Working at McDonald's got me to college, for which I thank the world's largest restaurant chain. I worked there for three years, beginning at about $1 an hour, during the middle of the 20th century. Back then, a buck bought something. I consumed tons of hamburgers and fries and gallons of milkshakes for free -- unconscious consumption.
Bliss on the farm.
Photo: metroactive.com
I have not thought much about McDonald's in the 40 years since I worked there, during which time I have never eaten there again. But McDonald's and restaurants of its ilk are in the news with this week's release of the film Fast Food Nation, based on the best-selling nonfiction book by Eric Schlosser. Directed by Richard Linklater, the film takes on a slice of culture that's familiar to many, but fully known to few.
What do you think the main ingredients of a hamburger are? Beef is the most visible, but oil is essential to modern factory farming, which is what supplies fast food. I still recall the "End of Cheap Oil" article in National Geographic two years ago, which featured a full-page photo of a cow with the following caption: "The price of steak: a pound of beef takes three-quarters of a gallon of oil to produce."
Ruining your health and the health of the planet, all in one convenient bite.
But it is too easy to blame McDonald's, Exxon, and other corporations for the damage they do. Sure, they mold our consumption patterns and financially benefit from them. But we need to take individual responsibility. If enough of us demand healthier food, and are willing to pay for it, we could get it.
Schlosser wrote another book, Chew on This, designed to show teenagers the truth about their food choices. The food industry wasted no time viciously attacking it. In an interview in May, Schlosser marveled to Forbes that "the industries they represent make over $300 billion a year in revenues, and they've gone to the expense and trouble to attack my book. I don't even have my own website."
When asked by Forbes, "Aren't fast-food chains just supplying what American appetites demand?" Schlosser responded, "The American people were not demanding chicken nuggets. The industry has done a lot to create that demand." McDonald's, it seems, spends more money on advertising than any other brand in the world.
In another recent book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan follows a McDonald's meal back to its source: corn in an Iowa field. He goes on to count 13 ways that corn is present in a typical McDonald's meal. Sounds harmless enough, but once milled, refined, and recompounded, corn can become a number of things, including high-fructose corn syrup, which can lead to diabetes and worsen a number of other health threats.
So what's the alternative?
While I was busy flipping burgers, my Uncle Dale and Auntie Elva were tending a small, diversified family farm in Iowa. I helped them as a pre-teen -- the happiest years of my youth. I got to drive a tractor (even after I ran into the chicken coop), stack hay, gather warm eggs, fish, play with barnyard animals, have rotten-egg fights, and hear stories at night during a time before we had electricity. I was learning, though I didn't know it then, that small-scale family farms can provide more than good food to the families who live there and the small towns that grow up around them.
I eventually faced the choice of continuing on the college and city path that McDonald's had helped pave for me, or following the example of my uncle and aunt. I followed the college path, and it took me nearly 25 years to return to farm and country living, with its bumpy, sometimes unpaved roads. In 1991, I moved to an abandoned farm on less than two acres in Sonoma County, Calif. I worked it almost daily for a dozen years. Kokopelli Farm is plant-based, though I keep chickens for their eggs, manure, beauty, and companionship.
Every year I place tons of newspapers, burlap coffee bags, and cardboard boxes around my plants to limit weed growth and promote helpful activity in the soil. Instead of a neighbor's cow manure polluting a nearby stream, it ends up composting on my farm and fertilizing my organic berries, apples, mushrooms, and other produce.
I broke my connection to McDonald's when I realized how hazardous it was. Years later, I restored my connection to the healthier small-scale family-farm legacy within which I was raised. It was a choice that has enhanced my life. Most of us can make healthier eating, living, and consuming choices, even if a family farm is not in our legacy -- we just need to listen to our gut.
Comments
View as Flat
djnoll Posted 12:08 am
19 Nov 2006
I do not have a large garden or land on which to grow much food, but I know that when I am working with the soil or watching a plant grow or, yes, chasing my dogs away from the broccoli and carrots, that I feel more alive inside. Many people I know have felt this way, and it is something that has healed many children with problems of self-esteem and poverty related issues. Community gardens have been known to heal communities and stop many of the social ills that crop up when we stop growing living things. (no pun intended.)
Mr. Bliss returned to the land not just because of the fond memories of his childhood, but because he understands that we are connected to this Earth and when we treat it in balance, we can not only live well, we are sustainable. We need to move from this life of fast food, fast jobs, and fast cars before we destroy this world and its future completely.
