The issue of food—where it comes from, who grows it, how they grow it—has been a hotly contested issue over the past couple of years. With books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma and the recent documentary Food, Inc., many are starting to question the ethics involved in food production.
Growing up, I was exposed to the world of agriculture quite a bit. I remember getting to go to work with my dad, who worked as a consultant for farmers around the state, meant getting to walk around fields and see farms. I lived across the street from a silo and cornfields and practically had cows in my backyard for a couple of years. I was even in 4-H for a brief period of time that ended in my rooster getting its head snapped off by a hawk.
Of course, I’ve had my fair share of the other side of life—dear old suburbia. And while I may not be able to look out my window and see cornfields anymore, I’ve still always been on the periphery of the world of agriculture. My internship doing public relations for the Missouri Soybean Association and Merchandising Council this summer gave me invaluable experience and exposed me to even more. Currently, I’ve got a great internship doing alumni communications for MU’s College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. My days with agriculture are far from over—the other day I wrote up a small story on dairy judging.
And let’s not forget my biggest tie to agriculture: food. I love food so much that I have a blog about it! So when it comes to the much-debated issue on food these days, I find myself torn.
You see, I can’t simply say I’m for sustainable agriculture and only support local, organic foods. It’s not that simple. On the other hand, I also can’t say I completely support our current agricultural system.
I agree that the way most Americans eat is horrendous. A happy meal does not count as a meal more than once a month, if that. The solution is so simple: eat better! Eat fruits and vegetables. Eat whole grains. Eat lean protein. So, if we’ve all heard these suggestions, why don’t more people follow it?
Well, like I’ve mentioned before, I am indeed a college student living on a tight budget. I would love nothing more than to make sure that the meat I purchase is completely hormone free and that the animals were given ample opportunities to play Ring Around the Rosy in the grass while they were alive. But I know that isn’t possible because I can’t afford that.
What I can afford is the frozen chicken that Wal-Mart has, and I know it isn’t exactly excelling in quality, or ethics for that matter. Furthermore, fruits and vegetables are expensive. For a dollar or less, a consumer could get an apple, which will average about 50-60 calories, or get a small bag of potato chips that ring in at around 150 calories. Simply put, to the average consumer, it seems you get more calories for your buck with cheap, processed foods. Expecting the general public to accept a shift to sustainable local agriculture seems pretty ridiculous then.
The problem is that the general public’s attitude toward food does need to shift. Fruits and vegetables should be a higher priority. It was only this summer that I really learned much about the way subsidies work for our country’s farmers, and while I think helping farmers is great, I also think other crops should be more heavily promoted. Corn and soybeans get most of the subsidies because they serve as basic food ingredients and help feed animals that we eventually eat. Why not give more support to farmers that grow the fruits and vegetables we so desperately need better integrated into our daily lives?
Speaking of farmers, I think the issue I have most with this new food movement is the villain-ization of the American farmer. I can’t tell you how many articles I read this past summer about how farms were owned by large companies that pumped their animals full of antibiotics and pretty much ignored the general well-being of the animal.
I’m not saying there aren’t some farms out there that do that, but here’s the thing: the farms are not generally owned by large companies, the animals may be, but the farmer runs it, not the company. Secondly, it would cost a great deal to farmers to give every animal antibiotic cocktails on a regular basis. They simply can’t afford to do that. Farmers are struggling, too.
The most obvious response I have to these claims? If the farmer did not take care of their animals, then they would lose money. It isn’t in their best interest to treat the animals poorly, so they don’t. I’ve been to many farms, and in none of those farms did I see absolutely filthy conditions. Most of them are pretty clean, considering there are animals there.
There is such a large gap between Americans and their food, and making the farmers out to be the bad guy doesn’t make it any better. Americans spend 10% of their income on food—much less than other countries. If we make it more difficult for farmers to farm efficiently, the cost of our food will inevitably go up, not to mention push farmers that we have out of the picture.
I don’t know what the solution is, and I’m 100% all right with being honest about that. What I do know is that sustainable local agriculture seems a bit too idealistic. We already don’t have enough farmers; where on earth would we find even more to make sustainable local agriculture function properly? But I also know that the way Americans perceive food needs to change. Blame the system, blame commercialization, blame what you will, but blaming American farmers is the last thing we should do.
For now, I will continue to keep educating myself. I will continue to keep balancing my desire for good, fresh food with the reality that I simply cannot afford an organic free-range chicken. But most importantly, I think for now I will continue to have an open mind about this issue.
Posts
