Sustainable Food and Sustainable Universities
Diversity in producers strengthens one, diversity in ideas
the other
By Christine Heinrichs
Michael Pollan is a tall, slender man, bald, with a
mischievous twinkle behind his professorial eyeglasses. As the panel of three –
a businesswoman and a portly older man – are seated in chairs on the stage, he fusses
with a paper bag as the announcer introduces them. He reaches into the bag and
lines up a series of water glasses on the table next to him. He begins his
presentation by unwrapping a McDonald’s Double Quarterpounder with Cheese.
Filling the glasses, he demonstrates the amount of oil required to produce it,
26 ounces: From oil-based fertilizer for the corn that feeds the steer, to the
trucking required to transport corn to steer and steer to slaughter, ground
beef to burger factory.
That kind of object lesson illustrates a message so
inflammatory that a major university donor threatened to withdraw financial
support if Pollan were permitted on stage without opposing viewpoints. Thus the
tripartite panel was hastily assembled, replacing the original lecture format
that had been scheduled.
Pollan, a journalism professor who has made a name for
himself by exploring the realities of American food systems, delivered his
message about food and modern food production methods at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, in
October. His presentation, originally scheduled as a lecture, had morphed into
a panel, under pressure from Harris Beef Company, adding two other speakers.
What did Harris CEO David Wood think the company could gain by turning on the
heat?
Pollan has written about gardening and food for more than 20
years, but his Omnivore’s Dilemma
(2006) crossed over to a wider, general readership and prominence. In it, he
followed the pathways of four meals, including the route a steer takes from
birth to burger. As Oprah found out when she raised questions about Mad Cow
Disease and got dragged into court by the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, beef ranchers do not tolerate scrutiny light-heartedly.
Note here that no one disputes any of Pollan’s facts. And he
makes no claims of expertise. As he told the Cal Poly audience, “I’m a
storyteller. I get my information from producers and academics.” It’s led him
to the position that Harris Ranch finds so controversial that it took the
unusual step of threatening to withdraw its pledge, variously reported at
$150,000 and $500,000, for a new slaughterhouse if Cal Poly administration
didn’t add opposing speakers to the bill, presumably to dilute Pollan’s message
of criticism of industrial agriculture. University president Warren Baker
decided to comply.
Before addressing agricultural issues, Pollan faced the
issue of Harris Ranch’s influence on the event’s format. He drew a parallel
between diversity in agriculture and diversity of ideas at the university. When
donors threaten the university, their bullying undercuts the diversity of
ideas. A monoculture university isn’t able to respond to change any better than
a monoculture farm.
“When the world changes, you would be in trouble,” he said.
“You won’t be able to withstand the shocks that are coming.” Later, he gave the
university’s role another nod, as the “antennae of other models,” referring to
managing changes such as the specter of $350/barrel oil.
So Myra Goodman, co-founder with her husband Drew of
Earthbound Farm Organic, which oversees 33,000 acres of crops and is the
nation’s largest organic produce grower, and Gary Smith, Colorado State
University professor of meat science, were invited to join. J. Scott Vernon, professor
in Cal Poly’s Ag Education & Communication Department, acted as moderator,
valiantly and successfully guiding the discussion to meet the stated goals of
spirited discussion in service of education.
So, what’s
sustainable?
Pollan engaged the definition of ‘sustainability’ as
agriculture that neither destroys the conditions required for it nor depends on
unreliable conditions.
“It’s an ideal that
isn’t fully met by any systems,” he said. “The relationships are more complex
than that.”
Ms. Goodman agreed that farmers, as producers even of organic
food, inevitably use a lot of oil. However, her goals include minimizing not
only dependence on oil, but also use of toxic chemicals and relying as much as
possible on packaging made of post-consumer materials. Sustainability, to her,
is a commitment to “protecting and preserving resources for our children.”
Smith’s perspective ignored production entirely, focusing on
delivery to the consumer. He praised the food technology that has created so
many processed convenience foods from corn. Those products have freed women
from the kitchen drudgery his mother went through to feed six kids on the farm.
He aligned sustainability with food security.
“I’m proud the government helped us achieve food security,”
he said. “They gave us the cheapest food possible, made it safe and convenient
to eat.”
The claim that industrial methods are required to feed the
world, with population projections pointing to 9.1 billion people in 2050, has
surface appeal – no one is in favor of starving people – but the fact is,
people are starving now. Production is only part of feeding the world. Distributing
the available food and helping people produce their own food are crucial parts
of solving the problem of hunger (or, as it is now called, Food Insecurity).
Even Smith agreed, later in the program, that money spent on war would generate
better results if it were spent helping people grow food.
Pollan noted that before WWII, every calorie of energy
invested in growing food returned two in food energy. Currently, it takes ten
calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of food. Hmm. How
sustainable is that, regardless of how convenient it is?
Let’s hear it for
Cheap Food!
Food produced in our industrial system is cheap, cheaper
than in other countries. Government subsidies help keep commodity crop prices
low, but ripple through the economy in other ways. Subsidies encourage monoculture
crops, as farmers plant more of the crop that pays the highest subsidy. Those
subsidized foods, mostly grains, undercut the agricultural economies of other
countries. Local farmers are driven out of business in their home countries
because they can’t grow food as cheaply as America can sell it. Mexicans
migrating north across the border are often farmers who were driven off the
land by NAFTA policies allowing the sale of subsidized grain.
Low prices also don’t include paying for expensive effects
of externalities such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens
resulting from feeding subclinical antibiotics to animals (it makes them grow
faster, and allows them to tolerate the crowded, filthy conditions in which
they are kept), air and water pollution.
“The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are not enforced against
agricultural operations,” Pollan said. “Take the government’s hand off the
scale.”
