Blame the industry, not the pig.

Mike Davis’s article focusing on swine flu makes me remember coming home from studying abroad in Argentina on a plane with the flight attendants all wearing masks over their mouths. I was surprised by these preventive measures that were be taken to reduce one’s risk of getting the swine flu. This swine flu “outbreak” appeared to the public as a problem that the government knew little about. But was this really true? Was there previous knowledge of this problem but a lack of initiatives taken? As citizens of the United States, we put our trust into the hands of the government to make sure they are doing whatever they can to keep us safe. But sometimes the government knows about a potential problem but doesn’t fix it before it is too late. The government’s inability to manage risk reduces the chance of taking effective, preventive measures. While the government was warned by scientists to increase specialized technology to other countries that were in “direct path of likely pandemics”, nothing was done. Since Mexico didn’t have this technology, it took a week to get the positive results that they did have a case of swine. How does the public accept these conditions? Shouldn’t we expect more?

While we could just blame the government for not listening to the warnings, there are other people to blame. The way that industrialized agriculture is managed, may I say, encourages the spread of outbreaks. The overcrowded, cramped conditions leads to a “continual cycling of viruses.” This can result is mutations of the virus that can increase the “efficiency of human to human transmission. “ Since the power of these industries is so concentrated, these methods are rarely questioned. We trust the food industry to keep our food safe, but do they deserve this credit? The pandemic strategy of WHO is to contain an outbreak with “rapid responses of medical buracreacies,” but maybe the solution should focus on listening to potential risks and making the changes we need in the industrial agriculture system to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Stop this war, nature is going to continue to win.

We constantly hear that “our food is the safest in the world.” But is it really true, or is that just what they want us to believe? Diana Stuart’s “Illusion of Control” explains how recent outbreaks with leafy greens are indicators of a much bigger problem. The goals of industrial agriculture are focused around profit and control, but these are at the expense of consumer health and nature’s ecosystem. The basis of industrial agriculture is the manufacturing model. The reason this model doesn’t work is because the industry cannot control nature. They may be able to control the media, but not nature. They have created a war with nature, by reducing the “wildlife” aspect of farming, and increasing the use of ground buffers. These standards have caused an increased risk to the health of the consumer. These changes have resulted in the reduction of natural solutions to pathogens and loss of diversity. When we have natural solutions to fight off pathogens, why remove them? While these standards create a belief of industrial control, it is just an illusion.

Since there have been outbreaks, the industries respond with new technologies and increased money being spent on public relations. There are many different types of technology that are supposed to regain the consumer’s confidence in the product. But this confidence couldn’t be achieved without the help of the PR staff. It is their job to make you believe that your food is safe, and they do a pretty good job at it. I know I still find myself eating spinach, even after it was recalled. But these outbreaks continue to occur, so is it our fault for believing the media? These new technologies that are made will never be strong enough to fight the ever- changing natural ecosystem. The only way there will be a reduction of outbreaks is for the industry to acknowledge the importance of nature and to treat agriculture in a non-manufacturing way. It is time to stop paying the PR staff and focus the resources on nature.

The new vegetarianism

Christine Lennon’s article, “Why Vegetarians Are Eating Meat” exposes a new shift away from vegetarianism. As the number of vegetarians reconsiders their food decisions, they turn to humanely raised meat as an option. Vegetarianism isn’t just a dislike of meat; it is a way of life focused on ethical beliefs and moral consciousness. But maybe removing meat totally from one’s diet isn’t the best option for one’s health and the environment. Lennon highlights the benefits of eating sustainable meat purchased from local farmers.

There are many different ways to raise cattle. One way, which is the reason for many vegetarianism beliefs, is the factory farm. These farms are characterized by overcrowded, unsanitary and “inhumane conditions that produce innumerable tons of environmentally destructive animal waste.” The distrust of these factory farms connects vegetarians nationwide. But there is another option to farming, the local sustainable farmers. The local farms that don’t care just about profit, instead they see their farms as an example of their life values. They believe in “grass fed” cattle, because it’s natural and easy to digest for the animals. Lennon discusses her interactions with Greg Nauta, a small-scale organic rancher who prides himself on sustainable farming. Nauta explains how he has met many vegetarians who are starting to see his type of farming as a better option than removing meat from their diet completely. In what ways was Lennon’s interaction with Nauta similar to Pollan’s visit to Salatin’s farm? He refers to the grass-fed beef as “beef with benefits.” This meat has been associated with less fat, higher omega-3 fatty acids and helpful to the environment. For these reasons, even Mollie Katzen, famous vegetarian author, is turning towards sustainable meat. There are many reasons people remove meat from their diet, but if sustainability and industrial farming is of any importance to them, they may want to consider this other option. What are some reasons traditional vegetarians will not consider this new diet?

Do you participate in agriculture daily?

“The Pleasures of Eating” by W. Berry emphasizes that “eating is an agricultural act.” I don’t know about you, but when I sit down for dinner I do not question where my meat came from or under what conditions my vegetables were grown. This article analyzes how people see themselves as consumers, rather than participants in agriculture. But what is the difference between the two? Berry describes the ignorance behind the consumer. Sure, people know that the food they consume comes from a farm. What they don’t know, is where the food came from? How far did it travel before coming onto their plate? What costs did the transportation add to the product? Without knowing the answers to these questions, consumers have become “passive, uncritical and dependent.” This is what industrial production wants from its consumers.

The “industrial eater” is one who doesn’t see the connection between eating and agriculture. One who doesn’t see the struggles behind their food. A consumer ordering food from Peapod, an online grocery store that delivers the food to your door, isn’t considering the obstacles the farmers faced. Berry believes that most consumers will not change the problems associated with the economy of food, until they take an active role in attaining more knowledge about their food. Because consumers turn their head away from the food industry, the focus on health has been lost due to an obsession with volume. The food industry has dramatically increased the volume to reduce the costs, but this chain reaction doesn’t stop there. As the volume continues to increases, the diversity of products decreases as well as the health. By increasing profits, the dependence of drugs and chemicals needs to increase. When consumers are trapped by the influences of industrialism, we lose the ability to eat responsibly. If one wants to experience pleasure from eating, they need to understanding the world that their food came from.

Question for discussion:
In what ways is Berry’s explanation of this industry similar to Salatin’s view of “industrial organic”?

Beyond Organic

“All Flesh is Grass” by Michael Pollan describes Joel Salatin’s approach to sustainable farming. Even though he raises beef, chicken and turkey, he refers to himself as a “grass farmer.” He views grass and the foundation of his farm, and his methods of farming has made his farm one of the most “productive and influential alternative farms in America.” His farm, Polyface, is run in a manner where animals are raised together and work in a symbiosis manner. Salatin tries to create a natural ecosystem with interdependence between the animals. He doesn’t need to use chemical parasiticides on his farm, by having hens on his farm they act as his “sanitation crew.” But it needs to be emphasized that none of this could happen without grass.
Even though Polyform isn’t technically organic, it is much more sustainable than many other organic farms. He is so strict about his beliefs, he refuses to ship his product. Pollan was intrigued by these values, forcing him to visit the farm himself. When the media discusses organic foods, farming without chemicals comes to my mind. But it is much more than that to Salatin. What started off as a healthy way of farming has turned into an industrial empire. It has become this new fad that is defined by rules created by the USDA. After reading this chapter, do you think that these USDA rules for federal organic certification should change? I do. Salatin believes that farming is much more than avoiding certain chemicals, it should include everything the farmer does. He explains that his farming methods are an “extension of his worldview.” This is why he refers to himself as “beyond organic,” and considers “industrial organic” as a contradiction in terms. Do you agree that the term “industrial organic” is really a contradiction in terms? Is it possible for organic farmers to keep their ideals and expand into the American supermarkets?

Who really is behind that cheeseburger and fries...

“Meat and Potatoes” by Eric Schlosser discusses the different ways that fast food has transformed American agriculture, specifically the potato and beef industry. Due to the power of a couple corporations, the way that our food supply is produced has been changed for the worse. Small farms have been shut down and the amount of profit farmers receive for their product has significantly decreased. Not only has this been detrimental to the small farm owners, the conditions at these processing plants are prone to disease and illness for the workers and consumers.

Before reading this article, I never thought about what went behind the making of my cheeseburger and fries. Now, my attention focuses on a few main men. J.R. Simplot success in taking risks in the potato business has made him partially guilty for my love of french fries. He grew up working on his family farm in Idaho and decided that school wasn’t for him at the age of 15. By the age of 36, he owned a farm where he controlled the growing, fertilizing, processing and shipping of potatoes. He even took it to the next level by mastering the frozen french fry. This eight-grade dropout turned into one of the richest men in the US. He became the biggest supplier of french fries to McDonalds. Today, frozen french fries are consumed in abundant amounts and most of them are purchased at fast-food restaurants. Schlosser emphasized that it is only the “three company giants” that have contracts with fast food chains, not the small potato farms in Idaho. The small farm owners haven’t come together to join forces to fight against this oligopsony. Without their combined support, these big companies will continue to control the potato business with their connection to fast food companies.

Similarly to Simplot, Monfort controls one of the largest cattle feedlots in the nation. Since the meat industry is also controlled by a few key competitors, the conditions for the cattle and the workers have gone down the drain. The most dangerous occupation in the United States is meatpacking, but the way these workers are treated doesn’t compensate for the risk. The employees include mostly immigrants(some illegal), who live in poverty due to their low wages and receive no training in their position. The lack of training and dangerous speed of the slaughterhouses leads to injury and illness. Because these slaughterhouses continue to run in this manner, it is no surprise me to me that our nation experiences outbreaks of E.Coli.

Questions of discussion:

1- What are some similarities between the potato and meat industry?

2- It was highlighted by Schlosser that the small potato farmers refuse to join forces against the 3 main competitors. Do you think if these farmers came together the government would actually change the potato industry?

3- When we hear about the great family business run by Rich Conway it gives us hope that our nation’s problems can be changed. Are we too far into this mess to have more businesses like Rich Conway’s?