Given two recent reports about the dangers of pesticides there really shouldn’t be a choice. But that isn’t a guilt trip to people who won’t fork over the cash to pay for safer products. It is to say  no one should have to choose not to poison their kids or be forced to bring harmful chemicals into their system because the other options are more affordable.

The recent report by the President’s Cancer Panel reveals, finally, that the most important aspect of the issue of cancer is environmental factors. Factors that are have been grossly underestimated and under-regulated. The Panel’s report is called REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK: What We Can Do Now.

It is almost shocking how straightforward the report is about the harm caused by the chemicals and environmental factors of daily life. We are so used to hearing measured responses to “possible health risks” associated with much of the stuff we are exposed to and taking these risks seriously in a consistent way can even make you feel a bit like a paranoid wing-nut. But now there is enough evidence and acknowledgment of that evidence prove that efforts to avoid plastics and pesticides are not wacky…but there is the disappointment, that yes, it’s as bad (or worse) than you thought. So yes, it’s an overwhelming report, but in all reality it’s a refreshing report because it finally puts these causes of cancer out in the open, and asks that be addressed. It is something that everyone should read which you can do in this pdf.

The report should be read so that as many people as possible know the harm of the exposure to these chemicals so that these chemicals will stopped being used. Rather than having choices about what products we are exposed to, these products, given the evidence, should be banned. Then no one can make the wrong choice.

The Pesticide Action Network sent out an e-mail to ask for support for  language in the Safe Chemicals Act that would give EPA more power to regulate persistent chemicals. You can contact your Senator through PAN here.

as this Washington Post report points out:

The panel said the country needs to overhaul existing chemical laws, a conclusion that has been supported by public health groups, environmental advocates, the Obama administration and even the chemical industry.

The current system places the burden on the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can removed from the market. The standards are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in many other countries.

About 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use in the United States, but federal regulators have assessed only about 200 for safety.

Chapter Two of the President’s Cancer Panel Report is “Exposure to Contaminants From Agricultural Sources”  It opens with this uplifting observation:

The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals.  Many of these chemicals are known or suspected of having either carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. chemicals.

It goes onto explain the dangers of chemical use in agriculture to all of us, most especially the people who get their livelihood from the food system. Unfortunately the consequences of these chemicals are not limited to cancer. The other recent report that reveals the impact conventional agriculture on our bodies and brains is an investigation by a team of scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University, published in the journal Pediatrics, which found a connection between exposure pesticides and the presence of symptoms of ADHD.  Lead author Maryse F. Bouchard of the University of Montreal Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center says:

Our study found that exposure to organophosphates in developing children might have effects on neural systems and could contribute to ADHD behaviors, such as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.

All this brings up that mantra of “Don’t panic, buy Organic”, which is more true than ever before. But again, it raises the issue of why this country has allowed this to be a choice. Sure we’ve carved out a market for those who are willing and able to pay the full cost of sustainably raised food but the remainder is too many people still being exposed to toxins, including those who paid to avoid it. We need to move beyond an organic certification to a certain market and apply those standards to all food. There is not enough evidence to prove that avoiding chemicals and feeding the people of the world are mutually exclusive goals, and remember that saying so sidesteps the issue that conventional farming isn’t feeding the world successfully either.

We are certainly in a better spot politically than we have been before to take these chemicals out of our system, and the more that people are aware of what is causing these diseases and disorders and choose, as much as possible to support practices and products that avoid them the better.

You can read more about the Organophosphate (OP) Pesticides addressed in there study here. You can also take a small action to, again through the Pesticide Action network, sign a petition to the EPA to ban Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide.

I guess the message for now is, Be optimistic about Organic- choose it until you don’t have to.

I admit that the choice for the video below is weird because Don Imus is not well respected since his many rude remarks, and he and his wife (Deirdre Imus) are friends of Sean Hannity and all their media is through Fox, but that doesn’t change the fact that I agree with Deirdre’s approach and her information and that ultimately she is doing good work on these issues. It’s always good to look at common ground among often divided groups.

