Distribution
Where Dairy Isn't Cruel
Published August 05, 2009 @ 02:27PM PT
Before I even start getting into this post, I want to make one thing clear: I think that factory farmed dairy is just as, if not more, cruel than factory farmed meat production.
But with that said, the fact remains that not all dairy is cruel. I promise you.
I work for the first and (currently) only organic, grass-fed farmstead creamery in the state of Maryland. They produce organic creamline milk, yogurt and cheese that is sold at various farmers markets in the Washington, DC area.
Admittedly, I only sell for the family who owns the farm at farmers markets (and thus, do not actually work on the farm). But I've seen the farm, watched the cows being milked and cared for, and have never seen the slightest hint of cruel or inhumane treatment.
Even though more milk could be obtained with more intensive milking, cows on the farm are milked one time a day. No more, no less. This results in less product for the family, but happier (and healthier) cows.
Also, the cows diets consist almost entirely of grasses, as well as other plants and insects that are found in the fields where the animals are grazing. In years with lots of rain (as we've had on the east coast this year), the cows can survive on practically a 100 percent grass-based diet (as nature intended).
These cows are loved. More than (unfortunately) I've seen people loved in my lifetime. So, how can this sort of production be labeled as cruel or exploitative?
I feel like many of the anti-dairy advocates out there have never stepped foot onto a small dairy farm in their entire lives. If they had, they certainly would not be making blanket statements about how ALL dairy products are cruel regardless of their source. Because, most importantly, its simply not true.
Now yes, this kind of dairy production I don't believe would ever be economically viable on a large scale. There's just a cap on how much you can produce when you take animals out of the confined spaces of industrial farm operations.
So, I will readily admit that dairy you find in the grocery store (and at the vast majority of restaurants) will most likely continue to come from factory farms where cows are not treated with the respect that they, and all animals, deserve.
But at the same time, if I'm getting all of my dairy from a family I trust and who I KNOW for a fact treats their animals well, how am I supporting cruelty?
Instead of advocating for the complete destruction of the dairy industry, I think animal rights activists should also (I say also because I do think their time fighting the injustices of factory farming is well spent) promote and support the small farmers out there who treat their animals as well as they treat their children.
I await your comments.
(Photo credit: NickPiggott on Flickr)
Bill Establishes Farm-to-School Program in Texas
Published July 15, 2009 @ 09:56AM PT
Hello Sustainable Food people, remember me? I'll be doing my best to help Melissa with content for this blog while Natasha is away. Looking forward to getting back into the farm and food discussion over the next couple weeks.)
Last month, Texas Senate Bill 1027 passed through the state's Legislature and was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 19, 2009. The bill, sponsored by state Senator Kirk Watson, provides for the establishment of an inter-agency farm-to-school coordination task force in order to increase the ability of schools in the state to purchase locally produced foods to feed students.
First off, yay! I'm happy to see that government officials in Texas are taking a proactive role in increasing the amount of healthy foods available to state schools.
With the recent documentation that a full 20 percent of pre-schoolers in the U.S. are obese (yes, not just overweight, but obese), this legislation could not come at a better time.
Among the various tasks the bill requires the task force to accomplish (with my comments italicized):
- Offer assistance in identifying funding sources and grants that allow schools and school districts to recover the costs associated with purchasing locally grown food products. (I can't tell you how important this provision is. The greatest barrier to getting more fresh and local food into schools is cost, and if government can help defray that cost, schools will be much more willing to shell out the extra money for fresh food.)
- Provide technical assistance to school food service agencies to establish procedures, recipes, menu rotations, and other internal processes that accommodate the use of locally grown foods in public schools. (It's easy to throw a bunch of frozen french fries in the deep frier, but it's quite another to figure out how to incorporate beets, leeks and other fresh veggies into meals--and get kids to actually eat them.)
- Identify, design, or make available training programs to enable local farmers and ranchers to market their products to schools and school districts. (Making it easier, and of course profitable, for farmers to sell their products to schools helps to remove another barrier in making more locally produced good available.)
Second, I'm even more pleased to see the emphasis the legislation places on nutritional and experiential food education. More than simply making it easier for schools to source locally grown food, the task force is designed to encourage kids to learn to appreciate and understand the value of diets that include lots of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The earlier you teach children about the joys of enjoying fresh food, the more likely they'll take these eating habits with them as they grow older.
