Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

The so-called PCRM is nothing more than a front for Center for "Science" in the "Public" Interest. Michael Jacobsen of CSPI would like nothing better for us to sit and eat dirt, although the dirt probably has pesticides in it.

I'd question the factual nature of anything that CSPI/PCRM puts out as information, given the extreme biases of both organizations.

His next gig will be "48 hours Mystery", on CBS...the great con of the american food world...the pimping of celebrity chefs is bound to attract the nuts who actually succeed in their efforts to be the next big thing!!

Food Network shame on you!! Do your research or hire me!

ExpatChef: I can understand your passion, but facts do not support your impressions.

As far as I know, dairy farmers do not receive direct subsidies from the federal government. Nor do poultry farmers or those who raise livestock that become meat, whether their farms are huge agribusinesses or small, idyllic operations that sell directly to shoppers at local markets.

For reliable information about the Farm Bill, cf. Farm & Food Policy Project at http://www.farmandfoodproject.org/

Here's an article on Rosa DeLauro (CT), Chair of the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee who has earned a great deal of respect for her desire to reform the Farm Bill: http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1178225364164.xml

Here's a book on the topic by Daniel Imhoff (w preface by Michael Pollan): http://www.ucpress.edu/books/sale/pages/WM50020.html

And Pollan himself: http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=88

This evening, NPR provided an update in a story by Chris Arnold; the web site provides additional information: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15891678

In my first rambling post, I neglected to supply this great link to the Mayo Clinic and its group of food pyramids: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-diet/NU00190

Valwin, you commented in haste, so I am not sure I follow what you target with contempt nor why Michael Jacobsen deserves to be singled out w a sneer. Please clarify and develop your argument.

Why qualify the words "science" and "public" in particular?

A group that calls itself Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine may need a copyeditor to add the appropriate apostrophe, but the name baldly declares its missionary nature. I would simply want to know what the organization views as responsible medicine to judge if its agenda is compatible to my own values.

As for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (http://www.cspinet.org/), the organization is rather explicit in stating its role as advocate for shaping public policy and promoting nutrition.

Do you believe they do not provide scientifically valid information? If so, why? Please specify what seems inaccurate and provide supporting evidence to make your case.

Is there an insidious cause the two groups share that is not explicit in their names or mission statements?

* * *
As far as food pyramids go, I'd like to point out that the Federal Nutrition Recommendations also deserves scrutiny. Granted, the notion of a food pyramid is artificial and will reflect the cultural values and background of its creators, yet the emphasis on grains has been questioned, especially.

Michael Pollan and Daniel Imhoff both note that the federal government heavily subsidizes large, corporate farms to grow five principal crops: corn, wheat, rice, soy beans and cotton. (These farms also receive grants for not planting these crops.) I will return to the relationshp between their assertions and the first food pyramid shown here at Serious Eats in my concluding remarks.

Fruits and vegetables are called "specialty crops" and farms that grow them are ineligible for federal grants. Can you believe it? Cardoons and quinces, okay, in this country they're still exotic. But why are apples, tomatoes, and green beans classified as "specialty" foods?

There are limited opportunities for their growers to apply for federal loans; the amounts are minimal and they fall due quickly. If you can't pay, you go under and watch everything you built up get sold at auction.

It's been a while since I attended a panel in Washington, D.C. in which farmers and journalists spoke for the need to reform the Farm Bill. Many policy wonks and well-informed federal workers attended and contributed as much as the panelists. I don't have access to my notes, so if memory does not serve me well, please speak up.

However, I seem to recall that the subsidies began under FDR and have remained intact thanks to lobbying efforts and the interests of elected officials from the states that benefit. While FDR's administration may have saved small family farms, agriculture has changed drastically over the years and the subsidies no longer serve the critical role they once did in feeding--or, I am guessing, clothing (cotton)--us.

According to Michael Pollan, the continuing subsidies explain the ubiquity of corn in unexpected guises. It's not just in your breakfast cereal and polenta. It's in your strawberry preserves in the form of the high fructose corn syrup that costs much less than sugar. Who knows? It may be in the tomato sauce that comes with your frozen meal of meatballs and pasta.

Personally, I see the food pyramid's emphasis on grains as historical and not simply political. "Give us this day our daily bread." Records from the earliest historical civilizations present grains as the staff of life. In Ancient Greece, bread was the centerpiece of the two daily meals and everything else was lumped together under the rubric of "things that go with bread".

Many of us lead privileged lives nowadays. We have the luxury to enjoy a variety of foods so that those requiring gluten-free diets eat abundantly well. Cf. this interesting comparison of food pyramids as collected on the web site of the Mayo Clinic where its own model places produce on the bottom, with an emphasis on vegetables, presumably since fruits do not supply protein and concentrate calories in sugar.

* * *
What I find most interesting in the Subsidized Food Pyramid is the premise that a whopping majority of funds goes toward meat and dairy.

Huh?

The numbers on the chart/pyramid seem to contradict everything that Pollan has published in the NYT and in everything I've read in other reliable sources.

If you read the first paragraph of the PCRM's web site, you find this statement: "The bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies, much of which goes to huge agribusinesses producing feed crops, such as corn and soy, which are then fed to animals. By funding these crops, the government supports the production of meat and dairy products—the same products that contribute to our growing rates of obesity and chronic disease."

I just don't understand how the pyramid says only 13.23% of federal subsidies go to grains and a whopping 73.8% goes to meat and dairy.

While farmers who raise animals for meat, milk or eggs benefit from the low cost of subsidized grains used as feed, I haven't heard about them receiving any direct aid.

Has PCRM access to information that breaks down subsidies according to targeted markets for the grains? Does livestock eat a lot more of it than human beings? What about the farms that get paid for not growing the feed grain? How do their figures factor into the 73.8% Is the largest cost of ranching feed vs. purchase of equipment, livestock, maintaining property, salaries...?

Adam Kuban, might I ask if you investigated the sources of this information at all?