What Does Barack Obama's First 100 Days Mean for Serious Eaters?
Serious eaters will be hearing a lot in the next few days about President Obama's first 100 days in office, and most of the chatter will rightfully revolve around national security and the economy—and his achievements or lack thereof in those vitally important areas.
But, hey, we're Serious Eats, so I thought it would be useful to look at both the accomplishments of the Obama administration in terms of food-related issues and the signals they have sent concerning future food policy.
I asked Marion Nestle, one of the nation's leading authorities on food politics and a newly minted first-rate food-politics blogger, to assess the president's first 100 days from a food-policy perspective. Nestle is hopeful but anxious:
I wish I had a clear view of what the first 100 days mean for agriculture, food, nutrition, and health, but I think it’s way too early to tell. The most hopeful signs are strictly symbolic: the organic gardens at the White House and USDA. Obama has appointed some people interested in sustainable agriculture and in nutrition for the poor to high positions at USDA, and the nomination of Margaret Hamburg to be FDA commissioner is an excellent choice. I’m hoping she gets confirmed soon. What totally remains to be seen is what these people can actually do. I’m reserving judgment but keeping fingers crossed.
Nestle's anxiety is probably well-founded. We can't really grade the Obama administration for its food policy until we see what it can actually accomplish in the area of food policy. Nonetheless, there are encouraging signs.
- First lady Michelle Obama has adopted healthy and local food for children as one of her signature issues. She planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn, inviting neighborhood kids to help. This is one not-so-small step for foodkind
- Michelle Obama also proved her food soul cred by sneaking out with her staff to Five Guys, which is in fact locally based in D.C.
- I was also impressed that the Obamas' go-to restaurant in Chicago for special occasions is Spiaggia. I would like to encourage them to try Blackbird and Hot Doug's. Maybe they already have
- The Obamas showed they are nobody's pawns when they decided to retain Cristeta Comerford as White House executive chef and Bill Yosses as White House pastry chef. By doing so they resisted the well-intentioned efforts of Ruth Reichl and Danny Meyer to affect their choice
- Bringing hunky, food activist chef Sam Kass into the White House food mix, was a deft political move, signaling that the Obama administration will be active in food-policy debates
- The administration nominated (and the U.S. Senate confirmed) former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, disappointing the food activists who put forward Michael Pollan's name as a possible contender. These days Vilsack champions family farms and local and sustainable agriculture—obviously a good thing, but as a former Iowa governor he is every mindful of agribusiness interests. How he will juggle those two seemingly contradictory notions in terms of policy-making and advocacy remains to be seen
- The Obama administration clearly wants to address the obvious holes in our food safety net (more funding and more inspectors are desperately needed, as is a structural overhaul), but how quickly it moves will probably depend on the timing of food-safety crises
- Obama has signaled that he is going to stand firm in his refusal to negotiate with beet-loving food activists. And here at Serious Eats we're down with that
I think serious eaters can feel good knowing that the Obamas care about good food eaten for pleasure and for our health. So let's raise a glass to his first 100 days. May his administration continue to fight the good fight for serious eaters everywhere.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
32 Comments:
Barak Obama is a miracle maker! Just yesterday he walked on water and then turned water into wine, then in the morning my leper spots vanished!!!!!
Timothyrows at 11:40AM on 04/28/09
No, he's not a miracle maker, and he certainly hasn't turned water into wine. He does however appear to be thoughtful and interested in doing some of the right things when it comes to food politics, which is what I hope most people get out of the post.
Ed Levine at 11:50AM on 04/28/09
Uh oh...you know you're never supposed to discuss politics or religion!
arm1970 at 11:55AM on 04/28/09
His 100 days in office where not that impressive.....reporting is supposed to be impartial and in the middle and I didn't see anything about Bush on serious eats.....so lets leave politics out of this.....Seriously
Markbb at 12:07PM on 04/28/09
I do not look to the government to dictate what I should or should not eat. It tends to ruin everything it touches in the food arena (e.g. government cheese, policies toward American Indian populations, food pyramid). Just because we have a president whose wife has a vegetable garden means nothing for substantive policy changes when it comes to nutrition, farming, etc. Also, I don't think Obama gives two beets about food politics. He's too busy cultivating his own image.
