Posts by Greg Plotkin
My $80 Thanksgiving Turkey
Published November 13, 2009 @ 11:08AM PT
The argument can be made that paying $80 for a turkey this Thanksgiving is just a typical example of elitism in the sustainable food movement. And that might be somewhat true.
However, I say that it is an example of paying for what's important to you, and for me, that's knowing not only who raised the bird on my table but how it was raised as well.
This Thanksgiving, I'll be serving a 10-12 pound heritage breed turkey from EcoFriendly Foods, a cooperative that sources sustainably produced meat from small farms throughout the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia; and here's why.
Somewhere around 99% of the turkeys consumed in America every year are the genetically engineered "Broadbreasted White" variety. These turkeys, the ones you find in the grocery store, are raised in (I omit "on" for a reason) factory farms, and have been manipulated to the point that they cannot even stand on their own most of time.
No Farms, No Food
Published November 06, 2009 @ 12:30PM PT
More than being a cute tag line for the organization that employs me, the phrase "No Farms, No Food" represents an often overlooked and forgotten component of maintaining a sustainable food supply.
With all the talk about Genetically Modified seeds, organic vs. conventional agriculture, and the physical and environmental horror of industrialized meat production, the one conversation that is consistently left off the table is protecting the land base that all kinds of agriculture (no matter what your definition of "sustainable" is) depends on.
Despite a surge of interest in farming in the United States, the country continues to lose two acres of farmland every second of every day. This is happening in every state in the country, and is especially significant in urbanized areas that are responsible for 86 percent of the fruits and veggies, and 63 percent of the dairy, produced in the United States.
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:45PM PT
(This is the second in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. The first part of my response can be found here.)
To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture. I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.
Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold. This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically. There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.
It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist. In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.
This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture. Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit. We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 1
Published August 17, 2009 @ 09:34AM PT
(This post is the first in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute.)
More than simply being a piece praising modern technology and the rise of industrial agriculture, "The Omnivore's Delusion" is a show of utter frustration toward those the author calls "Agri-intellectuals" and their constant indictments against anything that is not small-scale, local and organic.
Although I don't agree with everything Hurst says (like his assertion that sustainable food advocates are decidedly anti-technology), I certainly understand and empathize with where he's coming from.
But what I think neither Hurst nor the "Agri-intellectuals" understand is that we have two distinct agricultural systems in the United States, and we need both of them equally.
Those of us involved in the sustainable food movement are drawn to the cause, largely, because we reject the idea that food should be an untraceable commodity with nothing but a multi-million dollar corporation standing behind it. We like to view food as having (to steal some language from one of my favorite organizations) a face, a place and a taste.
If you really think about that, it's somewhat of a selfish goal. We are imposing our values onto the people who grow our food, largely without the knowledge of what it takes to actually get that food onto our plates. Thankfully, there are an increasing number of farmers who share our food values and choose to grow either organically or sustainably, and almost exclusively for local markets. But we must understand that, for farmers like Hurst, this is neither a practical nor desirable opportunity.
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)
U.S. Farmers Love Biotech...Apparently
Published July 16, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Farmers in the United States are continuing to plant genetically engineered crops at unprecedented levels according to a report released recently by the USDA's Economic Research Service.
The report found that the adoption (the percentage of farmers planting a certain kind of crop) of GE soybeans reached 91 percent; the adoption of GE cotton reached 88 percent; and the adoption of all biotech corn climbed to 85 percent in 2009.
Farmers are doing this despite claims that growing biotech crops in the U.S. has done little to increase yields. According to the Failure to Yield (pdf) report (previously cited on this blog) conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientist's Doug Gurian-Sherman:
...genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.
So why are U.S. farmers continuing to plant biotech crops?
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)
