The title of this post comes to us from the recent New York Times article "Farmer in Chief" by Michael Pollan. Written in the form of a letter to our would be president, it is literally bursting with eye opening statistics and proposed policy changes designed to get our nation's food culture back on track.
If you have not read one of his books (notably: In Defense of Food & The Omnivore's Dilemma), this article is a fantastic primer covering a wide range of topics. He informs us where we were:
"..modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food."
The health crisis this has led us to (an important issue for McCain and Obama):
"Four of the top 10 killers in America today are chronic diseases linked to diet: heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. It is no coincidence that in the years national spending on health care went from 5 percent to 16 percent of national income, spending on food has fallen by a comparable amount — from 18 percent of household income to less than 10 percent. While the surfeit of cheap calories that the U.S. food system has produced since the late 1970s may have taken food prices off the political agenda, this has come at a steep cost to public health. You cannot expect to reform the health care system, much less expand coverage, without confronting the public-health catastrophe that is the modern American diet."
How we ended up in this mess:
"Right now, the government actively discourages the farmers it subsidizes from growing healthful, fresh food: farmers receiving crop subsidies are prohibited from growing “specialty crops” — farm-bill speak for fruits and vegetables. Commodity farmers should instead be encouraged to grow as many different crops — including animals — as possible. Why? Because the greater the diversity of crops on a farm, the less the need for both fertilizers and pesticides."
And:
"In fact there is nothing inherently efficient or economical about raising vast cities of animals in confinement. Three struts, each put into place by federal policy, support the modern CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), and the most important of these — the ability to buy grain for less than it costs to grow it — has just been kicked away. The second strut is F.D.A. approval for the routine use of antibiotics in feed, without which the animals in these places could not survive their crowded, filthy and miserable existence. And the third is that the government does not require CAFOs to treat their wastes as it would require human cities of comparable size to do."
And what we need to get out of this mess, including a more complete definition of "food" to prevent, for example, people using food stamps to buy soda, and the inclusion of a second calorie count on packaged foods, detailing how many calories of fossil fuels were burned in its production.
What do I think? Normally I don't believe that many problems can be effectively resolved by government intervention, however in this case, government got us into this mess, and government will have to get us out. Not only does this entail reversing some of the bogus policies that have, for example, created a system where grain and corn are cheaper to buy than to produce, but also to lead us into a new era of food culture by example (Pollan suggests The White House: become more transparent in terms of its meal service, plant a fruit and vegetable garden on the lawn, and promote one meatless day per week).
Rising energy and fuel costs have created a shift in our awareness of our environmental impact and its consequences (resulting in more responsible driving habits), and I believe we will soon see the same thing with regards to our food choices. Prices have risen dramatically in recent years, and will skyrocket even further if certain subsidy programs are terminated. This will cause a re-evaluation of eating habits, turning more people towards growing their own food, and buying from small, local farmers (whose sustainable practices will insulate them from increased costs relative to the industrial food chain that relies almost entirely on purchased inputs).
About cost, Pollan writes:
"Yes, sun food costs more, but the reasons why it does only undercut the charge of elitism: cheap food is only cheap because of government handouts and regulatory indulgence (both of which we will end), not to mention the exploitation of workers, animals and the environment on which its putative “economies” depend. Cheap food is food dishonestly priced — it is in fact unconscionably expensive."
Finally,
the interviews conducted on The Reluctant Eater definitely suggest a strong correlation between the food culture we grow up in, and healthy, sustainable food choices we make as adults. Perhaps focusing our efforts on educating children about the dangers of continued apathy towards our food culture is a worthwhile endeavor? Imagine the impact of being educated at an elementary school with its own farm.
If you enjoyed this post, please email it to a friend by clicking the link below. It will only take a few seconds, and together we can educate people about this situation, if only one person at a time. Also, feel free to contribute your thoughts in the comments below!
. (I didn't love the book BTW, but if the story of someone moving through the ranks of a kitchen and then setting out to Italy to learn from the masters sounds captivating, then you'll probably like it).
(referral link), there are many small farms out there producing beef in ways that do not impact the environment (and almost seem to enhance it?), notably 
(and/or in his other book 
Posts
