Open Forum on Food Politics

[stovetop]

I am seeing more discusion and media articles on food politics, I would like to make this an open invitation to all interested in our food source and keeping healthy and free of GMO or at least giving us the choice to choose.

So many chefs are choosing to become political and supporting sustainable and local foods , lets talk and see where we have a common base, I know that there must be more people out there with an opinion, so much silance is not good, let the voices be heard.

steve

some current BC food politics

[srhcb]

There's nothing wrong with open discussion, but the term "food politics" should, by itself, set off warning signals. It implies the issue has opposing sides, one of which we must "choose", like an election.

The major "problem" with our food supply is that people devour too much of it while exerting too little physical effort obtaining it.

Chef's are welcome to their opinions too, but, like other celebrities, they seem to feel a compulsion to be taken seriously on subjects they have only an amatuer understanding of.

Myabe sometimes silence really is golden?

[rancho_gordo]

There's nothing wrong with open discussion, but the term "food politics" should, by itself, set off warning signals.  It implies the issue has opposing sides, one of which we must "choose", like an election.

←

But you're making a political choice every time you buy something!

You can buy the artisan grass fed, humane certified local ground beef from a single herd or you can go to Sam's Club and buy the drug-laden mass of rendered nastiness from 200 different cows from all over the world, including cows living on what was previously forest in a developing third world country. These cows fed GMO corn? Most likely! A whole new kettle of farm-rasied, toxic fish.

IS your food raised by a family farm practicing sustainable farming? Or the government subsidized corporate farm whose dollars fund policies and propoganda that help you come to the conclusion that:

Myabe sometimes silence really is golden?

Thanks for bringing this up, stovetop. Let's keep on talking about this one, and loudly.

[jsolomon]

Okay, I'll admit it. Where I work, we GM O's. My father grows GM corn.

Having gone through a fair amount of genetics in college and having been a protein chemist off and on since graduating, I'm not going to bat an eye about eating GM food. But, it's how the gi-normous food corporations act that frightens me.

They chew up and spit out workers the same way their machinery chews up and spits out beef carcasses, and why is there no outcry?

-jared

P.S. Corn fed beef rules.

[docsconz]

I don't think the issue is about specific products, since after all that is a matter of personal preference. Rather it is more a question of methods and goals. Are the goals ones of long-term viability and sustainability or short-term profit? Now I like to make a profit as much as the next guy, but a profit today does me little good if I have nothing worthwhile to spend it on tomorrow.

To me the big issues are ones of control and sustainability. My biggest "beef" with GM crops is the issue of access and control. While Corporations deserve to be able to get a return on R&D expense, the area with food production raises a whole other can of mutant worms. In the pharmaceutical industry R&D develops entirely new products to address specific needs in specific ways. To the extent that they are successful and add benefit to the human experience, they IMO deserve significant profit, especially since they only control the patents for a period of time before they receive significant competition and potential profit is the stimulus for innovation. This is differentfor the agricultural industry though. While the stated goals may be to "improve" crops (many of which don't need improvement), they wind up replacing already good and serviceable crops with crops that require the company for further propagation. What concerns me the most about companies like Monsanto and their GM seeds is that they have the potential to effect crops in such a way that they end up with what is essentially a monopoly without having really bettered the world. This is a situation that imperils all of us economically, gastronomically and health-wise.

[FaustianBargain]

Okay, I'll admit it.  Where I work, we GM O's.  My father grows GM corn.

Having gone through a fair amount of genetics in college and having been a protein chemist off and on since graduating, I'm not going to bat an eye about eating GM food.  But, it's how the gi-normous food corporations act that frightens me.

They chew up and spit out workers the same way their machinery chews up and spits out beef carcasses, and why is there no outcry?

-jared

P.S.  Corn fed beef rules.

←

I am not against GM food. GM food politics hurt people, families and economies. Actually, I think GM food will benefit third world countries and especially African countries where poverty and famine create havoc and starvation deaths.

