As of today, they intend to spearhead the local food movement and sustainability on a global scale.

Even though Wal-Mart can never emulate the farmer’s market experience (in time I’m sure they will try,) their investment in local food production will immensely affect the production and distribution of local food. The plan released today has three major components, including:

- Support farmers and their communities
- Produce more food with fewer resources and less waste
- Sustainable source key agriculture products

I will be the first to say, don’t let the encouraging headline suggest a perfect reality because many people, myself included, distrust Wal-Mart. They are a blessing and a curse. For now, let me mention how they may be seen as a blessing for the food movement.

1. In “emerging markets” (outside the U.S.) by 2015, Wal-Mart will sell $1 billion in food sourced from 1 million small and medium farmers (these are defined as farms that are smaller than 50 acres.)
2. In the U.S. Wal-Mart will double its sale of locally sourced produce
3. Wal-Mart will include an agriculture element to its Sustainability Index. The index will ask suppliers about the water, energy, fertilizer and pesticide they use per unit of food produced.
4. For the stores in Brazil, they will only source beef that comes from ranches that do not contribute to deforestation in the Amazon

Each of these “blessings” will impact the industrial food systems in a positive way. The boost in locally sourced produce will incentivize American farmers to grow fruits and vegetables, not just commodity crops (soy, corn, cotton, wheat.) Not only will Wal-Mart seek local producers, but they also want to limit the environmental impact of distribution. Therefore, there will be more of an effort to distribute the food in more sustainable ways. This does not translate to electric trucks, rather finding farms that are closer to a given store.

The Sustainability Index is also of major significance. It’s one thing for consumers to want organic produce, but when the world’s largest store wants to source local food who meet a certain standard of sustainability, the ‘trickle down’ idea takes real form. Sadly, Wal-Mart speaks louder than many of us; and in this case, maybe it’s for the better?

*

Okay, so now let me divulge some of the curses that Wal-Mart manifests. Primarily, the physical size of a Wal-Mart store – its sprawling parking lot and thousands of gas-guzzling 18-wheeled trucks do that pare well for the environment. Consider where these stores develop, suburbs and urban sprawl. A store this big and invasive in a given community, not only brings in thousands of people from outside the community (increasing traffic, noise, pollution), but the construction of these spaces incentivize developers to build new communities around or nearby the store. The long-term impacts of sprawl are related to places like Wal-Mart, retailers that thrive on open space and lots of cars and trucks driving near and far to shop.

Another massive problem with Wal-Marts as well as other mega-retail chains, is their impact on local, independent, “mom and pop” stores. There is no competition with Wal-Mart. The prices are too low, the selection too great and the centralization of so many products makes it hard for people to run multiple errands when they could just shop at Wal-Mart. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys community. It digs up and paves over the land and removes local businesses.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, Wal-Mart is very anti-union. They are notorious for how they treat workers – paltry pay, poor benefits, did I mention that they are staunchly anti-union? Many employees rely on food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing to make ends meet. (Check out this study for more.) Between the poor treatment of workers, the physical environment and independent businesses, it can be difficult to promote Wal-Mart.

*

Today’s news pushes Wal-Mart in a great direction; at the same time, the bane of their existence is a problem unto itself. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart and I never will, but for those that must, now they will also have a source of fresh, local food to enjoy.

Hopefully they will purchase it.

Related posts:

1. Critical Food Literacy and a Sustainable Food Movement
2. Good-Bye Grocery Store (part 1)
3. Buy Local (or) We are “the market”

Last week I boarded a bus with 30 professionals, grad students and other food politic wonks to explore the pieceses of an ever-increasing sustainable food system here in Oregon. Coined “The Oregon Sustainability Experience,” the week-long adventure drove us all over, visiting multiple participants and benefactors to the evolving sustainable food systems across Oregon. From Portland to Hillsboro to Monmouth to Corvallis to Philomath to Tangent to Junction City to Salem to Brooks to Woodburn and then back to Portland, we invested 40+ hours to investigation, analysis, reflection and immense discussion on the various topics that be.

Over the next several weeks and maybe months, I will post entries on each of our visits. We dined with plant breeders, toured small, medium and large organic farms, geared up in white gowns to see processing facilities, and of course ventured among heritage breed pigs and chickens, and at one point blew our minds in an dialogue with migrant farm workers. Suffice to say, we ran the gambit on sustainable agriculture in the Northwest.

You will be happy to know that I also took loads of pictures! I know that this blog lacks the creative efforts of my photo-friendly eye, and so I intend on showing the reader some of the sites we saw on our trip. Aside from the informative lens of who, what, where, when and how, I look forward to divulging some of the why questions that rang deep inside throughout this experience. Some of the thoughts that still linger in my brain include:

• Do we want to sustain a global food system, or move towards a sustainable localized food system?
• Is ‘sustainability’ an inherently liberal issue?
• The battle between local and organic in the context of sustainability
• Peak oil, climate change and the future of sustainable trends
• Sustainability – a class concern?

With so much to share, I’m still weighing the idea of posting regularly on this trip, i.e. several times a week or once every couple weeks, etc. At the same time, with so much to say and the desire to write more often, I can see posting many entries in the near future. As I mentioned a moment ago, beyond a news report, I really aim to engage some of the deeper issues I uncovered during the week-long conference.

For all my previous posts on food politics and eating seasonally and teaching food literacy, I think the theme of sustainability loomed in the background. Here is an opportunity to go that much deeper into an increasingly important issue.

Related posts:

1. Good Man Eats Takes a Break
2. Burgerville – Fast Food for Ethical Foodies
3. Local Food Movement Gains Serious Support

Many moons ago I was approached by a woman named Kate who had read a blurb about my cooking classes in December. We emailed back and forth and she finally visited a class later that winter. Lucky for me, she liked what she saw and invited me to teach a class for her organization – Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon (aka EMO.) It turns out that this local faith-based non-profit is doing a lot of exciting programming among congregations in Portland and beyond. Many of these programs focus attention on food and farms, eating healthy local foods, and preventing spread of obesity and type 2 diabetes, etc. Previous cooking classes had been successful, but this time there was an interest in critical food literacy. Beyond the basic cooking class we delved into the processed food conundrum and the environmental, economic and health-related consequences of the industrial food chain. (wow, that’s always a mouthful.)

So, over the last few months the meeting and planning and talking evolved. A binder was born, complete with recipes I had done in previous classes and relevant resources I accumulated in my diligent internet research. And last night we made the dream real.

Around 6pm, in a lone and nearly empty basketball court, I preached the gospel (pun intended) of eating local, seasonal foods. I talked about subsidies and overly cheap processed foods. Participants unveiled the importance of eating seasonally (for those that don’t know, this includes *supporting local farmers and a local economy, * eating fresh whole foods that are chock full of real nutrients, and * keeping the Earth a little bit healthier by avoiding processed and petroleum-induced food products.) Together the 18 families and individuals made enough brown rice and vegetable stir-fry to feed the masses and then some. The lovely fragrance of garlic and ginger wafted through the kitchen as young adults tossed salad greens with homemade salad dressing. To be honest, it was a fantastic class! I loved it. I loved teaching and being there as a resource. It feels really good to preach to a different choir.

So that’s what I did last night. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the food revolution is upon us! Be it school gardens or after-hours in the church kitchen, people are engaged and eager to eat healthier foods. And I am happily there to cheer them on.

Related posts:

1. Session 1 Complete!
2. Cooking Class Conundrum
3. A Successful Cooking Class

Since I could not embed the video here, let me describe the visual for you. The 30 second clip has a gentleman opening a seemingly harmless can of soda. But what pours into his glass is anything but the bubbly pop you’ve learned to expect. Instead of coke or pepsi or whatever, the guy pours himself a nice full glass of fat. Yeah, that’s right. FAT. And then he proceeds to drink the fat.

The video is provocative and to the point. Be it New York or any other American city, town or village – the numbers are there. That 60% of American adults or youth are overweight and/or obese is a serious statistic. Whether we talk about health care costs or accessible healthy foods, we must recognize that the American diet demands reform. Even if you’re not overweight but drink soda daily, the mass intake of sugar will increase the likelihood of various food-related diseases, i.e. type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc. And yet, any reader of this blog probably knows this stuff (see here and here .) I can’t help but write about obesity and its discontents. The problems are too obvious and disregarded way too often.

Okay, so there is a problem. Now what?

