Time Magazine Cover Story: Real Cost of Cheap Food

This week Time magazine gives cover-story prominence to an issue I feel strongly about: namely, that the industrial-scale cheap food we have become accustomed to comes at too high a price and is not sustainable. The article notes:

The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans.

Price subsidies for commodity crops result in price-per-calorie dysfunction like these examples provided in the article. One dollar can buy:

• 1,200 calories of potato chips
• 875 calories of soda
• 250 calories of vegetables
• 170 calories of fresh fruit

The fruit and vegetables are still the nutritional bargain here, but people get fuller faster (and fatter) eating the cheap calories.

When we enjoy a cheap hamburger from animals finished on grain in high-density feedlots, or bargain-price pork or chicken where thousands of animals are raised together in close proximity, we are getting that cheap meat at the cost of:

• a horrendous (at the very least, a most unnatural and crowded) quality of life for the animals
• routine antibiotic use to prevent control disease in such unnaturally large concentrations of animals
• pollution from the huge quantities of waste produced in such concentrated areas
• increased chances for food contamination from large, high-speed processing plants
• increased use of petroleum-based fertilizers to grow the endless monocultures of cheap corn to feed the animals
• our own health and enjoyment of the food (did you know, for example, that the fats in grass-fed beef and dairy products - such as humans have been eating for thousands of years until the last several decades - are considerably better for us than the fats from grain-fed cattle?)

Bon Appetit food services company (which manages the dining programs at both St. Olaf and Carleton colleges here in Northfield and relies heavily on local, sustainable producers), Niman Ranch beef, and Chipotle restaurants are highlighted as examples of how to take a different, healthier, more sustainable approach in large-scale food production. Our own nearby Thousand Hills Cattle Company is a premium source of grass-fed beef; you can find their meat at Just Food and other area co-ops, and I believe I even saw some at EconoFoods recently.

I encourage you to read the article, which concludes:

The industrial food system fills us up but leaves us empty — it's based on selective forgetting. But what we eat — how it's raised and how it gets to us — has consequences that can't be ignored any longer.

We Can't Afford NOT to Invest in Environmental Protection

Nice article by Bob Bendick on the Nature Conservancy's conservation blog today, responding to the question of "whether the United States can afford to spend money on environmental protection during a time of economic crisis."

It is, of course, entirely understandable that in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the beginning of the environmental movement in the early 1970s, people, when asked to choose between the environment and the economy, choose the economy. They are, with good reason, afraid — worried sick about whether they will have a job next week, will be able to pay their mortgage, their utility bill, their children’s tuition. The problem for the future of both Earth’s environment and its people is not with the answer, but with the question.

The media and pollsters thrive on exposing conflict, fault lines that produce drama in the headlines or in the executive summaries of the polls. The environment vs. economy choice is convenient but specious. If one asked the question differently – “which is more important, our ability to grow food to feed our families, to have safe air to breathe, enough clean water to drink, shelter from raging storms or the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial average?” — how many folks would choose the stock market? ...

The environment as a luxury? If the speculative bubble of our unsustainable use of Earth’s resources bursts, nature and people will suffer the collapse together.

Read the rest here.

Consumed

American Public Media (the program production and distribution arm of Minnesota Public Radio) has a series and a nice website called Consumed, which addresses the sustainability of our consumer society:

We are what we buy — a glib adage to be sure, but it prompts an interesting question: Is our consumer society sustainable? American Public Media takes on that question in this special series. We follow consumerism from its origins to its dominance in the world's economy and, arguably, its culture. And we examine how, and if, it might be adapted to reduce its destructive consequences while keeping store shelves stocked.

It's an issue that seems particularly pertinent as we enter the peak shopping period of the year -- a time when we often buy things simply for the sake of buying (and giving). There can be so much emotion and stress caught up in the idea of creating memorable holidays, proving our love and esteem for those around us, and keeping up with internally or externally imposed standards of giving. My blogging sister-in-law recently queried, "What Would Jesus Buy?"

Today's Midday program, at noon on KNOW 91.1 FM, presents one element in the Consumed series: an American RadioWorks documentary on "The Design of Desire" -- in part, a scientific look at what goes on in our brains (and in particular our pleasure and pain centers) when we shop. It could explain a lot.

Find out How Many Earths It Would Take

I just played American Public Media's "Consumer Consequences" online game, which I heard mentioned on the show Marketplace. You answer questions about your lifestyle, energy use, eating habits, living space, etc., and the game keeps a running total of how many earths we'd need to sustain us if everyone lived as you do. Then you can compare your score (the total and in the various categories) to others who have played -- those from a particular state, or born in a particular year, who have a particular political affiliation, etc., as well as a few specific radio hosts.

My score was 3.6 earths. I do well in low garbage production, high rate of recycling, and low consumer consumption, but not so well as I'd like in how much I drive and a few other areas. The fact that I'm not a vegetarian (though I eat little meat) and I consume dairy products increases my footprint, while the fact that I try to choose predominantly local or organic foods counteracts that to some extent. I scored quite similarly to those born the same year I was. I achieved a noticeably lower score than Krista Tippett (host of "Speaking of Faith"), however!


Visual by www.PDImages.com