Edited January 16, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[jsolomon]

While the stated goals may be to "improve" crops (many of which don't need improvement), they wind up replacing already good and serviceable crops with crops that require the company for further propagation. What concerns me the most about companies like Monsanto and their GM seeds is that they have the potential to effect crops in such a way that they end up with what is essentially a monopoly without  having  really bettered the world. This is a situation that imperils all of us economically, gastronomically and health-wise.

←

Would you expound more on your parenthetical comment about crops not needing improvement, please?

[docsconz]

A lot of heirloom crops already work very well in specific areas and don't need additional "improvement" at least for those areas. varieties of tomatoes come to mind. Does that mean that any individual variety is "perfect"? No, of course not. So while they may be improvable, they do not need "improvement", because they already work well and are adapted to particular conditions and may be paired with other crops that also work well in specific areas and conditions, while maintaining genetic diversity. Traditional methods of cross-breeding and selection have worked well over time to provide specific improvements deemed desirable. The question becomes, are further "improvements" of a crop worth the potential costs of instituting those "improvements"? Is it worth the potential of monopolistic control and reduced diversity?

[docsconz]

If farmers have to rely on one source for their crops they are by definition subject to a monopoly.

[Kit]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...biotech_pirates

This is another side of the agribusiness/genetic modification story. Apparently you have to buy the seeds every year. It's strange how the big business is changing the way people farm.

[docsconz]

It seems that any farmer getting involved with Monsanto is getting into a Faustian bargain.

[jsolomon]

It seems that any farmer getting involved with Monsanto is getting into a Faustian bargain.

←

I'm not going to argue with you there. From my viewpoint, it's still mainly grains that are genetically modified. Then, they typically go to animal feed, at least the ones my father grows, go to cattle feedlots, locally. It's a market scale issue.

But, with the pesticides and herbicides that are necessary for industrial agriculture, having soybeans that you can use Round-up with, and corn that naturally is poisonous to rootworms is something that actually saves farmers a lot of production expense.

But, it's scary how much political clout food megaconglomerates and agriculture megaconglomerates have... we oughta clip their political wings a bit. Gah, I'm way to hungover to remember my point right now...

[Mabelline]

I'm really surprised that it's been 40+ years in the making for Monsanto to position itself like that. That poor schmuck in TN getting 8 months in prison! That's less than a lot more serious crimes pull down.

The information about the soybeans really got me wondering. I watch an ag report every morning at 4 am. During the show, there's frequent updates about a soybean rust disease that was first identified in N.E. LA, and they show it spreading to several adjacent states. I will watch it closer to see what is up with that. But it would be interesting to find out if Monsanto engineered soybeans are also affected.

[tanabutler]

P.S.  Corn fed beef rules.

←

Here is a San Francisco Chronicle article from May, 2004, on Michael Pollan: why corn-fed beef (and corn-based agriculture) is a Very Bad Thing. There is a large section about Monsanto in there—Philip Angell, the director of corporate communications, actually uttered these words to Pollan: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."

Also:

[Alice Waters] was troubled to learn that feeding a cow corn, rather than the grass it has evolved to eat, transforms it from a solar-powered to a fossil-fueled animal. Corn requires more nitrogen fertilizer (made from natural gas) and pesticides (made from petroleum) than any other food crop.

And this:

"The industrial food chain does produce food more cheaply, in terms of the price you pay at McDonald's or the supermarket," replies Pollan, "but the real cost of cheap food is not reflected in those prices. You're paying for it in your tax dollars because you're giving farmers $20 billion a year in subsidies. You're paying for it in public health costs. These subsidies make unhealthy food cheaper than healthy food, and so our country is facing an obesity epidemic. The antibiotics you need for your son's illness don't work anymore because we've squandered them all on farm animals. We can't take fish from the Gulf of Mexico because of the nitrogen runoff from agricultural fertilizers. [Emphasis mine: growing corn is the cause of this pollution.] The people of Des Moines, Iowa, have to drink bottled water in the summer because their water is poisoned. Those are all costs. The phrase I use is 'the high cost of cheap food.' "

Corn is also at the root of the nation's obesity epidemic: the increase in corn-based sweeteners has increased something like 7000% since I was a child in the Sixties.

It is a fascinating article, and it's what convinced me to give up corn-fed beef much the same way that I gave up "rainforest burgers" at Burger King back when that was an issue of social conscience. There are some ranchers who feed organic corn to their beef, and I don't have an issue with that meat. But the other risks of eating beef (especially since they feed cows to cows) is not worth it.

One chef I know says that it's going to come down to beef having pedigrees. If you don't know where your meat is coming from, the health risks are just too great.

We used to live in Boulder, Colorado, and one of the scary things nearby was a cattle ranch next to Rocky Flats nuclear power plant. A few months after we left Colorado, the plant was closed due to "environmental and safety concerns." It took $17 million to clean it up. Meanwhile, where did all that beef get sent? Safeway? Vons? Glow-in-the-dark burgers, anyone?

See what I mean?

I'm not saying corn-fed beef doesn't taste good, but I can't stomach it for all the reasons cited.

[FaustianBargain]

Here is a San Francisco Chronicle article from May, 2004, on Michael Pollan: why corn-fed beef (and corn-based agriculture) is a Very Bad Thing.

thank you for that link. michael pollan has been instrumental in shaping many of my ideas re food and eating.

[Rebel Rose]

Cannard farm, he explains, doesn't look like a typical farm; it is more "weedy. " Mingling weeds with crops adds vitality to the system, the farmer believes. Pollan's not too quick to scoff at this unconventional practice. In his first, award-winning book "Second Nature: A Gardener's Education," Pollan writes, "The successful gardener, I've found, approaches science and folk wisdom, even magic, with like amounts of skepticism and curiosity. If it works, then it's 'true'. Good gardeners tend to be flat-out pragmatists not particularly impressed with science."

It is indeed an excellent and lengthy interview, except for this silly bit.

We are frequently asked why we have high "weeds" in our vineyard and orchard.

There is however, a technical name for it. It's called a 'cover crop.'

Clover refreshes the nitrogen content of the soil. Mustard has deep roots which penetrate and aerate the soil, and the roots rot down into near-perfect humus. Barley and rye reduce erosion, add biomass and assist in nitrogen fixation.

Proper use of a cover crop improves the tilth of the soil, it's ability to retain moisture, nematodal health and balance, nutrient availability, and it provides habitat for natural insect predators.

Our "weeds" are an important part of our agrarian cycle.

[Pan]

I'm really surprised that it's been 40+ years in the making for Monsanto to position itself like that. That poor schmuck in TN getting 8 months in prison![...]

←

Who? I can only think of Martha Stewart, who's imprisoned in West Virginia. Is that who you meant?

[Rebel Rose]

Pan, I believe she's referring to this poor guy.

Monsanto sends farmer to jail for seed saving

Although, God knows, there are probably others by now.

GMO was a big issue in our county elections this year. There was a fuzzily-worded proposition to ban GMO crops which was hotly contested, but the way it was written it would also abolish, or at least interfere with, university research, which is a no-no. I also got into hot water, more like a steaming hot pile of manure, when the local vintners' board of directors (of which I am a member) was asked by an agribusiness farmer who supports GMO to take a stand against the ban. We declined to oppose the ban, for the simple reason that our association is not a political entity, but exists to promote and support the wine region. The person who asked us to take a stand turned our communal reply into "The board SUPPORTS GMO," advertised it in print and live media, and of course the steaming manure hit the fan.

To me, it all vortexes down to this. There's a lot of misinformation on both sides, much of it subtly or overtly manipulated, and much of it comes closer to science fiction than fact. But if GMO statutes put farmers in prison for practicing sensible, careful, and traditional farming, I am against GMO and anything, anyone associated with it.

