Tired of the Alice Waters Backlash - Are You?

[cinghiale]

I am surprised to read such vociferous defenses of industrial agriculture from people who I know love quality food.

I second that. Status quo ante does not mean that there aren't alternatives worthy of exploration. McWilliams and his followers here dismiss out of hand the viability of seeking a Third Way.

[Dave the Cook]

I am surprised to read such vociferous defenses of industrial agriculture from people who I know love quality food.

I second that. Status quo ante does not mean that there aren't alternatives worthy of exploration. McWilliams and his followers here dismiss out of hand the viability of seeking a Third Way.

←

Where's the evidence for that assertion?

I dismiss the local model because it's not viable. That doesn't mean I think meat can or should only be produced on disgusting factory farms. I haven't said that, nor, so far as I can tell, has anyone else.

[cinghiale]

That doesn't mean I think meat can or should only be produced on disgusting factory farms. I haven't said that, nor, so far as I can tell, has anyone else.

There's this:

But any way you slice it industrial agriculture is the future.

[rancho_gordo]

So unless you're willing to institute drastic population control measures, the local model is not only unsustainable, it's a non-starter. You don't have to be a fan of CAFOs, or not be a fan of local in-season produce to recognize that facts are facts.

←

I really think you've oversimplified this. I have to say, it's this all or nothing attitude that makes me nuts. The issues for grains are not the same issues for livestock. Or tomatoes. There are some great examples of where science has made inroads that we should be grateful for and there are horrific examples of food gone wrong.

A lot of people are eating better than ever, getting smarter about food and a few are actually making money, using viable local models of food production.

[slkinsey]

John, bear with me for a second...

The authors say: "The results from this preliminary study suggest that Salmonella and Toxoplasma were more commonly present in pigs that were reared in ABF, outdoor, niche market type of environment than the conventional, indoor-reared herds." And: "Even though we have not done a detailed risk factor analysis in the current study, the extensive (outdoor) nature of the ABF production system is conducive for exposure of the pigs to various known risk factors for Toxoplasma infestations such as cats (the definitive host) and other species that can be harboring cysts in their musculature as compared to the indoor conventional production system."

The authors also say: Although the prevalence for Trichinella was very low, it was still higher than our expectations (as well as U.S. Department of Agriculture prevalence estimates [Dubey et al., 1992]). The fact that both positive animals were identified among ABF, outdoor-reared swine highlights the potential foodborne risks of these production systems. These pigs are reared in an openair environment with potential exposure to wild and other domestic fauna, which are the potential sources of this parasite."

The authors conclude: "The finding in this preliminary study warrants the need for a robust epidemiologic study to determine the role of various production-associated risk factors in the two production systems on the safety and wholesomeness of pork products, particularly on the persistence of bacterial (Salmonella) and potential reemergence of parasitic (Trichinella and Toxoplasma) pathogens."

This all assumes reasonably healthy pigs, by the way. As the authors point out: "Sick pigs that were given antimicrobials for treatment, in the ABF units, were immediately removed from the herd and kept in a different hoop barn or pen enclosure and marketed as conventional and excluded from this study." So any pig that got sick enough to clearly need treatment was removed from the study. The pigs they tested were only those that seemed healthy.

Now, I understand that the presence of antibodies equals exposure and not necessarily infection. And I do agree, for example, that a 6.8% seroprevalence of Toxoplasma doesn't automatically equal a 6.8% rate of Toxoplasma infection.

But it's worth mentioning that toxoplasmosis is typically diagnosed by serologic testing. I'm not sure there really is a meaningfully better way of evaluating this sort of thing for >600 pigs, and seroprevalence does seem to be a fairly good indicator of prevalence of infection in this kind of study. Or is there some other standard? Is there some other way this should have been done? Having poked through the references, testing for seroprevalence seems to be pretty standard in this kind of study. From a logical standpoint, doesn't it follow that if greater incidence of seropositivity indicates greater incidence of exposure, and greater exposure is associated with greater incidence of infection, then greater incidence of seropositivity can be associated with greater incidence of infection? The authors don't say this, by the way, but it seems to make sense.

But, you know... you're certainly more qualified to have opinions on this sort of thing than I. I'm curious as to what, exactly, there is that you see as the "flaws in the study" that lead you to criticize the "methodology and the conclusion"?

