Sustainability has been a buzzword in food and agriculture for several years. But the push for sustainability can come at the expense of other agriculture issues, Richard Oswald writes for the Daily Yonder. Oswald pointed to Mark Bittman’s first Food Manifesto column in The New York Times as one such example. "This is what the new Times food columnist seems to miss: the connection between who controls markets and what happens on the farm and at the retail store," Oswald writes. "If you miss the connection between the lack of competition in agriculture and the nature of food, then you’ve overlooked the works."
Oswald notes that farm subsidies rose as the livestock industry was controlled by "ever-larger integrators" and opaque markets. "Stratospheric grain prices and falling dollars may converge in unexpected changes," Oswald writes. "The new food industrialists (whom Bittman doesn’t mention in his column) will have to cut back livestock production, import more food at higher cost from hungry nations, or do more work for less money." The other problem with Bittman's call for sustainability is the ongoing debate over what the definition of sustainability should be, Oswald writes.
"If people want truly sustainable food, the first order is to respect both the health of consumers and the realities of food production without watering down rules on safety or competition," Oswald writes. In order for those protections to be ensured, "real people will have to barricade the doors of the conference hall when final rules are written. Otherwise, big business will be there in force, pressing their own agenda," Oswald writes. He concludes, "The battle is far from won. Bureaucrats on their way up the executive escalator could end up writing sustainable rules for food that looks, tastes, and is exactly like the stuff we’ve been eating for decades. There's a world of difference between changing labels and changing food." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment