Community | April 30, 2011 | 16 comments

Why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why_being_a_foodie_isnt_elitist/2011/04/27/AFeWsnFF_s...

Image
JanforGore
At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group’s president, lashed out at “self-appointed food elitists” who are “hell-bent on misleading consumers.” His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The “elitist” epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book “Fast Food Nation” was published, I’ve been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary “Food, Inc.,” directed by Robby Kenner, was described as “elitist foodie propaganda” by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a “food fascist,” while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” who was accused of being an “anti-agricultural” elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America’s current system of food production — overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels — is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it’s inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets — none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn’t exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America’s cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” and criticized the unchecked power of the “Beef Trust.” The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America’s ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers — and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking “big government” and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Opinion,   Sustainable Agriculture,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Earth,  Food Sovereignty,  Organic Farming,  6 more
  3.     
    |

16 comments // Why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

  • queenofit
    • +1
      queenofit  

    • Hey, sorry I am doing all this cut and paste, but sometimes it serves it's purpose. I find this article on Sourcewatch.org well worth reading, and realize it is easier to read here than just link to it.

      "On its web site, AFBF calls itself a "grassroots organization." [1] However, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, in his 1971 book, Dollar Harvest: The Story of the Farm Bureau, noted that the AFBF maintains a top-down pattern of control. "Its leadership is self-perpetuating, and its policy, although nursed through an elaborate procedural labyrinth, is rarely permitted to wander very far afield." He argued that the AFBF was:

      "quietly and systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents."

      foodies = elitist? please??? give me a break.

    • 1 year ago
  • queenofit
    • +1
      queenofit  

    • More on this down home farm company, ha! called, American Farm Bureau Federation.....(sounds so squeaky clean....)
      (source - sourcewatch.org)

      "The AFBF is controlled from the top, which is how it was designed. It was founded in the early 1900s by the New York Chamber of Commerce and funded by the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts via the Chicago Board of Trade. [2] The Farm Bureau was designed to counter the nonpartisan, populist farm movement that was emerging at the time. It frequently uses social issues to distract attention from farmers’ basic economic interests. A generation ago, it was railing against "socialism", "communism" and farm price-support programs. Now, they deride environmentalists and form alliances with the so-called wise use movement."

      Now who is the "elitist"?

    • 1 year ago
  • queenofit
    • +1
      queenofit  

    • A little bit more about the "Farm Bureau Federation" (taken from Sourcewatch.org)

      "The Farm Bureau is sometimes described as "the nation's largest farm organization, with 5 million members." [3] However, there are only about 1.9 million farmers in the U.S. and they are not all Farm Bureau members. The 5 million "members" of AFBF are simply people who buy insurance from it. It is in fact, an insurance conglomerate with annual net profits exceeding $6.5 billion dollars. [4] It controls two major farm co-ops and keeps a stock portfolio that includes agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, Dupont, Novartis and Dow. It is also heavily invested in oil, banking and the media. "

    • 1 year ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  

    • Amen. I have finally accepted the label of 'foodie', though for the longest time I simply thought of it as eating right, never associating it with any real movement.

      I actually just came from an article about human population growth, and it outlines a neat little problem. While we can rant and rave against modified food and questionable business practices, without these GMOs that produce large yields, albeit with questionable safety and testing standards and at the sacrifice of polluting our earth, our society is unsustainable. It is the high demand for food and the yolk of the starving millions that causes this insatiable desire to ring as much production out of the earth as possible, and you cannot treat one problem without treating the other.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      Are you serious? We have an actual overabundance of food on this planet. The problem is access and landgrabbing to grow fuel and use the GMOs for animal feed. Monoculture is not sustainable, and GMO yields are a lie.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
  • JanforGore
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +1
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      I did happen to tune into a docu recently on how some populations; in africa if I recall correctly, are forcibly returning to more traditional mixed and varied agriculture and land use, because the former large scale agri/monocultures had failed and in some instances there simply wasn't enough water to sustain that type of agriculture. But traditional crops and practices could be sustained with less water and soil amendment.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • JanforGore:

      Haha, ok. *Normally* I would say that it's the responsibility of the person with the dissenting opinion to bring evidence and material to support their claim, but such a statement would be the worst kind of lazy, no?

      While I don't have any particular articles on this subject saved to my bookmarks, and while I cannot link you to my physical paper-and-ink evidence, I can google. For your reference: I used the search term "Is there a global food crises," as that is our question.

      I found articles that agreed with you, and articles that agreed with me. The dissenting ones stated there was no food shortage, just overpopulation. That, to me, is nitpicking semantics; I'm sure you have better arguments than that. While these aren't the greatest, here's some links that agree with me:

      http://theemergencyfoodsupply.com/archives/the-coming-global-food-shortage
      http://www.globalissues.org/article/758/global-food-crisis-2008
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3340417/Food-shortages-how-will-...

      This next one agrees with you - I think. Upon closer examination as I attempted to find articles that agreed with you, I found they actually tended to lean toward my side. That may just be a deficiency in my search term or I may simply be biased toward my own opinion. I'll post anyway and see what you think:

      http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/11/is-there-a-global-food-crisis

      Your turn. I prefer links and papers over personal rhetoric, please.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      Firstly, you made the claim, not me. Secondly, you don't get to tell me how I will present a response here. There are many reasons for lack of food access in our world. While half of this world is obese from overconsumption and access to cheap food, the other half starves with lack of access with many countries in the developing world exporting more than they keep while their own people starve. This is indicative of problems that go to the very core of the food system globally. And my "personal rhetoric" as you called it is not rhetoric. It is gleaned from reading and studying many sources and from learning and understanding them. Anyone can post a link to back up their view. Those of us who can articulate it with our own words because we cared enough to study it are those who really care about it in my view, but I will post a couple of items to appease you.