When the department head for the ag department at a local college tells me that he does not teach anything about growing food or soil or animal husbandry, but teaches only about agribusiness marketing because that is where the fast, easy money is for students, you know you have a problem. This instructor told me that young people were not interested in growing anything only simple, easy ways to have it all now, so why should he bother with the basics of agriculture. He went on to say that with the industrial and chemical components of agriculture today, they would be better off studying biotechnolgy and chemistry if they wanted to produce food! With that kind of attitude from the department head, it is no wonder that this school, in the heart of farm country, is not turning out farmers and ranchers who understand business.
Our souls, if I may digress, need connection, and Mr. Bliss realized that and connected. I have never lived on a farm in my life, but I have always felt that connection. It used to drive my family crazy, with my mother often commenting that I was a genetic throwback. I don't think so, but I have always had a closer tie with the animals in my life, with nature, and with the land than my upbringing would suggest. I have always understood the Amish way of life better than the modern day world, and I have always understood that without the land, we will die out as a race and as a planet. Our souls are connected. If you do not believe it, watch a child's face at the zoo in a large metropolitan area. Children know that we are connected, and petting zoos are popular for a reason.
So for my baby boomer generation cohorts, it is time to lead the way back to the land. Our parents or grandparents understood the lessons we have forgotten, and now we need to relearn those lessons for the sake of our children and their children. Follow Mr. Bliss to the land, and we might all find what it is we are searching for in all the wrong places.
Permalink
Zebe Posted 8:25 am
20 Nov 2006
The first Thanksgiving was torture because I wanted the turkey and dressing. Each time I wanted meat and had to give it up, I felt a little pain inside--like I was being deprived. I thought of dead, rotton meat to neuro-associate and cancel the "deprivation" feelings. However, after about a year, I didn't feel deprived--but felt much healthier. I also felt that there was something more spiritual inside of me. My now ex-husband and his family made fun of me because I had decided to be a vegetarian and my ex-mother-in-law would put meat in all the dishes when we were invited over to eat (I would put bananas or fruit in my purse to make it through the meals).
It was tough, but I held my ground and stuck to my beliefs. My family thought it was strange, but honored my beliefs. Although at first my mom was worried that I would die because I didn't eat meat, she even started making me vegetarian dressing on Thanksgiving. So many vegetables and foods are available for us to eat, why should we eat cows, or pigs, or birds, or cats, or dogs--any animals? Actually when you think about it, cooking and eating a cow is the same as cooking and eating a human--it's similar meat--especially if that human eats at the fast food restaurants. (Why should any meat eaters be the least bit worried about fingers in the chili? Meat is meat).
I'm really happy that I made that decision so many years ago. Happy Thanksgiving and good luck to those of you out there who want to give up the meat.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:38 am
20 Nov 2006
J.S.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:46 am
20 Nov 2006
"Actually when you think about it, cooking and eating a cow is the same as cooking and eating a human--it's similar meat..."
I'm currently reading "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins and I'm going to go take another look at when the ancestor of our bovine burgers diverged from our own family tree. I'd like to know how genetically similar they are to us.
Dawkins raises an interesting issue in that whether one considers and animal similar or different really depends on which genes you look at. The extreme example is blood type... looking only at blood type, a human with type B would be closer related to a chimpanzee with type B, than to a human with type A. I know... it would be nonsense to view the world in such a way -- you have to look at the entire genome -- but it is thought provoking.
If a typical human carnivore learned that bovine or other animal muscle was very similar to human muscle at the molecular level... at what point would it creep him or her out. Fifty percent match? Seventy-five percent match?
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 8:49 am
20 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:52 am
20 Nov 2006
Permalink
willa Posted 12:49 am
22 Nov 2006
KIDDING!!! (lest anyone get upset...)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:37 am
22 Nov 2006
Probably the greatest and most sophisticated cannibal cuisine in history was that of the Aztecs, in the 15th and early 16th centuries. It is a pity that the Spanish conquistadores were too squeamish to try any, in the interests of science. It would have been interesting to compare and contrast the taste of native Mexican to that of Spaniard.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:37 am
22 Nov 2006
But since caniscandida actually introduced the phrase "cannibal cuisine", I'd like to bring up my favorite topic, GMOs, again.
Out of respect for cannibal culture, should we genetically engineer beef to taste like people? Then they can enjoy their family recipes without threatening their human neighbors.
On a slightly more serious note -- only slightly -- if something like zucchini was genetically engineered to taste like beef and have the texture of beef, would it help wean humanity from the consumption of animal flesh? I've tried meat substitutes and they are no match for a real burger. Furthermore, GMOs actually seem more natural than the fake meat out there.
