2010 Census, Food Safety and American Dependence

Yesterday the results of the 2010 US census were released telling us that there are about 309 million people living in the US. Indications are that people have moved from the North East and Midwest to the West and South. I don't find much of this surprising. In general people look for lower cost of living and more favorable climates, which other than the cost of living in Cali, can be associated with migratory trends. I expect in coming months and years we'll find out that there are "more people living in cities than ever before" commensurately that the rural population is shrinking and also that fewer Americans are involved in farming then every before. These are trends that have been observed before and I expect will continue to be reported in the 2010 census.

What this means is that fewer and fewer people are involved in the processes that put food on their own table or on the table of other Americans. I'm not talking about all the people involved in processing, distributing, delivering and selling food at you local grocery store, I'm talking about the producers, the farmers, the gardeners, the food preservers, seed savers and traders who not only feed themselves but also provide healthy, nutrient rich food for their family, neighbors and friends. For a long time, that's how we worked, you grew some of everything, enough to provide for yourself and any extra was sold or bartered locally. But with progress came specialization urbanization, and an aversion to the hard, dirty work of farming. Now it's easier for an average person to get a job selling junk on Ebay than it is to grow strawberries, make jam out of them, and sell the jam for a profit.

Farming is hard work. Hours in the blazing sun, breathing dusty air and suffering numerous mosquito bites isn't how a lot of people prefer to spend their days. It's certainly more pleasant to occupy a climate controlled cubicle and wither away hours at the water cooler, but at what cost?
From the Senate yesterday came what I interpret as even more bad news for those who wish to farm. S.510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act seems to imply that anyone who wishes to produce food, be it lettuce, broccoli, beef, strawberry jam or pie filling for anything other than personal consumption needs to register with the FDA, pay a fee, and enact control measures to limit biological, chemical and physical hazards in their product. OK, doesn't sound that bad right? Well, when you're a small family farm, not a farm cooperation, operating on a near zero margin, more fees, QC procedures and record keeping cut into an already slim bottom line. These are not the facilities that are irrigating their crops with contaminated water, nor employing unsanitary conditions for their workers or keeping animals in toxic waste dumps. These are people trying to do the right thing for their family (which is unaffected by the new law) and their community (an act which is affected by the proposed law.) On the other hand, factory farms that specialize in monocropping and mass production won't see this regulation as burdensome, rather it will be "the cost of doing business." As we depend on these factory farms more and more, which is inevitable given the population migration, and the loss of the ability to self-sustain, I doubt that any of this legislation will substantially improve food safety.

What we need is not more accountants and lawyers, we need more farmers. Not factory farmers growing wheat, soybeans and corn, but people willing to forgo the comfortable cubicle life and take on the challenge of providing for themselves with their own two hands and sharing their hard work with their neighbors. Rather than centralized systems of production, a diffuse production scheme which encourages local, seasonal and sustainable ideas would better control the spread of food-borne illness than increasingly bureaucratic control of an unsustainable, untenable system. Americans need to end their dependence on the hard work of others, acknowledge that the food system starts at the ground level, with them, and tell the government to apply reason to food production not more regulation.

