Chew on This: Presidential Election, Missing Curriculum?

Inspired by the writing of Wendell Berry, Michael Pollan, Bill McKibben, and others, I've written an Op-ed about the "missing" food economy debate in this presidential election (see below). How has our society come to ignore big questions about something so elemental to survival?

How come issues like these aren't paramount in school and state curriculums? Oh wait, I know why: because if we actually move to teach ideas that really matter, things will CHANGE. Scary thought for many. If we want students to become active, thoughtful citizens, we've got to move towards teaching new discourse, big ideas, and social responsibility.

The Missing Debate

There is a missing debate right now amongst the never-ending presidential election coverage and process. The missing link is food and agriculture. At a recent conference on food and politics in Louisville, author Christopher Cook noted, “If food is at the core of human existence, it should be at the core of politics.” He’s right on.

As a society we certainly consume enough, but don’t think enough, about where our food comes from and why it matters. So why should we care? The health of a society—both literally and figuratively—is inextricably linked to how the food economy is structured. Right now, industrial-farming practices, Doritos and Spicy Cheetohs, rampant diabetes and obesity, the convenience of bottled water (a huge marketing scam), and Happy Meals reign. It’s no surprise that Americans’ general happiness and physical health have been in decline since the Post-WWII growth of industrial food production and the aforementioned trends.

When a state like Iowa, with some of the best topsoil in the world, is dominated by monocrops and enormous agribusinesses, but barely feeds itself, something is wrong with our food economy.

When massive farms are almost entirely mechanized, relying on only a few humans, more and more John Deere combines and tractors, and obscene amounts of fertilizers and pesticides to produce crops and animals, something is wrong with our food economy.

When fuel costs rise, and food must travel thousands of miles from farm to factory to fork, something is wrong with our food economy.

When we produce enough grain to solve world hunger, but the vast majority of corn, soy, and oats grown is used for fattening up antibiotic-saturated cattle penned in feedlots of sludge and manure, something is wrong with our food economy. Especially on the ethical front.

When food consumption is heavily swayed by fad diets, obsessive calorie counting, and endless nutrient analyses—the general fragmentation of food into measurable bits and pieces—something is wrong with our food economy.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to eating. Fast and processed food is pretty delicious, especially when you don’t think twice about how destructive it is to the environment and our societal wellbeing. The desensitization and complacency to the problems fostered by our current food economy somehow must end.

To contrast the dominant trends in our food economy, imagine this: regional food markets. The rise of regional food markets would ensure that fossil fuel prices don’t compromise our food security. Expanding the network of farmer’s markets, providing fresh, healthy food to all segments of the population, is one place to start. Schools, hospitals, and government centers could establish contracts with local food producers, hiring actual cooks, instead of reheat and deep-fry specialists. Imagine more people sitting down to celebrate eating good food, slowly, instead of scarfing down barely-recognizable calories. Regional food systems would help bring about general resurgence of community, in which we establish relationships with those who ensure our survival—the food producers.

Of course, you won’t see the Federal government stand up for a radical change in agriculture policies. The large agribusiness corporations have their hands in the pockets of both Democrats and Republicans. Subsidies for massive farms—which by no means support a sustainable farming model or small farmers—continue to highlight the Farm Bill. Real change means usurping the corporate agribusiness dominance in Washington D.C., and finally acknowledging that more isn’t always or necessarily better.

Civic and state efforts will foster change, independent from federal intervention. My home state of Kentucky is in prime position to be a leader in a more sustainable, local food economy. The state’s rich agricultural tradition of small farms could, and should, lead to infrastructure, business, and farm advancements to continue working towards a shorter, healthier route from farm to fork.

I haven’t completely forsaken McDonald’s and other corporate giants engaged in perpetuating the illogical, unhealthy and non-sustainable food system, but I’m getting close. I get more satisfaction buying better-tasting local food, knowing that my dollars spent remain close by in the pockets of Kentucky farmers. Plus, it’s hard to beat the satisfaction of sharing a home-cooked meal—preferably with some local ingredients—in the company of friends and family.