There could be a whole range of exotic zucchini out there... flavors from throughout the animal kingdom!
Just one more of my wacky ideas. But I've seen more-absurd posts on this website, so it must be okay to put it out there.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:04 am
22 Nov 2006
Anyway... THE DEEPER ROOT... or I guess MORE-SHALLOW ROOT since it is a modern problem... some sort of extensive difficult-to-eliminate root... like a weed that spreads rhizomally...
Our entire American way of life -- for better or for worse -- depends on fast food. The economy depends on getting people to work as soon as possible and keeping them there as long as possible. It depends on two-income families that use a large part of their non-working hours running errands, moving their kids from place to place, taking care of their home. On top of this, we are supposed to invest time in our communities, volunteer to solve problems the Republicans refuse to let the government handle, keep up with the news so we can make informed political decisions, AND SO ON.
It is difficult to give up fast food for preserving health, ending abuse of workers, and spending more time with family and friends when we live in a society that demands more and more productivity for fewer and fewer wages.
If predict a domino-effect of positive change if we focus on making it possible for one person (or two people each working 50% time) to take care of a family. There will then be time for slow food, educating ourselves about other issues, and caring for our communities. Until then, weaning America from fast food will be VERY DIFFICULT.
Permalink
willa Posted 10:29 am
22 Nov 2006
Before WWII, it's true that it was somewhat rare for both parents to work outside the home (except for millworkers and such), that doesn't mean one income was sustaining the family. It used to be much, much more common for there to be home-based industries--small farms, etc--which were small enough to allow one parent to also work outside the home, meaning really it was more like a 2.5-job family, rather than a 1- or 1.5-job one. Of course, none of this has ever applied to wealthy families, but for regular people, living on one salary and taking lots of vacation has never been and likely will never be a reality.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:54 pm
22 Nov 2006
As I posted regarding the poll about the nature of time, I do not believe there ever was a better time or place to be born. And people who long for that are really longing to be part of the 1% that made up the upper class and happened to avoid death at young age or perhaps death during childbirth. But that is an aside.
I am not an econonmist and there are plent y of people here who will rip apart my theory. But I believe the 50's and 60's in America showed that a better life is POSSIBLE, but corporate greed, ending import tariffs, sending work abroad, reducing investments in infrastructure, WASTING MONEY ON FOREIGN ADVENTURES, rewarding industry for moving money around rather than producing useful products, trickle-down economics, and not maintaining a reasonable minimum wage pulled the rug out from under a GROWING middle class that had time and resources to invest in caring about their community.
(I realize it is anecdotal, but my grandfathers, each born about 1905, one installing floor covering and the other a milkman (as in a horse-drawn wagon on the streets of Milwaukee, WI) managed to take care of their families, each with one income.)
Regardless of whether it was normal for one person to earn enough to take care of a family at any time in the past, that does not matter now. Our civilization should be able to do so NOW.
Are you saying that we cannot strive for something better than humans had in the past?
In that case, we cannot have any jobs what-so-ever unless we continue to harvest resources at an unsustainalbe rate. That is what supported that past several thousand years of civilization. Also, we cannot have any jobs what-so-ever unless we continue to expand agricultural land, moving on and cutting down another forest after we exhaust the soil. After all, I suppose that was what was necessary to sustain several thousand years of civilization. So how could we POSSIBLY IMAGINE ANYTHING BETTER?
A one-income family???!! HA! If this is the general attitude out there, I GIVE UP! I am going to hop into my car and burn gas like there is no tomorrow... because that is how it has always been done and always will.
Is this more realistic?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:58 pm
22 Nov 2006
Should environmentalists make an effort to advocate a living wage for people, or is that a separate issue? The theory being... people who can afford to care for their families are more receptive to preserving nature.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:41 pm
22 Nov 2006
DJNoll, at the top of the thread, wrote a lovely message in reaction to the story about the McDonald's cook, eliciting the nostalgia for a simpler life closer to the land that so many of us feel.
It seems that for most of history, most people were most of the time pretty close to home. Whether agriculture was involved or not, men and women were both engaged in food-production or some other practical work, usually never in so hectic a way that they were prevented from regular encounters with other members of the household or with neighbors and friends. Households tended to hold more than two generations, and older members regularly took care of children.