      However, getting back to what I was talking about, there are many problems that are root causes to what we see taking place. Climate change or biodistress has wrecked havoc on agriculture from Africa to South America to the U.S. to Africa to Australia. Severe storms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, etc. have put a huge dent in the availability of food crops particularly wheat, thus driving up food prices making it more difficult for those in developing nations to afford it and plant it. Market speculation also drives up food prices and was instrumental in the 2008 food riots we saw in many developing nations of the world. The global food policy as it is set up now, relegates favor on certain areas of the world like the US. where food is abundant and cheap, while holding less affluent developing nations to their "debt" which has resulted in many countries through speculation, loan repayments, growing foods for "export" crops to the West and political corruption hostage.

      The food markets are manipulated by these worldwide corporate ag giants just as oil companies manipulate market prices for oil... and speaking of oil, that is also a major cause of what we see playing out with food prices. Imputs and fossil fuels that run the agricultural ag giant model cause price spikes in food and a lack of availability. Farmers in the developing world using all of their money to grow export crops in order to pay off World Bank loans leaves little for those in these countries who then either cannot afford the food remaining, or are consigned to being dependent on taking subsidized substandard US GMO aid.

      This is a global problem and manipulation with deep pockets, and speaking of GMOS... They have only perpetuated the hunger of the developing world through higher prices for seeds that cannot be saved and other imputs that are now proving to be ineffective against pests, superweeds and transgenic contamination. GMOS are also having an affect on access through trade restrictions with many countries that have banned GMOS not taking in imports of foods from countries that export them.

      Also add to this that other developing countries like China and India are now turning to more westernized diets including more meat consumption and again you have more land being grabbed and deforested to grow corn and soy for animal feed (thus also perpetuating the cycle of biodistress) rather than food, that is pushing up prices which hurts access. This is also true for land being grabbed to grow ethanol corn and other non food items.

      The food crisis we are now facing is also related to the global water crisis we now face where available potable water for agriculture is being wasted on these cornfuels and crops to feed animals for consumption, besides privitization, pollution and irrigation methods that do not work to conserve water.

      So you have a myriad of causes all culminating together in one storm that are now causing a problem of shortage in areas where severe climate and weather are being felt most, along with world policies that are dictating price and access in order to make the most profit instead of supporting local sustainable food and food sovereignty. This is not a system that is economically viable in the longrun nor sustainable. And if GMOS truly did increase yield, then explain why almost one billion people in this world still starve... you can't, because it isn't true.

      http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-t...

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • JanforGore:

      Firstly, by and large, I agree with this post. Just gonna get that out there first.

      I get to tell people whatever I please. You just don't have to listen. That's the beauty of America, huh? And I dislike personal rhetoric as I find multiple sources to be the best way to get at the truth, and don't usually trust a single, individual opinion. I also hope that people will post things that I haven't seen before. And it was a polite enough suggestion, and not a requirement but a statement of my personal predilection. But again, you may do what you please, and arguing that point is no longer something I care to do.

      I would disagree that obesity really has any major impact on global food supply, or at least not compared to the rest of the problems you've outlined. I think that has just as much to do with bad food choices - i.e. transfats and processed sugars - as it does with over-consumption. Moreso than obesity I would say is the waste thrown away by restaurants and stores every day, things that are considered unsellable when they are, in fact, perfectly fine.

      I take back my statement on GMO yields, as I did a bit of extraneous research yesterday that confirmed your statement. However, the attempt to create crops that are pest, disease, and fungus free is inherently tied with the attempt to boost crop yields and therefor, failure or not, this rash of GMO creation is tied with the *attempt* to bring higher yields. Disregarding other practices, which are obviously designed to make money and screw the little guy. You may contest that point if you wish, but that's just my opinion. In that context, I stand by my basic statement.

      You talk about imbalances of consumption between countries, seemingly with the implication that supply lines should be redistributed. I would disagree with that solution, and instead suggest finding ways to increase output to bring other places up to roughly our level, as opposed to forcing those who already have to do without. Therefor, you say imbalance and I say shortage. Ultimately, since we agree on everything else, we're just mincing words and at odds seemingly only with the solution to correct this. Tomato, tomato, waka waka.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • Right on target commentary by Mr. Schlosser. Those of us calling for labelling of GMOs, sustainable practices in growing food, rights for farm workers, parity for farmers and protecting biodiversity are not the elitists. It is the corporatists who deny seed saving and push monoculture in order to make profit while sacrificing sustainability. Those who intimidate and sue small farmers for their poisons blowing in the wind. Those who pollute our waterways and other species with toxic pesticides. Those who expose our children to toxic chemicals that make them sick. Those in the industrial ag lobby made up of the Monsantos, Cargills and Dows who buy our government in order to make a profit off illness, pollution and a future where agriculture is no longer the revered pursuit that built our nation. But we will continue to save our seeds, grow our urban gardens, join together in CSAs, and do all we can to beat you. Count on it.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos