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)

Looks like blogging isn't the only way or the best way to to start a revolution!

If only I were British, wealthy, studly and a super talented chef – then, and only then could I have my face on the image above.

Well it turns out that other people – lots of folks – want to earn the grand recognition Mr. Oliver will receive for his new TV show, “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.” America’s love for over-the-top sensationalism will push the local food movement to the masses like never before. As a food activist in my own right, I take no offense by Mr. Oliver’s good intention. That said, my role in the food movement is puny compared to the powerful forces of food movement celebrities, i.e. Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, Joel Salatin, etc.

In fact, I see this show as an opportunity to exploit the realities of America’s addiction to junk food. Yes, the show has some faults but ultimately, I think this sort of media frenzy could be a good thing. The problem for other people, individuals and groups whose participation in the food movement far precedes Mr. Olver, is the lack of recognition for the hard work that has been done thus far across the nation.

For example, the National Farm to School Network has spent tons of energy and lobbying to change the way school food is budgeted and served to school children every day. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Debra Eschmeyer would be frustrated with Mr. Oliver’s rather cocky attitude on the show. Debra, director of the National Farm to School Network, is all to familiar with the challenges put forth by our bureaucratic governement and its endless umbrellas of institutions, associations and organizations. She is one of many people deserving recognition for the food revolution.

At one point during the first episode, Mr. Oliver discovers that the USDA’s nutritional standards are the backbone of junky lunch food in schools; he is incredibly shocked and dismayed (as he should be.) And though the average parent will share this discomfort, many people have known this issue and fought it for many years.

Unlike the numerous organizations that are fighting for healthier and more just food policies, Mr. Oliver is actually (in my opinion) more grassroots. The show is an opportunity for him to impact the food policies in America. And yet to make this possible, he’s exposing the diets of everyday people to the larger public. One person’s sensationalism is another man’s (or woman’s) reality. He wants to teach people to cook for themselves and to improve school food. The goals overlap and are worthwhile in their own right.

As someone who wants to participate in the revolution, specifically by empowering families with skills, knowledge and resources, I too want to help American families eat healthier. Any of my reader’s want to put me on the cover of Time magazine?!

Related posts:

1. Food Corps
2. The Food Revolution (has begun)
3. An Intentional Local Food System

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

The abundance of HFCS – high fructose corn syrup is overwhelming. The scientific research on HFCS and obesity is growing. (For example.) And the popular (and controversial) response to the destructive evolution of food production is taxation. Let me explain why I believe this conclusion – a soda tax – is absurd or downright illogical.

The Farm Bill, our nation’s official policy on major agricultural issues, is the building block of industrial food’s influence on our food system. Of the many complex topics covered in the bill, one of particular interest here is the subsidization of corn: the millions, if not billions of dollars spent by the federal government paying farmers to grow corn. This cash incentive creates a lot of corn, so much corn that new means of using the surplus are invented regularly. One of the more commonly known “inventions” of subsidized corn is high fructose corn syrup.

Because corn is subsidized we have A LOT of corn. All this excess corn = excess corn products, one of which is sweeteners. And so it is no coincidence that HFCS is overly popular among producers of processed foods. Over the years the popularity of HFCS has exploded. And now we are faced with an epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes, for which links between the two are evident. Somehow the great minds that be have decided that taxing beverages with HFCS (and other sugary sweeteners) is the solution to this widespread public health concern.

Soda is the new tobacco.

But why tax soda when you can remove subsidies for corn? Isn’t that the problem?! Isn’t the abundance of cheap corn the reason for the abundance of HFCS, and thus the abundance of super cheap soda pop?! If corn farmers lost their subsidy, that would surely rise the cost of soda, let alone other products that rely on corn-based sweeteners. This line of reason raises another important concern…

If HFCS is scientifically proven to cause obesity and/or type 2 diabetes, why stop at taxing soda? If the subsidies are reinstated and the taxation seems more likely, shouldn’t we tax all food producers that use HFCS? The justification of taxing sugary beverages doesn’t seem to make the most sense. I fear this missing link would weaken the proposal in the first place. If taxation is the cure to correcting people’s behavior (a sad fact in and of itself), let’s not limit ourselves to beverages. Tax all of the greedy, sugar-pushing companies that feed off of our addictions and ignorance.

Or better yet, since everyone hates taxes anyways, stop subsidizing cheap food and let us reap the benefits of paying the real cost of real food!

Related posts:

1. To Tax or Not To Tax? Obesity is the Question.
2. Drink Soda, Get Fat or “Don’t Drink Yourself Fat”
3. Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat

It’s responsible for developing and implementing government policy on farming, agriculture and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and abroad. (See source.)

The mission of the USDA is eloquent and lofty, idealistic and audacious. It’s a shame that the reality is both bleak and deeply disturbing. To make this point, let me share with you an article I recently read on the disastrous consequences of USDA policy.

On the blog, Politics of the Plate, Barry Estabrook recently posted, “USDA Red Tape Stands in Way of Humane Slaughter Techniques and Local Sustainable Meat Production.” Estabrook, a former contributing editor of Gourmet magazine, provides excellent blogging on the politics of food – be it environmental concerns, economic or public health. His latest entry examines the debilitating effects of certain USDA livestock policies.

A huge problem with USDA standards on livestock production is akin to the dark sides of the organic food movement. In short, when the government mandates standardized certifications for food production, those with less resources (i.e. money) are more likely to fail. Nowadays the story is commonplace:

Let’s say you decide to become a farmer. After much thought and market-research, you decide that organic produce is the way to go. Upon following this righteous path, you learn that to be certified organic there are many steps to take and rules to follow. On top of this, you must also pay a $500 yearly tax for the organic certification. Unless you have the resources (money, time, land, workers, etc) to meet all of the standard requirements for organic certification, you my friend, will not be officially recognized as an organic farmer.

This same story follows the fate of small, often family-operated, livestock operations. In the context of slaughtering animals (like growing organic produce), there are certain laws that farmers must follow. One of these rules, arguably a very important one, is the process by which an animal is slaughtered.

Estabrook begins with the fact that 84% of meat production in America is processed by four corporations – Tyson, Cargill, Swift and National Beef packing, and thus sets the stage for the underdog. Unlike CAFOs that send 5,000 cows a day to be slaughtered, what guidelines are provided for farmers raising 5 cows? Where are they to send their cows?

Technically and legally, these cows should be sent to a certified slaughtering house to be killed, chopped up and packaged. If you’re a farmer who does not live next-door to the slaughtering facility, you have to ship your animals there. Whether you live 1 hour away or 10 hours away, you have to rely on certified facilities to legally sell you meat.

The consequences of such negligent policy is seen across rural landscapes in our country. Beside the diminishing number of farmers, the hardships are felt deepest by localized economies.  And thus, the grand irony shines through:

The USDA aims “to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, protect natural resources, foster rural communities…,” and such lofty intentions damage the infrastructure of farmers, ranchers, natural resources and rural communities. The market-driven mentality that promotes factory farming is completely destroying small, family farms and the local economy they inhabit.

In the end, I am reminded of the need for critical consumption, food literacy and localized food systems. If we want to eat animals raised on pasture by a farmer we know and trust, who may even slaughter the animals on the land they grazed all their lives…

we might just have to break the law.

(Or, if you want to abide the law and still support small, family livestock farms. Go here for more details.)

Related posts:

1. Local Food Movement Gains Serious Support
2. The Dark Side of the Organic Food Movement
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 2)

I do not speak here with hyperbole. In our society we, as consumers, are are often blind to the “hidden costs” of the products or services we purchase. The classic example of this is food; and as a ‘food blog,’ I will discuss this issue in the context of my advocacy for grass-fed and pasture-raised animals.

Many folks in my peer group recognize the environmental and economic dangers of both industrial agriculture and factory farming. After the release of films like Food, Inc. and King Corn, and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore Dilemma, I think the politics of the food movement are embracing a wider audience. The fight against industrial food production has gone on for many, many years. I am proud to admit that I am new to “the movement,” and that I have much to learn in its history and so forth. That said, I do believe that the current explosion of food-related concerns in the mainstream are significant and of deeper examination. The article written by Michael Moss is a prime example.

Over the past several years there have been larger and more severe outbreaks of E. Coli, a deadly bacteria found in beef. The bacteria naturally exists inside the cow’s belly but given certain conditions, its potential to spread beyond the carcass is exponential. During the process-intensive slaughter and meat production there are numerous possibilities for contamination. The article discusses this at length. But what the article does not discuss, is why there is room for all of these contaminations. How are cows being raised and slaughtered so that there is room for E. Coli to survive?

To answer this question simply – cows are eating corn. Yes, cows are also raised in confined spaces, slaughtered in unsanitary conditions, and debased to the most inhumane standards possible; but the issue stems from corn. Cows do not naturally eat corn. Cows eat grass. Cows even have a special stomach to digest the grass, and yet it is cheaper to feed them corn. Since profitability is the name of the game, public health is of little concern. This point is most clearly demonstrated when

Dr. Kenneth Peterson, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.

Wow. There you have it. A top official for the USDA makes the claim that the industry is at par with the consumer in the buy/sell equation. It’s moments like this when I find it hard to respect or trust the government in this country. As a skeptic of democracy I feel like this man’s comment totally justifies my criticism of our nations holy mantra, ‘by the people, for the people.’ Clearly, in our age, its more like ‘by the corporation, for the corporation.’

…Back to the issue of corn. Because the cows are fed corn and they are not supposed to eat corn, the cows get sick. To combat a potential pandemic in our cow population, another industry is introduced – the drug makers. As you may have heard, cows are given antibiotics to combat illnesses. Well, over time and adjustment, the bacteria develop the means to survive the antibiotics and become even stronger and deadlier. Now we have strands of E. Coli that are significantly more dangerous than previous ones.

Another article I read on Moss’ piece made the following statement (better than I could have,)

In short, E. coli didn’t just “happen” to the meat industry—it’s a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis—just vague assurances that the USDA isn’t “standing still” on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on “managing” the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again.

Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. The only conclusion worth drawing from this expose is that industrial ground beef simply isn’t worth the risk. And without wholesale industry and regulatory reform—neither of which appears likely or even possible, it may never be.

At this point I want to suggest 2 solutions to the issue:

1. If you choose to eat meat, be certain that the animal was fed grass and as mentioned before, as close to 100% as possible. When cows do eat grass the strain will not survive. When you purchase this meat try your hardest to buy from a small-scale farm where industrial slaughter is out of the question. Find out where the animals are slaughtered. FInd out how large the slaughter house is and how many animals they process a day. As a consumer you have the right to know and all you have to do is ask. I also suggest finding a family-run farm (that is small and only raises animals on grass) because there’s more room for trust and transparency. If you ever got sick you know who to call. You can directly source the meat from your plate to the field. You are empowered by taking the extra steps as a consumer. If you are willing to take these steps, the best starting place is EatWild.com. This is an excellent site to find the type of farm I am recommending.
2. As a general rule, eat less meat. If you eat standard meat that is from animals fed corn, you are more likely to get heart disease and other meat-related illnesses. If you eat strictly grass-fed and pasture-raised meats you are not condemned to these chronic ailments (see the first manifesto for more.) Another reason to eat less meat is the Earth. If you believe in climate change or global warming then you must also recognize the impact of eating meat on the issue. (While I do eat meat and recognize meat’s impact, I do not see this as a total contradiction. I will write on this soon.)

As I continue to advocate for greater consumer intelligence in the realm of food consumption, I will always return to the issue of grass-fed vs. corn-based diets for animals. The health of us, as a nation and as individuals, will depend on our interest in making healthy choices and taking the time to fulfill them.

Share and Enjoy:

Related posts:

1. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
2. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 3)
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (Part I)

This morning, while munching on some granola (homemade and gluten-free and super yummy (everyone should make their own granola at least once)) my wife gave me a packet of papers and said, “Read this. I am curious to hear your thoughts on it.” Well, unbeknownst to her, I will be telling the vast world of internet peoples first, before we discuss the reading at dinner tonight.

The article is called “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences,” funded and published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA.) As you might expect with any government-funded study, the report is humungous and this particular reading is just the introduction and first chapter. But before I say too much more, let me be the first to admit that I did not read the whole article. Why? You may ask. Well, to be honest, I was frustrated to see that the government spent x amount of dollars to study the obvious (common in policy and academic institutions.) That said, I suggest checking out the link above and reading beyond the first chapter. I intend on skimming this so I can pursue my passion for sensible ranting.

According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA,

This report fills a request for a study of food deserts—areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food—from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The report summarizes findings of a national-level assessment of the extent and characteristics of food deserts, analysis of the consequences of food deserts, lessons learned from related Federal programs, and a discussion of policy options for alleviating the effects of food deserts. Overall, findings show that a small percentage of consumers are constrained in their ability to access affordable nutritious food because they live far from a supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy access to transportation. (I highlighted the term ‘food deserts.’)

The food desert. Do you live in a food desert? Do I live in a food desert? Although I have never heard the term, I like it and I think it makes perfect sense. The combination of food desert, low-income communities and sky-rocketing rates of type 2 diabetes and/or obesity is not surprising (in my opinion.) The USDA wanted to find out what the connections are between these factors and this study examined the many nuances to the situation. I am not going to summarize their findings; but I am going to complain; I am going to rant even. Please bear with me.

