One of the things that flew under the radar in national politics is agriculture. Most people are so disconnected from their food supply that they have no idea how much of an impact it has on the world. While we worry about the war, which will most likely end soon, or at least in our lifetime, we continue to commit grievances against our health (and thus the healthcare system), the environment, and the world's food supply, by sticking to poor dietary choices and always shooting for the 'best deal' when buying food. I don't think that most of the changes we need are going to come from government action. We still live in a mostly market-driven economy, and as consumers, we have the most power to affect change. I don't need to repeat the talking points, as they are all over the internet and beyond, but if you are still clueless: read The Omnivore's Dilemma, stop eating so much meat, and spend a greater percentage of your income on food that may cost a bit more (though maybe not) but tastes better and is better for the world, instead of on shoes, TVs, cars, and stupid shit like that.
That said, Mr. Obama did run as the candidate for change, and we need to hold him to that. I am generally impressed by Obama's intellectual honesty, and if he is to continue to be held in this kind of esteem, he must at once overhaul the Department of Agriculture. Aside from the economy, the environment is the most pressing issue we face. Nicholas Kristof had an excellent column about this in the Times, and I have to agree with him. Everyone knows the buzz words. Factory farms. Agribusiness. Ethanol subsidies. And yet we continue to accept this farming system as the status quo. We need to pressure Obama to pay more attention to the Department of Agriculture. Instead of paying small farms to grow food, let's pay them to help them invest in their small-production systems and to build a sustainable infrastructure. Let's change the landscape in Iowa and Nebraska to include more than corn and soy. Again, I still think that the change needs to come from consumers. I don't trust that government can do that much to influence what is mostly a cultural problem at this point. Still, you can get the ball rolling my signing this petition. It's time to stop looking at these issues as some kind of elitist foodie boner. They are universal issues, and I hope Obama will see them as worthy of a spot on his agenda.
Food Blogs
Friends of Mine
Not food, but still delicious
Labels
- bay area (8)
- berkeley (6)
- california cuisine (1)
- DC (15)
- east bay (3)
- events (2)
- Future $$$ (1)
- history (2)
- home (1)
- media (6)
- montreal (1)
- my tiny kitchen (7)
- napa (3)
- news (16)
- nitpicking (1)
- NYC (6)
- oakland (2)
- opinions (25)
- philadelphia (1)
- politics (2)
- press (2)
- products (2)
- recipes (8)
- restaurant (92)
- restaurant week august 2006 (3)
- restaurant week january 2006 (1)
- restaurant week january 2007 (3)
- san francisco (13)
- shop (2)
- stuff (3)
- stupid (2)
- taco tours (3)
- travel (9)
- TV (2)
- updates (17)
About Me
The Deal:
4 comments:
I just signed the petition. Even though it's up to the consumer in the end, I don't think that things will really change until the government steps in. Americans are "funny" like that.
We rely on the government (which includes some of us) to take on big projects for which individuals do not have the time, energy, or capacity. It seems like the changes you are hoping for are those kinds of projects. There are so many reasons why "market-driven" solutions probably will not get us out of the many messes we are in today. One is that they are usually based on short-term desires and needs--as far as food goes, so much of the market cater to people who want something cheap and "fast," because of their lack of time, money, etc. To attain the paradise you envision, our lifestyles are going to have to change, which will mean people will have to work less, make more money, etc. I would imagine it is pretty difficult for most Americans to make those changes these days. The government is imperfect, but of course everything is, and under good leadership, our government has shown itself capable of many successful projects. I think there is a danger of letting the Reagan-era assault on and rhetoric about government color our outlooks for the future.
