Putting meaning back in food

Remember the old days? Where families worked the land, putting their sweat, blood and tears into the soil, lovingly watering and pruning and turning soil? Remember that they would handpick the fruits and veggies and sold them to others, who then made good, wholesome meals to nourish their family?

Don't remember? That's okay; I don't really either. Like most of this generation, I grew up on processed food. Even when I managed to see "fresh" food, it was generally grown on a giant corporate farm across the country (or in another country) and wasn't touched by human hands until it reached the grocery store. It is usually picked before it's actually ripe and then it ripens as it journeys miles and miles and miles to land on my table.

Knowing that we've lost a fundamental connection to food is hard to accept and fixing, but reading about someone else's battle to promote local eating and struggling to overcome the rules in place that favor giant conglomeration instead of tiny farms is encouraging.

That's why I want to bring your attention to the wonderful blog called Diary of a Young Farmer. I was instantly engrossed in the entries found on Edible Portland, a magazine and Web site based in Portland, Oregon (of course).

Their mission is simple: "Encouraging people to eat more locally grown and locally produced foods. By eating locally, we help sustain the small family farms that grow these foods, we enjoy food that is fresher and healthier for us, and we help reduce the cost on the environment — and in dollars — of transporting foods over long distances."

The Diary of a Young Farmer follows Zoë Bradbury, who grew up on a farm in Oregon but didn't return until she had dipped her toes in 9-5 living. Now she's back, leasing land next to her mom and sister, and starting from scratch a local farm to supply locavore restaurants. What sticks out about her struggle is the emotional connections she has. Her first post is on artichokes. There are memories embedded in artichokes for Zoë, memories of spring and growing up. Her mother gave her artichokes when she moved away (those artichokes were given to her by a friend). Her artichokes have history, Zoë writes. They're of "the same genetic stock that had fed me for 25 years." As she says, "After our five-year stint up north together, me and the chokes have finally come full circle back to home turf. We’re planning on staying awhile."

We can't all go live on a farm, but we can cheer on someone else's struggle. We can find a local farm to connect with, to support and to nourish ourselves with that produce. Search for farm co-ops in your area and you'll be surprised how many pop up. You can grow a plant in your back yard, engaging in the ancient struggle that made food mean more to a person, to have value beyond filling our bellies. Food nourishes us, body, mind and soul. We can't forget that.

Looking for a 'secretary of food'

In all of the appointments to cabinet that the president-elect has been making lately, his pick for secretary of agriculture has been put off. In fact, the discussion about the post has been sort of lost in the shuffle of economic crisis that as taken over the country in recent months. A New York Times columnist has returned to the discussion, outlining an argument for the renaming of the post as "Secretary of Food." His point is that agriculture is no longer what it was when the governmental department was created. Since then, "fewer than 2 percent (of Americans) are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat." Citing the affect of agribusiness on the environment and the economy, Nicholas D. Kristof argues that something must be done and that the perfect message of "change" that Obama can send is to refocus on that sector of our country. As Kristof says Michael Pollan (author of the "Ominivore's Dilemma") told him: " 'Even if you don’t think agriculture is a high priority, given all the other problems we face, we’re not going to make progress on the issues Obama campaigned on — health care, climate change and energy independence — unless we reform agriculture.' "

Read the complete article on the NY Times Web site. It even links you to a handy little petition to Obama asking him to focus on reforming the decripit state of agribusiness in the U.S., if you agree with that statement, anyway.

Slowing food down...

What is Slow Food? Have you ever taken a look at our blogroll and thought, "What is that link to 'Slow Food USA' all about? I've never heard of slow food. Did our esteemed contributors make an error?"

Actually, the slow food movement is real and its making its way onto the national food scene. We think it's important to realize what this movement is all about and what it can (and cannot) do to solve the problems we are seeing in food policy in America. In this post, I spoke about the politics of food and how the next president can solve them. This is what Slow Food USA is all about: bringing about better food policies.

