You Can Take Control of the Food System Right Now

Food corporations aren't in business to help us eat healthier - they're in business to make money, since they are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. So when big food reassures us that they care about what's in our best interests - namely reducing lifestyle diseases like obesity and diabetes that stem from over-consumption of their products - that's really only a partial truth. It's a truth only in the sense that they care about how our interests will affect whether or not we purchase their products.  The idea that big food has any moral obligation to care about whether or not we get sick from their products is false, regardless of how their advertising might spin it. (Remember this ad by coke?  That's what I'm talking about.) And even that supposed "truth" that we as consumers are powerful enough to sway product development with our concerns could be considered a stretch.  Really, psychology is king in this industry, trumping public opinion and moral outrage, and the only thing we can do about it is to eat critically and move toward greater government regulation.

I was recently sent this article by a colleague that explains what I mean.  The article is long, but I'm glad I read the whole thing because it really gets into the nuts and bolts of how the food industry operates.  The fact that big food tries to create and optimize products for maximum addictiveness isn't all that surprising, but it does speak to the need for each of us as individuals to take control of our own health by making informed food choices, and to push for greater government oversight in order to regulate the production and marketing of these products.  Again, the industry isn't interested in pleasing the consumer; it's interested in pleasing its shareholders by selling product.  If the best way to sell product is to placate consumers with hollow reassurances while at the same time marketing them highly addictive and nutritionally poor goods, so be it.  There is no ethical compass here. In this system, the vast complexity of a human being is reduced to a set of psychological impulses.  If a company can capitalize on those impulses to make more money, all the better for them, but not necessarily all the better for you.

The point is, it's not about big food being good or evil.  Morally corrupt or not, they're looking after their best interests, and so should you.  It's easy to slip into eating unhealthy foods because we perceive them to be cheaper, tastier, and more convenient than their healthful wholesome cousins (I've fallen into that trap more than I'd like to admit) but when you're about to go for that prepared meal or snack because you think it's less expensive and less time consuming than making a real meal, consider whether or not that perception is really true, or if it's just the result of effective corporate marketing.  More and more I'm finding that I can make meals that are easily prepared and more delicious and satisfying than anything processed, despite what any food commercials tell me. There are thousands of variations on the sandwich, for instance, many of which are very quick and easy to make with local healthy ingredients, and are much cheaper and more delicious than fast food versions of the sandwich like burgers.  And if I really have no time for a full meal, or are just bored with the meal options I've been preparing for myself, I'll go the snack route, but not in the conventional chips and cookies way.  A combination of fruit, nuts, veggies, and cheeses makes a great on the go snack, and if you focus more heavily on the fruits and veggies it can be very affordable.

Regardless of your approach, buying locally produced food and preparing your meals yourself is a great way to feel empowered about your place in the food system.  On a larger scale, that empowerment means communities can work more effectively together to make lasting changes in government policy at all levels of the system, which translates into a better standard of living for everyone.  But it all starts with how we as individuals respond to the current food system, and who we choose to support with the one thing that big food cares about the most.  Money talks - how will you spend your opinion?

Have a great afternoon,
Melissa

Translating Cokespeak into English

The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently reported on a promotional video by Coca Cola that invites the American public to "come together" in the fight against obesity.  As a part of this report, the Center reposted Coke's video with edits and translations added that show the real meaning behind what Coke is saying.

When watching first the original Coke ad and then the translated version, I was reminded of how insidious and effective modern corporate advertising can be at using spin to bend the truth. It often requires substantial effort and knowledge to see past the glossy surface of a corporate public service announcement and get at the real core of what it means.  Despite working in a discipline that recognizes this, it's still sometimes hard to see through the smoke and mirrors, which is why responses like CSPI's video are important.

"Generally, when a company claims to be 'part of the solution' it means 'we know we're culpable so we must deflect the blame elsewhere,'" said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "So we thought it would be useful for consumers and policymakers to unpack similar examples of Coke's disingenuous corporate gobbledygook and present them in plain English."

Have a lovely, critically-minded evening,
-Melissa

PS, stay tuned for a report and photos from our Getting Started in Organic Farming Conference that just happened on Saturday January 26 - it was a wonderful event and we can't wait to tell you more!

Oppositiion to California's GMO Labeling Initiative

Yesterday's blog post about the California GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative showcases a very important potential step toward eventual GMO labeling across the country.  California has the highest GDP of any state in the nation, a GDP higher than many countries, so passing a labeling initiative there is likely to cause a domino effect culminating in mandatory labeling across the US.  Because of this, one of the nation's largest food lobbies, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, has made defeating the initiative - called Prop 37 - their "single-highest priority".

According to an editorial on Food Safety News,

In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified), Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pamela Bailey said that defeating the initiative "is the single-highest priority for GMA this year."

You may not know the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but its members represent the nation's largest food makers -- those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling; for example, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto.

According to state filing reports, so far GMA has spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Since Prop 37 poses a significant threat to many of the nation's largest food makers, corporations that make a lot of money from the production and sale of Genetically Modified foods, it makes sense that the lobbying group that represents those interests would be fiercely fighting back.  This backlash, however, is promising because it shows just how powerful Prop 37 really is. Lobbying groups might have a lot of money on their side, but no amount of money can compete with a large group of voices speaking out in unison.

Here in Connecticut we might not be able to vote on Prop 37, but that doesn't mean that we can't speak out in support of it.  The more people nationwide who show their support of mandatory GMO labeling, both publicly and to their friends and neighbors, the more likely those in California who can vote on it are to hear us.  After all, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association is a giant national lobbying firm that is currently influencing the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether or not it's employees can actually vote on the ballot itself.  So talk to those around you and be outspoken, because your voice makes a difference.  Let's show California that we support their right to know what's in their food!

Have an outspoken day!
-Melissa

The Kashi Lesson

The work of corporate watchdog groups, greater awareness, social media and a general skepticism of corporations are giving consumers more power to make ethical and environmental choices in their purchases.  Thank goodness for this, because federal and state governments seem to be shying away from any regulation of industry including food production and toxics reduction.

With 93% of Americans indicating that they believe genetically modified ingredients should be labeled, it is not surprising that Kashi's customers were especially enraged to find that Kashi's cereal ingredients are not nearly as "natural" as their marketing might have customers believe.  The cold cereals use genetically modified (the Roundup-ready variety) soy

Kashi defended itself by creating a video that explains that over 80% of crops are grown using GMO and that the issue is not Kashi's ingredient choices, but an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled.  To give the impression that the use of GMOs is unavoidable is inaccurate.  Kashi announced that it will work with the Non-GMO Project to verify its cold cereals as "non-GMO" on its website this week.

People seem to care more and more about what's in their food, and companies that generally don't care about the ingredients (that means you McDonald's and Burger King) are responding and even preempting consumer disapproval by removing ingredients like pink slime and beginning to alter their meat sourcing based on animal welfare (they still have a long, long way to go).

So vote with your dollar and vote with your voice.  Social media seems to work, posts on Kashi's wall were powerful.  And if you question how "natural" something in your health food store is, you can probably talk to the owner about your concerns.  Most small, independently owned health food stores are concerned about these issues and responsive to their customers.  Removing Kashi from one store in Rhode Island was what ignited this whole conversation.

Read more about Kashi's GMO use exposure and their response:
http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/05/02/Kashi-GMO-Debate-050212.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-04-29/kashi-natural-claims/54616576/1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/kashi-gmo-use-controversy_n_1456748.html

Best,
Kristiane