 |
|
|
|||||
Julian Baggini is a philosopher with a long and deep interest in food and where it comes from. His books include internationally bestselling How the World Thinks; How to Think Like a Philosopher; The Virtues of the Table; and The Pig That Wants to be Eaten. He is the Academic Director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy and a member of the Food Ethics Council. He is a regular columnist for The Guardian, Prospect magazine, Financial Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Whats the big idea? Food is such a big topic that few really grasp the whole of it. Using his philosophical skillset, Julian sketches a picture of how all the elements of food consumption and production fit together. Extracted from the complexity of foods impact on health, economy, wellbeing, nature, civil strife, and so on, there are common principles that characterize food systems that work for us and for the planet. Below, Julian shares five key insights from his new book, How the World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy. Listen to the audio versionread by Julian himselfin the Next Big Idea App. 1. Debate about food and farming is too polarized Polarized debate about food and farming stands in the way of everyone coming together for the common good. Beneath the dichotomous rhetoric, the world is not nearly as divided as it seems. Take the apparent chasm between organic and non-organic agriculture. In one way, it is a sharp divide because you either tick the boxes and get certified organic or you dont. But in practice, the difference between the two camps is blurry. Some farms are in effect organic but cant say they are because they dont pay for certification. Nor can we separate them out based on which use fertilizers and pesticides and which dont. Organic farms use both, only they cant be syntheticin their definition of the term. But so-called natural inputs are not necessarily safer. Copper is allowed under the terms of certification as an organic fungicide (commonly used for tomato production), but copper is known to be toxic to humans. Some non-organic farms use chemical inputs with such care and in such limited amounts that they pose no threat to human health or wildlife. Or take the distinction between farmed and wild-caught fish. Whether one is better than the other all depends. There are some terrible practices on the open seas, including the use of huge trawlers to scrape the seabed, basically bulldozing habitats. There are also awful fish farms that pollute surrounding waters and nurture sick fish. But there are also good practices on both sides. Like most either/or questions about food, farmed or wild? is just the wrong question. Simplistic, polarized thinking has real consequences. Take the idea that plastic is bad and biodegradable packaging is good. An extra layer of plastic wrap in the packaging of Danish cold meats increases their shelf life and reduces waste, and for almost all food, the environmental impact of waste is higher than that of the packaging that prevents it. Or take the owner of a vegetable box delivery scheme who knows that the greenest option is to use reusable and recyclable hard plastic boxes but must use cardboard because his customer base is so convinced that plastic is always the enemy. 2. Plurality is key to how we feed ourselves There is no one right way to farm, make food, or eat. It depends on context, culture, and circumstance. Grazing cattle is sustainable and efficient on the Argentinian Pampas, but not so easily done at scale on the polders of the Netherlands. The Mediterranean diet may be very healthy, but the Japanese one is at least as good. There is a place for small artisan producers, but the big manufacturers of, say, pasta do a good job supplying reliable, tasty, nutritious food at a good price. What works on a wheat farm in one place may not work in another in the next valley, let alone in another country. Advocates of land sharing argue that farmland must be made more hospitable to wildlife so that we can share our productive land with nature. Land sparers argue that the best way to protect the environment is to make agriculture as efficient as possible so that it uses less land, leaving other habitats pristine. Both perspectives are right, and both are wrong. In some places, land sharing works best, while in others, land sparing is more appropriate. The right option in one place can be wrong elsewhere. Too often, people advocate for one-size-fits-all solutions: that the world needs to go organic, or that everyone should be using more synthetic inputs; that we should all go vegan; that we should bring down the big food and agri-businesses; that everything we eat should be prepared from fresh. We homo sapiens have been able to feed ourselves for millennia because we have been resourceful, adapting ourselves to variable and changing conditions. Plurality has been one of our greatest strengths, and we should continue to encourage and celebrate it. 3. The ground rules of nutrition are simple because it is so complicated It is hubris to think we can micro-manage our diets to make significant differences to our health and longevity. The focus should be on the big, obvious elements of a good diet. It is still difficult to beat Michael Pollans famous seven-word maxim: eat food, not too much, mostly plants. By foods, he, of course, means real, whole foods and not highly processed edible food-like substances, to use his memorable phrase. We keep getting seduced by hucksters and misguided diet guides who promise the ultimate health hacks. Right now, the big noise is about the gut microbiome, with many making millions by selling prebiotics and probiotics, gut shots, and the like. But the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania have a really healthy gut microbiome, and they dont eat anything like kimchi or kefir, let alone manufactured so-called gut-boosters. They only eat what they have gathered that day. Their guts are healthy because they eat a wide range of fibrous plants. The idea that we should focus on big factors gives us the license to relax a little. What matters is your dietary pattern, not any individual food you eat. If your diet is based on healthy foods, it doesnt matter if you have the odd twinkie or a triple-cheese pizza. There is a lot of justifiable concern about ultra-processed foods, but they are not poisonous in small doses. Purity in eating is seductive but unnecessary. Many of us have individual needs that demand more specific dietary advice. We have intolerances, allergies, or health conditions that can be triggered by certain foods. But unless you have a specific medical reason to avoid some foods and have more of others, you should stop worrying and eat a good variety of proper foods. 