I have a friend in San Francisco who's passionate about food policy. She's so enthusiastic, in fact, that she machine guns her friends with email rounds to keep them apprised of what's going on in U.S. food policy. Some days I get two or three emails and I must admit that initially I would send them straight to the trash. Then my concern grew as the media seemed to have more and more to say about what we ingest and the government, local and national, weighed in too. It seems to me that we are resting uncomfortably on the center of a seesaw. On one end is the consumer who is more interested than ever to know where the food comes from and if the farmer was paid enough to grow it and what kind of nasty chemicals or antibiotics the farmer may have used and whether trans-fats were used to achieve "mouth feel" in that cookie they're thinking of eating. On the other end of the seesaw sits government which on the one hand doesn't want us to eat trans fats (New York City) and on the other thinks maybe they're OK if the Grocery Manufacturers Association lobbies hard enough (FDA). Move the weight a few inches to the left or right on that seesaw and it's going to be mayhem!
My friend emailed me today to let me know that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, on behalf of a consortium of associations, has submitted a "citizen petition" (wait a minute, ain't I a citizen too?) to the FDA to "modernize food standards." Be afraid, be very afraid. What they are asking for is "flexibility" in six areas: 1) addition of ingredients intended solely for technical, nondistinctive effects, such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, or antimycotic agents, 2) use of safe and suitable flavors and flavor enhancers in standardized foods generally, and use of safe and suitable ingredients such as salt substitutes, sweeteners, and vegetable fats and oils when appropriate 3) use of advanced or more efficient technologies to produce ingredients of all types, such as enzyme technologies that enhance the properties of egg yolk used in mayonnaise 4) use of alternate manufacturing processes, also known as "alternate make" procedures, for those standards that specify particular processes 5) changes to a product's basic shape in response to consumer demands, such as "chunky" stewed tomatoes and 6) improvements in nutritional properties that do not rise to the level of a defined claim (e.g., reducing calories by 10% rather than requiring a 25% minimum reduction), or use of nutritious ingredients like whole grains. I lifted the six bullet points directly from the petition, but some of this stuff is a little too arcane for me. What, for instance, is an "'alternate make' procedure?" So let's just talk about the effect this could have on chocolate were the FDA to adopt the GMA's recommendations. Well, it would allow chocolate manufacturers to substitute vegetable oils and fats for cocoa butter and still call it "chocolate" as opposed to...well, make up your own chocolaty moniker. But that's not chocolate, that's blech, and shouldn't we consumers have the right to know the difference and the right to choose between chocolate and chocolate-flavored? You all can respond to the GMA's petition, but only until tomorrow, by visiting this link.
Do we really want to eat this crap? I swear I think some food manufacturers would feed us sawdust and peanut shells if they thought they could get away with it. (Actually, artificial vanillin which is used to flavor artificial vanilla extract comes from lignan which comes from wood, so I guess they are already feeding us sawdust.) But they are getting away with stuffing us with corn-derived junk, like corn syrup, and gobs of trans fats. Michael Pollan had an article in the New York Times last Sunday in which he described how an obesity researcher went to the supermarket to purchase, hypothetically, a dollar's worth of food. For maximum caloric bang for his buck, he was obliged to stick to all the canned, bagged and bottled garbage in the middle of the store. He couldn't afford the fresh meats, produce and dairy that lined the perimeters of the supermarket. Hmm. What does this tell us? Time for a food revolution, that's what!
I am disgusted and I am vowing, right now, to be a more conscientious consumer of food. Jenny (that's my friend in San Francisco), I will read all the emails
you send me and I will write the letters that need to be written and
sign the petitions that need signing. (I'm also adding a link from this blog to The Ethicurean. They talk about all the stuff I'm ranting about and they have a sense of humor. I seem to have temporarily misplaced mine.) Fresh is better. Local is better. I will pay the premium to buy from producers who don't use nasty pesticides and hormones and antibiotics. I want to know what's in my food dammit! And I want to know that the human who grew or raised or caught the food I'm eating got paid decently for his efforts. Ultimately, however, what I really want is to live to at least the age my grandmother did, 89. My grandmother's favorite snack was a sun-ripened, in-season tomato plucked straight from the vine, sliced open and sprinkled with salt, real salt. I think I'll take my food cues from my grandmother thank you very much.