The next time you buy a bag of tomatoes at your market, buy one heirloom tomato. As a treat. They're more expensive, but 1 out 10 would make a difference! Buy one heirloom fruit or vegetable each trip. Buy one organically farmed US olive oil every few months! The farmers being run out of business by agri-firms cannot return to small scale farming unless there is a ready market.

In the seventies, I was growing my own sprouts under the sink and getting goat's milk from my friend's herd, much to my parents' dismay. Goats' milk? Eew. Sprouts? Why don't you just plant the damn seeds and let them grow for crissakes? Now I can choose between mung and alfalfa in the store. Grass roots, my friends.

It's hard enough, with the titan dis-economies of scale and impossible burden of paperwork and reporting, for a small farmer to survive. If even 5% of our individual and collective grocery budget switched from mass-produced to small-scale products, it would make a huge difference. I figure from eGullet Society members alone, it would be a switch of $4 million dollars!

Doh! What I am saying? You should be spending that 5% on artisan wine!

[jsolomon]

There are several assertions that are made in that article that I don't think really hold much water. The safety of corn-fed beef, the quality of Des Moines water, the necessity of a company that doesn't produce food to vouchsafe food.

First off, living is inherently dangerous. Americans have lost touch with this fact. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do many things within our power to make sure that our food supply is non-disease-producing, but we have a proven track record of over-reacting and getting it wrong, to boot.

I completely agree that our version of industrial agriculture not a sustainable plan. My father and I get into fights about this all of the time.

I am a firm believer in omnivores developing their digestive system to be able to handle novel proteins, sugars, and fats. So, the concept of a GM food doesn't frighten me. I believe my body is up to the task of digesting and extracting nutrition from a foodstuff genetically derived from something previously healthy. I simply can't see Monsanto inserting botulism neurotoxin genetics into an area where it will be expressed into the food supply. The shit-storm from that would be astounding. Monsanto would go the way of Enron quickly if that were to occur.

As for grass-fed beef being safer, how? If it is a problem with the cleanliness of the supplier, as Eric Schlosser says, "there is shit in the meat", change butchers. If you change to a smaller volume, lower employee-number butcher, and pay good prices, they will produce the cuts that he needs. If it is a problem with hormonally injected beef, contract with producers to not inject their beef. If it's a problem with not wanting animal by-products fed to the cows, again, contract with the producers. I can name 10 producers off the top of my head that would dress their beef cattle in pink polka-dots for a good contract that would allow them to produce cattle of the quality they try to.

And for water quality? If the water in Des Moines were really that bad, the FDA would shut down their water plant and make the city build a new plant to bring the water quality back up to snuff.

So, what is the deal with this guy? He is being as much of a capitalist as the farmers, ranchers, industrialists, and consumers that he's critizing. He just happens to be tapped into a nerve that's currently in vogue. He can play off of first approximation junk science and bring in writing contracts and lecture contracts and bringing about more bile than actual legitimate change.

It's going to take time to change our system. Things that will help us to stop our agricultural system being so poisonous are going to be having the American government stop using farm subsidies politically. We drive subsistence farmers off of their land in other countries so these developing countries can grow "cash crops". We use the sale of grains to other countries as a weapon to get them to follow the practices that the American public wants. We're the food bullies of the world, and we ought to be ashamed. So, of course we subsidize farmers. Without using food as political capital throughout the world, our industrial complex wouldn't have its raw materials to help us accumulate wealth. So, it's shame on us, goddammit. Not shame on farmers or shame on Monsanto. We're all part of this society.

[FaustianBargain]

First off, living is inherently dangerous.  Americans have lost touch with this fact.

What a ridiculous defence for GM crops! But then again, you just made the argument against GM crops. Thanks.

I am a firm believer in omnivores developing their digestive system to be able to handle novel proteins, sugars, and fats.  So, the concept of a GM food doesn't frighten me.  I believe my body is up to the task of digesting and extracting nutrition from a foodstuff genetically derived from something previously healthy.

