The Contrarian's Dilemma

James McWilliams’ over-hyped and undercooked anti-locavore polemic 15

grass fedCows on pasture: potential solution, or menace to society? What is just food? One might answer: food produced without causing undue ecological damage, food grown under production systems that allow workers and farmers to earn livable wages, food that’s healthy, accessible, and affordable to everyone who eats.

To James E. McWilliams, author of the new book Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, just food is certainly much more than food produced and purchased locally, and his book wags a contrarian finger at the “locavores” who believe purchasing food grown close to home somehow makes it more just, fair, or better for society and the planet.

“The locavore approach to reforming our broken food system has serious limits-limits that our exuberant acceptance of eating local has obscured,” McWilliams writes. In their application of a simplistic valuing methodology (judging food purely by how far away from one’s plate it originated), he claims, these 100-mile dieters could potentially do more harm than good, if they succeeded in their apparent mission to force the entire world’s eaters to choose food grown within a short drive of their kitchen table.

The problem with this argument is its irrelevance. The few truly orthodox locavores who presumably exist (do you know even one?) aren’t close to persuading the world to eat the way they do. To devote an entire book to debunking the impulse to eat closer to home doesn’t address the points raised by food and farm activists. At their most relevant, today’s alternative eaters illuminate the systemic problems created by industrialized food provisioning: negative impacts on the global climate as well as significant deterioration in water quality, soil quality, local economies, worker justice, and human health.

bookcoverMcWilliams reduces the message of the food movement to a simple prescription—eat local—and proceeds to debunk it. Yet it’s hard to believe any thoughtful person could imagine that eating locally would address this multitude of issues. One imagines, rather, that consumers, when faced with a system they don’t support, are voting with their dollars for the only alternatives they can find-local food at the farmers market and organic products at the store. What McWilliams seems to miss is that these purchasing choices don’t make people fundamentalist locavores or organic purists. The locavores I know don’t view shopping consciously as a solution; they view it as a protest.

The author often categorizes proponents of alternative food systems—first locavores, then organic advocates, then those who object to genetically modified crops—as wild-eyed extremists in need of some firm schooling on “a golden mean of producing food.” McWilliams’ vision of this agricultural golden mean promotes lifecycle assessments over food miles, and judicious pesticide use over organics. He preaches the potential of genetically modified cassava to feed starving Africans, dismisses grass-fed beef because it can’t be scaled up to meet current demand, and advocates a drastic increase in freshwater aquaculture to meet demands for animal protein.

Again and again, one gets the uncomfortable feeling that McWilliams creates fanatical straw men in order to make his own presentation of facts seem like a rational alternative. “The problems that I have with organic agriculture have less to do with how it is currently practiced than with the inflated claim that it’s the only alternative to today’s wasteful conventional production,” he writes. But do any serious proponents seeking more sustainable alternatives to conventional agriculture claim this?

As he continues on his mission to disabuse the ecological faithful of their trust in growing organically, McWilliams uses the fact that sometimes organic growers use toxic natural compounds to knock organic off what he perceives to be its high horse of purity, and then cites the work of Bruce Ames, a controversial Berkeley scientist, to support the view that many modern pesticides don’t hold the same risks as their older counterparts. Despite devoting pages to each of these points, they do little to move McWilliams towards his chapter’s supposed conclusion: that organic should fall within a “continuum of farming systems.” A discussion of the pros and cons of organic and conventional production, and a studied evaluation of other farming systems along such a continuum, would have been a good start.

McWilliams’ defense of modern pesticides leads him to a contradiction. If pesticides aren’t so bad, one wonders why the author’s measured support for GMO crops hinges in part with the argument that they allow for a reduction in pesticide use. Or do they? “To be sure, there are many studies that show the exact opposite-that is, that GM crops have done nothing to reduce pesticide use,” McWilliams writes.

Paying little heed to such inconvenient tangles in this chapter or others, McWilliams hurtles forward down the path of measured (the man loves his middle ground) support for GM crops.  In his rush to the middle, though, the author misses some important facets of the GM debate. For example, he glosses over evidence that GM technology hasn’t managed to boost yields, much industry hype to the contrary; and he ignores the vested interest in today’s crop of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified seeds: namely, that the companies that sell seeds with herbicide resistance also peddle the herbicides that must accompany their product.

