Food policy hasn't exactly been a hot-button issue in the presidential election. And it's not going to be. We're sure to hear more about a vague acquaintance of Barack Obama, or a bush-league politician's fantasy-world twaddle about energy independence, than farm subsidies or school-lunch policy.
Knowing that full well, Michael Pollan has published a serious article on food policy the upcoming Sunday's New York Times Magazine adressed not to the candidates but rather to the next president. Pollan deftly places food at the center of three key topics: climate change, energy, and healthcare. Anyone seriously interested in addressing those issues -- and we can only hope the next president will be -- should read his piece.
Pollan does a masterful job of framing his piece to appeal directly to the next Oval Office occupant. If that person is a thinking human being who cares about more than his own career -- and not a rage-addled twit -- it could actually have some influence.
Here's his pitch in a nutshell:
[M]ost of the problems our food system faces today are because of its reliance on fossil fuels, and to the extent that our policies wring the oil out of the system and replace it with the energy of the sun, those policies will simultaneously improve the state of our health, our environment and our security.
People should plow through the whole 8,000-word piece. I want to highlight a few ideas Pollan raises that I think are particularly smart.
• He points to a proven way that the Midwest's vast corn and soy fields could be transitioned to something much more ecologically robust and probably more lucrative for farmers. In Argentina, he writes ...
... in a geography roughly comparable to that of the American farm belt, farmers have traditionally employed an ingenious eight-year rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture (and producing the world's best beef), farmers can then grow three years of grain without applying any fossil-fuel fertilizer. Or, for that matter, many pesticides: the weeds that afflict pasture can't survive the years of tillage, and the weeds of row crops don't survive the years of grazing, making herbicides all but unnecessary.
• He calls for a rethinking of subsidies. Now, they reward gross output of a few crops, mainly corn and soy. Rather then pushing quantity, Pollan wants to push variety:
... payment levels should reflect the number of different crops farmers grow or the number of days of the year their fields are green -- that is, taking advantage of photosynthesis, whether to grow food, replenish the soil or control erosion. If Midwestern farmers simply planted a cover crop after the fall harvest, they would significantly reduce their need for fertilizer, while cutting down on soil erosion. Why don't farmers do this routinely? Because in recent years fossil-fuel-based fertility has been so much cheaper and easier to use than sun-based fertility.
• To address the question of whether a more ecological-minded, quality-oriented agri-system could "feed the world," Pollan points out that "40 percent of the world's grain output today is fed to animals; 11 percent of the world's corn and soybean crop is fed to cars and trucks, in the form of biofuels." Given the vast amount of farmland devoted to grain production both here and worldwide, cutting down on meat consumption and eliminating biofuel incentives would free up vast amounts of land. Why not put the weight of federal policy behind those goals?
• He also pushes an idea I raised in a speech to the Organic Summit last June in Boulder: "A program to make municipal composting of food and yard waste mandatory and then distributing the compost free to area farmers would shrink America's garbage heap, cut the need for irrigation and fossil-fuel fertilizers in agriculture and improve the nutritional quality of the American diet." Yes!
Again, the article brims with good and provocative ideas -- it needs to be read in its entirity.
If there is a weakness in Pollan's writing, it's his blindness to economic issues, particularly with regard to class. That's on display here, too -- although by no means fatally so. He writes, for example:
It is no small thing for an American to be able to go into a fast-food restaurant and to buy a double cheeseburger, fries and a large Coke for a price equal to less than an hour of labor at the minimum wage -- indeed, in the long sweep of history, this represents a remarkable achievement.
That's an important insight, but Pollan doesn't tease out its implications. The ability to buy plenty of tasty calories on a low-wage salary actually lies at the heart of our economic system. For 30 years, our system has maintained corporate profits through a steady attack on wages. One of the major reasons workers have accepted stagnate wages is, I think, that food prices as a percentage of income have fallen steadily since the 1970s, a trend which went into reverse only last year. (The other is the ready availability of cheap consumer goods made by even-lower-paid workers in China).
Given that reality, it makes little sense to talk about transforming the food system and revaluing food without transforming the economic system and revaluing labor. Pollan never gets too far into those topics.
At this point, we're watching the neoliberal era of our economic history unravel before our eyes. It's anyone's guess what replaces it. I do think we'll be better off if the next president reads Pollan's essay carefully and takes its ideas seriously.
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
Russ Posted 1:35 am
11 Oct 2008
The Farm Bill gave rise to a similar call, and now with this manifesto we have an excellent summing up of what needs to be done. This is the kind of idea which addresses most of the problems - agricultural, economic, environmental, social, and even political - each of them seemingly overwhelming in itself, but which can be tackled together, and therefore to some extent brought down to size, because to a large extent they're the same problem.
I especially like the evocation of the Victory Gardens, for we should be in a war consciousness. Not on account of the fraudulent "war on terror", but in the face of Peak Oil, climate change, the impending collapse of the debt civilization, the predator cabal, the rising Burn Baby Burn fascism (how about those Palin rallies? Seig Heil.), and as Pollan mentions, America's generally fat, slovenly lifestyle. The "moral equivalent of war".
