Bittman food manifesto essay - if only it were so

[pinkytoe]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/a-food-manifesto-for-the-future/

[razz]

He does make some good points but will they go anywhere?


For decades, Americans believed that we had the world’s healthiest and safest diet. We worried little about this diet’s effect on the environment or on the lives of the animals (or even the workers) it relies upon. Nor did we worry about its ability to endure — that is, its sustainability.

That didn’t mean all was well. And we’ve come to recognize that our diet is unhealthful and unsafe. Many food production workers labor in difficult, even deplorable, conditions, and animals are produced as if they were widgets. It would be hard to devise a more wasteful, damaging, unsustainable system.


End government subsidies to processed food. We grow more corn for livestock and cars than for humans, and it’s subsidized by more than $3 billion annually; most of it is processed beyond recognition. The story is similar for other crops, including soy: Total agricultural subsidies in 2009 were around $16 billion, which would pay for a great many of the ideas that follow.

Begin subsidies to those who produce and sell actual food for direct consumption.

Break up the U.S. Department of Agriculture and empower the Food and Drug Administration. Currently, the U.S.D.A. counts among its missions both expanding markets for agricultural products (like corn and soy!) and providing nutrition education. These goals are at odds with each other; you can’t sell garbage while telling people not to eat it, (Food-related deaths are far more common than those resulting from terrorism, yet the F.D.A.’s budget is about one-fifteenth that of Homeland Security.)

Outlaw concentrated animal feeding operations and encourage the development of sustainable animal husbandry. The concentrated system degrades the environment, directly and indirectly, while torturing animals and producing tainted meat, poultry, eggs, and, more recently, fish.

Encourage and subsidize home cooking.

Tax the marketing and sale of unhealthful foods. Another budget booster. This isn’t nanny-state paternalism but an accepted role of government: public health.

.Reduce waste and encourage recycling. The environmental stress incurred by unabsorbed fertilizer cannot be overestimated, and has caused, for example, a 6,000-square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that is probably more damaging than the BP oil spill. And some estimates indicate that we waste half the food that’s grown. A careful look at ways to reduce waste and promote recycling is in order.

Mandate truth in labeling. Nearly everything labeled “healthy” or “natural” is not. It’s probably too much to ask that “vitamin water” be called “sugar water with vitamins,” but that’s precisely what real truth in labeling would mean.

Reinvest in research geared toward leading a global movement in sustainable agriculture,

[cheesemite]

Yes, I saw the other day where he ended the Minimalist column (after 13 years) and is moving on to the Opinionator blog. I only had time to read part of his piece but it was well written and well reasoned, as you would expect. Set the bar high, see what happens, I guess. Like razz, I'm not sure much will happen.

[bae]

I don't see any reason to "subsidize". "Subsidize" means "take money from citizen-taxpayers, and hand it to some other person to encourage them to produce something".

I produce a few hundred thousand dollars of agricultural output a year, using sustainable, organic practices. I don't need subsidies to do so. I don't want your money, except as part of a voluntary, uncoerced transaction.

[pinkytoe]

I don't need subsidies to do so Others may not be quite so fortunate as you. I don't see subsidies as an ongoing solution but perhaps to get the ball rolling for more participants.

[bae]

I don't need subsidies to do so Others may not be quite so fortunate as you.

Perhaps they should learn what they are doing on their own dime, then.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't know that all those subsidies are even necessary. From where I stand and what I see, I see a food revolution that WANTS TO HAPPEN anyway (if only it were allowed to). Perhaps a matter of biased perspective, I don't know.

Of course existing subsidies ridiculously distort the playing field already and not in a good way in terms of health .....

[pinkytoe]

I think/hope he uses the word subsidize to mean various kinds of support- private funds, nonprofits, partnerships, etc and not solely federal. If he is referring to governmental only, I would rather they support healthy eating over the soy/corn/GMO farming they do now. It seems like other costs like healthcare would lessen dramatically if our populace ate healthy foods; maybe we wouldn't need to spend so much time trying to legislate health care and insurance.

[razz]

Subsidies at present are going out in great volumes or rather billions to those corporations who should not require such subsidies. I take it that the savings from cutting out those corporate entities he is suggesting should go to sustainable practices.
I happen to agree that subsidies are dubious but rather make the playing field operational. EG- A small farmer should be able to raise crops without paying for high priced seed due to corporate control since these corps bought out all the smaller seed companies and shut them down. Any seed that the small farmer saves can now be contaminated by genetically modified seed spread by wind. There are so many abuses by the large farming corps like Monsanto, Syrgenta etc., that I simply step out of the discussion normally.