Michael Pollan’s emphasis on whole food stuck out to me. Particularly important though was his analysis of nutritional advice in the promotion of foods, which break down the whole food and focus on its component parts.

The growing gluten-free fad has increased availability and knowledge around celiac and enabled those with this untreatable autoimmune deficiency to lead a more normal and stress-free lifestyle. The gluten-free label serves as an allergy warning for myself and others with celiac disease, but for the large majority of gluten-free consumers, it is interpreted as nutritional advice.

Not until now have I considered the similarities between claims for products that are “gluten-free” and “low-fat” (for example), but I think the connection is relevant and should be explored. Just as people choose “low-fat” items because of the perceived health benefits, gluten-free often leads people to believe that they are eating healthy too; however, gluten-free is by no means synonymous with nutrition or good health. If anything, foods labeled as gluten-free are likely the exact opposite. Foods that make this health claim are almost always higher in sugar, contain additional (often unknown and unpronounceable) ingredients, and cost more. By removing the gluten, these items are added to compensate–similar to most packaged food and especially those that make nutritional claims.

By claiming items are “gluten-free” most people neglect to consider what is in the food as an alternative to gluten. By focusing on the individual ingredients and nutritional components in the food, and not the food as one whole entity, we neglect to consider what else is in our food. This is a product of fragmented nutritional advice/thinking and the inability to recognize that “the whole of a dietary pattern is evidently greater than the sum of its parts” (Pollan, 178).

I was particularly interested in how both Wendell Berry and Michael Pollan see “Eating Responsibly,” as Berry puts it, as a democratic act. Berry states, “we cannot be free if our food and its sources are controlled by someone else.” He says that it is part of your free will and a democratic right to choose your food based on the fact that you know and trust where it comes from. It is unfortunate that in this day and age this right is neglected, and most people do not even think about trying to reclaim it. Berry regretfully writes that most Americans have lost touch with the agricultural roots of their food. They don’t know where their food comes from, and passively accept the foods that are marketed at them.

Pollan makes the connection to Wendell Berry by quoting his phrase, “eating is an agricultural act.” He expands on the point encouraging people to give their food dollars to producers who emphasize values such as the quality and health of their food. Pollan asks consumers to make active choices about what foods they spend their money on, and asks that consumers make the choice to spend more money for better quality food.

But the type of food empowerment that Berry and Pollan speak of is not available to everyone. Pollan admits, “not everyone can afford to eat high-quality food in America, and that is shameful; however, those of us who can, should.” He argues that by voting with your fork and spending more money on good quality food, you can support the people who produce these foods.

I personally make the types of choices that Pollan encourages because I want to eat what is best for both my body and the land. I am not convinced, however, that by making these choices myself I am helping other people besides the producers I am directly supporting. I hope that if I and other vote with our forks, we will help local, organic, small food producers (from farmers to small companies) expand their businesses. I hope that once these businesses have grown, their food will become more affordable and available to a broader range of people.

(Courtesy of Petr Kratochvil)

The first time I drove through Vermont, every road felt picturesque. Rust-colored barns, grain silos and animals grazing in the grassy pastures reminded me of the classic American farm consistently depicted in paintings, films and other media. I’d like to believe all livestock lived on farms like the one I saw and had a similar diet, but unfortunately I know that’s not the reality.

The majority of cattle raised for meat and milk production is kept in feedlots and receive grain instead of grass for sustenance. While this alteration might seem like an inconsequential change-up, it can actually impact the nutritional benefits, quality of life for the animal and the final product.

According to the Washington Post, cows fed exclusively grass will have higher concentrations of vitamins A and E and contain less fat. In fact, omega-3 levels will be almost 50 percent higher in grass-fed beef.

The same holds true for milk. “Grass-only” and organic milk also have higher levels of omega-3s and the market has been steadily growing for it—despite its greater price tag.

“Grass-only” milk, the cows receive an almost exclusively grass diet, and in order for milk to receive a USDA certified organic label, the cows must get least 30 percent of their diet from grass and graze for more than 120 days a year in a pasture.

If you are a beef-eater, the taste of exclusively grass-fed meat may be better too. Some have said it can be chewier, but it will maintain a superior flavor compared to other types of grain fed cows.

The taste and added nutrients aren’t the only benefits from a grassier diet. If animals, like cows, are fed too much seed they will become sick and require antibiotics, according to Michael Polan. Low-dose antibiotics used in feed to ward off infection can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria and substantial public health issues.

There is, however, some debate over whether or not a feed-based diet is better for the planet. Beef production all in all is not environmentally friendly.  In the United States about 30 million cattle were slaughtered in 2014 alone, and raising those cows creates a substantial amount of methane.

Some argue raising cows in feedlots allows can help manage the methane, but it’s unclear if it actually makes a substantial difference in the environment. Either way, the best way to help the environment would be to consumer less animal products altogether. There may also be some health benefits associated with a diet with more veggies and less meat.

Overall, it’s almost no question that eating a healthier diet makes us healthier, so why shouldn’t the same hold true for cows? If a diet of too much grain and seeds can make cows and can even make them sick, shouldn’t that be a red flag for a consumer? To me, paying the premium for grass fed is worth it.

 

While I was reading the selected material for this week, I couldn’t help but relate the “unknowledgeable eater” to myself, as bad as they may sound. I found that in the past I have effortless grocery shopped and mindlessly eaten many meals without really knowing or caring where each ingredient came from, or if it was even natural or not chemically touched. I found myself just wanting the easy satisfaction of a quick and somewhat pleasing meal. Throughout the course of college and especially after receiving this internship I have now experienced and researched more on food systems and what we are even eating.

Starting my job this week at Bread for the City in D.C. has been a huge eye-opening experience. I have been in their orchard and up on a rooftop garden planting, harvesting, weeding, and watering for hours. It has shown me how much work has to go into our food, but how amazing hard work pays off in the end. I recently got to take home a squash that I had tended to and when I put it in my salad that night I was proud of the little thing. I noticed the taste and really was excited about the fact that I knew exactly where the little guy came from and also that I had picked weeds from his surroundings and watered him everyday. It put a new perspective on making a salad for dinner.

It also has opened my eyes to restaurants that offer local and fresh foods. Now when I see that option on a menu I find myself thinking of the local workers like myself that help harvest and produce fresh produce and meats. I think that having a hand in agriculture and this process has made me really appreciate my food and where it directly comes from. I for sure wont take local food for granted anymore and will be so thankful to go to restaurants that have these kinds of food options.

I think that throughout the summer I will continue to grow and develop skills of becoming a part of agriculture and seeing how just being mindful of what we eat and bring to the table, that we will be more happy with our meals and over all ourselves. It makes me really excited to continue being a part of the agricultural system and also makes me ambitious to, even when summer is over, carry out maintaining a garden or even a few small plants.

Carlo Petrini asks us three things, “is it good?”, “is it clean?” and “is it fair?”. Indeed, these are all crucial questions that one must ask, and seek sound answers, in order to make thoughtful decisions concerning food. However, I think Petrini overlooks an important aspect of the slow nation, which is how fast the transition to “slow” takes place. It appears, unless I missed it in the text, that for Petrini there is no timeline that a wide spread transition must take place. Perhaps it is hard to determine an exact date, but scientific data of almost irreversible damages to the environment and potential points of no return of carbon emissions, alongside ever increasing social and economic gaps suggest that we have to implement wide spread change much more quickly than voluntary business as usual.

Petrini does address criticism to international organizations such as the World Bank and their harmful practices, which would suggest a possible policy intervention for the better, but it seems that the underlying message is that pressure to change the situation should be spearheaded from consumers and their market power. While I do not take away the power of market choices and how companies react to them, I am in favor of simultaneous political efforts, both domestic and foreign, to change the harmful practices of individuals, corporations and governments.

The problem is that policy changes themselves are easier said than done, as different stakeholders make it easier or harder depending on the goal. A part from constant conflict between interest groups, a lot of initiatives end up being voluntary. I believe that voluntary initiatives are one of the worst possible outcomes: policymakers can say they made progress and businesses and individuals are given the choice, thereby upholding their right of autonomy. And the outcome? Usually very little change has occurred as we’ve seen with several initiatives over the past decades. Petrini has included many examples of the damages of our current international market systems, so why wait and let more damage take place?

I believe the solution must be policy interventions that mandate practices, and not allow voluntary compliance. Unfortunately the word ‘mandatory’ is avoided at all cost when addressing the topic of sustainability and food systems. Other sectors of society ‘happily’ accept mandatory practices: every car must have seat belts, as well as a catalytic converts since the 70s, fire protection systems at homes, and many more examples. So, instead of relying on voluntary consumers and their ability to purchase good, clean and fair food, let’s focus on designing mindful policy that will mandate good, clean, fair and immediate changes to our food systems.

Amongst the various readings assigned for this week I found a common trend to the idea of “slow food”. The slow food movement seemed to discover, or rediscover the benefit of a greater knowledge or closeness to the sustenance that we put into our bodies. It’s definitely another movement that appears as if it is highlighting a revolutionary way of thinking or acting, when in reality what is happening is just a regeneration of practices that were the standard in previous times. For example, Michael Pollan describes one of his ‘rules’ of eating as “don’t eat anything with an ingredient your grandmother hasn’t heard of”. While this succinct advise leaves out some important subtleties, it gets the point across that the slow food movement is not something entirely new.

As Pollan and Petrini emphasize, today’s food industry involves a lot more ignorance and distance – we buy food from a grocery store possibly 15 minutes away from our home, but the distance the banana we bought for breakfast might be ten fold. In addition, one has to sift through a whole slew of smoke and mirrors when it comes to deciding what food strays away from the industrial feedlot standard. One of the talks I attended at the Slow Living Summit this Thursday revealed that many cereal companies purposefully put BoxTops (a cause that supposedly helps raise money for schools) on only their most sugar packed cereals. There are marketing ploys everywhere to make people think that food has some sort of special benefit.

Pollan’s very succinct and marketable set of rules aids in this struggle, however the trade off to the easily translatable advice is the lack of depth and detail they provide. Encouraging everyone to do their grocery shopping at farmers markets is a rather idealistic approach because it leaves out the topic of food justice, and suggesting that we should rarely eat meat lacks different cultural perspectives. Given these deficiencies I personally preferred Petrini’s categorical approach to judging the quality of food.

Carlo Petrini named three major categories for the expectations of food: good, clean, fair. As he outlines it, using these broader headings allows for a more ‘knowledgeable’ and informed perspective by which to judge food and food culture. I think another term that could be added to this list is “real”, mostly because it is something I am familiar with due to my work with Middlebury’s EatReal club. The Real Food Challenge describes this sort of food something that fits into two of the following for categories: local, fair, humane, or ecologically sound. Because categories like humane or sustainable have been well defined, one can compare the food they are purchasing to such categories in order to make a more informed decision for themselves. For example, if I learn that a box of strawberries has traveled from large monoculture, pesticide fed farm in Ecuador I can realize that this food does not fall into the categories of “local” or “ecologically” sound. From this point I probably won’t be buying the strawberries. What I believe I’m amounting to is the importance of knowledge and experience that the slow food movement highlights. Food has so much more of a journey, and requires so much more effort than a simple plate to mouth trip.