(And as for offending the lawn ideology, this should be assaulted. Kunstler focuses on automobiles in his indictment of suburbia as "the greatest misallocation of resources in world history", and rightly so. But the lawn bubble, i.e. this insane binding up more and more garden land in a pointless and ugly sterility, is right up there as well.)
Pollan's ideas on education could also provide a new coordinating principle for American education. Today education has no focus, no center, no underlying concept, beyond that of preparing its "students" to be cogs in the debt/"growth" machine.
Imagine instead: education centering on the land, physical health, ecological and economic sustainability, the politic of stewardship; teaching the practice and instilling the philosophy of these.
I think of how Marx advocated that education include manual labor, not just to teach practical skills, but to instill a wholesome spiritual and political ethic. He was thinking primarily of manufacturing (which America also needs to revive). But the principle applies at least as well to farming.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:49 am
11 Oct 2008
Wow, can one human being be any more sanctimonious than you. You must have a head the size of a beach ball by now. It's apparent that environmentalism is your excuse to allow yourself to engange in pretensions of moral and intellectual superiority. If no problems existed, and most of yours don't, you would have to make them up just to feed your rapacious ego.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:12 am
11 Oct 2008
So basically you are proposing a program of brain washing children to believe what you want them to believe. But then we have always know that kooks like you are fascists at heart. You have no concern about forcing your idiotic ideas on anyone.
"I think of how Marx advocated that education include manual labor, not just to teach practical skills, but to instill a wholesome spiritual and political ethic. He was thinking primarily of manufacturing (which America also needs to revive). But the principle applies at least as well to farming. "
Screw manual labor. This is something that communist pseudo intellectuals like to talk about, but it's something that they themselves never want to do. Manual labor is hard and boring. It numbs the mind and kills the spirit. Manual labor needs to be done by machines, not humans. The sooner we build the machines to do the manual labor the sooner we will free those minds for more interesting persuits. But of course it's a problem for nuts like you because you need this imaginary entity called "the workers" that you can be constantly saving from oppression, and that you can instead oppress yourself.
From one of my other blogs:
"I decided a long time ago that there was no possiblility of a communist state ever being anything other than a police state. I think that this idea is born out by both reason and experience. Here I will assume that the experiential evidence speaks for itself for anyone who wishes to look at how communism has worked in the real world. I will therefore concentrate on the logic of why the communist state must always end up in being a police state.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". These are magic words; just words; inspirational words. And there must surely be a race of aliens somewhere in the Universe that could apply those words successfuly. But the individuals that believed that these words could be made to work for man were drunk on their own idealism and blind to the reality of the nature of man. Today this attitude of arrogant ultrahumanism still reigns in academic circles and among the sanctimonious pseudo intellectuals who call themselves liberals, leftists, and socialists. In their zeal to accomplish this they feel certain that any means will be justified by such a nobel end. All the failed attempts to bring about this high ideal in the past have only been due to misunderstanding, corruption and the failings of man, they believe. If man could be properly educated and if the right implementation is followed, then the communist utopia is still possible. In fact, not only is it possible, but it is the only acceptable destiny for mankind.
The transparent and even obvious failings of Marx's ideal never crosses the dogmatically rigid mind of the communists and their little brothers on the left. The full impact of the term "From each" is never inspected to see what it can possibly mean in the real world.
In the early years of any communist revolution the "From each" is not according to his abilities, but rather "From each" according to his wealth. The state appropriates the property of the wealthy and distributes it to the poor. The result is a boon for the poor, but a very shorted sighted and short lived one. Wealth is not a static entity and the wealth that is distributed to the poor will not raise their living standard except for a breif period of time. After the wealth is consumed, whether it be in a year or in twenty years, they will return to being poor. The process of appropriating the property of the wealthy cannot be repeated because the wealthy were made poor by the initial appropriation and they have absolutely no motivation to reaquire wealth. Not only do they have no motiviation, but the communist system will not allow it to happen. So the revolution results in a one time windfall for the poor that can never be repeated. In any case, the appropriation of personal wealth is always the first action of the police state, setting the groundwork for the police state that must always remain there after the appropriation phase.
After the property of the wealthy has been distributed, the "From each" takes on a new meaning. Now the property of every individual must be continously appropriated so that the state can redistribute it according to what it determines to everyone's needs. Man being man, he does not volunteer his property. In fact he will make every effort to hide as much of it from the state as possible. So now the "From each" requires a huge and repressive police state to insure that those two little words are accomplished. A network of spies must exist in all communities to insure that no one can refuse to give up the fruits of their labor. Since the entire fabric of the political system depends on the state being able to take everyones property, the punishment for having the gall to try to keep your property must be high. Why, then, is it not obvious to the most casual observer of human beings that "From each" of neccessity requires the establishment of a pervasive and intimidating police state. Why is it not obvious that the individual must be forced to give up the product of his labor and therefore must even be forced to do that labor.
Man from birth seems to have a feeling of personal property that is never taught, but is simply innate to the animal. When my 2 year old plays with other 2 year olds she shows jealous ownership of her own toys when playing at her own home. And the other children show jealous ownership of their property when she is playing at their homes. I have never made any effort to teach her this characteristic. Since this feature of mankind is anithetical to the communist ideal, the individual in the communist state must be subjected to a life long regimen of propaganda in order to get him to belive and act in opposition to his natural characteristics. As far as I have been able to determine the propaganda effort is never more than partially convincing. As the Soviet Union has shown, the transition from decades of communist propaganda to a new believe in capitalism took absolutely no propaganda at all.
The natural result of the communist philosophy is that the "From each" requires a repressive police state that is able to extract only a paltry amount of wealth from it's unwilling participants. And that paltry amount will then become a "to each" that gives all a share of a small appropriation and leaves the entire state in a condition of poverty. The state is capable of making everyone equally poor. But it is not capable of making everyone rich, or even of making everyone middle class."
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:37 am
11 Oct 2008
I remember 1970 well...because that was the last good year to buy a real tomato in the supermarket.
Yes, the stuff that looks like food has gotton cheaper...but it's not food! Most of what's in a supermarket, even the produce, is inedible.
I have to pick and choose carefully to find something that is worthwhile.
And when the farmers market is open and I buy real veggies, the taste and nutrition is noticeable...an immediate good feeling of fresh kale, arugula, broccoli.
These are things people used to take for granted.
Land
While "food" prices went down, housing prices went sky high starting way back in the 80s.
This actually helped many people who saw their houses as investments.
But new comers were turned into Economic slaves, having to adjust their goals in life just to afford an apartment.
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 5:53 am
11 Oct 2008
Our next president will have to be for the people and against corporate control. McCain is a definite no. He's also shown his support for corporate america by his tax plan. Obama has said he's fighting for the people. Obviously I'm leaning more towards Obama but I still worry about "politics as usual" and all the campaign rhetoric.
How much is true and how much are empty promises to get elected...
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:03 pm
11 Oct 2008
Much like they were for the people when they told financial institutions that they should give the people subprime loans - and therby created a market crash that has cost many people their jobs and that has cost most people 25% of their retirement due to investment losses.
Where do you left wing nuts get this corporate control idea. I don't see any corporations controlling anything. No one is coming up to me and pointing a gun at my head to make me buy their products. I can choose to use or not use whatever I like. The government, on the other hand, steals 50% of my money in the form of taxes and gives me very little back for it. It is they who will throw me in jail if I don't obey the millions of laws that they have on the books. The government are the control freaks and nuts like you rant on about corporations. Those corporations provide people with jobs, the things they need to live, and they provide billions in taxes to the goverment. It seems to me that you have your issues exactly backwards. If it were up to the government you wouldn't be complaining about flat tasting tomatoes, you'd be complaining about starving. Raise your own damn tomatoes and stop your bitching.
"Obama has said he's fighting for the people."
Oh, then it must be true. Obama has a half brother in Kenya that lives on 1 dollar a month to whom he has never given a nickle of help, but you are going to trust that he is for the people because he says so. This is the Obama who was friends with terrorists like Ayers and buddies with crooks like Resko; the Obama who's priest and mentor is a racist and an American hater and a very rich man. This is the Obama that you are sure is "fighting for the people". It's apparent that Obama is going to get the ignorant vote.
"He's also shown his support for corporate america by his tax plan."
Yeah, go ahead and elect a president that will destory our corporations. That should give us about 60% unemployment and return our economics to the dark ages.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:20 am
12 Oct 2008
Not to mention that Freddie and Fanny are not the sole cause of this meltdown. The car companies have been heading for insolvency for some time now having chosen to build corn ethanol (also the fault of both parties) powered SUVs instead of hybrids and the war has been burying us with debt for many years after the original mission accomplished.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:47 am
12 Oct 2008
Unlike you left wingers we have minds of our own and we don't check with the party leadership or with the talking heads to get our daily dos of talking points. Pun intended.
"Not to mention that Freddie and Fanny are not the sole cause of this meltdown."
Fanny and Freddie bought subprime loans from mortgage institutions. The standards that they used for buying those loans set the standards that the mortgage companies used to make the loans. In addition to that, there were law firms like the one that Obama belonged to that sued companies that didn't make subprime loans.
"The car companies have been heading for insolvency for some time now"
Gee I wonder why. Living in Denver I occasionally drive through Boulder. Boulder is the ultra left wing capital of the state. The thing that you don't see there is American cars. It seems that if you are going to be a member in good standing with the pompus left of Boulder, then you need to be driving a European car. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to matter if it's a high or low gas mileage car, but the thing that a true left wing snob of Boulder cannot be seen in is an American car. Since Boulder has such a high concentration of lefties, this difference is easily recognized while driving through town. Of course the contradiction here is that the American car is made by people belonging to labor unions, a group that leftists are suppose to be strong supporters for. Yet if it were up to the leftists of Boulder (and I suspect the leftists of anywhere), no one in those unions would have a job. I guess the snob factor is more important to them than their philosophical ideals. As for me, I won't drive anything but an American car. I figure those auto workers families need the employment.
Permalink