October 31, 2009 - by Molly Mann
From community gardens to school lunches to the organic
produce aisle at the grocery store, it seems that the best place to make a
political statement these days is on your plate; what you eat defines what you
believe.
But have some groups taken this commitment to morally
superior eating too far? Can dinner just be dinner again?
Consider, for example, the New York Times "Dining" article from this past Wednesday about D.I.Y. butchering. Alex Williams, the reporter, documents a growing trend in New York dining: "self-conscious carnivores" who seek to justify their meat-eating by learning to slaughter and butcher their food, especially pigs, and
"honor" the animal. They believe that by sparing the animals the horror
of a factory-farmed death and getting closer to the natural predator-prey
relationship, they somehow reach a higher degree of humaneness with their
eating habits.
Others take this idea a little further. They won't actually
kill an animal just to serve themselves dinner, but rather feed off of what's
already there. Urban freegans (anti-consumerist dumpster-divers) and rural road kill diners -- though from different ends of the political spectrum, usually -- subscribe to the same belief that you
shouldn't waste what's already there. Breeding animals for slaughter just
creates more waste; if you're going to eat meat, there's no need to take a new
life just to fill your stomach.
These are certainly extreme examples of groups who've pushed
food politics to the edge. I admire them for their wholehearted commitment to
their ideals and agree that the only effective change for the planet and
society is lifestyle change, but my beliefs about food are of Michael Pollan's
simpler stamp: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
October 19, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Tucked within the pages of my New York Times this morning was a report by Matthew L. Wald on an internal audit by the Energy Department, which jointly manages the Energy Star program with the Environmental Protection Agency. Or, rather, is supposed to manage. In reality, the audit reveals, the government doesn't really do much at all where this program is concerned. Apparently, retailers are being allowed to slap the Energy Star sticker, which consumers use to navigate home products by efficiency and reduced environmental impact, on just about anything.
The U.S. Energy Star program began in 1992 to certify products like kitchen appliances, washers and dryers, computers, television sets, windows, doors, heaters, and lighting as energy efficient. In order to earn certification, these products had to prove a 20 to 30 percent average savings on electrical and heating costs. The idea was that consumers would opt for the more efficient products once it was easier to recognize them, and the demand would drive the market to produce more environmentally friendly goods. Since President Obama entered the White House, the program has had a rebirth under the federal stimulus bill, which allotted $300 million for consumer rebates on Energy Star products.
But if upwards of 90 percent of all products have gained Energy Star certification without earning it, how are we supposed to tell a truly efficient appliance from one that isn't? This revelation is yet another reminder not to fall prey to greenwashing, the meaningless labeling of ordinary products as environmentally friendly. Don't just take the retailers' word for it that what you're buying is sustainable; take some time to do a little research and find out for yourself. When it comes to your food, your clothing, and your home, you want to know.
Where to look? Consumer Reports is a good place to start. The publication was actually the first to break this story a year ago in October 2008 by performing its own tests on products and finding out that they did not live up to the Energy Star standards.
To give the government some credit, this was an internal audit and the Energy Department has pledged to remedy its shortfalls. I think we can reasonably assume that these oversights are left over from the previous administration and will change now that President Obama is in office. Regardless of who's in the White House, however, we must never stop asking questions. No sticker or label can tell us the whole truth about the goods we consume.
October 16, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Small farmers are integral to the environmental movement because they are our connection to the land and make the decisions about what goes into our food. But life as a small farmer is not easy, especially in developing countries. Growing crops is labor intensive and the yield is usually unsustainable. Add in the unpredictability of weather and storms and one wonders why anyone would choose such a lot in life.
The truth is that most farmers in developing countries don't choose to cultivate the land but are rather forced to out of economic necessity. They need to make a living, no matter how inadequate. And it is certainly inadequate; most don't make enough money to feed their families all the time. Yet our consumer culture dictates that they must keep growing, because the food and other goods they produce supply all the items that we deem essential to our qualities of life.
Twenty-five years ago, in response to this problematic situation, the Fair Trade global cooperative arose to help Third World growers out of poverty by paying them above-market prices for crops. The most prominent advocate of Fair Trade is Starbucks, the world's largest purchaser of Fair Trade-certified coffee. This year, Starbucks pledged to double the amount of Fair Trade beans it buys to 40 million pounds, which amounts to approximately 40 percent of all the Fair Trade coffee imported by the United States.
So, in order to understand how the Fair Trade cooperative works, let's take coffee as an example. Fair Trade charges the retail customer $10 per pound of coffee so that it may give the farmer $1.55 per pound.
But here's the catch: that's only about 15 cents higher than the current market rate. And with Fair Trade cooperative fees, taxes, and expenses, the farmer is left with only 50 cents per pound; this amounts to about $1,000 a year. I can't live on $1,000 a month, let alone depend on that amount of money, which in coffee-producing Guatemala would be about half the minimum wage, to feed an entire family for a year .
What latte-sippers who congratulate themselves for buying Fair Trade coffee don't understand is that it's just not enough. We have a huge disconnect in our society in that we delegate our worst jobs, like growing coffee beans, to impoverished nations and then feel we can dictate the terms of their work (organic, human, cage-free, no antibiotics, etc.). It's an unsupportable system, and we need to fix it if we're going to make any progress on reaching a more sustainable way to live on this planet.
I'm not saying anyone should stop buying Fair Trade goods. I think it's a commendable response to an ailing system. But we need to look beyond the labels like "Fair Trade" and "organic" that seem only to lull us into complacency and address the system itself.
October 09, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Though the story has been eclipsed by other news, I've been following the progress of Ilya, a Florida manatee who has found his way into New York Harbor despite the tendency of manatees to remain south of Georgia. Biologists are trying to find Ilya, entice him with lettuce and fresh drinking water, and bring him home. Manatees require water that is at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit, so Ilya needs to end his northward jaunt before full winter arrives.
Manatees were once believed to be mythical sirens or mermaids. Their cachet has fallen dramatically, however; they're now on the endangered species list. Despite the fact that they have no natural enemies and can live to be 60 years old, human infringement on their habitat and pollution have threatened manatees to the point of near extinction. Historically, manatees have been hunted for their skins and meat. Fortunately, since protections were put in place in 1973, the estimated population along the U.S. coast has risen to 3,800 from 1,700 and the Obama administration announced on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 that it would strengthen these Ford-era regulations.
But saving the manatee is still a daunting task. The species is under constant assault from motor boats; 74 have died in collisions this year alone. They also have a very slow reproductive rate, which is why it's important to carefully guard every single one. That makes Ilya, who is distinguished by two scars from boats on his tail and head, important to the species' survival.
Visit the Save the Manatee Club web site to get involved with endangered species support and be sure to look out for Ilya in the news! Let's hope the big guy makes it home safe.
October 03, 2009 - by Molly Mann
After reading this piece by Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker Magazine yesterday, and listening to President Obama's failed plea to bring the Olympics to Chicago, I wondered: what if the president saved his rhetoric of urgency for matters that were....urgent? And there is no matter more so than the need to halt climate change now.
The United States is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, at 20 tons per person per year. That's more -- per capita, not total -- than China. Instead of being the leader in emissions, we need to be the leader in change and President Obama, who campaigned on the slogan of change, has to be the one to step forward on this. Forget Chicago; forget the Olympics. Focus instead on reversing the apathy of the Clinton administration's apathy toward environmental measures and the Bush administration's sabotage of them.
President Obama, my peers and I elected you because you held out promise of a future for us. We want jobs, we want affordable healthcare, and we need a clean and safe world. Games are fun, but please focus on the work at hand.
