease?

Food Safety

On: Stuart, D. (2008). “The illusion of control: industrialized agriculture, nature, and food safety,” Agriculture and Human Values 25:177-181.
Moss, M. (2008) E. Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=food%20safety%20e.%20coli&st=cse
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan. Chapter 12

All three of these readings concerned food safety, each presenting evidence from a different aspect the rising issue. In "The illusion of control", the message is that concentrated processing facilities greatly increases the risk of disease outbreak.Industrialized producers (leafy greens in this article specifically) have closed off their systems to nature in an attempt to shelter their crops but have consequently interfered with the natural life cycles surrounding them, introducing poisons into food chains (ex: rodent poison to hawks), and negatively effecting the water supply by ridding of vegetation that would naturally filter pollutants in any run-off, essentially they are "fighting with nature" for the "illusion of control" over the safety of their products.

In "E.Coli", it is made clear that meat (especially ground beef) from food giants such as Cargill is far from clean. In one batch of ground beef, the "meat" (aka. fat trimmings and other low quality cuts) comes together from numerous slaughterhouses across the country and even internationally. Whats worse is the lack of insurance of a clean product. The USDA allows grinders to create their own safety plans to avoid outbreaks (such as E. Coli), but many slaughterhouses refuse to sell to grinders who test for contamination, for fear of recall and a bad name( supposedly the slaughterhouses run tests on their own products before sale to grinders- but clearly there is a gap somewhere when E. Coli makes its way into people's meals). Dr. Kenneth Peterson, assistant administrator with the USDA's Dept. of Food Safety and Inspection Service said regarding the potential for the USDA to impart more strict regulation on testing: "'I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health'" But why is public health and food safety not of the utmost importance in comparison to corporate profit?

Pollan once again delivers the alternative to all of the corporate madness: local processing. By processing food closer to where it originates, and in smaller quantities, the risk for disease outbreak is significantly lowered, yet again discrediting the industrial mode of production. Pollan writes about Salatin's "open air abbatoir" and mentions his theory that "regulation is the single biggest impediment to building a viable local food chain" (236). Saltin makes a solid point when he says "We do not allow the government to dictate what religion you can observe so why should we allow them to dictate what kind of food you can buy?" (236). To some extent, the safety of our food must be kept at a certain standard, but when is it safe for people to make their own decisions about buying from alternative/local producers instead of commercial?

The Ethics of Eating Animals

On: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Chapter 17.

Everyone has their own opinion on the morality of eating meat. As Pollan puts it, some choose to become vegetarian, and some avoid the issue by ignoring the process by which their meat becomes available to them. The third option, which Pollan stresses, is to become more conscious of the treatment that food animals receive, the environments which they are raised in, and the overall production system of which the animals are a part. Pollan discusses many aspects behind the morality of eating meat. He suggests that the consumer's removal from the reality of large scale meat production (not to mention food animals in general) has led to the questionable mode of production that many people today say is inhumane. There are many arguments against using animals as food including "humans don't need meat to survive" and "using animals for meat puts them through unnecessary stress". However, there are many aspects surrounding the question of morality that are rarely considered. For instance, the human race has domesticated certain species for the purpose of forming symbiotic relationships with the animals- we provide them with food, shelter, and protection from their natural predators, in exchange for the products they produce, including manure, eggs, milk, wool, hides, and meat. As a consequence, these animals are no longer able to survive in the wild, they are genetically unprepared. In addition, as pollan explains "it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is with the health of nature- rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls- then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do" (327).
One question that always stumps those who are diehard anti-meat advocates is the diets of those in countries less fortunate than ours who do not necessarily have the means to grow produce suitable for a rounded diet. Can we say that it is morally unacceptable for them to eat meat? In the US, the industrialized system that feeds the majority of us clearly has its flaws when it comes to "humanely" slaughtered animals. The alternative to this not so appitizing system is to be conscious of where your food comes from- know that it was raised in a manner where the animals were able to express their natural character and grow in a healthy fashion. As Pollan says, "What's wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle" (328). If consumers were more aware of the industrialized food chain that eventually ends up on their plate, would they be more likely to seek alternative methods of meat production?

Fast food vs. slow food

On: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, chapter 11 & 13.

Bear with me if my ideas are scattered...

In Ch. 11, Pollan makes the clear distinction between the central differences of industrial food production and more natural systems. In industrial production, simplification is the goal- most commonly recognizable in monocultures, where only one crop or product is raised over a large area of land. In more natural systems, there are generally many types of crops, greater biodiversity, and a more "complex and interdependent" (214) system altogether. This was demonstrated on Joel Saltin's Polyface Farm where "stacking holons" (215), or taking advantage of and intertwining the many talents of his various animals and natural resources, is common practice. For example, after a manure pack is created by the cattle, Saltin rotates his pigs onto the pack so they can put their natural instincts to work, rooting out the fermented corn for feed, all the while, aerating the composted manure, readying it for use on pastures. He justifies this system by pointing out the fact that even though each individual product may not be 100 % effiecient (or as efficient as its industrialized twin) together, the two combined constituents are much more effiecient than if they were raised or produced individually. The main idea here is that the benefits of polycultures are far reaching and certainly more eco-friendy than their counter parts in the industrial system.
Chapter 13 moves on to talk about the marketing aspect of small farms. While the government tells us that all eggs are created equal, Saltin proved them wrong. He is passionate about the difference in quality of grass-fed chicken egg vs. mass- produced corn fed, and so are the chefs who buy his locally-raised products. In the past few years, farmers markets have become increasingly popular, but still not where most people are buying the majority of their groceries every week. I believe further into the book, Pollan mentions a hypothetical slaughter house with glass walls, meant to introduce people to the hidden production system that comes with buying a steak from the supermarket. If people were more exposed/educated about where their mass-produced food comes from and how it was raised/treated/processed, would they be more likely to make smarter food choices about buying locally or direct from a producer?
The last idea that caught my attention was the issue of eating seasonally. As a nation, we have become accustomed to having every type of food available to us year round, even though realistically, that is not the way that nature works. How willing is the general public to give up their strawberries in winter?
These have been short (incomplete) ideas... still a lot mulling around in my mind but not nearly enought time to get them all down right now...hopefully they will all make their way here eventually:)

Industrial Organic?

