“Food is the gateway drug to sustainability” -Steve Cohen
“But, what can we do?” This predicament seemed to be the question on everyone’s mind Tuesday night, January 26, 2010, at the National Building Museum’s lecture program called For the Greener Good: Urban Agriculture. The public audience, which consisted of students, activists, and Capital Hill staffers, was an educated crowd concerned with the debate between big agriculture and the local food movement; most understood both the advantages and disadvantages to urban farming. However, the crowds’ skepticism was apparent when the subject moved to the troubling matter of whether personal actions will create lasting and changing movement towards the solution for the underlying problem of an un-sustainable system of agricultural and food distribution. The speakers featured: Josh Viertel, President of Slow Food USA; Liz Falk, Director and co-Founder of Washington DC based Common Good City Farm; Steve Cohen of food policy and programs for Portland Oregon’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability; Allison Arieff, the Food and Shelter Ambassador, GOOD and writer for “By Design,” a column in The New York Times. All the panelists were adamant that urban agriculture can be a viable solution to one of the most daunting global challenges we face today and in the future.
As featured in the panel, urban agriculture’s strongest supporters insist it is the necessary step in the direction of the green movement, towards resolving not only the environmental harms of big agriculture, but of public health concerns and global climate change as well. The big agricultural farms are harmful to the land through the excessive use of chemical fertilizers, and pesticides and herbicides on the food crop. These mega-farms make up 98% of the market, while only 2% of our food is grown in an organic, sustainable manner. Not only do urban gardens provide the obvious nutritional produce, a sustainable utilization and expansion of green space; but it also invokes educational opportunities and health benefits through an appreciation and understanding of food for children and adults alike. Local farms, especially in cities, assist in the piece-meal process of combating climate change, by cutting back on the big agriculture, one of leading contributors to green house gases and environmental degradation. Moreover, urban gardens create a welcoming community where people can set aside differences of age, culture, ethnicity, and economic situation to share in the rewarding work and, of course, the food.
Though the benefits appear to be overwhelming, not everyone is immediately sold on the idea and the setbacks vary from minor to challenging. It was light-heartedly said that the only downside faced with the rise of urban gardens was the increase in the local rat population. However, more serious and threatening barriers hinder an individuals’ choice of action, for example, the legal aspect can also create a hurdle for potential farmers in cities, as many neighborhood and counties have specific laws concerning zoning and standards of the visual aesthetics of the lawns and homes. The biggest hindrance is economic, like most budding initiatives, the start-up and maintenance costs can be high and the personal time commitment to such a project is great. Given that it is unlikely to make a profitable business from urban farming, it is not always viable option for low-income families who must work long hours to survive. It has become a privilege for the wealthy rather than a right for public citizens.
The panelists however, while acknowledging the problems, said they were all combatable with effort. The local laws can be dealt with by addressing the leaders and lawmakers to not only ensure but also encourage sustainable gardening practices. The money issue does create a bigger barrier, but they were all convinced that community gardens could help so the costs are shared within a group. It was also argued that people may not make a substantial income or profit from the product, but they can conserve money by eating the produce and saving the money normally spent on food.
While urban gardens are a step in the direction of sustainability, it was clear a bigger obstacle still looms: the system. Today’s current food system is essentially backwards: the cheap food at the store in terms of the public’s wallet is actually incredibly costly for the planet. The food that is in fact healthy for the planet and our bodies is expensive in terms of monetary cost. As mentioned by the panel, “there is no such thing as cheap food” because there is always someone paying down the chain and the hidden costs in this instance are paid with the environmental degradation as well as health deterioration for the consumer.
With such a daunting task of changing to reverse the wronged system, the question remained: what do we do? The panel insisted that individual action can change the system, but it will not be through individual purchasing habits. While that does help, the actions need to be targeted towards a change in legislation through advocacy with a large social movement. One of the first steps to this movement is to begin at the local level and because part of the fight is about leaving big agriculture behind, the community is a perfect place to create the base. On a local scale, the individual issues are more likely to be listened to, understood, and changed, than those same issues in a bigger playing field. The small initiatives, as with any social movement will gain momentum and then proceed to transfer to the larger arena to be spoken with the backing of the national movement needed to influence the federal decisions, such as the upcoming Farm Bill in 2012-13. The democratic government of the United States cannot propose changes without the voice of the people behind it.