4. Around the world, there are huge injustices in the food system Cocoa farmers who earn less every day than it costs someone to buy a single bar of chocolate made from their beans; migrant workers exploited as farm laborers, sometimes not being paid at all; modern slavery, not just in economically developing nations but unde the noses of consumers in industrialized countries too; livestock kept in atrocious conditions, just so that we can enjoy cheap chicken, burgers, and sausages. We all know this, even if we choose to look away. These are not bugs in the food system; they are features of it. Our entire supply chain has been designed or evolved to make food as cheap for consumers as possible. However, it can only do this if humans and animals in the supply chain are exploited. This needs to change, even if it isnt easy. We have become so reliant on inexpensive food that when prices increased a few years ago, many people found they could no longer afford to eat. This is true even though, by historical standards, households were still spending a smaller portion of their income on food than at nearly any other time in history. Some say food cannot become more expensive because the poor can barely afford it now. But the solution to poverty is not to make food so cheap that even the poor can afford it. The solution is to ensure that even the poorest have enough money to feed themselves properly. Nor should it be verboten to consider food subsidies. After all, many countries, including the USA, already spend billions subsidizing agriculture and other industries. 5. There are seven principles for a humane, sustainable, nutritious food system If you were to skip to the end of my book and read these seven principles, you might think they sound obvious. That is what makes them so powerful. Everyone agrees with them, but hardly anyone is acting in accordance with them. Not only do we almost all agree about what a better food system should look like, but we also know most of what it will take to make it a reality. There are numerous levers we could pull. We could have much higher standards of animal welfare. The power of large businesses to shape the food world in their own interests rather than in those of humankind could be curbed. The costs placed on society and future generations of the food system could be properly measured and either paid for or not allowed to occur in the first place. Every country could have a proper land use framework to achieve the right balance between agricultural productivity, conservation, and regeneration. Our diets can shift away from highly processed foods toward ones based on whole foods. Farmers and farm laborers could receive a much fairer share of the price paid by consumers. Every citizen has the potential not only to have a voice in how the food world is shaped, but real power in using that voice. Too many calls for change are utopian, requiring a wholesale shift of values that is not going to happen. Fortunately, we do not need to tear the whole system down and start again. Positive change depends on people recognizing that the values we already hold are discordant with our food system. Values and practices can be brought into harmony by a series of adjustments, some radical, but all ad hoc and doable. The will for change and the possibility for change can converge, join forces, and transform how the world eats for the better. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
Canada has blocked imports from the biggest U.S. pork processing plant, a facility run by Smithfield Foods in Tar Heel, North Carolina, the company said on Friday. The suspension comes as Washington, D.C., and Ottawa have sparred in a heated dispute over trade tariffs. It is the latest blow for America’s farm sector, which has been roiled by concerns that U.S. tariffs will spark retaliation from top importers that reduces demand for American agricultural products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the suspension was in line with standard protocols and unrelated to recent trade activity. The agency and Smithfield, the largest U.S. pork processor, did not specify what triggered Canada’s action. “Under Canada’s policy, three noncompliance issues within six months trigger a temporary suspension,” USDA said. Blocking shipments from the plant limits a market for U.S. pork products. USDA is working with Smithfield to address the issues and develop a corrective action plan that will be communicated to Canadian authorities, according to an agency statement. “Once reviewed and accepted, Canada may consider reinstating the plant’s export eligibility,” USDA said. Canada halted imports from the facility on Thursday, according to a USDA website. “The issue pertains to a limited number of certain offal shipments,” Smithfield spokesman Jim Monroe said. Smithfield shares were nearly flat on Friday. U.S. President Donald Trump exempted goods from Canada and Mexico on Thursday under a North American trade pact for a month from the 25% tariffs he imposed earlier this week. Canada was the fifth-largest export market for U.S. pork last year, according to U.S. government data. Though shipments slipped, they were valued at about $850 million. U.S. pork has a significant presence in the Canadian retail and foodservice sectors, said Joe Schuele, spokesman for the U.S. Meat Export Federation, an industry group. Smithfield, whose brands include Eckrich and Nathan’s Famous, returned to a U.S. exchange in January after more than a decade, in a spinoff by Hong Kong-based WH Group. Tom Polansek, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
YouTube is taking steps to crack down on gambling content. On Tuesday, the platform announced a new policy that bans creators from directing viewers to unapproved gambling websites through links, images, text, logos, or verbal mentions. According to YouTube, unapproved is defined as any site that doesnt meet local legal requirements or hasnt undergone review by YouTube or its parent company, Google. The new rules, which go into effect March 19, also include a new age restriction. Online gambling content will no longer be viewable by users who are signed out or signed in under the age of 18. YouTube has made two exceptions to the rule: content focused on online sports betting and in-person gambling. YouTube also made it clear that it may take down videos that promise guaranteed returns, regardless of whether the gambling site itself is approved. We know this update may impact creators who focus on online gambling content like casino games and applications, but we believe these changes are a necessary step in protecting our community, especially younger viewers, YouTube said in the announcement. This is just one in a number of recent actions YouTube is taking to protect younger viewers on its platform. Just last month, Google announced that it would start testing a machine learning model to estimate user ages more accurately, allowing platforms like YouTube to better tailor content to appropriate audiences. This also isnt YouTubes first pushback against gambling-related content. The company previously banned gambling ads for its masthead ad slot in 2021. However, this hasnt slowed down the flood of gambling content from creators looking to cash in on sponsorships and affiliate programs. On YouTube, videos promising to teach viewers how to cash in on election betting and sports betting rack up hundreds of thousands of views. While platforms including Twitch and X already impose some restrictions on online-gambling promotion, enforcement is far from airtight. On X, for instance, viral images often surface with watermarks from gambling company Stake, in an attempt to sidestep the platforms rules and sneak gambling promotions into the feed. In 2022, Stakes founders launched Kick, a direct competitor to Twitch, specifically designed to allow live-streamed gambling content and direct promotions for online casinos. In the wild wild west of online gambling, at least YouTube is making attempts to step up and protect young, impressionable viewers.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||