Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, states simply that “eating is a political act.” He, along with Marion Nestle, the author of Food Politics, believes that Wall Street controls the food industry. In order to maximize profits, “edible foodlike substances,” or those products that rely almost exclusively on cheap raw ingredients that have been processed (corn and soy), must be made attractive to the consumer. As Ms. Nestle states, “many of the nutritional problems of Americans – not least of them obesity – can be traced to the food industry’s imperative to encourage people to eat more in order to generate sales and increase income.”
In addition to creating cheap foodlike substances, Wall Street ensures their business model will be perpetuated by heavily lobbying Congress to keep those in power from enacting regulations or reversing decades-long subsidies to the industry. A report issued in 2013 by U.S. PIRG (the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups) revealed that since 1995 the U.S. government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies. The bulk of these subsidies have gone to just 3.8% of farmers, or those farmers who are in the business of growing corn which is then used to produce cornstarch and sweeteners.
The government also caved in to industry demands when formulating the 2016 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. As originally drafted the Guidelines discussed sustainable agriculture, advocating that Americans spend their food dollars on fruits, vegetables and meat from local farms. This provision was struck down by industry proponents. Originally, too, there existed statements urging consumers to cut back on the amount of meat they purchased. The Guidelines still mention that there should be limited consumption of “proteins” and “saturated fat.” A panel of nutrition experts convened by the government, however, had called for Americans to lower consumption and this in the face of the World Health Organization declaring that processed meats are carcinogenic and red meat a suspected carcinogen.
Providing critical nutritional information to Americans is just the beginning of a sea change that would encourage people to switch from a diet consisting mainly of cheap processed foods to one with healthier options. This conscious switch, however, involves greater personal expenditures and a change of emphasis by the federal government from subsidizing corporate mega farms to protecting and aiding small farms as the subsidies were intended to do when enacted in the 1930s. As it stands, not only do corporations receive the lion’s share of governmental aid, but the system works to have a negative impact on family farms.
Kevin Smith, a farmer from Sycamore Farms in New York, explains how our current system of agricultural subsidies works against smaller operations. He states that “when the government subsidizes corn and grain in the Midwest, a farmer can afford to grow 10,000 acres of corn, no matter the demand. All of the corn is pre-contracted and supplemented on the back-end. It would make no sense for a small farmer to try to grow that much corn because you can’t sell that much at market. There is only a fixed amount of materials…in the market. As subsidized farms buy and buy materials (which they can because of the subsidies), resources get scarce and prices go up. The scarcity drives up the cost of materials, but it doesn’t drive up market prices of produce.” The solution here, albeit a seemingly impossible one given the current political environment, is for our government to stop subsidizing corporations altogether.
As for the increased amount of household expenditures that would result if consumers opted for healthier, non-corporate food, a report issued in 2013 suggests that the increase, at least for lower and middle class families, would be nominal. The BMJ, a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, published a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health that concerned itself with the actual costs of switching to a healthier diet. As they stated, “This systematic review and meta-analysis represents, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive examination of the evidence on prices of more versus less healthy foods and diet patterns.”
The study concluded that opting for fresher and more nutritious foods added up to about $1.50 more per day. And while even that amount could present difficulties for many families, “this price difference is very small in comparison to the economic costs of diet-related chronic diseases, which would be dramatically reduced by healthy diets,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the study’s senior author.
The only way we as individuals can reject the Wall Street vision of more profit vs. public health is by voting and by turning our food purchases into a political act. Refuse to buy processed foods and let your representatives know that they must stop catering only to the needs of corporations.
Recipe of the Week
I thought up this recipe as an appetizer, but it can easily serve as a dinner with salad and bread.
Stuffed Mussels
30 mussels, scrubbed and de-bearded
1 cup Parmesan cheese
1 cup dried bread crumbs
6 tablespoons melted butter
2 tablespoons fresh thyme, minced
1/4 cup white wine
1/4 cup olive oil
Remove one shell from mussels and place in a baking pan. Sprinkle olive oil and wine over the mussels. Mix bread crumbs, butter, thyme and cheese. Put a small amount of stuffing on top of each mussel. Place under a broiler until stuffing is golden brown, about three or four minutes. The juices from the mussels will release into the pan making a wonderful sauce for bread dipping.