In watching Winona LaDuke’s Ted Talk this evening, I found myself smiling and nodding at every passing point that I agreed with. I felt a connection with the insights of LaDuke because I found a great deal of similarities between her talk and the themes from my posts over the last couple of weeks. She calls for a deeper connection with the food that we eat. She tells the audience that food has meaning, culture, history, and cultivates special relationships between many different groups of people. I loved how LaDuke focused on simplicity in her talk. She focused on getting back to the basics, in which we start with one seed and let that one seed multiply into a multitude of seeds, which leads to greater agrobiological diversity.

I learned a great deal about how homogenous the food is that we are eating today. There is a decreasing amount of genetic diversity present in our food today. Today, “seven corporations control almost all of our seeds.” If we don’t start to take back our food, then the ramifications will be increased food-borne illnesses, disease, and diabetes, which is already starting to impact so many young children’s lives in this country.

LaDuke touched on climate change, which is most often overlooked when talking about our food even though it is perhaps the most important factor in the demise of crops across this country. Climate change is affecting our crops so drastically that we are losing so many crops every year to these extreme temperatures that are created through climate change. The death of crops leads to a drop in genetic diversity, which leads to a rising sense of food insecurity in this country.

The bottom line in my opinion is that food has history, and a story just like a human being. It is meant to be cherished not harmed. If there is a continued pattern of genetic engineering of food, and not a return to local, home grown organic food, then there will be a continued pattern of a lack of food diversity and crop failure, which will continue to lead to food disparity, health problems, and food insecurity that is steadily rising in this country.

 

I was struck by Dr. Vandana Shiva’s talk on “Solutions to the food and ecological crisis facing us today” because of her emphasis on the interconnectedness of bodies and soil. She talks about how nature is not “out there”, how environmentalism does not interfere with growth and how everything is interconnected. I think this emphasis on the interconnectivity is incredibly important. In our modern world of globalization (and with it specialization), too often we find ourselves thinking so narrowly that we end up treating the symptoms rather than causes (if we are lucky).

Dr. Shiva’s point about “if only we could think about circles and cycles” is incredibly powerful. What if instead of creating fish farms because the wild populations are so overfished we took a pause and examined the root cause of the depletion of fisheries? Would we not be better served thinking critically about how we got here to begin with rather than about what bandaid we are going to slap over our problems to mask them for today?

We need to take a step back and reflect. In our constant whir of information and cash flow pausing is becoming incredibly difficult. We are pressured to constantly be thinking two steps ahead. This pressure is very problematic and something that Dr. Shiva touches on: “Environmentalism cannot be considered the enemy of “progress.”” Viewing nature as something to be overcome is never going to work and feeling like we don’t have time to think about the systemic, underlying problems of our problems will never lead us to lasting, meaningful solutions as it ignores the cycles that will only keep on repeating if we do not examine the cause. There should always be a place in the conversation for food issues as “food is life.”

We think of ourselves as separate from the food movement or environmentalism if we are not out on the streets rallying or in the dirt planting; however, every single one of us partakes in this system through the simple act of eating. And it really is simple, to change these systems, to change our course, for those of us who are privileged enough to have a choice, all we need to do is take it one meal at a time.

Dr. Vandana Shiva, as any holistic thinker and visionary, recognizes the interconnected nature of the reality we are a part of. She doesn’t just recognize it, but as can be understood from her talk, she lives by it. Similar in how Winona LaDuke lives, and aspires her community to do the same. Nabhan, in describing the connection between former diet and land to the transition to fast food also hits home with the analysis of interconnected phenomena. While each one may be said to target different things, they all describe / shed light on important aspects of the connection between science and culture.

Science is usually propagated as the solution for every challenge life has for us, and phrases such as “we just need to be more efficient and the problem will go away” are constantly bombarded in policy discussions, classrooms and the media. The problem with the standard view of science is that it compartmentalizes everything, at least it tries to do so since the scientific revolution while overlooking important connection. And that is the heart of the struggle between science and culture, notably statistics and economics that determine different policy and business outcomes.

