|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
Toward a New Politics of FoodPosted on Jul 15, 2011By David Sirota The easiest way to explain Gallup’s discovery that millions of Americans are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than they ate last year is to simply crack a snarky joke about Whole Foods really being “Whole Paycheck.” Rooted in the old limousine liberal iconography, the quip conjures the notion that only Birkenstock-wearing trust-funders can afford to eat right in tough times. It seems a tidy explanation for a disturbing trend, implying that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for wealthy Endive Elitists when the economy falters. But if the talking point’s carefully crafted mix of faux populism and oversimplification seems a bit facile—if the glib explanation seems almost too perfectly sculpted for your local right-wing radio blowhard—that’s because it dishonestly omits the most important part of the story. The part about how healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone right now, if not for those ultimate elitists: agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians they own. As with most issues in this new Gilded Age, the tale of the American diet is a story of the worst form of corporatism—the kind whereby the government uses public monies to protect private profit. In this chapter of that larger tragicomedy, lawmakers whose campaigns are underwritten by agribusinesses have used billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize those agribusinesses’ specific commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.) that are the key ingredients of unhealthy food. Not surprisingly, the subsidies have manufactured a price inequality that helps junk food undersell nutritious-but-unsubsidized foodstuffs like fruits and vegetables. The end result is that recession-battered consumers are increasingly forced by economic circumstance to “choose” the lower-priced junk food that their taxes support. Corn—which is processed into the junk-food staple corn syrup and which feeds the livestock that produce meat—exemplifies the scheme. Advertisement Yes, it is a bargain, but one created by deliberate government policy that serves the corn industry titans, not by any genetic advantage that makes corn derivatives automatically more affordable for the budget-strapped commoner. The aggregate effect of such market manipulation across the agriculture industry, notes Time, is “that a dollar (can) buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit.” So while it may be amusing to use Americans’ worsening recession-era diet as another excuse to promote cultural stereotypes, the nutrition crisis costing us billions in unnecessary health care costs is more about public policy and powerful special interests than it is about epicurean snobs and affluent tastes. Indeed, this is a problem not of individual proclivities or of agricultural biology that supposedly makes nutrition naturally unaffordable—it is a problem of rigged economics and corrupt policymaking. Solving the crisis, then, requires everything from recalibrating our subsidies to halting the low-income school lunch program’s support for the pizza and french fry lobby (yes, they have a powerful lobby). It requires, in other words, a new level of maturity, a better appreciation for the nuanced politics of food and a commitment to changing those politics for the future. Impossible? Hardly. A country that can engineer the seemingly unattainable economics of a $5 McDonald’s feast certainly has the capacity to produce a healthy meal for the same price. It’s just a matter of will—or won’t. David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. © 2011 Creators.com New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Anarcissie, July 19, 2011 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
Better yet, see if you can find a local CSA group. If you can’t find one you may be able to start one.
Report thisBy vermonta, July 19, 2011 at 3:24 am Link to this comment
It is possible to eat well. Get to know a farmer, give him a hand, see how generous he is. Even a small farmer lets food rot in the field because he doesn’t have the help to harvest it all.
Report thisBy johncp, July 19, 2011 at 12:39 am Link to this comment
Let’s stop the nonsense. It’s no coincindence, that the rise in prices for organically grown food, such as you find in the Whole Foods market chain, happens to coincide with rates of obesity in this country, that have never before been seen Let’s say that organic food is, on average, 50% higher in price than conventionally grown food. We can solve this crisis by simply buying and consuming 50% less food than we presently do. If we buy and consume 50% less food, we lose most of our obesity problem, and make Whole Foods prices seem equal to the cost of the non-organic stuff. But rather than try out this simple though challenging measure, we’d rather complain about Whole Food prices.
Report thisBy Laurence Tribe, July 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If politicians are being bought off by corporations why is it the voting public keep electing the same liars, cheats and thieves? It’s probably because some of their thievery has rubbed off on we, the people - which probably means we ain’t free, just bought.
Report thisBy entropy2, July 18, 2011 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
For a great read, check out “Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal” by Joel Salatin. Those familiar with the movie Food, Inc. will remember Mr. Salatin as the owner of Polyface Farms.
In his book, he describes the jaw-dropping mountain of gov’t regulations (ostensibly for our protection) which serves to drive the small farmer out of existence, while actually rendering our food supply less local, less wholesome, less secure, less humane and less sustainable.
