We have heard a lot about what our next president, Barack Obama, will do for our economy, energy and the manner in which we project American Power into a world that is increasingly skeptical of our motives. We have not heard a lot about food. It is a subject that seems more likely to be covered in the life-style segments of the evening news than as "hard news."
I know, that in these increasingly hard times, my wife and I are very happy to have the ability to raise a significant amount of our own food. I would be sorry to inform the folks at Nob Hill, Safeway, Trader Joe's or Target that we almost never buy fruit, not when we can eat what we have grown ourselves every day. And, we don't have to worry about whether or not it was contaminated by E.coli somewhere in the food chain. We do not have to think about how much natural gas was required to manufacture the fertilizer, the possible contamination by pesticides nor any of the other concerns that can turn food into real news.
Still, I am of the opinion that possibly the single most important appointment the new president will make is to the position of Secretary of Agriculture. We have gone through an era in which the family farm has disappeared, in which factory farms and multinational corporations like ADM dominate not only the market but also the politics of agriculture.
Why do I write this here in Morgan Hill, when agriculture is slowly disappearing from Santa Clara Valley? Because there are alternatives that work and which address a range of other problems: energy, global warming, health care.
You could say that our current situation, an unhealthy diet, a fossil fuel driven agriculture, an expensive delivery system, and the factory farm are all the result of Richard Nixon's single instruction to Sec. Of Agriculture, Earl Butz: "Do whatever you can to boost production." Nixon was facing rapidly increasing prices for agricultural products and a declining popularity. Butz had the answer: subsidies.
NY Times writer Michael Pollan is not a farmer. He is a journalist, an avid gardener and a thoughtful consumer of food. Last month (Oct. 9), the Times published an open letter to the next president. He gave some data to underscore the importance of food. "After cars, the food system uses more fossil fuel than any other sector of the economy - 19 percent. And while the experts disagree about the exact amount, the way we feed ourselves contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anything else we do - as much as 37 percent, according to one study."
It would seem that we can not make the progress that we want in any area without contemplating how agriculture fits into the picture. Consider that it now takes 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of food in our supermarkets.
One solution, according to Pollan, is to re-solarize agriculture. After all, every bit of what we consume comes from the sun. The energy to grow plants comes from photosynthesis. The animal proteins that some of us eat are the result of animals eating plants, or their products. Even the petroleum, coal and natural gas on which we have based our energy system are there because of photosynthesis and the sun.
I can not think of a better solution. It may mean the end of the factory farm, but if it also means that we can improve the quality of the American diet, lowering the incidence of diet related chronic disease that costs our health care system, then this is what we must do.
It may mean that we no longer practice mono-culture agriculture where only a single crop is grown. Since McDonald's only buys one type of potato for its fries, that is all that many farmers grow, even though it requires the use of more pesticides than almost any food crop. The alternative is to practice multiple crop rotation as is done in Argentina where the rotation of cattle and grains on the same land has brought a lower cost of production, no pesticides required and far less fertilizer.
Standing in the way of this is the fact that we, as consumers, have this notion that the only choices are some high priced organic market. That would not be true if the food system were operated for the benefit of the farmer or the consumer rather than corporate profitability.
Both major party candidates talked of change. But when their campaigns started in Iowa, they bowed down to the corn god and mouthed the right words. Even our supposedly environmental senator, Barbara Boxer voted on the agriculture bill knowing that "we have our cotton people and our rice people" and so supported subsidies to those who need it the least.
Effecting change will not be easy. We need leadership that will challenge the prevailing wisdom and I am not sure that it will come from a president from Illinois who began his campaign in the tall corn of Iowa.
Even in my own Green Party it is not easy to get people to think of agriculture in this way. It challenges many deeply held, but false beliefs in how the real systems work. I am working to change that, in my community, in my party, in the whole country. Join me.
Read Pollan's full letter at www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" - Roberto Clemente
POST A COMMENT
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.
Hope flies again
