Warning: this is going to sound like a greenie-lefty, anti-western/capitalist rant, which it probably is, but then maybe that's what it's meant to be :-)
This post sparked from reading chapter 11 of Michael Pollan's 2006 book- The omnivore's dilemma and it is summarised in a quote from page 214: that in contrast to the efficiencies reached in the industrial system through simplification, "the efficiences of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence." The general thrust of his argument is one in favour of grass-fed 'ecological' systems that focus on the local versus the industrialised, corn-fed conveyer belt systems from which most food (especially in the US) is derived.
The latter seems to be more complex as it is global and involves multiple inputs not only of chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilisers, but of antibiotics and organisms bred for particular traits (such as an ability to convert obscene amounts of corn into lots of protein or to grow large and erect stems in order to pack more plants per row and make harvesting easier. This monoculture of sub-species clearly has a big impact on diversity- one of the foundations of an ecologically resilient system). Local, 'traditional' farming methods seem to be almost quaint in their simplicity and yet when one actually starts to get to grips with the systems themselves a different picture emerges. The industrial food complex has become a mechanised linear system with fertilisers, pesticides, antibiotics seeds and animals going in on one end and supermarket food coming out the other side after various levels of processing in between----> the ubiquitous, fossil-fuel- dependent black box. There is no element of agency from anything other than the powers that control the process: soil is kept fertile by adding fertiliser, monocultures are protected through herbicides and plants' natural defences are made redundant through pesticides- animals are merely protein-making factories fed corn and expected to produce beef steaks and because this is not necessarily their diet of choice (they are ruminants after all and a rumen's chief function is for digesting grass, not corn) their illnesses are kept at bay by the use of antibiotics. the same can be argued for chickens, pigs, sheep and other protein converters- even fish are now being fed corn!!! The complexity of this system stems less from the system itself, than the covert black box through which it operates which is phenomenally closed to the average consumer who is merely confronted with the end product in a supermarket. Even fresh produce (and some organic products- see the book for more on this) goes through a similar process where every step in the chain is controlled and individual agency is brought in line with the needs and requirements of the system.
On the other hand, we have the pastoral idyll that is conjured up in our imaginations when we think of the farm. Open grasslands, grazing cattle, chickens running around the farmyard etc etc etc... so simple, and yet when the underlying processes are reveled- it is shrouded in the complexity inherent in any ecologically based system (I don't like to use the value-laden adjective 'natural'). Soil is not just soil, but a combination of earth, roots, manure, decaying matter, earthworms and bacteria converting this matter into its constituent elements for uptake into the above-ground system. Grass is not just grass-it comprises multiple species (including nitrogen-fixing clovers and leguminous species) with varying nutritional values, tastes and growth patterns. Grazers like cows and sheep are as fussy about their grasses as you and I are about our dinner. Chickens thrive off the larvae etc that colonise cow pats and thus keep the system healthy- pigs are the best manure producers... happy as a pig in shit is no misnomer. Any tweak in any part of this system will have repercussions in the rest of the system and yet it is dynamic- an ongoing process of feedback loops all fed by solar energy converted through photosynthesis, land and water. Yes, I have painted a very pretty picture of the traditional farm, but you get my point- nothing linear, all is interdependent and because of this it is not static, but dynamic- less easy to control, but it is inherently self-organisational and manages itself quite well as a socio-ecological system. You are not constantly playing catch-up with 'nature' as in the industrial machine where all externalities are eliminated through pesticides, anti-biotics, sterilisation- even cutting off pigs' tail so they don't suckle them in lieu of their mothers... the definition of 'unsustainable'?
Complex systems versus complex food
Rather we are more likely dealing with simple systems resulting in complex food (containing more random names of substances that I only barely recall from first year undergrad chemistry), and complex systems resulting in pretty simple food. Perhaps instead of fighting the complexity of the system, we should engage with it instead of trying to make it malleable to our needs as this is likely to end up in a constant game of catch-up which we are unlikely to win because agency cannot be managed into constituent components. The question is why we turned to this industrial system in the first place? The first argument would be that it is required to feed a growing population- partially true, but to feed a growing population what exactly- an over-abundance of corn converted into a myriad of other corn-based products? In the developed world, an under-production of food cannot possibly be the rationale... so I take the more cynical view of keeping the great industrial giant alive and kicking- and then exporting this system to places that never thought of food in this way before so that they feel the need that in order to produce sufficient food, they need their own supply of inputs- and thus become dependent upon the providing hand of the West, not just for these manufactured inputs, but for plants and seeds themselves- the production of which should surely be left to the plants themselves??? (I'm not actually against GMOs per say, but don't get me started on the IP-based rationale behind terminator technology, grrrrrr!)
Urban systems of food consumption
However, as much as this return to the rural idyll is all very good and well (for those like Joel Salatin, the farmer whose farm forms the basis of Michael's chapter and the above rant), how realistic is it within the increasingly urbanised world in which we live where very few of us would know what to do with a cow if confronted with one (alive and not hanging from a peg in a butcher or even better, packaged into steaks/chops/mince... in local supermarket's fridge)... although cycling through the meadow at Oxford I have confronted a few, but that is another story for another time :-)
Is this sun/water/grass-fed system sustainable if it needs to feed not only the local community, but the megalopolis of 15 million people at the other end of the road/country/region/continent/world? In countries like NZ, South Africa, Argentina and even Brazil- it can be argued that yes, this is do-able. Local sourcing of most products occurs within the borders of the country and there is sufficient space etc etc and a national mentality that still allows for this type of farming (although perhaps not consciously), but it is increasingly under threat by the draw of the non-seasonality of food, TV dinners and pre-prepared food culture that dominates in world where people barely have the time to make a sandwich let alone cook a full three-course nutritious meal once a day.
Blame has at times been laid at the feminist movement- that now that women are working, they are no longer shackled to the kitchen stove cooking food for their families 24/7 and must now rely on the convenience brought by the industrial food system. Would a return to the traditional complex farm mean a return to the good ol' days of mom's home cooked meal? Or can it be a progressive step forward where we don't just question where our food comes from and what we are actually eating, but the entire lifestyle in which we consume food-on the go in our cars or a meal around the dinner table that everyone has chipped in to prepare?
Re-thinking our food system, not only requires re-conceptualising what we what to eat, but how we want to eat it- namely our lifestyles and what repercussions on the world we are prepared to live with in order to get our coffee fix every morning. We can no longer claim ignorance of the black box as consumers, but we need to pull it apart and define what we find acceptable and what needs fundamental change.
Although I clearly have more to say on the matter, I'm going to leave it there
Food for thought...
-L
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment