One of the reasons I’ve been so fascinated with the issue of raw milk—I didn’t, after all, launch this blog as a “raw milk blog”—is that it is a proxy issue affecting a variety of food and health issues.
The debate taking place on my two previous posts provides additional confirmation. Before explaining, I must say that I find some of these discussions so amazingly articulate and well thought through that I feel like I’m on intellectual overload after reading through them.
To me, much of the recent discussion can be related to the emerging issue of world food shortages and price rises. There was a fascinating Wall Street Journal article last week arguing that the problem of food shortages and rising prices can be partially blamed on small dairies in New Zealand. If only they listened to economists, and allowed the necessary billions in investment, there could be less land devoted to pasture and more huge confinement dairies that would be more “productive,” helping solve the problem of high food costs.
The WSJ’s implied argument—if only you’d give up your silly little farms—is similar to the argument made by concerned2 in a comment on my previous post: “I think there would be a swell of support from many in public health looking for solutions to chronic disease, obesity, and poor nutrition problems that plague the poor and disenfranchised populations in the inner city in the US (due in part to limited access to affordable, nutritious food). Maybe CDC and others would even pony up funds. But, if such proposals include ‘raw dairy products,’ the unfortunate reality is that the controversy over food safety (and hot button situation with raw dairy) could eclipse and end an otherwise wonderful effort.”
In other words, give up this craziness about raw dairy, and everything becomes possible with regard to “affordable, nutritious foods,” including “an otherwise wonderful effort,” whatever that is.
But, of course, we have enough experience now to know what they have in mind when they throw around euphemisms like “improved productivity” and “solutions to chronic disease.” They want more of the same. More confinement dairies with their sick animals and pollution. Fewer small farms and less pasture feeding. More processing to eliminate all bacteria and enzymes. More commoditization. Ever less emphasis on locally grown food and the community it encourages. More regulations to control what foods farmers can produce and sell. In the end, cheap and ever-less-nutritious food.
They shake their heads, yes, in favor of more locally produced food, but when push comes to shove, the economists, agriculture officials, and public health people see food as just another commodity, like oil and copper. Simply produce more of it at lower cost, with more regulation for “safety.”
But we here in the U.S. have been to the other side of the mountain. And now we are left to literally battle against all the power the state can throw at us—police stings, surprise raids, undercover agents—for the simple right to drink milk and eat butter and yogurt that hasn’t been treated according to a faceless bureaucracy’s dictates. I sure hope other countries follow the lead of New Zealand’s dairy farmers, while they still have the leverage. Tell the money men and economists what they can do with their grand food plans.
Wow, I was a little surprised that comment…
The WSJs implied argumentif only youd give up your silly little farmsis similar to the argument made by concerned2 in a comment on my previous post: …..In other words, give up this craziness about raw dairy, and everything becomes possible with regard to affordable, nutritious foods, including an otherwise wonderful effort, whatever that is.
made it into a journal entry. First, I have no agenda against small (or big) farming. The issues transcend both, and the people involved are mostly sincere in their efforts.
Your original article and subsequent post about bringing healthy, fresh foods to the inner city stuck a cord. To some extent, I was talking out of my burro (being too optimistic and excited about the concept–in reality, raw milk isn’t my primary concern, and Darth is not a lab tech LOL). Why can’t we spread school and community gardens around the planet? I loved the model you presented in the article. Like a breath of fresh air and a bit of hope, But, being cosmopolitan, I saw the raw milk agenda as a complication to this effort.
Look, I’ve sat in meetings listening to everyone’s agenda (from breast feeding to food stamps), and it never ends up with anything that could really help the poor populations that have nowhere to go except a fast food restaurant or quick stop. Promoting raw milk in the name of helping the poor looks like another AGENDA to ruin an otherwise wonderful effort, Frustrating.
To quote Ken again (hopefully not too much out of his original context):
"Scientists as well as all individuals are still marginalized and persecuted for daring to state an opinion or make choices that challenge the integrity of institutions and/or influential individuals with a reputation or agenda to protect."
C2
It’s a nice and worthy effort to provide people with nourishing, healthy food. We have a program in my state which allows the elderly to use food stamp vouchers to purchase food at farmer’s markets. Too bad this program hasn’t been extended to low-income families.
Fresh fruits and veggies are available at most farmer’s markets, but they won’t supply a family with complete nutrition. Until farmer’s markets can sell things like farm-raised meat, dairy and eggs, consumers will have to go elsewhere to finish their grocery shopping. This often defeats the whole purpose of a farmer’s market. The consumer doesn’t want to make an extra trip, and farmers are deprived of the good income provided by meat and dairy products as well as the diversity these can bring to their operation.
It would be great if we could combine the government subsidized efforts that are not working (food stamps), and find a new model to bring good nutrition with a lifestyle change, A lofty goal: but nothing gets done without high ambitions.
C2
The farmer direct marketing his or her products within xx miles (30,40,50 take your pick) of the farm should not come under any regulation. He or she is no serious threat to big ag or consumer health. Let the patrons decide. Period.
Government intervention often (not always) starts with the best of intentions, but history does not bode well for those who rely on the state.
Our food system is so deeply flawed, and so deeply embedded into our way of life, that there is no such thing as a quick solution. I articulated my ideas of a reasonable (long term) fix earlier on this blog that I would ask you to read. Go here for that:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/4/25/the-bigger-question-for-raw-milk-users-and-producers-should.html#comment1446272
I would also suggest that you read about Alice Waters. She is chipping slowly at the sharpest edges of the industrial food complex in the most creative ways. For a New York Times introduction to Ms. Waters, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/dining/19wate.html
What is so heartening to me about the notion of unencumbered access to local food as a solution to our food system degradation, is its sweet elegance. But that sense only appears when I look at the local results. Things turn sour when we realize that the local food movement will not be able to provide food for EVERYONE in the global market any time soon. But to that I say, So what! Do the right thing here and now, and it will spread. And if it does not, well, weve still done the right thing.
I love your idea of community gardens to help feed the poor.If you read the WSJ article that David referred to you will understand the problem.It begins with the definition of "productivity" .
"U.S. farms average 450 acres and generate more than $50,000 in annual output per worker. In China, 95% of farms are under five acres and generate an average of about $1,000 per worker, according to the United Nations."
If your goal is increased productivity and you define productivity in terms of output/worker,then eliminating workers jobs will increase productivity.That is where the poor people come from…this increase in "productivity".
When people try to establish community gardens,the soon find themselves struggling against the same forces that people who produce and consume unpasteurized milk are struggling with.
We all just want the peace and abundance that is possible when we are in control of our own lives.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=L.A.+community+garden+destruction&hl=en&sitesearch=
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5566090710532547108&ei=J2koSJuVAZm05AL1w5XYCQ&hl=en
This is the crux of their point of view. This wasn’t just some unfortunate consolidation, it was drastic depopulation of our countryside that destroyed the local economy and concentrated power in the hands of big agribusiness. Small town merchants didn’t just suffer, they went out of business in droves. All across the Great Plains states towns emptied out.
They make it sound like things are all rosy, their not. These bigger, better farms are worse. Their hard on the environment and can’t support their communities. They can’t even support the families that work them; many many farms across this country are supported by off the farm jobs. No one goes into farming anymore, farmers almost all discourage their children not to. No wonder the average age of farmers in this country is 55 years old.
The resurgence of local food is the only bright spot in farming today.
What they want for NZ is what happened to us.
Here is what no one is talking about in this world food crisis. The big issue in all these countries the last decade or so has been globalism, and how to adapt. But globalism is just another name for extending the industrial revolution to the third world. The result has been people leaving the farm and leaving the cottage industries for town jobs. All those cheap products we’ve been consuming have also been destroying their local economies; just like happened here. As a result all these countries that used to produce their food now need to import it.
But now the cheap food is no longer cheap, and all the people who used to grow their own but now buy can’t afford it.
Government moneys for agricultural research are diminishing, no doubt because it’s expected that Monsanto is to control all agriculture.
Instead, the government is the corporate goon squad, using its cloak of legitimacy and monopoly of force to go after the farmers who refuse to submit. Non-GMO dairy is the first non-compliant farming niche on the list, no doubt…. and the platform for test cases and honing their policing tactics.
The ironic aspect of the NZ example is that the grass grows all year ’round in NZ. The cows can eat grass 100% of the year there. There’s no need for confinement dairies, nor for hauling in unhealthy grains from elsewhere. The cows there are producing at the optimum rate for their normal, healthy living environment, which is why NZ is the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of dairy (and sheep). As long as the ratio of cows to pasture doesn’t exceed sustainability, this is the optimal milk production to be expected, unless they’re planning on mining the soil to depletion. As it stands, ‘aerial top dressing’ with fertilizer is already done to keep the grass growing.
The purpose of the school garden is far more than to grow one’s own lunch. It is of course a vehicle for science studies (including biology, sustainable agronomy, and local ecology), social studies, home economics, and more. Don’t discount the brain food grown in a properly managed school garden–it lasts much longer than the school year.
It seems to me that the griping about ineffectiveness of "small" solutions is rooted in a desire to see big, fast change in our food system. But that expectation is folly because the systems’ structure has far too much inertia. This will be a very long rebuilding process, and one of the first steps will be to educate about the realities of food production and its relationships to our health and our economy. Kathryn’s urban gardeners who continued to eat junk while their gardens were growing and producing show that to be true. They need to have their perspectives realigned with reality. The school garden does just that, by clearly demonstrating natural realities to impressionable minds. Many other small steps also help. This blog, Michael Pollan’s new book, the Weston A. Price Foundation, Joel Salatin, raw milk drinkers, and myriad sparks of sustainable-ag life here and there are working to change things over. It’s the only way. From the grass roots up.
I like your comments. Since America is fascinated with real life TV shows including cooking channels, I wonder if school gardens combined with culinary classes on cooking healthy home-grown (or locally produced, or shipped in from the countryside if it’s an intesely urban area) could be used to shift attitudes. It would be a slow process, but a young person could carry that attitude into the next generation if the idea stuck. I think there is a resistance to these type of programs is because they are expensive, time consuming (require educators and possibly parent involvement), and most importantly, they lack instant gratification (versus banning soda and other vending machines, for example).