Dear Mr. President,
"Corn Sugar" might be my new phrase for anything attempting to improve its image with a benign name. Like Blackwater becoming Xe or torture becoming "enhanced interrogation", the high-fructose corn syrup industry would like to have their product renamed into something slightly more suggestive of sunshine and real food. I'm not really a huge fan of marketing in general, but especially not when it comes to food. The deceptive practices many companies use to encourage consumption are incredibly manipulative. While ultimately we are all responsible for the food choices we make, I don't think companies should make it harder for a consumer to know what, exactly, is in the food they are consuming. That being said, I really don't care what HFCS is called.
HFCS is used primarily in items I don't consume; processed foods, sweetened beverages, and the kinds of candy I didn't even like as a child. I've still never had a Coca Cola, but popular opinion among my well-traveled friends is that Coke tastes better in countries where cane sugar is still used to sweeten it. While one might not have to look very far to see the potential health risks of HFCS consumption, my objection to the substance has nothing to do with it being better or worse for you than sugar. HFCS is popular with the makers of processed food because it is cheap and it is cheap because of the way corn is grown and subsidized in this country. HFCS's real danger is not in its consumption but its environmental, social and economic impacts. When it costs less and is more convenient for me to buy a jar of tomato sauce sweetened with corn than a decent-tasting tomato, well, that's when I get really angry. (Friends can surely attest that I take my tomatoes way too seriously.)
Our nation's health would surely improve if we lowered the amount of sweeteners we consumed overall. Our planet's health would likewise benefit from a complete overhaul in the way we raise our crops. If changing the name from corn syrup to "planet-killing cancer-causing death juice" is the way to accomplish that, well, I'll be the first to start editing the Wikipedia page. I think an informed consumer doesn't need to worry about what a substance is named, so long as they have all the information available to understand the impact their purchase will have on their own health and the health of the planet. What we need more than anything is a national food system that makes healthy food choices the easiest and least expensive options, that encourages sustainable agricultural practices and fair wages for agricultural workers. A food system that places the overall health of our nation above efficiency and profit. Until we change the way we produce and consume food as a society, we're just going to keep getting fatter and sicker while the planet gets hotter and the poor get poorer. Anything else is just corn sugar.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Michael Pollan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Pollan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Day 59
Dear Mr. President,
Tonight on the TV at my gym I noticed that the reporter was talking about the results of your physical. It must be incredibly surreal having to have your cholesterol numbers reported in the press. Anyway, I've been trying to make it to the gym more often lately, a new years resolution that I haven't kept as well as I'd hoped. I'm not sure what my cholesterol levels are, but, good or bad, I definitely wouldn't want to hear about them in the news. I'm sorry our culture is so strange.
When I got home, I was still thinking about health, so I decided to check out the First Lady's "Let's Move!" site. I thought most of the information seemed to be very common-sense, but I probably wouldn't have felt that way before I'd been exposed to Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman's books about food politics. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative seems like a great idea. The convenience store in my neighborhood is one of the few that carries fresh produce and a variety of cooking staples, and I've often wished that more convenience stores could be this way. But I don't think this initiative is going to go far enough to make healthy food affordable and convenient.
Mr. President, I love eggs. Eggs are a major obstacle between me and an entirely vegan diet. I was very strict about only buying the eggs from a local farm that my co-op carries. They were pretty expensive- $6+ a dozen- but I knew the chickens that produced them were not abused or mistreated, were fed organic feed, and had the freedom to run around and act like chickens, and that my money was supporting local farmers, so it was worth it. These eggs had different colored shells, bright orange yolks, and were easily the best-tasting eggs I'd ever had. I think that, when eating food that comes from animals, it is always healthier and tastier if the animals got to live happily, like animals, not like commodities in a factory. Unfortunately, last week the co-op had a sign up saying the eggs will no longer be for sale, because the farm has had to shut down, due, in part, to the rising costs of organic feed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a system that subsidized farms like this one? That made it easier for every one to have access to the healthiest and freshest food, with the least environmental impact? I think that more people would buy organic food if it were less expensive, and I think the farm subsidies would be better spent encouraging organic farming practices, which would lower prices. Instead of paying for large farms to grow tons of corn and soy that end up as cheap chemical additives in processed food, shouldn't our tax dollars go toward making the healthiest foods also the cheapest and most widely available? I think that convenience is paramount to so many families that all the education in the world isn't going to change some people's dietary choices so long as eating healthy is still time and cost-prohibitive.
It appears to me, anyway, as though we're paying to create the problem and then paying more to try to solve it. I think the steps you're taking in the 2011 budget are commendable, I just don't know if it will be enough to reverse the effects of so many years of bad policy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tonight on the TV at my gym I noticed that the reporter was talking about the results of your physical. It must be incredibly surreal having to have your cholesterol numbers reported in the press. Anyway, I've been trying to make it to the gym more often lately, a new years resolution that I haven't kept as well as I'd hoped. I'm not sure what my cholesterol levels are, but, good or bad, I definitely wouldn't want to hear about them in the news. I'm sorry our culture is so strange.
When I got home, I was still thinking about health, so I decided to check out the First Lady's "Let's Move!" site. I thought most of the information seemed to be very common-sense, but I probably wouldn't have felt that way before I'd been exposed to Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman's books about food politics. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative seems like a great idea. The convenience store in my neighborhood is one of the few that carries fresh produce and a variety of cooking staples, and I've often wished that more convenience stores could be this way. But I don't think this initiative is going to go far enough to make healthy food affordable and convenient.
Mr. President, I love eggs. Eggs are a major obstacle between me and an entirely vegan diet. I was very strict about only buying the eggs from a local farm that my co-op carries. They were pretty expensive- $6+ a dozen- but I knew the chickens that produced them were not abused or mistreated, were fed organic feed, and had the freedom to run around and act like chickens, and that my money was supporting local farmers, so it was worth it. These eggs had different colored shells, bright orange yolks, and were easily the best-tasting eggs I'd ever had. I think that, when eating food that comes from animals, it is always healthier and tastier if the animals got to live happily, like animals, not like commodities in a factory. Unfortunately, last week the co-op had a sign up saying the eggs will no longer be for sale, because the farm has had to shut down, due, in part, to the rising costs of organic feed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a system that subsidized farms like this one? That made it easier for every one to have access to the healthiest and freshest food, with the least environmental impact? I think that more people would buy organic food if it were less expensive, and I think the farm subsidies would be better spent encouraging organic farming practices, which would lower prices. Instead of paying for large farms to grow tons of corn and soy that end up as cheap chemical additives in processed food, shouldn't our tax dollars go toward making the healthiest foods also the cheapest and most widely available? I think that convenience is paramount to so many families that all the education in the world isn't going to change some people's dietary choices so long as eating healthy is still time and cost-prohibitive.
It appears to me, anyway, as though we're paying to create the problem and then paying more to try to solve it. I think the steps you're taking in the 2011 budget are commendable, I just don't know if it will be enough to reverse the effects of so many years of bad policy.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Day 5
Dear Mr. President,
I just watched the First Lady's appearance on Iron Chef America. I've been so happy with her campaign for healthier eating habits- I lived in Washington DC for close to two years during the Bush administration, and I recall how difficult it was to get good produce in the city. Between the farmer's market and the White House garden, I think it is truly admirable how the First Lady uses her considerable abilities to influence what is fashionable and popular to encourage people to be healthier.
Shortly before the 2008 election, Michael Pollan wrote a letter to the next "Farmer-in-Chief" The points he makes about how food policy affects health and energy policies demonstrates how urgently we need comprehensive changes in the way we consume, grow and subsidize food in our country. Of course, government mandates about what and how we eat would not go over well with most Americans. Making eating choices that are environmentally and health-conscious is something that many Americans would not do if they felt forced to, but making such decisions fashionable is incredibly smart. The media is inevitably going to waste time obsessing over the First Lady's toned arms or what dress she wears with which shoes to meet which head of state, and I think it is brilliant that she has turned this obsessive attention into something positive. (Though so much inane coverage would probably still make a lesser person crazy.)
I wasn't always particularly conscious about what I ate. I've been a vegetarian my entire life, but in high school I thought that my mother's quest to find bread without high-fructose corn syrup was just one of her silly eccentricities. Now I get a weekly CSA produce box and irritate the hell out of my non-Pollan-groupie friends by reading the ingredient lists on everything we eat. I'll admit, this change has been largely due to the fact that I'm better off financially than I was before. Eating organic and cooking fresh food can be affordable, but for many it remains a hallmark of elitism. I do feel that this is an area where the government could be of more help. Shouldn't it subsidize food that results in less environmental damage and less strain on our health care system? Isn't that just common sense? Why would we pay for the industrial corn and soy that make us sick and is grown with chemicals that destroy the ecosystems of our farmland? I understand that altering the flow of that much money is difficult when the recipients have so much power and influence, but shouldn't our health be worth more than that?
Regardless of the steps our government might take to make it easier, I still feel the American people, and not our government, are largely to blame. We have to start voting with our dollars, or the industry will never be forced to change. I suppose this is why I'm so pleased about the First Lady's campaign. Our approach to food as a nation does need to be re-examined. The farm bill subsidies that make corn and soy by-products so cheap should be changed. But until our country is ready for that kind of drastic change, or responsible enough to decide to do what is best for our long-term health rather than our short-term gratification, I think making it trendy to eat organic vegetables is one of the best things any First Lady could do.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I just watched the First Lady's appearance on Iron Chef America. I've been so happy with her campaign for healthier eating habits- I lived in Washington DC for close to two years during the Bush administration, and I recall how difficult it was to get good produce in the city. Between the farmer's market and the White House garden, I think it is truly admirable how the First Lady uses her considerable abilities to influence what is fashionable and popular to encourage people to be healthier.
Shortly before the 2008 election, Michael Pollan wrote a letter to the next "Farmer-in-Chief" The points he makes about how food policy affects health and energy policies demonstrates how urgently we need comprehensive changes in the way we consume, grow and subsidize food in our country. Of course, government mandates about what and how we eat would not go over well with most Americans. Making eating choices that are environmentally and health-conscious is something that many Americans would not do if they felt forced to, but making such decisions fashionable is incredibly smart. The media is inevitably going to waste time obsessing over the First Lady's toned arms or what dress she wears with which shoes to meet which head of state, and I think it is brilliant that she has turned this obsessive attention into something positive. (Though so much inane coverage would probably still make a lesser person crazy.)
I wasn't always particularly conscious about what I ate. I've been a vegetarian my entire life, but in high school I thought that my mother's quest to find bread without high-fructose corn syrup was just one of her silly eccentricities. Now I get a weekly CSA produce box and irritate the hell out of my non-Pollan-groupie friends by reading the ingredient lists on everything we eat. I'll admit, this change has been largely due to the fact that I'm better off financially than I was before. Eating organic and cooking fresh food can be affordable, but for many it remains a hallmark of elitism. I do feel that this is an area where the government could be of more help. Shouldn't it subsidize food that results in less environmental damage and less strain on our health care system? Isn't that just common sense? Why would we pay for the industrial corn and soy that make us sick and is grown with chemicals that destroy the ecosystems of our farmland? I understand that altering the flow of that much money is difficult when the recipients have so much power and influence, but shouldn't our health be worth more than that?
Regardless of the steps our government might take to make it easier, I still feel the American people, and not our government, are largely to blame. We have to start voting with our dollars, or the industry will never be forced to change. I suppose this is why I'm so pleased about the First Lady's campaign. Our approach to food as a nation does need to be re-examined. The farm bill subsidies that make corn and soy by-products so cheap should be changed. But until our country is ready for that kind of drastic change, or responsible enough to decide to do what is best for our long-term health rather than our short-term gratification, I think making it trendy to eat organic vegetables is one of the best things any First Lady could do.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