Therefore, the day-to-day steps of shopping with our values in mind, voting with our dollar and maintaining sustainable purchasing habits are good steps, but it will only be affective if it is a mass movement. The panelists all left with an optimistic note for the audience, to look at work through a food lens and trace it back to where an individual or personal change can be made. The individual can use the position in his or her career to spread education and advocacy, as both are the key to this fight. Since the discussion took place in the capital of the country and the audience consisted of people who wanted to make a change, many attendees also held positions of influence and power in their jobs. Those citizens entering the movement were urged to spread the word in order to help change the minds of people through showing rather than telling with urban agriculture. Working with gardening programs, especially with children in the communities helps to teach an understanding and an appreciation for food and changes their minds to lead a healthier lifestyle.
Note: This was a short essay I wrote in response to the panel discussion for my class at American University--Political Ecology of Food and Agriculture.
25 February 2010
18 February 2010
Beef with the Food Guru.
Of course I am talking about Michael Pollan.
Despite the fact that Pollan's food rules are strongly biased toward those who can actually afford food i.e. not the low income class, he does have very good insights on the problems of the food systems in generally. Not to mention that although the middle class is targeted, the movement needs to start somewhere, and those who can afford it, should be the ones to take the biggest part.
I glanced through Pollan's newest book, a small, quick read called Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, recently while waiting in Barnes and Noble. I decided I didn't need to purchase the book, and after spending 15 minutes with it, that was about the time it took to read through it--or at least get all the rules in. But that wasn't the reason for not taking it home with me. I found it troubling to have a book full of RULES for me to follow in regards to my eating habits.
The one that put me off initially, said "Leave something on your plate". After a quick google search, I realized I wasn't the only one who was not thrilled with this rule.
In an interview with Michael Pollan, the website Epicurious also questioned it:
Epi: A related rule, "Leave something on your plate," surprised me. Isn't waste against the principles of ethical eating? Wouldn't it be better to simply shrink portions to eat less?
MP: It's a form of self-discipline, instead of your plate dictating when you're full. I'm talking about a bite or two, not leaving a big pile of food.
(http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/chefsexperts/interviews/michaelpollaninterview)
I had a similar reaction to this rule. It could quite possibly be my up-bringing, as Pollan points out, but one of my biggest pet-peeves with food is wasting food. I hate to see food go bad and even worse good food thrown out. I am not saying you have to finish all the food if you are full, but then please, put it in a container for later! The answer seems simple to me: serve less initially and then go back for more if you are still hungry. I should probably note here, another rule I don't like; there is nothing inherently wrong with seconds! Yes, it can be an issue when people go for seconds because it is sitting there and they think they are still hungry when they are not--but, sometimes you are actually just still hungry and that is OKAY!
I very much appreciate Pollan's earlier books that I have read, (okay, in the process of reading!) The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, more the former than the latter as he second book starts to get a bit "rule" heavy. I think his lessons are important, but I don't want them told to me as rules, I would rather have the information explained to me and I can then take my own actions accordingly.
I do have one rule for eating: no rules. I found that setting dietary restrictions of any kind are more detrimental than helpful in any situation for me. I do eat healthy and mostly natural foods--because that's what I want to eat. But if I want to pick up a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, I do it. If I, for example, were to create a rule "no ice cream" or even "less sweets" for a generic rule, then I would sit and want the ice cream and waste time thinking about how I wish I could eat it and then I would eventually indulge and then feel guilty for eating it. Why not just eat it, enjoy it, and move on?
Despite the fact that Pollan's food rules are strongly biased toward those who can actually afford food i.e. not the low income class, he does have very good insights on the problems of the food systems in generally. Not to mention that although the middle class is targeted, the movement needs to start somewhere, and those who can afford it, should be the ones to take the biggest part.