This blithe obliviousness to the profit-seeking motives of the GM seed industry allows McWillams to argue for development of GM technology for “subsistence oriented” crops so they might thrive in dry or salty soils. This argument falls short on economic and theoretical grounds. While Monsanto can make billions of dollars per year selling Roundup Ready corn and soy (and Roundup) to industrial-scale farmers, there’s little cash to be made selling, say, drought-tolerant cassava to African smallholders. So what entity is going to develop such seeds? McWilliams’ answer: the Gates Foundation. But while the aims of the foundation are admirable, there’s plenty of evidence that Gates, like McWilliams, doesn’t really understand hunger in Africa.

Gates and McWilliams, in promoting biotechnology as the solution to Africa’s food troubles, take a shortsighted view of hunger, seeing it only through the lens of yield shortages and disregarding the ample historical evidence that hunger in developing countries has at least as much to do with world trade, democratic failures, poverty, and conflict as they do with the lack of a salt-tolerant sorghum seed.

mcwilliamsMcWilliams: courageously manning the middle of the road. The most sensible recommendation McWilliams makes is that if we want to lesson agriculture’s impact on natural systems, we need to eat less meat. In forming this argument, he relies heavily on a 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization, almost to the point where one felt reading the report and getting data firsthand might have been a better use of time. McWilliams’ also hypes the importance of life-cycle analyses (LCAs) in pointing out inefficiencies in the food system. LCAs are good tools, but they hardly represent the sort of radical approach that’s “off the public radar screen,” as the author claims, ignored by locavores the world over as they persist in stubbornly clinging to food miles as their shortcut solution for determining a food’s ecological footprint.

McWilliams’ stated goal in writing Just Food was to lay a blueprint for “how we can truly eat responsibly.” He’s right in pointing out that eating locally and organically alone won’t result in the creation of a just food system, and that there’s much work left to do if the aim is sustainability in food provisioning. Yet his book fails to outline any sort of considered analysis of what a “truly” responsible food system might look like. Instead, the author wastes time promoting himself as the arbiter of rational thinking about the food system, an antidote to those rabid locavores and organic purists crowding the aisles of Whole Foods and farmers markets who vainly believe they’ve found the solution to our food systems’ problems.

One imagines McWilliams, a historian at Texas State University, might have written a book more in tune with his academic training, perhaps an examination of the rise of the varied movements of local eating, organic growing, fair trade, and healthy food access. He could have combined this historical survey with an analysis of what these movements mean in the greater context of our increasingly globalizing food system, and concluded with how they might be woven together into a forward-thinking approach that moves us toward the “just food” he claims to care so much about. Instead, we’re left with a treatise that focuses more on taking Alice Waters and Slow Food advocates down a peg than on putting forth innovative solutions to the problems within our food system. While this might be the author’s idea of fun, it’s ultimately a childish way to make a point, and a disappointing strategy on which to hinge a book.

Agrarian writer Stephanie Ogburn currently lives in Oakland, Calif.

www.stephanieogburn.com.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Matt D Posted 3:58 pm
    08 Sep 2009

    I've not been impressed with McWIlliams in any of the interviews I've seen of him, but he is absolutely correct when he says the fundementalist anti-pesticide and anti-GMO stance of the organic/local food movement is a major obstacle keeping us from true sustainability.  Humans have been working to improve agriculture with better plant varieties, better cultivation practices and better chemicals for thousands of years.  Not all chemicals/GMOs are good for the environment, but it's just as foolish to assume that they're all bad.
    As a public sector agricultural scientist: If you don't want Monsanto to be the only entity in town that's developing new crop varieties/chemicals, then stop slashing our budgets!

    Permalink

  2. Matt Petryni Posted 1:05 am
    09 Sep 2009

    Excellent post, Stephanie. You make some really good points. Also, I get irritated when people use two major lines of argument McWilliams seems to employ, according to your characterization. One is that he assumes people who are making personal choices and explaining to others why they make those choices are somehow trying to "force" anyone to do anything. We hear this a lot in critiques of environmentalism, and to some extent there may be truth to it, but generally it's bullshit.

