Cooking Up A Story: FOOD NEWS

“It is the best of times, and the worst of times when it comes to food. But, I focus on the best, and there are alot of very positive things happening.” So says Michael Pollan in this final installment, as he completes the dots between government policy, public health, and the cost and availability of fresh wholesome foods. Mr. Pollan warns us that we will have to pay more for healthier foods, but this reflects current government subsidies that artificially makes the least healthy foods the most affordable to buy. Perhaps the biggest connecting dot, if it were to occur, a federal universal healthcare system, with the government financially responsible for our health, that would create powerful incentives for public policies that promote better public health outcomes.

There’s more to eating than just its effect upon our health. Pleasure, a sense of community, our sense of connection with nature, these are all highly important aspects of eating that may get overlooked. In this segment with Deborah Kane of Ecotrust, Michael Pollan discusses our over-reliance upon science to guide us in our food decisions, in this case, the science of nutrition, and our gross under-appreciation of culture as the more trustworthy guide for choosing the right foods to eat.

Could our conceptions for eating, and our understanding of foods, gone terribly awry? In this segment, Michael Pollan explains how Americans have come to view food through the lens of nutritionism. Foods have become valued upon their perceived healthiness, largely, the measure of good and bad nutrients within foods. Other valuable reasons for eating, such as pleasure, and enhancing a sense of community, have been more ignored.

Michael Pollan’s new book, In Defense of Food, provides the backdrop for his talk at the Bagdad Theater in Portland, Oregon, and this interview with Deborah Kane of the environmental nonprofit organization, Ecotrust. Remarkably, Mr. Pollan is talking about a defense of food in a literal sense: it’s increasingly difficult to escape from eating foods that are food-like substances (processed foods), but are not whole (real) foods. We have come to look upon “nutritionism” as a valid means of determining (healthy) value in our diet; food has been reduced to its composition of good and bad nutrients, but are we really eating healthier? In part one, we see how simple changes in food labeling requirements can influence consumer behavior, and how food manufacturer’s apply overwhelming pressure to effect laws that ultimately protect their own interests.

In part 3 of Kitchen Literacy, Ann Vileisis talks about the need to start making connections between our consumption of food, and all the interrelated social, health, and environmental consequences that occur. Agricultural pollution is a large source of pollution in the United States. In her book, Ann looks to history to see how food, and our connection to food has changed, so that we may become better aware (again) about the food we choose to eat. Eating well is an effective way to improve our knowledge about food, our own health, and the health of the environment. What does eating well mean to you?

PART 2—Continuing our conversation with Ann Vileisis, author of Kitchen Literacy, she explains how over time we became gradually disassociated from how foods were produced, and where they originated. Most importantly, the advertising industry played a significant role in changing American values toward food, and easing the transformation to the industrial food production system of today. No easy feat to accomplish, it took 50 years to fully inculcate society to the new norms of food consumption.

PART 1—A conversation with author, Ann Vileisis about Kitchen Literacy, what we know about our food, and how we came to know it. For Ann, her book Kitchen Literacy came about because she was struck by how much she didn’t know about the common foods she encountered in the supermarket. In the research for her book, she was surprised to learn how much people expected to know about their food in pre-industrial times. For example, meats, they would find out the sex and age of the animal, the farm it came from, and even the animal’s background. Certainly a far cry from our expectations today!

Farming today is not what we may imagine it to be. It’s become largely an industrial process, and corn epitomizes this shift in production methods. In Part 3, ‘King Corn’ filmmaker Curt Ellis shares his experience growing an acre of corn in Iowa, and what it was like for him and his partner. Surprisingly, the growing of 10,000 pounds of corn in one season was the easiest part of the whole farming experience. The other parts were more mundane, and more disappointing. A present look at Corn Futures.

Continuing the conversation, Curt Ellis shares his story about the pervasiveness of corn in our daily foods. We learn that for the first time in human history, the problem of obesity is associated with poverty, not affluence. The processed ingredients that saturate the market with cheap food products is the chief culprit.

You can almost hear the voice of Gomer Pyle: “Surprise,” “Surprise,” “Surprise”! Of course, the big surprise may be on all of us. The documentary “King Corn” reveals the often unseen, and unreflected world of industrial food manufacturing, in this case, as it relates to the use and production of corn. The surprise is how much corn is a part of our daily diet of common foods that we eat, particularly the use of the sweetener additive, high fructose corn syrup. Since the early 1970’s we have been adding this cheap ingredient to thousands of food products, sweetening the American diet. Do we really know what we are doing? Do we know enough about the potential health consequences to ourselves and our children of a sweeter diet? Has there been a public debate over the issue of industrial agriculture and the extreme use of corn, and corn products throughout our food supply? In Part 1 of our conversation with Curt Ellis, we learn more about corn, and the manufacture of high fructose corn syrup, and their common uses in foods.