McWilliams (not the authors of the study) uses the seropositivity figures in his op-ed as though they were equal to infection figures. And perhaps that's wrong. Or is it? Are you asserting that a 6.8% seroprevalence of Toxoplasma doesn't indicate equal a 6.8% rate of Toxoplasma infection? If we were doing serology diagnosis of, say, syphilis in humans -- would the general standard be to equate the seroprevalence rate with the infection rate in a population? Is there a way to have a positive serology test for Trichinella and not have been infected with the parasite?

Meanwhile, Mcwilliams' conclusions don't seem all that outlandish:

Let’s not forget that animal domestication has not been only about profit. It’s also been about making meat more reliably available, safer to eat and consistently flavored. The critique of conventional animal farming that pervades food discussions today is right on the mark. But it should acknowledge that raising animals indoors, fighting their diseases with medicine and feeding them a carefully monitored diet have long been basic tenets of animal husbandry that allowed a lot more people to eat a lot more pork without getting sick.

The fact that we’ve lost our way and found ourselves locked in the mess of factory farming, should not deter us from realizing that — if we genuinely hope to produce pork that’s safe and tasty — instead of setting the animal world partly free, we might have to take greater control of it. Do not underestimate the importance of this challenge. After all, if clean and humane methods of production cannot be developed, there’s only one ethical choice left for the conscientious consumer: a pork-free diet.

It seems to me that he's saying that, if we're going to have tasty "free range" ABF pork, we should make sure that we are also doing all the things we need to make sure that this meat his safe. After all, it hasn't been all that long that we have been able to eat medium-rare pork without being afraid of trichinosis. If I'm exposing myself to a 0.6% risk of trichinosis from "free range" ABF pork and a 0% risk from pork treated with antimicrobials, it might affect my decision as to which one I eat medium-rare.

Edited April 28, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Dave the Cook]

That doesn't mean I think meat can or should only be produced on disgusting factory farms. I haven't said that, nor, so far as I can tell, has anyone else.

There's this:

But any way you slice it industrial agriculture is the future.

←

Oh, the same post that also says:

. . . there are things about industrial agriculture that are harmful . . .

and

. . . It may have to be a modified form of industrial agriculture that's more "sustainable" but the future isn't likely to be one of heritage breeds and locavorism. Those will remain niche pursuits for well-to-do people . . .

and

. . . if I'm going to lecture about how I have a plan to change that reality, it should at least be a plan with a chance of working . . .

Those sound like precursors of a "third way" plan to me.

[Dave the Cook]

So unless you're willing to institute drastic population control measures, the local model is not only unsustainable, it's a non-starter. You don't have to be a fan of CAFOs, or not be a fan of local in-season produce to recognize that facts are facts.

←

I really think you've oversimplified this. I have to say, it's this all or nothing attitude that makes me nuts. The issues for grains are not the same issues for livestock. Or tomatoes. There are some great examples of where science has made inroads that we should be grateful for and there are horrific examples of food gone wrong.

A lot of people are eating better than ever, getting smarter about food and a few are actually making money, using viable local models of food production.

←

I don't disagree that some people are eating better as a result of the local model. I know that I do, though buying beans from Rancho Gordo doesn't exactly fit that program. I'm saying that it's not a viable model for meeting global food needs. It's not a matter of all-or-nothing; it's a matter of recognizing reality and designing a solution that aligns with that reality.

[cinghiale]

It may have to be ... isn't likely to be...

it should at least be...

Those sound like precursors of a "third way" plan to me.

←

No, not a precursor, but rather inclined to doubt, no dismiss arguments of those supportive of anti-factory farming.

[rancho_gordo]

So unless you're willing to institute drastic population control measures, the local model is not only unsustainable, it's a non-starter. You don't have to be a fan of CAFOs, or not be a fan of local in-season produce to recognize that facts are facts.

←

I really think you've oversimplified this. I have to say, it's this all or nothing attitude that makes me nuts. The issues for grains are not the same issues for livestock. Or tomatoes. There are some great examples of where science has made inroads that we should be grateful for and there are horrific examples of food gone wrong.

A lot of people are eating better than ever, getting smarter about food and a few are actually making money, using viable local models of food production.