    The other, and perhaps more ridiculous claim, is the straw-man assertion that all locavores think they've "solved" the problem. I know almost no environmentalist who thinks any of the measures environmentalists are currently pursuing are a complete and perfect solution to anything. People make the mistake of assuming otherwise quite often, and think that all environmentalists actually believe the world would be utopian if everyone just did things their way. In reality, most environmentalists are reasonable people who realize the limitations of practical existence in their respective societies, and choose from within them what they see as the most viable path toward, but not necessarily to, a better world. That's an important distinction.

    One other issue I take with McWilliams and others focusing on the "yield-side" end of this agricultural debate is the notion that environmentalist principles "fail to meet demand" in a presumably hungry world. This realization ignores two things: one, that we currently produce more than enough food to feed the world's people, we just distribute it poorly; and two, that demand is almost always created when supply is provided, creating a feedback cycle of ever-increasing demand. The idea that the problem with organic farming is that it simply won't be adequate to feed the world's people should, at this point, be pretty obviously absurd; especially considering we cannot continue to increase yield at the expense of food supply sustainability.

    Permalink

  3. cyberfarer's avatar

    cyberfarer Posted 12:47 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    It is reassuring to know the industry apologists are so worried about the local food movement they feel a need to attack it, no matter how poorly. The next step is already on the books, regulate it out of existence.In response to Matt D., who exactly lobbies to slash your budget? Isn't it Monsanto? You will forgive me if I believe whatever agency you work for is captured. Food is grown in the field, experiments are produced in laboratories. I don't want yours or Monsanto's in my body. Thanks. 

    Permalink

  4. Matt D Posted 3:44 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    Cyberfarer:
    I work at a Land Grant University - a system that was set up in the 1800s to assure that farmers in each state (then a much bigger chunk of the population) would always have local access to agricultural scientists who spent their time working to breed better crop and animal varieties, solve pest and disease problems and generally apply science to every agronomic practice so that families could rise above sustenance farming.  As the public left the land and lost their interest in food and agriculture, there were fewer and fewer voices calling to fund research in agriculture versus competing interests like medicine.
    My public sector colleagues are THE ONLY SCIENTISTS WHO STILL WORK TO TEST AND IMPROVE ORGANIC AND LOCAL FARMING TECHNIQUES. In my university, one of the few remaining applied plant breeders continuously produces new and better forage varieties for the local (small farm) dairy industry.As funding disapears, formerly vibrant departments across the country (e.g. plant pathology, integrated pest management and plant breeding) are rapidly being combined and cancelled. I'll happily take my skill set to Monsanto if there are no public sector jobs left - but if you care about sustainability and farming (and not just silly romantic notions of what farming is), you won't paint agricultural scientists as the enemy.  It's a profound sign of your ignorance that you think applied agricultural scientists (e.g. plant breeders) work in "laboratories."

    Permalink

  5. Chuck Deuce Posted 3:48 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    Whoa!  We must have read different books - I just finished it on a cross country flight.  The main point I came away with, amidst my air travel carbon spewing all over the place and eating airplane peanuts that certainly weren't local, was simply a reiteration that food issues are difficult and nuanced, particularly when you are thinking about global food policies and even when you are deciding what to put in your own mouth.  I wouldn't hold this book up as a great read, like Ominvore's Dilemna or Methland (surprisingly novel and articulate critique of Big Ag in a story of a small town drug epidemic), but I think this review is a bit harsh.  If you've taken the time to review food LCA's, even more so if you've worked on one yourself, you can sympathize with McWilliam's attempt to bring the discourse to the middle ground maybe more so than the average eater.  This middle ground is a more productive place to be than the poles where our food dialogue currently resides. 

    Permalink

  6. cyberfarer's avatar

    cyberfarer Posted 4:11 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    Hi Matt,I didn't "paint agricultural scientists as the enemy." That's the way you chose to interpret me. I asked you who was lobbying against your funding, a question you didn't answer, and then I generalized by suggesting your public agency is captured. It is an easy generalization given the only interests regularly consulted around issues of regulation and research are corporate. That you would "happily" take your skills to Monsanto demonstrates your concerns are economic rather than principled, but that's fine. At least you're honest. I apologize if I offended you."you can sympathize with McWilliam's attempt to bring the discourse to the middle ground"Is that what he's doing or is he defending the corporate take-over of food? We learnt from Raj Patel that globalization in food has led to 1 billion people going hungry and 1 billion people subject to the diseases of obesity. When someone speaks of "the middle" they are almost always speaking of the status quo and the status quo on food is making us sick, hungry, and poisoning the planet. It is not a matter of choosing whether we want to change the way we grow our food, it is a matter that we must.     