I agree with the other posters: please keep government & politics out of Serious Eats. That's one of the reasons I love reading and talking about food--political affiliation shouldn't matter here.
soyviz at 12:27PM on 04/28/09
Oh geez. I personally like these posts. As for "reporting is supposed to be impartial and in the middle", big news buddy, this is a blog, not CNN. Its going to have opinions, and is entitled to express them.
As for my own reaction to this post, i went to the farmers market last weekend and was sad to see a sign outside a farmer's stall that read "The USDA recently changed the definition of 'grass' to include immature grains, including corn. We only feed our cows real green grass and will continue to do so". It makes me so sad to see how in bed with agribusiness our government is. Changing the definition of grass so that you can market your crap as "grass-fed"? Really?
mh330 at 12:50PM on 04/28/09
Okay, well, I think some earlier comments are way too critical of Ed "daring" to speak about food issues on his food blog. I WISH there were a food politics show on FN or Bravo or ANYWHERE....but there isn't as far as I know. It's posts like these that serve to start and create dialogue where there hasn't been much at all. And that's a good thing whether you agree with the post or not.
Now, about Obama....I partially agree with soyviz. I don't think Barack cares too much about food politics. It's not because he's "cultivating his own image"...he cultivated his image for the 4 years the last election cycle took. He happens to be pretty busy with stuff that, like it or not, is more important to MOST people than food politics...ya know...the economy, the war, the environment (of which food is a part of, to a degree), etc.
I just don't think Barack has the passion for food to make it a big deal. Now, Michelle, on the other hand, might. Food does seem to be something she has expressed interest in and maybe as the years role on, she'll take a leading role with it. Maybe Barack is waiting for a second term to deal with more "backburner" issues like food politics.
For now, thought, I don't think there's a ton to judge him on. I'm still optimistic the next 3 1/2 - 7 1/2 years will be productive for foodie causes.
lawofmurphy at 12:51PM on 04/28/09
@mh330 yeah I know what your talking about in a perfect world if I want Obama shoved down my throat I'd go to MSNBC....not at a food blog!
Markbb at 1:09PM on 04/28/09
I agree with mh330 and lawofmurphy. Also, politics on Serious Eats isn't a new thing. If you click the 'politics' tag at the bottom of the post, several posts come up - even one about Bush and cheese!
caroliiine at 1:09PM on 04/28/09
As some commenters have noted Serious Eats has often covered food politics. I like to think we cover a wide spectrum of food-related topics. One of the reasons we launched Serious Eats is to offer serious eaters everywhere a forum for passionate, discerning, and inclusive food culture-related conversation and discussion. For me, and for many other serious eaters as well, food politics is an important and interesting aspect of our food culture. What we eat, and what our children eat, is very much worth discussing. We don't advocate on behalf of any particular political party. But I am not afraid to admit that we do want serious eaters everywhere to have access to as much delicious and healthy food as possible.
Ed Levine at 1:26PM on 04/28/09
Nicely put Ed, and that is exactly the way I read the original post.
Cary at 2:01PM on 04/28/09
I think this is a great post and appreciate Ed's analysis.
As food lovers we should care about our President's priorities with respect to agriculture, health, environment and general nutrition.
Keep the posts about food politics up please, regardless of the subject's political affiliation.
MissCAproduce at 2:12PM on 04/28/09
The more important/interesting issue is this: Why has nobody commented on the awesomeness of having the FDA commissioner's last name be hamburg?!
bruisedbuddha at 2:16PM on 04/28/09
ditto @ MissCAproduce/Cary re: Ed and the post.
I guess as someone with a NON-US (but still a foodie) point-of-view:
Chef Sam Kass as a pick was *thumbs up* and *swoon/drewl/growl*
The "pistacio" outbreak was well handled (anyone?)
And it's especially noteworthy that Mrs. President of USA planted an organic garden--hopefully she'll pave the way for other US-ites!
hungrychristel at 3:27PM on 04/28/09
That hopefully soon he ,and his ilk will be gone, and my appetite will return.
jword2001 at 4:15PM on 04/28/09
It's not the coverage of politics per se that offends some readers, it's the slant of the coverage and regardless of Ed Levine's claims of not advocating on behalf of any one party it is pretty hard to ignore the cheering for one team on this site. As someone pointed out, there has been coverage of former President Bush... based on an wildly distorted Huffington Post article that portrayed Roquefort tarriffs (pursuant to a WTO decision criticizing French tarriffs on US beef) as a Bush-devised "major insult to the French, especially to those hard-working farmers, cheese-makers, and affineurs" with gratuitous (and factually inaccurate) swats at the Bush family's eating habits. Really? Is that "discerning" or "inclusive" analysis, Ed? Only inasmuch as the fact that the Obamas did absolutely nothing about changing their executive kitchen staff means they've earned cheers for being "nobody's pawns." Had the Roquefort tarriff been imposed after Jan. 20 I find it hard to believe that Serious Eats would have been as condemnatory of a decision forcing Americans to buy local and support American agriculture.