Movie Review: King Corn

King Corn was released in 2006 and documents the adventures of two recent college graduates from Boston returning to Iowa to grow an acre of corn and follow the corn through it's life. Like much of the corn grown in the US, the corn grown on the King Corn acre was not the sweet corn common on late summer tables, rather it was dent corn aka field corn which is less a food and more a commodity. Dent corn is used as a cheap source of carbohydrates in animal feed (animals will convert the cheap carbs in corn to cheap protein) and also chemically converted to ethanol, high fructose corn syrup and corn oil.
Throughout the movie, the point is reiterated that growing corn for these purposes is itself unprofitable. In order to optimize production, the corn grown requires injecting ammonia into the soil, genetically modified corn and specialized herbicidal chemicals. Gone are the days of the family farm where mom and pop grow on their 40 acres the sustain themselves and take excess to market, rather land is now leased and cultivated in 1000 acre parcels by machinery that would be on the scale of a mining operation than a farm. Despite the efficiencies of scale, only through government subsidies can farmers turn a profit.
In the end, I can't say the movie provides an unbiased look at the factory farming. It does preys on the bucolic image of the family farm to raise contrast to the stark reality of factory farming. Since most viewers have never seen a farm and are unfamiliar with the processes employed to grow and process their food, King Corn, in an attempt to be an understated expose', fails to point out the efficiencies of scale that do come with factory farming. Indeed, an attempt is made to villainize former USDA Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz (dec) who revamped the food production industry in the US.
The film does raise interesting questions... Since tax-paying citizens fund the government, we're basically paying to grow food that we can't eat and has little nutritional value; is this the best way to spend our money? Further, Is the trade-off of tax payer based subsidies I wonder, if given the opportunity, would these farmers choose to grow broccoli, cabbage, carrots or one of many more healthy and beneficial crops? What about the costs of environmental damage by pesticides, herbicides and the loss of biodiversity due to monocropping? Could crop rotation be used to mitigate the need for nitrogen injection and chemical sprays? How would our cost of life change if we didn't subsidize corn? How about our national health? Would the cost of sweeteners and other corn-derived products make soda and juice prohibitively expensive, thereby limiting consumption?
It is my hope to explore some of these questions as I develop this blog, so stay tuned to see what turns up.

Life Changes and Re-dedication

It's been a while since I posted anything on this blog, but that doesn't mean the wheels haven't been turning. In the last year I've taken greater consideration of the impact of my life on others, and the impact of others on myself. I've made some substantial changes in the way I live and relate to others, but as always these things are a work in progress.

One of the biggest changes I've made is a substantial change in my diet which has effected my overall health, well-being and happiness. I've been a member of an organic farming co-operative for the last several years and have enjoyed fresh seasonal, organic produce throughout the summer and early fall months. I noticed that not only did I feel better when my diet was rich in vegetables, I no longer suffered what could be described as pre-diabetic symptoms that had plagued me through the winter months when my diet relied on oatmeal in the morning and pasta, rice or bread-based dishes throughout the day. Through on-going reading and searching for recipes I found a wonderful set of blogs associated with the low-carb community and espousing the "primal" lifestyle. Both Mark's Daily Apple and The Blog of Dr. Michael Eades have become daily readers for me. Both advocate for a low-carb, high-fat diet with intermittent fasting to achieve insulin balance in the body. MDA is more of a lifestyle blog that appeals to the Primal lifestyle which I'm adopting over time. Eades' blog appeals to my scientific side as his discussions can be both technical and intellectually stimulating. In his rigorous dissection of data, I find a kindred spirit.

My experience following the dietary recommendations of the Primal/ low-carb community has changed the way I function on a daily basis. The most obvious expression is the weight I've lost. In 2009 I topped the scales over 355 lbs had significant problems with lethargy, sleep apnea, and allergies. I found that I couldn't have a carb-heavy meal then have enough energy to even do the dishes. I was always hungry, I was on a insulin rollercoaster from the moment I woke up to the moment I went to bed. By cutting back on the simple carbohydrates I ate, I lost 30 lbs in 2009 without changing my daily routing substantially. My lethargy has been replaced with seemingly endless energy, my sleep apnea has disappeared and my immune function has improved (my allergy season has yet to occur for 2010, but I've been sick less this winter.) I'm no longer suffering from chronic dry-mouth and not coughing up dry brown mucus every morning (yeah, disgusting, I know.)

The changes I've noticed based on my experience have changed the way I think on a much larger scale. Combining my understanding of primary literature on caloric restriction, the role of micronutrients in the body and the biology of sirtuin proteins with the obesity epidemic in the US, the prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes, and my interest in sustainable, ecologically-sound, food production I've developed some concepts which I hope to develop further on this blog.