Eats and Value

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated in order to acknowledge its obviousness. I was reading a book once, and for the most part I have little recollection of what it was about. But one thing that has stuck with me from that book is that even if you say that you believe in something, only your actions can prove if that is really true. Real beliefs, beliefs that are rooted in values and how you understand the world, cannot just be ideas that you are fond of. Actions DO speak louder than words, and it is much more difficult to say something and follow through, than it is to simply say something.

This is something of which I have to regularly remind myself. In fact, I had to do this just yesterday.

There are things that I know about food production, and things that I don't. But one thing I do know is that if people don't grow food, I don't eat. I also know that it is hard for small farms to make a living, especially if they are using sustainable methods. These people need to charge more for their food if they want to make a profit. Big industrial farms are able to charge less, and create stiff competition for the little guys. I feel better knowing that my food was grown in ethical and sustainable ways, and that if I buy from these small farms I am NOT buying from big industrial farms. But sometimes it is just so hard.

Yesterday I went to the farmer's market in my neighbourhood that just opened. I had my shopping list, and I knew what I needed. Really, there is very little I enjoy doing on a cool Saturday morning more than going to the market, drinking coffee, and talking to vendors about their food. I love the smells, I love the people, but I do not love the price of the food. It's always hard for me to NOT buy something, so I usually do. But when I go to buy carrots and realize that they are twice as much as I would pay in the grocery store, my eyes bug out, and I grip my wallet just a little bit tighter. Breathing deeply, I reminded myself about half a dozen times why I was there in the first place: I want to know where my food comes from, cutting out the middle man is better for me, and it's better for this farmer, and I believe (there is the "B" word again) in what this place means for my community. The words "live what you believe" kept running through my head, and when I paid $6 for carrots that would normally cost me $3, I reassured myself that I was doing the right thing.

North Americans, over the past couple of generations, have turned to thinking that food is simply a commodity like any other instead of a way of life. People expect to pay somewhere around 9% of their income on food, when my grandparents spent roughly 18% to feed themselves. Our obsession with cheap, fast, convenient food has meant a serious reliance on food that is just cheap, often at the expense of small, sustainable farming, and environmental conservation. Depending on industrial large-scale farm production will do nothing of value for the world that we'll be passing on to the next generation, and I need to do something to try and change it.

Maybe the price I sometimes pay for food is a bit too much. Maybe I get ripped off sometimes, but the fact is that the money I do pay goes back to these farmers who deserve to live a life where they are comfortable financially; when it comes down to it, after all, they are helping me stay alive. The price I pay for their food is sort of a thank-you, and it's really much more personal than a "thank-you" paid in a big-box grocery store where I will never, ever meet the person that grew my food.

I spend relatively little on clothing, or on entertainment, or 'stuff', but I do choose to spend money on good quality food. Living what I believe is tough, but it is a commitment I've made, and I intend to keep it.

Feminism vs. Foodism

Recently I found myself a bit dis-heartened by a tidbit of trivia. I was out with some friends and eventually the conversation briefly turned to life expectancy rates for men and women. It has commonly been understood that women live longer than men by about six or seven years. Among the things that account for this is the fact that women have traditionally spent more time than men dealing with the "food" in families, be that shopping for food, planning meals, cooking, and so forth. Presumably, women, having taken the health of the members of their families into consideration, were more inclined to serve and eat nutritious things. Coupled with this is that many women were not susceptible to the stresses of the work-place, which aids in the maintenance of their overall health. This, however, seems to be changing.

First of all, women are working more than ever before. "Food" roles within families are more often split between two working parents. Inherently, this is not a bad thing at all. Personally I think it is fantastic that partners are sharing responsibilities! The emergence of modern-day "feminism," in whatever way you choose to define it (because no, there is not one single all-encompassing definition of the word), has meant society challenges gender roles more frequently. Advancing women's rights, and opportunities, hearing their voices, and allowing new opportunities has benefited society in a number of countless ways. Power on!

I titled this post "Feminism vs. Foodism" because to me it seems that these two concepts have somehow become mutually exclusive. I would like to say that I do not think this needs to be the case at all. With the rise of convenience food (because working mothers and fathers need to feed their hungry kids QUICK before someone starves!), the quality and nutrition of food has taken a back-seat to those home-cooked meals Grandma used to make. The hustle and bustle of working lives has meant a dependence on fast food, and an eat-on-the-run mentality. Food is merely fuel. The mothers of past generations, who were responsible for feeding their families, are no more.

I am not saying that mothers and wives should give up their jobs and "go back to the kitchen." In fact I would probably slap the person who was ever brave enough to suggest that to me. What I am saying is that with women being "relieved of their duties" nobody absorbed the duties of dedicating themselves to the immense task of ensuring family members had healthy, hearty, nutritious meals. The priority of food in people's lives was overshadowed by advancing careers, and busy lives.

I continue to believe that in almost every way, the advancement of "feminism" has bettered society in immeasurable ways. But the dwindling of the importance of food in society makes me wonder if anything else has been sacrificed. Luckily, this problem is easily solved - men AND women, mothers AND fathers are able to make good food choices and restore the physical health of our society. Instead of both genders excusing themselves from the responsibility of making these healthy food choices, we can all allow them to become a priority. It will not be easy, but determination, knowledge, and appreciation for a better, healthier way of life is attainable. I believe this.

Ban Grass?

Michael Ableman is a visionary, a radical thinker. Perhaps ahead of his time in many regards, Ableman recently spoke in Toronto in front of a crowd of eager foodies about survival. Perhaps it seems a bit drastic, his talk on "survival," but I see no reason to think of it any differently. Survival from what, then? Starvation. Though North Americans rarely need to worry about having enough food (relatively speaking) because of our wealth, prosperity, and climate, we have come to rely on others to "feed us" so to speak. But our control over the growth of our food has been willingly turned over to others. People we don't see, or have any connection with are growing our food, manipulating it in a way that they see fit. We are gradually becoming increasingly separated from the source. And in a day of dwindling food security, we are in an increasingly precarious situation with respect to a how-are-we-going-to-feed-ourselves dilemma. Potential dilemma, yes, but one that should be considered.

Ableman could have easily used scare tactics in his presentation. Instead he was informative, educated on the subject, and practical. He was thinking big, and what he was thinking about was Urban Agriculture (UA). People blink tiwce when they hear "urban agriculture" - an oxy-moron? But there has been this idea that food growth takes place away from the rest of our lives. It has no part in our daily, or weekly, or even seasonal routines. Because of this, people have become vulnerable, and powerless. Money can buy food, yes, but what if there is no food to buy? But when the sources of food are jeopardized (flood, draught, hurricaine, you name it), what will you eat? By bringing the growing of food back to the cities, back to the lives of ordinary people, we are empowered to succeed. We are empowered to live.

As I am writing this, I am thinking about something that Wendell Berry wrote in his essay The Pleasures of Eating . Though not speaking specifically about UA, Berry talks about the idea of eating responsibly, of knowing where the food we eat comes from, and understanding the ethics about the food we choose to eat. I think it translates incredibly well to this topic of UA. He writes:

There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves our freedom. We still (sometimes) remember that we cannot be free if our minds and voices are controlled by someone else. But we have neglected to understand that we cannot be free if our food and its sources are controlled by someone else. The condition of the passive consumer of food is not a democratic condition. One reason to eat responsibly is to live free.

UA can be accomplished in cities. Ableman is the founder of The Center for Urban Agriculture at Fairview Gardens in Los Angeles, CA. It was small in scale in comparison to many modern farms, but fed a whole whack of people, and is proof that food need not grow only in the country. He was not speaking from empty ideas, but from experience, passion, and belief that change is possible and certainly within reach. He gave many suggestions, not all of which I jotted down (they were fast and furious). His thoughts were well received, especially his suggestion to ban grass, if you will. Phase out grass, teach people how to grow food in whatever kind of space they have, and then do it. Education is also key, he says, and teaching practical and tangible gardening, canning, preserving, in schools is desperately needed to revive a food culture and understanding that has just about met its maker.
Food is fundamental for life. The satisfaction that comes from planting a seed, caring for it, and then reaping the benefits of it is enormous. The understanding of the life of the food I eat is reassuring, and in a way, peaceful. Certainly, this is a relatively new appreciation for me. Two years ago I started growing food. I had a small plot in a community garden where I planted seeds and transplants. I knew it was going to be a learning experience, and a challenge, but it was exciting. Last year I tried again, with a great deal more success. I had a plot of maybe 5' by 10' and I packed all kinds of plants in there: cucumber, green onions, lettuce, tomatoes, basil, broccoli, spinach, beets, zucchini, cilantro...all sorts of things. I was amazed at how much will grow in such a small spot. The photographs included here are from the community garden, in Sackville, NB, where I gardened. But even planting a few things in a small space was empowering! I was in complete control, and as Wendell Berry would say, I was able to "live free" in that small corner of my life.

Urban Agriculture is not out of reach. It will take effort, and energy, but I hope that I will live to see the day when people regain this knowledge and independence that comes with food growth. Who needs grass, anyway?

More info on Michael Ableman:
http://www.fieldsofplenty.com/

The Pleasures of Eating, by Wendell Berry:
http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/rsl/wendell-berry.html

Elimination of Choice?

In Canada, it is illegal to sell unpastuerized milk. In Ontario, this has been the law since 1938, when there was an increase in children getting sick from drinking "raw" milk. Pastuerization, the process whereby milk is heated for a short period of time at a high temperature, is said to kill much of the bacteria that might cause things like E coli, and other bacteria that could potentially be very harmful, and even life-threatening. While this sounds like a smart move, not everyone believes that pastuerization is always a good thing.

Michael Schmidt has been in the news a fair bit the past few years. Schmidt, if you haven't been keeping up on his story, runs Glencolton Farms in Durham, ON, where he has been distributing raw milk and milk products for a number of years. In 1994 he faced a conviction and fine, and in 2006 he was stoppped by officials on his way to Toronto to deliver milk to some of his customers. Schmidt is now facing charges, which he is adamantly fighting, and, admirably, is representing himself in court. (For much more information on the history and details of this very long and complicated issue, see the links below.)

Schmidt broke the law, he did. But what if this law is unjust? And if not unjust, perhaps irrelevant? The reason that the law against raw milk exists is so that people don't get sick from potentially harmful bacteria that could be in the milk. But Schmidt has been providing customers with raw milk for years, and no one has fallen ill because of it. His practices, he has stated, are such that risks are significantly minimized - his animals are living the way that animals are supposed to be living, so why treat the product (the milk) for a "disease" it doesn't actually have? Conventional dairy cows generally live a life in which the risks for diseased milk are a real concern, so yes, pastuerized milk is probably a good idea in those cases.

The supporters of raw milk claim a number of health, nutritional, and taste benefits, while those against raw milk claim otherwise. I won't get into these here because the arguments are easy to find with a quick Google search, but the point is that there seems to be, with this law, a limit to the choices that informed consumers can make. I've said it already, but people do not like being told what they can and cannot eat, and here we have a law (not just your nagging friend hovering over your shoulder while you're ordering off a menu) that is doing just that. True, the "state" has a great deal of control over the food we eat, what is available to us, what food is treated with what pesticide, and how much food costs. But we are still able to make decisions about what to buy, who to buy it from, whether to buy organic food or take the risk that our tomatoes are genetically modified, or whether to grow our own food. But here, with milk, there seems to be no choice.

Schmidt sold shares in cows so that his customers did not have to buy milk directly; they were simply drinking the milk (the unpasteurized milk, I do remind you), of a cow that they already owned. Selling raw milk as it is to just any Tom, Dick, or Harry might not fly, nor does it have to, in my opinion. But to allow people the option of having someone else raise their cow for them, as Schmidt does, would be a wise choice. The people who are going to own that cow, have likely done their research, and are well informed on the issues. They are not being duped. And they are not getting sick.

Glencolton Farms:

http://www.glencoltonfarms.com/index.php

Other information:

http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-canada.html

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081992

The Beginnings

Mentionable Edibles began as a radio show I hosted during the summer of 2008 on CHMA 106.9 in Sackville, NB where I was living at the time. It was quite a remarkable opportunity to be able to reach an audience using that medium, and I received a great deal of support and suggestions from friends and listeners. The way the show usually worked was that I would have a guest join me to talk about something that they were interested in, involved in, or knew something about, and we would just talk food. The topics were quite varied - urban gardening, community supported agriculture, food traditions and taboos, alcohol, caffeine, the organic food industry in the Maritimes, and many others - and each time I went into the booth with my guests, I learned. Not only about food, but about people and about different ways of thinking about our society and cultures. It was very easy for me to make assumptions about other people's food choices, but there was a great deal that I didn't know, and hadn't thought to consider. This was a great reality check, if you will, on my own food-ego (if I can describe an "ego" in such a way).

Food, I have come to learn, is a deeply personal matter. People are defensive of their food choices, and do not like to be told what to eat. But as we continue to learn about nutrition, sustainability, the economy, and how these things interract, we are armed with a better knowledge of what is available to us. However, with knowledge comes responsibility. Because we are constantly eating, our choices are felt in ways that we can't even imagine. Mentionable Edibles helped me to make better informed choices, and I continue to slowly absorb information while gradually changing my food habits. I, therefore, am greatful to those folks, and to those from whom I continuously seek to learn.

This blog is going to be a lot of me sharing what I learn, and what I know. My commitment is to continue to seek knowledge, and to share that with readers. So while you will be reading my personal banterings, thoughts, or opinions, I will attempt to avoid judgement on others as not to alienate those who may think or feel in a way that is contrary to me. In any case, I am bursting with excitement to have a new venue for sharing my love of food. Thanks for reading, and feel free to email anytime with your comments!

-Angela