    Permalink

  7. Chuck Deuce Posted 5:42 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    Well, in my read of it, he doesn't defend the corporate takeover of food, but rather makes the admittedly tough argument that we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when we enact GM bans.  His point (or one of them, in the GMO part - there is more to this read) is that there may be some genetic engineering that actually improves the lifecycle impacts, improves the sustainability of the GMO in question (for example, by making a grain crop use less water or herbicide or pesticide).  It is tough to make this argument without coming off like a shill for industry, and he points that out repeatedly while acknowledging the issues with patenting life on the farm.  His most valid criticism of Big Ag is that all the GE research is devoted to the big commodities that require processing (food for Big Ag products) when it could be employed to help fight famine in Africa with small commodities like sorghum, sweet potatoes, etc. (food for people).  Of course, no profit in small commodities.  The same reason drug companies spend their RD money on western, fat people diseases rather than poor people diseases. 

    Permalink

  8. cyberfarer's avatar

    cyberfarer Posted 7:39 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    It is worth noting that the largest players in GMO and seed patenting are not agricultural companies but chemcial companies. GMOs in reality have nothing at all to do with producing food and everything to do with controling food supply. Likewise, yield has nothing to do with feeding the teeming masses, who continue to starve, but, rather, to reduce the per unit cost of production and, therefore, increase the profits--not of farmer producers but the vertically integrated middlemen like Cargill.The author makes the same mistake, from what I have read so far (but I will pick up the book), of believing Western industrial agriculture can solve world food problems when, in fact, it has only ever exacerbated them.The problem is not and never has been food production. As the reviewer above points out, "hunger in developing countries has at least as much to do with world
    trade, democratic failures, poverty, and conflict as they do with the
    lack of a salt-tolerant sorghum seed." But our reviewer also misses what Raj Patel does not and that is the biggest obstacle to food, or the elephant in the room, and it is the inability to pay. It is why people starve in developing nations while food they grew is exported to sit on the shelves of Western supermarkets.An example from today's news: "Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom has declared a 'state of public
    calamity' to try to mobilise funding to tackle severe food shortages in
    the country ... 'There is food, what is lacking is the money for the affected people to
    buy food    ,' Mr. Colom said. 'We are not going to wait until we've reached
    starvation levels to act.'" [emphasis added]Western industrial agriculture is only concerned with deliverng excess food to those who already have too much but have the dollars to buy more. It is unconcerned with those who are hungry. That is the disconnect between the author, the Gates Foundation, scientists and others who believe feeding the hungry requires a technological solution when in reality it requires a social solution.

    Permalink

  9. Matt D Posted 7:45 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    Funding for agricultural science that benefits the public good is disappearing because no one is standing up to defend it.  I doubt any group has ever lobbyied the government to specifically cut back ag research but when push comes to shove, bureaucrats and administrators steal money away from sources where the public won't notice - and since the average American no longer farms (or knows anyone that does), citizens no longer realize how critical ag research is to their lives and goals - so our national capacity to fix agricultural problems slips away.I've never understood this hatred of Monsanto either. No one ever cries out that Apple is evil because they don't make IPods for poor people.  We're free to have government regulate companies any way we want, but it's pointless to expect them to act altruistically - that's what the government is for.  Monsanto makes corn because that's what the market wants to buy.  They'd be just as happy to sell organic heriloom beets if that's what the public wanted. It's just business.And just for the record, Monsanto released use of all of its patents for any non-profit work in Africa. That's a really big deal. Alternatively the pharma companies are trying to crush every African country that's manufacturing generic AIDS medicines.

    Permalink

    1. Matt Petryni Posted 9:36 pm
      09 Sep 2009

      Whoa... are you going to try to defend the practices of Monsanto on an environmental news site? Good luck sir, you're in for one hell of a ride.

