On Desperate Times and Intelligent Measures
In "Clipping, Scrimping, Saving," by Jane Black in today’s Washington Post, we meet Marti Tracy, who is feeling the effects of the global food crisis.
Let’s deconstruct:
- How is the impact of the crisis manifesting itself in the life of this woman, you ask?
- She has given up organic meat and is buying organic milk only for her 2-year old son rather than for the whole family. If she only knew her son doesn’t need milk, she’d be able to cut her spending even more!
- She has also stopped buying single-size packs of food or juice and stopped going to multiple stores.
I think that’s great, as the packaging of those convenience items is
dumped in landfills, and being more efficient in your shopping is smart
and saves energy and is better for the planet. Every little bit counts. - "I find the whole thing a huge hassle, but I’ve reached a
tipping point," said Tracy, a government human resources specialist who
is pregnant with her second child. If she were pregnant with her
third, I’d have something to say about population growth, but alas, I
can say nothing. I can say something about "hassles," though, and that
is that Americans are finally realizing what the rest of the world has
long known: That decisions that are the best for the planet usually
involve some "hassle," and we’re so spoiled and feel entitled to live
the most comfortable, easy, convenient lifestyles, that we complain
about having to change a habit, even if it wasn’t a particularly
positive habit. Some people are smartening up, which is great. But they’re doing it while kicking and screaming and acting resentful.
- The prices of eggs, milk, white bread and ground chuck are up 35, 23, 16, and 8% respectively.
- "And while the total rise is far less drastic than elsewhere
around the world, the sharp hike for staples means everyone is feeling
the pinch." I beg to differ. For those of us who don’t eat eggs, milk, white bread and ground chuck, there is no such pinch. To say "everyone" is inaccurate. Perhaps an alteration in both eating and shopping habits would ease the "pinch." - "We are in shocking new territory," said Todd Hale, senior vice president of consumer shopping and insights at Nielsen Consumer Panel Services. "With the exception of the very affluent, everyone is looking to save by altering where they shop, how they shop and the brands they buy." And with the exception of vegans, I’d imagine. My grocery bill and shopping habits haven’t changed at all. (But I could be the exception–how about you?)
- "And while the total rise is far less drastic than elsewhere
- But wait, there actually is an acknowledgment that changing what you eat is possible.
- "The crunch for American shoppers pales compared with the
challenges faced by those in the developing world. Americans spend just
9.9 percent of household income on food, according to the Agriculture
Department. Compare that with poor countries such as Ethiopia and
Bangladesh, where it’s not uncommon for families to spend 70 percent.
Diets also are more varied here: If the price of milk or flour jumps,
shoppers can opt for other items." Yes, and this might be a great
time to opt for bulk quinoa, millet, barley, lentils and beans, and
lots of fresh fruits and veggies!
- "The crunch for American shoppers pales compared with the
There’s a lot more in the article about people changing the way they do things and the reality that food is relatively inexpensive for us (because of subsidies, although that goes unsaid), although I don’t think most Americans understand that their food, even with the increases, is still inexpensive. One final quote, by a senior citizen, was stunning:
"We’re that older generation that feels we need to have food to feed half the block if they happen to get hungry. I am not stuffing the freezer anymore. I just buy what I need when I need it, or I try to use up what I already have. That’s a form of cutting back I haven’t done in the past."
I guess for older people that might in fact be a form of cutting back. But it is very odd–and telling–that buying what you need and using what you have would be considered cutting back.
One of my coworkers is "having a hard time" getting her sub-one year old son to "drink whole milk". As though this is some kind of crisis, she apparently turned to a pediatrician. I believe the suggestion was easing him onto the cow milk by watering it down.
Another problem of how abstracted a commodity "milk" has become. There is little to no possibility for cognizing that the secretions from cow utters are well suited, by nature of intent, for calves. Not even among those with lofty degrees, who are paid to analyze these very issues.
Astounding the things that can flow from brains to fingertips: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/dining/30come.html
Basically, all living nonhumans, both plants and animals, that have had any culinary/cultural value to humans, are resources that must be managed and perpetuated for *our* sake. The conclusion, eat to save, make perfect sense because the analysis is humanocentric from the outset. The initial mind-frame is epicurean, so the recommendation flows logically. Any benevolence seemingly directed toward the nonhuman animals in question is essentially advertising or window-dressing, clearly not genuine. In the end, it's all about us.
The cover graphics on the PEW report is awesome; it’s a wonderful montage suitable for uses of vegan propaganda. Many of the stark black and white photos inside are well done and thought provoking too. I suppose it’s no surprise, much of the best vegan propaganda isn’t created by vegans (excluding the TCAAR of course!); unbiased evidence-based government agencies always seem to do the best work.
Response to the article (in a round about sort of way):
In The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan dismissed vegetarianism, yet all the proposed dilemmas are pretty much resolved with a plant-based diet with bonus points for one rich in whole foods. I guess there was his criticism of big organic vegetable production, but the fact that big organic is even an option these days is attributed by him to the vegetarian movement. Big organic is not perfect, but at least it’s a good-sized step in the right direction away from what used to be considered business as usual. A plant-based diet even solves dilemmas Pollan didn’t bring up, like depleting fish from the oceans.
He brought up the social dilemma that being vegetarian brings up at a mixed diet table, but since he avoids conventional factory farmed animal foods, his dinner host would know this and would seek to accommodate or apologize for serving factory farmed. Pollan’s personal food plan doesn’t really absolve this social dilemma.
To the point, as you deconstructed, the solution to the increasing food cost of certain foods will be outside of consideration to many people. Someone following an exclusive plant based primarily whole food diet with decent variety isn’t going to feel much of a pinch.
Oh, and on the whole, coupons exist to convince people to buy junk food, or at best, unnecessary food products. You just don’t see coupons for broccoli.
On population and environment:
The problem with citing population size and growth as the cause of the environmental situation is that a minority of the world’s population is the cause of the majority of the environmental pollution. The family of ten in an undeveloped country probably causes less environmental impact than any one of us with a computer and an Internet connection enabling the reading of this comment.
Yes, population is a factor, but dissenters of the environmental movement often use it as a distraction and a way of avoiding the topic of conservation. (There’s even an absolutely brilliant argument floating around that vegetarianism feeds more people that in turn fuels more population growth so vegetarianism is a great contributor of the environmental population problem!) Even if the world all followed China’s lead and passed laws to limit pregnancies, and I don’t think you or most people would want to go there, it would still take a while for populations to recede.
The socially acceptable and proven way to reduce population growth is with education, since educated people, as a whole, breed less. Where there is education, affluence isn’t far behind. As affluence increases, people tend to want more stuff and follow the example set by existing affluent people (see China), which increases environmental stress per person.
The problem goes back to what current affluent people should be doing to reduce their environmental impact for both the practical reasons and to set a socially responsible example for tomorrow’s affluent people. There are choices that those of us causing the most environmental pollution (me, you, anyone reading this) can enact to reduce our impact right now.
Finally, there’s a rather large unnatural population of domesticated animals on this planet that require food, water and space. The fastest way to reduce the environmental demands made by this particular population numbering in the billions is of course for humans to stop breeding them into existence.
Porprhyry,
I understand that most of the people having many children aren't in suburban South Florida. In fact, most of my friends have one or none. With each child/person comes extra consumption, particularly in a place like suburban South Florida, and I'm fairly sure that the ecological footprint is far greater for each child in my neighborhood than in a developing country (which is like what you say about environmental stress per person, I think). I don't mean to overstate this and say population is THE problem, but I do think it's part of the problem.
As far as laws that limit the number of children, I don't agree with that at all. And look what's happened as a result! I might agree with a law that stops the breeding of cats and dogs, though.
Mary, I'm adding your blog to my RSS reader. I appreciate the thoughtful, rational, in-depth posts you write. I also appreciate the commenters' well-written posts.
With the right strategies, the rising costs of food (& just about everything else) provide a SUPERB audience to introduce the Food, Not Lawns concept (I'm not associated with them).
The benefits of growing your own food (using the concepts of Masanobu Fukuoka's natural farming):
–Very cheap–not necessary to even till the soil in most cases
–Very easy–in the first few growing seasons, you might have to water a little bit. No weeding or extra work. After some time, you can just let everything grow wild and you do absolutely nothing!
–Control every step of what happens to your food–no chemicals, no soil destruction, no animal products used (slaughterhouse products are used in organic gardening), no processing, no unnatural cross breeding
–If you consume the food uncooked (raw vegan diet), you can stop taking toxic, expensive medicine, stop going to hospitals (where people get sick from infections & incompetence an awful lot), lose all unnecessary weight, and experience health like you have never imagined possible
–Grow plants to use as soap, sponges, building material (bamboo comes to mind), & even fiber to make fabrics. This reduces gas use since you don't have to go to the store to buy things.
The more you rely on plants, the less money you need, therefore, the less wage-slavery you have to endure. And this can be done well in the small yard of a suburban home. Apartment dwellers are not even excluded from the possibilities.
Also, riding bicycles for transportation would be an idea with a much more receptive audience now–except the fear of being killed by a car. I wouldn't mind riding a bicycle for most transportation, but I would be so terrified the entire time, since if you AREN'T speeding and driving recklessly, you're considered a problem driver. If activists want more people to ride bikes, they are going to have to address this issue. And try as I might, I haven't been able to come up with any solutions that are remotely realistic.
The bottom line: the current economic situation provides an EXCELLENT opportunity for so many causes. Especially causes that help people take control of their own lives without depending on businesses or governments or even their neighbors. People can switch to diesel cars and run straight vegetable oil as fuel, grow their own food, ride bicycles, etc.
It causes me great despair that I can't contribute to any of this. The rescued animals I have committed to caring for have to be first priority, but I'm trying to get to a position where I can do both. It seems wrong to hope the bad economic times last until then…;)