Initial Thoughts on the Food Revolution
My reasons for the Food Revolution:
1. Stop supporting agribusiness.
2. Start supporting small and individually owned businesses.
3. Research our recent history of food production and consumption.
4. Make sure the things I consume are at least not bad for me.
I’ve had the philosophy of sustainability floating around in my head for about 5 years. I learned about if from my friend Tim when I was living in Austin. We discussed sustainability in the context of oil consumption. We were talking about alternative sources of energy such as bio diesel. Tim discussed sustainability in a larger context – more of a philosophy of solution. That vein of thinking was put into suspended animation as I became more focused on politics and war. My brother Pat gave me The Omnivore’s Dilemma for Christmas – this changed my focus.
After reading TOD, I realized that in participating in the standard food chain, I was contributing to the maltreatment of people, animals and the environment. In addition, on the personal side, I was consuming food that was not good for me. I also learned how difficult it is for small food producers and farmers to operate in the USDA system. This salon.com article will give you some quick insight on the difficulties of buying unpasteurized milk.
I would like the NYC Food Revolution group to provide information and support for its members in their pursuit of healthy food vis-à-vis a healthy environment.
A note on the execution of this idea: Although I am new to blogging (contributing), I am not sure if the blog format is the best way to share and categorize information. One of my goals in this endeavor is to share this information with other people who want to learn more about our food industry. I would like to be able to categorize the information – just some way to make it easily digestible for those that really aren’t aware of the problems. Maybe a wiki would be better. We’ll see.
3 comments:
I have no principal objection against agribusiness or business, profit or any of those tainted words. It is the way business is done (ethics) and the effects of business that are my concern, where sustainability, individual health and the general welfare of the community (a sum of the former) that matter. If business changes its ways in such a manner that it meets the standards of the Food Revolution I even belief that profit and large scale organization s can do the job better than small, family owned business. I would hate to see the Food Revolution fail on its costs, I thought we learned that lesson by now.
I think you will change your mind after reading The Omnivore's Dilemma. Agribusiness is designed around commoditizing food production. In order to commoditize corn, the corn must be genetically modified so it can be planted in the necessary density (rows per acre) needed to keep the commodity price down. This density requirement leads to the requirement for nitrogen fertilizer to supply the plants at such an unnatural density. This density (and abandonment of crop cycling) also requires pesticides. Both the fertilizer and pesticides are harmful to the environment and the people downstream. In addition, the nitrogen based fertilizer is fossil fuel based
Therefore, agribusiness is anathema to what I consider to be the Food Revolution. If you are only considering the food you put in your body, then our aims are divergent.
Your point is transferrable to the environmental debate against oil companies, I believe, except the oil business struggled with the sustainability issue for longer.
I say, that it is not irreconcilable with capitalist corporate structure to operate in a manner that serves the requirements of a sustainable environment. Quite the contrary, once legislation and public opinion require certain levels of sustainable behavior capitalist corporate bodies tend to adjust. It is the legislation and public opinion that should be attacked for negligence.
Post a Comment