You know I’m a huge supporter of all things Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser (co-producers of Food Inc.), so when Schlosser’s Op-Ed in the New York Times hit today, I was all over it like vegan cupcakes [full article here].

Schlosser’s piece focuses on the FDA Food Modernization Act — a bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to “order” the recall of contaminated foods (I thought they already had this authority! Crazy that they don’t, no?) and to discipline companies that consciously sell tainted products. Additionally, passage of the bill would grant the FDA the authority to test “widely for dangerous pathogens and improve the agency’s ability to trace outbreaks back to their source.”

So what’s the hold-up? Apparently the bill’s been in a “legislative limbo” and if it doesn’t get passed by the end of this session, Congress will have to reinvent the wheel to get this going again. Marion Nestle, NYU professor and author of Food Politics
wrote on her blog today that the hold-up is related to “nothing but politics of the worst kind” [source].

Why does this matter? What’s at stake? Basically, the food industry has become a Brave New World (happy birthday, Aldous Huxley!) in that mass commercialization has meant less regulation and concerns for profit winning over those for safety. Here are some key quotes — relating to what’s at stake — from Schlosser’s piece:

• “…right now, very few cases of food poisoning are ever actually linked to what the person ate, and companies that sell contaminated products routinely avoid liability. The economic cost is instead imposed on society. And it’s a huge cost. According to a recent study sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual health-related cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion.” [Schlosser]
• “Without tough food safety rules, a perverse economic incentive guides the marketplace. Adulterated food is cheaper to produce than safe food. Since consumers cannot tell the difference between the two, companies that try to do the right thing are forced to compete with companies that couldn’t care less.” [Schlosser]
• “Every day, about 200,000 Americans are sickened by contaminated food. Every year, about 325,000 are hospitalized by a food-borne illness. And the number who are killed annually by something they ate is roughly the same as the number of Americans who’ve been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.” [Schlosser]
• “Today, a problem at a single factory can swiftly lead to an outbreak that extends nationwide. Last year’s peanut butter recall illustrates what can go wrong. Executives at the Peanut Corporation of America knew that peanut butter from their filthy, rodent-infested plant was testing positive for salmonella — but shipped it anyway, for months.” [Schlosser]
• “Thousands of different products, manufactured by more than 200 companies, including candies and cookies marketed to children, were potentially tainted thanks to that one plant. And in the end, roughly 20,000 Americans got salmonella; about half of them were under the age of 16 and one-fifth were younger than 5.” [Schlosser]
• “The enormous rise in imported food also exposes American consumers to food safety lapses overseas…Chinese companies have been caught adding lead-based whiteners to pasta and selling beverages made with industrial alcohol. Two years ago, almost 300,000 Chinese infants were sickened by baby formula that had been adulterated with melamine, a cheap but toxic chemical. The overuse of antibiotics and pesticides in Chinese agriculture is rampant.” [Schlosser]
• “Despite those food safety problems, China has become the largest exporter of food to the United States after Canada and Mexico. About 60 percent of the apple juice in America — like peanut butter, a product consumed largely by children — now comes from China. This is yet another reason that passage of the F.D.A. modernization act is so urgent; it would, for the first time, subject foods from overseas to the same standards as those produced in the United States.” [Schlosser]

As Marion Nestle adds on her blog, “Lives are at stake here and everyone who cares about our food system should be urging the Senate to get moving” [source].

I’m not sure what we “every day citizens” can do to show our support for this bill. So, uh, I’ve asked around and will share with you when I hear If you know how, please share in the comments section! Also, if you’d like to stay on top of all the latest food recalls, check out Recalls.gov, where multiple government agencies report their recall info. [recalls.gov info. via Hungry Girl]

In more light-hearted news:

• Today is National Coffee Milkshake Day (darn food producers coming up with daily food-related holidays!). [photo cred]
  If you’d like to celebrate, I’d recommend making yourself a cup of coffee as your normally do, then letting it get to room temp. Add 1/2 cup of vanilla-flavored, coffee-flavored or mocha-fudge flavored vegan ice cream (I’d recommend Turtle Mountain’s Organic So Delicious variety), 1 cup unsweetened Almond Breeze and lots of ice and blend them all together! Lots o’ drink all for approx 170 calories, 6g fat, 240mg sodium, 26g carbs, 4g fiber, 13g sugars, 2g protein
• Today is Meatless Monday. Haven’t heard of it? Craziness! Check out the site here and start making Mondays your meatless day if only to try some cool new plant-based recipes!
• The Food Network is doing an open casting call for, “The Next Food Network Star.” Casting call is on Tuesday, August 10 from 10am-3pm at LA Marriott Burbank Airport, 2500 Hollywood Way [via Caroline on Crack]

Hope you guys have a wonderful day! Any of you non-veg peeps participate in Meatless Monday? Why do you think people are dragging their feet on passing the FDA Food Modernization Act?

<3,

The Cranky One

So, yea, there’s way too much going on in the food world for me to hog all the info. myself. If you’re following me on Twitter, I’m sure you’ve seen me mention a lot of this stuff. If you’re not following me on Twitter, all I ask is why not?!

Lion Meat, New Foods & Food Recalls (Oh my?)

• Did you catch the news about the restaurant-owner in Arizona who attempted to serve lion meat in celebration of the World Cup? Granted, the whole thing made me cringe and I had to reflect on the premise of carnism (see yesterday’s post). What I found most interesting, however, is the legal and regulatory issues — apparently it IS legal to eat lion meat, however, it is not the USDA that inspects “lions bred for meat” but the FDA. Read more here.
• The U.S. Dietary Guidelines are reviewed every 5 years and a new draft has just been completed for 2010! However, not much seems to have changed (still advocating low-fat, health-myths). See here for more info. and here for an opinion piece (I somewhat agree…obvs. not w/ the eating-animals portions)
• On Monsanto winning an appeal re its GM alfalfa, & its monopolization of agriculture: here and here
• Luna Bar has announced two new flavors: Blueberry Bliss and Vanilla Almond: 180-190 calories,5-6g fat, 3g fiber. They both appear to be vegan.
• ConAgra foods is recalling its Marie Callendar’s brand cheesy chicken and rice entrees. Click here. A good reason to stop buying crappy frozen meals altogether
• Kellogg Co. is recalling 28 million boxes of its cereals (Apple Jacks, Corn Pops, Froot Loops & Honey Smacks) with “better-if-used-before” dates ranging from March 26, 2011, to June 22, 2011. Apparently there is a waxy smell from the packaging that can make people sick. See here.
• The European Parliament recently supported proposals to extend country of origin labeling (COOL) to all meat, poultry and fish and dairy products. Click here. Does anyone know of similar efforts in the US?
• Mission Foods announced it will, finally, start selling whole-wheat flour tortillas. See here. This is great news…IF they take out some of the other crap lurking in most of their tortillas, such as small traces of hydrogenated oils and weird preservatives and chemicals. Baby steps?

Deals

• Participating Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf locations in CA, AZ & NV (excluding San Diego county, Texas, Hawaii, Ralphs stores, casinos, campus or airport locations) are offering a free 12 0z. Iced Americano, Iced Coffee or Iced Tea on Tues., June 29th, 4-7 p.m. Click here for deets.

Michael Pollan (yes, he deserves his own section of news <3)

• Last night on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams – interview regarding when/why its a good investment to buy organic here “Food is too important to economize” – Pollan, I love you. In a strictly platonic way, of course
• June 19 interview in the Seattle Times here

Fat Acceptance?

• ABC’s new show “Huge,” featuring Hair Spray’s Nikki Blonsky, will begin airing this upcoming Monday, June 28th. ABC describes the show as follows: “Funny, heartbreaking and provocative, Huge follows the lives of seven teens and the staff at a weight-loss camp, as they look beneath the surface to discover their true selves and the truth about each other.” You say “weight loss camp” and I immediately feel uncomfortable. However, what I then find super-interesting is that the site hosts a section called “Live Huge,” featuring a “self-esteem coach,” & health/fitness/nutrition tips. Self-described as “At ABC Family, we believe that healthy living means living life to the fullest. In order to live your best life, it’s important to take care of yourself — physically, mentally and emotionally. Here you’ll be given tips on how to eat nutritious snacks and meals, add exercise into your busy life, and build a stronger, more positive sense of self — because living a healthy life means having healthy self-esteem too!” While I obvs. haven’t seen the show yet, advocating holistic health (physical, mental, emotional) seems like a noble premise. And, call me naive, the “Live Huge” site sounds like a great resource for kids and young adults. When I was at my heaviest, I felt like the ultimate “fix” would be losing weight. Now that I’ve lost the weight, the real battle has been mending the self-esteem and recognizing how happiness and thinness are not necessary correlatives.

<3,

The Cranky One

p.s. Stop by later for an awesome give-away!

[photo cred]

Are we two star-crossed lovers, fated to have our disapproving families battle it out in the streets until our inevitable demise?

No freakin’ way — this isn’t the 1500s and our families aren’t into dueling. But it does seem like there are people in our respective lifestyle camps who would break out a glove, slap one of us on the face, and challenge us to a duel.

The blog Vegan Salt inspired my random Shakespeare allusions when Krys asked, “Can a vegan and an omnivore live happily ever after?  Should they even bother dating or will their differences be too great to overcome?”

To me, the questions were silly (and inapplicable: it’s not a question of can — we ARE living happily ever after); and I couldn’t help giggling as I read them. I glanced lovingly at the desktop photo of my carnivore boyfriend as if to share the joke with him. Krys then went over some of the benefits of dating someone who is also a vegan, and I nodded in agreement at some of them (e.g. ease of eating out together).

I then laughed again when she brought up the term “vegansexual,” someone who only dates vegans, and I continued cackling  as I thought about how unsustainable that practice would be — since vegans make up 1% of the population, they’d either have to incestuously interbreed with each other or die off. Or perhaps start a vegan breeding colony. Hmm…sounds like a weird off-shoot of eugenics…but I digress…

I eventually stopped laughing when the blogger wrote: “Once you reach the point of understanding that raising and killing select species is utterly barbaric and cruel, it becomes difficult not to be a bit judgmental of those who delight in tearing into dead animal flesh.  Or, at the very least, to be a bit wary of their callousness.”

I give pause to this quote because it assumes that raising and killing select species, or deeming some animals edible and others inedible — also known as “carnism” — is a) barbaric and cruel. Is it, really? If I may be so presumptuous to say, I think we’d be better off arguing that it is certainly cruel to unnecessarily inflict pain on animals in our factory/farming practices. I disagree, however, that it is inherently cruel and barbaric to eat some animals and not others.

Animals practice carnism in the natural world. You won’t find a sheep eating a rhino, or a dog eating a platypus — is that carnism cruel and barbaric? I think it can become barbaric when humans are involved and educated that their farming/slaughtering practices inflict pain on animals, are then given access to healthy alternatives, and still choose to inhumanely slaughter animals. I’ll concede that much.

Also, (b) I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many omnivores who “delight in tearing into dead animal flesh.” Sure, I know plenty of people who love to eat meat and savor the flavor with delight; but these are typically people who have dissociated the meat on their plate from its previous animal being. This is a common practice — one of both true and feigned ignorance (in other words, we dissociate by choice and also by proxy — our meat producers do a damn good job at helping us forget where our meat comes from and of selling us idyllic imagery of happy cows participating in American-Idol-like contests).

Just like many people would say they don’t choose to believe in God, that they just do, our beliefs are more complex than we often give them credit. Many of us go our entire lives without ever questioning a certain belief (and it’s hard, even upon reflection now, to pinpoint the liminality where certain beliefs are conscious beliefs instead of these intrinsic parts of us.

While Krys did an excellent job at remaining more inquisitive than inquisition-like, one of her reader’s comments reeeeeally got me “thinking” (read: kinda pissed) when she wrote, “a vegan dating a non vegan is atrocious. It basically means – you don’t care about animals. You are willing to support a killer.”

Aside from being a prime example of hyperbole, this reader’s comment is also a prime example of that unyielding zealousness that turns me off from a lot of pro-vegan forums. It’s like saying if someone dates another outside of his or her religion, she or he then doesn’t care about his/her God and supports a heretic. Granted, there may be loads of people who do believe that. And, boy, we do get far in this world with that sort of zealotry, don’t we? This is also why when people argue ceaselessly over semantics and whether part-time veganism/or vegetarianism is “damaging to the cause,” I shake my head, shrug and look at the big picture.

Look — I do understand the premise behind carnism and the idea that killing and eating some animals over others is unethical (is it more ethical to kill them all? I’m joking, I’m joking…); and while I’ll share that I myself do not eat meat, dairy or cheese, I’ll be the first to tell you that I don’t think it’s necessary, or the most ethical thing, that the entire world follow my example or be doomed to some inexorable hell for non-vegans. I went 25 years of my life eating animal flesh and my entire family still does. I guess I just haven’t gotten to that pristine compassionate vegan moment when I’ll condemn them to non-vegan prison or exile them to some non-vegan slave camp. And I’m certainly not getting to that moment when my boyfriend’s omnivore lifestyle will be a deal-breaker.

I don’t mean to sound like an apologist for omnivores of the world, but I’m okay with it if I do.

I read Melanie Joy’s book on carnism, “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism” and I think she’s rad (even added her as a Facebook friend), but I have some reservations with its premise. In simply reflecting on the first half of the title, “Why We Love Dogs,” it is clear this book is marketed to a Western audience (if you have ever seen an episode of Cesar Milan’s National Geographic Show “The Dog Whisperer,” you would hear him sternly recount that loving dogs like pets and babies is a very Western thing – not the case in Mexico and Latin America, for instance). I’d like to point out the “culture blindness” of a book that assumes that any culture privileging its own version of meat-eating would forgo it after acknowledging its bias towards certain animals.

Because eating meat is not simply a cultural and religious practice, but also a practice largely stemming from the geography of the land and the use and allocation of its resources, this could very well become an issue of resource-allocation and access, education and the corporatization of food (and perhaps factor into the Westernization of the world?). The U.N. more recently advocated lessening the consumption of animal products worldwide (esp. meat & dairy) for environmental reasons, but conceded that it’s affluent nations doing most of the consumption (see here).

A lot of Joy’s argument has to do with meat-eating as a social norm pushed by a media and government that legitimizes the act by maintaining its distance to it (103). Sure, in the U.S., we have dairy and meat reps lobbying congress and affecting the cute little triangle of health we pass out to our children in kindergarten. We have animal flesh ground up and packaged so as not to remind us that it’s Annabelle, the cow, we’re eating. I get it. I personally don’t like. But I’m not willing to condemn people for it. Not just yet anyway.

One of the reasons I’m such an avid supporter of Michael Pollan is that he recognizes the various intersections of food, culture and politics and the sort of inextricability of the three. Pollan is considered by many, to be a mover and shaker in the realm of animal ethics. But he’s NOT vegetarian. Say what? Yep. Pollan advocates ethical raising and slaughtering of the animals we breed to eat. I guess part of the issue is whether or not you would ever deem it ethical to eat animals. But to me, that’s sort of a privileged question. It assumes that people everywhere across the world have other options. And if they do, then may we cast judgment on them? It also assumes it is the most ethical thing, environmentally, to veganize the world (while the U.N. seems to be heading in this direction, other reputable sources I’ve read say it’s still questionable whether veganism could even be sustainable, or environmentally ethical, worldwide).

So, to get back to where I started (perhaps this whole brevity thing still eludes me), I don’t plan on taking Juliet’s way out of this tug-o-war. I favor the holistic compassion of my inimitable meat-eating boyfriend over the close-minded “compassion” of any other without doubt.

I’d love your thoughts, ideas, gripes – what have you – on this issue.

<3,

The Cranky One

If you’re interested in food politics, you’ve got to check out Michael Pollan’s book review in The New York Review of Books titled, “The Food Movement, Rising” and linked here.

The books under review:

1. Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front
2. All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America?
3. Eating Animals
4. Terra Madre: Forging a New Global Network of Sustainable Food Communities
5. The Taste for Civilization: Food, Politics, and Civil Society

Pollan’s prose weaves in reviews of the books with a natural discussion of the food movement’s history and evolution and how, at this very moment in time, food politics is at the center of national debate (which is AWESOME). I’ve culled some of the quotes I found most interesting and what I found to be his key points:

• How did the Food Movement Get Here? In the 70’s, at a time of questionable agricultural practices and food cost inflation, key books like Diet for a Small Planet, and others, threatened to bring food politics to the center of national debate. The government was able, at the prompting of Nixon, to bring food prices down, to make food issues “disappear” in the sheer ubiquity of food: the govt. shifted focus from “supporting prices for farmers” to focus on high yield crops, which created cheap and ever-present food.
• Why this had hidden costs: “…although cheap food is good politics, it turns out there are significant costs—to the environment, to public health, to the public purse, even to the culture—and as these became impossible to ignore in recent years, food has come back into view.”
• What happened next. The 80s and 90s contained many highly publicized examples of these costs — e.coli break-outs, mad cow disease and a general bewilderment at the thought of seeing what was indeed behind the metaphorical curtain of our food production.
• How multinationals hijacked the ability to afford healthful food. “…companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s pay their workers so poorly that they can afford only the cheap, low-quality food these companies sell, creating a kind of nonvirtuous circle driving down both wages and the quality of food. The advent of fast food (and cheap food in general) has, in effect, subsidized the decline of family incomes in America.” (My note: See books like Fast Food Nation, Nickel and Dimed, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health, Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture))
• Defining the food movements. “Cheap food has become an indispensable pillar of the modern economy. But it is no longer an invisible or uncontested one. One of the most interesting social movements to emerge in the last few years is the ‘food movement,’ or perhaps I should say ‘movements,’ since it is unified as yet by little more than the recognition that industrial food production is in need of reform because its social/environmental/public health/animal welfare/gastronomic costs are too high. As that list suggests, the critics are coming at the issue from a great many different directions. Where many social movements tend to splinter as time goes on, breaking into various factions representing divergent concerns or tactics, the food movement starts out splintered. Among the many threads of advocacy that can be lumped together under that rubric we can include school lunch reform; the campaign for animal rights and welfare; the campaign against genetically modified crops; the rise of organic and locally produced food; efforts to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes; ‘food sovereignty’ (the principle that nations should be allowed to decide their agricultural policies rather than submit to free trade regimes); farm bill reform; food safety regulation; farmland preservation; student organizing around food issues on campus; efforts to promote urban agriculture and ensure that communities have access to healthy food; initiatives to create gardens and cooking classes in schools; farm worker rights; nutrition labeling; feedlot pollution; and the various efforts to regulate food ingredients and marketing, especially to kids.”
• We’re at our Breaking Point. “Viewed from a middle distance, then, the food movement coalesces around the recognition that today’s food and farming economy is ‘unsustainable’—that it can’t go on in its current form much longer without courting a breakdown of some kind, whether environmental, economic, or both.”
• Feeling the Food Movement in your Gut. “But perhaps the food movement’s strongest claim on public attention today is the fact that the American diet of highly processed food laced with added fats and sugars is responsible for the epidemic of chronic diseases that threatens to bankrupt the health care system.”
• Politics under President Obama and Michelle Obama might be paving the way to better health. “The political ground is shifting [my note: see Michelle Obama here], and the passage of health care reform may accelerate that movement. The bill itself contains a few provisions long promoted by the food movement (like calorie labeling on fast food menus), but more important could be the new political tendencies it sets in motion. If health insurers can no longer keep people with chronic diseases out of their patient pools, it stands to reason that the companies will develop a keener interest in preventing those diseases. They will then discover that they have a large stake in things like soda taxes and in precisely which kinds of calories the farm bill is subsidizing. As the insurance industry and the government take on more responsibility for the cost of treating expensive and largely preventable problems like obesity and type 2 diabetes, pressure for reform of the food system, and the American diet, can be expected to increase.”
• Monopolization of our Food is something to Fear. “Speaking in March at an Iowa ‘listening session’ about agribusiness concentration, Holder said, ‘long periods of reckless deregulation have restricted competition’ in agriculture. Indeed: four companies (JBS/Swift, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef Packers) slaughter 85 percent of US beef cattle; two companies (Monsanto and DuPont) sell more than 50 percent of US corn seed; one company (Dean Foods) controls 40 percent of the US milk supply.’”
• When Food is More than Food. “The modern marketplace would have us decide what to buy strictly on the basis of price and self-interest; the food movement implicitly proposes that we enlarge our understanding of both those terms, suggesting that not just ‘good value’ but ethical and political values should inform our buying decisions, and that we’ll get more satisfaction from our eating when they do. That satisfaction helps to explain why many in the movement don’t greet the spectacle of large corporations adopting its goals, as some of them have begun to do, with unalloyed enthusiasm.”
• Where the Food Movement Hits Home. “Part of the movement’s critique of industrial food is that, with the rise of fast food and the collapse of everyday cooking, it has damaged family life and community by undermining the institution of the shared meal. Sad as it may be to bowl alone, eating alone can be sadder still, not least because it is eroding the civility on which our political culture depends.”

