Food for Thought

Despite working with Matt throughout the entire year, this past week’s class was really the first time I got to hear about his life and the path that led him to the work he does now. The story of how the tractor ruined farming and how, despite his wanting to return home to work on the family farm, his father refused to let him back in, reflects many of the themes and topics we’ve touched upon in this class.

I really enjoyed learning about the different organizations you all found (and am most likely going to be applying to some of these places myself). Additionally, I found the work that Matt and his team are doing to make Stanford a sustainable campus really intriguing. Stanford is a huge institution, with tremendous buying power, and shifting the buying practices of this university to producers and organizations that are sustainable and humane makes a big statement and has a big impact.

As a senior struggling to figure out what exactly comes next in my life, Matt’s final words were very encouraging. His plea to pursue your passion (and his wise words that following a paycheck or prestige won’t make you feel fulfilled in life) gave me some hope that as long as I do work that makes me happy, I’ll be just fine.

I am very sorry I could not make it to class this week. Hopefully this blog post will be informative nonetheless.

I was actually fairly aware of Stanford’s sustainability efforts; they’re quite uplifting. I’m sure I will learn even more when I talk to you guys about it.

Stanford has quite a few efforts, but we unfortunately are not mentioned in the following article on the “Greenest Campuses:” The greenest campuses: an idiosyncratic guide

Other colleges have done some really innovative stuff. For instance, at Brown and Yale, they feed some of their food waste and compost to a local pig farm. At Emory, they use 60% alternative fuels or electric cars. The University of New Hampshire held a seminar for its food workers on composting.

I wonder what happens to our compost bins? I’ve heard a rumor, I hope false, that currently we are just in a composting trial run and most of it has to be thrown out because of random plastic in there and stuff — can anyone confirm?

I would like to remind us to be careful, however, with feeling comfortable with what Stanford Dining has done. While Marin Sun Farms beef may be better in many ways than factory farmed beef, it is still harmful for the environment. We have a lot more to do.

I think it has been the best movie we have seen in class so far. Just incredibly eye-opening. Most thought-provoking (sorry I’m just spewing here):

1) As the reading pointed out, the influence of the food industry in economic policy. It was really hard to believe that the Surgeon General was not allowed to issue a warning that people should cut back on their beef consumption because the beef industry would not stand for that.

2) I couldn’t believe the factory farms and how cold they seemed. It was also pretty unbelievable that they turn to science and antibiotics instead of letting the cows eat grass. When the guy reached into the cow’s stomach I wanted to vom.

3) I can’t believe the conditions that chicken farmers are put under — and the chickens themselves. No sunlight? Many die because of the close quarters? Bad.

4) I loved loved the ethical gray area of it — so thought provoking. I thought the male chicken farmer who said, “We are producing more food on less land cheaper. How is that a bad thing?” …and found myself agreeing with him. And then I saw the chicken coops and felt really sad.

5) Did not realize what influence fast food, particularly McDonald’s, had on factory farming. I wonder what would have happened if they had never come into the picture? Would a different restaurant have made the same innovation at a different time? Would we still have small farms? Would America have the same obesity problems?

It’s especially troubling for me because in my job next year, I will probably help fast food restaurants grow or come up with good new ideas. Now it seems like more of an ethical quandary.

I liked the discussion a lot this week, but I didn’t think we gave enough attention to the other side of the issue: at what price does a garden education come?

It’s true that there is natural intelligence. And it’s true that gardening teaches important values like patience, working hard, and seeing the value of that work. It’s also physical activity, and teaches kids to care about their food, and gets them to eat some vegetables. So on all counts, gardening is pretty good. I definitely think that parents are a little too shortsighted when they say that they don’t want their children to grow up and be farmers.

