Food Politics: Gimme a Foodie Candidate!

I'm not as politically conscious as some of my closest friends.  It may have had to do with growing up in Hawaii, where political awareness is kind of depressing, as it was clear that national politics had very little to do with anyone's immediate situation in the islands.

Local politicians did little to improve my opinion of government, as the largely Democratic old guard in Hawaii has repeatedly demonstrated itself incapable of actual innovation or positive action of any kind.

Politics, it's all a sh*tshow.  This isn't to say I'm entirely cynical when it comes to people.  I have tremendous faith in the competence and compassion in individuals, which I also believe has to do with growing up in Hawaii, having worked in food service, and loving food the way I do. 

Let me explain.  People rarely fight for things that they aren't directly influenced by, and there are few experiences that are as immediate and direct as eating.  I'm not talking about making the rounds on the good 'ol campaign trail, shaking hands and being photographed eating flapjacks at the obligatory diners and 'cue joints. (Though I do believe that's as close as most politicians get to eating real food.)  I am talking about someone who takes a bite of rib, and takes the time to think, "Hey, this pork tastes just pork ribs used to when I was kid!  I wonder where the kitchen gets its pork from?  I wonder why ALL ribs don't taste like this anymore!"

This tends to be the kind of person I trust.

Anytime anyone becomes divorced from what they put in their body, regardless of occupation, it becomes a problem.  And it's unfortunate that politicians, who actually have the influence to improve foodways and distribution, farm policies, and small businesses that are the heart of food culture, are among the folks most likely to eat as refuelers.

But EF, you shallow sap, how could you think this matters?  With healthcare, war, social security and immigration to worry about, food is the last that politician should worry about!  But here's the thing--food is the heart of everything. 

When you speak about health care, you'd be remiss to overlook relevance of diet in basic preventative care.  Obesity, hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes--these are just a few of the heavyweights that could be dramatically lessened or sidestepped altogether if people took a hot second to think before they crammed a random piece of crap in their craw.

So ask yourself: How did the piece of crap get there in the first place, this grade-F hamburger patty laced with high-fructose corn syrup, fried in trans-fatty tropical or soybean oil and robed in cottony, nutrient-free bread?  Farm subsidies.  Big government paying to keep the five megacrops (corn, cotton, soybeans, rice and wheat) on the up-and-up, to keep food and livestock feed cheap; and when I say "food", I mean products privy to preservatives and easy preparation, bearing little resemblance to anything our grandparents ate.  Surpluses of corn and wheat have everything to do with the endless bounty for junk food junkies, our excesses passed off as a cultural privilege.

But EF, we know fast food is bad!  We'll be better, and just eat less processed snackies and drive-thru fare!  Unfortunately, sometimes these choices are made for us, often out of sad necessity. A couple of weeks ago, there was a beef recall that got relatively little attention in the media, largely because the beef was only present in public schools and was thankfully recalled well in advance of any little ones getting ill.

But take a moment--why was this tainted beef ONLY going to schools? Why didn't the recall affect retail beef? 

It's because it was government subsidy beef, which in the current food system trickles down to schools to affordably feed kids who otherwise probably couldn't buy lunch.  This beef is sub par, throwaway sh*t that no one would voluntarily buy in a grocery store, but don't worry.  We'll feed it to kids "as taco meat, cooked beef patties, frozen steaks, meatballs and beef barbecue nuggets".

And no, with all the problems riddling the education system, I'm not suggesting that this is more important than qualified teachers and better facilities, or that it deserves more money.  But for all the up-to-the-minute, real-time, minutiae-combing political coverage we've had to endure, this issue hasn't come up prominently in this election process, has it? 

No presidential candidate will touch this issue, or any food issue like it, for fear of alienating states with strong agricultural bases--states that can make or break close races.  But I ask you, can there be any issue that joins us more fundamentally, more organically than this one?

Which doesn't mean that some folks aren't getting clever about it.  Innovative local administrators, educators, farmers, and even chefs (Ann Cooper, Alice Waters) are ALL over this, developing and implementing farm-to-school initiatives that support local produce, feeding kids food worth eating, and, best of all, educating them about where their food comes from and what choices come into play when they eat. Habits formed as a kid are almost more important that the food itself; can anyone be surprised that we raise generations of fat, on-the-go crap-eaters, when school cafeterias can do little more than ladle out the cheapest convenience food?

Despite my political apathy, I'm not despairing.  As cheesy and naive as this sounds, I believe in people.  I believe that there are those who have addressed this most elemental of problems, and are working from the bottom up to make things better, squeezing grants, re-routing resources and cutting out middlemen, so that a kid can have an apple instead of a pudding cup.

Do I believe that politicians can make it better?  Sure.  It's their moral obligation, their friggen job.  But until one of them breaks bread with a kid in the undersized, overwhelmed cafeteria in P.S. 273, I think it's less likely that they'll have something to do with making things change than the people who DO take the time to eat with those kids.

More Homework:

• Op-Ed Contributor:  My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables), by Jack Hedin. NYT, March 1, 2008.
• You Are What You Grow, by Michael Pollan. NYT, May 6, 2007. (Response Letters.)
  
• A Movie That Scrutinizes Your Popcorn and Soda, by Joe Drape. NYT, October 10, 2007.
• When a Crop Becomes King, by Michael Pollan. NYT, July 19, 2002.
• Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health, by Marion Nestle.
• Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World, by Greg Critser.

Comments

[Ben]

John McCain opposes subsidies for farmers growing corn for ethanol. He stood up in Iowa and told them so!

[EF]

ar-HAR! you are totally right Ben:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/05b932cd-b2e4-4863-a22f-6b84c893121a.htm

I stand corrected!

But even McCain is sidestepping the food aspects of the subsidy problem by focusing on free trade and ethanol issues, turning this into an international economic and energy issue, rather than one of health and everyday life.

I'm no economist, and I can't competently state my own position on subsides, or what their impact is on a global market.

But I do know that the way they're set up right now makes it hard for small farms to grow anything BUT the Big 5 Crops, which directly affects mainstream eating by making local products less available and more expensive, and creating surpluses (filler for processed foods) that are more available and less expensive.

[Reavinator]

McCain? Oh come on! The guy may not believe in ethanol subsidies but he's gone on record as being a champion of deregulation. So if you think that he's going to challenge any business on any issue think again!

As far as the public school food issue, this is a non-issue for most republican politicians, if they had their way the government wouldn't have to fund any public learning institutions. They'd privatize the entire system. School vouchers for everyone, let the class warfare commence!

(For those of you not in the know, this is one of the driving factors in increasing food costs, less landspace is being used for actual grain/feed production and more for ethanol production due to a combination the govt subsidies and the rising costs of energy)

[EF]

Sigh...okay...let's break it down...

Ethanol is now a subsidized farming priority. Check.

Hence, the cost of the milk goes up X dollars a gallon. Check.

Got it. A very real and valid concern, but not the one I'm talking about.

Mine is more like this: The now-more-expensive milk is contaminated with listeria. A statewide recall goes into place. Only then you find out the milk in your supermarket isn't produced in-state; its got a considerable carbon footprint, having crossed 3 states to get to you, and could have come from one of thousands of cows. In the meantime (no more than 50 miles from where you live) a family-run, small-batch dairy farm generating superior milk goes under, because they cannot cover the costs of running a non-subsidized farm.

Which brings us right back to ethanol.

But the point is this: If you break down this scenario, Republican AND Democratic agendas BOTH challenge each step for the least-traveled, best quality milk to come to your hands.

So this is NOT about partisan finger-pointing. We as eaters LOSE, no matter what party you vote for. Presidents aren't going to fix this for us; this is something that needs to be fixed from the bottom up, starting with people who demand more from their food and food systems.

[Ben]

I think the Foodie is pretty much right -- it makes no sense for mainstream politicians to talk about this right now, for the same reason they don't seriously take on Wal-Mart. Let's face it: While a small minority of Americans are waking up and asking questions about where their food comes from, the vast majority just want their food and other goods cheap and convenient. And they fully expect the government to make sure their cheap, convenient food is safe (at least in the sense that it doesn't make people sick immediately upon consumption). As long as most people feel that way, subsidizing corporate agriculture and mass marketing crap out of the surplus makes everybody happy (well, at least until they get cancer and die).

That said, in the current New Yorker there's a profile of Michelle Obama that reveals the Obamas have recently switched to organic produce, and quotes her expressing many of the same concerns about mass-produced food that the Foodie brings up.