On: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Chapters 8-9.

In these two chapters, Pollan explores the meaning of "organic" and the process that has evolved from a grass-roots food system to just another massive industry. He begins by visiting Joel Saltin, a self-proclaimed "grass farmer" who owns and operates his own small scale farm with a basis on rotational grazing.Saltin prides himsef on the wellbeing of his land and animals and the quality of his products. Although not technically "organic" by USDA standards, Saltin's farm may be a closer fit to how you would imagine an organic operation would run, compared to the "industrial organic" that is introduced in the following chapter.
After a brief discussion of the misleading labels on many grocery store produce and animal products (aka free-range, cage-free, grass-fed, etc...), Pollan brings to notice the introduction of "organic" into mainstream supermarkets, and the morality behind the idea. Doesn't industrialization of the market defeat the original purpose of "organic" products being a wholesome, sustainable alternative to the current food production system? Similarly, Pollan asks, "Is industrial organic ultimately a contradiction of terms?" (161). He uncovers the vague regulation of USDA Certified Organic products, which few people know includes the lawful use of many synthetics including xanthan gum and ascorbic gum. Many industrial organic dairies raise their cows on dry lots where they are fed certified organic grain (not treated with chemical pesticides), but have limited access to green pasture, a picture commonly associated with organically raised products. Because the use of antibiotics is not allowed, organic producers commonly find themselves in a pinch to maintain a healthy herd, which some regulate by keeping their animals in close confines.
Pollans last endeavor was a bit of a criticism (in my eyes) of the baby lattuce industry. One important point he makes is that the caloric trade-off when transporting lettuce cross-country doesn't make much sense: "A one pound box of prewashed lettuce contains 80 calories of food energy...growing, chilling, washing, packaging and transporting that box of organic salad to a plate on the East Coast takes more than 4,600 calories of fossil fuel energy, or 57 calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food" (167). Does transporting something that has practically no nutritional value across the country, just so we can eat salad in the middle of winter make any sense? I didn't think so either.

Feedlot Cattle

On: Where the Beef had Been in "Meat and Potatoes" by Eric Schlosser, Rolling Stone; 11/26/98, Issue 800, pg68,13p

and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, chapter 4 "The Feedlot"

These sections of reading focused on the production of corn-fed cattle raised on CAFOs (aka “factory farms”). Many aspects of their production was touched upon including living conditions, feed products and additives including hormones and feeding sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics, and environmental risks arising from this mode of production.
The general idea portrayed through Pollan’s chapter was the mess we have gotten into by raising massive amounts of cattle on a mainly corn diet, in hopes of producing a cheap meat in the shortest amount of time possible. The problem arose when the surplus of “cheap” American corn was directed towards the cattle industry (among others including chicken and salmon.) Cattle are ruminants, therefore designed to digest diets high in cellulose- grass. When they were suddenly fed diets of 32 lbs of feed/day (3/4 of that being corn), the animals were faced with converting a food that was not meant to be digested. This leads to numerous health issues including Acidosis and bloat. These issues are in turn treated with numerous hormones and antibiotics to ensure faster growth with less feed (to keep the consumer happy with low meat prices)- yet hormones and antibiotics are the very things that people don’t want to see in their meat. This begs the question, how “cheap” is cheap corn when it must be supplemented with so many additives to provide a proper healthy/balanced diet for the animal?
Then comes the distinction between grass-fed and corn-fed cattle. While corn-fed can be produced in a shorter time span, with more of the fatty “marbling” that is so desired by consumers today, “growing meat on grass makes superb ecological sense: it is a sustainable, solar-powered food chain that produces food by transforming sunlight into protein” (Pollan, 70). The waste from grass-fed cattle can be much more easily recycled back to the land which sustains them, whereas CAFO waste isn’t directly returnable to the land due to its high level of nitrogen, phosphorus and hormone residues. Pollan also mentions that “A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with corn-fed beef. (Modern-day hunter-gatherers who subsist on wild meat don’t have our rates of heart disease.) In the same way ruminants are ill adapted to eating corn, humans in turn may be poorly adapted to eating ruminants that eat corn” (Pollan, 75).

For thought:
-To what extent are people willing to risk their cheap meat for what may be more environmentally friendly?
- CAFOs are no doubt efficient when it comes to diluting out fixed costs associated with production, but how does their total environmental impact really compare to cattle raised on pasture?
More insight to come...

Where to start?

Hi!
I'm keeping this blog for a class "Having a lot on our plates" that focuses on the sociology of food. Keeping a blog is a first for me but my interest in food is far-reaching. My family has been full-time farming since before I was born, so naturally I have become increasingly interested in our nation's food production system and all of its repercussions. I'll be reflecting on topics discussed in class, and hopefully add some personal insight to the mix. In no way am I intending for this to be some prolific piece of mastery- i'm certainly not an expert- but I am mindful of the choices we make every day that not only effect our stomachs, but the world we depend on to keep us alive.
Go Food!