However, I do think it is worth discussing: instead of what? Will the kids have to stay longer in school one day? Is it really practical to hold math or English classes out in the garden? Would it be instead of P.E.? Music (actually, I’ve read some articles about how music curricula are being cut in CA….but that’s a different story)? Instead of one of the 5 core disciplines once a week? There are a lot of politics that go into it, and every teacher feels pressed for time as it is…I just don’t see some acceding to giving up some of their precious class time, especially when they have test demands to meet and kids who are behind. I’m not saying that garden education is not worthwhile or not tenable at all — just that I wish we thought through these issues a little better, because it is not feasible without thinking through them and convincing education policy makers.

In better news, I went with Collective Roots last weekend to help build the community garden in EPA Charter School. It was really fun and I was happy to see the land being put to good use. Vegetables are sold at the EPA farmers’ market!

I gained a lot of respect for Stanford Dining after hearing Mark Rothe speak. I think the student default is to malign dining halls, but Mark is obviously doing everything in his power to defy all stereotypes of college dining halls. At the end of the day, Stanford Dining provides students with a huge variety of options, and does what it can to work towards sustainability. I’ll admit that I was a bit surprised that Stanford was so low in some domains (eg 8% of chicken is humanely raised…or something like that?) and yet leaps and bounds better than other schools. Says something about priorities, I guess.

It was also really interesting looking for my three organizations. There are a lot of people out there that are really pushing for this (inasmuch as the internet gives any indicator), especially here in the Bay. Sometimes I feel pessimistic about opportunities to change, as the system seems mired in problems, but people are so much more aware of these issues now than they were even 10 years ago.

I really enjoyed Mark Rothe’s talk for two reasons.  Firstly, I agree that the corn farmer’s story is a largely untold one so it was great to hear his/his family’s perspective on the current state of things.  Secondly, I had no idea Stanford Dining was doing so much to become more sustainable.  What particularly struck me was that matrix thing about food purchasing preferences.  The dining halls are usually pretty good about labeling things, and it makes me happy to see things like “grass-fed beef” and “locally grown [insert produce item].”  Even so, the statistics he gave were pretty astounding.  Well, to me at least.  Before hearing his presentation, the most I knew about Stanford Dining’s sustainability efforts were the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, going trayless, and the aforementioned labeling.  As such, I wish that they would find some way to publicize their efforts more and educate people.  I feel like more transparency between the student body and Stanford Dining could ameliorate some harsh feelings.  In the past, for example, I’ve been frustrated with Stern for not having Cinnamon Toast Crunch when I want them, but knowing what I do now about how much thought goes into the food purchases I feel slightly guilty about that.  (Not that breakfast cereal is the biggest culprit in the marketplace.  But hopefully you catch my drift).

Anyways, mad props to Mark Rothe.  He’s clearly very passionate about food and making positive changes here, and thanks to his presentation I think I’ll be able to appreciate my Stanford Dining experiences a lot more in the future.

http://www.whyhunger.org/Hungerthon2009/menu2.html#donate_etiqueta

This sounded really exciting (and sadistic). I was imagining hundreds or thousands of people depriving themselves of food for a day in order to raise money, but in reality the event was more of a radio-broadcasting-awareness deal. Associated with WHY (World Hunger Year), the Hungerthon essentially spammed radio stations with ads and solicitations for donations–and ended up raising about half a million dollars. Not too bad…. but not exactly what I thought of first when I read the word “Hungerthon.”

In any case, it reminded me of a time during a retreat I had when we took part in “The 24 Hour Fast.” We didn’t eat any food (but were allowed drinks) for 24 hours, starting at 1pm to the next day. It was essentially kinda like dance marathon… except we were perpetually hungry and figuring out ways to occupy ourselves and take our minds off hunger. I guess hunger isn’t one of those things you can necessarily empathize with because there’s a distinction between “I haven’t eaten in 4 hours…” and outright starvation. It’s a type of suffering we can only see in pictures of emaciated small African children, and even those pictures sometimes seem somewhat contrived. And perhaps only once we’ve starved ourself can we appreciate and truly empathize with the pain and suffering of those less fortunate–but seeing as how … unrealistic, sadistic, and unhealthy it is, most people (including myself) probably won’t get to that point.

I found Matt Rothe’s talk very interesting.  His anecdotes of prior experiences added a personal spin that resonated particularly well with me.  I also thought the way he explained the downward cycle of technology and debt’s role in the expansion of farming very clear.  It reminded me of technology’s limitations.  While we sometimes believe the “latest and greatest” will improve everything, that is often not the case.  In terms of farming, while tractors allowed farmers to work twice as fast as they had with horses, this new technology also forced them to take out large loans.  Seeing their neighbors benefitting from this new technology, other farmers were forced to take out loans and buy tractors as well to keep up with the competition.  Soon, other technologies, including genetically modified crops, began coming out and farmers bought into these in hopes of recovering their debt from previous technological purchases.  At the end of the day, the amount of food has increased, causing prices to be relatively low in the present compared with the past.  Although beneficial for consumers, farmers are ironically left in debt, with infertile land due to the unsustainable technologies they have shifted towards.

On a more positive note, I find the sheer number of sustainability-related on campus organizations impressive.  From SPOON to the new Stanford Farm, it is encouraging to see that so many students recognize the seriousness of this issue and are motivated to take action.  In the future, I’m definitely looking forward to learning more about (and possibly getting more involved with) these groups.  I also really liked seeing more specifics about how sustainable Stanford Dining’s buying practices currently are as well as their future goals.

Finding my three organizations was an interesting activity in many ways. It made me think about how, besides in lifestyle, I can get involved on these food/agriculture issues that I really do care about. A quick search of Stanford student groups turned up several that I might be interested in, including Slow Food at Stanford. I’ve also heard a bit about an effort to create a larger educational farm at Stanford. (In fact, I signed a petition for it yesterday. I will pass on more information to the class when I get it.) It was great to see how much diversity there was among the groups and how many people were already involved. It’s encouraging to think that after they graduate, these people will radiate out in this country and internationally, spreading what they’ve learned and gotten excited about to other areas. Maybe there is yet hope for change.

This week’s readings were both eye-opening and somewhat infuriating. The fact that government organizations, which theoretically work with the public’s best interests in mind, alter and manipulate (or withhold seemingly crucial parts of) the information they give us in order to appease corporate interests, just seems wrong. Food lobby groups are tremendously influential, and don’t seem like they’re going anywhere anytime soon. Unfortunately, at this point, it seems like the responsibility to make informed choices and educate oneself falls on the individual. And the fact of the matter is, most individuals just aren’t that motivated to go out and seek this information on their own. Government agencies and the food industry should be working to put the RIGHT information out there, to make the healthy option the effortless one. Sadly, this clearly isn’t the world we live in.

I’m glad we got a chance to watch Food, Inc. (and hope that at some point we can finish the end of the documentary). I know of some people who hate on documentaries a little bit because they seek to convey information in a way that’s entertaining and attention-grabbing. In order to so, documentaries often take and highlight extreme case studies to prove a point. What makes Food, Inc. so upsetting is the fact that the information and practices the film highlighted were not extreme examples at all – they are the norm!

One of the moments that hit me the hardest was the woman who became a food advocate after her son passed away from an e coli infection. I was particularly struck by the scene when she said (something to the effect of) “All we wanted was an apology. All we wanted was for someone to say ‘we are sorry we caused this to happen to your son, and this is what we are going to do to make sure it does not happen again’. And they couldn’t give us that.” The fact that the USDA lacks the power to demand that contaminated meat be pulled off the shelves is absurd to me. The scene with the family who couldn’t afford to purchase fresh produce was also quite sobering. The young daughter even WANTED to get fresh fruit, but the family simply couldn’t justify spending that much when they could get a full meal from McDonald’s for far cheaper. Again, absurd.