Sustaining Us

As if we didn’t have enough of a reason to go sustainable…now food prices are rising. The Omnivore’s Dilemma was written by Michael Pollan more than two years ago, but its message then was that human beings reside at the top of the food chain, and consuming meat requires a great deal of lower-food-chain resources. What does this mean to us? Essentially, if I choose to eat 1 pound of steak, I am foregoing 7 pounds of corn, rice, or other grain. Think about how many bowls of rice that is. For a cow to pack on another pound of body mass, it needs to consume 8 lbs. of grain. If the average bowl of rice uses 8 oz. We’re talking about sixteen bowls of white rice for one 16 oz. porterhouse.

For much of American history, this wasn’t a problem. Corn, our staple crop, has produced surpluses, and the Trojan Horse that is genetically modified corn, has only furthered corn as the multipurpose staple of our food economy. Bountiful harvests of corn were quite cheap. So cheap in fact, that cattle farmers could feed dozens, sometimes hundreds of animals, pounds and pounds of food every day at a cost that is as cheap as cafeteria lunches in America’s schools.

The result has been the fallacy that meat is cheap, bountiful, and a main-stay of any diet. While in fact, meat throughout history, has been a luxury of sorts. Diets in the far east have always been lauded for their high fiber and lean protein characteristics. That meant rice, soy, and fish were always on the menu and were all cheap in price and resources. Contrast that with an American diet of red-meat, simple sugars, and fat. Meat and fat reside close to the top of the food chain. Compare the two diets, and you’ll find that throughout history, a modern American diet is resource expensive compared to an Asian-Pacific diet or any other diet in the world. American settlers roughing their way through settlements weren’t about to fork over bushels of grain to farm animals when they barely made it through the winter themselves.

Thus, the problem here lies with food supply. As the American dollar slips, American’s are seeing the international community buy American crops at a steep discount. We no longer have cheap food for ourselves. Unfortunately, America supplied large amounts of surplus grain to third-world countries, now those countries are seeing shortages as well. As emerging developing countries gain wealth, they emulate American lifestyles and consumer greater quantities of meat, compounding the problem.

  With food prices naturally rising with the dollar’s demise, ethanol is gaining in popularity. In a twist of irony, ethanol is meant to combat global warming. While everyone is debating the existence of global warming, the effects of global warming are being seen and predicted. Like the debate on global warming, there is debate about whether or not crop yields will increase or decrease with the change in climates. No matter which side of the fence you reside, the fact is, crops that have grown successfully in certain regions for decades will cease to do so because of higher temperatures and less precipitation. Will other areas see increased precipitation and more ideal temperatures, yes, but the transition of land in those areas will be neither cheap nor quick nor environmentally friendly. Ethanol is now demanding not just surplus corn, but the food supply itself. Federal and statutory mandates now require ethanol as part of the fuel mix. The combination of changing climate and  ethanol conversion means even less supply to fulfill demand, result…higher prices.   

Americans are facing a precarious world. Food is becoming expensive for a variety of reasons that seem more and more likely to persist. For most, the meat first philosophy is finely ingrained in our culture. Barbecues, steak dinners, Big Macs, “Where’s the beef?” This paradigm will need to change. The prices of bread, beer, and other “staples” are rising. The problem with rising farm commodity prices (think wheat, orange juice, barley, corn) is that these are raw materials, low food chain items, meaning they’re effect is felt throughout the food chain. A mad cow scare affects the top of the food chain, leaving the produce aisle unscathed. But rising commodity prices are scary. You will see the price of Frito’s rise in price as fast as your burger. Cheaper substitutes become harder to find. The poorest will not be able to afford any level of sustenance. The cheap. nutrition devoid foods, that have plagued the poor with health problems will also disappear, leaving the poor not just malnurished, but also starved.

What advice is available? Eating lower on the food chain to relieve the pressure meat puts on food supplies is a good start. Local farmer’s markets are the best and most effective solution. These farmers bring a variety of native or adapted crops to the community and are usually more nutritious then processed foods. Recycling your hard earned money in your local community has its benefits as well, see the trickle effect of economics. So keep in mind, when you go to the store. Food choices that have been historically cheaper than your farmers markets are now becoming comparable if not a better deal. Take Fritos for example. A corn product, transported thousands of miles, and processed using large amounts of electricity. Corn prices are rising, oil prices are sky high, and electricity costs are outpacing inflation. Compare that to your local farmer’s produce. He travels shorter distances with a greater variety of produce requiring less processing and greater nutrition. The local movement is the answer, the speed of the paradigm shift is the question.

In a capitalist system such as ours, the government’s place is to protect us and buoy us, helping us regain traction when we lose our footing. (Please bear with this post, the sustainable message at the end is clear…) The need for government is accentuated during infrequent and catastrophic events. Ask Californian’s about the need for government help after fire consumed billions in property value and 600,000 acres of land. We derive a great deal of benefit from government when we need it most. Farming is no different.