Is that not some amazing food for thought?   And, since I forgot to congratulate him earlier, I’d like to link to the Time Magazine spread that featured Mr. Pollan himself as one of the thinkers who most affect our world (linked here).

<3,

The Cranky One

p.s. Have you entered by $60.00 give-away to CSN Online stores? Click here to enter.

Panacea…a cure-all; or the Greek goddess of healing…is she embodied in the word “organic”?
(…I think you know my opinion based on the title of this post…lol)

I have to admit that somethin’ annoys me (well, what doesn’t, really? lol) and it’s that the word “organic” is thrown around like some sort of panacea that’s going to solve all our health problems and save the environment.

Organic is Simply Another Factor to Consider

Do you know what “organic” means? No, seriously, do you? Because I have to keep looking it up and every time I do, I get more confused. I know plenty of people who, when prompted, reply that an “organic” label means no pesticides were used in yielding the product for consumption. Wrong. Fact *Dwight voice* — unless your food label says “100% certified organic,” a small percentage of pesticides have possibly been used. But is that really…that…bad? *Looks around for flying objects*

I don’t know. Don’t come to me for answers  I consider myself more of a broker between knowledge and action. I’m going to lay out all the resources and crap for your consideration ‘cuz this is a dialouge, not a sermon!

Now that my disclaimer is through…

Fact: “Organic” does not mean ethical, sustainable or local. Did you think that by eating grass-fed, organic cow it meant your steak was slaughtered ethically? Nope. Organic labels don’t relate to slaughter practices. You’d also consider where factory-farming landed on the ethic-o-meter and whether any “organic” or “grass-fed” label could counter it. You’d also wonder how environmentally-friendly your Chilean banana is. Food miles, friends — that’s gotta count, too, right? But, wait, screw food miles – what about world-wide hunger which, organic or not, we’d make a huge dent in if we ate less meat…right? Hello, anyone out there getting as worked-up in confusion and information overload as I am?

In a New York Times article in March of 2009, Mark Bittman wrote an interesting piece called, “Eating Food That’s Better for You, Organic or Not” (linked here, but you’ll need a NY Times password) in which he presents the varying issues surrounding the “allure” (and illusion) of organic foods and the other issues that inextricably relate. Here’ s a key excerpt:

“No matter how carefully I avoided using the word ‘organic’ when I spoke to groups of food enthusiasts about how to eat better, someone in the audience would inevitably ask, ‘What if I can’t afford to buy organic food?’ It seems to have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically.

But eating ‘organic’ offers no guarantee of any of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat so badly — we get 7 percent of our calories from soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the top food group by caloric intake is ’sweets’; and one-third of nation’s adults are now obese — that the organic question is a secondary one. It’s not unimportant, but it’s not the primary issue in the way Americans eat.

To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of ‘In Defense of Food,’ means avoiding ‘edible food-like substances’ and sticking to real ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. (Americans each consume an average of nearly two pounds a day of animal products.) There’s plenty of evidence that both a person’s health — as well as the environment’s — will improve with a simple shift in eating habits away from animal products and highly processed foods to plant products and what might be called ‘real food.’ (With all due respect to people in the ‘food movement,’ the food need not be ’slow,’ either.)”

This piece was rad. First off — he mentioned Michale Pollan, which you know means I swooned. Second off, he mentioned how there are so many things to consider when you’re deciding what to eat. It’s not just about what you’re putting into your body, but also how that choice affects the environment and what it tells food producers. As Pollan always says, “we vote with our forks.”

I was watching a live-stream of Pollan speaking at Goucher College earlier this week (click here for info. and here for a re-cap) and a student asked him how he’d feel about McDonald’s going organic. His response? “Organic junk food is still junk food.” Bottom line — we can’t expect “going organic” to change a foundation of crappy eating habits or even the foundation of our society that privileges meat products (via subsidies) over vegetables & fruit and instant gratification over home-cookin’. We can’t expect going organic to solve our gas-guzzling love affair. So what can we expect?

It depends. What do YOU want?

I guess that’s what you have to answer for yourself. If it’s concentration of nutrients, knowing your food was local, knowing the animals were slaughtered “humanely,” etc. that dictates how you should choose your food. Frankly, they haven’t invented a “honest-to-goodness-this-is-the-best-for-the-environment-in-an-ethical-and-sustainable-and-forever-sort-of-way” label. Why? Well goodness, we can never agree on what’s sustainable or even on what’s ethical! Come on, now!

Do your research and then the right choice is your choice.

When it comes to my choice — well…it’s always evolving based on whatever new reputable research I get my hands on, or whatever new connection or links I’ve made that seem highest order on the list of my concerns. Right now I eat vegan — so no animal products (though I occasionally make exceptions for honey; no logic in that choice, just pure desire outweighing all else) and I also keep WOLF in mind. WOLF = wholesome, organic, and local food. I value wholesome food, organic or not, over its alternative. Organic and local are mostly interchangeable though I’ll prioritize organic if it’s a produce item considered one of the “dirty dozen” and favor local if the produce is available and not one of the “dirty dozen.”

Want to Read More?

• British Foods Standards Agency’s Report that Organics and Coventional Produce Do Not Differ Nutrionally ; A response to that in the UK’s Telegraph here and on the blog Mulch here (though keep in mind that “organic” means different things in the UK than it does in the US)
• The National Organic Program(the US’s “certified organic” standards)
• Distinction of Different Organic Labels
• The “Dirty Dozen” I tend to buy organic
• Even “healthy foods” that are not 100% certified organic can have very harmful neurotoxin, hexane, in them. Check your veggie burgers…
• An article I liked showcasing the polarity of organics: “Save the Rainforest, Boycott Organic?” (Click here)

<3,

The Cranky One

That sort of “empowered choice,” however, puts this newbie vegan in quite a predicament. I can actually see an ethics in eating meat, see an environmental advantage to it as well, and yet still feel guilt for eating any animal product. Before you throw me off a cliff, allow me to share with you an article by (*swoon*) Michael Pollan. Sure, it appeared around 8 years ago, but it’s still truly relevant today. The article is titled, “An Animal’s Place” and it ran in The New York Timeson November 8, 2002. I’ve chosen some interesting facts and quotes below. Anything in quotes below belongs to Mr. Pollan.

Sure, there was a book called “Annabelle’s Wish” about a cow with my name. But there’s got to be more reason for caring about a bovine, right? Maybe? Meh?

A general question that animal rights activist ask their meat-eating compatriots is: how can you eat a cow, but take a family portrait with your dog? Granting moral consideration to some animals over others is called speciesism (this also includes our predominant sentiment that we humans are superior to animals). The practice of choosing to eat some animals — cows, pigs and chickens, but not cats and dogs, for example — is called carnism.

Pollan says: “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he’s not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white. In the same way we’d call that exclusion racist, the animal rightist contends that it is speciesist to discriminate against the chimpanzee solely because he’s not human.”

I hear some of you screaming through your computer screens – “no way! A chimp is an ANIMAL! A person is a PERSON!” Yea. Ok. I hear ya. This is where we get into equality versus moral consideration. Pollan is clear to jolt you that we are NOT all equal. Some of us really are smarter, or more x,y,z depending on whatever social constructs we’re agreeing upon. But equal treatment is not what we’re going for here – we’re going for equal consideration of interests. Using theories from Peter Singer, Pollan writes, “Children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain.” At first I cringed in thinking how we’d figure out the “interests” of the animals to consider—it just seemed so human-centered. But the interest of avoiding pain seems rather universal, and if you’ve ever heard Fido yelp after being stepped on the tail, you’ve probably felt that deep-gut feeling of commiseration and compassion that tells you that if you and Fido never had anything in common before, you at least now share that you don’t like being stepped on.

BUT I’M SMARTER THAN A CHIMP! SO THERE! Granted, YOU may be smarter than a chimp. But not all humans are. Using intelligence as a guage of superiority is tricky when you use the Argument From Marginal Cases – infants and the mentally disabled, for instance, wouldn’t necessarily be able to one-up a chimp. Sounds horrible, but it does throw a wrench in an overgeneralized human superiority complex.

So why is that we’re generally pretty okay with eating factory-farmed meat and eggs, but not okay with eating our pets?

Part of the reason, Pollan writes, is that we here in Urban America rarely share a gaze with our food (the idea of sharing “gaze”—or eye contact—with an animal comes from John Berger). How often do you look a pig in the eyes before you eat it? I haven’t seen a live pig since I was a little girl. And I’m sure if I were at a farm and someone said, “meet your dinner, it’s Babe!” I would pull a kidnapping stunt right after I donkey-kicked the farmer.

We probably don’t eat our dogs here in urban America because we’ve domesticated them as our pets. We’ve shared meaningful moments of our lives with them and projected human sentiments on them. If I eat a cow, a beautiful, peaceful creature, why wouldn’t I eat Cody – my beautiful, barking, spoiled-princess-of-a-dog? I shudder.

This is where things can get even more complicated! Sure, I personally don’t want a cow to suffer on my behalf, especially because I don’t NEED to eat meat to survive(and thrive!). But, what if the cow is raised in an ideal environment where he is allowed to exercise his “cowness” and all his grass-grazing glory?

Honestly, I don’t find anything repulsive about the idea of raising a cow on a farm with plentiful grass and allowing him to live that bucolic existence we see projected by the Dairy Farmers Association in their commercials. We know that that truly isn’t the existence of most cows, but what if it was for all of them? Could I then object if they lived their lives frolicking over green pastures until old age took their lives? I wouldn’t object. In fact, I’d ask if they offered human retirement plans there in the pastoral landscape.

But the fact is, farms like that (like Polyface Farms, mentioned by Pollan) hardly exist. Also, they’re hardly sustainable and the meat products are going to cost much more. What the F, man?

Why Bother? Don’t Animals Kill One Another All the Time?

Pollan argues that predation is a matter of “symbiosis” – not morality. In other words, while an individual animal might die at the paw of predation, his species will probably thrive from it. He writes, “Hard as the wolf may be on the deer he eats, the herd depends on him for its well-being; without predators to cull the herd, deer overrun their habitat and starve. In many places, human hunters have taken over the predator’s ecological role.”

So, why don’t we applaud ourselves, grill up a steak and call it a day? Well, animal rights activists would ask – Pollan writes — “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order? Murder and rape are natural, too. Besides, humans don’t need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do.” Oy. There we go again! Us damn humans with our damn self-consciousness and reason. Reason is quite a burden isn’t it?

Gah! But I have REAL Problems to Worry About!

You sure do. WE sure do, actually. Sometimes it seems the world is dissolving right before our very eyes (alarmist much?). That’s fine. Because all this animal rights stuff is asking you to do is stop eating meat and wearing animal body parts to make fashion statements. As Pollan says, “There’s no reason I can’t devote myself to solving humankind’s problems while being a vegetarian who wears synthetics.” But don’t worry, carnivores, where I might say give up meat and animal food completely, Pollan offers an alternative.

Fine! But What About Animal Testing?

Ah, there’s the rub. If we use animal suffering as our gauge for considering their interests, how would we view gouging rabbit eyes with painful eye make-up products?

Pollan writes, “… the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals. That’s because the unique qualities of human consciousness carry weight in the utilitarian calculus: human pain counts for more than that of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our deaths are worse than an animal’s because we understand what death is in a way they don’t.” So it comes down, again, to an ethics of pain and necessity. Testing on animals for things like make-up doesn’t seem so necessary. Testing for a cure for AIDS, however, seems more acceptable under those limits. I feel a bit out of my element in this ethical dilemma since I do not know enough about animal testing. From what limited research I have done, it seems that sometimes animals with completely different systems than our own are tested which would mean they’re tested in vain. I’ve also heard that there are numerous alternatives outside of using animals that would be just as helpful; however, again, I do not have enough research to support these claims. If you do – please share!

The Falsity of A Vegetarian Utopia (& The Vegan’s Challenge)

Naturally, when I decided to try out veganism I wondered, immediately, what does the vegan opposition say?

Of course Pollan in his infinite glory had something to say about it and I didn’t have the heart or skill to sever it. It’s a good and long passage, so grab a snack (vegetarian please?) and read on!

“The farmer would point out that even vegans have a ‘serious clash of interests’ with other animals. The grain that the vegan eats is harvested with a combine that shreds field mice, while the farmer’s tractor crushes woodchucks in their burrows, and his pesticides drop songbirds from the sky. Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total number of animals killed every year would actually increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. Davis contends that if our goal is to kill as few animals as possible, then people should eat the largest possible animal that can live on the least intensively cultivated land: grass-fed beef for everybody. It would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat.

The world is full of places where the best, if not the only, way to obtain food from the land is by grazing animals on it — especially ruminants, which alone can transform grass into protein and whose presence can actually improve the health of the land.

The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply. Indeed, it is doubtful that you can build a more sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature — rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls — then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.

Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere ‘gastronomic preference.’’ We might as well call sex — also now technically unnecessary — a mere ‘recreational preference.’ Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed.

These are important considerations, but they don’t alter my essential point: what’s wrong with animal agriculture — with eating animals – is the practice, not the principle.”

These passages kind of made me want to throw up my hands, cry a river and resolve to never read anything again so I could continue to just believe what feels more convenient to believe. As you can see, issues are never clear-cut and black and white. Usually, that’s a good thing. While I may not enjoy the point of view that veganism, theoretically, is not this Earth- and Animal-saving panacea, I can be happy with – and see the use in – a utilitarian perspective where compassion allows us to act mindfully and considerately and yet still consume animals. Mind you — I’m speaking, too, theoretically. I have yet to declare that I’m deviating from my own practice of eating a vegan diet.

The Problem’s in the Practice

We’ve lost that loving feeling, whoa that loving feeling. Ok, I’m lame, but the truth is that the way we kill animals now (and the amount of them we consume) is much different from the way it use to be. Pollan writes, “Apart from a few surviving religious practices, we no longer have any rituals governing the slaughter or eating of animals, which perhaps helps to explain why we find ourselves where we do, feeling that our only choice is to either look away or give up meat.”

Pollan’s Answer

Just say no to the industrialization and dehumanization of animal farming. I think the word “dehumanization” might be a bit ironic (though not intended to be).

Pollan: “For my own part, I’ve discovered that if you’re willing to make the effort, it’s entirely possible to limit the meat you eat to nonindustrial animals.”

“Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to do it this way. Tail-docking and sow crates and beak-clipping would disappear overnight, and the days of slaughtering 400 head of cattle an hour would come to an end. For who could stand the sight? Yes, meat would get more expensive. We’d probably eat less of it, too, but maybe when we did eat animals, we’d eat them with the consciousness, ceremony and respect they deserve.”

For me, the irony comes down to one thing: self-awareness. For all the superiority our self-consciousness has seemingly given us, it seems most of us are still in the dark or choosing to live blindly. I, for one, am still choosing to live blindly in many aspects of my life. I still buy hair products from manufacturers that test on animals. I’m sure if I were sick with cancer, I’d want you to research the hell out of a cure for me, even if it was at an animal’s expense. I crave cheese. I drank milk in my latte the other day. Perhaps I haven’t reached that zen of veganism yet. Perhaps those cultural remnants and practices from 25+ years of my life are still rearing their head in my daily life. Perhaps I’m just not human enough. Perhaps I’m too human. But you know what? I may be spending my time doing too much self-reflection while the world keeps turning — and maybe in a right (or moreright direction?). Since Pollan wrote his article, more countries have given rights to animals. Ghent, Belgium has implemented a “veggie day” (meat-free) per week. We’ve found a way to grow meat from a petri dish (whether that’s a good or bad thing is yet to be seen!)! So the answer may not be for all of us to immediately adopt a vegan lifestyle. Whether that’s truly environmentally beneficial is yet to be seen. For now, me being vegan is contributing to less unnecessary animal deaths. I think accepting that there’s still so much for us to learn and yet also taking personal responsibility in our actions is the key. And with that final Mr. Rodgers sentiment, I’m out!

Some of the key books mentioned in Pollan’s piece and others I’d recommend:

• J.M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals (The University Center for Human Values Series)
• Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism
• Daniel Dennet’s Kinds Of Minds: Toward An Understanding Of Consciousness (Science Masters Series)
• Stephen Mulhall’s The Wounded Animal: J. M. Coetzee and the Difficulty of Reality in Literature and Philosophy
• Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights
• Matthew Scully’s Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
• Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (P.S.)
• Peter Singer’s In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave

<3,

The Cranky One

Michael Pollan. In case you’re new to my blog, um, I heart Michael Pollan. Three news items on him:

• NPR did an “All Things Considered” segment on his Food Rules here (5 minutes audio).
• If you missed Pollan on the Oprah show, his segment will be re-broadcast on March 11.
• Food Inc. is up for an Academy Award on Monday. YAY!

