The Food Police, A Brief History

Kerry Trueman, co-founder of EatingLiberally.org, in her latest editorial regarding a historical food exhibit, What's Cooking Uncle Sam? The Government's Effect on the American Diet, (perhaps inadvertently) reminds us all of the basic function of government: redistribution. I am not going to go into a lesson on politics or economics here, but we can probably all agree that the government decides who should get our money: Group A or Group B. Clearly, if you're part of a group of very wealthy "citizens", your group is going to "lobby" or importune congress to give the money to your group or make sure that the other group gets as little of it as possible. If you're part of a group of "poor" citizens, you're obviously going to have less sway and less say in whether the government gives you anything. If you're lucky, they might throw you a bone to gnaw on. So, as far as the government is concerned, the more moulah you make, the more moulah you can (probably--depending on how persuasive your lobbyists are) take. This doesn't just apply to dollars. It also applies to laws and regulations. It doesn't take a brainiac to conclude from this that the corporate food industry is doing very well for themselves, and they have the government to thank, the seeds of which grew from more than 100 years ago.

For example, Trueman points out in her article how in 1929 the commercial seed industry "successfully lobbied" congress in ensuring that farmers were not to be given free seeds anymore, and so they scrapped the seed give-away program, which I didn't know existed. In this case, Group A is the American Seed Trade Association, Group B are the farmers. Guess who lost? Bingo, Group B.

Fast forward to the 21st Century where even today food stampees can use their "stamps" to get seeds and vegetable plants to grow their own food. Again, I didn't know this existed either, though sadly, these recipients don't even seem to know this program exists--lack of advertising, perhaps? Apparently, food "stamps" are also now in the form of credit cards, so if you're lucky enough to have one of these babies, you can still use your petty cash to buy cigarettes, beer, candy and soda, so it's a win-win. Group A, the manufacturers of said cigarettes, beer, candy and soda wins, and Group B, the poor citizens who cannot afford to drive 45 minutes to a real grocery store because all they have are convenience stores (called bodegas in Manhattan) also wins! Again, we have the government to thank for such ingenious distribution methods.

In The End of Food, Paul Roberts points out that the most heavily advertised food, candy, snacks, prepared meals, cereals and soft drinks "make up barely a fifth of all consumer food purchases, yet account for nearly half of all advertising expenditures," (pg. 39.) These are also the same foods that are sold at convenience stores, the same foods that food stamp recipients mostly purchase as there are no real grocery stores anywhere in the vicinity of poor neighborhoods. And let's not forget that CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations are also generally housed next to poor neighborhoods where the poor are stuck living next to toxic-gas-infested cesspools, all of which are intensely lobbied by the food industry to stay in business and stay in pollution.

Houston, we have a problem. Maybe Richard Branson of Virgin Records--excuse me, Virgin Galactic--will lobby the government to solve it. Or maybe not. Perhaps this is why USDA's 1945 food policy was to eat the seven basic food groups plus "any other foods you want." Those guys at the USDA are real brainiacs. I guess it is this kind of thinking that leads to stories like this one where a Michigan woman faces jail time for growing a vegetable garden. Yes, these brainiacs have come so far. We should all be so lucky.

But enough with the polemics. Let's answer the question: Do we eat better than we did 100 years ago? Okay, let's not answer the question. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we are eating well NOW. It doesn't matter how we ate way back when. What matters is that we don't have drugs in our food. What matters is that we don't have police putting us in jail for growing gardens. What matters is that the food subsidies stop so we can decide where our dollars go, preferably to sustainable food methods and local agriculture, not big agribusiness. Are we going backwards, are we going forwards? It doesn't matter. What matters is that we are paying attention. Let's open our eyes to what is going on all around us. Our food is being attacked and food has no voice. But we do. Let's start using it.