The “solution” gaining the most traction is a soda tax. Currently, there are 30 states taxing soda as part of sales tax. This alone is providing over a billion dollars in revenue; money much-needed in these poor economic times. This current means of revenue adds 5 cents to a 2-liter bottle of soda. Some think this 5 cent increase will rob the poor of their favorite beverage, while others are shocked at the small size of the tax. According to a recent interview on NPR titled, “Soda in America: Taxes and a Debate Over Health,”

Kelly Brownell, at the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity, says thats not enough. He wants new taxes that would boost the price of that same two-liter bottle by almost 70 cents. Brownell says a new tax has to be high if it’s going to change America’s habit of consuming about 50 gallons of sugar-added drinks a year.

Even as some may gawk on the prospect of paying 70 cents more for their incredibly “tasty” sugary pop, studies show that such price hikes are the surest way to even the playing field on healthy food choices. At the moment it seems like whole foods are luxurious next to junk food. But if taxes took the field, those packaged foods would rank second to the real food (i.e. fruit, vegetables, and grains) in the grocery store.

The reality, as far as I’m concerned, is that water is free. It evens comes out of the tap for crying out loud. In my opinion, raise the hell out of the soda costs and use some of that revenue to ensure clean drinking water, or subsidize healthy food, etc.

Soda and all its packaged brethren are killing us. If we can’t ban it from the store, than let’s make it too expensive to consider.

Related posts:

1. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
2. To Tax or Not To Tax? Obesity is the Question.
3. Health Eating, Healthy Junk Food?

The overlapping interests of a just food system.

Over the weekend I attended the very first, Multnomah County Food Summit. Gathering 250 people into a conference hall for an all-day event on a sunny day, was no easy feat. Luckily, all I had to do was show-up.

A first of its kind for sure, the food summit brought both grandiose ideals and a diverse selection of committed activists to the table. As the mini image shows above, the goal of the summit is to integrate 4 main principals into the pillars of a movement. Now we all know the movement had begun far before last Saturday. And yet, no one in Oregon (as far as I know) has initiated a project of such size and impact.

If this were to succeed, the food summit hopes to develop a thorough action plan for the county, one that stretches into the next 15 years. From all the qualitative data collected at the event – from worksheets to discussion groups – the event facilitators will extract the big ideas and common interests of the attendees. Thereafter, four groups will form to develop individual plans in their specific subject area. As the image shows above, the 4 main objectives include:

1. Economic Vitality: promote a thriving local economy
2. Healthy Eating: make the healthy choice an easier choice for all
3. Social Equity: build systemic justice, health and food security
4. Local Food: increase viable local options in our food system

As much as these principles guided the discussion for the day, much time was devoted to uncovering those voices not at the table. All the while, various speakers informed the audience of projects happening across the country with similar goals.

The event was both overwhelming and inspirational. To see so many engaged citizens all sharing the same passion was a real boost for me. As the lone educator on Monday nights trying to influence the lives of those not attending the summit, this opportunity let me leave my little vacuum of a classroom. If anything, the event reminded me that the local food movement is really just beginning. There will be funding (eventually) to promote projects like my own. There will be top-down and bottom-up approaches to tackling healthy food disparities and mighty corporate interests. There will be a collective movement of diverse people joining in.

This is clearly the beginning of the food revolution. (post-Jamie Oliver)

Related posts:

1. A Future Food Project (or) An Idea is Born
2. Pro-Food Anti-Foodie
3. I Thought I was Starting the Food Revolution!?

The premise is simple: Our nation suffers from rampant poverty. This historically complex dilemma causes a vast multitude of problems. Think institutional racism, and a whole lot of concerns come to mind: housing, employment, education, crime, pollution and even food. It’s not that Clinton started the program to overcome poverty, per se. The opportunity to participate in AmeriCorps enables young and old to directly serve the populations in need. From this well-intentioned need for public service, there is news of an emerging potential on the food front.

A breakthrough idea rumbles beneath the layers of sluggish USDA policies. As many activists believe, sustainable movements begin from the bottom, the grassroots. In the case of AmeriCorps there is a certain irony to the situation. Since a strong grassroots movement requires resources (i.e. money) here comes the government to fund the movement. The irony is that if other branches of power changed certain policies, this grassroots effort would be unnecessary. In the end, it’s rather absurd actually.

But. On a happier note, let us consider this emerging proposal - Food Corps. If the problem of healthy food choices is affordability and accessibility, it follows that school food could rightly tackle the issue. When thousands of schools start demanding locally grown foods – fruits and vegetables no less – there will be more incentive to support local farms growing real food. Beside the economic boosts to rural communities and regional family farms, there is the added benefit of long-term community health, i.e. lower medical bills and healthier families.

The affordability of healthy food choices comes at a steep cost. As any viewer of Jamie Olver’s Food Revolution will know, the time it takes to prepare whole foods is expensive in and of itself. But again, this can be overcome with an increased school budget – just hire more experienced cooks! The issue of accessibility is where Food Corps enters the scene.

Food Corps volunteers will serve three different roles (or maybe just one of these):

1. School Garden Coordinator
2. Farm-to-School Coordinator
3. Healthy Food Educator

To bring healthy food choices to public school, a healthy food culture must be introduced. Parents, students, teachers, kitchen staff and administrators must stand behind healthy food. With the support staff to alleviate the pressure and navigate the local food politics, a Food Corps member could establish a new and sustainable system for the school and the farming community.

I think this idea is rather excellent. But it should be noted – this is still an idea. The proposal came forth this past January, and the hope is to hash out the kinks of the program so that it can begin next year, January 2011. If I hadn’t done the AmeriCorps VISTA program myself (several years ago,) I would definitely jump on this wagon. Ultimately, be in an idea or a reality, the Food Corps shows just how strong and meaningful the food movement has become.

Related posts:

1. Critical Food Literacy and a Sustainable Food Movement
2. A Future Food Project (or) An Idea is Born
3. News to Be Proud Of (if you live in Oregon)

The reality is this: processed food and drink are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes and other health ailments. When the vast majority of products at the store are sold in a box, bag or can, the store and producer are faced with a significant challenge. Do we continue the production of these products and face the consequences? Or do we modify the product and sell “healthy” junk food?

In my utterly liberal and idealistic vision of the future, the store no longer sells processed foods. Everyone purchases mostly whole foods with the necessary canned goods throughout the colder months. To afford this pleasant reality, workers are paid living wages and food literacy and cooking skills run rampant in the community. The needed paradigm shift has occurred and people are finally connected to their food, be it backyard raised beds, institutional CSAs and massive farmers markets. Ahh…what a place! (A man can dream can’t he?)

Until this utopian vision manifests, I recognize there are some reality checks to consider. Of the many barriers between the present day and this far-off future world is the industrial food chain, both production and distribution. Between corporate food production (i.e. Kraft, Pepsico, Heinz, etc) and the chains of grocery stores (see Walmart, Costco, Safewat, Supervalu, etc) the business side of things has won the game for many, many years. And so it is with much chagrin that these corporate conglomerates face the newest consumer challenge – the demand for real food.

Real food does not come wrapped in plastic or packaged in layers of cardboard. Real food is not infused with preservatives, extra nutrients, colors or added textures. Real food comes from the dirt and animals, all of whom need to live better lives. This push for “real food” will cease to exist solely amongst the upper-educated social bracket. It is only a matter of time, a short amount I believe, before the government enforces more strict regulations. The connection is too clear to ignore.

As more people get sick – younger folks especially, something is going to have to change. Here’s an example of how corporate food producers intend on making processed food healthy:

KRAFT announces that it is voluntarily reducing the sodium in its foods by 10% by 2012.  Kraft’s Macaroni & Cheese (SpongeBob package) has 580 mg sodium per serving and there are two servings in one of those small boxes: 1160 in total.  A 10% reduction will bring it down to 1050 mg within two years.  The upper recommended limit for an adult is 2300 mg/day. (Excerpt taken from Food Politics.)

So, sarcasm aside, if we take this one example of “reform” among the largest food producers in this country, I think it’s fair to say that things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better. I suppose when everyone is obese then the government will really make an effort to read between the lines. For some reason, a mere 60% of the population just isn’t high enough for real change to begin.

Related posts:

1. Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat
2. Losing faith in nutrition
3. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy

Sure the globalized food system is complicated and incredibly oppressive; but why get bogged down in the details when there are catchy videos like this to help us make sense of the politics. For the record, this video was made for kids aged 9-14.

