Current mood: Contemplative, upset and slightly tired
Music Playing: The Decemberists, Her Majesty & Foo Fighters, Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace
I was reading the most recent blog from Epicurious titled, "Elitism in the Green Movement: Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and Dan Barber, chef from Blue Hill in Manhattan were part of a panel called "Hedonistic, Healthy and Green: Can We Have It All? in New York earlier this week. What they had to say got me thinking about food; specifically organics vs. conventional. First of all why do we have to label real food as organic and the other conventional? By definition, pertaining to the appropriate usage for calling food "conventional," conventional = conforming or adhering to accepted standards, as of conduct or taste/ pertaining to convention or general agreement; established by general consent or accepted usage; arbitrarily determined. How did spraying chemicals on our vegetables become an accepted standard? Who agreed to that? Apparently, it was done "arbitrarily." It hardly makes sense that we have to pay more for local organic produce then for something that was sprayed with chemicals and was transported from Chile. At the cost of oil, shouldn't it cost more do do this? Now conventional produce is the "general accepted" use, and organics is supposed to be for the more affluent population. Unfortunately the majority of us can hardly afford to spend the additional money to buy "real food." I try to buy organic whenever possible, and especially local stuff, but sometimes you have to draw the line somewhere, when the cost is so absurd, you can't bring yourself to pay $7.99 a lb. for organic asparagus. Pollan argued that, "cheap food is artificially cheap...the solution, vote with our forks and vote with our votes." Unfortunately most recently for us Sonoma County folk, measure M, could have been the start to something big around here; but sadly there were too many smart deficient people that didn't take the time to read the measure and comprehend what they were voting for, and the measure was voted down. But there needs to be something that changes via the vehicle of legislation. We either need to improve the standards of "conventional," or the government needs to understand that food is expensive, and there needs to be an improvement to the living wage so we can afford to eat better. The blog also touched on the possibility of eating cloned animals. Where do we have to draw the line to make this insanity stop? It's bad enough that we have allowed there to be a division of food, how far will we have to go to eat meat from a real animal? The author of the blog, Megan O. Steintrager, argues, "Organic will become unattainably pricey for most families, and there are millions who won't have any option other than feeding these faux animals to their children." Is anyone else absolutely repulsed by this thought? I can imagine my visits to the grocery store, deciphering between faux, conventional and organic steaks. The treatment of animals in slaughterhouses is bad enough, now I have to decide whether I can afford the extra 8 dollars a pound or whatever it might be to make sure I'm not ingesting meat with growth hormones or some crazy genetically altered matter that has created this rib eye! Why should we have to prioritize and put our rent, or house payment and paying to keep the house warm and lit over what we put into our bodies everyday? Somehow I see the future of food worsening and I fear for us all...
