![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ethical Eating
Jun. 9th, 2006 09:47 pmFood Fight: Wal-Mart is selling organic food. What's an ethical eater to do? by Katherine Mangu-Ward on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal is a poorly written (disorganized, overly long) but interesting article on ethical eating. It mentions several reasons relating to ethics for choosing to buy organic in the olden days. The reasons I was able to tease out are:
* keeping poisons out of ourselves by not eating foods treated with pesticides, hormones and mercury
* keeping poisons out of the earth by buying foods treated with pesticides, hormones and mercury
* keeping poisons out of the atmosphere by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by eating locally and seasonally and eating foods with minimal processing
* eating better-tasting food (okay that's not ethical--how about feeding our family and friends better-tasting food?) by eating foods not treated with poisons and grown locally
* promoting humane treatment of animals by choosing foods from free-range animals
* promoting sustainable methods of food production instead of ones that use up the resources
* promoting traditional farming methods over techniques of mass production such as using trucked-in fertilizer and harvesting machines--I think this is about promoting a better way of life for food producers
* promoting the picturesque landscapes of family farms, cooperative farms, and tiny dairies over agribusinesses
Other reasons I've heard elsewhere include:
* promoting humane treatment of human workers by not buying foods that are treated with toxins and by not buying food from fields worked by mistreated workers
* promoting food efficiency by eating closer to the bottom of the food chain, specifically, a vegetarian lifestyle
* eating fewer poisons by eating closer to the bottom of the food chain (e.g., smaller fish have less mercury)
* promoting other values by buying from companies with these same values (e.g., godliness, gay rights, etc.)
* promoting humane deaths for livestock by eating kosher.
Do you have a favorite?
For me, the word "sustainable" summarizes my priority. If you're burning down part of the rainforest in order to grow cocoa beans there for three years, or you're scraping everything up off the bottom of the ocean floor to catch every one of the big fish hanging out there right then, that's just sickening. And if you're poisoning the land, water, air, and humans, even with slow poisons, that's not overly sustainable either.
The article is trying to say that people are angry that the word "organic" can now be applied to items that do not support all the above goals, blaming it partly on the US government's watered-down definition of "organic" and partly on Whole Foods becoming a behemoth, encouraging the use of mass-production techniques and competing with cooperatives and farmer's markets. And so now it's more difficult to find foods that support all of these various goals.
I don't agree. I think this watered-down organic food is still better for the environment and the humans than most other foods sold in grocery stores, so that's a good thing. And Whole Foods becoming a behemoth and Walmart selling organic foods are in response to increasing demand, which is good. And the growing presence of organics helps more people learn about these issues and further the increase in demand, which is also good. And the article even admits that farmers' markets are still growing strong as people turn to them after turning away from Whole Foods in disgust. So, although the average quality of foods labeled organic may have decreased, I'm thinking that the average quality of food overall has improved.
The article also mentions a debate on whether you should choose locally grown non-organic food or organic food shipped over long distances. I've heard that the pollution from all the transportation is much worse than the pollution from non-organic pesticides, etc. That's good to know for a person like me who prioritizes sustainability. (Except that foods grown in my locality are mostly yucky and/or use too much water to be sustainable in my locality.) They conclude:
Disclaimers: I own stock in Whole Foods. Fifty-two shares! That's well over 1% of my net worth! Also, I grow rosemary in my yard which, although not native to my local, is yummy and does not use too much water.
* keeping poisons out of ourselves by not eating foods treated with pesticides, hormones and mercury
* keeping poisons out of the earth by buying foods treated with pesticides, hormones and mercury
* keeping poisons out of the atmosphere by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by eating locally and seasonally and eating foods with minimal processing
* eating better-tasting food (okay that's not ethical--how about feeding our family and friends better-tasting food?) by eating foods not treated with poisons and grown locally
* promoting humane treatment of animals by choosing foods from free-range animals
* promoting sustainable methods of food production instead of ones that use up the resources
* promoting traditional farming methods over techniques of mass production such as using trucked-in fertilizer and harvesting machines--I think this is about promoting a better way of life for food producers
* promoting the picturesque landscapes of family farms, cooperative farms, and tiny dairies over agribusinesses
Other reasons I've heard elsewhere include:
* promoting humane treatment of human workers by not buying foods that are treated with toxins and by not buying food from fields worked by mistreated workers
* promoting food efficiency by eating closer to the bottom of the food chain, specifically, a vegetarian lifestyle
* eating fewer poisons by eating closer to the bottom of the food chain (e.g., smaller fish have less mercury)
* promoting other values by buying from companies with these same values (e.g., godliness, gay rights, etc.)
* promoting humane deaths for livestock by eating kosher.
Do you have a favorite?
For me, the word "sustainable" summarizes my priority. If you're burning down part of the rainforest in order to grow cocoa beans there for three years, or you're scraping everything up off the bottom of the ocean floor to catch every one of the big fish hanging out there right then, that's just sickening. And if you're poisoning the land, water, air, and humans, even with slow poisons, that's not overly sustainable either.
The article is trying to say that people are angry that the word "organic" can now be applied to items that do not support all the above goals, blaming it partly on the US government's watered-down definition of "organic" and partly on Whole Foods becoming a behemoth, encouraging the use of mass-production techniques and competing with cooperatives and farmer's markets. And so now it's more difficult to find foods that support all of these various goals.
I don't agree. I think this watered-down organic food is still better for the environment and the humans than most other foods sold in grocery stores, so that's a good thing. And Whole Foods becoming a behemoth and Walmart selling organic foods are in response to increasing demand, which is good. And the growing presence of organics helps more people learn about these issues and further the increase in demand, which is also good. And the article even admits that farmers' markets are still growing strong as people turn to them after turning away from Whole Foods in disgust. So, although the average quality of foods labeled organic may have decreased, I'm thinking that the average quality of food overall has improved.
The article also mentions a debate on whether you should choose locally grown non-organic food or organic food shipped over long distances. I've heard that the pollution from all the transportation is much worse than the pollution from non-organic pesticides, etc. That's good to know for a person like me who prioritizes sustainability. (Except that foods grown in my locality are mostly yucky and/or use too much water to be sustainable in my locality.) They conclude:
For better or worse, organic is now an agricultural method that includes winter blackberries, TV dinners and plastic-wrapped spring greens able to travel 3,000 miles without wilting. Advocates of local eating find themselves back on the fringes where they started in the 1970s and speak angrily about industrial organic as "selling out."
Disclaimers: I own stock in Whole Foods. Fifty-two shares! That's well over 1% of my net worth! Also, I grow rosemary in my yard which, although not native to my local, is yummy and does not use too much water.