In other good news, Native Foods just announced a new online take-out ordering system! Suh-weet! From the announcement:

• You pick the exact time you wish to pick up your order, you pay online and you even receive your Rewards Card points online!
• No waiting in line or paying at the front when you get to the Native Foods restaurant. Just go straight to the area marked “Online Order Pickup” and tell us your name—we’ll have your Take Order ready and off you go!!
• Don’t forget: Costa Mesa, Tustin and Aliso Viejo all have designated “Take Out” Parking spaces within steps of those Native Foods restaurants for easy and quick parking. [And Westwood has an alleyright next door to the Native Foods entrance!]
• As an added incentive to all existing Rewards Card members, we are offering 25% off on your first Online Order placed prior to March 31. YAY!

And, finally, being kind may actually indicate you have an evolutionary advantage — see here. Gives a whole new meaning to paying it forward. Ya hear that meanies?!

The New York Times ran a piece recently called, “In Obesity Epidemic, What’s One Cookie?” here.  Basically, the article discusses the merit of the adage that “little changes add up” when it comes to weight loss; so they really do consider how cutting out a cookie, for instance, can offer a change, but not necessarily a substantial one over time. From the article:

•  ”Bodies don’t gain or lose weight indefinitely. Eventually, a cascade of biological changes kicks in to help the body maintain a new weight. As the JAMA article explains, a person who eats an extra cookie a day will gain some weight, but over time, an increasing proportion of the cookie’s calories also goes to taking care of the extra body weight. Eventually, the body adjusts and stops gaining weight, even if the person continues to eat the cookie. Similar factors come into play when we skip the extra cookie. We may lose a little weight at first, but soon the body adjusts to the new weight and requires fewer calories.
• “Regrettably, however, the body is more resistant to weight loss than weight gain. Hormones and brain chemicals that regulate your unconscious drive to eat and how your body responds to exercise can make it even more difficult to lose the weight. You may skip the cookie but unknowingly compensate by eating a bagel later on or an extra serving of pasta at dinner.”
• “’There is a much bigger picture than parsing out the cookie a day or the Coke a day,’ said Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman, head of Rockefeller University’s molecular genetics lab, which first identified leptin, a hormonal signal made by the body’s fat cells that regulates food intake and energy expenditure.
• My take: Um, what a narrow view of small changes. Weight as a change may certainly seem trivial. But think of how changing one habit like stopping smoking, can dramatically increase your life expectancy and quality of life! I say, think positive, and be kind (see above — it’s a sign of evolutionary advantage

Also, bad — apparently our children (yours, not mine — this baby doesn’t have babies!) are considered “Generation Snack.” Just another article in the NY Times here telling us how crisisy this obesity crisis is.

The Ugly

An article in Time Magazine called, “Putting a Pricetag on Food Unsafety ” sounds kinda yucky ugly. See here. An excerpt:

• “Illness from contaminated food, ranging from minor stomachaches and queasiness to life-threatening E. coliinfections, are a serious public-health threat in the U.S., resulting in 5,000 deaths and 325,000 hospitalizations each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When tallied up, the consequences of foodborne illness — including doctor visits, medication, lost work days and pain and suffering — cost the U.S. an estimated $152 billion annually. That figure was reported on Wednesday in a new study by the Produce Safety Project, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trust.” Yikes, guys.

 Alright, gotta jet! Any of these news items strike a chord? Any news you wanna share with ME?!

<3,

The Cranky One

Ever since Michael Pollan and his books have been in the spotlight, I’ve felt fortunate that such important issues on food production, health and sustainable living were taking center stage.  It’s also meant that I’m now viewing my world with Pollanized eyes. In reading Henry David Thoreau’s Walden for one of my classes, I couldn’t help but notice a similarity between Thoreau’s suggestions for living “deliberately” and Michael Pollan’s “food rules.” Here are some quotes I’ve stolen from Walden and my translations:

“There is a certain class of unbelievers who sometimes ask me such questions as, if I think I can live on vegetable food alone; and to strike at the root of the matter at once,–for the root is faith,–I am accustomed to answer such, that I can live on board nails.” Translation: When it comes to being vegetarian? I think I can, I think I can.

“What is the pill which will keep us well, serene, contented? Not my or thy great-father’s, but our great-grandmother Nature’s universal, vegetable, botanic medicines, by which she has kept herself young always, outlives so many old Parrs in her day, and fed her health with their decaying fatness.” Translation: Remedy up with natural stuff — just say no to drugs.

“I did not use tea, nor coffee, nor butter, nor milk, nor fresh meat, and so did not have to work to get them; again, as I did not work hard, I did not have to eat hard, and it cost me but a trifle for my food; but as he began with tea, and coffee, and butter, and milk, and beef, he had to work hard to pay for them, and when he had worked hard he had to eat hard again to repair the waste of his system.” Translation: Eating like crap has financial and physical tolls.

“No humane being, past the thoughtless age of boyhood, will wantonly murder any creature which holds its life by the same tenure that he does. The hare in its extremity cries like a child.” Eating no meat is best, but if you’re gonna — eat less and eat sustainably.

“The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of experience, but is an instinct. It appeared more beautiful to live low and fare hard in many respects; and though  never did so, I went far enough to please my imagination. I believe that every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best condition has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind.” Question what is “natural” in your diet. Eating less meat and less in general will make you smarter!

“Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.” Translation: Ditto.

I don’t necessarily agree with Thoreau’s food rules (dude, he advocates abstaining from wine! he also seems to advocate a sort of ascetic abstinence from food), but I do find he was way ahead of his time and, friends, I just plain appreciate his genius.

Do you feel that food issues are taking center state these days in a productive manner? Do you think the important issues are getting their fair share in the media lime light?

In the News

• Check out this article on epigenetics in Time Magazine called “Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny,” Jan. 06, 2010 here — Did you think the debate ended at nature vs. nurture? Did you think your genes were to blame and you had no control over it? Think again1
  
• If you’re interested in eating less meat, check out these “7 Painless Ways to Be an Almost Vegetarian” here — I fully advocate half-ass vegetarianism or veganism. Baby steps are way underrated!

Alright, guys — I’m off to finish some major assignments.

