A couple weeks ago, tomatoes went off the shelves in groceries and off the plates in restaurants after being connected to a salmonella outbreak. It’s not the tomatoes themselves that are infected, it’s the processing plants where they’re packed, or turned into other products that are causing the problems. The outbreak continues, the FDA continues to flounder, and Sarah and I can only wonder: why aren’t more people talking about locally grown and packed produce that not only tastes better, but is more likely safer (and certainly easier to control in the event of a problem like salmonella)? I realize not everywhere in the country is great for tomato growing (we’re spoiled here in Maryland–throw tomato seeds on the ground and wait), but there are plenty of hydroponic and potted plant options if your soil isn’t conducive.
Meg’s short list of solutions to the tomato crisis:
1. Shop farmers markets or locally grown sections in your grocery for regional tomatoes
2. Grow your own
3. Be the person that creates the Tomato of the Month club
4. Buy lesser processed tomatoes (like those still on the vine)
5. Write the FDA and encourage more regionalized produce inspection processes, like the ones the USDA has for meat processing plants
6. Vive la difference: take this moment of doubt as an opportunity to try other veg. I’m a fan of peaches for similar texture and tart. Try a peach, swiss, turkey burger with lots of pepper, and red onions (if onions are your thing). Fruit is pretty awesome in salads, and makes a wicked salsa when you combine it with the right herbs.
It is embarrassing to note that, from 1995 to 2005, the richest 10 percent of cotton growers received more than 80 percent of total subsidies. The wealthiest 1 percent of American cotton farmers continues to receive over 25 percent of payouts for cotton, while more than half of America’s cotton farmers receive no subsidies at all. American farmers are not dependent on the global market because they are guaranteed a minimum selling price by the federal government. American producers of cotton received more than $18 billion in subsidies between 1999 and 2005, while market value of the cotton was $23 billion. That’s a subsidy of 86 percent!
The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.
“The Economist’s food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005.”
Enter agflation. There are certainly other things that drive up food prices (change in global diet, the weather, the rest of the market economy), but subsidies, subsidies, subsidies are the prime factor. They started out with the best of intentions, but at this point, they are not working and should be abandoned, or drastically revamped. The trifecta of Meg, Jimmy Carter and the Economist agree: it must be true. But how change?
The Farm Bill is being discussed again this week in Congress. If only Iowa weren’t so important right now, we could discuss wildly inefficient ethanol subsidies for what they are, and not the votes they have the potential to win.
2007 has been a less than stellar year as far as food safety is concerned. Seemingly every week we’ve faced yet another recall: beef, chicken, pork. An article in the New York Times this morning talks about what Tyson is doing to change their beef processing. They’re changing the way they steam, vacuum, and treat a carcass. But Dean Danilson, the man in charge of food safety at Tyson, hits on something interesting in one line of the article. He says, “Keeping the dust down [at cattle ranches], knocking some of the caked-on mud and things off, any little bit helps.”
The way I see it, there are two distinct parts to the meat process: the part where the animal is alive, and the part where the animal is dead. Why put all the burden on the meat processors? Why not share the burden of food safety with ranchers? Mass ranching is a brutal and disgusting process. If we make it a little cleaner, a little more humane, a little less crowded, maybe we’ll have fewer problems with extremely dirty, damaged carcasses coming to the meat processors. Same goes for chickens and pork.
Maybe I’m beating the PETA drum a little too hard, but I think it could make a difference. Many consumers are responding well to cage free eggs, and the commercials about “happy cows” for California cheese were somewhat successful. Why not expand into meat production? Furthermore, a less crowded method of farming will leave a smaller ecological footprint. Green is in, and hey, not getting food poisoning is always a winner. Let’s go with it.
For me, both issues boil to down to choice and personal responsibility. In the case of the vegan parents, and any parents really, it was their responsibility to make sure that their baby nutritionally under cover. It’s no mystery that vegan and vegetarian practitioners have to pay close attention to what they’re eating in order to get all the right vitamins and minerals needed to stay healthy, and responsible vegans understand this about their choice of diet. It follows that responsible vegan parents would understand that they need to make extra sure that all the good stuff’s there in their childrens’ diets as well. Unlike Nina Planck, I do not think that a vegan diet is inherantly cruel for children. I just think that you’ve got to back up your choice responsibly. Plenty of happy, healthy, well adjusted vegan kids in the world. Besides, food and parenting takes a lot of faces in the news. Remember Connor McCreaddie in the UK? He was just about carted off to social services because he was obese, and his mother was accused for his condition. Unlike a baby, however, Connor was 14, and arguably needed to take some responsibility of his own… but that’s a point aside. End of story: people make their own choices, and have the responsibility to back them up, vegan parents or otherwise.
However, I find this tainted Chinese stuff coming ashore to be a much greater problem because often (like in the case of pet food, toothpaste) we’re not even made aware of where products are coming from in order to make informed choices, hold up our end of the choice/responsibility thing. That strikes me as something that should be more closely monitored. The Post article up there talked about a ton of stuff that’s been rejected from China this year. That’s worth a public outcry.
This morning, I was listening to BBC World Service and their weekly science program (whose name escapes me) was on. While the first unintentionally hilarious bit was a scientist with a lisp talking about speech and language evolution, the next part was about food. Apparently there is a new strain of stem rust, UG99, spreading at an alarming rate through the wheat crops of the East. It originated in Uganda, and has been spreading steadily through Africa, the Middle East and now South Asia. Already a huge problem, the concern is that UG99 will spread northwards next into Northern Asia, Russia and eventually Europe.
The Global Wheat Trust Initiative is working on finding a solution to the problem. Other wheat problems have been solved before. Norman Borlaug engineered dwarf wheat that wouldn’t fall over and die under it’s own weight. I heard about it on the West Wing and it’s in Wikipedia: it must be true. But, all of these lovely, famine stopping, hunger preventing measures are gasp genetically modifying food.
Where is the line with GMO (genetically modified organisms)? What constitutes a problem that’s worth being solved with modification? What happens if everyone doesn’t agree on a standard? What happens when the wind blows, and seeds from crops that we and weren’t modified mix? Who’s idea was the Grapple? (Seriously, worst fruit EVER!) I think about it a lot (because I think about food constantly), but it’s more than just a meal. If you are what you eat, what are we becoming?
All that thought made me hungry. Despite having had the Famous Avocado from Café Recess on the Hill for lunch (the best sandwich in DC, no contest), I could go for another tasty morsel.
A couple weeks ago, tomatoes went off the shelves in groceries and off the plates in restaurants after being connected to a salmonella outbreak. It’s not the tomatoes themselves that are infected, it’s the processing plants where they’re packed, or turned into other products that are causing the problems. The outbreak continues, the FDA continues to flounder, and Sarah and I can only wonder: why aren’t more people talking about locally grown and packed produce that not only tastes better, but is more likely safer (and certainly easier to control in the event of a problem like salmonella)? I realize not everywhere in the country is great for tomato growing (we’re spoiled here in Maryland–throw tomato seeds on the ground and wait), but there are plenty of hydroponic and potted plant options if your soil isn’t conducive. 