Subsidies create other problems. Many farmers continue to
lose money on their crops, undermining their financial security.
“You’re putting yourself at the mercy of grain speculators
on Wall Street and ethanol policy in Washington,”
Pollan said.
Pollan connected the dots on the dawning knowledge that diet
causes chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.
Eating those convenient processed foods ultimately takes its toll in health. With
health insurance and health care reform, the insurance industry and the medical
community will see the advantages in managing health and controlling costs with
diet.
“They stand to make a lot of money by reducing the amount of
chronic disease,” he said.
Foundation elements of industrial agriculture, such as
fossil fuel, water, and the vagaries of changing climate, are upon us, whether
we face them or resist them. Pollan held the auto companies up as an example of
industry fighting change. They successfully resisted building fuel-efficient
cars for years. Eventually, reality, in the form of higher gas prices, caught
up with them.
“Is agriculture willing to be experimental, or is it going
to fight change?” he said. “We need to make sure agriculture doesn’t end up in
that boat…It’s an opportunity, not a threat.”
Big Ag monopolies and
the Government
Goodman noted her struggles with monopoly in the retail
marketplace. With five companies controlling over 80 percent of retail space,
the producers’ price margins are squeezed. On the 25th anniversary
of her company, products that originally sold for $7 a pound now sell for
around $1.50. In meat processing, four percent of packers process 84 percent of
beef. That concentration results in uneven costs. Conventional beef costs $50 a
steer to slaughter and process – a grass-fed steer costs $150.
Not mentioned at the panel is the USDA’s new initiative to
explore monopoly in agriculture markets. They have partnered with the
Department of Justice, which means they have an eye to prosecution, to hold
workshops in 2010 on the subject. Comments are also welcomed on other subjects
that could be explored. Go to http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2009/248797.htm
for more information.
Teach the Children
Young
Moderator Vernon
prompted the discussion with questions submitted by the audience. How can the
university help? What can teachers do to educate their students? What role can
the government play?
As with the opening charge to define sustainability, Smith didn’t
confine himself to the limits of the question. Disregarding some questions
entirely, he riffed onto consumer lack of understanding of marketing terms such
as organic, green and sustainable.
Smith said he accepted government regulation for practices
such as manure management and erosion control. He presented the recent proposed
increase in critical habitat in Colorado
for Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse as an outrageous example of government folly.
The audience applauded and cheered. “Is that for the mouse?” Pollan asked. YES!
The three found agreement on the need to teach kids about
food. Pollan suggested that schools use gardens to teach them where food comes
from. Support that with cooking classes and classes in eating. Earthbound Farms
offers classes at its farmstand. Smith suggested reinstilling “real drive into
vocational and homemaking classes.”
“Bring the whole food chain into the classroom,” he said.
“Everyone should learn how to cook and how to sew,” Goodman
added.
So what did Harris
Ranch gain?
Smith proudly noted that 98 percent of all beef sold in the U.S.
in 2008 was conventionally raised. What is Harris Ranch so worried about? Is it
because the handwriting is on the wall about its methods?
Conventional and sustainable farmers can learn from each
other’s methods. Goodman related how conventional producers have benefitted
from applying organic methods to improve soil with compost and cover crops.
They have seen that protecting riparian and other wildlife habitat on their
farms can reduce the need to apply expensive toxic pesticides. Goodman
encouraged government and university investment in developing disease-resistant
plant varieties, such as mildew-resistant spinach, to compensate for not using
chemicals. Industry research focuses on products that can be patented, rather
than seeds and processes.
“I’m personally
really committed to organic, but we can take the best of both worlds,” she
said.
Is that so bad that it can’t even be discussed without
setting off tantrums among wealthy donors?
Smith’s dedication to industrial agriculture has
disappointed him in some ways – none of his six children has gone into
agriculture, and none even want the farm. He’s working on the persuading the
grandchildren, but isn’t having much success. Not to worry, there were
interested young farmers in the audience willing to be adopted.
Perhaps the young farmer who inherits Smith’s ranch, whoever
he or she is, will be using different practices to raise beef. Perhaps the
ranch will work with wildlife managers to create a different kind of operation
entirely, maybe even welcoming the jumping mouse. Is that so bad it can’t be
discussed?
Pollan rejected the charge that his work has criticized
farmers. “Criticism of agriculture is not a criticism of farmers,” he said. “We
need to celebrate, encourage and educate farmers.”
Farmers can sequester carbon in their soil, reducing the
impact of greenhouse gases on climate change. The food they raise can be part
of improved health.
“Solutions are in the hands of farmers,” Pollan said.
“We have to help people who want to farm,” Smith echoed.
Finding better ways to produce food doesn’t have to put us
at war with each other. As Dean David Wehner of the College of Agriculture,
Food and Environmental Sciences said in his introduction, “We all ate before we
came here, and we all ate different things.” Michael Pollan is the messenger of
facts and ideas we all need to hear as we head into a future that will
certainly challenge us, with drought and floods, crop disease and failure and
ever more people to be fed.
Harris Ranch probably doesn’t care how absurd it looks. Its
ability to exercise influence over campus events needs serious investigation,
though. What are other companies buying and paying for? Cal Poly belongs to the
public, for the benefit of its students and the contribution they make to our
society. It’s not Harris Ranch’s corporate publicity organization.
Selling Cal Poly’s commitment to academic freedom for a new
meat processing facility is way too cheap.
Christine Heinrichs is
the author of How to Raise Chickens
and How to Raise Poultry, in Voyageur
Press’ FFA Livestock Series. Both books focus on raising traditional breeds in
small flocks. She’s sorry the panel didn’t get to talk about poultry. She lives in Cambria.
No comments:
Post a Comment