I glanced through Pollan's newest book, a small, quick read called Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, recently while waiting in Barnes and Noble. I decided I didn't need to purchase the book, and after spending 15 minutes with it, that was about the time it took to read through it--or at least get all the rules in. But that wasn't the reason for not taking it home with me. I found it troubling to have a book full of RULES for me to follow in regards to my eating habits.
The one that put me off initially, said "Leave something on your plate". After a quick google search, I realized I wasn't the only one who was not thrilled with this rule.
In an interview with Michael Pollan, the website Epicurious also questioned it:
Epi: A related rule, "Leave something on your plate," surprised me. Isn't waste against the principles of ethical eating? Wouldn't it be better to simply shrink portions to eat less?
MP: It's a form of self-discipline, instead of your plate dictating when you're full. I'm talking about a bite or two, not leaving a big pile of food.
(http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/chefsexperts/interviews/michaelpollaninterview)
I had a similar reaction to this rule. It could quite possibly be my up-bringing, as Pollan points out, but one of my biggest pet-peeves with food is wasting food. I hate to see food go bad and even worse good food thrown out. I am not saying you have to finish all the food if you are full, but then please, put it in a container for later! The answer seems simple to me: serve less initially and then go back for more if you are still hungry. I should probably note here, another rule I don't like; there is nothing inherently wrong with seconds! Yes, it can be an issue when people go for seconds because it is sitting there and they think they are still hungry when they are not--but, sometimes you are actually just still hungry and that is OKAY!
I very much appreciate Pollan's earlier books that I have read, (okay, in the process of reading!) The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, more the former than the latter as he second book starts to get a bit "rule" heavy. I think his lessons are important, but I don't want them told to me as rules, I would rather have the information explained to me and I can then take my own actions accordingly.
I do have one rule for eating: no rules. I found that setting dietary restrictions of any kind are more detrimental than helpful in any situation for me. I do eat healthy and mostly natural foods--because that's what I want to eat. But if I want to pick up a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, I do it. If I, for example, were to create a rule "no ice cream" or even "less sweets" for a generic rule, then I would sit and want the ice cream and waste time thinking about how I wish I could eat it and then I would eventually indulge and then feel guilty for eating it. Why not just eat it, enjoy it, and move on?
13 February 2010
This is your brain on food.
You are what you eat. Right? As I sit here, Saturday morning, slightly hung-over (ugh tequila..), I have no choice but to contemplate the consequences. What did I put into my body and how did that truly affected me.
I have never been a picky eater or had dietary restrictions of any kind--to this day the only food that I don't like is Ketchup, and I guess it can be considered food... So un-American! Because of my nonchalant dietary habits--i.e. I will eat anything--I honestly never considered the true impact of food. Yes, when I eat too much, I feel full. Yes, when I drink too much, I am drunk. (That, of course, is the most obvious to me at this moment) To eat something consciously, I am aware of every flavor, spice, and particle that enters my mouth, and with that I am more aware of how those interact within me. (Is this too much information?)
And it is not just our bodies, but as it says in the title, our minds. Alcohol and other mind-altering things aside, do you ever consider how you feel after you eat something? It does change depending on the food. We tend not to think about tracing our moods/emotions/feeling back to the food we ate, but I think that there is a connection to be made. I should probably note here that I am not any kind of official person here, with facts to back up what I am saying, I am simply speculating and coming to conclusions based on my own experience, which in this case, I don't think is too wrong, as eating is very personal act. But, still, take what I am saying with a grain of salt here!
My point is, not only is it important to value food and eat it consciously, but it is SO important to do this. Every choice we make about what we put into our bodies is our own and has potentially drastic affects on us. I guess what I am saying is we don't think about it and we should. Not just on days like this when I am very aware of what I ate, or in my case drank, last night--But I should be aware of it all the time, whenever I consume something. We are innately consumers, but we have become careless consumers and we need to change that.
Excuse me while I go get another glass of water over here...
I have never been a picky eater or had dietary restrictions of any kind--to this day the only food that I don't like is Ketchup, and I guess it can be considered food... So un-American! Because of my nonchalant dietary habits--i.e. I will eat anything--I honestly never considered the true impact of food. Yes, when I eat too much, I feel full. Yes, when I drink too much, I am drunk. (That, of course, is the most obvious to me at this moment) To eat something consciously, I am aware of every flavor, spice, and particle that enters my mouth, and with that I am more aware of how those interact within me. (Is this too much information?)
And it is not just our bodies, but as it says in the title, our minds. Alcohol and other mind-altering things aside, do you ever consider how you feel after you eat something? It does change depending on the food. We tend not to think about tracing our moods/emotions/feeling back to the food we ate, but I think that there is a connection to be made. I should probably note here that I am not any kind of official person here, with facts to back up what I am saying, I am simply speculating and coming to conclusions based on my own experience, which in this case, I don't think is too wrong, as eating is very personal act. But, still, take what I am saying with a grain of salt here!
My point is, not only is it important to value food and eat it consciously, but it is SO important to do this. Every choice we make about what we put into our bodies is our own and has potentially drastic affects on us. I guess what I am saying is we don't think about it and we should. Not just on days like this when I am very aware of what I ate, or in my case drank, last night--But I should be aware of it all the time, whenever I consume something. We are innately consumers, but we have become careless consumers and we need to change that.
Excuse me while I go get another glass of water over here...
04 February 2010
Corn, Corn, Corn.
I am taking a class at American University called Political Ecology of Food and Agriculture. I may of mentioned it already. However, last week we had an assignment: a corn-free diet for the week. Did a try? Well, yeah. Did I do it? Well... not so much!
A little background: the class read a brief history of corn in the United States from the 21st century ethical-food guru, and, yes, I am talking about Michael Pollan and The Omnivore's Dilemma. In the first part of the book, Pollan discusses corn--what it was and what it has become. I am not going to cover it in detail here--If you haven't read it, well, I highly recommend it. Basically, corn is in everything we eat. Everything. With the big-agriculture of industrial farming, corn has become the staple to the American diet. Not only is it the starch base, but it is a sweetener, and it is in many preservatives etc as well. It is also a part of the meat we eat as much of it is given to animal's feed. So, if I were to truly cut out corn from my diet, that would mean a vegan diet (unless the animal's were grass-fed, but there is no real way to know that for sure) and no processed foods (because they most likely contain corn in some way-shape-or-form)...basically nothing in the typical American diet. (http://www.cornallergens.com/list/corn-allergen-list.php ... for an example)
However, I really think that I could have done it by cooking for myself. Looking in my refrigerator and shelves, my diet is not really typical American. The only food I could not eat according to my regular eating habits was the dairy products: milk, cheese, yogurt, which I each pretty much everyday! Those don't necessarily have corn as I buy organic/free-range etc ... however, I really couldn't be sure-as it wasn't specific on the label and we must remember that corn can be organic too. However, the majority of my food (except the few indulgence items--chocolate!) does not have corn in it.
Regardless of the fact that looking in my cabinets on the first day, realizing my assignment was totally do-able... I failed the next day. There was pizza at the office for lunch, and everyone knows that a college student does not pass up free-food, no matter what the dietary restrictions may be!
Although I did eat corn and once I did, I kinda gave up with the intensity of the assignment. (Oops.) I do think I got the message and purpose behind the assignment though. 1. I did realize how reliant we are on corn as it is in most things--even unexpectedly and hidden. 2. I did continue to read labels, so I at least knew when I was eating corn. This helped to take into consideration what exactly I was eating, so when I eat my granola in the morning, I know waht I am eating in all the individual parts and pieces of it and not just "granola". 3. I realize how hard it is to know where our food comes from and how most people don't really care to know. The pizza I ate that ended it all(!) most likely had corn in it... I am nearly positive. I say nearly, as there was no ingredients list and no information that came with the take-out box. Since then, I have begun a new project (more on it later) and, let me tell you--it is so hard to trace back the commodity chain of our food!