←

I don't disagree that some people are eating better as a result of the local model. I know that I do, though buying beans from Rancho Gordo doesn't exactly fit that program. I'm saying that it's not a viable model for meeting global food needs. It's not a matter of all-or-nothing; it's a matter of recognizing reality and designing a solution that aligns with that reality.

←

But you're not acknowledging the different needs. Grains, beans, bulk, yes to industrial. Grow them where they grow best. Meat is so messed up who knows how to do it properly now? Local vegetables and dairy make a lot of sense. It's worth exploring.

[Dave the Cook]

But you're not acknowledging the different needs. Grains, beans, bulk, yes to industrial. Grow them where they grow best. Meat is so messed up who knows how to do it properly now? Local vegetables and dairy make a lot of sense. It's worth exploring.

←

Fair enough, though it's not like I haven't considered the specifics in my mind; until now, this topic hasn't really gone beyond umbrella-like considerations. Acknowledging that the local and industrial models both have flaws is the first step.

As to dairy specifically, my understanding is that most grocery chains (and let's face it, that's where most people shop, and will continue to for quite some time) are pretty well localized already. Kroger, Safeway, Publix, et al, don't want to spend any more on transportation than is absolutely necessary. (All Publix milk products are bgh-free, and have been for about a year now.)

[rancho_gordo]

But you're not acknowledging the different needs. Grains, beans, bulk, yes to industrial. Grow them where they grow best. Meat is so messed up who knows how to do it properly now? Local vegetables and dairy make a lot of sense. It's worth exploring.

←

Fair enough, though it's not like I haven't considered the specifics in my mind; until now, this topic hasn't really gone beyond umbrella-like considerations. Acknowledging that the local and industrial models both have flaws is the first step.

As to dairy specifically, my understanding is that most grocery chains (and let's face it, that's where most people shop, and will continue to for quite some time) are pretty well localized already. Kroger, Safeway, Publix, et al, don't want to spend any more on transportation than is absolutely necessary. (All Publix milk products are bgh-free, and have been for about a year now.)

←

Well there's a viable local model!

I know you are reacting in part to the lack of science and religious fervor of the localvore side, which can seem indulgent. I go nuts with the "we have a right to food with no pesticides" mentality. What are we supposed to do? Shoo the naughty pests away as we ride around the fields on our winged unicorns? What about organic pesticides? Is growing a root vegetable the same thing as growing wheat?

Feeding people is serious business and we have a huge amount of people to feed. But I can only see good in trying to include local production as part of the equation.

[djyee100]

It might have been a little easier for Alice if she had founded Cisco Systems. And made a couple of hundred million dollars.

Are you referring to Sysco, the mega-food distributor that claims to be going green and focusing on local suppliers? This article appeared in the April 2009 issue of Saveur, and Sysco must have liked it, because it's posted on their website. http://www.syscosf.com/about/Sysco.Greener...veurArticle.pdf

This blog had some interesting commentary on the article: http://deliberately.typepad.com/more_delib...his-n-that.html

If Sysco can do its work with greater energy efficiency and local sources for food, I'm all for it. I'll wait and see how these initiatives pan out, though.

Feeding people is serious business and we have a huge amount of people to feed. But I can only see good in trying to include local production as part of the equation.

Meanwhile, I'm with Rancho Gordo. To the degree that's feasible for me, I'll support local growers I meet at my farmers markets, and of course, my CSA. Energy efficiency is undoubtedly important, but other factors matter, too. I like the freshness and quality of the food at the farmers markets, and I like dealing directly with the growers. I can visit my CSA's farm, see the hedgerows and owl boxes that they provide to support other species, learn about the farm's educational programs for school kids, and donate to their program of organic vegetables for low-income women with cancer. Not everything important is quantifiable and counted into a cost-benefit analysis, after all.

[slkinsey]

I am also with rancho_gordo. Which is to say, I am for "local when it makes sense and not-local when that makes sense" with an understanding that different populations and geographical areas will be able to pursue slocal foods to a different extent, and respect for the fact that non-slocal can sometimes mean "better for the environment"; I am for "responsible agriculture without necessarily adhering to organic dogma; and I am for some combination of more-intensive and less-intensively raised meat (again, respecting the various exigencies of feeding the population as well as the true ecological realities of carbon footprints, etc.), preferably as humanely as practically feasible.