Do you have *any* idea how long it would take for an alternate digestive system to evolve? Evolution, as opposed to 'intelligent design', will systematically eliminate the population that is unable to 'develop' digestive systems to be able to handle 'novel proteins, sugars and fats'. To suggest this, translated to extreme language, is not akin to suggesting eugenics to maximise profits for the likes of Monsanto.

Let us first deal with digesting refined carbs without falling into the deadly vortex of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and colon cancer.

I simply can't see Monsanto inserting botulism neurotoxin genetics into an area where it will be expressed into the food supply.  The shit-storm from that would be astounding.  Monsanto would go the way of Enron quickly if that were to occur.

People have been 'genetically modifying food for ages. Wheat pops to mind immediately. I think GM according to Monsanto is a different kettle of fish and carries implications that are diverse and varied.

As for grass-fed beef being safer, how?

Simply put, cows simply do not have the digestive facilities to be fed and bred on corn. I could only find this url for the Power Steer article by Michael Pollan. Please read it.

Here is a fascinating pbs interview with Michael Pollan that will give you all the answers you need. I dont want to butcher the piece to fit within 150 words which would kinda take away the impact.

I can name 10 producers off the top of my head that would dress their beef cattle in pink polka-dots for a good contract that would allow them to produce cattle of the quality they try to.

OK. Tell us.

And for water quality?  If the water in Des Moines were really that bad, the FDA would shut down their water plant and make the city build a new plant to bring the water quality back up to snuff.

Heh.

So, what is the deal with this guy?  He is being as much of a capitalist as the farmers, ranchers, industrialists, and consumers that he's critizing.

I see. So reading that seem to you as though he was against capitalism?

It's going to take time to change our system.  Things that will help us to stop our agricultural system being so poisonous are going to be having the American government stop using farm subsidies politically.  We drive subsistence farmers off of their land in other countries so these developing countries can grow "cash crops".  We use the sale of grains to other countries as a weapon to get them to follow the practices that the American public wants.  We're the food bullies of the world, and we ought to be ashamed.  So, of course we subsidize farmers.  Without using food as political capital throughout the world, our industrial complex wouldn't have its raw materials to help us accumulate wealth.  So, it's shame on us, goddammit.  Not shame on farmers or shame on Monsanto.  We're all part of this society.

I'd say, 'Shame on Monsanto'.

[jsolomon]

First off, living is inherently dangerous.  Americans have lost touch with this fact.

What a ridiculous defence for GM crops! But then again, you just made the argument against GM crops. Thanks.

←

All you can offer in response is fear, uncertainty, and doubt? If you don't think that Americans have lost touch with the fact that life is inherently dangerous, then someone is removing all of the safety warning labels on what you buy before you see it. I look around everyday at people driving 2 tons of steel with 3 sticks of dynamite in their tank and think to myself, "if we can control a car, why can't we deal with a plastic bag without needing to be reminded that it can suffocate us?" If I do something dumb and get myself killed, I expect people I know to say, "That was dumb, and he got himself killed". I don't expect them to sue and legislate for something that common sense will solve. Apply Occam's Razor to what Monsanto wants to do with the food supply. The finger points back at us as a society.

Why do you simply respond back with shame on Monsanto? They are simply living in the society that we helped craft with them. We are as morally culpable by providing them with the legal and social tools to undercut farmers in this manner.

As for needing to retool our digestive system, why? When we genetically modify foods currently, we are placing in genes from other plants/animals into a different plant/animal's genome. We've already evolved to deal with the current variation of proteins, fats, and sugars, so we don't need to have a sharp branching of our philogeny to deal with these. AFAIK, there are no de novo proteins making it into our food supply.

What is your response to the US using food subsidies and contracts as a political weapon brought to bear overseas?

[Rebel Rose]

Gentlemen, let's remember that political topics are watched very closely on eGullet. If we'd like to keep this thread open, we need to stay away from finger-pointing and getting angry with differing opinions.

