In her TED talk, Dr. Vandana Shiva claims she learned 2 lessons from her experience working as a volunteer in the Chipko movement: “First, that nature is not out there; we are a part of it. […] Second, that protecting nature is not a luxury”. Both of these statements demonstrate that everything is interconnected, locally and globally. As part of nature, our actions and decisions affect the surrounding environments and communities. Many people who live in vast urban cities feel disconnected from nature because they do not see it daily. They associate “nature” to the rural expanses outside of the city. They are unaware of the intricate connections they form with nature by purchasing food. Shiva’s talk attempts to break that illusion and foster more responsible eating decisions.

 

“Protecting nature is not a luxury”

This statement had a strong impact on me because I taught environmental justice issues in a low-income middle school in Baltimore. After class, I used to think that the information I shared with them would not help them as adults. Surely, they would have more important issues to deal with than pollution (like finding a job, getting health care…). I learned that environmental degradation is a middle class issue in my first Sustainability course. As I discovered more about Baltimore and the students I was teaching, I realized that protecting nature might be one of their most important priorities. Most of them suffer from asthma (or know someone who does). Thus, they lack access to clean air that can prevent pulmonary diseases. Perhaps the end of that statement should be: “Protecting nature is not a luxury, it’s a necessity”. For the poor communities who suffer the most from pollution and climate change, living in a healthy environment is essential.

 

This statement also reminded me of the “chicken game” developed and developing nations are playing in terms of taking action against climate change. Several developing countries believe that because they did not cause the damage, they should not reduce their emissions. They view mitigation as a luxury that Western nations can afford because they have reached a certain level of development. These arguments foster inaction and prevent humanity from acting together towards a global common goal.

 

Shiva concludes by saying: “Every time you eat, you can make a massive change”. By choosing holistic over industrial food, we are making the baby steps necessary for real change. One of my environmental science professors in Bolivia once said: “Every step against climate change is a step in the right direction”. We must recognize the importance of small sustainable choices and work as a community towards global change.

Holt-Giménez explores racism and capitalism within the food movement. He claims that we should explore the intersection of capitalism and racism and how global supermarket oligopolies prevent certain populations from accessing healthy food. In short, “the food system cannot be changed in isolation from the larger economic system” (3). This sentence resonated with me as I believe that we should explore the relationships between local and global food networks. It is not sufficient to simply address an issue on a purely local scale as this will only benefit a select group of people. When we met last summer in San Francisco, he explained to us how Food First provides support to community-based food movements and organizations. (He was one of our guest speakers in the IHP Climate Change: The Politics of Food Water and Energy program I participated in last fall).

Holt-Giménez’s commentary reminded me of a reflection I had about a week ago. On our second “fifth day”, we visited the Berry Center in New Castle, KY. Having little to no prior knowledge on farmers’ economic situations in rural Kentucky, I learned a lot from this experience. Mary Berry provided extensive information on the economic hardships her region is facing. For those who are not familiar, Kentucky is loosing farmland at a faster rate than any other state. Farmers are becoming poorer as fewer people choose to stay in rural areas. Mary Berry believes that part of the solution is for more young people to become farmers and for everyone to eat local. Personally, I do not feel like this addresses the issue of food injustice and racism. Few people have the luxury of having access to local food. Simply buying local will not uproot the social, economic, and political foundations of the globalized capitalist market. In the words of Agyeman, “In many circumstances, the food justice movement operates to reject the neoliberal mechanisms that dominate today’s food system, but simultaneously needs to operate within this system (to a degree) in order to exist” (211). Rejecting the global supermarket structure by only buying local is not sufficient to create real sustainable change. Food injustice and racism is a global issue, so we should explore global solutions.

In “An Eater’s Manifesto”, Pollan defines several rules of thumb to help readers “just eat food”. He believes that many of the things we eat today are not actually food. Today’s supermarkets are filled with processed items. While I agreed with some of his claims, I had more difficulties with others. For example, Pollan first declares “don’t eat anything your great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food”. As someone who never met either of my great grandparents, I had trouble coming to terms with this statement. I had to think about what I knew about them. On my French side, one of my great grandmothers gave birth to fourteen children in her lifetime. Essentially, she was pregnant for most of her life. My other great grandmother died of the Spanish flu in the early 1900s. On my Filipino side, my great grandparents had completely different diets due to their culture. Thinking about my personal background led me to establish 3 issues with Pollan’s rule. First, the dietary needs of individuals evolve over time. A woman who is constantly pregnant will have a different diet than one who is not. Second, I am not convinced that the food my second French great grandmother ate was healthier than what we find now. At the time, food was organic, but not as sanitary as it is now. What she might consider to be normal food could be filled with harmful bacteria. Finally, I believe this rule negates the effects of culture on dietary choices. I know for a fact that neither of my great grandparents would recognize any of the names in the supermarket. I even wonder if any of the items they used to eat still exist because of the wide age gap and cultural differences.

As you can see, I was quite critical of Pollan’s claims at the beginning of my reading. My perspective changed toward the end of the section. I was happy to see that several of the final rules of thumb focused on the importance of tradition, self-control, and slow eating. One of the rules is to eat at a table (“No, a desk is not a table” (192)). This sentence stood out for me because I realized that I often eat meals at my desk while watching Netflix. Before I left for college, I always shared lunch and dinner with either friends or family. In college, it slowly became a habit for me to eat alone in front of a screen as my friends’ schedules were so different. I believe this rule was designed for an American/Western public. After studying abroad in Vietnam, Morocco, and Bolivia, I realize that eating food is a shared experience in many cultures. In the US, however, we often rush through our days, forgetting to take the time and enjoy the experience. Eating should not simply be a daily task, but an opportunity to truly enjoy food and have conversations with other people.