Hanging around with the family is not always the greatest thing in the world; e.g., intellectually it can be pretty stifling. There have always been activities that took men (not women usually) far from home for long periods: hunting, long-distance trade, military service, higher education. (Not for nothing have universities been so long associated with progressive thought. And it is curious that teachers have mostly tended to be celibate, or otherwise detached from a family. The Jewish pattern, with married rabbis living in close communities, is unusual -- and possibly an ideal.) These long absences from home can be destabilizing: they are often associated with sexual adventures, for example, both on the part of the wandering men and on that of the womenfolk left at home. But then, the men come home, with new knowledge and new ideas. And, on balance, that has been enriching, and good.
Since the Industrial Revolution, however, most people in the industrialized West spend most of their day at some distance from their homes and families, with no access to them, or to anyone else among their familiars, virtually locked into a work space, within a regulated schedule. That newer economy has always required of workers unpleasant, even brutal personal concessions. Is that always bad? Well, yes and no. That is: yes, it is destructive. But no, or at least it is not clear, because in the past few decades in the U.S., within very many typical business-related or professional work formats, apparently many people thrive on the intellectual stimulation, the new extra-familial social relationships, the game-like activities, full of competition and the hope of "glory," or whatever. So, is that good for these people? I do not know, and I do not think anyone does. But if they are OK with it, let them have it.
What is more important to understand, as you do, WiscIdea, is that there must be a place for people who do not find that kind of work at all appealing. Half-time employment (or however you want to quantify it) should really be a practical option for those who do not like giving themselves 110% to their careers. That would be good for the quality of life of many people, who want to be able to think, and explore, and create, at leisure. And it would be good for society, as your poll question suggests: thoughtful people who can avail themselves of a decent piece of leisure will surely be able to do some very good things for our society, for our civilization, and for our world.
So, should environmentalists advocate a living wage? Sure. More generally, though, environmentalists should recognize that their causes are a definite part of social justice; and social-justice activists should recognize that social justice is a part of environmentalism.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:21 pm
22 Nov 2006
On evolutionary relationships, and eating "locally": It would be interesting to know if human beings in Africa, or elsewhere, have always made primates an important part of their diet. Now that the extraction industries have opened up new roads into formerly remote areas of central Africa, the "bush meat" issue has become very important for environmentalists. The meat of primates, not just of monkeys but of apes, is available in African markets. So, one wonders: how does one know how to shop for chimpanzee? Is one part of the body better than another, for a certain dish? How does one prepare it? Has a cuisine developed yet? Does one know what to do with chimp haunch? Would it be very different, if one could work with human haunch? Or, say, scrambled eggs with finely chopped liver, and mushrooms: would it matter, taste-wise, if the liver pieces came from a chimp, or from a human being?
Back to Darwin: Otherwise, we should observe that we are much more closely related to bats than to any other non-primate. And yet, I am not sure any human culture has ever developed an appetite for bat.
Also, we are more closely related to rodents and lagomorphs than we are to the hoofed animals that we usually eat. Rabbits and hares have always been important prey-items and menu-options for human beings.
Rodents are more obscure. Guinea pigs? So we are told. "It tastes like chicken." Or whatever. No thanks. Rats? "It tastes like inner-city street-wise chicken"?
Far be it from me to recommend anything in the direction of rodentivory. Sure, the cultivation of, say, rats can be done, I have no doubt. But it must also be considered that rats are excellent, intelligent, affectionate companion-animals.
For the record, I am not in favor of any killing of animals by humans for human ends, in principle. But ethical situations are complicated, and the competing kinds of good ends and the competing kinds of bad ends must be assessed carefully.
Permalink
djnoll Posted 1:23 am
26 Nov 2006
I have recently been doing a great deal of research on the question of oil depletion, climate change, and agriculture. The three are inextricably linked, and unless the question of how to preserve agriculture in a natural, organic state can be answered, now and quickly, the other two may be moot points. There is currently a movement to relocalize not ony politics, but agricultural production so that communities once again have locally produced food available to them. This is partly because of the need for healthier food, but also because of the need for a secure national food supply. With a living wage that is above the poverty line, which no bill in Congress is setting, a more significant amount of money could be put by the average family into the producing of food for themselves, as well as paying for the locally produced food which may be more expensive than the industrially produced food.
Further, by encouraging the family to grow part of their own food, like the Victory Gardens of WWII, they can offset some of the other higher priced foods that they could buy from local sources. Since most families in America are two income families, there is nothing wrong with having the children be responsible for this garden. Children who have worked in community gardens around this nation have been less likely to get into trouble than other children, so why not create co-operative neighborhood gardens where children can work together under the guidance of parents to create rather than destroy thier lives, and share in the responsiblity of helping to feed thier families.