If Serious Eats wants to cover food policy, great, I'd love to see apolitical analysis as worthwhile and thoughtful as the other quality writing on this site. But so far Serious Coverage has been seriously lacking.
JungMan at 4:31PM on 04/28/09
@JungMan
And my point was that Ed's allowed to write editorial opinions. Nowhere has SE been passed off as "fair and balanced" food politics coverage. To criticize the inclusion of food politics discussion is nearsighted and lazy, no matter how skewed the opinion may or may not be. That said, there's nothing wrong with critiquing points made. In fact, I agree with your point about the "pawn" line.
While the Bush tariff WAS part of a pissing match that both the French and US took part in, I agree with your point that the "not being a pawn" part was pretty much what Bush got criticized for.
But again, there's no sign on the door that says SE strives for balanced political coverage. YOU might have that expectation, but it's completely unfounded.
lawofmurphy at 4:47PM on 04/28/09
mh330, just to clarify: That definition of grass-fed has been around since it appeared in the Oct 16, 2007 Federal Register, so the definition of it as "recent" is relative.
What can I say, I got home early and my brain is still on "policy wonk" setting.
Ed, I hope you keep up the posts.
chanterelle at 6:49PM on 04/28/09
Oh, for pity sake's, it's all MSM can talk about - 100 DAYS!!! Ed would be remiss if he didn't cover his part of the turf.
islandexile at 1:06AM on 04/29/09
@lawofmurphy
I never disallowed Ed from giving his political opinion, but when he claims that Serious Eats advocates for no one, as he does above, then he is necessarily saying that he has opted against opinion writing in favor of straight analysis, which is demonstrably false. And so long as he's going to offer personal opinion as factual analysis, he's going to raise some people's dander. That's why we don't talk politics and religion at the dinner table; cheering for one team in a diverse community is in poor taste.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with discussing food policy. In fact I think it would be illuminating to have an honest and thoughtful discussion of policy. But is congratulating Michelle for eating burgers really thoughtful? Does applauding the Obamas for their impressive restaurant choices really advance any important issues? I would argue that passing off thinly veiled opinion is what is truly nearsighted, lawofmurphy. It comes off as the type of mindless cheerleading that offends critics and makes admirers feel good when thoughtful analysis, done interestingly and convincingly, would give us all something to think about.
JungMan at 10:12AM on 04/29/09
@JungMan
Just because some of the topics included may not be considered important, they don't really need to be- this is a blog not a newspaper, but if you're going to get angry over something like that . . . well I just hope nobody ever tries to discuss any politics with you.
Obama is the US President, and unless you have some food politic you would like to criticize, can you not let stuff like this slide? Does it have to become an issue?
Ed: I enjoy stuff like this, as I don't often immerse myself in the news due to the sheer quantity of repetition, overanalyzation, and sensationalism. Tidbits like this get lost in the wave of the type of dog the First Family has adopted, and I'm thankful for the roundup.
comicsan at 8:57PM on 04/29/09
I'm sure there is an audience for HuffEats, just not quite as diverse as the current SeriousEats membership. I agree with JungMan, the fawning is a bit tawdry.
peekpoke at 3:31AM on 04/30/09
just another post with the hero worship, makes me lose my appetite.
CATERPILLARGIRL at 12:25PM on 04/30/09
I asked Blue Hill at Stone Barns chef-owner Dan Barber for his take on all this: "For chefs, or for anyone that really cares about food, the Obamas have planted a seed of hope with their garden. They've taken on this issue of sustainable food in the perfect context, which is to say in the context of a family wanting healthy and delicious food. It's apolitical, and because of that it will have the opportunity to inspire people to become more involved with food, and more aware of the culture of agriculture. I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that this garden will have dramatic affects on improving the long term health of our food system."
