{"id":45706,"date":"2011-09-19T16:21:12","date_gmt":"2011-09-19T20:21:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/?p=45706"},"modified":"2011-09-19T17:20:49","modified_gmt":"2011-09-19T21:20:49","slug":"how-change-is-going-to-come-in-the-food-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/daily-astrology\/how-change-is-going-to-come-in-the-food-system\/","title":{"rendered":"How Change Is Going to Come in the Food System"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editor’s note:<\/strong><\/em> The following is reprinted with permission from the October 3, 2011 issue of The Nation magazine. Portions of each week\u2019s Nation magazine can be accessed at The Nation’s homepage<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Michael Pollan<\/strong><\/em> for The Nation<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

In the forty years since the publication of Frances Moore Lapp\u00e9\u2019s Diet for a Small Planet<\/em>, a movement dedicated to the reform of the food system has taken root in America. Lapp\u00e9\u2019s groundbreaking book connected the dots between something as ordinary and all-American as a hamburger and the environmental crisis, as well as world hunger. Along with Wendell Berry and Barry Commoner, Lapp\u00e9 taught us how to think ecologically about the implications of our everyday food choices. You can now find that way of thinking, so radical at the time, just about everywhere — from the pages of Time<\/em> magazine to the menu at any number of local restaurants.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photo by Eric Francis.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To date, however, the food movement can claim more success in changing popular consciousness than in shifting, in any fundamental way, the political and economic forces shaping the food system or, for that matter, in changing the \u201cstandard American diet\u201d — which has only gotten worse since the 1970s. Recently there have been some political accomplishments: food movement activists played a role in shaping the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, both passed in the last Congress, and the last couple of farm bills have thrown some significant crumbs in the direction of sustainable agriculture and healthy food. But the food movement cannot yet point to legislative achievements on the order of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or the establishment of the Environmental Protection Administration. Its greatest victories have come in the media, which could scarcely be friendlier to it, and in the food marketplace, rather than in the halls of Congress, where the power of agribusiness has scarcely been disturbed.<\/p>\n

The marked split between the movement\u2019s gains in the soft power of cultural influence and its comparative weakness in conventional political terms is faithfully mirrored in the White House. While Michelle Obama has had notable success raising awareness of the child obesity problem and linking it to the food system (as well as in pushing the industry to change some of its most egregious practices), her husband, after raising expectations on the campaign trail, has done comparatively little to push a reform agenda. Promising anti-trust initiatives to counter food industry concentration, which puts farmers and ranchers at the mercy of a small handful of processors, appear to be languishing. Efforts to reform crop subsidies during the last farm bill debate were halfhearted and got nowhere. And a USDA plan to place new restrictions on genetically modified crops (in order to protect organic farms from contamination) was reportedly overruled by the White House.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There are two ways to interpret the very different approaches of the president and the first lady to the food issue. A cynical interpretation would be that the administration has decided to deploy the first lady to pay lip service to reform while continuing business as usual. But a more charitable interpretation would be that President Obama has determined there is not yet enough political support to take on the hard work of food system reform, and the best thing to do in the meantime is for the first lady to build a broad constituency for change by speaking out about the importance of food.<\/p>\n

If this is the president\u2019s reading of the situation, it may well be right. So far, at least, the food movement has only a small handful of allies in Congress: Tom Harkin, Jon Tester and Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate; Earl Blumenauer and Jim McGovern in the House. The Congressional committees in charge of agricultural policies remain dominated by farm-state legislators openly hostile to reform, and until big-state and urban legislators decide it is worth their while to serve on those committees, little of value is likely to emerge from them. Whatever its cost to public health and the environment, cheap food has become a pillar of the modern economy that few in government dare to question. And many of the reforms we need — such as improving conditions in the meat industry and cleaning up feedlot agriculture — stand to make meat more expensive. That might be a good thing for public health, but it will never be popular.<\/p>\n

So what is to be done? The food movement has discovered that persuading the media, and even the president, that you are right on the merits does not necessarily translate into change, not when the forces arrayed against change are so strong. If change comes, it will come from other places: from the grassroots and, paradoxically, from powerful interests that stand to gain from it.<\/p>\n

The most promising food activism is taking place at the grassroots: local policy initiatives are popping up in municipalities across the country, alongside urban agriculture ventures in underserved areas and farm-to-school programs. Changing the way America feeds itself has become the galvanizing issue for a generation now coming of age. (A new FoodCorps, launched in August as part of AmeriCorps, received nearly 1,300 applications for fifty slots.) Out of these local efforts will come local leaders who will recognize the power of food politics. Some of these leaders will run for office on these issues, and some of them will win.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth remembering that it took decades before the campaign against the tobacco industry could point to any concrete accomplishments. By the 1930s, the scientific case against smoking had been made, yet it wasn\u2019t until 1964 that the surgeon general was willing to declare smoking a threat to health, and another two decades after that before the industry\u2019s seemingly unshakable hold on Congress finally crumbled. By this standard, the food movement is making swift progress.<\/p>\n

But there is a second lesson the food movement can take away from the antismoking campaign. When change depends on overcoming the influence of an entrenched power, it helps to have another powerful interest in your corner — an interest that stands to gain from reform. In the case of the tobacco industry, that turned out to be the states, which found themselves on the hook (largely because of Medicaid) for the soaring costs of smoking-related illnesses. So, under economic duress, states and territories joined to file suit against the tobacco companies to recover some of those costs, and eventually they prevailed.<\/p>\n

The food movement will find such allies, especially now that Obama\u2019s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has put the government on the hook for the soaring costs of treating chronic illnesses — most of which are preventable and linked to diet. No longer allowed to cherry-pick the patients they\u2019re willing to cover, or to toss overboard people with chronic diseases, the insurance industry will soon find itself on the hook for the cost of the American diet too. It\u2019s no accident that support for measures such as taxing soda is strongest in places like Massachusetts, where the solvency of the state and its insurance industry depends on figuring out how to reduce the rates of Type 2 diabetes and obesity.<\/p>\n

The food movement is about to gain a powerful new partner, an industry that is beginning to recognize that it, too, has a compelling interest in issues like taxing soda, school lunch reform and even the farm bill. Indeed, as soon as the healthcare industry begins to focus on the fact that the government is subsidizing precisely the sort of meal for which the industry (and the government) will have to pick up the long-term tab, eloquent advocates of food system reform will suddenly appear in the unlikeliest places — like the agriculture committees of Congress.<\/p>\n

None of this should surprise us. For the past forty years, food reform activists like Frances Moore Lapp\u00e9 have been saying that the American way of growing and eating food is \u201cunsustainable.\u201d That objection is not rooted in mere preference or aesthetics, but rather in the inescapable realities of biology. Continuing to eat in a way that undermines health, soil, energy resources and social justice cannot be sustained without eventually leading to a breakdown. Back in the 1970s it was impossible to say exactly where that breakdown would first be felt. Would it be the environment or the healthcare system that would buckle first? Now we know. We simply can\u2019t afford the healthcare costs incurred by the current system of cheap food — which is why, sooner or later, we will find the political will to change it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Editor’s note: The following is reprinted with permission from the October 3, 2011 issue of The Nation magazine. Portions of each week\u2019s Nation magazine can be accessed at The Nation’s homepage. By Michael Pollan for The Nation In the forty years since the publication of Frances Moore Lapp\u00e9\u2019s Diet for a Small Planet, a movement … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":191,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45706"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/191"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}