Related posts:

1. The Food Revolution (has begun)
2. New Voices on Good Man Eats
3. News to Be Proud Of (if you live in Oregon)

Visualizing the problem

When it comes to debating healthy food access in America, I believe it all comes down to subsidies. The premise is simple but its effects are far-reaching. Basically, the federal government pays farmers millions of dollars (possibly more) to grow certain crops. The plants that receive the most attention are corn, soy and wheat. Through subsidization the price of the processed crops are cheaper because the planting and processing is paid for by the government. These food subsidies are rooted in the Farm Bill. This piece of legislature defines and enforces our nations agricultural policy which in turn, influences international trade agreements, health and nutrition policy, school food and other economic needs.

The pyramid above does a great job of showing the reality of food distribution in America. I apologize for the small print, so I will explain what’s going on in the picture. (For the original text and image, go here.) The pyramid on the left represents which foods and how much of those foods were subsidized between 1995 and 2005. The pyramid on the right reflects the federal nutrition recommendations. To contrast these two perspectives shows just how corrupt and broken our food system is.

For those of you who buy milk and meat at the regular ol’ grocery store on a daily basis, the pyramid on the left explains why the costs are so low. It’s not that the cows or pigs or chickens themselves are subsidized, it’s the cost of production. One of the reasons corn, soy and wheat are so heavily subsidized is to provide feed for our nation’s industrial meat production. When the feed is co cheap and the production is so large, the costs to produce enormous amounts of meat go down. (See an earlier post to visualize the consequence of cheap meat.)

At the same time, the pyramid on the left also shows the minimal margin between subsidised sugar and other grains. According to the recommended nutrition pyramid, grains are to make up the majority of our diet. And yet they receive a mere 13% of federal assistance. This puny number is just 3 percentage points above sugar. And we all know how little sugar we even need. To add to this, the abundance of corn led to the development of corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. So not only is sugar subsidized a significant amount, but you also have huge quantities of super sugar being processed as well.

When you look at the pyramid on the right you see a large green section. Looking at the foods on the right, more than 30% of our diet is supposed to be fruits and vegetables. If that’s the case, why aren’t they subsidized?! And that my friends, is the crux of the issue. (One of the cruxes at least.)

Until fruits and vegetables are subsidized significantly and less money is provided to corn, soy and wheat, our national health concerns will not lessen. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes type 2 are all linked to the food we eat. It’s really possible to prevent these awful health concerns to arise. It must begin with reforming the Farm Bill and subsidizing healthy foods.

Related posts:

1. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
2. To Tax or Not To Tax? Obesity is the Question.
3. Urban farming, Low-Income Communities and Burgeoning Dietary Epidemics

In my classroom I make the agenda clear.

• I want participants to think critically about their food consumption.
• I want participants to question the source of foods they eat and the production used to grow and distribute the food.
• I want participants to realize the power of consumption in choosing what to eat and where to spend their money.
• All the while, I want to present participants with information on “alternative” food choices – be it raw milk, pastured beef or fair-trade coffee.

Tonight I explained the conflicted meanings of popular food buzz words. The activity is often enlightening for families because they see the meanings of words in a new way. This process of shedding light is both overtly political and downright practical. At the moment, I find myself walking along this ever-thinning line.

The lefty in me comes out when I talk about grass-fed meat, raw milk and the oppressive rules of organic certification standards. It’s so difficult not to get preachy. The more I’ve learned about industrial agriculture and CAFOs and their disastrous consequences on our health and the environment, the more I want to share this ‘other’ perspective.

How strange and distressing that the ‘otherness’ is seen as whole foods! If we want to people to eat healthy, do we not promote whole foods? If we promote whole foods, are we not rejecting processed goods? Is it so bad to desire stronger local economies? If not, why not support the local food movement?

All of these issues overlap and I believe it is futile to deny this. Just as we draw a line on right and wrong, should we not draw a line on healthy and unhealthy? I can’t stand by and debate this issue too much. Too many people are sick or dying because they lack the knowledge of resources to do better for themselves. To this end, I am an activist.

I am a preachy teacher.

Like the late Howard Zinn said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

Related posts:

1. The Food Curriculum Project (part V) “Lesson Plan 3″
2. New Year’s Resolutions
3. Living off the grid