Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
For as often as we do eat, it seems as if most of us don’t think too much about what we’re putting into our bodies. With food production so far removed from our every day lives, it’s easy to ignore where our food comes from and what it’s impact may be. But what we put on our plates has a larger footprint than what we drive. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
“Livestock production is one of the major causes of the world’s most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport.”
The things we choose to eat can obviously have an enormous impact on the planet and everything on it, including ourselves. Naturally then, our diet choices can say a lot about our ethics and beliefs. They can even be a political statement and a form of activism. I think that every choice we make has the potential to change the world, and certainly what I choose to eat has an impact.
I’ve always thought that many of the issues I am concerned about—the environment, human rights, peace, overconsumption, animal welfare—are all really one big issue. Everywhere I look I see countless connections between many social, political, and environmental issues. I may be involved in many separate causes, but they overlap so often that I feel that I’m really just part of one big movement. Which is why when someone asks me why I’m vegetarian, I am so overwhelmed with reasons that I don’t know where to even start explaining. The top ones are the environment, animal rights, and health, but no matter what you call them, they’re all one big issue to me.
I’m not the only one who has noticed this overlap, of course. And rarely have I encountered such a thorough examination of the connections between animal welfare and just about every other issue that concerns me than in the book Why Animals Matter by Erin E. Williams and Margo DeMello.
By Carla Wise •
March 21, 2008
Maybe we really have reached our limits. David Korten, author, lecturer, and founder of Yes magazine, believes we have. He believes that climate change, peak oil, and the meltdown of the U.S. dollar are all symptoms of the impending fall of our modern, globalized way of life. And he has a point. The stock market is crashing, gas and food prices are skyrocketing, and our economy is faltering. Of course, if you are an optimist, you might say, well, we will survive, as we have before. Except for one thing: what will we eat?
When I take stock, I realize I can do without most of the things I buy. Yesterday I bought gas, printer cartridges, and mad libs for my daughter. Food was the only necessity I spent money on. But if David Korten is onto something, access to most of that food is in danger.
Consider: by most estimates, 98% of the food consumed by Americans comes from the industrial food system.
By Carla Wise •
March 6, 2008
Jack Hedin is a Minnesota organic farmer who grows food for local markets. He wants to expand his operation to help meet the growing demand for his produce. The way he sees it, the federal government is standing directly in his way, and he’s upset about it. So he sent an Op-Ed to the New York Times, which they published last week. I imagine he was hoping to get people talking about our farm subsidy program and its impact on American food and farming. Judging from my email inbox, he succeeded in spades.
Here’s a summary of Jack Hedin’s story. He farms 100 acres in southern Minnesota, and has found that demand for his organic produce is so strong that he can’t meet it on his land. So last year, he rented 25 acres from two nearby corn farmers, and planted fruits and vegetables on the extra land. It wasn’t long before his landlords ran into trouble with the commodity farm program. This program subsidizes commodity crops, paying farmers who grow corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, cotton, and several others.
While the program was set up to guarantee farmers who grow commodity crops a certain income, it turns out that it also penalizes farmers who then switch to growing fruits and vegetables on “commodity base” acres. This is what happened to the farmers who had rented him the 25 acres. They found themselves out of compliance with the commodity farm program, and would be penalized not only for the subsidy that year for that acreage, but also for the market value of the “illicit” crops.