Like most (all?) government regulatory agencies, USDA is just another arm of mega-corporate interests.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 18, 2011 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
I think it’s probably relevant that government policies plus racial fears and of course the intrinsic corporate desire to make money by whatever means greatly encouraged suburbanization, which among other things moved food sources much further from consumers than they had been. Near New York City, Long Island and New Jersey used to be covered with ‘truck farms’. Now they’re suburbs with serious transportation and infrastructure problems.
Report thisBy EmileZ, July 18, 2011 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
@prisnersdilema
Don’t knock caffeine!!!
Report thisBy prisnersdilema, July 18, 2011 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
...and ignoring the, lymphoma, leukemia, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, that GMO
food causes, until it kills us…
But that’s where all the caffeine and psychotropic medication comes in, it keeps us from
Report thisconnecting the dots…
By EmileZ, July 18, 2011 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
Ironically, in spite of the externalized costs of crappy food, I (a full grown adult male)can still eat healthy (extremely healthy) and organic and non-GMO for less than 4$ a meal easily (closer to 3$), however I happen to live in the Seattle area (where organic food is an option) and have been working at it for quite some time.
If there was no non-organic, unhealthy, non-gmo food being heavily subsidized, it would be even cheaper and available to everyone.
P.S. for five bucks I could give you a healthy, protein packed (more than you could hope to get from meat) meal that would stick to your ribs and even put you to a deep slumber (I might be pushing it a bit there, but…)
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
The unspoken assumption of Sirota’s article seems to be that the government and the corporations dictate our diets, and the way to get better food is to have them simply dictate a different diet. The concept of people choosing their own diets, either individually or collectively, rather than counting on some authority to do it, is just off the board. Or am I reading this wrong?
I’m not questioning the assertion that subsidies are used to lower the cost of crap food like corn syrup. I’m questioning the idea that people are totally passive recipients of elite policy.
Report thisBy Amanda S., July 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I live in Ontario, which just released a similar study with the same results. I am disabled and reliant upon (Cdn)government support, which by no means reflects the standard of living costs. I can only budget $20-$25 per week to buy food. When I was working and made a lot more money, my diet was supremely healthy. My health depends on healthy eating, but I have unfortunately had to alter my diet to the point where I feel my body hates me and I don’t blame it. Fruit and vegetables become luxuries and I have had to replace one thing after another with something processed, cheap and most importantly filling (= garbage). I am so happy why I have $1 or two left over to buy an apple or two…for the month. I get so pissed when I see a commercial or read what the government says I should eat in day to be healthy. If that`s how we should eat, then the government should back it up and put it`s money where it`s mouth is- or stop telling me; because I know how I should eat…I just can`t afford to do so. Thank you for writing this and showing another dimension to this issue.
Report thisBy entropy2, July 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment
Not exactly a news flash…but welcome attention anyway.
Interestingly, the roots of the our food crisis can be found in good-intentioned liberal programs. The cartelization of the food industry into an oligopoly occurred as a result of the regulatory regime enacted during the “Progressive” Era. Farm subsidies were started during the Depression to help save the family farm. Boy, that worked out great, huh?
Gosh…if we could just find politicians honest and smart enough to create a big, wonderful set of rules that wouldn’t be manipulated and exploited by the plutocracy and would cover the needs of 300 million of us.
Maybe next election.
Report thisBy MarthaA, July 15, 2011 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment
ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council EXPOSED,
ALEC’s model legislation reflects long-term goals: downsizing
government, removing regulations on corporations and making it
harder to hold the economically and politically powerful to account.
Corporate donors retain veto power over the language,
which is developed by the secretive task forces. The task forces
cover issues from education to health policy. ALEC’s priorities for
the 2011 session included bills to privatize education, break
unions, deregulate major industries, pass voter ID laws and more.
“Dozens of corporations are investing millions of dollars a year to
write business-friendly legislation that is being made into law in
statehouses coast to coast, with no regard for the public interest,”
says Bob Edgar of Common Cause. “This is proof positive of the
depth and scope of the corporate reach into our democratic
processes.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/07/13-8
Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange
Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind
closed doors to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These
so-called “model bills” reach into almost every area of American life
and often directly benefit huge corporations. Through ALEC,
corporations have “a VOICE and a VOTE” on specific changes to
the law that are then proposed in your state. DO YOU?
NOT, if you are a citizen of the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
“Any rational person can look at what these corporations are
Report thisdoing through ALEC and on their own and know that essentially
for-profit corporations are writing legislation in Arizona,” said
Caroline Isaacs, AFSC program director. “The spirit of the
law—which I think most of us believe is there to prevent money
from buying undue influence in politics—is clearly being violated.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/151627/inside_alec,_the_koch-funded_group_behind_right-wing_state_laws?page=entire