                          

Homemade mayo now sits next to homemade salad dressing and is becoming one less processed packaged food we get pre-made. This change is mostly because you cannot find mayonnaise made with olive oil, only canola, though there are some new (expensive!) variations that include other healthier oils, but are still based on canola. Homemade also just means less packaging and things to buy.

This process of weeding out packaged foods always reminds me of those essentials I don’t produce. I can’t make my own olive oil and at this point I don’t have chickens. That would be an exciting next step to self-reliance.

I make this by hand, you can definitely use a food processor. Start with an egg yolk from a happy bug-eating chicken. (The Organic requirement for eggs is that they have a vegetarian diet, presumably from the industrial farming practice of feeding their dead chicken back to their live ones, which creates a closed loop system for disease. When in fact sometimes chickens DO eat other chickens, and mice, and bugs, and sometimes grains and seeds. They are vicious little omnivores like us and need a varied diet. So you can look all you want for the perfect egg at the store and finally settle on cage free organic, but you won’t get the egg with the most nutrients from the happiest chicken. Get your eggs at the farmers market and make sure to ask if their chicken eat bug. This way you know that they are out and about living their chicken lives and that the egg you get is optimal.)

Wisk the yolk and start dripping in olive oil- I start with about 3/4 cups. One yolk can really only take up 1 cup total. Starting with a slow thin stream and always incorporate all the oil before adding too much more, otherwise it will seperate. When it starts to get too thick to wisk (this cue is why I like doing it by hand) add some water. You will see the mixture immediately lighten up and get whiter.

Some lemon juice and salt can also be added. Also some whey, as it more than doubles the life of your hard-earned mayo. Actually there are endless possibilities of things to add flavor-wise. Garlic and herbs being ideal. Basil is outstanding!

                          

Consumer spending is close to 70% of our national economy, therefore we should never underestimate the impact our individual choices have on the overall system. We are not individual households engaged in the process of buying goods that is somehow separate from our neighbor’s ability to buy goods and support themselves. The economy is strained because our system operates with a eye only to the bottom line.  This priority has cut out workers and thus reduced the amount of consumers. By making decisions simply based on increasing the difference between spending and incomes, companies have undercut the sustainability of our communities.

Will anything change if households operate in the same way? We have to reassess the standards by which we make our spending choices, thinking beyond simple subtractions. Clearly we only have so much to spend and must make choices within that amount. But the majority of us have been guided to spend our money on as much as possible for as cheap as possible. If we shift the amount of stuff we buy to spend more on goods that support our neighbors, our bodies, and our environment we are taking the power we have as consumers and doing something about the mess the nation (world) faces financially.

Two recent New York Times articles have addressed the high costs of high quality food. In a post titled “When Money Is Tight, and Junk Food Beckons” health writer Tara Parker-Pope asks “How much does it really cost to eat a healthy diet?” She goes on to write about a couple who spent 30 days seeing what they could eat on a dollar a day, an extreme budget that reflects what many impoverished people around the world are able to spend on food including some American families with very limited food stamp allowances. A worthwhile experiment to be sure, but Parker-Pope doesn’t really answer her own question and she could also have asked a better question relevant to most of us with more choices than a dollar a day food budget: How much does it really cost, the nation and world as a whole, for people to eat unhealthy diets?

In “Budgets Squeezed, Some Families Bypass Organics” the decline in spending on organic (mostly processed, packaged) foods is addressed. Unfortunately this article doesn’t compare the decline in all spending compared to the identified slump in organic goods, so its hard to say if this trend really shows a unique change in spending. It also doesn’t looks at spending on organic whole foods (bulk grains, veggies, butcher meats etc) compared with processed or value added foods (which are by far the easiest way to spend too much on food).

Many [vendors of organic goods] are worried that if the economy continues to flounder, consumers — particularly those who only occasionally shop for their products — may decide they can no longer afford to let their conscience dictate their shopping list.

