Beef . . . it's what's never for dinner

ObamaFoodOrama published an article yesterday on a beef recall. The blog's message is pretty up front: "Avoid beef like it's the plague."  While I don't go in for alarmist rhetoric or sarcastic hyperbole (I've learned over the years that not everybody gets it), the message of caution should definitely be heeded. The problem is, with no way to accurately track the source of this new e-coli outbreak, how do consumers know which meat to eat and which to throw away?

Maybe we should just avoid beef like it's the plague . . . . 

Film Review: Food, Inc.

On a muggy and misty Friday afternoon, after my macrobiotic lunch at Masao's Kitchen, I finally settled in to watch the documentary, Food, Inc. I've been anticipating this for a long time, and ever since I read The Omnivore's Dilemma about a year ago, I've been waiting to see how that book and others like it would or would not cross over into mainstream consciousness. While chomping on my GMO popcorn (which I thought was "funny" and ironic when I bought it  . . . and disgusting when I was about halfway through the film) and a smuggled cookie from Masao's, I and a small handful of concerned citizens -- all "older folks" who have probably read the books The Omnivore's Dilemma and Fast Food Nation  -- sat in contemplative, respectful silence to watch a film we likely already knew the content of. Like the dutiful choir, we eagerly accepted the preaching of the latest by director, Robert Kenner, and the authors, Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser.  The question for me is: does this film have the power to transcend the faithful and reach the unconverted?

The main point of this film is to show how the vise-like control of the agriculture industry by a very few (4 to 6), huge corporations is rapidly destroying the integrity of the American food supply at every level. The film, like Sinclair's The Jungle in its time, descries the sloppy mess that industrialization and monoculture have brought to the table. Many images of factories with byzantine braids of conveyor belts, pipes and gears, feedlots of previously unimaginable scale punctuate the film to remind viewers of the reality of most supermarket food. For example, with so many steers in such disgusting conditions all funneling through the thirteen slaughterhouses in the country, we see for ourselves how one hamburger can be a composite of a thousand animals, making the ultimate source of food-borne illnesses practically untraceable. 

My blood boiled as I watched the heartbreaking and infuriating story of a mother who lost her child to an e-coli infection from a simple hamburger. The mother tells  that as the child went into kidney failure, he was denied water as it would have been almost instantly fatal. When the family dabbed a sponge lightly soaked in water on his dry lips, he bit the head off of the sponge in his panicked instinct for liquid. The industry has tried to stop the mother from trying to enact legislation to improve oversight in the meat industry.

The film is peppered with more disturbing stories. One sequence shows a low-income family trying to make ends meet. Despite the presence of diabetes and obesity in the family, they resort to eating fast food every day because it is literally cheaper than real food. The film follows the family into a supermarket where the little girl excitedly begs her mother to buy pears. Not candy or ice-cream -- healthy, yummy pears. The older sister weighs the fruit to see how much they would cost, "Too much," she tells her dejected sister, "You'd only get two or three [for a dollar, the amount she is allowed]." 

There is something very wrong when a healthy two-year-old dies from a hamburger and a little girl can't eat a piece of fruit. Unfortunately, I think people hear these stories in a flash on the news and don't really stop to consider what it all means. I'm not sure the average American watching the news imagines the suffering of a boy like Kevin or questions with compassion why a chubby girl is denied a healthy snack. 

Probably even more invisible to most Americans is the true plight of American farmers and farm workers. Several farmers are interviewed for this film, some of them with their images obscured because they so fear the businesses who apparently believe they own them. And the farmers can seemingly do nothing except express their outrage at the futility of trying to buck the system. In the current system, the farmers need to have contracts in order to sell the food they grow, and if they fail to follow every whim of the industry giants who offer the contracts, the farmers will be out of luck and maybe even sued.

And for the farm workers, most of whom are undocumented workers from defunct farms south of the border (defunct because they could not compete with subsidized American grains and produce), they are offered no protection from immigration officials by the very companies that recruit and hire them.

Two alternatives to this system are offered by the film, both of which are familiar to readers of OD. The first is Joel Salatin, a sustainable farmer in Virginia. His farm, Polyface, represents the “old school,” local, agrarian ideal. On his farm, the animals live lives that seem in harmony with their instincts: cattle graze on grass, chicken scratch in the fields, and pigs wallow languidly in precious mud. Unlike the industrial slaughterhouses, Salatin allows the film crew to film the slaughter of chickens in his open-air facility that he claims is much more sanitary and humane than any of the industry-standard facilities. Despite the fact that we know Salatin and his sons are taking care to be as humane as possible, it’s still a bit disturbing to watch the slaughter. The chickens are obviously terrified (there’s one shot of a chicken awaiting the inevitable with an unmistakable look of horror on its face). If this is humane, then one is left to wonder what atrocities must be going on down in the factories. Contrasting sequences of animals being kicked and prodded (as in the case of one cow whose legs are collapsing underneath it as it is forced to join the ill-fated rest) in huge warehouses where excrement and sick animals are brought to a messy end are also shown, though without the completeness of Salatin’s operation. It’s actually what we don’t see, but rather hear or imagine– the screaming pigs on the kill-floor, for example – that is shocking. 