It can remain an interesting thread if we:

* share tips and links to current information

* share 'insider' or professional knowledge

* share personal experiences and anecdotes

* share, briefly our own stands without arguing with another's

* share ideas for changing our food culture

[jamiemaw]

Gentlemen, let's remember that political topics are watched very closely on eGullet.  If we'd like to keep this thread open, we need to stay away from finger-pointing and getting angry with differing opinions. 

It can remain an interesting thread if we:

* share tips and links to current information

* share 'insider' or professional knowledge

* share personal experiences and anecdotes

* share, briefly our own stands without arguing with another's

* share ideas for changing our food culture

←

Perhaps this will help inform the discussion

[stovetop]

There's nothing wrong with open discussion, but the term "food politics" should, by itself, set off warning signals. It implies the issue has opposing sides, one of which we must "choose", like an election.

You are absolutely right it is about choice; choices from different sides, the big corporations and science have brought us to this point, so many people go to the store and make political choices on what they buy based on opinion, feelings and maybe even some facts or science. For me it is a crime against democracy when we do not have the right to choose, the public will choose if they want GMO in our food source, and science and business will fight it out with propaganda and bull shit mixed with fact and half truths, just like election time.

The ones with the best spins usually win, but having millions of dollars and all the research grants, it is definitely not an even playing field, that is why it is food politics.

Having gone through a fair amount of genetics in college and having been a protein chemist off and on since graduating, I'm not going to bat an eye about eating GM food. But, it's how the gi-normous food corporations act that frightens me.

You have the understanding of proteins but who has done any studies on the long term affects of these proteins on the human body, on our livestock and plant based food sources, we opened up the can on g-gnomes, do we really know the relationships and long term affects, I am not a scientist, but I say they are full of shit if they believe they know the answers, they are as much in the dark as we are, they are all just cashing out while they can.

I don't think the issue is about specific products, since after all that is a matter of personal preference. Rather it is more a question of methods and goals. Are the goals ones of long-term viability and sustainability or short-term profit? Now I like to make a profit as much as the next guy, but a profit today does me little good if I have nothing worthwhile to spend it on tomorrow.

It is all about sustainability, how long can we sustain the earth using this type of high intense farming mixed with radical GMO type ware far against all living matter and creatures that come into contact with the protein types in Seeds, chemicals, fertilizers that all have not been in the environment before under their current form.

Do we really know???

Monsanto profits now, but what about ten years from now, 100 years from now, do we know the answers??

How do their profits affect us; Humans?

NO?

While Corporations deserve to be able to get a return on R&D expense, the area with food production raises a whole other can of mutant worms

What concerns me the most about companies like Monsanto and their GM seeds is that they have the potential to effect crops in such a way that they end up with what is essentially a monopoly without having really bettered the world. This is a situation that imperils all of us economically, gastronomically and health-wise.

The question becomes, are further "improvements" of a crop worth the potential costs of instituting those "improvements"? Is it worth the potential of monopolistic control and reduced diversity?

QUOTE

[Alice Waters] was troubled to learn that feeding a cow corn, rather than the grass it has evolved to eat, transforms it from a solar-powered to a fossil-fueled animal. Corn requires more nitrogen fertilizer (made from natural gas) and pesticides (made from petroleum) than any other food crop.

Cows are a domesticated animal, they do not evolve????

To me, it all vortexes down to this. There's a lot of misinformation on both sides, much of it subtly or overtly manipulated, and much of it comes closer to science fiction than fact. But if GMO statutes put farmers in prison for practicing sensible, careful, and traditional farming, I am against GMO and anything, anyone associated with it.

Why can not a farmer sue Monsanto for contaminating their crop with the G-seed

and loose fifty years of work???

Monsanto should pay the world for this, this farmer lost something because of what monsanto did.

Does Monsanto own life????????????

And the fact that even if the farmer could sue, can they??

steve

[Rebel Rose]

Perhaps this will help inform the discussion

An excellent and entertaining link! Thanks, Jamie!