If it’s not values then what does guide us in the grocery aisle?

NPR’s Marketplace had a more encouraging report on the ways in which many people are looking at their tighter budgets and letting values trump. That is to say we may now be taking a broader look at our overall spending, across all areas beyond food, and how we use what we buy to prioritize certain goods that will often be more expensive in unit to unit price comparisons.

Here is what they say in this Marketplace report:

When Whole Foods reports its quarterly earnings on Wednesday, analysts expect to see sales growth between 0 and 1 percent… Which is not to say that consumers are ready to throw in the towel on organic food. What they are doing, is buying in bulk from organic wholesalers or shopping more at Whole Foods’ competition — lower-cost local grocery chains and food co-ops. Barth Anderson is a director at The Wedge food co-op in Minneapolis. He says business is up.

Barth Anderson : It’s wonderful, actually. The downturn in the economy has really brought a lot of people home. They don’t say, “Well, we’re going to order a pizza.” They actually cook.

But, will they keep buying more expensive organic ingredients to do that cooking? Sam Fromartz thinks they will. He’s author of the book “Organic Inc.”

Sam Fromartz: Consumers, if they really believe in the value of organic foods, they’re going to continue to buy it because it’s what they’re putting into their bodies. So, they’re going to cut back in other areas. They’re going to try to get them for as cheap as they can.

Daily reports on the role of slowed spending in the current recession reminds us of our purpose as consumers. As depressing as this fact might be the exchange of goods and services can be something fulfilling and meaningful.

In a simpler world there would be no question if you should buy the cheapest good when you have less money. But these are not simple times and buying cheap food limits others’ ability to support themselves and undercuts our own health. Paying more for better food supports more positive things than you could ever buy with the few dollars and cents you kept individually. I think we are ready for better questions that get to the complexity of the choices we really have in front of us, and if the decisions we make aren’t based in what we think is right, what kind of world are we buying into?

                          

This is the tortilla soup from my oft used and recommended Alice Waters Cookbook “The Art of Simple Food.” We’ve been feeling the pull to be a bit more carnivorous the last few days- many vegan meals have come out of our kitchen recently for a number of reasons; meat and other animal products make meals more expensive and we just don’t buy cheap meat, we have been cutting back on dairy just for our general wellbeing, and its honestly felt rather unnecessary in terms of flavor, nourishment, and what we ask of animals/workers/land to go through for sources of protein. So we’ve really cut back more and more. But I’ve always appreciated having flexibility and variety as a part of my eating habits- so I made plans for something with chicken.

I had some pre-soaked black beans in the fridge so I decided to base my recipe search there. I’m trying to get into the habit of throwing a cup of beans in a bowl full of water as soon as I remember to, regardless of what I am thinking about cooking next. After 5 or 6 hours I drain and put the soaked beans in a Nancy’s yogurt container and keep it in the fridge until I come up with a use for them. That way the prospect of using my bulk dried beans doesn’t become such a time commitment right when I need to be getting a meal together and I’ve taken advantage of a dirt cheap protein source.

Far from dirt cheap, the chicken in this soup was the most expensive ingredient. Though the recipe only calls for one chicken breast,and this is precisely why soup is so cost effective. A whole organic free-range chicken breast (with bone and skin on) was a little over 6 bucks. Other uses of this might have required on breast per person, relying on the chicken as the center of the meal which would be way more than I would want to spend on one dinner. The soup lets you spread that 6 dollars over four or five meals. I think we had two dinners (that is dinner for two twice) and three lunches.

To the recipe we added bok choy from the garden and this was also a great way to use our giant and not so awesome (mealy) tomatoes.

best flavors: lime (not in recipe), chipotle chile, anahiem pepper

Last week’s soup (I am detecting a trend) was a testament to the thrifty potential of the combination of soup, a garden, and bulk dried beans. I can’t really come up with a per meal cost for this soup, it was so nominal. Only major cost was the chicken stock- $2.50 for one quart.

Squash and corn from the garden:

(sad garden note however, is that this is the only corn we got from garden- monocrops in the home garden are not easy)

So three cheers for soup, timely for our global economic collapse and just in time for fall! (At least for parts of the country who experiences cold in the fall, apparently this is when the East Bay finally gets summer)

                          

She asked me about essential foods I keep on hand and how to deal with the eating at the rushed times during the day at breakfast and lunch.

Here’s something I know about my friend; she is a good cook. The problems she is having are not ultimately about a lack of skill, but a lack of inspiration from what she has on hand and feeling drained with the rest of life to take the time to cook. It seems like she is in a difficult cycle where her lack of time limits her creativity and ability to think through recipes so she goes out for more expensive food which limits her ability to spend a bit more at the store or market to get inspiring and easy foods to cook. I also know that she doesn’t really enjoy her job, so it’s even more frustrating that by giving so much of her energy to joylessly earning money she doesn’t have the time to live how she should like to live.

Given that many of us are in work that is not ultimately fulfilling it is even more important to make sure those hours we have outside of work are used wisely and towards meaningful, uplifting things. It is crucial to look at what those hours at work are paying for and whether or not the fruits are worth the labor, so to speak. Most of us see the majority of our paycheck go to housing. So unless you are living in a place beyond your means, that cost is going to be constant. There are other constants like insurance and debt payments. But much of our spending is up to us. The category of “non-essentials” can really be expanded to most of our living expenses. Particularly when you frame your expenses as hours working. Are the things we own and use worth this time?

Audit your spending, the things you own, what you do with your time and make sure you’re really getting what you want.

Then you can think about your grocery list. Where is your money going in the products that you buy? On a personal level does the food you buy make you feel good? Are you getting a balanced diet? What did you pay for in that food- packaging, processing, sugar, plastic, advertising? How did that purchase help or hinder a just and healthy community. Did your hard earned dollars go to an international corporation, or stay in your area? Did you help a family make a living?

While it’s easy to get overwhelmed by these questions what you are actually doing is narrowing down your choices and ultimately making choosing food much easier. There are only so many products that get positive answers to these questions of how the food makes us feel, are we being good local consumers by buying it? When I walk into a store I no longer feel bombarded with the infinite choices provided, I know that there are limits to what I will spend my scarce dollars on and I decide between only the products that meet those requirements.

Not only are there limits on the products I will buy, but there is also a clear limit on the money I will spend. Often, but not always, the products I will purchase are going to be more expensive than those I prefer not to support.

You are paying for different things with either choice. For conventional vegetables you pay for long distance transport, with packaged and/or processed foods you are paying for the marketing, transportation, labor.
For local and or organic food you support a family’s livelihood and way of life, clean air and water and soil, happy animals, living wages, healthcare.

Where I save with conventional we all pay eventually elsewhere. Where I spend with organic my community reaps the benefits in a cooler planet, healthier body (cheaper to care for), smaller landfills, a more stable and equal economy. Seems like a bargain now doesn’t it?

Additionally, assess your waste and buy less: waste in packaging, uncooked or un eaten food, how much of what you buy gets thrown away? (If you reflect the national average, that would about 14% of what you buy) and also waste in excess eating (how much of what you eat gets wasted trying to burn it off?)

Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than people in any other country. We have seen food prices rise recently but are paying an historically low amount of what we make on food. In personal budgeting advice you will read that most people underestimate the amount of money they will or do spend on food. People end up overspending their budget because they were not realistic about how much they buy. This is only compounded by the recent increases in the price of food.

Here is how it plays out for us:

We have simplified our budgeting process by laying out the set expenses, the food and other shared items, and then the rest is up to us to spend or save. We have “personal cash” that goes to choices like clothing, getting lunch or dinner out or other treats, yoga, etc. Basically it comes down to those priorities and while we set them as a couple, we have a certain amount of free reign with the non-essentials. You can see we have a lot of our monthly income going to debt, and we didn’t stay exactly on target. It’s a learning process every month

While most Americans spend just under 10% of their income on food, we spend closer to 15%. So in many ways, when I discuss eating well on a tight budget it means looking at your overall spending in a new way.

That said, the one thing about a grocery bill is that most people buy much more at the store than food. So some of what you see in our grocery budget includes paper towels, toothpaste, shampoo etc. So our actual food spending is somewhat less.

Here is an illustration of other ways that we save:

Okay, so now I am at the store, with specific products I will and won’t buy, and a set budget to spend. What do I buy? I start with vegetables. In fact I don’t start at the store at all but the farmer’s market. We bring $20 to the market and we get what we can for the week. This means no meat, cheese, or prepared food just fruits and vegetables. The month of September (and October even more so) required less spending at the market due to the produce from the garden.

I start with in season vegetables and base the meals for the week on what I get. This is a great source of inspiration. I try to make sure these meals will provide enough leftovers to two of us to eat lunch after two have eaten dinner. Examples aplenty.

After the foundation of vegetables I shop in terms of meals. Beans, pasta, rice, other grains, eggs, ingredients for baking, oils and fats, some meats and dairy (yogurt, quart of milk, some cheese), spices and some sauces and broth. Then we get a few things that make life easier like snacks- popcorn, a bag of chips, salsa, rice cakes, peanut butter and jam. So its a progression to make sure the healthiest and most useful items for full meals are bought first and in the most abundance and then up from there until you’re at the set budget.

So, that is our process and what I can share. I think it’s wonderful to be inspired by food, prioritize the process and a way to spend time together. Learn new things, making it easier and easier each time. It’s hard to go wrong with simple and fresh ingredients. It seems to me that the economic situation will make the idea of people thinking of cooking a hobby sort of an absurdity, since we all eat we should all learn to manage that need in a way that is fun, engaging, and within our means.

And Delicious!

                          

Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change discussed prioritizing these fundamental principles while raising these issues to a national and mainstream conversation:

Change the current goals which frame the system- currently the goal is cheap calories, shift this to health (of humans, communities, planet) and food sovereignty; Keep the process of feeding people properly connected to the health care system and ensure local control through national policies that support the regionalization of food.

Secretary of State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, had such a deep and broad understanding of these issues there was mention of him possibly filling the cabinet position on agriculture. I will take any opportunity there is to hear him speak again, he is spot on. Great to hear a non-Californian perspective on eating locally, how to make the case for local food systems in difficult climates (hint cabbage and canning). Of particular relevance was his insight into the the ways in which misguided or non-existent regulation is at the source of the crises in the food and financial sectors.

In regards to how the next president might specifically approach the issues with our food system Michael Pollan raised the point, which he will apparently also be addressing in the next Sunday NYTimes Magazine, that though the candidates do not address food issues per se in their stump speeches they do address them in their three main focuses of climate change, energy independence, and health care. Clearly no progress can be made to these agenda items without addressing the failing food system. More on Pollan’s point and specifics about the candidates position (or lack thereof) of food issues, see recent Grist article “Politics and the dinner table”

Judith of Full Belly Farms was very encouraging with her platform for a family farmer for every household. Why not? She also noted that the three newest and growing types of farmers are young people, women, and immigrants. (They have apprenticeships …tempting isn’t it?) Her farm is to be commended for their attention to labor, she spoke very well valuing of those that do physical work for the rest of us to live and also made the important point that a diverse farm like hers (versus a sprawling monoculture) can provide year-round work. This is crucial for allowing workers to have roots (so to speak) in their community and continuity in their lives.

Again, it being a food system reformer love fest the discussion continued to feel uplifting an encouraging (and I can’t say that wasn’t appreciated). Michael Pollan laid out his idea of the Sunshine Agenda, getting food off oil and back on solar power- shocking concept really.