      Permalink

      1. Matt D Posted 4:36 pm
        10 Sep 2009

        Matt P.
        Haha, yeah well I can only hope that the average reader here is more interested in actually fixing our environmental problems than just enjoying a dogmatic echo chamber.

        Permalink

      2. Matt Petryni Posted 10:06 pm
        10 Sep 2009

        Oh I think so too. But that doesn't mean people should interested in repeating ad infinitum a discussion of issues that have largely been resolved either. (On Ars Technica, they have entire databases of "background reading" to cover the basic arguments on repetitious controversies, for example.) If there are new issues to raise, that is definitely a discussion worth entertaining. So far, however, I see nothing in your post to suggest your perspective on Monsanto is one that I personally can identify as an original one, especially (though not limited to) a seemingly unsophisticated marketist logic to justify their practices.At the time I wrote my previous post, I did not feel like going into a point-by-point refutation of the issues you raised regarding Monsanto. I wished only to allude that one does exist and has been relatively well-aired on a site like Grist. I will go ahead and address some of those issues now.I think you raise a good point regarding the public funding of agricultural research. Like a great number of the worthwhile functions of government, these funding areas have been subject to an effective, 30-year-long attack by those generally ignorant of their value. I will not take issue with this argument; except to say that many environmentalists are aware of it as a problem, and have called countless times for the Federal government to exercise wise leadership and better prioritize agricultural programs that may be less popular in the short run but are often downright necessary over the longer haul.In regard to the Monsanto issue: First, I think you're right that Monsanto merely delivers what the market demands. However, there are two major problems with this contention. First, as you seem to know, the market demand for agricultural products is severely distorted by the effects of poor policy, wasteful subsidies, misinformed consumers, and rampant externalities. If the market demand were anywhere near a reflection of the sustainable utility created for consumers by products, I might contend this defense of Monsanto to be reasonable. But a perfect (or even really a "good") free market does not and will not ever exist; and the earlier we stop pretending about this, the more quickly we'll arrive at good policy.Second, therein lies the materialist assumption that companies are not obligated to act altruistically. While I think you generally agree that regulation is a necessary means to this end, I fear your premise here is either misleading or simply miscommunicated. I believe, quite whole-heartedly, that companies have a moral duty to act in a way that benefits their nation, community, and consumers as well as their investors and owners beyond mere material efficiency. While I acknowledge building a world in which everyone behaves in accordance with this principle is difficult if not impossible, I will not concede that it would be improper. Consumers, governments, employees, and yes, investors and owners as well should do everything in their power to demand of their companies this more social and "altruistic" behavior because it is the right thing to do, simply put. A greater recognition of this concept improves the quality of life for humankind by better aligning economic and moral successes.As for releasing their patents, my (possibly outdated) understanding is that this is also misleading or incorrect. In 2003, they partnered with governments and non-profit groups to share their patented agricultural technology in order to reduce food scarcity in impoverished parts of the world. They have not permanently given up their interests in their patents, nor have they released their technology to all non-profit groups. And this charity, even, was only achieved after many years of pretty immoral practices by the company (in the name of shareholder profit, to be fair; see above paragraph) and considerable pressure from human rights groups. All that being said, the prospect of partnerships like this could be a beneficial thing. However, concerns should still linger over whether Monsanto's technology is an appropriate solution to world hunger, or if the problem should addressed through more sustainable and more ecologically predictable means not currently offered through their business model.As for the issue of GM labeling: I think there is nothing wrong, in a marketplace, with increasing the information available to consumers. Monsanto has in the past sued dairy farming cooperatives (including, if I remember correctly, Seattle's Darigold) for labeling their products as bovine growth hormone-free. The company alleges that labeling products as being made without their growth hormones misleads consumers into thinking those hormones are bad, which science has not proven to be the case. I personally feel these kinds of decisions should be left up to the consumer themselves and companies should not dictate the information those consumers allowed to use in their purchasing choices.Similarly, even if GM crops are perfectly safe, I think consumers have a right to know they are eating them. If consumers choose not to buy products using GM crops based on this information, Monsanto is free to counter this loss of demand by trying to convince consumers that the products are safe. This may not be particularly easy given current industrial practices; but it is pretty much a critical tenet of environmentalism that current industrial practices must change. Trying to hide information consumers would benefit from in making purchasing decisions is hardly a good thing for the market.In general, few of these issues are new or original, and these arguments have been made by Grist writers and followers many times before. My suggestion was not for you to enjoy the refreshing Kool-Aid and buy into some kind of environmentalist group-think, but instead to be aware of oft-voiced issues with the perspective you're presenting and incorporate that awareness into your discussion of the issue. The intention is so we all may benefit from a more nuanced, informed, and original perspective, perhaps even in defense, of the practices of a company such as Monsanto.