It won't be until the winter of 2010 until this task force is actually set up and ready to make recommendations on how to increase local foods in schools. As we've seen before, just because a government program is set up, it does not mean it's going to be effective.
I'm hoping that this task force will keep in mind the health and well-being of the state's children as they're working toward a stronger statewide food system.
(Photo credit: Bonzo McGrue on Flickr)
Ending Childhood Hunger by 2015
Published July 01, 2009 @ 01:50PM PT
Guest editorial by Jim Weill, FRAC president
It’s always shocking to hear how many Americans can’t afford enough healthy food to get through the month – 36.2 million people live in such households at last count – but it’s especially troubling when you consider how many of the hungry are children. More than 12 million children – nearly 17 percent of all children in the country – live in homes that are struggling with hunger, hindering them from growing, learning and succeeding in school.
During the presidential campaign, President Obama pledged to end childhood hunger in America by 2015. It’s an ambitious pledge and one that he’s clearly standing behind. According to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the president instructed him that “what I want you to do first, the most important thing in this job, is to make sure America’s kids are well fed.”
As a nation we have only six years to reach this goal of ending childhood hunger and it will not be easy. But the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) has described the essential strategies needed to make the 2015 pledge a reality. They are the measures required if we’re serious about ending the scandal of childhood hunger in the U.S. and bolstering the health and futures of our children.
The Fertilizer Divide
Published July 01, 2009 @ 12:19PM PT
While plant breeding has done its part, and irrigation a lion's share, in bringing global crop productivity up over this last century, synthetic and mineral fertilizers sealed the deal.
Plants need more than nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (N-P-K), but an abundance of those three key, limiting nutrients will get them growing well, usually even if there are micronutrient deficiencies. So the prominent N-P-K listings on fertilizer bags are generally most crucial, and arguably the most critical of these is nitrogen.
While the Green Revolution is attributed in large part to hybrid crop varieties, these do poorly when not supplied with the abundant irrigation and nutrient resources provided through the industrial agriculture system. As much as the biotech industry claims to be overcoming these input requirements, they have yet to do so, and hope is not a plan.
Industrial agriculture uses fertilizer synthesized from natural gas, which is running into price and availability constraints similar to that found with other fossil fuels. Further, using nitrogen fertilizer in excess of what can be absorbed by plants and organisms residing in the soil are a significant source of water pollution and the formation of nitrous oxides, which are powerful greenhouse gases.
Now, a new study has quantified the global fertilizer use divide, with the not-too-surprising findings that industrialized countries use too much and African agriculture may be in need of a lot more. From the press release:
Total(ish) Recall
Published June 28, 2009 @ 11:55PM PT
ObamaFoodorama discusses the ineffectual food safety measure known as a voluntary recall. LaVidaLocavore has more on the food inspection details
The FDA can't even make food processing plants show them their customer complaint records, their pest control records, or their contamination control plans. Let's contrast that toothlessnes towards large corporations with the micromanagement the federal government is trying to impose on individual ranchers in the form of the National Animal ID System.
... Mr. [Jay Platt, the third-generation proprietor of Platt Ranch,] called the extra $2 cost of the electronic tags an onerous burden for a teetering industry and said he often moved horses and some of his 1,000 head of cattle among three ranches here and in Arizona. Small groups of cattle are often rounded up in distant spots and herded into a truck by a single person, who could not simultaneously wield the hand-held scanner needed to record individual animal identities, Mr. Platt said. And there is no Internet connection on the ranch for filing to a regional database.
... “My main beef is that these proposed rules were developed by people sitting in their offices with no real knowledge of animal husbandry and small farms,” said Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms in Snow Hill, N.C., which rotates sheep, cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens among three properties and sells directly to consumers and co-ops.
“I feel these regulations are draconian,” Ms. Pridgen said, “and that lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture.” ...
Why would the FDA have virtually no power to compel the food production and distribution industries to prevent people from dying of E. coli contamination, all while it's on the verge of having draconian authority over every aspect of animal movement on small farms and ranches?
Consider it a map of public power - Nestlé has it, Platt and Pridgen don't. It's obvious whose side the government is on.
How Convenient
Published June 26, 2009 @ 09:55PM PT
As Greg Plotkin commented in the post about the USDA food desert report, "Price is important, as is access and nutrition education, but sometimes I think we underestimate the power of convenience as well."
Can't argue. In fact, that reminds me of a great blog post I read at Pandagon a couple years ago.
An archive crash seems to have taken out the memorable, original post, but I found another fan, Harold Henderson, who partially preserved (woohoo!) this Chris Clarke essay on how responsibility for maintaining environmental and social virtue falls mainly on women. (I'm including almost the entire post below, but as non-quoted commentary amounts to about two sentences and there isn't context otherwise ...):
Clarke: "In a paper published a couple weeks ago, Dr. Sherilyn McGregor of Keele University in Staffordshire points out that when environmentally sound living requires extra work, that work is usually 'women’s work.' ... What decisions are environmentalist citizens asked to make? Choosing the green laundry detergent and toilet paper and buying organic groceries. Carrying cloth bags to the supermarket. Using non-toxic cleansers. Adding corporate citizenship to one’s list of brand loyalty factors and schlepping the Seafood Buying Guide around. Sorting trash into the proper containers for recyclables, compost, and landfilling.
"Of course, we men carry all those containers to the curb, which perfectly balances the division of labor. But then you add Environmentalism 2.0 to the mix, and you have the Slow Food (read: hours spent in the kitchen) and Local Food (read: hours spent shopping) movements, and with that kind of scheduling pressure a woman likely wouldn’t even have enough time left in the day to type up her husband’s poetry."
Henderson: That's not random snark -- Clarke is specifically referring to poet Wendell Berry's anti-computer tirade of a few years back, in which he explained that his wife types his stuff on an old Royal typewriter. It's all very well, as Keele writes in her paper, to idealize participatory citizenship as in Athens of old. But "as feminists have noted, these Athenian citizens were freed for politics by the labour of foreigners, slaves, and women who were not granted the status of citizen. Citizenship, understood as being about active participation in the public sphere, is by definition a practice that depends on 'free time'; it is thus not designed for people with multiple roles and heavy loads of responsibility for productive and reproductive work." ...
As Henderson points out elsewhere, all the unpaid work people (usually women) do isn't even recognized by society as work that takes real time or effort. The work of taking care of other human beings, especially, gets no respect at all.
On top of that work, most families with children can't afford to live on one income. (Even though Mom often still does the majority of childcare.) Maybe part of the calculation goes like, 'well, either we spend an hour and a half cooking, more time cleaning up, etc., or we order take out and help the kids with their homework.'
Families can no longer count on having the unpaid, professionally disdained, ineligible for Social Security, morning-to-night labor of a grown adult to pick up the slack.
So yes, people are tired and stressed and don't have much time and ... oh, f* it, we're getting pizza tonight.
The USDA report also mentioned that the amount of time people spent getting to the grocery store in food desert areas was higher than the national average. Even if you have a car, that takes a bite. Do you go right after work, in rush hour traffic when everyone else is going and the checkout lines will all be five people deep? Do you go later at night, after dinner, when a person should be able to have a little time to relax? Do you go only on the weekend, knowing that most of the fresh produce needs to be eaten in a couple days and will run out by mid-week at latest?
Yeah, you make time and go to the grocery store, but the longer it takes, the less frequently you're going to want to bother. There's no point making some sort of moral argument about it, that's just the way it's going to work.
So, once again and not for the last time, the food system doesn't just have one problem, and not all of those problems are directly related to food.
(Photo credit: Phillie Casablanca on Flickr.)
Food Deserts: Access in America
Published June 25, 2009 @ 11:50PM PT
The USDA has finally released an eagerly awaited repord on food deserts in America. These conclusions are presented in the summary:
• Of all households in the United States, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2 percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile and do not have access to a vehicle.
• Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these 23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket.
• Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household member drove.
... Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most defining characteristic.
... Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels. These analyses use proprietary household-level data that contain information on food items purchased by approximately 40,000 demographically representative households across the United States. Results from these analyses show that when consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets. ...
Ezra Klein and Jane Black note at the Washington Post, it seems to be more a problem of having access to lots of lousy food instead of limited access to good food. This isn't antithetical to the previous general understanding of food deserts.
As the 2007 book Food Fight by Daniel Imhoff notes, "Food deserts aren't strictly a rural phenomenon either. Many inner-city urban areas, particularly low income neighborhoods, have become "underserved markets," where it is often easier to find a fast food restaurant or a convenience store than a grocery store with a variety of more healthy options. According Adam Drenowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, people are gaining weight and getting sick because unhealthy food is cheaper and often more available than healthy food."
Imhoff further says that between 1985 and 2000, the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables increased by 38 percent, while the cost of soft drinks plunged by 23 percent and fats and oils dropped around 15 percent.
