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?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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:)
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:)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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...
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...
Monday, February 1, 2010
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)