Our Arugula President Steps Up to the Plate With a Sustainable Vision for American Eating

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

We all know that there were a lot of hints from Barack Obama on the campaign trail that progressives picked up on and elevated to the status of confirmed truths, which later came back to bite us in our disappointed butts. No, Obama did not actually think that those who sanctioned torture would really see the inside of a courtroom, much less a jailhouse. No, Obama never actually believed single-payer would work in this country.

But that whole arugula gaff? That was the real thing.

After bringing up Whole Foods' price-gouging of the spicy salad greens in front of a group of farmers in Iowa in 2007, Obama was ridiculed as an elitist. In actuality, the president-to-be was (wittingly or not, I can't say) pointing out the agricultural disconnect in this country, fostered by corporate organics giant Whole Foods.

As I noted in a round up of Thursday's Organizing for America healthcare forum featuring President Obama, there is talk of creating a White House farmer's market which may help close that gap in D.C. His remarks included this response to a question about healthy habits (emphasis mine):

So you know, Michelle set up that garden in the White House. One of the things that we're trying to do now is to figure out, can we get a little farmer's market outside of the White House -- I'm not going to have all y'all just tromping around -- (laughter) -- but right outside the White House so that we can -- and that is a win-win situation. It gives suddenly D.C. more access to good, fresh food, but it also is this enormous potential revenue-maker for local farmers in the area. And those kinds of connections can be made all throughout the country and has to be part of how we think about health.

With his reiteration of support for a public option at that same forum, however, it seemed BuzzFlashers were less interested in one little market that, let's face it, few of us would ever visit. And maybe that's fair. But there's more to this than an overgrown edible garden on the White House lawn.

Obama's side story about a White House farmer's market is more of a political statement than it sounds like, especially when you combine it with what he said about the school lunch program in practically the same breath. In addressing forthcoming child nutrition legislation, Obama hinted that he might be breaking up the cartel of sugars and fats currently catering to the country's schools (again, with the emphasizing):

We provide an awful lot of school lunches out there and—and reimburse local school districts for school-lunch programs.  Let’s figure out how can we get some fresh fruits and vegetables in the mix.  Because sometimes you go into schools and—you know what the menu is, you know?  It’s French fries, Tater Tots, hot dogs, pizza... It turns out that that food’s a lot cheaper, because of the distributions that we’ve set up. And so what we’ve got to do is to change how we think about, for example, getting local farmers connected to school districts, because that would benefit the farmers, delivering fresh produce, but right now they just don’t have the distribution mechanisms set up.

We didn't get this unbalanced and unhealthy food system by accident. Just as corn is in almost every prepared food product we consume because of the enormous subsidies to the corn industry, unhealthy food rules public education institutions because the government and local schools are handing out bids to large companies whose first priority is not necessarily lowering the obesity rate of our nation's children.

So, let's be fair: Challenging this particular status quo is a sign of great courage from the White House, one for which I'm not sure the president or the first lady are really getting their due of credit.

Don't let anyone tell you food isn't a highly-charged and political topic. I've taken plenty of flack, both for what I've written here on BuzzFlash and from my friends around the dinner table, for my views on food.

One example is my recent article on the Whole Foods boycott. My basic premise was that Whole Foods may be organic, but it's still corporate. So one shouldn't be surprised by the obfuscation of the healthcare debate by that company's CEO. I argued that if you really want to be a progressive foodie, you'd eschew Whole Paycheck for the farmer's market, community-supported agriculture or food co-ops.

Some boycotters railed against me for downplaying their attempt to vote with their paychecks (a strategy I support, by the way). Others dedicated to shopping at Whole Foods said they don't have any other realistic options to pursue an organic diet with their busy lifestyles. On the other side, I have people accusing me of being a brainwashed elitist for suggesting that organic food is any better than factory food. Some say they can't afford to eat the way I do, due to a want of time or money.

Now I may have an argument to counter each of these viewpoints, but it doesn't really matter. Besides the fact that I don't subscribe to food evangelism, Many people will never change the way they eat because it is so personal that an article isn't going to make a difference.

The exception to this general rule is voices of authority. Chances are if your doctor told you your diet is creating an unmanageable situation for your health, you'd be more likely to change. If your president tells your our food system is unsustainable, that carries more water than Alice Waters saying the same thing.

But it is. I don't care where you fall on the pyramid of nutrition ideology, I don't think anyone who knows anything about the current agricultural system in this country thinks that we can keep feeding ourselves in the manner that has held sway for the past several decades.

A sustainable, healthy food system is currently being pushed by the president as part of the solution to the healthcare crisis in this country. And he's right, but agriculture done wrong contributes to many more ills than just poor health. One timely example is climate change.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the production of meat alone accounts for nearly one-fifth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, "more than all of the world's air and road transport combined," according to this BBC report. And that doesn't even figure in the carbon footprint of trucking those suddenly popular acai berries from the Brazilian Amazon to a smoothie stand in New York.

Agriculture could play a significant role in greenhouse gas reduction via carbon sequestration projects, according to researchers at the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. But the latest actions of the representatives of our country's farmers suggests they're unwilling to do so.

The American Farm Bureau and other agribusiness groups have signed onto the "Energy Citizens" campaign, an anti-cap-and-trade legislation group coordinated by the American Petroleum Institute. This is despite the fact that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently pointed out that farmers stand to gain from cap-and-trade, echoing a recent USDA study that found billions in potential net profits for farmers stemming from cap-and-trade.

Admittedly the benefits will accrue to farmers willing to change, by actions such as modifying carbon inputs like oil-based fertilizer and by implementing solar panels and wind turbines on their land. While some innovative farmers will benefit, the farming industry will have to change, which is why the lobbyists oppose this legislation.

But, as President Obama said in his remarks at the healthcare forum Thursday, change is tough, and the easiest thing to do is nothing:

"Victory in an election was not the change that we sought," he said. "America can be a little fairer, a little more just, a little more efficient... We are not going to give up now."

Now, if you'll excuse me; my elitist, farmer's market salad with heirloom tomatoes and arugula awaits.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS