Friday, September 2, 2022

Questions SEP 6

 SEP 6 WB -176 (The Agrarian Standard... A Few Words for Motherhood)

  1. Are you alarmed at the rapid historical decline of farmers in the U.S.? 132
  2. Do you have personal memories of farm life, personally or via family? (I recall riding as a child with my late Uncle on his huge combine, on the ancestral family farm in Montgomery County, MO. I now know no one who farms.)
  3. Can we be "a healthy people in a healthy land" if we remain literally and emotionally detached from hands-on agriculture, not knowing or particularly caring where our supermarket commodities come from or how they got to us?
  4. Do you think patronizing large grocery chains like Kroger and Publix necessarily implicates us in supporting "bad [industrial] agriculture"? 
  5. Have you ever participated in CSA? If not, do you intend to?
  6. Do you agree that industrial agriculture "cannot use the land without abusing it"? 133 
  7. Why do we have such a hard time appreciating and representing "locality"? 134
  8. "The industrial mind is an organizational mind" -- what's wrong with that?
  9. Is violence inherent in the (industrial agriculture) system? 135
  10. What does "stewardship" mean to you? 
  11. Is the "market value" of land irrelevant, from an environmental standpoint? 138
  12. What is the true source of "abundance"? 139
  13. What does it mean to be "landed"? 140 Can an urban apartment-dweller be landed?
  14. Is anything "inevitable"?
  15. What would or could you do if forced by war or some other cataclysm to "live from [your] home landscapes"? 141
  16. Is it wrong for a few powerful people to own and control the land? 142
  17. What does it mean to you to acknowledge that "eating is an agricultural act"? 143f. 
  18. Do you feel obliged to follow any "food rules"? (See Michael Pollan, below)
  • Please post your thoughts and questions, especially on "labor saving," "getting along with nature," and "motherhood"...

The Wendell Berry Sentence That Inspired Michael Pollan's Food Obsession

For Pollan, "eating is an agricultural act" offers more insight into how food relates to the world than Thoreau or Emerson's words ever could.

Perhaps more than any living writer, Michael Pollan has convinced America that food is a story—and that there's pleasure, health, and good conscience in untangling farm-to-fork narratives. For many, books like The Omnivore's Dilemma have been a gateway to more mindful eating, a path to heightened curiosity about farming and the natural world, a road to the conviction that we really are what we eat.

But what got Michael Pollan thinking about food? In a recent interview by phone, Pollan explained his transformation from Harper's editor to a writer about gardens—and from there corn fields, supply chains, and food rules. When I asked him if a particular text has guided the ethos of his work, he pointed to a line from Wendell Berry's short manifesto, "The Pleasures of Eating," that urges us to be curious and make connections... (continues)


Michael Pollan, Food Rules... Illustrated ed.
==
March 23, 2009 -- We Americans suffer a national eating disorder: our unhealthy obsession with healthy eating.

That's the diagnosis delivered by food author Michael Pollan in a lecture given last week to an overflow crowd of CDC scientists.

As part of an effort to bring new ideas to the national debate on food issues, the CDC invited Pollan -- a harsh critic of U.S. food policies -- to address CDC researchers and to meet with leaders of the federal agency.

"The French paradox is that they have better heart health than we do despite being a cheese-eating, wine-swilling, fois-gras-gobbling people," Pollan said. "The American paradox is we are a people who worry unreasonably about dietary health yet have the worst diet in the world."

In various parts of the world, Pollan noted, necessity has forced human beings to adapt to all kinds of diets.

"The Masai subsist on cattle blood and meat and milk and little else. Native Americans subsist on beans and maize. And the Inuit in Greenland subsist on whale blubber and a little bit of lichen," he said. "The irony is, the one diet we have invented for ourselves -- the Western diet -- is the one that makes us sick."

Snowballing rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease in the U.S. can be traced to our unhealthy diet. So how do we change?

7 Words & 7 Rules for Eating

Pollan says everything he's learned about food and health can be summed up in seven words: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Probably the first two words are most important. "Eat food" means to eat real food -- vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and, yes, fish and meat -- and to avoid what Pollan calls "edible food-like substances."

Here's how:
1. Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says.

2. Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce.

3. Stay out of the middle of the supermarket; shop on the perimeter of the store. Real food tends to be on the outer edge of the store near the loading docks, where it can be replaced with fresh foods when it goes bad.

4. Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says.

5. It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave the table a little hungry," Pollan says. "Many cultures have rules that you stop eating before you are full. In Japan, they say eat until you are four-fifths full. Islamic culture has a similar rule, and in German culture they say, 'Tie off the sack before it's full.'"

6. Families traditionally ate together, around a table and not a TV, at regular meal times. It's a good tradition. Enjoy meals with the people you love. "Remember when eating between meals felt wrong?" Pollan asks.

7. Don't buy food where you buy your gasoline. In the U.S., 20% of food is eaten in the car.


7 comments:

  1. Do you agree that industrial agriculture "cannot use the land without abusing it"? 133

    I agree that industrial agriculture is inherently harmful on farmland. Berry discusses this starting on page 151 when he discusses why he chose to use a team of horses on his land instead of a tractor. His distaste is noticeable on p. 153: "I can say unhesitatingly that, though the tractors do faster work, they do not do it better." and "as speed has increased, care has tended to decline." Industrial farms are primarily worried with yield of goods rather than quality of goods because they often are trying to meet societal demand. In Berry's essay about his horse team vs. tractors, he comments on how the tractors are hard on the soft and sensitive land that makes up farms and that the tools that were produced to attach to the tractors for different purposes were not made as well as the tools that preceded them. If a farmer is using a tractor with an attachment that is not working efficiently it could be butchering and overworking the land. In the essay, Berry also goes on to say that due to industrial farms trying to meet a certain yield percentage, they're throwing standard practices out the window such as rotating fields to replenish soil, allowing animals to roam the land and open graze, etc. These practices ultimately lead to the dependency on chemicals in fields and barns to either keep weeds from growing or keep livestock from contracting disease, making our food less nutrient rich and even harmful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with much of what you have stated and elaborated on. I think the mindset of corporations, especially agribusiness corporations, to produce and yield as much product as they can leads to this culture of not caring about how you obtain this large yield of product. Corporations do not care to properly take care of the land, or look at the effects of the pesticides and fertilizers they use on the surrounding environments. This is why I also believe that industrial agriculture cannot use the land without abusing it, currently. I think coming in with this mindset that they do cannot yield positive results for the environment.

      Delete
  2. • Are you alarmed at the rapid historical decline of farmers in the U.S.? 132
    We agrarians are involved in a hard, long, momentous contest, in which we are so far, and by a considerable margin, the losers. What we have undertaken to defend is the complex accomplishment of knowledge, cultural memory, skill, self-mastery, good sense, and fundamental decency – the high and indispensable art – for which we probably can find no better name than ‘good farming.’ I mean farming as defined by agrarianism as opposed to farming as defined by industrialism: farming as the proper use and care of an immeasurable gift… two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world… To the corporate and political and academic servants of global industrialism, the small family farm and the small farming community are not known, are not imaginable, and are therefore unthinkable, except as damaging stereotypes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. • Do you have personal memories of farm life, personally or via family? (I recall riding as a child with my late Uncle on his huge combine, on the ancestral family farm in Montgomery County, MO. I now know no one who farms.)
    Yes, many good memories of participating in farm life as a child and teenager. I continued to visit that farm are the deteriorating farm house my grandfather had built well into adulthood. I helped my uncles as they struggled to become modern mechanized small farmers and failed. One uncle eventually went into the business of digging ponds and doing bulldozer work before he got his final job and the University of Illinois Agriculture center/farm. After he was disabled he would go out and just sit on his tractor or bulldozer remembering how his life used to be. Another uncle ended up riding heavy equipment for Peabody Coal in Kentucky. He destroyed is back by doing the work of crushing coal under the wheels of that machinery. After living for 50 years in Chicago, all my mother remembers and talks about is her childhood on the farm. She has dementia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. • Can we be "a healthy people in a healthy land" if we remain literally and emotionally detached from hands-on agriculture, not knowing or particularly caring where our supermarket commodities come from or how they got to us?
    Of course not. Thankfully there is a movement to increase Farmers Markets, offer educational opportunities at local farms, do backyard gardening, and locally source food. I remember hearing about kids growing up in Chicago who thought carrots came in plastic bags and were never in dirt… I imagine I was one of the few Boy Scouts in Chicago to get the farm equipment merit badge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you alarmed at the rapid historical decline of farmers in the U.S.? 132

    I am alarmed by the rapid historical decline of farmers in the United States that Wendell discusses in The Agrarian Standard. I already feel very negatively towards large corporations as I feel they only care about obtaining more money and keeping their power in America. Losing more and more farmers at this rapid pace only makes the large agribusiness corporations stronger and stronger. I agree with Wendell that we need more little farmers who are more agriculturally conscious. I think this could lead to promoting a better culture for local and smaller farmers, and therefore help to rebuild this field.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it wrong for a few powerful people to own and control the land? 142

    Yes, it is wrong for a few powerful people to own and control the land. This conversation connects directly to the conversation of agribusiness corporations that i previously discussed in early comments. Corporations already have negative impact on the land and have an obvious lack of care to change this, so giving them even more land and having them be the main owners of a majority of the land will only further hurt and damage our world and larger society. No one group or people should own the land because then you introduce a lack of diversity. Not just race or gender, but a lack of diversity in perspective, knowledge, lived experiences. As Wendell discussed in an early essay, the best way to not make a mistake is to not make one, but you cannot do that without the experience of previous mistakes. Giving all the land to one small group would also destroy any accountability on that group. While yes, small farmers and people of agriculture are losing to industry and larger corporations, they still have the ability to fight and have influence. If, all their land is taken away this ability to check and hold large corporations accountable goes away.

    ReplyDelete