<3,

The Cranky One

So, The New York Times featured, yet again, a story on Michael Pollan’s Food Rules. Check it out here – it’s rad as per usual. I’ve written about Pollan, I dunno, like 3 times or more. Let’s face it — I’m in love with this whole literary journalism/literary science writing thing where lit. people get to publish books on science and culture and actually impart change instead of writing about people who do. It’s a very active and fulfilling career, from my standpoint, and after doing some deep thinking about my love for Pollanesque books and my new found love for my ecocriticism class, I’m thinking my senior thesis might be my own Pollan-like manifesto on culture, the environment and our waistlines. All you smarties out there who have book recommendations on American culture, food production, the environment and/or obesity, please recommend in the comments — I’d be so grateful! The thing I enjoyed most from this article were the following “Reasons to Change” — My notes are in bold text:

“Two fundamental facts provide the impetus Americans and other Westerners need to make dietary changes. One, as Mr. Pollan points out, is that populations who rely on the so-called Western diet — lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains — ‘invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.’ Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet.

As people in Asian and Mediterranean countries have become more Westernized (affluent, citified (citified = more urban/city-like) and exposed to the fast foods exported from the United States), they have become increasingly prone to the same afflictions.

The second fact is that people who consume traditional diets, free of the ersatz (ersatz = artificial and inferior)  foods that line our supermarket shelves, experience these diseases at much lower rates. And those who, for reasons of ill health or dietary philosophy, have abandoned Western eating habits often experience a rapid and significant improvement in their health indicators.

I will add a third reason: our economy cannot afford to continue to patch up the millions of people who each year develop a diet-related ailment, and our planetary resources simply cannot sustain our eating style and continue to support its ever-growing population.” (Check out the book Diet for a Small Planet– it talks about our food choices and the sustainability of our resources). 

Frankly, I’ve still got one foot on the yellow-brick road to good health and the other on the concrete of despair. I still eat a lot of “processed” foods even if they are indeed healthy. For instance, I eat a lot of organic whole-wheat and brown rice, preservative-free tortillas and even though they only contain wholesome ingredients, I think they might still be considered processed. The lines get fuzzy and it’s hard to decipher sometimes when I’m being a food Nazi and when I’m genuinely acting in my best interest. Pollan, help me out! These food definitions can get quite nebulous. p.s. Dear NY Times, stop using fancy words that I have to look up because it really gives a blow to my English-master-student ego. Thanks.

I also have to wonder — do you think we’re demonizing the American diet? Do you think the description of the standard American diet rings true for those in your social circle? Or is the SAD (Standard American Diet) getting unfairly criticized?

How do YOU define “processed” foods?

<3,

The Cranky One

Related Posts

• What You Should Know About Food
• Rules to Eat By & Rules to Live By

For full disclosure — I’m just going to say, right off the bat, I kinda love Michael Pollan. He is living the English major’s dream of writing literary journalism, getting street cred with the scientists and still using his literary wand to craft his argument. (My fascination only grows having seen him mentioned in the Acknowledgements of my ecocriticism course’s text book…)

[photo cred]

Michael Pollan shared some of his “Food Rules,” from his recently released book, Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual and gave insight into his own diet (mostly plants, some grass-fed organic beef).  The NY Times featured a piece on his Food Rules a few months ago (I wrote about it here), too.

Pollan’s rules are meant to be guidelines for day-to-day living and as something to stay conscious of, particularly when shopping at the grocery market (and whenever you are considering your food choices). You may ask why we need food “rules” when eating is one of the most basic human instincts.  The answer is difficult to swallow (pardon my pun). Because food has become highly political and embedded in corporate interests and because food has become highly profitable, marketed and advertised — and even manufactured to be addictive — we’ve lost touch with our inner instincts. I could cry a river, but I’ll just shut up tell you that Pollan’s new book is currently only $5.00 NEW from Amazon.com here! For a limited time, Food, Inc. (the documentary Pollan participated in and that I wrote about here) is $9.99 on Amazon.com here. I think the sale price ends tomorrow night at midnight.  Here are some insights into Pollan’s rules and research:

• Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself (Food Rule #39) – It actually takes a lot of effort to cook junk food from scratch. If you put in the time and effort, you can go ahead and enjoy it. (I don’t think poor Michael understands that my cranky tummy has no bounds and neither does my ambition, so if I truly believed I could cook and eat as much “junk food” without consequence, I surely would. But these hips don’t lie. They surely don’t!)
• Cooking is key. Pollan thinks cooking is key since it’s the only way you can take back power from the corporations (and restaurants) that use much more fat, salt and sugar than you would use yourself. Kitchen-phobic? Check out my ”get in the kitchen” motivation here.
• We need a food revolution. As a result of federal agricultural subsidies, crops such as corn, soy and wheat are made cheaper to the consumer (and ever notice how soy is in EVERYTHING now?). The government doesn’t, however, subsidize fresh produce.  Says Pollan, “we’ve made it rational to eat badly.” Because it truly is cheaper at the onset to eat a burger than to buy all the fixins to make a salad, we can rationalize eating poorly (I hear you if you think it’s like ya gotta choose to eat poorly or be poor).
• We all vote with our forks. Each item you eat, every meal, every morsel that goes into your body, is a choice that tells Big Brother and Agribusinesses what you want and what they should continue to produce for profit. I get it if you’re broke (holla!), but splurge a little less here and there on your Seven jeans and buy more organic foods, more foods from farmer’s markets and more fresh produce.
• If you’re going to eat meat, eat meat that has itself eaten well. Cows were meant to eat grass, not corn. Eat grass-fed meat.
• Getting out of the supermarket is key. Shopping at a supermarket is like walking through a maze of bad choices. At a few corners you might find something worthwhile, but most of the time you just end up lost, dazed and confused. Try venturing out to health food stores, farmer’s markets and even checking out food co-ops in your area.
• The average American eats fast food 4 times a week. While that number sucks, I thought it was worse (I’ve known people who eat out EVERY day…). Even cutting out one fast food meal a week will make a difference to your health and to “rockin’ the food vote” in the right direction.

Oprah also featured Steve Ells, founder of Chipotle. I had no idea that Chipotle was so revolutionary. I guess because I rarely eat out, I had my head in a pretentious, closed-off cloud. Apparently they use mostly organic and fresh ingredients (only the corn is from a can or frozen). And while I applaud Chipotle, I am always still wary of fast food places. From the little research I did online, I found that McDonalds first invested in Chipotle. Not that that really means anything (except that the circle of fast food always goes back to a damn clown).

Alicia Silverstone joined later via Skype and showed the audience some of the foods she purchases at Whole Foods, including a Rice Dreams mud pie ice cream that seemed to make her weak in the knees. You can check out her shopping list here.

Seen Food Inc.? Read any of Pollan’s books? Saw the Oprah show? Have anything you want to get off your chest? (I’m all eyes…)

<3,

The Cranky One