Corn
Michael Pollan was on NPR yesterday talking about the ubiquitousness of corn. Corn can be found in almost every processed food because a large portion of our corn crops are turned into corn syrup. Sweet is not usually found in nature, maybe in some root vegetables and fruit, so our bodies really respond to sweet. My guess would be that evolutionarily speaking we used to need more calories and to have something so densely caloric would be the most efficient way of getting energy. Anyway, he said that marker of a highly processed food would be if it has corn syrup in it, and he asks himself, Does a chef usually cook with corn syrup? No. Corn syrup is cheap, so companies like Coca Cola can fill their Cokes with it and sell large bottles for very cheap, versus the small glass bottles in the past that were made from real sugar. As a result, a factor of American obesity can be attributed to the cheapness of corn syrup. We drink more soda, eat more snacks. It's like an unnatural amount of high caloric food. He then went on to say that corn can be found in a lot of other products like chicken nuggets at McDonalds.
The problem with foods like this is that at face value they are very cheap, like fast food, but in the long run or on a larger scale they end up being a larger price to pay by consumers because of the destruction it does to the environment. Corn is easy to grow so farmers grow large quantities in the midwest. Unfortunately, the ability to grow mass quanities has resulted in a lower market price for corn, cuasing farmers to have difficulty sustaining a living. (Apparently soy beans are grown in the same fashion.) The people who reap the benefits are the larger corporations that distribute and process the corn, companies most Americans have never heard of, and I can't even remember their names. Also, the large amount of corn errodes the soil and destroys the environment.
In the good old days, people used to have closed, self-sustaining farms. Meaning, grow crops, feed leftovers to cattle, use manure from cattle to fertilize the land, and back into a loop. These days, however, this capitalistic demand for productivity has really ruined the farmland environment in the midwest. The author compared this to an urbanization of the land. We only see uniformity, one product, depleting the land. There are no more cattle on the land. He went on to say that large amounts of fertilizers are brought in and dumped on the crops, but gigantic, massive amounts that are disgusting and unnatural (as insurance--he might've said it was subsidized by the government), and that all this waste goes from the midwest, dumps into the Mississippi River, which in effect dumps into the Gulf of Mexico. During spring months with all the rains, people in these midwest towns are encouraged to drink bottled water because of all the waste in the water that could harm pregnant mothers and their babies. He mentioned a syndrome called "blue babies" as being common during the spring. Most interesting, though, is that the waste that goes into the Gulf of Mexico is so much that there is a kind of Bermuda Triangle (maybe forty square miles?) where any fish who goes into that area will die. So, this mass production/industry of corn is ruining our environment.
He says that more consumers are looking for alternatives, which is why places like Whole Foods are doing so well. That we can change our situation by what the consumers choose to eat at the store. He says that eating organic or whole-grain fed cattle or from smaller farms is considered elitist, especially because it is expensive, but that paying that little extra is actually better for our bodies and our environment in the long run, that people have lost a connection to the land with all our overly processed food. But he also said that people have to do what is best for them, whether it be little changes and that some people end up eating McDonalds because they can't afford the good stuff.
I thought he made a compelling, interesting and well-researched argument without being rabidly environmentalist.
The problem with foods like this is that at face value they are very cheap, like fast food, but in the long run or on a larger scale they end up being a larger price to pay by consumers because of the destruction it does to the environment. Corn is easy to grow so farmers grow large quantities in the midwest. Unfortunately, the ability to grow mass quanities has resulted in a lower market price for corn, cuasing farmers to have difficulty sustaining a living. (Apparently soy beans are grown in the same fashion.) The people who reap the benefits are the larger corporations that distribute and process the corn, companies most Americans have never heard of, and I can't even remember their names. Also, the large amount of corn errodes the soil and destroys the environment.
In the good old days, people used to have closed, self-sustaining farms. Meaning, grow crops, feed leftovers to cattle, use manure from cattle to fertilize the land, and back into a loop. These days, however, this capitalistic demand for productivity has really ruined the farmland environment in the midwest. The author compared this to an urbanization of the land. We only see uniformity, one product, depleting the land. There are no more cattle on the land. He went on to say that large amounts of fertilizers are brought in and dumped on the crops, but gigantic, massive amounts that are disgusting and unnatural (as insurance--he might've said it was subsidized by the government), and that all this waste goes from the midwest, dumps into the Mississippi River, which in effect dumps into the Gulf of Mexico. During spring months with all the rains, people in these midwest towns are encouraged to drink bottled water because of all the waste in the water that could harm pregnant mothers and their babies. He mentioned a syndrome called "blue babies" as being common during the spring. Most interesting, though, is that the waste that goes into the Gulf of Mexico is so much that there is a kind of Bermuda Triangle (maybe forty square miles?) where any fish who goes into that area will die. So, this mass production/industry of corn is ruining our environment.
He says that more consumers are looking for alternatives, which is why places like Whole Foods are doing so well. That we can change our situation by what the consumers choose to eat at the store. He says that eating organic or whole-grain fed cattle or from smaller farms is considered elitist, especially because it is expensive, but that paying that little extra is actually better for our bodies and our environment in the long run, that people have lost a connection to the land with all our overly processed food. But he also said that people have to do what is best for them, whether it be little changes and that some people end up eating McDonalds because they can't afford the good stuff.
I thought he made a compelling, interesting and well-researched argument without being rabidly environmentalist.