In other words, it can be argued that to solve the problems of climate change and the food system we need to (among other things) reevaluate not necessarily the conventional tools we use (statistics and economics) but the assumptions (world views) we hold while using them. As a simple illustration from the world of economics is the assumption that “X would happen if all else remains constant and only Y changes”. The underlying assumption is that it is possible for anything, everything almost, to remain constant. That couldn’t be farther from actuality, as all things are impermanent, and constantly change though in varying speeds, some noticeable immediately or over time, and some not noticeable at all in a given life time. Yet we still think that assumption to be true. In turn, that leads to a misunderstanding of cause and effect, which in turn leads to unfortunate and unpredicted, at least undesired, circumstances.

What some aspects of the week’s material express is the need to reevaluate our assumptions of connections and cause and effect. Hopefully, if achieved holistically, we could more away from lobbyists of any kind, and focus on finding the culturally appropriate scientific designs that will aid regions and communities in their regrowth.

During one of the first weekends of the Foodworks program, I found myself in a car with three other fellows from the Middlebury site discussing my thoughts on GMOs. It was an interesting conversation, and one that all of us in the car contributed to in a slightly different way even though we all seemed to be generally against their use, at least when it came to food products. I think I first started to think critically about GMOs and their role in the food system in one of my environmental studies classes at Middlebury, and I remember feeling so frustrated because while watching the two teams of students debate, the anti-GMOs team used only one argument throughout their presentation: the argument that there were potential health risks, and more time was needed to determine if GMO foods could be safely consumed. I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with this argument, but watching Winona LaDuke’s TEDx talk on native peoples and seeds and life prompted me to think back to the many other reasons why the prevelance of GMOs in our food system may be harmful.

I found her examples of groups of native people that have resisted genetic modification and patenting of some of their staple crops extremely interesting, and important when thinking about the topic of GMO foods not in isolation, but in their connection to arguments about local versus global food production and consumption. One of the common arguments for the use of GMO crops is that given the world population and the rate at which it’s growing, genetic modification will be necessary in order for enough food to be produced to feed all the hungry mouths. This argument first ignores supply chains and distribution, since availability of food and accessibility to food are different things. But this argument also ignores the way that food is tied to a way of life and a culture and a place. LaDuke describes how, even in a place with poverty, high levels of health problems, and limited access to healthy food, people are turning away from GMOs, recognizing the harms they cause, and returning to old methods of food production. In these instances, like on her reservation, the global arguments for GMO foods ignore the local arguments that tie a specific food to a specific place, and genetic modification would interfere with the strong cultural meanings that accompany eating certain foods. For instance, the tarrow plant in Hawaii is views as an elder relative by their cosmo-genealogy, and genetic modification would destroy this familial relationship. By returning to work in their sugarbush, planting three new (or rather old!) varieties of corn, and harvesting different varieties of squashes that can last through a long winter, the community on LaDuke’s reservation is tapping into existing food sources that can both sustain them with their nutrients and with their ties to their ancestors and historical way of life.

In terms of fairness, then, one of the suggested prompts for this week’s response, I think it’s important to be extremely wary of GMO use in general, and slow with their introduction in new situations, so that any impacts they may have are carefully thought through. For farmers who have a relationship with their seeds, it’s unfair for genetic modification to take away their ability to save seeds between years, thus cutting important cultural ties. In terms of food security, LaDuke’s talk explains how food availability and the nutrition absorbed into the body are not the same, in the same way that food availability today and food availability in a world affected by climate change are not the same. In all these ways, the local, the cultural, and the non-genetically modified play an important role, and one that all of these week’s pieces prompted me to think about in more depth.

In preparation for a summer dedicated to all things food, I had meticulously researched must eat places in the D.C. area before arriving. Family and friends’ recommendations, magazines’ top ten lists, instagram’s foodie feeds were all cross referenced with Yelp reviews to make sure I didn’t miss out on the next best thing in the local food world. Walking around the streets, my food bucket list has grown as I add new discoveries. “I just found the coolest new place…” is a recurring line in my conversations.

Last weekend, some Foodwork fellows and I dined at Keren Restaurant for a taste of Ethiopian food. Apparently, Ethiopian food is a must eat when in D.C. The restaurant received 4.5 stars on Yelp with reviews that declare the place: “one of the best authentic Ethiopian restaurants that D.C. has to offer.” Expectations were met above and beyond. I tried tibsi, enjera, and fuhl, all seasoned with spices and flavors completely new to my taste buds. The meal was even more delicious, because I felt like it was tied to a unique place that I could drum up in the mind’s eye.

Trubek’s exploration of terroir has made me question my recent experience. Terroir encompasses the culture, history, and landscape enrooted in place. Meals epitomizing terroir encapsulate the place’s complex narratives, its people’s stories, and the community’s traditions. All of which probably cannot be fully experienced in a 30 minute meal one Friday night.

Turns out Keren isn’t even Ethiopian. With further inquisition, I found out the restaurant actually serves Eritrean dishes. The two types of food are apparently very similar in taste. Yet, there are subtle differences: Eritrean dishes are typically lighter, there are more tomatoes, the spice blends differ.^2 Plus, Trubek’s terroir goes beyond taste. Eritrea has its own culture and history. In fact, Eritrea and Ethiopia have historically been enemies since Eritrean independence.

However, Keren has been branded on Yelp as Ethiopian,  probably because it’s good for business. The tourists want Ethiopian food. All of social media is telling the sight-seers of D.C. that they must try it. The tourists come, sit for 30 minutes to an hour, eat the food, and leave feeling culturally fulfilled and empowered to tell their friends that they branched out and tried something different. What they/I experienced was not Ethiopian culture or Eritrean culture, but some new blend created to please the American appetite and instagram feed. This is not terroir.

Are my explorations and obsessions with food discoveries belittling cultures? Am I ‘Columbusing,’ as some are now calling it?[1]

As a counterpoint, isn’t there some value left for discovery? I still tried something new; my tastebuds still exposed to distinct flavors currently lacking from my diet. Or how about fusion restaurants? The spirit of cooking lies in innovation, and cultural fusion dishes (like Mexican Korean tacos from Kogi as an example) have often led the way in American culinary discovery, expanding the recipe realm of possible tastes. Do small French coastal towns miss out by guarding their community too closely from new influences? I suppose the best thing to do is eat consciously and thoughfully. Mindful eaters go forth!

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/07/06/328466757/columbusing-the-art-of-discovering-something-that-is-not-new

2 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/36663/mild-frontier

 

 

“The dough for pie crust or biscuits… had to be neither too flabby nor too stiff; it was right when it felt right.” I couldn’t help but think about my grandma who has her own recipe for piecrust. As a matter of fact, last summer she taught me the “proper” way to make pie crust, which ended by two year boycott of homemade pie (At Thanksgiving a few years before I made three pies, all of which were terrible; luckily she was there and had a few pies to save dessert the most important meal of the year.) Any time I’m at her house she has a pie on hand and a few in her freezer downstairs.

 

The attention to detail in her cooking, along with the grandmother in Berry’s piece, is something I hope I am capable of one day. I don’t think many Americans, or at least younger Americans, have this culinary ability, which is tragic. Tragic because it has probably contributed to the growth in processed foods and knowing less and less about where our food comes from or even how to make certain foods.

 

Maybe if Americans paid more attention to the little details like the caramelized sugar on pie rust or the subtle flavor differences in maple syrup we would have a better relationship to food as a whole. Trying to understand the differences in something like maple syrup really forces an eater to slow down and appreciate what he or she is putting into their body: what is the difference? Why is there a difference? Maybe if I taste it again I will be able to better decipher the differences?

 

Again, time plays a key role in understanding the seemingly trivial components of food. An individual cannot rush through a wine tasting or sampling of maple syrup if he or she desires to truly appreciate that particular foodstuff. Furthermore, cooking or baking something with small details that really make a difference in a food item often time takes more time than one would think. Americans are always told we don’t have enough time, or that time is money, but that shouldn’t always be the case. We should invest more time into cooking and savoring flavors. Maybe it would force us to think about where our food comes from or other aspects that can really affect the flavor profile of a dish.

 

Recently, my employer was telling me the best way to get a consumer to enjoy a cherry is leaving the pits in; it forces the person to eat the pie slowly (so they don’t eat a pit), allowing the person to understand the way the pie tastes. She also said the same thing about fish with bones. Maybe making food a bit more of a hassle to eat is the key to making Americans think more about what is going into their bodies and where it comes from.