Call me radical but I don’t want to eat like my grandmother, even though journalist/food activist Michael Pollan says I should. Nor do I want to “Know Your Farmer” as USDA says I should. I love farmers and have worked with them my entire life. They are some of the coolest people I know.
But I really don’t need to have a personal friendship with the specific farmer that grew the radish on my salad or the steak on my grill. I sleep well at night knowing there are thousands of family farmers and ranchers across the nation toiling to feed the masses and committed to providing abundant and safe food. And we have federal agencies as an insurance policy to make sure the system works.
I like access to all kinds of food offerings – healthy and otherwise – even when things are out of season in my part of the world. And I don’t know what Mr. Pollan’s grandma was like but mine did indeed eat lots of vegetables from the garden in season and those she canned during the long winter months. But that old sweetheart also thought starch and lard were food groups.
She also built every meal around a large slab of meat because people labored hard then and the protein was crucial to getting through the day. Society spent more time lifting, bending and swinging heavy objects than we do in today’s computer-dominated society.
So I have spent a lot of time in recent months contemplating what is driving the small but growing niche markets in our food system operating under various names like organic, local, and even slow food movements. I have finally figured out that just assuming “slow food” is for bad hunters may not be a good strategy.
Almost astonishingly, the San Francisco Chronicle offered up a really nice article discussing the trend and how it is moving across the nation. It has a number of great quotes in it that I won’t spoil here.
Although I have a personal preference for Kansas rancher Chris Wilson, president of American Agri-Women, condemning documentaries like “Food, Inc.” and “King Corn,” as “pastoral fantasies.” My guess is Chris could take Michael two out of three falls because she really works for a living.
Seriously though, it is concerning when an anti-biotech advocate, like Michael Pollan is listed as one of the top “Thinkers” of 2010 on Time Magazine’s top 100 list. In the Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc. and in his books Food Rules and The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan, 55, does indeed tell complex stories in an engaging voice.
He has “pollanized” thousands into believing that local and organic is better, as Time states, without noting the potential pitfalls in execution, seasonality, and little things like plummeting yields.
At the end of the day this cultural evolution of food should be about consumer choice, consistency of supply and safety, and maybe even a little deference to Grandma.
An old farmer once told me “passion is good. It gets your blood moving, generates discussion, and gets you up in the morning. It also gives you a yardstick for finding a functional truth.” I guess what he meant is that if you investigate the extremes you will likely find the truth somewhere in the middle.
The New York Times highlighted the misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims used in the ongoing assault on corn syrup in a story last week. While approaching the issue in a couched tone, author Melanie Warner notes that many industry experts who normally criticize agriculture disagree with anti-corn syrup hype while pointing out that the Sugar Association is obviously behind at least some portion of the campaign to demonize the sweetener.
What the story points out is shocking to a reasonable individual. With regular industry critics such as Marion Nestle, Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest Michael Jacobson, Director of Weight for Life Clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston David S. Ludwig and Harvard Department of Nutrition Chair Walter Willett defending corn syrup, why would anyone continue to believe it is somehow less safe to eat than sugar?
Even Barry Popkin, the University of North Carolina Professor who coauthored the 2004 study that brought the American obesity epidemic into the spotlight defends corn syrup.
The Times quotes a Los Angeles Times story from July of 2008 where Popkin said that “recent studies ‘have convinced me that HFCS does not affect weight gain.’”
So how do people continue to believe the baseless attacks waged on HFCS? The article provides a perfect example in the explanation of Ivan Royster, a college librarian, who shares the view that many other HFCS critics do- that for some reason it is less natural and harmful in a way that science just can’t explain. Furthermore, he promotes this belief through his Facebook page to over 120,000 “friends.”
What the article fails to point out is that this stance is ridiculous verging on dangerous. With studies such as the one noted above and industry experts, including Omnivore’s Dilemma author Michael Pollan, defending corn syrup’s safety, a reasonable person should be able to tell the hype from the facts. Instead, unqualified zealots combat science by turning a blind eye and instead vigorously promote what is at best myth and at worst slander.
In doing so, these activists create confusion for the average consumer overwhelming them with media messages that, while vague and inaccurate, are ubiquitous. Consumers deserve accurate, unbiased information from sources that have well-reasoned arguments and verifiable data.
Don’t give into the hype. While some companies have chosen to recreate their products using other sweeteners, realize that they are only acting to capitalize on the aura of fear. The products are not safer and will not help consumers lose weight. Vote with your pocketbook and buy the same products that you have always enjoyed. Enjoy creations using corn syrup, a homegrown, natural sweetener, with complete comfort in their safety.
May is World Trade Month – and it would be a great time for Congress to finally ratify the free trade agreements that have been sitting around gathering dust for three years now.
No one seems to know exactly what the hold up is on ratifying the agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, especially since President Obama made increasing exports number three in his list of priorities for the nation during his State of the Union address in January, specifically setting a goal to “double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.”
“If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules,” the president said. “And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.”
Several agriculture groups got together Monday in Washington to urge Congress to “stop dragging its feet” and pass the Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements. The South Korea and Panama agreements were both finalized in June of 2007 – Columbia has been sitting around since November 2006. In the meantime, all three countries have been moving forward on trade deals with U.S. competitors.
American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman says the inaction on the part of Congress is costing U.S. agriculture lost market share and competitiveness. “We are seeing all around us FTAs being negotiated or already negotiated by our competitors, increasing their export potential and putting the U.S. at a disadvantage,” said Stallman. “The three FTAs combined, which are stalled in Congress, represent almost $2.5 billion in additional exports.”
Maryland corn farmer Chip Bowling says U.S. corn exports to Columbia alone have dropped 50 percent, a loss of $273 million to the U.S. economy. “Instead of seeing increasing markets and new opportunities for corn growers, we are fighting to keep our markets away from international competitors,” Bowling says, but passing the Columbia FTA could fix the problem. “Under the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the United States would have immediate access to Colombia’s market for 2.1 million metric tons of corn at a zero percent duty.”
“… the Obama Administration has begun to fill such agencies [as the EPA] with hires who are either sympathetic to, or even hail from, these activist groups.”
“The environmental lobby wants more farmland retired to “nature,” and one way to do that is to make farming more expensive. The EPA notes that eliminating atrazine would cost $2 billion annually in lost crop yields and substituting more expensive herbicides. Some farmers would go out of business or ask the federal government for more subsidies.
“The environmental lobby also figures that if it can take down atrazine with its long record of clean health, it can get the EPA to prohibit anything. Sounds plausible. Between this and its determination to regulate greenhouse gases, the Obama EPA is proving itself a regulatory fundamentalist, with scant regard for good science or economics.”
The science behind atrazine? As the Journal notes:
“Since atrazine’s debut in 1959, 10 Administrations have endorsed its use. The EPA in 2006 completed a 12-year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments. In re-registering the product, the agency concluded the cumulative risks posed “no harm that would result to the general U.S. population, infant, children or other . . . consumers.” The World Health Organization has found no health concerns.”
Call me radical but I don’t want to eat like my grandmother, even though journalist/food activist Michael Pollan says I should. Nor do I want to “Know Your Farmer” as USDA says I should. I love farmers and have worked with them my entire life. They are some of the coolest people I know.
No one seems to know exactly what the hold up is on ratifying the agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, especially since President Obama made increasing exports number three in his list of priorities for the nation during his State of the Union address in January, specifically setting a goal to “double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.”