A basic living wage will help cover expenses, but only a healthy agricultural community that is based on organic, living principles on a national scale will help to feed this nation the way it should be fed. A healthy agricultural community, whether in Los Angeles or rural Iowa, can help to address issues of cleaner air, water resource conservation, and oil dependency by limited transportation to market of production. When you take the costs of excess water usage and transportation out of the food production equation as practiced by industrial agriculture, you reduce the cost of locally produced food by nearly half. On that basis alone, a living wage can help a family pay for food locally produced.
So, yes, a living wage should be part of the argument, because with it the people can afford to feed their families, but not just because they are more receptive to nature, but because coupled with a movement to localize food production, they can afford to eat locally and better.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:32 am
03 Dec 2006
Let's suppose you want to persuade someone to embrace a vegetarian life-style. Please SUGGEST A BOOK that uses one of the following strategies to motivate him or her...
(1) Fear ... fear if environmental destruction, fear of being poisoned, fear of disease, and terrible things I'm not even aware of.
(2) Pleasure ... the pleasure of consuming good vegetarian food and why, independently of any other value, nothing could be more enjoyable.
(3) Reason ... the logical reasons for being a vegetarian, especially selfish reasons (such as better health or saving money), but also the downstream effects that improve our quality of life and reduce the damage we inflict on the planet.
(4) Passion (rather than reason) ... a thoroughly in-your-face argument, perhaps even disregarding any facts to the contrary, a lecture on the evils of eating meat and why anyone who does should be flogged!
You can email your suggestion to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 109';l[25]=' 111';l[26]=' 99';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 111';l[30]=' 104';l[31]=' 97';l[32]=' 121';l[33]=' 64';l[34]=' 97';l[35]=' 101';l[36]=' 100';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 99';l[39]=' 115';l[40]=' 105';l[41]=' 119';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:06 am
03 Dec 2006
But your fourth one, "Passion," needs to be analysed a bit. Lappe certainly did not recommend that anyone be flogged. But she did indeed lay on the suggestion that one was morally irresponsible to take no thought for the hunger of people outside the First World.
I do not recall that she had anything to say about animal welfare, but I could be wrong.
Permalink
lyrivyzy Posted 2:08 pm
03 Dec 2006
Onto answering the questions: I laughed at vegetarianism for years, but...
I became a vegetarian about a year ago after reading "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins. The reason it convinced me was because it was a comprehensive and REASONED account of a hundred reasons why eating less meat is a good idea. It might be the animals people are eating, but it's humans we are putting through the meat grinder.
So here's my analysis:
Fear won't work. If fear kept people's personal habits in line, smoking would have been eradicated years ago.
Pleasure is a good reason. I certainly love vegetarian food and think being a vegetarian has been a good way for me to discover good food. I live in New York City where there are tons of amazing veggie restaurants. New Yorkers have every reason to go veg, but I would argue for those who live in small towns or towns filled with chain restaurants, it's going to take more than a pleasure argument since the most vegetarian they can get in public is an iceberg lettuce salad.
Reason worked for me. And probably anyone who isn't open to reason isn't going to be open-minded about much else.
Passion is an amazing tool. And there is a time for passion which shames people into acting right. Some of my favorite feminist literature is a speech by Andrea Dworkin of amazing passion decrying men for their inattention to the possible and real rapes of the population of more than half our country.
But for the most part, I think people get defensive and shut down when you accuse them of being bad people. I think passion can be incredibly postive as well and that the time for positive passion is 99.9% of the time. If you believe something with your heart and soul and you tell someone about it, they will remember your passion maybe because it was shameful for them but definitely because they could see it light up your soul.
Please, others add to this!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:36 pm
03 Dec 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:38 pm
03 Dec 2006
Here on Broadway, between 114th and 116th Streets, the farmers themselves would be advised as to what was going on, and how their produce was being featured.
Amongst those farmers is a good-looking lad, on whom my husband has a tremendous crush. I have never laid eyes on him myself, so cannot judge. And so, I am torn: Should he be excluded altogether from this veggie fest, kept in darkness? Or, rather, should he be made the center-piece, the very champion of veganism?
As for the dogs: Little Dog has a number of friends among the farmers'dogs, who generally move pretty freely beneath the farmers' tables, so that should work out OK.
Permalink
Fabulous2007 Posted 7:45 pm
06 Jul 2007
In our age of processed, pasteurized, and devitalized products, it is critically important to include in the diet a fair amount of traditional healthy food. In this article you will find a surprising list of some of the healthiest traditional beauty products - lacto-fermented foods and beverages.
Permalink