But this is a non-absolutist agenda. It's not one that appears to insist that it is ecologically preferable, morally better or even practically possible for, say, Minnesota or New York State to feed itself with local, organic, heirloom, artisanal everything.

Edited April 29, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Dave the Cook]

As to dairy specifically, my understanding is that most grocery chains (and let's face it, that's where most people shop, and will continue to for quite some time) are pretty well localized already. Kroger, Safeway, Publix, et al, don't want to spend any more on transportation than is absolutely necessary. (All Publix milk products are bgh-free, and have been for about a year now.)

←

Well there's a viable local model!

I know you are reacting in part to the lack of science and religious fervor of the localvore side, which can seem indulgent. I go nuts with the "we have a right to food with no pesticides" mentality. What are we supposed to do? Shoo the naughty pests away as we ride around the fields on our winged unicorns? What about organic pesticides? Is growing a root vegetable the same thing as growing wheat?

Feeding people is serious business and we have a huge amount of people to feed. But I can only see good in trying to include local production as part of the equation.

←

Perhaps I misspoke. Instead of "local" I should have said "regional." Milk in Atlanta comes from farms in North Carolina (or maybe Alabama), I think. And since Georgia is a leading chicken producer, eggs are local as well. But those chickens (and the factories that raise them) remind me that we don't know how well industrial dairy cows are cared for. I suspect the answer is "just as well as they need to be in order to produce a profitable quantity of milk."

It also reminds me that the efficient way to improve our food supply -- and by that I mean in all aspects: humane treatment of livestock, sustainable crop farming, quality and quantity of product -- is to think like Willie Sutton: go where the money is. The money is in chain groceries, buying clubs (and farm policy, of course). Kroger is in business to make money, not to wreak havoc on the environment. When buying local is more profitable, that's what they're going to do; hence the Florida corn that showed up here this week.

[slkinsey]

Tuscan Dairy Farms, one of the main supermarket brands we see here in NYC, says that "our milk comes from over 200 local farms throughout New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and our products are available in supermarkets, convenience stores and food service outlets throughout the 5 boroughs of New York City, Long Island, and the northern half of New Jersey."

Edited April 29, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[weinoo]

It might have been a little easier for Alice if she had founded Cisco Systems. And made a couple of hundred million dollars.

Are you referring to Sysco, the mega-food distributor that claims to be going green and focusing on local suppliers? This article appeared in the April 2009 issue of Saveur, and Sysco must have liked it, because it's posted on their website. http://www.syscosf.com/about/Sysco.Greener...veurArticle.pdf

This blog had some interesting commentary on the article: http://deliberately.typepad.com/more_delib...his-n-that.html

←

Well actually, no. The Sandy Lerner to whom Fat Guy refers, was a co-founder with her then husband of the Silicon Valley firm Cisco Systems.

Since she spent so many years in Silicon Valley, at both Stanford University and Cisco Systems (where, by the way, she wasn't exactly thought of as being a saint), it probably wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that she dined once or twice at Chez Panisse, as into food as she seems to be. And extrapolating a bit further, perhaps the Alice Waters ethos was one of the reasons Ms. Lerner decided to pursue and teach the farming methodology Ayrshire Farms is practicing today.

So maybe, just maybe, Alice did have a hand in this:

As a personal choice, I'm now spending a little more most of the time to get humanely raised meat. Sandy Lerner "won."

But if there is a loser, for me, it's Alice Waters. I'm someone who listens to arguments and can be converted by compelling ones, and I can be converted by people's inspiring personal examples. In a million years, though, I can't imagine being converted by Alice Waters.

←

[Fat Guy]

Lerner grew up on a farm; farming is in her blood and that's the source of her passion. I have no idea if she's ever dined at Chez Panisse, nor can I imagine how that piece of knowledge would be relevant.

The whole Cisco tangent just seems bizarre to me.

[weinoo]

The Cisco "tangent" is undoubtedly the reason she was able to buy Ayrshire farms.

Growing up on a farm would surely be a reason for one's love of farming.

Being exposed to the food world of the San Francisco Bay Area throughout the 70's and 80's may have enlightened her to a certain farming mentality.

[Fat Guy]

The Cisco "tangent" is undoubtedly the reason she was able to buy Ayrshire farms.