For decades, farming has benefited from government intervention(cash) when rapid changes in economic conditions disallowed farmers from quickly changing with the times. Farming is illiquid. Most businesses, in times of need, can convert pieces of their business into cash, without losing the business entirely. I.e. Faced with a monthly lease payment, an electronics store might hold a sale to convert unsold inventory into cash. For a farmer, the only option when times become dire, is a sale of land, going out of business, and even that may not always be a valuable option, as farmers’ skill sets aren’t best suited for moving to another job.

For that reason, American farm subsidies grew. Whether it was the collapse of prices as the result of imports, or climbing gas prices cutting into profits during the 70’s, the American government was involved to protect and support farmers. Unfortunately, government was involved for so long, farmers forgot about when it wasn’t. While the rest of the country simply goes out of business or changes their business model, American farmers get paid.

Today in the NYT, Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, wrote about the legislative process of farm subsidies. Much like President Clinton’s fight against welfare and subsequent reform, farm subsidies are hotly debated. With America getting fatter and sustainable issues coming to the forefront in America’s political debate, it’s not a surprise that the Farm Bill, is under scrutiny. A poster child for pork barrel politics, farm subsidies are no longer about tax revenue allocation or free trade, it’s about America’s dietary requirements. Early in this post, I referred to government’s purpose and responsibility to protect us. Corn is America’s staple crop, and has only become more profitable to grow with ethanol’s popularity. Demand is high and supply isn’t going to keep up, thus prices will rise (think high fructose corn syrup and it’s prevalence in everything you eat), yet many corn farmers receive funding. American’s don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables. Why should they? A bottle of water out of a vending machine is always the same price as a Coca-Cola. Why choose water when a Coca-Cola is the same price. For a high schooler the choice is much more obvious. Nutritious options arent’ available because its price is that much greater.

The tired debate about farm subsidies is about to wake up to some very real issues. America’s capitalist roots yield greatest dividends to those who create efficient solutions and great products at cheap prices. When the system fails, government has deep pockets to balance the playing field. In the 1970’s when prices were spiraling higher, the government promoted cheap corn to temper prices of the multitude of products composed of high fructose corn syrup. Now with America fat and farming unsustainable, the government has a real opportunity to foster an era of better farming practices by subsidizing fruits, vegetables, and sustainable practices. It seems like the legislative process may just work out. Middle American senators with committee seats, dominating the debate, are being challenged by all sides of the country. The San Francisco Chronicle has a great article from this Friday. There is hope yet.

Since writing this blog, I’ve noticed that my actions seem to be governed more and more by sustainable thinking than ever before. On Wednesday night my wild and crazy team of auditors, and I took a trip to a local bar to enjoy some spirits. As low man on the totem pole it’s my responsibility to plunk down my plastic and open the tab. No worries, I will be reimbursed accordingly, my firm will sustain my social drinking for as long as I work there. Besides relishing the opportunity to drink for free, I thought about how to make a green impact socially. Of all of the choices behind the bar, I would normally choose Stolichnaya Vodka (Russia) or Seagram’s Seven (Canada) to mix and consume. However on this night I thought about what may be the most responsible choice for a, “greenie.” After my careful/rushed analysis, I went with plain old Budweiser. Here is my reasoning in full…

There are many angles to view this. One of which is packaging, although there are plenty of bottled beer options, the transportation of bottled beer is highly inefficient. Glass is heavy, oddly shaped and packed in a way that hardly could be considered dense. If I were to drink beer, it would have to be in keg form, i.e. on tap. However I wouldn’t be prudent if I didn’t consider liquor. One bottle of liquor could serve upwards of 25 drinks, and what’s more efficient than that. Proctor and Gamble just rolled out a 2X concentrated version of their High Efficiency detergent; that’s a double whammy of efficiency. Hard liquor is the alcohol industry’s version of 2X Tide HE. There are many fine varieties produced in the United States, but my desire to pace myself and maintain face at a work related event tipped the balance toward beer…which brings me to my next decision. Stella Artois, Guinness, Budweiser, Bud Light, or Newcastle, all on tap. What beer least impacts the environment (who cares about taste, you only taste the first one or two anyway, especially after a long day of work.) This one to me was relatively easy. Budweiser/Bud Light. Budweiser is brewed in the countryside(sarcasm)/industrial mega park that is Newark, NJ. Drinking at a bar in NYC meant that total travel was less than 25 miles, not to mention, it traveled in the super-efficient keg. It’s easily recycled and can transport a whopping 200-220 12-ounce servings. An empty Keg itself weighs 30 lbs., but its stackability and compactness counteracts this deficiency. Budweiser is also quite “pishy” meaning they skimp on ingredients, thus utilizing every hop to the fullest and really stretching their inputs.

Some might argue that raw materials must be shipped from all over the country to produce Budweiser beer in Newark, NJ. They’ve even been exposed by Green Peace to use genetically engineered rice (watch for my positive sustainable spin on genetically engineered produce coming soon). All of this is countered by the fact that foreign choices are simply unsustainable. They are shipped from across the world burning much more fuel than their domestic contemporaries and they do nothing to support our local communities/domestic economies, both of which are vital to a sustainable economic model.

All in all, a lot of thinking went into my decision concerning what to drink. And choosing Budweiser provided me a good time and a good feeling that lasted well beyond.