How to Eat Right and
Save the World
By Joel Wendland
Political Affairs Magazine “Marxist Thought Online”
8-05-08, 10:18 am
Global warming is a huge social problem that requires many
different levels of action. Right-wing ideologues long ago convinced themselves
that global warming isn't real. Some of them have changed their minds, fueled
mainly by the fact that their elected representatives face tough reelection
battles this fall and more and more see no value in holding onto this outdated
and unpopular view.
Most of them, however, still get angry when people concerned
about global climate change point to the excesses of the oil industry or the
automakers or other corporations as a root cause. Right-wing ideologues tend to
fall back on the "ownership society" concept pushed by George W. Bush
(and now John McCain), i.e., the privatization of social problems. In other
words, once there is a mess, you're on your own to clean it up.
For this reason, right-wing ideologues promote ideas that
restrain social intervention. They just hate any form of public and government
action to regulate polluters, to impose strict laws and penalties, or demand
new courses of action (such as mandatory caps on emissions). They oppose new
laws that will require different methods of production of consumer goods that
will ease the emission of greenhouse gases. And, above all, they dislike new
investments in anything other than Big Oil and and
big polluters.
Global climate change is not just about how we travel or how
much plastic we use, however. It is increasingly about the choices we make in
our diets. The latest scientific data points to the over-abundance of livestock
– from using fossil fuels to maintain feed and animals to the over-production
of waste, over-grazing, and the use of dangerous pesticides and herbicides – as
one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
This fact is fueled by a multinational meat industry, with
its factory farms, billions in advertising dollars, and political lobbying
machine, that has convinced American consumers that they cannot live without
meat. (USDA data for 2005 reveals that Americans consume more than twice as
much meat as the typical earthling.)
One group is fighting back with a message to consumers that
they can take care of their health, fight global warming, and help rebuild
local economies by taking action. The Cool Foods Campaign advocates, according
to campaign spokesperson Meredith Niles, "for organic, local, whole foods,
less processed and packaged foods, organic and local meat and dairy consumption
(as well as decreased consumption) and sustainable seafood."
The campaign has created a “top 5 things you can do” as well
as a Cool Foods pledge to convince consumers to change their eating habits. By
eating organic foods, consuming less dairy, avoiding processed foods, buying
locally grown foods, and reducing the use of packaging, consumers can make a
huge dent in their contributions to the growth of greenhouse emissions, or
their "food print," according to the Cool Foods Campaign web site.
Some basic first steps: Buy reusable grocery bags. Visit
your local farmers' market for your produce. Talk to the venders about how the
product is made and how it is shipped to the market,
"The great thing about buying locally is you can
usually talk to the person you're buying from about how they grew the food and
how far it has traveled," said
But the campaign isn't simply targeted at consumers, who are
not primarily responsible for the problem. The Cool Foods Campaign backs laws
that will subsidize local operations to bring organic or locally made food items
to the market.
In addition, the campaign supports country-of-origin
labeling on all foods items to help inform consumers about the carbon foot
print of the product they are about to buy, said Niles. The law "will give
people better options about what they can purchase," she added.
Cool Foods Campaign backer, the Center for Food Safety, also
regularly goes after corporations who illegally label food or use unhealthy and
unsafe production methods, as well as government agencies who fail to do their
jobs and protect the public.
But doesn't carefully choosing food with a smaller
"food print" cost more? Though a valid question, said
Immediate costs may not even be the main point, she went on.
The long-term impact on public health and on the environment of mass produced
livestock and other food products may have a higher social cost. A few dollars
to improve your health and positively impact the environment may be the better
price in the long run.
politicalaffairs.net