        Permalink

  10. cyberfarer's avatar

    cyberfarer Posted 8:44 pm
    09 Sep 2009

    "Monsanto makes corn because that's what the market wants to buy. 
    They'd be just as happy to sell organic heriloom beets if that's what
    the public wanted. It's just business."Let them prove the market wants them. Label them and the products which contain them. Then the market can decide. Why has Monsanto lobbied against labelling if the market supports their demon seeds?"Monsanto released use of all of its patents for any non-profit work in Africa."Non-profit work. How nice. Christian missionaries to help spread the seeds onto fields that didn't want them, no doubt.

    Permalink

    1. Matt D Posted 3:55 pm
      10 Sep 2009

      Yeah, I can't really argue with your logic.  The conclusion you (and many others) have come to makes perfect sense based on public understanding of these issues and I used to feel the same.  Many people see a disconnect from these logical conclusions (who can argue with labeling foods?) and assume there's conspiracy behind it, but it's really much more mundane.
      So in answer to your question:GM food isn't labelled for two reasons.  First of all, it's currently impossible to track and separate different kinds of, say, corn.  Farmers drive their load up to an industrial processor, where they sell it into a giant silo, where it's mixed in with all the other corn currently being sold.  It would be incredibly difficult and expensive to change this. Chances are if labeling was required, everything would just end up being labelled "contains GM" because it would be cheaper to take that loss than build the physical and electronic infrastructure that would be required to track it.  Straight to market farmers wouldn't be affected by this, but you already know who they are (so what's the point?). The reason why this isn't a problem is that millions and millions of dollars have been spent trying to find some real health risk associated with genetic engineering with no luck so far (I'm working on this myself). When you get down to it you can't "prove" that any food is safe. In fact, there's always a chance that your food will make you sick (e.g. green potatoes contain a poison, any mold can be poisonous, etc.). Labeling would just upset consumers unecessariy. It's no fun being on the side of "government knows best" but that's kinda part of the point of having one. People freaked out when vaccines were first proposed (picture being a mother being told to infect her child with smallpox in order to prevent him from dying!), but academic and government institutions found them to be safe and effective and encouraged the public to participate. No technology can be proven to be 100% safe, and people are still rarely harmed by vaccines today, but overall, vaccines and GM technology are good for the American public, and the government is simply doing it's job by doing it's best to advance our interests.
      I think your comment about Monsanto's charity is pretty cynical.  African farmers won't be able to afford any of Monsanto's product anytime soon (this isn't one of those 'first one's free' things). Monsanto gives to charity for the same reason that ALL companies do - public relations.  I could care less what their motivation is. Charity is charity and millions of Africans are really hurting right now while most of the world does nothing. 
      Finally, saying "no doubt" just means you don't have any real idea what those farmers want. I certainly don't know what "developing world farmers" want either, but I at least have talked about it with ag scientist friends of mine who grew up in the same communities as those farmers.

      Permalink

  11. Ms. King Posted 9:57 pm
    18 Sep 2009

    Matt D and Matt P (or anyone else who knows),

    Would you mind sharing any sources of information you have regarding Monsanto's release of patents for nonprofit purposes? This point is particularly interesting to me, as I recently composed an article on nonprofit agricultural projects in Africa. One of my primary concerns is that African farmers who plant GM seeds do not own the means to their own livelihoods. If the seeds are patent protected, spreading them in Africa does not empower local farmers, but instead increases their dependency on the West. I was not aware that Monsanto had released any patents. Any information on this topic would be greatly appreciated!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement