Amber Donaldson Professor Bowman English 102 April 21, 2010 Industrialization of Food and the Slow Food

Response Food is the most basic part of our world. It sustains life. It creates jobs. It brings people together, and it illustrates the changing of the seasons. Access to real food is a basic right that should be protected, available to all, and looked upon with pleasure. Unfortunately, in recent years, however, this lifeblood has found itself at the peak of industrialization and become the poster child for human injustice. Large American companies have transformed food production into a science that checks morality at the door. In order to perfect this science and make a profit, they have damaged our health and exploited workers. How can something that once was so natural and sacred be reduced to mere chemical components and product? The answer to this question is baffling, especially considering that few people even know to ask it. Our relationship with food, though, is changing again thanks to the growing support of the Slow Food movement. More and more people are beginning to vote with their forks as we begin to introduce ourselves to this alienated object, real food, once more in our world, in our nation, and in our community. To begin, knowing the background of food industrialization is crucial to understanding and appreciating the changes being made. Michael Pollan is a pioneer who investigated the history of our industrialized food system, finding key events that sometimes went unnoticed. In his book In Defense of Food, Pollan credits our attempts to make food more scientific as a major turning point for modern food views and practices.

We have reduced foods essentially [to] the sum of their nutrient parts, and as a result, we have begun to suffer the effects (Pollan 28). This reduction began with William Prout discovering foods main macronutrients, protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Then Justus von Liebig went further, discovering minerals and creating the theory of metabolism. The accepting reaction to these discoveries shows the willingness of Americans to trust science over proven, commonsensical approaches to food. No longer did we think of food as simply something to eat with our families, but instead, we began to view it as something that must be nutritionally scrutinized and enhanced in order to reap maximum health benefits. We even went so far as to trust science with our children, replacing breast milk, food least likely to cause allergic reactions[that is] inexpensivereadily available at any hour of the day or nightand [has] immunity factors [that] can help the baby fight off some infections, with baby formula made from cows milk, wheat flour, malted flour, and potassium bicarbonate (Stppler 1). Next, Senator George McGovern chaired the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, which created the Dietary Goals for the United States in 1977 after only two days of hearings on prevailing health problems of the day. After examining the evidence, the committee encouraged Americans to reduce their red meat and dairy intake. This did not go over well with the industries of these products however. The committee hastily tried to amend the insults against red meat and dairy, encouraging people instead to choose meats, poultry, and fish that will reduce saturated fat intake (Pollan 23). However, it was too little too late. McGovern was not elected the next year. The fact that people let politicians decide how they should eat is a statement unto itself, but it does not stop there. It is to be expected for law makers to make some mistakes

when determining nutrition recommendations-wording their recommendations to encourage us to eat more of other foods rather than cut down on the foods that are harmful to our health when in excess and therefore making us less healthy, but scientists are to be trusted, correct? Not always. For instance, consider the lipid hypothesis. This hypothesis came about in the 1950s, and it discouraged people from eating saturated fats and cholesterol from animals and encouraged them instead to eat foods with hydrogenated oils. The increase in coronary heart disease proved this hypothesis unsuccessful, but it was not until 2001 that the Harvard School of Public Health actually admitted that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences and that there is a weak and nonsignificant positive association between dietary cholesterol and risk of CHD (Pollan 43). If this is true, what about all of those tubs of margarine and jars of low fat peanut butter sitting in our kitchens proudly displaying their low-fat health claim? For people like those from the Harvard School of Public Health, who at one time supported the lipid hypothesis, it is not easy to admit to an overweight, diabetic, hypertensive population, that ever-changing health recommendations are to blame for their current state. Our modern food culture has not only hurt our health through recommendations, but it also has through food production itself. Big industries like Monsanto and Tyson have completely monopolized our food system-98 percent of chickens in the United States are produced by large corporations- and eliminated any competition, allowing them to do things their way (Kingsolver 91). Their way has become relying on chemicals and CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) to produce the bulk of our food, but this is not working. According to author Greg Horn:

the average American consumes about 14 pounds of chemicals a year just from additives like artificial food colorings, flavorings, emulsifiers and preservatives; 2 pounds of the 14 are synthetic chemicals from residues on conventional food, such as pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones and heavy metals. As a result of our conventional diets, each of us has an average of 500 manmade chemicals circulating in our blood (Horn 34). These chemicals have been shown to cause cancer and other serious effects, yet these companies still have no problem dishing them out. These practices are also creating social injustices. For animals, overcrowding and disease are rampant. Because of our demand for massive amounts of cheap meat and poultry, these excrement-dwelling animals are kept in extremely close quarters-a six-footby-eight-foot room could house 1,152 chickens. This results in more disease-about threequarters of all antibiotics in the United States are used in CAFOs- and inhumane treatment and living conditions (Kingsolver 91). Even our Thanksgiving turkeys have not escaped the claws of industrialized food. Our average turkey is from a single breed that has been engineered to grow faster and have more white meat. As a result, these turkeys are often left immobile and unbalanced because their bodies cannot support their rapid growth and oversized breasts (Kingsolver 90). Social injustices carry over for humans, as well. Not only have we been given inadequate food, but many farmers, especially in underdeveloped countries have been eliminated, as seen in Mexico, or exploited, as seen in the coffee and chocolate industry. Food Inc., a recent film, illustrates first hand the problems facing many of these individuals, giving them an outlet to cry out. In countries like Mexico, families once made

a respectable living by growing crops like corn, but when our food industries began producing cheap corn and other products, these small family farms were left in the cold. Then the meat industry, being the concerned organization that it is, recruited these displaced workers, getting them to come work illegally in American meat plants at a low price. Now, though, many of these workers are being punished and arrested, which is fine with the meat industry as long as it is not on their watch and they are left completely blameless (Food Inc.). If this is how these companies are treating their workers, people they are supposed to care about, just imagine how little they care about their consumers, people they do not even see, and the quality of the products they sell to them. Fortunately, the above information has begun to add up. People who have been skeptical since the beginning are now being heard, people are lobbying against industrial practices, and people are actually caring about what is on their plate and where it comes from. An age of eating with purpose in a way that is both good for the planet and all people is dawning. On a global scale, food cultures like Italy and France are standing proud and strong in the face of Americanized food threats. For instance Slow Food, a non-profit, ecogastronomic member-supported organization that was founded in 1989 to counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and peoples dwindling interest in the food they eat, was founded in Italy in response to the construction of a McDonald's on their soil (www.slowfood.com). The movement caught on and is now officially in place in 132 countries. This proves that this idea of a union with our food is not specific to only a few. People from Japan to France to Italy and more are now embracing their food cultures and taking the task of feeding and nourishing themselves upon themselves, and why would

someone not respect these cultures that have perfected good nutrition over thousands of years, turning soybeans into tofu to make it a complete protein, milk into cheese to make it more digestible, and mealtime into a gastronomic event to enhance our relationships with our food and loved ones? On a national scale, we have not completely fallen behind the rest of the world. We are one of the 132 countries with Slow Food organizations, and our citizens are becoming more educated all the time. With writers like Michael Pollan and movies like Fresh and Food Inc, the truth is being exposed and is feeding the rising demand of sustainable food. Chefs like Jamie Oliver, who started the Food Revolution in our schools, and Emeril Lagasse, who took on the new show Emeril Green, are making changes and showing people that the most sustainable food is also the tastiest. Even at the White House, Mrs. Obama has made a huge statement by planting a vegetable garden and educating children with it. No longer are terms like organic and free-range hippie jargon, but people on every level of society are beginning to scrutinize where their food comes from. We are definitely on our way. On a local scale, we are also making strides. Knoxville has a vast number of resources for sustainable food, and they are growing all of the time. We have everything from farmers markets to EarthFares to Beardsley Farm, and we will soon have related programs in our school system. People are getting excited about the increasing possibilities and resources. Director of the Market Square Farmers Market, Charlotte Tolley, said that she has seen an interest in local, sustainable food programs grow significantly in the seven years that the market has been in place. She said that there has been an increase in CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture), chef interest, and young farmers. EarthFares sales

director, Kate Joy, credits this spike in interest to the fact that people are getting sick and nearly one third of children in the US are obese. Because of this fact, she, like others around her, has chosen to combat this epidemic, creating a child focused program, Itty Bitty Bites, to educate children and parents on how to live healthier lives. She said that although many people are still confused about technical terms like organic and fairtrade, they are learning. On a campus scale, we have not been completely out of the loop, although regulations make it difficult to fully jump on the bandwagon. We now have an organic farm on campus, and SPEAK (Students Promoting Environmental Action in Knoxville) has begun educating students about our food system, its problems, and the solutions. This student interest has not fallen on deaf ears either. Dining services has expressed a desire to comply with the growing student demand, and it should only be a matter of time before more changes are made. Overall, it is clear that our food system has problems. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. As people are becoming more educated, they are becoming more appalled at the current food system and are seeking healthier alternatives. The world, the nation, and the community have complied with these interests and demands, and people have begun to stand up to the power crazed food industrialists and say enough is enough.

Works Cited Horn, Greg. Living Green: A Practical Guide to Simple Sustainability. Topanga: Freedom Press, 2006. Joy, Kate. Personal INTERVIEW. 15 April 2010. Kenner, Robert. Food Inc. River Road Entertainment and Magnolia Pictures, 2008. Kingsolver, Barbara, Steven Hopp, and Camille Kingsolver. Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007. Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. New York: Penguin Books, 2009. Slow Food, April 2010 <http://www.slowfood.com/>. Stppler, Melissa. "Breastfeeding and Formula Feeding". MedicineNet. April 2010 <http://www.medicinenet.com/breastfeeding/article.htm>. Tolley, Charlotte. Personal INTERVIEW. 17 April 2010.