And who are the workers in charge of the most brutal, messy and dangerous work? Certainly not well-paid industrialists. No, it is the undocumented worker and the marginalized individual with no other skills that is forced to process thousands of animals each week. Doing this kind of work must have a psychological effect. And the fact that we allow for these abuses, both of the animals and the workers, underscores a comment made by Salatin: "How we view animals reflects how we view others." 

The other alternative presented is the story of Stonyfield milk and yogurt products. This is an example of “big” organic. Here, we see the efforts of an ex-hippie farmer who concluded that in order to effect real change, his operation had to go mainstream. One result of going big is getting a contract with WalMart. As one of the dairy farmers cheerily tells the awkward, fake-smiling WalMart executives that she and her family have been boycotting WalMart for years, I was left wondering if it is worth it to get in bed with such fellows. One of the execs, standing in front of a green, mist-covered field, waxes reflective: "It's easy to get behind organics when it's clearly what the customer wants." Hmm. 

The impact of the dilemma presented by these two alternatives is perhaps not made hard enough. I’m afraid most viewers would come away thinking that Salatin was a bit of a kook (well, he might be) and that the way to go is big organic. Actually, neither system can completely fix the complicated problems of the food industry, but I’m not sure the film makes that point clear enough. Like other reviewers, I feel that the film doesn’t offer very much in the way of a solution. The suggestions that conclude the film don’t seem to be enough to really challenge the enormous power of the industry.

Is it enough? Enough to change the habits of consumers? Make them call for change? Well, as the movie ended and I turned around to leave, I noticed how few people were in the theater – maybe ten people in total. Granted, it was a Friday afternoon, and I’m hopeful that the evening shows were probably more populated. But since this film has such a limited screening schedule, I wonder if it will raise enough alarm. Maybe that’s why the film is so gutsy – the industry officials who could shut this sort of thing down don’t bother, thinking perhaps that it will only reach a handful of “radicals” and old folks with nothing to do on a workday but watch movies.

We shall see. I’ll be looking for news of legislation, increases in organic and local farm sales and litigation against the companies that are the only ones benefiting from the current system. I’ll also be voting with my dollars at the farmer’s market, the co-op and the local and organic markets. I hope it’s enough.

Read my other posts about this film and topic:

10 Things You Can Do . . .

The Future of Food

Rules from In Defense of Food

Morning Edition interview with Pollan and Kenner

Book Review of The Omnivore's Dilemma

Matinee: Food, Inc.

Just bought my ticket for Food, Inc. at the Embassy. I'll let you know what I think of it when I get back! Click on the image above to read the 10 Things You Can Do To Change The Food System.

Film: The Future of Food

I think there is some very valuable information and perspective given in this film, but I am inclined to agree with one of the commentators that the "narrative structure" is uneven and may not be compelling for a wide audience. I was also irritated by the poor sound quality. There was this one guy . . . I couldn't hear a word he said. I did appreciate, however, the emphasis on the science of GMOs as well as the (insidious) politics involved. 

Can you imagine a world in which the only food seeds are owned by 4 or 5 companies and all the seeds are "suicidal," meaning that they can't reproduce more seeds for next year? Then, we'd have to depend on the GM seeds. Depending on only a select few species of a plant LED TO THE IRISH POTATO FAMINE. Hello, people -- we have been down this road before and it's not so scenic. We need GMO labelling now, just as they have in the EU.  

It's not just biological diversity that is important here, but also intellectual diversity. As the GMO companies continue to dominate the markets, control the research and prevent the labelling that would help educate consumers, our country's ability to make good science and build knowledge is impaired. The narrow interests of companies such as Monsanto have such a corrosive effect on society as a whole. We are, of course, what we eat, but as my description for this blog implies, we are also what we think and say about what we eat. 

Responding to Morning Edition and "Food, Inc."

My original post with the link to the broadcast is here.

Here's a link to the trailer (it won't embed for some reason) here. 

The film, Food, Inc., premiered last week in NY and comes out today in select theaters in NY, LA and SF. It will be here in Boston (Cambridge, actually) on June 19 at Kendall Square Cinema. As a reader of Michael Pollan and a supporter of locavorism, organic food, humane and sustainable agriculture, I am eager to see this film. It looks like it will be a good depiction of some of the wisdom found in Pollan's books put into an audio-visual format. 

There is a book, here, which I haven't read yet. Might have to be next on my list.

In the broadcast, which featured a brief interview with author, Michael Pollan, and the film's director, Robert Kenner, I didn't exactly learn anything that I didn't already know from The Omnivore's Dilemma or In Defense of Food, but a few points from the exchange are worth noting:

•  the lives of animals in industrial farming are half as long as they used to be before CAFOs and are far more brutal.
  
• most of these farms employ illegal immigrants who are easily exploited -- just like the animals.
• 90% of Americans say they want some kind of GMO labeling on their food, yet Congress has yet to engage such legislation because of the lobbying success of the big seed companies and food factories (like Monsanto).