Ed Levine at 12:32PM on 04/30/09
With all due respect to Dan Barber who is a talented chef and a titan in the culinary arts, political science is not his field. Michelle Obama's "Garden of Hope" is nothing new. Her predecessor, Hillary Clinton tackled the newly emerging issues of healthy and sustainable eating by planting an organic garden of her own at the White House, an act that pre-dates Michelle Obama's garden by over a decade. In fact the Clinton garden is still there, an aging testament to HRC's vision for a new American gastronomy.
So given that this same garden ceremony has happened before can anyone explain what dramatic effects the WH garden had on improving the longer term health of our food system? Did it inspire the nation to become more involved with food and more aware of the culture of agriculture? And if not, what has changed that makes the Obama garden so much more powerful than the Clinton garden?
Perhaps a more pertinent person to interview would be someone with a foot in food and politics. Someone who can offer more than baseless fawning.
JungMan at 10:55AM on 05/01/09
Seriously....her name is Hamburg!!!
bruisedbuddha at 12:12PM on 05/01/09
@JungMan I certainly wouldn't call Dan Barber's comment baseless fawning. I have to say in general that your comments on this thread seem fueled by some kind of rage that is not conducive to a thoughtful discussion of these kinds of issues. I know that the Clintons planted a small rooftop vegetable garden and that they used local and organic suppliers whenever possible, but that doesn't negate the potential positive impact the Obamas can have on the food culture in America. I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens. I'm sure the next couple of hundred days will tell us a lot more.
Ed Levine at 12:22PM on 05/01/09
Jeez, Ed. Can you be any more of an Obama apologist? Anyone can have "potential positive impact". He could also have "potentially devastatingly heinous impact". Everything he did was potentially awesome? No downsides to his actions re: food issues at all? This comes across as (yet another) Obama puff piece. I would have thought you of all people would have had the smarts & taste to drink something besides Kool-Aid.
f650gsd at 1:18PM on 05/01/09
@Ed Levine: I never said that the Clintons' garden negates the potential positive impact of the Obamas. But that's beside the point. What I have been driving at is that food policy is a fair subject to cover, accurately and disinterestedly. As we've seen from more than a few readers, injecting personal opinion as written fact can be highly polarizing and obscures the larger issues at hand.
Just because I disagree with the analysis you posted above, however, does not mean that I'm fueled by rage and incapable of intelligent debate as you accuse. I'll admit I defend myself forcefully with facts and history where I can, but that isn't rage. That's trying to lay out facts instead of trying to portray my personal opinion as something other than what it is. As for your last point, we're in agreement there: when in the next couple of hundred days the Administration earns my hearty applause for doing something more substantial than eating at Spiaggia and talking to "hunky chefs," then I will gladly raise my glass with you.
JungMan at 3:08PM on 05/01/09
As an organic and local food advocate, I have my reservations about Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack as head of the USDA. He's a friend of Monsanto and GMO, pharmaceutical corn supporter and all around foe of organic and small farming.
I also don't like the direction of the entire congress in response to a couple of minor problems in our massive food system. They are thinking of adding way too many layers of red tape and a fee structure that is sure to favor Dole over my local green market farmer/provider.
Guess what, congress -- food is grown in the ground. Animals aren't bathing daily. Considering the scope of our food system, the fact that there are few real problems to speak of shows the efficacy of the rules already in place.
Anyone who is interested in helping to ease up on the central planning of our food supply -- and its subsequent cost and reduction in choice -- should ask congress to reject H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act, and H.R. 759, which is less extreme but forces undue regulation and cost on the small farmer.
More about Tom Vilsack here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/usda_watch.cfm
DoItClean at 6:01PM on 05/01/09
"Friend of Monsanto & GMO" = that potentially devastatingly heinous impact I was talking about. That is a more serious issue than anything Ed praised in the initial story. Nice job, DoItClean. We need more facts like that in the discussion and less fawning because he's Obama, Media Darling Who Does No Wrong.
f650gsd at 9:58PM on 05/01/09
I think Obama sees food in two ways.
I grew up in the South Suburbs of Chicago, and I know how important a cheap, local diner is. I grew up with Schoop's; Obama found Ben's pretty quickly, and Michelle found the virtue of Five Guys' without delay.
There is also virtue in home-cooking, no doubt: if there weren't, this website wouldn't exist. There is much to be said for both parties. Ben's is a melting pot, where people of all colours and classes come together to eat a chili half-smoke, gossip and crack wise. Home-cooked food is a great time to let kids talk, tell tall tales, and learn to love all kinds of food.
NotAmerican at 5:34AM on 05/02/09