To end with an interesting cultural/historical note: as it is (maybe?) well-known, corn originally came from Latin America, and Mexico actually hails as the birth-place of corn. The sacred book of the Mayan people, their story of creation, is called the Popul-Vuh, and according to their legends, the Gods made people from corn. This explains the importance of corn (the staple of the diet) for the Mayans, and still in Mexico today. Today, we are still corn-people, but in a less-obvious way. In Mexico, everything is corn, but obviously corn--torillas, tameles, etc. Here, in the States, first of all we don't know what is in half of what we eat, but even so, the corn does not take an obvious place in our diet because it is hidden in the ingredients--often with a different name.
So, corn-people, remember that I am not saying corn is bad... I, in fact, love corn! Just keep in mind the importance of it and how MUCH we actually eat! The Mayans got one thing right: Corn is the essential food...even today.
A little background: the class read a brief history of corn in the United States from the 21st century ethical-food guru, and, yes, I am talking about Michael Pollan and The Omnivore's Dilemma. In the first part of the book, Pollan discusses corn--what it was and what it has become. I am not going to cover it in detail here--If you haven't read it, well, I highly recommend it. Basically, corn is in everything we eat. Everything. With the big-agriculture of industrial farming, corn has become the staple to the American diet. Not only is it the starch base, but it is a sweetener, and it is in many preservatives etc as well. It is also a part of the meat we eat as much of it is given to animal's feed. So, if I were to truly cut out corn from my diet, that would mean a vegan diet (unless the animal's were grass-fed, but there is no real way to know that for sure) and no processed foods (because they most likely contain corn in some way-shape-or-form)...basically nothing in the typical American diet. (http://www.cornallergens.com/list/corn-allergen-list.php ... for an example)
However, I really think that I could have done it by cooking for myself. Looking in my refrigerator and shelves, my diet is not really typical American. The only food I could not eat according to my regular eating habits was the dairy products: milk, cheese, yogurt, which I each pretty much everyday! Those don't necessarily have corn as I buy organic/free-range etc ... however, I really couldn't be sure-as it wasn't specific on the label and we must remember that corn can be organic too. However, the majority of my food (except the few indulgence items--chocolate!) does not have corn in it.
Regardless of the fact that looking in my cabinets on the first day, realizing my assignment was totally do-able... I failed the next day. There was pizza at the office for lunch, and everyone knows that a college student does not pass up free-food, no matter what the dietary restrictions may be!
Although I did eat corn and once I did, I kinda gave up with the intensity of the assignment. (Oops.) I do think I got the message and purpose behind the assignment though. 1. I did realize how reliant we are on corn as it is in most things--even unexpectedly and hidden. 2. I did continue to read labels, so I at least knew when I was eating corn. This helped to take into consideration what exactly I was eating, so when I eat my granola in the morning, I know waht I am eating in all the individual parts and pieces of it and not just "granola". 3. I realize how hard it is to know where our food comes from and how most people don't really care to know. The pizza I ate that ended it all(!) most likely had corn in it... I am nearly positive. I say nearly, as there was no ingredients list and no information that came with the take-out box. Since then, I have begun a new project (more on it later) and, let me tell you--it is so hard to trace back the commodity chain of our food!
To end with an interesting cultural/historical note: as it is (maybe?) well-known, corn originally came from Latin America, and Mexico actually hails as the birth-place of corn. The sacred book of the Mayan people, their story of creation, is called the Popul-Vuh, and according to their legends, the Gods made people from corn. This explains the importance of corn (the staple of the diet) for the Mayans, and still in Mexico today. Today, we are still corn-people, but in a less-obvious way. In Mexico, everything is corn, but obviously corn--torillas, tameles, etc. Here, in the States, first of all we don't know what is in half of what we eat, but even so, the corn does not take an obvious place in our diet because it is hidden in the ingredients--often with a different name.
So, corn-people, remember that I am not saying corn is bad... I, in fact, love corn! Just keep in mind the importance of it and how MUCH we actually eat! The Mayans got one thing right: Corn is the essential food...even today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)