Food: New Tipping Point for a New Conversation?

A few days ago, Zachary Cohen, who blogs at Farm To Table, wrote that he believes American society has finally hit the "tipping point" when it comes to rethinking the national food system.  His entry is worth reading.

Food, of course, is much on my mind because I'm writing a history of meat in America.

And I'm inclined to agree with Zachary on this point. (Although I hasten to remind one and all that I'm writing a history of part of the food system, not an exploration/analysis of contemporary food systems.)

Think about it: a few years ago, most of the chatter about American food stemmed from things like The Food Network, celebrity chefs, and the opening of the latest grotesquely, obscenely expensive elitaurant. (*1)

But in the past year or so, it seems as though our national social chatter (for lack of a better word) has shifted away from food gloss-glitz-and-glam to, well, manure, local-versus-not, and so forth.

Yes, many expert types have been hammering at the issues of, for example, genetic modification and food irradiation for years. But the larger conversation about food --- the one taking place us ordinary, non-expert types --- has caught up with the experts.

I think we can safely credit Michael Pollan for pushing the conversation in new directions, but his books wouldn't be as popular as they are if other people weren't already interested in discussing food.

So, Twitter, for example, is chockful of a dizzying array of conversation about food from every angle, and I don't mean recipe swaps.

There are two new films ("Food, Inc." and another one whose name totally escapes me right now...).

And it feels as though a small mountain of books about various kinds of encounters with food has come tumbling out of publishing houses. (Too bad mine's not one of them, but, what can I say: research takes time. Plus, mine is historical in nature, rather than focused on current inssues).

Here's a small sample of the books that have just come out:

• Coop
• Goat
• Righteous Porkchop
• Farm City
• Deeply Rooted
• The Unhealthy Truth
• The End of Overeating

And those are the ones that are new. I'm leaving off a slew that have been published in the past two years. More to the point, the creators/authors of these books and films started working on their projects at least, bare minimum, two years ago and more likely three years. Which means this tipping point has deep roots (absolutely no pun intended...) (Seriously.)

Anyway, I have no real point here except that it's worth tooling around the internet/Twitter/Wherever to listen in on the conversation. I have no idea where it will lead, although I do think that the sort of "eat local or die" attitude isn't quite going to cut it.

Do people in California, for example, honestly believe that they should be allowed to eat fruit all year because the climate makes it possible, but that people in Minnesota should not be allowed to the climate won't allow it?

I think not. The issues and problems concerning our food system are far, far more complicated than a simple "eat local" solution. But enough of this rambling. Back to work, everyone!

___________

*1: That's my invented-on-the-spot word for grotesquely, obscenely, expensive, celebrity-oriented restaurants.

Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 6 of 6

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

Creating the kind of “radical transparency” necessary to change consumer behavior, which will, in turn, change manufacturer behavior, will require enormous amounts of data, and data compiled in an honest fashion, and, most important, date that can be made available to consumers.

Goleman notes that a company called GoodGuide, Inc. has made a good start. The people at GoodGuide have compiled the Life Cycle Assessment data for, for example, the ingredients for a host of products, especially things like soap, shampoo, etc., rating them based on their “green” qualities.

The bottom line is this: If consumers have access to honest data and, most important, at the moment of purchase, they will be more likely to make active decisions about how “green” they want their consumption to be. As they do, manufacturers (like Parliament in the 18th century) will be forced to make changes in their products.

More manufacturers will, we can all hope, consider using “cradle to cradle” manufacturing methods and materials, instead of relying, as they do now, on “cradle to grave” manufacturing methods and materials.

Goleman calls this a “virtuous cycle”: When information about a product changes consumers’ brand preferences, the resulting market shift in turn will lead companies to offer more of the [green] improvements shoppers want. Buyers with easy access to accurate ecological information will “chang[e] their behavior,” and that in turn will prompt “sellers to change their business practices.”

Again, I’m simplifying Goleman’s argument, which he backs up with plenty of data and information of his own.

But his basic argument is compelling: What matters is not just information itself, but on-the-spot access to that information. The more easily consumers get information, the more likely they will be to act on it in ecologically positive ways.

Put another way --- and now you see where I’m going with all of this --- contrary to that reviewer at Amazon, it’s possible for consumer behavior to launch and sustain revolution. And history has provided us with a powerful example, in fact the most important example in human history, of how that can be done.

See? I told you this would all hang together in the end!

Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 5 of 6

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

They understood that the empire’s power rested on the production and exchange of goods and material. And they also understood that the most valuable and powerful tool they held to oppose Parliament’s action was . . . the production and exchange of goods.

If they stopped buying, powerful people in England would feel the pain. And feel it fast.

That’s what happened. First the colonists organized “non-importation” movements, and then, when that was not enough to make Parliament heed them, they organized “non-consumption” movements.

As Breen put it in the introduction to his book, North American colonists “made goods speak to power in ways” that their rulers and leaders back in England had not anticipated. British North American colonists used their material culture --- their "stuff" --- to foment revolution. They understood that non-consumption was more powerful than guns, or, for that matter, words.

So, back to Goleman’s book. (I know. You were wondering if I was ever going to get to the point.) I think you can see now why I was a bit, um, amused by the Amazon criticism of Goleman’s book. Clearly, consumption and consumerism and consumer values can be powerful tools in fomenting change.

First, Goleman examines the Life Cycle Assessment --- how engineers, scientists, and researchers figure out what the true ecological cost of a good is, from inception to creation to consumption: What’s the ecological cost of the materials to make it? What’s the ecological cost of the vehicles used to transport those materials? Etc.

Goleman points out that at present, many goods are marketed with “greenwashing”: the manufacturers either mask the true ecological cost of the good, or they exaggerate it in an effort to woo consumers who want to go green. He argues that what’s needed in the marketplace is “radical transparency.” By that he means some method of labeling or otherwise providing full information about the “life cycle” of goods.

Most important, however, he argues that the information needs to be provided at the point of purchase itself. You can determine the true ecological cost of that apple from New Zealand while you’re still standing in the grocery store.

Next: Using information and goods to create revolution.

In the Kitchen: Heat, Humidity --- and Basil

Sometimes a girl doesn't wanna cook much, ya know? Especially this girl when she's been cranking away on her new book all day and both the temperature and the humidity begin with a nine. (Yes, we have AC --- but still . . . ) (Plus, those menopause hot flashes are waaaaaaay worse in the summer than in the winter.)

So here's what landed on our table tonight. Think of this as heat + humidity + tired +don't want to go to grocery store + it's summer:

Heated a  big pot of water for the pasta. In the frig I found some little "grape" tomatoes and quartered those. Minced a teensy bit of garlic.

Chopped a handful of fresh basil. Put all of it in a small bowl and drizzled just a bit of olive oil over it. Grated some parmesan.

Sliced a chicken breast horizontally; dressed it with some salt and pepper.

Cut up some watermelon and put it in a bowl.

While the pasta boiled (I used bucattini), I heated some olive oil in a pan and seared the chicken breasts. Moved that to our plates after it was cooked.

When the pasta was done, I saved out a bit of the water and then drained the pasta. Put it back in the pot and added the tomatoes, garlic, and basil, as well as a bit of olive oil and salt/pepper. Tossed it gently.

Dished the pasta on to our plates. Put the plates at our places, the watermelon on the table, along with a little bowl of extra parmesan.

Poured some white wine. Ate. Enjoyed. Happy.

Creating A "Green" Future: The American Revolution, Consumer Action, and "Ecological Intelligence," Part 4 of 6

Part One --- Part Two --- Part Three Part Four --- Part Five --- Part Six

North American colonists had access to a great deal of land and to an abundance of raw materials. As a result, they enjoyed an extraordinarily high standard of living (higher, in fact, than just about everyone else in the world except royalty).

Colonial exports, such as grain and timber, enabled them to buy and enjoy a huge array of consumer goods, nearly all of which were imported from England. (Even if the British didn’t actually manufacture the goods, Parliament made damn sure that the goods went through a British port before being shipped on to North America.)

Colonists wanted those goods. They enjoyed those goods. Having access to those goods made them feel like full citizens of a huge empire.

We think of our colonial ancestors as wanna-be Americans from the get-go. But almost until the last moment (ie, up until about 1760 or 1765), British colonists prided themselves on being British. On being part of the most powerful empire in the world. On being able to wear the same clothing and eat from the same kinds of plates as people back in England.

Moreover, they understood that the raw materials they exported to England helped make England great (again, basic but crucial materials like timber, ore, grain) The cycle of trade connected colonists to the mother country, and the colonists were, in turn, particularly aggressive in acquiring consumer goods.

Put another way, the colonists saw themselves as full partners in the imperial economy and the British nation. The operative word here is “partners.” Colonists assumed and expected to be treated as full citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the empire.

But starting in the 1760s, Parliament began imposing rules, regulations, and, yes, taxes on the colonists without their consent. Why Parliament did so isn’t important here.

What does matter is this: the colonists were angry (insulted, is more like it) and decided to resist. They could have used violence, but they opted to use something else: the marketplace itself.

Next time: Consumers, revolution, and going green

Daydreaming = Productivity (But You Knew That, Right?)

Quickie drive-by posting before I get back to the complexities of meat. The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating piece about new research into how we experience "aha!" moments of insight. (The article carries today's date, but it wasn't in today's print edition, so it may be in tomorrow's "paper.")

The reporter interviewed a number of neuroscientists and other researchers who are studying how the brain makes connections and solves "problems." The general drift is that

Taken together, these findings highlight a paradox of mental life. They remind us that much of our creative thought is the product of neurons and nerve chemistry outside our awareness and beyond our direct control.

Several points worth noting. First, one of the interviewees defines the "aha!" moment as including the usual suspects: Waking up with the solution to a problem that's been bugging you. Driving down the street thinking about "nothing" and suddenly solving a problem. Etc. But the "problem" can also be something you don't yet recognize as a problem, including

realizing that a friend of yours is not really a friend.

I'm glad to know that because I experienced precisely just that kind of moment a couple of years ago. There was no triggering "episode." Indeed, my flash of awareness came in the middle of an otherwise pleasant visit with a group of  friends. We were all just sitting around talking and suddenly, wham!, I realized that one of them was not only not a friend but was using me in a nearly malevolent way. (I know; I know. How could I NOT know such a thing?)

Anyway, the article also confirms what I've known for years: I do my best work when I'm not trying. Eg, when I'm walking, daydreaming, laying on the floor staring at the ceiling, thinking about "nothing."

All of my book ideas, for example, have come to me in flashes from nowhere. So. Enough from me. Go read the article!

Tip o' the mug to Jennifer Gilmore, via Twitter (@jenwgilmore). I loved Jennifer's first novel, Golden Country, and am looking forward to her next one, which I hope will be out soon.