|
Blogs |
|
|
 |
Aug 3rd, 2009 - 19:45:13 |
Cameron Norman
This week the health blogosphere, newswires and cocktail party circuits were buzzing over the report from the report for the U.K. Food Standards Agency [http://www.food.gov.uk/] that came to the conclusion that organic food offered no more nutrients than ‘conventionally’ produced foodstuffs. (I find it strange to call the way we mass-produce food conventional, particularly when you think that most of what we eat today didn’t exist 50 years ago and the stuff that did exist is now produced in a way that is so foreign to the way its been done for the thousands of years before that calling it conventional is about as realistic as calling one of those ‘meal replacement‘ products a meal…but I digress — for an interesting take on this go see Food Inc. [http://www.foodincmovie.com/] in theatres).
This finding didn’t surprise me at all. There isn’t any particular reason why ‘conventionally’ grown food should be any less nutrient rich than organics. But as Marion Nestle writes [http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/07/todays-huge-flap-about-organics/] , that misses the point. It’s the same case that I’ve been making in my social circles the past few days as people talk about organics and how this has them reconsidering things. It shouldn’t — unless physical health is the only reason why you eat something. And I would argue that there are many good reasons to eat organics that have just as much to do with health, but do so in a way that goes beyond nutrients.
Organics are much more friendly to the planet for starters. The problems with birds & wildlife, and environmental degradation due to pesticides has been well-documented.
Pesticides are also highly toxic to those who are administering them — very often low educated, non-protected workers and their families – despite efforts to reduce this.
Organics also provide a vehicle for supporting local farmers, which brings added environmental and economic benefits.
All of these things produce health in our community. These are the social determinants of health of the food system and not just the nutrient portion of it. And there is much reason to believe that these social and environmental determinants play as big of a role in our health as anything we gain from nutrients.
Health is indeed a complex system both physically, socially, and as a concept in its own right. Viewing the link between organics and physical health (vis nutrients) as straightforward (and one that some organic supporters are doing through their critique of the report) reduces this complexity and potentially does the organics movement more harm than good. My suggestion would be to look at all the other benefits that organics can confer and focus on that.
This doesn’t mean the door is closed and that more research shouldn’t be done, but I think a lot of people will be happy enough knowing that the organic food they eat is doing the planet good, animals good and their local economies good and that is healthy in its own right.
Jul 12th, 2009 - 09:24:27 |
Cameron Norman
Following on my last post, my journey through organics did not end with the seeing of Food Inc.
In yesterday's Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente wrote about organic food and her experience at the local farmers market. In the column, Wente points to research from the Mayo Clinic suggesting that organic produce is no more healthy than the usual produce, yet it is far more expensive and something that is simply not sustainable or accessible in the long run.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/organic-tastes-good-but-better-for-us-no/article1214614/#comments
The piece elicited a wave of comments about the perils and joys of organic farming. One of those comments was from me.
I actually agree with her -- on the surface. There is no compelling evidence that organics as a whole are healthier when you measure health in strictly biological terms. But food and health is not so simple. The way food is grown, its impact on the environment; the manner in which those growing conditions influence communities and the workers who tend to the crops, harvest them and apply pesticides; the transportation of that food; and the way in which food production choices either limit or encourage diversity and promote sustainability are all part of the equation. That is the piece that got missed.
When viewed through this lens, the case for organics is much stronger.
Yet there is also the issue of capacity. If the world changed to organics overnight we'd starve as there isn't the capacity for it. But change happens over time and there are ways to foster intelligent shifts in the way food is produced and consumed to a more sustainable model. This sustainability also means ensuring safety and that is one of the areas where organics can be just as problematic.
As argued many times on these pages, the transformation of the food system is what we need to consider more than just arguments over whether one thing is better than the other. The big question is how to do this and do it soon, because at some point we need to move and arguing whether organics are good or bad is not likely going to help much unless its backed with some action on the transformation part.
I'd welcome any suggestions from our readers over how best to do this and to hear what you think on the issue of organics and food systems transformation.
Jul 12th, 2009 - 09:10:58 |
Cameron Norman
It's been an interesting 12 hours, which is made even more so by the fact that I've been asleep for 7 of them.
Last night I went to see the movie Food Inc., which is a documentary about the food industry and system that sustains it. As a piece of infotainment (as many documentaries are), it gets high marks. It's well shot, put together nicely, and the story told is clear and understandable. It's greatest strength is that it shows using real footage the absurdity of much of our food system and illustrates the gap between what we perceive about farming and what it really is (in the United States and most likely Canada), and that is a big factory. The pastoral images that we see grace our packages and the marketing behind food is simply not a reflection of reality. Did you know that nearly all of the meat consumed in the U.S. is processed at only 13 plants? Are you aware that the majority of beef and pork products come from just a handful of producers? The wild diversity that we think when we see the farmers at the market (if we are so lucky to have access to farmers markets) represents a tiny portion of the food sold. The majority is by big players.
One of these is Wal Mart. Now Wal-Mart is not known as being a champion of the little guy, but what was interesting in the film was that they showed how Wal Mart is interested in organics and all that comes with it -- small farms, connection to the land etc.. This isn't because of some moral argument, it's because there is a market for it. Suddenly, we have a new argument about organics and food production that we didn't have before when the largest retailer in the world wants in. The film does a good job of showing some, but not all, of the arguments for why this could be a good thing for the world even if it might raise concerns among many about co-optation of organics. Wal Mart drives markets and if we want less pesticides and more organic options, this might be the way to do it.
Any thoughts?
Jul 12th, 2009 - 02:11:01 |
Andrea Yip
Hello All,
I'm currently enrolled in documentary and filmmaking school and am learning a LOT about the process involved in making a film, from storyboarding, writing, and research, to lighting, sound, cinematography, editing, and pitching. Taking on a more technical or 'behind-the-scenes' role in filmmaking has forced me to think about how best to create a rich sensory experience for the viewer - and this includes having strong content, aesthetic appeal, and some level of audience interaction.
I am interested in film as a means of health education/communication, engaging youth in social issues, and as a product of research and am trying to test out ways to do this through my role in the Food4Health Project. If you're interested to see what I've been up to so far, here is a link to my first film, a visual essay on eating apples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4HBXNeEcJg
Filmmaking is new to me so if you have used film in your health-related work/research, I would love to connect with you!
On another note, a handy e-tool that may be of use to more visual-learners/thinkers (myself included) is a site called Gliffy . Gliffy is a diagram creation and collaboration tool that allows you to create a wide range of visuals: flow charts, images, wireframes, floor plans, etc. It is FREE, extremely user friendly and is handy for someone like me who needs to storyboard. Hope you find this helpful.
Cheers, Andrea
Jul 7th, 2009 - 23:35:45 |
Andrea Yip
Hi Everyone!
I just wanted to pass along a link to the PDF of the first Food Services report for UofT St. George's Campus for 2008-2009 that you may find helpful/interesting as we begin exploring student food issues: http://www.food-beverage.utoronto.ca/Assets/food/Annual+Report+08-09.pdf
It's been difficult to dig out much more info from food & beverage services, and while the report is more of a summary of their events/programs, it's a good start!
Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(Total Blogs: 153)
 feed
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Menu