You seem to denigrate idea of 'market-driven' solutions as if the free market and capitalism are one and the same. Capitalism is a 'cultural' term of sorts, emphasizing profits and wealth as goals. The free market is an apparatus for trade, and isn't solely subject to basic supply and demand, as conceived of in simplistic terms. For example, supply can be affected things like war, weather, new resources, etc. Likewise, demand can be affected by more than "short-term desires and needs" through education and information distribution. The desire for 'cheap and fast' things doesn't just come from demand -- it also comes from a mentality that emphasizes quantity over quality, something which is more cultural than it is economic. This idea that people need more money and time to eat well isn't based on much. I don't expect people to eat black truffles for dinner every day, but fresh produce doesn't cost much more (if at all) than supermarket produce, and the benefits of eating well are important to society: 'cheap' food is a major cause of obesity, and a major contributor global warming. The links aren't hard to comprehend: methane from cows, which are raised in absurd amounts in factory farms to satiate our outrageous demand for cheap meat, is one of the most harmful greenhouse gases; or pesticides and other chemicals are used to grow massive of amounts of corn and soy, most of which we don't need, but which are heavily subsidized by government, etc. I don't particularly care if people in America don't want to learn how to cook well, and want to keep eating their steaks medium well (though I do think that if people could cook, that would go a long way towards getting them to change the way they purchase food...). I'm more interested in what they buy, in this case. So pardon me if I seemed to throw a government-based solution aside, but the well-documented policies of the USDA (which have even become popularized through journalistic books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and Fast Food Nation) offer little hope for success. We have known about these problems for a couple of decades, and nothing has been done to change them, partly because of lobbying, but mostly, I think, because no one cares enough or knows enough to pressure politicians to do anything. However, one thing that HAS changed is the way that we think about food. Of course, it is still a small minority of people that care enough to change these the way they eat, but it has resulted in places like Wal-Mart offering lines of 'organic' produce (they use the loosest definition of organic) and other 'market-driven' and consumer-driven changes. Yes, it's easy for me, in the Bay Area, to talk about making changes to diets. However, when I read Michael Ruhlman's writings, who lives in Cleveland, and his ability to shop affordably as his local farmer's market, I know that it's not a question of money or time. Yes, we work more and get paid less today, but the question is about reprioritizing, not sacrificing. Health and the environment are more important than entertainment and nice cars.
The government has shown itself useful in some cases, but oftentimes, as in the New Deal, it succeeds in times of crisis. I don't want to see something as important as the food supply and the environment in crisis, which they are dangerously close to. By the time the government really steps in, it could be too late, not to sound too alarmist. If the government was so good at addressing such issues, it wouldn't have taken the twenty hard years of environmental activism for our government to pay serious attention, beyond the EPA, to the issue of global warming. The problem with relying on government isn't so much due to the apparatus of government, but to the fact that politics slows down such changes: lobbyists for agribusiness and the politicians of the big agricultural states are very much responsible for the reactionary attitude of government to these issues. I believe the inertia for such change has to come from consumers first. A critical mass of aware consumers will hopefully give government the kick it needs to make structural changes necessary. Also, having a critical mass of people already in place may mean that the government doesn’t have to completely have its hand in reform, but can instead further ‘nudge’ the market. Just like today’s agricultural economy, it wouldn’t be good to have a phony, subsidized sustainable agriculture economy in the future. It would be better to have it form from real market demands. In the meantime, I think it's important to educate people and encourage them to make small changes in their lives that, compounded, can make a huge difference.
This is of course irrelevant, because my post didn't say that I didn't think we should encourage government to take a stand in this. The point of my post was in fact to highlight that petition. However, Obama has been rather quiet, even with much pressure from some media outlets, academics, and activists to say anything about his plans for the D of A. I know that there are other severe issues at play, but I happen to think, as many others do, that an overhaul of our agricultural system could be very good for the economy. Smaller farms would create more jobs, and would encourage sustainable farming practices. To say that government responds in time to most of our pressing issues is a bit naïve. There are so many obstacles in the way of that happening, mostly political ones. However, I’m not, like you say, a mouthpiece for “Reagan-era assault on and rhetoric about government”, and I’m not expecting a theoretical market to provide solutions either. Rather, I think that the solutions are out there, and that they can be set in motion by intelligent consumer spending. Call it ‘demand-side economics’, which is the antithesis of what Reaganites would have argued for.
I am not a skeptic of government work. There are plenty of things that they do well: National Parks, interstates, and my favorite, the Do Not Call registry. However, they have also done a terrible job on many things. I think that there are areas that benefit from the competition present in free-ish markets. Many developments in ‘green’ technology have benefited from that competition, for example. While I think that there are services that the government should have its hand it, like health care and education (with room for improvements through public-private partnerships), there are some things, like agriculture, that aren’t services and that could do well with less government involvement. Fundamentally, however, I don’t think anything will change in this area without a major cultural shift in the way we look at how our choices as consumers affect the world around us.
(somewhere in this convoluted rant of sorts, there’s an answer)
And since Obama nominated Vilsack as his ag guy, it's clear we're going to keep seeing pro-corn, pro-ethanol policies in the Federal Government. Reform of our ag system is far away, even if Vilsack is supposedly for green and renewable energy.
Post a Comment