Critics of the film and industry spokespeople will make such defenses: that this kind of intense agriculture provides, "a lot of food on a small amount of land for a good price. Now, what could be wrong with that?" Pollan counters this argument well in pointing out that while the industry has been successful in meeting these objectives, they come at a cost -- a cost to our health, to our integrity and values as a nation and to our environment. Industrial farming uses tons of fossil fuels (and I don't need to elaborate on the need to be critical of this, I believe), and lots of antibiotics and genetically-modified organisms. It promotes worker abuse and exploitation of migrant workers. It abuses animals. Furthermore, the fact that the individual industries are self-policing prevents any real oversight and breeds an insular culture of cynicism.

In my follow-up to this post, I'll be discussing my favorite rules from Pollan's In Defense of Food. 

NPR discusses new film, Food, Inc.

Here's the link to the radio broadcast.

More after I finish listening . . . 

Book Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma

Michael Pollan. The Omnivore's Dilemma. 

By now, this book is already three or four years old, and many readers of this blog have probably read it and formed opinions of it. If you haven't, I urge you to read this book, It's about industrial agriculture, organic and sustainable farming, as well as about hunting and foraging. It made me rethink my lifestyle and gave me sound background and reasoning for the choices I now make. 

So, this isn't going to be your garden variety review. Instead of assessing the book's strengths and providing an overview (as I've said, I think most people already have a sense of the book's contents), I'd like to share my experiences with this book as a teacher of composition and literature.

I first read The Omnivore's Dilemma while I was teaching a writing course, ENG102, Writing II: "Into the Woods." The school had initiated a connected-learning project to help students improve their reading, writing and critical thinking skills by restructuring ENG102 to be interdisciplinary and topic-based. My topics have consistently revolved around nature and environmental concerns. I've enjoyed the opportunity to teach a topic that I care about, and I think the students have been enriched as well. Overall, I think the connected-learning approach works well in its aim to get students to a higher level of critical thinking and writing than with traditional introduction to literature curricula. 

Last semester, I assigned this book and it was by far the overall favorite among the students. At first, I was a little daunted by the length, the complexity and the "radical" nature of the book. I mean, here was a book telling students that most of their favorite, processed foods were full of things that would likely make them fat, enrich large corporations and impoverish small family farms. Here was a book that blew the lid on that beloved staple of child/teen life -- the chicken nugget. Here was a book that was going to make them afraid to go into the dining hall.

But, if I may make a pun, they ate it up. They were disgusted to think about the thirty-three ingredients in the McNugget. They felt indignant about the adulteration of homey and wholesome corn in the manufacture of all kinds of food additives. And I think they were most perplexed as to why agriculture could be allowed to become wasteful (when it had once been an efficient way to reuse waste and resources) and even toxic (I'm thinking here about the "manure lagoons" that are the result of CAFOs). 

I think it was helpful that I "served" this book with some accompaniments: a viewing of SuperSize Me and an assignment and discussion about the internet game/edumercial, McVideoGame. In addition, all the research and presentation topics were about food and agriculture issues, which I chose purposefully to coincide with the book, allowing students to even use it as a resource. 

The combination of book, film, game, and projects allowed students to see connections, which is, I think, the mark of a well-informed adult citizen. However, I was dismayed that some students thought I was preaching a leftist viewpoint, an anti-meat philosophy. I guess that's always the danger when you present something that is controversial and complex. The book is NOT anti-meat (they need to see Peter Singer's Animal Liberation for that), but it seems that many folks reduce the book down this way. Perhaps it's easier to understand if one reduces it to a simpler message, especially if they're eighteen, but the book's power, I feel, is really in its call to embrace real, natural food prepared in harmony with the laws of nature. One student asked me why we didn't read something that was "pro-meat." What do you mean, kid? The Atkins' Diet? That fad that was discredited about thirty years ago that was resurrected to once again confuse people about their diets?  This is one of the problems of our culture and our youth -- a lack of discernment and judgement about information. Just because someone wrote a book about it doesn't make it accurate. Even Pollan's book can be critiqued. Even this blog can be critiqued.

I think what I admired most about this book was it's attention to the likely counterargument. I always tell my students that if you want to be most persuasive, predict the opposition's every move and refute each one. I feel that Pollan does this consistently throughout the book, which is why it comes across so vehement and probably why it has been so influential. Of course, this can also confuse students who might not have enough sophistication to discern what is Pollan's own view and what is just a view he is describing/analyzing, but, hopefully, they got something out of it. I hope they will return to the book in their minds and think more critically about it with each rumination. 

********

About a month ago, Pollan spoke at the West Roxbury branch of the BPL, and Seth and I went. So many folks showed up that they had to move the event next door to a school. I really enjoyed it, bought the new book, In Defense of Food, and got my two books signed. I like how this experience both expands and shrinks my world. On the one hand, it's great to see so many people all fired up about food consciousness, and on the other, I think it's crazy that I got to meet my new favorite food author for free, at a pokey, little library that is literally walking distance from my house. 

I am the drop and the ocean . . . .