This study was funded by the USDA as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 aka the Farm Bill. I do not know everything about the Farm Bill, in fact I probably do not know very much. But what I do know does piss me off. For example, the Farm Bill provides the massive subsidies for corn, wheat and soy. These subsidies trickle into the consequential massive market of corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are incredibly unhealthy  (i.e. soda, candy and chips.) When subsidies are offered by the government (or anyone else) it provides an incentive for the producer to make that product. One of the many, many consequences of these subsidies is the proliferation of huge farms that only grow corn or wheat or soy. Overtime these 3 products have been transformed into many forms, like high-fructose corn syrup. So the government (via the Farm Bill) is “supporting” farmers with these subsidies and then this financial backing prevents other crops from being grown. Of course other plants are available but the scale and complexity of the corn market humbles the brussel sprout market.

What I am trying to get at is the utter contradiction in funding this report. On the one hand you have the USDA trying to find out why or how all these cheap and non-nutritious foods are affecting low-income people; and then at the same time, the USDA is funding farmers and factories to produce these problems. The very fact that these subsidies continue underlie the big issue of access to junk food. If farms growing a diversity of crops (ideally organic) were to be subsidized in the same way, you would see an explosion of cheap whole foods. If this were the case, I would not hear friends complain at the price of organic produce or farmer market prices. Instead we would complain of the high price of candy and other processed foods.

And with the abundance of cheap food, where do we sell it? In poor communities of course! They don’t know any better; in fact, times are so rough that if we make this “food” cheap we will be able to feed the masses! But if  we prevent all these people from binging on candy and soda and chips and all those products with unpronounceable ingredients – where would we put all this extra food.?  (Note my sarcasm and cynicism.)

The problem are the subsidies. Deep down under all the issues on nutrition, affordability and accessibility is the darker issue of subsidies. As long as companies are paid to produce cheap and unhealthy food we will have an excess of these items. As long as we have an excess, poor people will get sick and die from diseases that are preventable. The government is capable of ending the HUGE public health challenges like this but it does not. Why? You might ask. The only answer I have is that the Democrats (god bless their mediocrity and inability to fight for radical change) are the party backing the Farm Bill. So if you are a Democrat and you care about these issues, do some research and find out if your representatives voted for this devastating bill. I know I want to learn more on the last version of the Farm Bill so that I can rant some more.

To end my complaints and to preview more to come, let’s ask the following question:

• Will urban farms ever be subsidized?
• Will urban land usage ever be encouraged to grow food?
• What role do urban farms have in this complicated issue?

Share and Enjoy:

Related posts:

1. A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
2. Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat
3. Local Food Movement Gains Serious Support

Like many historic reform movements I believe that we, the consumers have to change the food system. Unlike voting for representatives, I believe that where we put our money will have real effect on the world we live in. Every couple of days or weeks I am reminded of this potential and the change it is creating. Today I discovered a new piece of evidence to further this hope in the food revolution. And surprise surprise, the happy news comes from the government, specifically the USDA.

On Sept. 17 the USDA launched “Know your farmer, know your food,” an initiative to connect consumers to the farmers that grow their food. The focus is on developing new and sustained local/regional food systems, and with this creating new jobs and stronger smaller economies. Imagine a day when it is commonplace for a local independent restaurant to offer meals that are completely sourced from local foods (and not just in Portland.) When the demand grows the supply will follow and the technology or subsidies to make these efforts feasible. When this happens we can finally move beyond the criticism that ‘organic’ or ‘grass-fed’ is a class issue. This is a huge obstacle for the food movement – that it is a rich person movement.

I do believe that rich and middle-income people have the numbers to greatly influence the market, think of the organic label as example. The big difference between an organic movement and a local movement is that the latter can have far more restrictions. Unlike ‘organic’ which as a label has been destroyed by corporate food producers, local means locally produced (read this as an example.) I do think organic is an ideal but I do not support the certification that now goes along with it. It is a now-known fact that the “USDA certified organic” label is itself classist and systematically discriminatory (thanks to industrial ag.) For example, if a small family farm raising pasture-raised chickens wants to be certified organic, this small farm has to meet the same guidelines as Purdue. How can there even be competition? In my opinion, buying organic, certified organic does not carry the meaning it once had. Buying local and organic is far more powerful than buying organic from one of the handful of corporate organic food producers.

And yet, pushing my cynicism aside, let us be happy for the USDA. Let us be happy about this new initiative that provides millions of dollars towards creating more local and organic farms. For all the criticism of the federal government and its oppressive food certifications, this is something to be excited about. Finally some really good news.

Related posts:

1. The Dark Side of the Organic Food Movement
2. USDA Destroys Local Economies
3. Why “organic” isn’t good enough (or) the versatility of the tomato