Portland Fruit Tree Project provides a valuable service that helps communities benefit directly from local resources. Fresh fruit that grows on neighborhood trees is collected by volunteers, and dropped off at local Food Banks for distribution to those in need. The great thing about this program is that in large part, the fruit would not be harvested or eaten by anyone—if not for fruit gleaning. Everyone involved benefits, including the trees, as harvesting is beneficial to their health!

Carlo Petrini, in this final installment, argues for economic respect, and fairness to the small farmers of the world. Economy and ecology, he reminds us, share the same roots, and that it is local economies that will save our society, and it’s the global economy that threatens to destroy it. For those who may think of Slow Food in terms of being an organization striving to promote better conditions for farmers, and better awareness for people about the food they eat—while true—the ideas laid out by this founding visionary are a trumpet call for an entirely new world order.

Food prices in Europe, and The United States, have gone down markedly since 1970; when the average family spent 32% of their earnings on food, now that figure is 13%. What’s wrong with cheap prices for food? It promotes mass food production, increases the risk of Mad Cow Disease, and creates more pollution directly related to food production.

According to Carlo Petrini, one of the great challenges we will face in the next few years is to create a sustainable community. Technology and economy should work together in harmony with nature, not interfere with it.

Somewhere on the evolutionary path of life, man came to think of himself as detached from nature. And even more, that nature must be controlled for the benefit of man. Our continued journey down this dark road brings us an inevitable step closer to oblivion. Our dilemma, is how to change our values, and beliefs about nature in order to avert engineering our own demise.

Agriculture has by its very nature a system of built-in limitations. But, we have figured out how to bypass many of those limits, and as a result, we pay a terrible cost. In this segment, Carlo Petrini, founder of Slow Food International, outlines the serious problems we face from food production throughout the world. We have increased the quantity of the food we produce, but not the quality. Though there are 6 billion people living on this planet, we produce enough food to feed a population of 12 billion people. So why then, are there 800 million people suffering from hunger? Why are our farms more polluted than our cities? This is a wake-up call for the need for radical change.

Carlo Petrini, founder of Slow Food International shares his views about food, politics, and American culture on the road to a sustainable food nation. Part one explores the meaning of gastronomy, the current impact of food production upon the environment, and the pressing need for fundamental change. From Fast Food Nation to Slow Food Nation sponsored by Kaiser Permanente’s Center For Health Research.

Passage of the 2007 Farm Bill may occur this year in September, but to insure a bill that promotes an abundant supply of healthy, nutritional foods and rewards sustainable farming practices, will require that citizens let their legislators know they are watching their farm vote. There is a tremendous amount at stake, not just for the small farmer, but for everyone who values health, nutrition, good land stewardship, and domestic energy production. If ever a time, it’s time now for a food fight!

Politics can often seem far removed from our present reality; sometimes, far removed from reality itself. How many of us know much about the Farm Bill, or realize how much over the decades it has shaped agriculture production in this country? For those inclined towards disinterest, or for those unaware, this segment may put fire in your belly.

Furthering the conversation, Dan Imhoff explains how there are cracks appearing in the alliance. A number of opposing interest groups may be coming together to push the Farm Bill toward rewarding better farming practices: encouraging farmers to grow nutritious foods, and employ farming methods that preserve the land for future generations.

Almost 25% of the Farm Bill provides 23 billion dollars in subsidies to farmers who grow commodity crops, but almost no money to help farmers grow crops that are healthy for people to eat. According to Dan Imhoff, the system of farm subsidies rewards bad farming practices that harm the land, and places the farmers who want to employ good farming practices, at a clear disadvantage. In Part 3, Imhoff explains the inequities of the Farm Bill, and offers some suggestions to help remedy these problems. For additional information, download this webcast: Food Fight: A Teach-in On the 2007 Farm Bill

The Farm Bill comes up for renewal every 5 to 7 years. But upon passage, that is just the beginning of a yearly battle for allocation of those funds. Part 2 reveals the surprising truth about what the Farm Bill really offers, and how it has evolved from its original purpose.

The 2007 Farm Bill legislation will cost taxpayers $90 billion dollars in farm subsidies, and will only benefit a small percentage of farmers. Indeed, Dan Imhoff, author of Food Fight: The Citizen’s Guide to the Food and Farm Bill explains, little money goes to the small farmer, and almost nothing to promote the production of fresh foods for healthy human consumption. How did we come to have farm bills that actually promote diet related illnesses? Historically, what was their original purpose, and how has the farm bill changed in recent decades? This is part one of a continuing conversation with Dan Imhoff that examines the federal Farm Bill program.

tate of Oregon Climatologist George Taylor has a different view on global warming and the degree to which human activity has altered our climate. Though some of his views appear to be solidly in the minority among his peers, he points out that science in general often contains many uncertainties, and that this holds true for the current state of Climate Science. Despite his controversial views, especially as they relate to the key drivers of climate change, he does support the reduction of greenhouse gases, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for energy.

Days before the long anticipated release of a major report on climate change, Climate Change 2007, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we sat down with Research Scientist Phillip Mote, to discuss his views on global warming, and some of the possible future effects on agriculture and the environment if we do not change our present course. “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns”— Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary Report