Ultimately, the next administration is unknown so the question of what it should do on food issues was a little open ended and the conversation was all over the map. Eventually it got down to the responsibility of the consumer and, since it was held on a college campus, how to get involved. (Dimock encouraged everyone to work in DC, so props to the Blumenauer team for your hard work).

The take home message for me was not so much about the role of the president, but really about our personal role as consumers. Even, actually I think especially, during a time of great economic uncertainty it is crucial to support the positive aspects remaining in our food system and resist buying into cheap food. We need to convince producers that the bottom line is health and fairness, not cheap calories. Cheap food pays companies who only pay their workers enough to buy more cheap food and we see no progress.

As I try to demonstrate in previous and future posts there are ways to buy into better food by being aware of what you buy, what you cook, and the ways in which these two things can save you money in other areas even though, yes, you may in some cases have spent more on the actual food.

The more of us that do this the more of an impact it will have.

On that note, one more point made at this talk was the call to have the next president turn the White House lawn into a functional organic kitchen garden. More about that can be read here with TheWhoFarm folks and their wacky bus (Which I saw outside the Obama Office in my neighborhood and assumed it was a Burning Man piece)

So, with a eye towards all these issues, Vote with Your Fork at your next shopping trip and Vote on election day.

                          

My reason for bringing this up isn’t about telling people donuts are unhealthy or criticizing people for drinking arguably shitty coffee. It’s that Dunkin Donuts (and all fast food, Starbucks, Mcdonalds, etc.) contributes to the problems Ms. Ray’s nonprofit is explicitly trying to address- that almost a third of American children are obese because sugary salty processed fast food is more accessible to children than healthy food or home cooked meals.

 (a picture of health, esp. that Styrofoam cup)

People eat there and that’s fine to an extent- but what really frustrates me is that we are supposed to reserve criticism for these places and their patrons because they are more affordable than healthy food. So we should support fast food because it feeds the poor? This is unacceptable right? Can we take a step back and see the ways in which these places contribute to the problem of access rather than being the only viable solution to feeding low-income families? How much does Dunkin Donuts pay their workers? Do they have reasonable pay and hours in order to provide home cooked meals for their families? Does any of the money spend at Dunkin Donuts stay in the community in which its located? Do any rural farm families profit from the eggs or wheat sales? Likely no, for any chain.

They may have a 300 calorie sandwich but they are not making any real difference in issue that 1 in 5 kids in the US face food insecurity (from Ray’s site) and almost a third are obese (how these overlap is another matter).

People are so quick to defend these products for the “regular, everyday folks who keep America running”, but they fail to see the ways in which the profits from these products contribute to the larger problems our communities face. It’s important not to be too idealogical about your own or other’s food choices, but when it comes down to the ways in which these choices impact us generally- e.g. the annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion, who pays for the landfills for all those styrofoam cups, do workers at these places rely on public programs for health care- then I think we have a right to look at the bigger picture and get a little nitpicky with those who have an audience and money to make a difference.

                          

 (note the eggs should actually be beaten before going in, but I took artistic license)

Making pasta, I have now learned is not hard at all. It’s not convenient or fast, but it certainly isn’t hard. But guess what else it is? Cheap! Yes. Homemade pasta from local organic flour and local organic cage free eggs is cheaper than organic dried pasta from italy or who knows where.

It breaks down like this: Eggs are ¢21 a piece. The super nice local flour feels like a lot at $12 for a 7lb bag, but it comes down to ¢51 per cup. One batch of pasta can be made with 1 egg and 1 c flour. Try buying delicious fresh pasta for ¢72

Toothsome eh?

Note on the shrimp and any previous or future meals with beautiful seafood. A main purpose of the Goods are Odd is about living Mind to Mouth. This is about using your gray matter to come up with rational and creative solutions to the problem of health and healthy food being seemingly limited to those with significant income. Rational and creative sometimes includes luck. Everyone seems to have their lucky hook-ups in one part of life or another. A lot of times in communal settings there is a good deal of sharing because no one has much except what they can offer through their job or family or other hobbies. Ours happens to be a hook up with delicious, fresh, sustainable fish. Are you reaching out to those around you and sharing the hook-ups you have in possible return for others? This requires talking to and connecting with your neighbors and co-workers, or potential friends on the internet and often being the first to be generous.

                          

Here are two that turned out well. The first with a few things from the garden and the second have only vegetables exclusively grown in our backyard!

The zucs and snap peas are from the front yard. This was when our backyard was just getting going. Eggplant and bok choy from the one super cheap booth at the farmer’s market. Have you found this booth at your market? They don’t have a name or apprenticeships or goddess hippie girls working for them. It’s just a couple (though only one shows up to each market, they go to at least two per week, maybe more) and their teenage kid growing enough veggies to sell close to cost and make it work. They sell a lot of asian cooking greens and veggies perfect for stir fry. (including bitter melon which we thought we could handle putting in, but totally wimped out) We love them and always stock up there- checkout the simple booths at your market in case you have this bargain gem.

Let’s see, we’ve got the bok choy, eggplant, zuc, carrot, onion, snap peas, oyster mushrooms (also from the market at $3-$4 per pint, not exactly dirt cheap but also the only thing of much cost in this vegan dish except my next favorite…) cashews,

and tofu which was marinated and then broiled in a baking pan. The marinade came out before the tofu went in and helped to cook the veggies and stew up those cashews which are such a treat!

I resisted this, but a house guest insisted we be included with the shot of our produce.

Not an overflowing bounty but a little effort in the garden goes a long way in the pan. Pretty nominal cost for a dinner for three, with leftovers to spare.

                          

However, taking a step back from the low prices reveals the true costs of the current food animal production processes. More and more we are becoming aware of the external costs of the things we consume. We are becoming more critical about what we are really paying for- what did the company have to do to save me money on this product and am I in fact going to pay the difference somewhere else?

According to the Commission’s report, Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) saves money by disregarding public health, environmental realities, animal welfare, and the economic well-being and quality of life of the communities in which they operate. While consumers benefit at the check-out line from these cost-cutting measures, we make up for the savings dealing with the problems these measures cause. Not to mention the distortion of price created by subsidies.

This Washington Post article (which links to the Commission’s full report) identifies…that the “economies of scale” used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs.

While the Commission limits its recommendations to those that are realistically achievable through the current system it is clear that the ultimate goal is to transition to a completely different system, based not on the guidelines of industry but of ecology.

It should be clear by now that arguments to maintain the status quo of the food animal production system in the interest of keeping down prices are untenable. It is clear that as prices go down, larger societal costs go up. As The Post states, the viability of the present system is suspect and the Commission’s report can make a clear case that, indeed, organic, local food systems would not only relieve problems in the three areas addressed by the report, but also have a positive impact on national and international food insecurity and rising costs. Because instead of relatively poor and sick people paying corporations low prices for industrially produced food we would have moderate income, healthy people buying food from their healthy, economically stable farmer neighbors.

This is the concept of food sovereignty, and it is gaining support and momentum, particularly because of its grassroots, low-income focus (rather than say the slow food movement which is more focused on foodies and people who are already familiar with and can afford or choose to buy into the local and organic systems)Food First, an established food think tank here in Oakland, provides a useful follow-up to the Commission’s statement in a explanation of their work in building local agri-foods systems:

Dismantling the industrial agri-foods complex at the local food system level must be accompanied by the construction of alternatives that suit the needs of small-scale producers and low-income consumers, worldwide. Farmers Forging Food Sovereignty focuses on farmer alternatives to corporate control over production and consumption. (more here)

Numerous examples of the viability of local food systems exist from the thriving farmer’s markets to this very local neighborhood micro-market in East New York. How food animal production would look on this scale is another question- it’s much more desirable to grow tomatoes on an empty city lot than process animals for meat. (Upddate: Meat CSA’s!) But a scaling down of the present system is clearly necessary and total-cost effective.