←

And?

Being exposed to the food world of the San Francisco Bay Area throughout the 70's and 80's may have enlightened her to a certain farming mentality.

I'm pretty sure her main influences go way farther back than that, to the 19th Century, and also to her own childhood. But even assuming she was heavily influenced by the Bay Area food culture, and even assuming Alice Waters can take full credit for that, my point was that where Alice Waters is a self-righteous scold Sandy Lerner is an effective, low-key presenter of the humane-farming message -- a mode of interaction that is far more likely to make converts.

[weinoo]

Being exposed to the food world of the San Francisco Bay Area throughout the 70's and 80's may have enlightened her to a certain farming mentality.

I'm pretty sure her main influences go way farther back than that, to the 19th Century, and also to her own childhood. But even assuming she was heavily influenced by the Bay Area food culture, and even assuming Alice Waters can take full credit for that, my point was that where Alice Waters is a self-righteous scold Sandy Lerner is an effective, low-key presenter of the humane-farming message -- a mode of interaction that is far more likely to make converts.

←

Right - I understand that there are many who believe AW to be a "self-righteous" scold.

However, one interaction with Sandy Lerner should not point her towards sainthood; there are probably a few toes that she stepped on along the way as well. Doesn't mean she isn't trying to do the right thing; though once again, the little people may find it a bit hard to buy, for instance, those $13 a pound turkeys.

[rancho_gordo]

Changing subjects slightly and focusing on AW's influence, I think more than the localvore, she really was an early pioneer with an aesthetic. Some would call if California Cuisine, but I think that's not right because real Calif cuisine would have to have more Asian and Mexican influences, but it's a sort of anti-"Continental" French food that focused on ingredients instead of dishes. I still think this is where Americans fail. We want "recipes" without having to learn how to cook. I think her influence helped the Silver Palate, which made it even simpler and more practical for everyday cooks.

A lot of times people are disappointed with Chez Pannise but I don't think they "get" it. It's only ambitious in focusing on what makes the ingredients the best they can be. they aren't try to knock your socks off with innovation or dreamy sauces.

But I think the roots of an aesthetic were created at CP and I think this is really where she deserves a lot of credit.

[Fat Guy]

the little people may find it a bit hard to buy, for instance, those $13 a pound turkeys.

←

Some people buy Nikes. Two pair.

[butterscotch]

my point was that where Alice Waters is a self-righteous scold Sandy Lerner is an effective, low-key presenter of the humane-farming message -- a mode of interaction that is far more likely to make converts.

←

just as i suspected this is mostly about the tone, and not the message. it's really important not to seem bossy or condesending.

if you are a woman.

[Jaymes]

my point was that where Alice Waters is a self-righteous scold Sandy Lerner is an effective, low-key presenter of the humane-farming message -- a mode of interaction that is far more likely to make converts.

←

just as i suspected this is mostly about the tone, and not the message. it's really important not to seem bossy or condesending.

if you are a woman.

←

I'm not sure being bossy and condescending serves anyone particularly well. It certainly has caused an unpleasant moment or two for Carlo Petrini.

I think no matter who you are, if you really want to win friends and influence people, let alone spur entire movements, being bossy and condescending is counterproductive.

As any successful salesperson can tell you.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Jaymes (log)

[slkinsey]

my point was that where Alice Waters is a self-righteous scold Sandy Lerner is an effective, low-key presenter of the humane-farming message -- a mode of interaction that is far more likely to make converts.

just as i suspected this is mostly about the tone, and not the message. it's really important not to seem bossy or condesending.

if you are a woman.

Yes, I think many people have been arguing that much of it is the tone, as well as the extent to which some of her specifics (e.g., things like snarks about people who choose to spend their money on two pairs of Nikes instead of organic lamb from the farmer's market) also seem condescending, judgmental, unrealistic or disrespectful of the priorities other people may have. Meanwhile, while I do think it's true that women face challenges in expressing certain arguments in certain ways (this was extensively hashed over during the Democratic primaries, and there is plenty of research to support gender-influenced differences in the way public figures are perceived) I'm not convinced that a man who seemed bossy and condescending while wagging a finger at people who don't buy heirloom tomatoes or whatever would be received any better.

Edited May 1, 2009 by slkinsey (log)