But let's rewind. What is "slow food?" Well according to the Slow Food USA site, "Slow Food is an idea, a way of living and a way of eating. It is a global, grassroots movement with thousands of members around the world that links the pleasure of food with a commitment to community and the environment." Well that didn't help very much did it? Okay, maybe it did a little.
First, skip all that stuff about a way of living and grassroots. Most movements proscribe to these notions. Now, linking the 'pleasure of food' and a 'commitment to community and the environment' is a little different. The idea here is that with fast food has created a disconnect between people and food. Before the advent of grocery stores, we grew our own food and dirtied our own hands doing so. Before restaurants become an everyday habit, we used to make our own food, too. We'd know every ingredient in a dish because we had put it there, and likely grew that ingredient ourselves.
While the slow food movement does't aim to shut down grocery stores and fast food chains, they want people to remember the "people, traditions, plants, animals, fertile soils and waters that produce our food," as their About Us page says. In order to return people to these traditions, the group also aims to "inspire a transformation in food policy, production practices and market forces so that they ensure equity, sustainability and pleasure in the food we eat." So, the slow food movement is to essentially educate people on our real connections to food (beyond that obvious 'we need it to survive' angle) as well as help instigate change in the way food is treated in our government policy by engaging our policy makers.
Hmmm...well that sounds familiar, at least partly (see our about us post and this post to remind you what this blog aims to do).

To learn more, read this interesting glimpse at the movement, printed in the New York Times, called "A Slow Food Festival Reaches out to the Uncommitted."

A breakthrough in farming

Well it's not really a new concept, but The New York Times published an article on Vertical Farming July 17. Even though it is a relatively older article, I thought the concept was so cool (and the accompanying slideshow so nice) that I would post here and try to generate some talk about this specific kind of farming.

Here's the gist: We are in a population boom. We've had to worry more and more about where we are going to get food, especially with drought and floods (both of which bring their own set of challenges to crops). So what happens if you have a population that needs more room to live, but one that also needs more food-growing space to live? Your answer involves towers of food and new thoughts about how to grow that food.
Scientists, most recently a professor from Columbia University, have begun encouraging interest in this field again. Bringing together scientists and architects, experts have been able design buildings, such this one, above (NY TIMES PHOTO) that is more about aesthetics and powering itself through solar panels, that expand on an idea brainstormed in New York - the skyscraper.

When an influx of immigrants caused a population explosion in cities where the jobs were, those cities just started stacking living quarters on top of each other, solving the problem of lack of space. The question is this: Can the same idea solve our coming food shortage problems? Scientists say yes. I hope they're right. But with skyscapers we ran into the problem of disease, expounded by the close-quarters. It was unnatural to live like this. Can an unnatural mode of growing plants work? What other concerns might we run into with a system like the one above, or this one, seen below:

(NYTIMES PHOTO)

What do you think of "Frankenstein" plants?

Personally, I do not like the idea of genetically modified foods. However, that is me looking at it from an environmental perspective, not an economic one. However, I think that sustainable development in different countries should remain just that- sustainable. I think that GM plant production could have long-term costs though it may look good to some now, economically speaking. However, if you are vegetarian I would suggest you be very cautious to avoid GM foods, as they often put genes of different in animals in DNA of plants to help them grow more efficiently. I'm not vegetarian anymore, but that's kinda weird.

Prince Charles is acutally vehemently against GM food

There is a very two-sided debate at hand here

BBC Quick Guide to GM Food

Read up on it and make up your own mind. What do you think of it? Do you think it will really help feed the hungry or mess up the environment?

On a very related note, there has been a recent television campaign to bring modified food back into peoples' good graces. With the marketing of the organic food movement, I guess those big companies invested in GM are losing a lot of dough.

There is this pro-high fructose corn syrup commercial, where this guy picnicing with his girlfriend refuses to eat a popsicle because of its high fructose corn syrup and the girl asks him what wrong it could do to him, and he can't answer. She then continues to say that its "just corn" and good for you in moderation and then this website comes up:

www.sweetsurprise.com

The website states that high fructose is the equal of every other sweetener, affirms its safety and talks of its "numerous benefits" which is mainly food preservation.

Anyways, I got a kick that they did not blatantly lie and say that it is healthy for you, but just that its as good as every other sweetener, and oh yeah, it won't kill you.